Selling them as 'scrap metal' (especially for the older cruisers) would have been one way I suppose.
The relatively new Kuma and Tenryu-class cruisers on the other hand would be too suspicious for that duplicitous method. Surprises me that Japan would want to part with these newer ships.
 
More likely free up cruiser tonnage for more ships. Disbanding say 5 Kumas of 5.500tons frees up 27.500tons of tonnage which would bring two more Takaos and a 7-7.500ton squadron leader which the IJN was considering since the 1920's though on 5.000tons and which eventually led to the Aganos and Oyodo, Alternatively after LNT that would mean 7 Mogamis rather than 4
 
Last edited:
Only problem that their turrets maximum elevation isn't changed since WW1 and to my knowledge stayed at 25 degrees, while the Polish BB which was to be likely RN built would be maxed at 40-45 degrees.
From Navweaps:
305mm/52 Pattern 1907 Gun with Pattern 1928 HE shell: 314kg and 950m/s -> 141,7MJ
12"/50 BL Mark XIV Gun of 1933 with 430,9kg and 808m/s APC shell -> 140,65MJ (Expected range at 40 degrees: 33,8km)

Hmm looks like somewhat evenly matched though the Russian shell being High Explosive it's penetration capabilities would be limited and the British gun would had higher elevation but again the Gangut-Sevastopols had 12x guns....

Checked the sources: the "Parijskaya Kommuna" received turret upgrade that increased her elevation up to 40 degrees. The range with standard 470,9 kg AP shell reached 29.800 meters.

"Marat" and "Oktyabrskaya Revolutsia" still have 25 degrees max elevation and 24.500 meters max range with standard AP shell.

The long-range 1928 pattern HE shell was, according to most sources, designed for long-range coastal bombardment, and it's not clear, was it supposed to be used against enemy ships, or not. It was stated that lighter shell have somewhat more dispersion, but I was not able to find exact numbers.

Only problem that their turrets maximum elevation isn't changed since WW1 and to my knowledge stayed at 25 degrees, while the Polish BB which was to be likely RN built would be maxed at 40-45 degrees.

Well, if it would be build, it would most likely be armed with Mark XIV 12-inch guns - or their derivatives - which would gave theoretical max range of 33.800 meters at 40 degrees. But I seriously doubt about the efficiency of long-range fire (especially considering that Royal Navy generally favored closing to medium-range actions and designed fire control systems accordingly)
 
An excerpt from Plan M mentions the ships that were supposed to be until 1943-1944:
- construction of further ships with a minimum displacement of 10,000 tons - it was mentioned that a loan was planned supported by a million strong group of Liga Morska i Kolonialna (Maritime and Colonial League members), which was to finance the construction of further ships with a minimum displacement of 10,000 tons. In my opinion, they are battleships or, as a last resort, heavy cruisers.
- a cruiser with a displacement of 8,000 tons - it is written that the outbreak of the war destroyed the order for a cruiser with a displacement of 8,000 tons, which was to result in the construction of such a cruiser.
- 2 Orzel submarines from French shipyards - that's right, construction started in 1938
- 2 destroyers built in the Gdynia shipyard - that's right, destroyers 5 and 6 of the improved Grom type: ORP Huragan and ORP Orkan, the construction of ORP Huragan began in 1939, 2 weeks before the outbreak of World War II.
- 10 MTB that were built in a British shipyard - Yes it's true
So, by 1943-1944, the fleet was supposed to be
- 1 or 2 cruisers or 1 battleship - these are the ships with a displacement of 10,000 tons
- 1 cruiser with a displacement of 8,000 tons
- 6 destroyers
- 7 submarines
- 10 MTB( in Polish ścigacz)
As mentioned, the total tonnage of the fleet in the years 1943-1944 could reach 50,000 tons, by 1939 the total tonnage of the fleet was 20,000 tons.
I will just add that the Plan M marine program has been approved. It was never implemented for geopolitical reasons.
Sory for possible mistakes in English, but my English is at least average.
 
Last edited:
More likely free up cruiser tonnage for more ships. Disbanding say 5 Kumas of 5.500tons frees up 27.500tons of tonnage which would bring two more Takaos and a 7-7.500ton squadron leader which the IJN was considering since the 1920's though on 5.000tons and which eventually led to the Aganos and Oyodo, Alternatively after LNT that would mean 7 Mogamis rather than 4

The replacement tonnage for the Kumas was already included in the tonnage that was used to lay down the Mogamis and the Tone/Chikuma. The only way the Japanese could have gotten more cruiser tonnage to lay down during the term of LNT30, would be in they had 'accidentally' lost some of the more modern light cruisers, or if they had invoked the escalation clause.

Regards

David
 
Nothing it was never went beyond consideration I think not even size calculations were done or at least none survived so far.
Only the late Admiral Furushita made a drawing of the battleship:
 
It is a modification of the Dutch Design 1057 I think.
 
It is a modification of the Dutch Design 1057 I think.
IMHO, of course, but any large warship Poland might (in pure theory) order in 1930s, would be built either by British or French shipyard. Such major contract for Poland would inevitably have a significant political part.

French shipbuilders would most likely suggest a scaled-down Dunkerque with two 12-inch quads & non-dual purpose battery (of six-inch and three-inch guns)

British shipbuilders would most likely suggest something akin to Design 12B (1929), maybe with three triple 12-inch turrets. The secondary battery would probably be similarly conservative, of six-inch dual turrets and four-inch AA guns.

