Also !
Heres early variant of Object 219A on trials without it’s ERA (Kontakt-1)
Also from one source it states that around 4 219A’s have been made in configuration that I firstly talked about.
Heres also T-80U with early Kontakt-5 layout.
That hull looks way longer. You can see where it ends at the 90 degree, and it still looks longer
I wonder what the specs of the turret are considering its age? It resembles a T-80U but doesn’t seem as flush.
Thanks for the all the info regarding the T-80A. Very hard to find much on it outside of Russia.
Considering both T-80U sources describing turret and T-80A sources I could stumble upon state same materials being used in a same way, I think its safe to assume they have same turret arrays, so basically take turret of T-80U we have in game and remove K-5, there! Kontakt 1 sure does exist but all its effect on KE is just a small metal plate, nothing else. Thats about 1984 version, I think 1979 version uses different turret.
T-80A took a lot of changes during its development time, it had completely different turret and possibly LFP layout, had different FCS. However the one I wish for is 1984 version with K-1, 1200 hp engine, 1G46 sight and TKN-4S commander sight with commander gunner system.
So basically imagine T-80U we have in game but no thermals, its heavier, slightly worse engine, reload rate is 7,1 seconds probably, complete lack of K-5.
Plus I have several sources state that T-80U was based on T-80A.
I plan to make suggestion for it tomorrow or other time, I plan to make an option in vote for adding it either with 3BM42 or 3BM46. And I know I am making Kontakt-1 researchable thing, as I have a scheme of T-80A showcasing its look with out without K-1, sadly I dont seem to have any photos of it without K-1, not counting without the one with mounts for it.
USA:
USS North Carolina (BB-55)
USS Washington (BB-56)
USSR:
Sovetsky Soyuz
Sovetsky Ukraina
In the branch of the USSR and Germany.
Why Germany? That makes no sense
On August 16, 1941, German troops occupied the city of Nikolaev, where the hull of the battleship “Soviet Ukraine” was located on the slipway in 7% readiness.
At first it was planned to complete it for the German navy, but there was no suitable project. During the war, the hull of the “Soviet Ukraine” was partially dismantled (about 4,000 tons of metal were removed), the armor and part of the structures were dismantled and sent to front-line needs. During the retreat on March 28, 1944 from Nikolaev, the Germans made a lot of efforts to bring the ship into a condition that precludes the possibility of completion. In 1944, it was considered that the technical readiness of the ship eventually decreased by more than half.
I don’t think you make claim a battleship off of this, this exact logic can be used against the Germans in this case by literally everybody, Germany would have nothing unique at that point, also do you have supporting documentation? it would be a interesting read.
Also we don’t need conjecture.
The ship was at 17% readiness by the time the war starting.
The unfinished battleship of the project 23 “Soviet Ukraine” on the slipway in occupied Nikolaev.
The Soviet Union-class battleship Sovetskaya Ukraina was laid down in 1938 at the A. Marti plant in Nikolaev on an unfinished slipway (factory No. 352). By June 22, 1941, the technical readiness of the “Soviet Ukraine” was 14.91%. By the resolution of the State Defense Committee of July 10, 1941, the construction of the battleships of project 23 was suspended and the work was mothballed. By order of the People’s Commissar of the Navy on September 10, the “Soviet Union”, “Soviet Ukraine” and “Soviet Russia” were excluded from the fleet, and at the end of the war, the unfinished ships were
14.91%
https://vk.com/wall-2169946_57843
Where does the information about 17% come from?
The battleship Sovetskaya Ukraina (ave. 23) was laid down in 1938 at the A. Marti Shipbuilding Plant in Nikolaev. According to the plans, the ship was to be delivered to the customer in 1943. The construction of the battleships was stopped on July 10, 1941. At the time of the termination of construction, the readiness of the battleship was 7%. In the post-war period, it was decided not to continue the construction of the battleships ave. 23, and in 1946-1947 the ship was dismantled on the slipway
7%
№ 162. Resolution of the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the CPSU(b) No. 2073-877ss “On the plan of military shipbuilding for 1941”
on October 19, 1940
It’s top secret.
(Special folder)
In order to accelerate the construction of light surface forces of the Navy (light cruisers, destroyers, patrol ships) and submarines, especially of the Stalinets type and small twin-shaft, the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the CPSU(b) decide:
For the construction of battleships and heavy cruisers
Do not make new bookmarks of battleships and heavy cruisers at the shipbuilding plants of the People’s Commissariat of Industry.
Oblige the People’s Commissariat of Justice (T. Nosenko) from among the battleships and heavy cruisers under construction to focus construction on the following ships: a) battleship “Soviet Russia” at plant No. 402 in Molotovsk; b) heavy cruiser “Kronstadt” at plant No. 194 in Leningrad; c) heavy cruiser “Sevastopol" at plant No. 200 in Nikolaev.
Set the following dates for launching heavy cruisers: a) the heavy cruiser Kronstadt — in the third quarter of 1942; b) the heavy cruiser Sevastopol — in the third quarter of 1942; c) for the battleship Soviet Russia, bring the appropriate readiness by the beginning of the third quarter of 1943.
To establish for 1941 the following advance in technical readiness for the ships specified in paragraph 3: a) for the heavy cruiser Kronstadt — by 18%; b) for the heavy cruiser Sevastopol — by 18%; c) for the battleship Soviet Russia — by 12%.
The issue of the caliber of the main artillery for heavy cruisers should be resolved no later than mid-November.
The construction of the remaining battleships in 1941 should be limited and the following launch dates should be set for them: a) the battleship “Soviet Union” at plant No. 189 in Leningrad — June 1943; b) the battleship “Soviet Ukraine” at plant No. 198 in Nikolaev — June 1943.
The construction of the battleship “Soviet Belarus” at plant No. 402 in Molotovsk should be suspended, and the metal put on the slipway should be dismantled
12%
It’s also funny, Germany occupation was only temporary, they lost the war lol, so the whole claim for the ship is void, even if you use that logic.
What will be the problem of seeing him under the German flag in the game? I’m not just asking him for Germany. And I’m talking about introducing them to the USSR and Germany
It would be weird and copy and paste, Germany already has the H-39 class ship. Theres what? Two of those??
In this game, replacing one flag is not to draw an F16AJ, not even from a booklet, but from those planes that the developers already had.
I mean, as long as you’re offering the H-39 class ship to anyone who occupied the shipyard it was being built at.
Blohm & Voss dockyard in Hamburg
Prinz Eugen for the Brits.
And the U.S. since they used it for nuclear tests
So no good reason then.
Nagato for the U.S. too whilst we’re at it.
Oh and most of the French fleet under Viche France for Germany as well.
Honestly it might be one of the dumbest justifications I’ve seen on the forums.