Both designs would most likely be of less than 25000 ton, and with limited range and seakeeping ability. Dunno about armor scheme: since the main theater for such ship would be Baltic, with poor visibility, it would most likely have emphasis on armored area, rather than armor thickness. I.e. it would probably have upper belt, bow and stern armor, and sloped main deck.
 
Not necessary. What I've learned that the Shipyards could offer designs to foreign nations for whom the country is at bad relations (see the various designs of the Japanese Shipyards to China in the early 1930's) though I'm sure with the Government's approval.
 
Looks quite... unrealistic. Turrets are clearly German, for example.
Anything Craig Burke (aka Admiral Furashita) may have drawn or modeled or photoshopped for his gaming AU are purely fictional.
Fun stuff but not to be relied upon as real source material. Indeed it looks like he took a 1047 drawing and altered the turrets.

Trying to pin down the Polish capital ship plans is probably pointless as they never got beyond basic number crunching studies and certainly not to the stage of issuing specifications for tenders.
 
Yes that is true, but it could start the imagination of artists
 
But in Poland before the war, there were projects of cruisers, including heavy cruisers, in the years 1919-1929 Poland wanted more light cruisers, from 1930 they were already heavy cruisers.
Cruisers in Poland were reported practically from the very beginning.
Unfortunately, no drawings of these ships have survived to this day, not even in Polish archives. If such ship drawings survive (I hope they are), they are in the Russian archives.
I can even write about some Polish cruisers, even though this information is not too much.
I chose the most interesting cruisers:
1. Light cruiser with a displacement of 6000-7000 tons - it was in 1929, when Józef Piłsudski asked the inspectors to determine the needs of the navy. One of them, General Rybak, presented the fleet expansion program - among them he wrote about 2 light cruisers with a displacement of 6000-7000 tons, armed with 6 guns of 190 mm caliber, and speeds of 33-35 knots, these cruisers were to be against the Germans.
There was also a mine cruiser and a displacement of 5,000 tons with 4x 130 mm guns
2. Then, in the plan from 1930, engineer Aleksander Potyrała calculated the costs of building an armored cruiser with a displacement of 6,000 tons, the cost was 51 million PLN.
3. A heavy cruiser with a displacement of 14,000 tons it was in 1931, when the data of pocket battleships were available, the KMW staff proposed a heavy cruiser with a displacement of 14,000 tons as a response to German pocket battleships. Its construction was planned. The main armament is unknown, 203 or 254 mm guns.
4a. A heavy cruiser with a displacement of 15 000 ton
- it was originally in the naval program for 1936-1942, according to the description, it was supposed to be a heavy cruiser that was supposed to have stronger armament than the German heavy cruisers Admiral Hipper, and faster than the German pocket battleships.
The main armament is unknown
Displacement, main armament, and speed are not known to me so far.

4b. Heavy cruiser with a displacement of 15,000 tons - variant N(war with Germany), was 1 heavy cruiser with a displacement of 15,000 tons, according to the description, she was supposed to be more powerful than the German light cruisers and faster than pocket battleships, speed was estimated at 33 knots, main armament is not known.
Poland was looking for modern guns.
5. Heavy cruiser with a displacement of 15,000 tons - this heavy cruiser was initially in the naval program for 1942, was to have 3x3 203 mm guns, 9x 120 mm guns, Speed unknown.
After the reductions of these 15,000 tons , cruisers they were gone.

In photo is the heavy cruiser polish trento, in 1925 offered to poland.
 

Attachments

  • Sylwetka.gif
    Sylwetka.gif
    1.1 KB · Views: 226
Last edited:
Kockums AB unsuccessful bid for Grom-class. Two versions (from May and August 1934), differed by dimensions and type of AA guns.
1610 or 1850 tons standard displacement, 38 knots, three twin 120mm and two triple torpedo tubes.
 

Attachments

  • Kockums 1934 design for Poland (May).jpg
    Kockums 1934 design for Poland (May).jpg
    216.8 KB · Views: 176
  • Kockums 1934 design for Poland (August).jpg
    Kockums 1934 design for Poland (August).jpg
    240.4 KB · Views: 159
Kockums AB unsuccessful bid for Grom-class. Two versions (from May and August 1934), differed by dimensions and type of AA guns.
1610 or 1850 tons standard displacement, 38 knots, three twin 120mm and two triple torpedo tubes.
Do you have Gotaverken or Vickers designs from the Grom class Destroyer tender?
List of bidders for the tender grom
France:
- Ateliers et Chantiers de Bretagne (1,690 t)
- Forges et Chantiers de la Gironde
- Chantiers Navals Français
- Chantiers de Penhoët
- Ateliers et Chantiers de la Loire (1950 t)
- Chantiers et Ateliers Augustin Normand (1,250 t)

Sweden:
- AB Götaverken (1,610 t)
AB Götaverken (1,850 t)
England:
- Thornycroft (T976 version A)
Thornycroft (T976 version B)
Thornycroft (T976 version C)
- John Samuel White
- Yarrow
- Vickers
- Swan Hunter
- Hawthorn Leslie
- Palmers Shipbuilding Company

First project Samuel&White in photo
 

Attachments

  • 9d0cdcf6a0774284gen.jpg
    9d0cdcf6a0774284gen.jpg
    120.6 KB · Views: 121
  • ebf7f423f4679c50gen.jpg
    ebf7f423f4679c50gen.jpg
    167.5 KB · Views: 80
  • cae66cef0640b231gen.jpg
    cae66cef0640b231gen.jpg
    159.3 KB · Views: 117
Last edited:
Nothing it was never went beyond consideration I think not even size calculations were done or at least none survived so far.
Only the late Admiral Furushita made a drawing of the battleship:

Why American American 12" guns, did the British ore French not have something as it would be much faster i assume, but then its just me asking.
 
Export Version of Pr. 956 Sovremenny with less advanced equipment

Due to the political situation, a version of the Sovremenny with less advanced equipment was proposed, but this plan was cancelled by 1981.

armament: 2 doubled AK 130 guns, but variants with AK 726 or AK 100 cannons were prepared as well, which were replaced the AK 130 cannons.
Moskit 2xIV anti-ship system replaced on P-20M 4x1,
AA system Uragan [M-22] replaced on two [4K33] Osa M,
[MR710] Fregat M radar replaced on [MR310] Angara M radar,
And the Platina sonar station was replaced on Titan 2 or Argun.
Work on the export version for Poland lasted from 1977, Gorszkow himself ordered the development of an export version for the Polish People's Republic in 1977, when he returned from exercises from Poland, these works lasted until 1981. No drawings and more details about project.

From "Morze Statki i Okręty wydanie specjalne 1/2015" article "ORP Warszawa(II) po co nam był ten niszczyciel". Info apparently from "Poslednij eskadriennyj minosiec WMF SSSR". Any more information would be from the Russian side which is difficult to obtain at present for obvious reasons.

Courtesy @USSEssex
1668563938223.png
 
In the 1960s, the modernization of the Wicher and Grom ships was advised, the modernization was to include, among others, the replacement of 130 mm and 85 mm caliber guns for 57 mm gun and 30 mm gun. It was at a time when a replacement for the already old destroyers was being sought, as a replacement for the destroyers, various variants were considered, including taking over the Project 61 destroyer, or Project 56A. The Russians treated the subject of modernization of the ships as postponing the delivery of a new destroyer to Poland. Finally, the destroyer Project 56AE was handed over to Poland.

Source Morze Statki i Okręty wydanie specjalne 1/2015 article dzieje niszczyciela ORP Warszawa by Robert Rochowicz
 
For the sake of accuracy, because I just noticed it, I didn't write anything that the Poles were planning 305 mm guns on Moltke (as far as I remember about this ship), it referred to Germany when I wrote the history of the ship.
So I note that there has been a slight misunderstanding in this context.
As for the modernization Grom and Wicher project 30bis destroyers, there were no more details.

In 1923, the Poles were getting ready to take over the cruiser, which is evidenced, among others, by the found post (from 1923) of Cruiser N.1. It includes not only the personnel composition (commander commander, 21 officers and 488 non-commissioned officers and sailors) but also the planned armament:
8 guns of 150 mm caliber,
4 - four-inch,
2 - three-inch,
10 - 47mm,
4 machine guns,
300 naval mines.
It is probably about SMS Emden konigsberg II class which fell to France.
A hypothesis was put forward, in my opinion, that it was Emden during a historical session at the Polish Army Museum 90 years of the Polish Navy: 1918-2008 in 2008.

As for the 5 light cruisers from naval program 1946 that were supposed to be delivered in the 50's, it's a Tromp-style cruiser, because these cruisers had a displacement of 4,215 tons.
In my opinion, it is not about ordering more ships of the Tromp class, but about ordering new ships, let's say tromp plus, read the enlarged type of Tromp, which would have newer main guns, we leave the design in the sense of the hull, we lengthen it by some meters, so that the standard displacement is 4215 tons.
Because cruiser Tromp fits.
And I think that's what it was about that this ship was taken as a starting point, although it's just my hypothesis.
Above, there is a graphic of the Polish Trento, it is the Italian offer from 1925 of a mutated heavy cruiser of the Trento class just for Poland. The original sketches are in the Polish archive.

I will also write that KMW was considering a cruiser during the war that was supposed to have a catapult, currently I don't know anything else about it, but if I find out, I'll write what's going on.

Case of the 8,000-ton cruiser
Well, I'm investigating this case, and it's not that simple.
Well, you have to start with the fact that in the naval plan for 1942 there was a 15,000-ton heavy cruiser, which was abandoned after the reduction, but in the light of orders, a 15,000-ton cruiser already appears, people from KMW were looking for money for it, so perhaps it would be possible whether it will be finally built, or by 1942, I doubt it.
Why?
1. Since 1938, Poland was covered by the Treaty on Arms Limitations at Sea, the treaty expired in 1943, if I remember correctly, and regarding cruisers it was written that Poland could not build cruisers with a displacement of more than 8,000 tons because that was the limit.
The only option to bypass the treaty was to build such a ship in Polish shipyards.
2. The second problem is the shipyard.
Well, the nearest plans were to build 3 slipways, thanks to which it was possible to build ships up to 130 meters long.
Ultimately, Poland had slipways for building ships, see the destroyer, which was tried, but they were faulty, Potyrała said that the attempt to launch the ship would end in a fiasco.
For this reason, there are doubts whether the construction of two destroyers of the improved Grom class, ORP Huragan and ORP Orkan, has actually begun.
Witnesses said yes, but the above fact, as mentioned by Potyrała, plus the lack of evidence such as documents, is currently assumed that no, they were not built.
While it is true that they wanted to try with cruisers once the new destroyers could be launched, but apparently this would have happened later, see 1943-1946 more or less.
In addition, it was planned to build new submarines in a Polish shipyard, the first two submarines were built in France before the war broke out, but I don't know if it was abandoned.
Considering this, the only solution would be to order the cruiser abroad.
And at this point we move on to the 8,000-ton cruiser.
Well, this cruiser was supposed to be ordered in 1940 in some British shipyard, as I remember, this cruiser was 8000 tons as it was written what ships are to be for the years 1943-1944.
Let me remind you what ships they were
- construction of further ships with a minimum displacement of 10,000 tons - it was mentioned that a loan supported by a million members of the Maritime and Colonial League was envisaged to finance the construction of further ships with a minimum displacement of 10,000 tons.
I think they're battleships or heavy cruisers
(I'm betting on the latter).
- 8,000-ton cruiser - it is written that the outbreak of war annihilated the 8,000-ton cruiser order that was supposed to result in the construction of such a cruiser.
- 2 submarines from French shipyards - that's right, construction began in 1938
- 2 destroyers built in the Gdynia shipyard - that's right, they are destroyers No. 5 and 6 of the improved Grom type: ORP Huragan and ORP Orkan, the construction of ORP Huragan began in 1939, 2 weeks before the outbreak of World War II (supposedly).
- 10 speeders (MTB?) that were built in a British shipyard - see S 1 in ww2.
Yes, these were the ships that were supposed to be until 1943-1944.
Now see what the plan for 1942 says
Naval plan for 1942 (war with Germany plus Russia N plus R) i remember
- 1 battleship
- 1 heavy cruiser (15,000 tons, 3x3 203 mm and 9 x 120 mm guns)
- 8 destroyers
- 12 submarines
- 1 minelayer
- 6 escorts
- 22 chasers
- 14 trawlers
A variant of the war with Russia
- 1 battleship
- 8 destroyers
- 1 minelayer
- 12 submarines
- 6 escorts
A variant of the war with Germany
- 1 heavy cruiser
- 6 destroyers
- 1 minelayer
- 12 submarines
- 6 escorts
- 22 MTB
after reduction would be:
- 6 destroyers
- 12 submarines
- 1 minelayer
- 12 MTB
- 12 trawlers
Composition of the fleet in the light of orders (autumn 1942)
-1 CA
- 6 DD
- 12 SS - real 8 [W, R, Ż, S, O, I, II, III]
-1 CM [Gryf] minelayer
- 9 MTB [I - IX]
- 12 PM [J, C, R, M, Cz, Ż, I - VI]
- 2 GB artillery ships
So it seems to me that this may be true, and the 15,000-ton heavy cruiser was abandoned, or postponed, and an 8,000-ton cruiser was chosen instead, what was written about it seems to me that this is some modification of the plan for 1942, since this cruiser was to be ordered already in 1940, if so, it would be built until 1942, and in service until 1943, so it is correct.
The problem is that I haven't found any more information about this cruiser, such as whether it was supposed to be a CL, a smaller Town or Crown Colony type, or a heavy cruiser with a displacement of 8,000 tons.
Because in the years 1936-1939 Polish admirals from KMW stuck to heavier cruisers, and they wanted ships that were heavily armed and, above all, modern, among others, for the latter reason, later such ships as M, N, G class destroyers, generally large ships were taken over, including D-class cruisers, because it was, among other things, prestige, even though we wanted and asked Fiji, we got the D type.
So buying ships like Exeter is out of the question.
Well, on the one hand, I would understand why a light cruiser is mainly financial issues, although I don't know why they would suddenly opt for light cruisers and why, or in other words, how they want to use it and what for, and on the other hand, I would understand if it was a heavy cruiser as a counterweight read the answer for heavy german or light cruisers.
For these reasons, I originally thought that it was a Polish Fiji in the sense of the Crown Colony / Town type, but reduced by the displacement of 8000 tons because it would fit, judging by the displacement of 8000 tons, in my opinion it refers to the standard or construction displacement.
End of my thesis. Recognize for yourself whether it is logical and sensible, and whether I can or am right.
Earlier, I took the 15,000 and 8,000 ton cruisers as 2 separate orders and something didn't add up to me then, because I ended up with 3 to 5 cruisers.
This is what the Anglo-Polish treaty contained.
In principle, this treaty concluded on April 28, 1938, had no greater restrictions than the Anglo-German treaty of 1937.
The Teactate had the following limitations
for battleships with a displacement of to 35,000 tons, guns no larger than 406 mm, until then, it was forbidden to build battleships with a displacement of to 17,500 tons and to arm guns with a caliber of less than 254 mm.
For aircraft carriers, displacement to 23,000 tons and gun caliber up to 155 mm
for submarines, displacement up to 2,000 tons and gun caliber up to 130 mm
A ban on the construction of cruisers with a displacement of over 8,000 tons, when it comes to guns, the limit is up to a caliber of 155 mm.
The treaty was in force until December 31, 1942.
It was a treaty on arms limitations at sea.
It also included the exchange of information about the ships under construction in a nutshell.
We can try to solve the puzzle by looking for British light cruiser designs 8000 ton from 1936-1939
The second phrase is a canceled order (year 1939 (look ww2 start attack to Poland) if there is such information somewhere).
This way you can try to adjust something.
If you find such projects from those years, I will post them here and I will read them.

If I learn anything new, I will write.
 
Last edited:
Export Version of Pr. 956 Sovremenny with less advanced equipment

Due to the political situation, a version of the Sovremenny with less advanced equipment was proposed, but this plan was cancelled by 1981.

armament: 2 doubled AK 130 guns, but variants with AK 726 or AK 100 cannons were prepared as well, which were replaced the AK 130 cannons.
Moskit 2xIV anti-ship system replaced on P-20M 4x1,
AA system Uragan [M-22] replaced on two [4K33] Osa M,
[MR710] Fregat M radar replaced on [MR310] Angara M radar,
And the Platina sonar station was replaced on Titan 2 or Argun.
Work on the export version for Poland lasted from 1977, Gorszkow himself ordered the development of an export version for the Polish People's Republic in 1977, when he returned from exercises from Poland, these works lasted until 1981. No drawings and more details about project.

From "Morze Statki i Okręty wydanie specjalne 1/2015" article "ORP Warszawa(II) po co nam był ten niszczyciel". Info apparently from "Poslednij eskadriennyj minosiec WMF SSSR". Any more information would be from the Russian side which is difficult to obtain at present for obvious reasons.

Courtesy @USSEssex
View attachment 687240
The footnote reads: "There is no trace of the Gorshkov's initiative in Polish archival documents".

Nevertheless the article contains an interesting passage as follows:

"Head of large surface ship design department captain A.A. Borisov ordered that <<nothing modern shall be transferred to these potential deserters>> (it was obviously about a tense political situation in our country [Poland])". ;)

Piotr
 
I must admit I am confused by this export Sovremenny. It seems to remove all the advantages that buying a newer generation ship would bring. Poland might have just as well asked for more Kashins instead (indeed the Project 61E was still in production for India at that time).
 
I must admit I am confused by this export Sovremenny. It seems to remove all the advantages that buying a newer generation ship would bring. Poland might have just as well asked for more Kashins instead (indeed the Project 61E was still in production for India at that time).
So we leased one Kashin-class ship in 1988 (Smely -> Warszawa) and eventually bought it in early-1990s.
 
Due to the political situation, a version of the Sovremenny with less advanced equipment was proposed, but this plan was cancelled by 1981.

armament: 2 doubled AK 130 guns, but variants with AK 726 or AK 100 cannons were prepared as well, which were replaced the AK 130 cannons.
Moskit 2xIV anti-ship system replaced on P-20M 4x1,
AA system Uragan [M-22] replaced on two [4K33] Osa M,
[MR710] Fregat M radar replaced on [MR310] Angara M radar,
And the Platina sonar station was replaced on Titan 2 or Argun.
Work on the export version for Poland lasted from 1977, Gorszkow himself ordered the development of an export version for the Polish People's Republic in 1977, when he returned from exercises from Poland, these works lasted until 1981. No drawings and more details about project.
Quite interesting, and coherent with general Soviet attitude toward export project. Albeit I'm a bit puzzled, why P-35 missiles weren't suggested instead of P-20? After all, the coastal version "Redut" was sold to Syria roughly around this time.
 
I must admit I am confused by this export Sovremenny. It seems to remove all the advantages that buying a newer generation ship would bring. Poland might have just as well asked for more Kashins instead (indeed the Project 61E was still in production for India at that time).
I suppose the reason was that the original equipment was slated as "top secret" at this time - forbidden for export.
 
...
1. Since 1938, Poland was covered by the Treaty on Arms Limitations at Sea, the treaty expired in 1943, if I remember correctly, and regarding cruisers it was written that Poland could not build cruisers with a displacement of more than 8,000 tons because that was the limit.
The only option to bypass the treaty was to build such a ship in Polish shipyards.
...
Thanks for posting this.

One small point - building a cruiser in Polish shipyards would not bypass the treaty. Article 2 of the Anglo-Polish Naval Treaty read:

"After the date of the coming into force of the present Agreement, no vessel exceeding the limitations as to displacement or armament prescribed by this Part of the present Agreement shall be acquired by either Contracting Government or constructed by, for or within the jurisdiction of either Contracting Government
."

If Poland wanted cruisers >8,000 tons, they had to either wait until 1943, abrogate the Treaty, or build them >17,500 tons outside the no-construction zone.

Best Regards

David
 
In Warship 42 was the article Pride of Poland: the Orzel class submarines part 1 published by Prezemyslav Budzbon. On page 81 he deals with the tender by the French shipyard Chanteliers et Ateliers Normand, Le Havre and mentioned that there were 6 versions of the 5751 design of which the 5751C was approved in 1938 and ordered to be deliverd in 1941. Anybody familiar with the specifications of the six variations?
 
In Warship 42 was the article Pride of Poland: the Orzel class submarines part 1 published by Prezemyslav Budzbon. On page 81 he deals with the tender by the French shipyard Chanteliers et Ateliers Normand, Le Havre and mentioned that there were 6 versions of the 5751 design of which the 5751C was approved in 1938 and ordered to be deliverd in 1941. Anybody familiar with the specifications of the six variations?
I will say that I haven't read this article, can you provide screenshots or pdf?
I will attach what I have.
1. Augustin Normand project 5751B submarine for Poland with a surface displacement of 1166 tons
Augustin Normand projekt 1166.png 2. Full blueprint of a submarine for Poland project 5751C, contract variant by the Augustin Normand shipyard with a displacement of 1176 tons. At the top, the theoretical lines of the submarine variant with a displacement of 1163 tons.
Maximum length 86.870 m
The maximum width on the waterline is 5,900 m
Draft amidships 4.216 m
Draft on the bow perpendicular 3.256 m
Draft at the aft perpendicular 5.176 m
Standard surface displacement 1,175,450 tons
Standard draft displacement 1,530.579 tons
Number of screws 2
Maximum surface speed 20 knots
Maximum speed submerged 9 knots
Maximum power of internal combustion engines 5400 Horsepower
The power of the drive electric motors is 1200 horsepower
The armament of this submarine in the contract variant is interesting.
two twin Bofors 40 mm L/60 anti-aircraft guns so 2xII( U flak say hello there)
8 fixed 550 mm torpedo tubes
2 twin sets of 550 mm swivel torpedo tubes.
Augustin Normand 1175.png
3. Design of the Type D torpedo submarine of the Augustin Normand shipyard, dated November 18, 1924.
It was offered to Poland in a tender for torpedo submarines.
It was a small submarine with a surface displacement of 631 tons and a draft of 842 tons.
Length 66.6 meters
The armament is a 100 mm gun
2 x machine guns
And 7x torpedo tubes 550 mm
Augustin Normand typ D.png
4. This time another submarine project called type E of the same shipyard, dated December 8, 1924, also offered to Poland
Augustin Normand typ E.png
5. Italian offer for Poland
Zrzut_ekranu_280.png
6.Project 956 for Poland.
What you see is the final version.
When it was written on discord, we started looking for sources, and of course we found it in Russian sources.
image.png
image-1.png
Variant 10 is the version for Poland in the final variant. The case was explained by Granger on the @Kingpin6100 discord, who remembers it.
The cooldown that is present on the forum also gave some screenshots of some variants, but I'm not sure if they have anything to do with this case (early variants or late variants), because I can't speak Russian.
7. Blueprint italian CA offer for Poland in 11 may 1925, im confirm in 100% is this Trento mod, im posted previous black graphic CA.
A fragment of the plan was once posted by Maciej Tomaszewski on one of the groups on FB.
And from what I know, his name was ORP Piłsudski.
- Total length 199.5 m;
- length at the waterline 195.0 m;
- maximum width 19.0 m;
- draft for sea trials 5.8 m;
displacement:
10,980 tons;
- machine power 125,000 hp;
- speed 35 knots
- 4 sets of turbines 10 boilers;
- fuel supply 2,400 tons;
- fuel reserve for sea trials 760 tons;
Armament :
- 8x203,
- 12x102,
The 102 mm anti-aircraft guns were placed singly.
8 Tubes .
The rotating torpedo tubes were placed in pairs of two below the deck.
- Deck armor 50 mm in the area of main artillery turrets 70 mm, side armor of the citadel 70 mm and towards the bow and stern, decreasing to 25 mm.
273301237_3123981621210055_2356770922102662933_n.jpg
As I wrote or not, the original is in the Polish archives, it is a fragment of the drawing of this ship, probably the original plan as I see, or a reprint or something like that. I got this drawing with details from a person I know.
 
Last edited:
7. Blueprint italian CA offer for Poland in 1925, im confirm in 100% is this Trento mod, im posted previous black graphic CA.
- Total length 199.5 m;
- length at the waterline 195.0 m;
- maximum width 19.0 m;
- draft for sea trials 5.8 m;
displacement:
Standard 10,980 tons;
- machine power 125,000 hp;
- speed 35w;
- 4 sets of turbines 10 boilers;
- fuel supply 2,400 tons;
- fuel reserve for sea trials 760 tons;
Armament :
- 8x203,
- 12x102,
8 Tubes .
The 102 mm anti-aircraft guns were placed singly, and the rotary torpedo tubes were placed in pairs below the deck.
- Deck armor 50 mm in the area of main artillery turrets 70 mm, side armor of the citadel 70 mm and towards the bow and stern, decreasing to 25 mm
View attachment 693614
As I wrote or not, the original is in the Polish archives, it is a fragment of the drawing of this ship, probably the original plan as I see, or a reprint or something like that. I got this drawing with details from a person I know.

On this variant - it is very similar to the Italian 1923 heavy cruiser design that eventually became the Trento-class (any World of Warships players will know this as Genova).
1923_cruiser.png


From the images we have, we can see a couple of differences - the Polish design has an amidships hangar, but it has catapults (or possibly flying-off platforms) on at least the B turret, and most likely the X turret, if the silhouette which was previously posted is accurate. Additionally, the Polish version has a single forward funnel, whereas the Italian design has the forward funnels as a split pair. There's also a crane on the mainmast to transport aircraft from the hangar to the forward launch platform, plus another platform on the mainmast.
 
That ship which someone claims to be the proposed pr. 956 variant for Poland is actually one of the premilinaries of the project 956 itself dating back to 1972 as labeled in the picture. It's from article in Istoriya Korablya 1/2004 which featured quite good history of the project.

Don't be missled by the similar armament suite as in the later offer for Poland.
 
As for project 956 for Poland, Granger wrote that this is a variant just for Poland, I will add here a record of conversations about project 956 for Poland, which was mentioned on the Kingpin discord server.
Yingpin — 16.11.2022 00:53
project 956 Sarych for Poland
armament: 2 doubled AK 130 guns, but variants with AK 726 or AK 100 cannons were prepared anyway, which were placed in the places of these AK 130 cannons.
Moskit 2xIV anti-ship system replaced on non-perspective P 20M 4x1,
AA system Uragan replaced on two Osa M,
Friegat M radar replaced on Angara M radar,
And the Platina sonar station was replaced on Titan 2 or Argun.
Work on the export version for Poland lasted from 1977, Gorszkow himself ordered the development of an export version for the Polish People's Republic in 1977, when he returned from exercises from Poland, these works lasted until 1981. No drawings and more details about project.

00:53
from enterprise

《》║ Enterprise║《》 — 16.11.2022 00:59
Work was interrupted in 1981 due to problems in Poland. I translated what is on the screen.
Maybe in some Russian studies there are some sketches and more details about it.
A trace of this was written in the book Poslednij eskadriennyj minosiec WMF SSSR, somehow the title sounds like that. And that's where there was a trace of the possibility of obtaining this ship, but in the export version.
01:03
From Morze Statki i Okręty wydanie specjalne 1/2015 article ORP Warszawa(II) po co nam był ten niszczyciel
The last destroyer of the Soviet Navy is what the title should translate into
02:58
Also, I sent the message above at 9:56 AM

Really a coincidence

@305mm/52 Pattern 1907
The last destroyer of the Soviet Navy is what the title should translate into

《》║ Enterprise║《》 — 17.11.2022 03:05
Where it is written about the export version of the project 956 for
PRL, writes the Polish Sovriemnnyj, whose trace was described export version I see that it comes from the Russian book Poslednij eskadriennyj minosiec WMF SSSR, because I can't speak Russian.
Nothing has been found in the Polish archives on this subject. If that's what you're asking.

305mm/52 Pattern 1907 — 17.11.2022 03:11
Going to search for that book
03:11
Its one of the few that I do not have
03:12
The specific book was published in 2001

305mm/52 Pattern 1907 — 17.11.2022 03:16
That AK-100 guns were part of the original TTZ
03:16
See here
image (1).png
305mm/52 Pattern 1907 — 17.11.2022 04:20
@《》║ Enterprise║《》 seems the reference is found on another hard to find book
04:20
Ovsyannikov S. I., Spiridopulo V. I. Soviet super destroyer of the third generation. Part 3. Distinctive features of the Project 956 // History of the ship: almanac. - Entrepreneur Bogatov S. A., 2005. -Issue. 3,No. 1. -S. 19.
04:21
Its where they mentioned the orders from Admiral S.G Gorshkov to the 1st Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense
04:22
I did read that the export 956 is for the replacement of the Project 56 that the PRL already have
COLDOWN_Iván — 17.11.2022 07:46
Морская Коллекция year 2018, number 12, publication 231
image (2).png
COLDOWN_Iván — 17.11.2022 07:47
Морская Коллекция year 2018, number 12, publication 231
image (3).png
Морская Коллекция year 2018, number 12, publication 231
image (4).png
COLDOWN_Iván — 17.11.2022 07:55
"Эсминцы первого ранга (956)", Pavlov AS, year 2000
image (5).png
305mm/52 Pattern 1907 — 17.11.2022 10:00
So got more info about that @COLDOWN_Iván.

While in @《》║ Enterprise║《》's source there was a mention of removing the AK-130 for something like an AK-100. Gorhskov and the High Command forbid its downgrade. So the use of the base A-217 mount is allowed. A-217 is the single barrel 130mm that the base AK-130 is based from.
10:00
The draft designs resemble Project 56 on the hull.
10:01
It was intentional as Project 56 was their 'last' destroyer before the 956. Hence the addition of '9' in the numbering
10:02
This became a pattern for destroyer category numbering since. Except 11900 Anchar

Project 56 -> 956 -> 21956
305mm/52 Pattern 1907 — 17.11.2022 13:14
History of the Ship (Istorya Korabelya) 2005-01 (03)
image (6).png

13:14
@《》║ Enterprise║《》
13:19
Clearer image
image (7).png
13:19
Variant 10 of a amphibious support destroyer (Development title for Project 956)
305mm/52 Pattern 1907 — 17.11.2022 15:13
So this was the final 'revision' they were working
15:14
This was after Soviet Naval High Command rejected the 1st Central Research Department of the MoD to downgrade the PRL-destined Sarych's main gun to a 100mm or a 76mm gun
Yingpin — 17.11.2022 19:12
Is this the Polish one? At work and can't dig in

@Yingpin
Is this the Polish one? At work and can't dig in

305mm/52 Pattern 1907 — 17.11.2022 19:13
Yes. Variant 10
19:13
Authored by M.A Mazaev, June 1972
19:14
What is odd is the year

Yingpin — 17.11.2022 19:15
yeah that's what was throwing me

305mm/52 Pattern 1907 — 17.11.2022 19:15
Gorshkov authorized for a watered down Sarych for the Polish Navy in 1977
19:15
Unless this one was already in the works and was shelved and 1st CRD use it as a baseline
19:16
Also, the Variant 10 never appeared in Severnoye PKB (The major surface ship designer of the Soviet Navy except carriers) 60 year anniversary book
19:17
They showed 956E, EM, U (With 16 and 24 UKSK VLS). But not Variant 10
19:18
I have the necessary reference except for one
19:19
A book authored by Severnoye PKB about the last destroyer of the Soviet Navy. This was what @《》║ Enterprise║《》 was pointing out. Where it was initially mentioned
19:21
This book here @Yingpin holds the key
orig.jpg
《》║ Enterprise║《》 — 17.11.2022 19:25
Thanks for the informations. Really interesting thread.

305mm/52 Pattern 1907 — 17.11.2022 19:27
I probably could not dig a much deeper hole than "what could be" of the then Polish Navy back then.

Gorshkov had a reason why they would even let Poland have a modern destroyer like the 956
19:28
One clue is his disapproval of 1st CRD downgrading the guns any lower than 130mm

Yingpin — 17.11.2022 19:31
so, as I understand, the Polish design from 1977 was based off of a Pr. 956 variant from 1972?
19:32
And they used that as the basis as it already had the less advanced systems, most likely?

305mm/52 Pattern 1907 — 17.11.2022 19:32
Yes
19:32
But we still need more proof before I close this one
19:33
I have finished making my Capstone Project and currently full of potential energy that I need something to sink many hours into

The end.
And that's basically all the findings so far about project 956 for Poland, you have the whole record of conversations about it.
If anyone has new additional information to the above findings, please post it, if someone has access to Russian sources.
 
Last edited:
All those images you posted were published originally in the mentioned Istoriya Korablya magazine about the orgins of the pr. 956 and it doesn't mentions that the preliminary design for the pr 956 were later used as the base for the Polish proposed variant. However it does not exclude it either. What I could draft up from the discussion posted above is that some person with in some discord channel is claiming so. What exactly is the source were this claim is based? Aside the apparent similarity in the weapon fit which lures us to belive so?

I'll will check tomorrow what does one of the latest Gangut issue say about the matter, it also has an article about the development of the class.
 
Indeed based on Soviet project nomelenculture, a Polish Sovremenny should bear the designation of Project 956E or a variant of it like 956.1E as it was an export version specify for Poland otherwise it would be the same as the built ships.
Note the 4 956E and 956EM versions which all 4 gone to China still they received Russian names:
I doubt the Soviets would design multiple version of a warship just for a single country's export market. Though it wasn't impossible that the design bureau or the builder shipyard offered multiple variants, this is unlikely knowing how centralized was the Soviet Union.
 
Last edited:
I remember how it is also visible, we searched in several sources, the Polish magazine from which this screenshot is taken, in the article it was written that the Polish version was mentioned in Poslednij eskadriennyj minosiec WMF SSSR, later when I passed it on, we looked for further information in several sources, but the key is the book for which a Polish source is cited.

Since there were no drawings and detailed data in the article, we were looking for answers in several sources, in those that are given in the transcript of the conversation.

However, further information on this matter requires further research and research because I honestly do not know if any early variants of this version for Poland have been developed, and late ones generally before the final version.
Another thing that needs to be explored is the question which is that
if variant 10 is actually the final version for Poland, that's why it says it's from 1972, it's a mistake, or maybe they had it ready earlier and offered it to us?
Currently, there are many questions and few answers.
All I know is what is written above.
The case is open, and more information is needed on the matter.
It would be good if someone checked in Russian sources whether we were offered any destroyers in the export version for the Polish Navy from 1948-1980 or other ships.
In general, export versions for Poland from the times of communism are a little devoted topic in Polish maritime journals because there are few preserved documents and other traces in Polish archives, so here you have to look for Russian sources, a good example is the project 956 for Poland.
 
Last edited:
Back to the Polish Cruiser ....is there more to that drawing fragment or is that all?

Dave
 
As for this cruiser, apart from a fragment of the drawing and graphics, I have nothing else. At the moment, everything I have about him has already been written.
 
Italian cruisers for Poland
It was in 1943, in connection with the signing of the Italian capitulation on September 3, 1943, the Regia Marina fleet was to be sent back to Malta.
Therefore, there was an idea to take over one of these cruisers by Poland, and this idea was born in the II Oddział Wojskowy (Military branch).
Unfortunately, it is not known how serious they were and whether a specific cruiser was selected and if so, which one.
from book Krążowniki Polskiej Marynarki Wojennej by Witold Koszela, page 146.
cruiser HMS Royalist for Poland, sub-class Bellona.
It was in the fall of 1943, when Dragon was in poor technical condition, so the possibility of replacing the ship was considered.
In his report, Edward Leight Stuart King, in his report, spoke well about the training of the Polish crew, but noted that due to staff shortages, we could take over one of the Royalist cruisers.
However, he was not the only supporter of the transfer of this ship, the british Director of Plans also took a similar position.
And here it is safe to say that it was about HMS Royalist subtype Bellona.
Earlier, on 7 September 1942, there was an offer to take over HMS Caledon.
Unfortunately, neither Royalist nor Caledon were taken over, Caledon may not have been accepted because it was worse than Dragon, even though it was undergoing an overhaul at that time, which included replacing the guns with 3x2 102 mm guns.
Royalist, in turn, was probably not accepted due to staff shortages, although it was very possible and real to take over. From book up, page 144 and 145.
As for the 8,000 ton cruiser that was to be ordered, it was in 2 sources
1. Zeszyty naukowe Akademii Marynarki Wojennej Rok LII Nr 2 (185) 2011 by Dariusz Nawrot Akademia Marynarki Wojennej title Polska Marynarka Wojenna PO Drugiej Wojnie Światowej W Koncepcjach Admirała Jerzego Świrskiego page 215 . Here pdf https://docplayer.pl/7774123-Polska...-koncepcjach-admirala-jerzego-swirskiego.html .
2. WOJCIECHOWSKI Maciej 1 Plan rozbudowy Polskiej Marynarki Wojennej z 1944 r. 2 Logistyka 4/2015 page 1787 . here pdf https://docplayer.pl/72205576-Plan-rozbudowy-polskiej-marynarki-wojennej-z-1944-r-2.html .
Yes, I checked, it was on the CD. Logistyka where it was said when this cruiser was to be ordered, i.e. 1940 in the British shipyard, as if this saying had already been said here.
So this cruiser is not a joke but the truth.
I don't remember if I wrote about it, but the Soviets were supposed to give us a cruiser, but I don't know which one.
This was written to me by a friend.
I read the studies in which the order for the 8,000-ton cruiser was mentioned and I have them in pdf. But as I mentioned there were no details.
I will write about the modernization of the Wicher-class destroyers another time, and there were several of these variants.
 
Last edited:
I don't remember if I wrote about it, but the Soviets were supposed to give us a cruiser, but I don't know which one.
Hm, I heard something like that too - that we planned to give one of Baltic fleet cruiser to Poland in late 1950s/early 1960s, but it was determined that she would require too many personnel to crew. Not sure about her class; it may be "Maxim Gorky" (project 26-bis).
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom