Russian 16-inch Gun Battleship Projects

[XP67_Moonbat]

http://www.gwpda.org/naval/irn16bb.htm

 

[Jschmus]

Nice find! I had no idea the Russians had even contemplated anything like that. That "1914 Ultimate Battleship" is very Tillmanesque. It's a shame that their political upheavals deprived them of the opportunity to build anything like that.

 

[Object-911]

It would be amazing to see something like this in real life, the Russian's had very ambitious designs like the Sovetsky Soyuz class, stalingrad class battle crusiers class which i would love to see in the high seas, the design of russian ships with all turrets center line is something i love like the Gangut, Imperatritsa Mariya and the Marat dreadnoughts.

​

 

[Dilandu]

the design of russian ships with all turrets center line is something i love

The idea was, that with turrets spread evenly along the hull, they would have very good firing arcs, and thus ships would be capable of bringing all their broadside into action at much narrower course angles than adversaries.

 

[Tzoli]

More like reducing draft as the seas around St. Petersburg are shallow.

 

[DarkXwolf17]

More like reducing draft as the seas around St. Petersburg are shallow.

can you not with those pfps

 

[Dilandu]

More like reducing draft as the seas around St. Petersburg are shallow.

No, the same logic were applied to Black Sea fleet ships. The whole idea was to give turrets as wide firing arcs as possible - so the ships would be able to put all their broadside in action while having enemy just a bit off the "directly ahead" or "directly astern" line. Such logic was caused by Baltic Fleet being significantly inferior to German Navy; the fleet combat was out of question, and the main strategy was presumed to be sorties from defended bases.

Gangut-class ships were basically designed in the "chasing the weaker, fleeing the stronger" paradigm. Due to their turrets layout they could put all their 12-gun broadside into action against enemy almost directly forward or behind. Any German battleship in same position, would only be able to use 4-6 guns, thus being at severe disadvantage. And if German battleship would try to zig-zag so it could bring its own broadside into action - well, it would lose speed, and thus be unable to either chase Russian ships or flee from them.

The disadvantage of the concept - which in 1910s was not obvious - was, that with turrets having such great fire arcs and superstructure made as narrow as possible, there were very little place on deck to put anything additional, like AA guns or more fire control equipment. They would just get in the way of main guns! That's why USSR have so much troubles refitting Gangut-class battleships; everything that 1930s ship require (like improved AA guns or modern rangefinders) needed to be squeezed in tiny space available.

 

[Object-911]

No, the same logic were applied to Black Sea fleet ships. The whole idea was to give turrets as wide firing arcs as possible - so the ships would be able to put all their broadside in action while having enemy just a bit off the "directly ahead" or "directly astern" line. Such logic was caused by Baltic Fleet being significantly inferior to German Navy; the fleet combat was out of question, and the main strategy was presumed to be sorties from defended bases.

Gangut-class ships were basically designed in the "chasing the weaker, fleeing the stronger" paradigm. Due to their turrets layout they could put all their 12-gun broadside into action against enemy almost directly forward or behind. Any German battleship in same position, would only be able to use 4-6 guns, thus being at severe disadvantage. And if German battleship would try to zig-zag so it could bring its own broadside into action - well, it would lose speed, and thus be unable to either chase Russian ships or flee from them.

The disadvantage of the concept - which in 1910s was not obvious - was, that with turrets having such great fire arcs and superstructure made as narrow as possible, there were very little place on deck to put anything additional, like AA guns or more fire control equipment. They would just get in the way of main guns! That's why USSR have so much troubles refitting Gangut-class battleships; everything that 1930s ship require (like improved AA guns or modern rangefinders) needed to be squeezed in tiny space available.

The way the main turrets are placed along the hull really limited where anti-air guns could be placed on the ship due to the lack of deck space, the ships only having 225mm of belt armour which was to save weight but it made it vulnerable to battleship level cannons, it also contained a 50mm thick designed to catch splinters incase the main belt armour was penetrated increasing survivability. If the target was in front of the ship then how the turrets were placed only allowed one turret could be fired until the entire ship had been turned.

 

[Dilandu]

, the ships only having 225mm of belt armour which was to save weight but it made it vulnerable to battleship level cannons, it also contained a 50mm thick designed to catch splinters incase the main belt armour was penetrated increasing survivability.

Again, since it was assumed that most shells would hit at glancing angles, the armor was actually sufficient.

If the target was in front of the ship then how the turrets were placed only allowed one turret could be fired until the entire ship had been turned.

Only if DIRECTLY in front. A bit aside, and the Gangut could use all four turret against it.

 

[Object-911]

Again, since it was assumed that most shells would hit at glancing angles, the armor was actually sufficient.


Only if DIRECTLY in front. A bit aside, and the Gangut could use all four turret against it.

That dose make sense saying that battleships fight multiple km away and that penetration would fall over distance leading to the armour being affective at range, going back to the 16 inch battleship design, how effective would this have been in battleship to battleship engagements?

 

[Scott Kenny]

That dose make sense saying that battleships fight multiple km away and that penetration would fall over distance leading to the armour being affective at range, going back to the 16 inch battleship design, how effective would this have been in battleship to battleship engagements?

I think it'd be viable on the approach or withdrawal, when the ship is closely angled towards or away from the enemy.

But it'd struggle in the classic broadside engagement.

If you play World of Warships or Warthunder you can see the effect of angling into or away from another ship pretty easily (I do trust that that part of the physics is modeled correctly)

 

[Bottleship]

the ships only having 225mm of belt armour

There are nuances to the armor of the Gangut-class dreadnoughts. Estimates generally boil down to the fact that other battleships - usually German and British - could penetrate the Gangut class with their guns. However, this ignores the fact that the Gangut class had a much longer range and was faster than many other ships of its class, and was only inferior in these parameters to ships 1.3-1.5 times larger in displacement. If we simulate a battle between the Ganguts and other dreadnoughts, they would simply constantly evade a more powerful adversary, firing at it from a distance -at which, according to available data, the Gangut could penetrate the decks of the German Kaiser class.

In the Russian-language segment of the internet, "critics" often like to compare battleships with later, larger ships (for example, the Bayern or Queen Elizabeth), or compare them based on one or more characteristics, such as gun caliber (for example, since the French Bretagne-class battleships had a 340mm caliber versus the Russian Gangut-class battleships' 305mm, the Bretagne must be stronger). Or they even say, "Why did Nicholas II even build these battleships? They were useless!".

I also heard some rather strange claims that the Russian 305mm guns were supposedly terrible and couldn't hit anything, saying that "stupid tsarism" made very long guns with very heavy shells that shook the guns a lot, and also that they fired these guns at the enemy once and didn't hit (although it was a short skirmish in the Black Sea and the Russians didn't have time to zero in).

 

[Pirate Pete]

Apologies for going off on a bit of a tangent, but....
With regards to the range of Russian guns, I vaguely recall reading about a skirmish/battle in the Baltic between German and Russian Naval units. I think the German ships were Konig class and, at least one Russian vessel was the Slava, a pre-Dreadnought battleship. If I recall correctly, Slava's guns outranged those of the much newer German Dreadnoughts so, what 'Bottelship' says above seems to have merit.
Please correct me if I'm am suffering from' brain freeze'.

 

[Bottleship]

going back to the 16 inch battleship design, how effective would this have been in battleship to battleship engagements?

Considering the real world and imagining what it would have looked like had the Russian Empire or the Russian Republic survived, only the United States and Japan could have been more or less realistic competitors for Russia at sea in the 1920s and 1930s. Britain and France were in dire straits after the war and would hardly have been able to seriously continue the naval arms race.

Russian designs:
- Bubnov
- Gavrilov
- Kostenko
- Putilov

American designs:
- South Dakota
- Lexington

Japanese designs:
- Tosa
- Kii
- Amagi

The Bubnov design is essentially a significantly enlarged Gangut with three quadruple-gun turrets, a total of 12 16-inch guns, 25 knots, and a 280 mm belt—quite powerful, but it's difficult to say whether the Russians would have actually built such a ship, which would have been intermediate between a battleship and a battlecruiser.

The Kostenko design is newer, much more advanced, and has several variants, but it is relatively limited and would not have been able to compete with the American South Dakota-class ships in terms of firepower.

The following options are also possible:
- A variant of the Izmail-class battlecruiser with a 12-inch belt and 4 x 2 x 16-inch guns, with a reduced speed—this completion option was actually considered in the 1920s.
- Reworking Bubnov's design from 3 x 4 x 16-inch to 3 x 3 x 16-inch, using the extra weight to strengthen the armor.
- Reworking Gavrilov's design from 4 x 4 x 16-inch to 4 x 3 x 16-inch, using the extra weight to strengthen the armor.
- Optimization and modernization of the Putilov Plant design, as it was created with a weight reserve for guns, etc.; in addition, engine development was ongoing, and an increase in speed could be expected.

Furthermore, I believe we should consider developing a new battleship design in Russia in 1917-1918, based on existing work. The most likely approach, in my opinion, is to develop Kostenko's design, possibly increasing its size, redesigning the layout, and adjusting some of its features.

Looking at Kostenko's project and Project 23, one can see some similarities, and, in addition, there is information that Project 23 is based on Kostenko's project, and that archival files were extracted to develop Project 23. Perhaps the Russians would have built some kind of average version in the 20s, which would have been similar to both of the projects known to us.

When discussing the USSR's capabilities in battleship construction, it can generally be said that such construction would have required a completely different USSR, one with different policies. It's entirely possible to imagine a history in which Russia had not undergone the February and October Revolutions, or even just the October Revolution, but seriously attempting to speculate on which Bolshevik would have been better if they had succeeded Lenin, Stalin, and others, which would have enabled battleship construction, among other things, is highly debatable.

 

[MichiK]

Apologies for going off on a bit of a tangent, but....
With regards to the range of Russian guns, I vaguely recall reading about a skirmish/battle in the Baltic between German and Russian Naval units. I think the German ships were Konig class and, at least one Russian vessel was the Slava, a pre-Dreadnought battleship. If I recall correctly, Slava's guns outranged those of the much newer German Dreadnoughts so, what 'Bottelship' says above seems to have merit.
Please correct me if I'm am suffering from' brain freeze'.

No brain freeze on your side - the incident you mentioned was the battle of Moon sound.

The thing is that the German Navy gave armour and protection a very high priority in ship design, which led to the decission to give the battleship's main guns only a rather mediocre elevation, to keep the necessary gaps in the turret armour as small as possible. At the design time, this seemed acceptable because the Navy expected fighting ranges of not much more than ten kilometers, due to the usual poor weather and visibility in the nort sea and the baltic.

Actual battle experiences during WW I and Moon sound in particular changed the Navy's mind, though, and postwar turrets were built with a maximum elevation of ~45°.

 

[MichiK]

Now that I'm home agin I can give the numbers for the German dreadnoughts:
Nassau class
-6° to 20°, 18.9km -> 20.4km

Helgoland class
-8° to 13.5°, 18.0km -> -5.5° to 16°, 20.4km

Kaiser and König classes
-8° to 13.5°, 16.2km -> -5.5° to 16°, 20.4km (the difference to the Helgoland class is a bit inexplicable...)

Bayern class
-8° to 16°, 20.4km -> -5° to 20°, 23.2km

All gun ranges have been extended during the war but I have no dates for...

post-WW I
Deutschland and Scharnorst classes reach the peak elevation
-8° to 40°, 42.6km

which seems to have been a bit much because the following classes had a bit less again

Bismarck class
-8° to 35°, 36.2km

Blücher class (CA)
-10° to 37°, 36.0km

 

[Dilandu]

Apologies for going off on a bit of a tangent, but....
With regards to the range of Russian guns, I vaguely recall reading about a skirmish/battle in the Baltic between German and Russian Naval units. I think the German ships were Konig class and, at least one Russian vessel was the Slava, a pre-Dreadnought battleship. If I recall correctly, Slava's guns outranged those of the much newer German Dreadnoughts so, what 'Bottelship' says above seems to have merit.
Please correct me if I'm am suffering from' brain freeze'.

Actually no, Slava (rus. Glory), the last of "Borodino"-class battleships, was outranged by Germans. Slava protected the defensive minefield, and German dreadnought tried to drive Slava away, so their minesweepers could make passages. To counter the superior range of German guns, Slava's captain ordered partial flooding of port side compartment, so the ship got a list and guns could be raised higher on starboard. With such elevation increase, Slava was able to straddle German dreadnoughts & force them to retreat. Later, using lessons from this combat, Slava's guns elevation (as well as other old pre-dreadnoughts) were increased by turret modification.

P.S. Should also point, that Russian naval gunfire during World War I was universally regarded as excellent, especially on long ranges. Tusima lessons were learned well.

 

[Brickmuppet]

Actually no, Slava (rus. Glory), the last of "Borodino"-class battleships, was outranged by Germans. Slava protected the defensive minefield, and German dreadnought tried to drive Slava away, so their minesweepers could make passages. To counter the superior range of German guns, Slava's captain ordered partial flooding of port side compartment, so the ship got a list and guns could be raised higher on starboard. With such elevation increase, Slava was able to straddle German dreadnoughts & force them to retreat. Later, using lessons from this combat, Slava's guns elevation (as well as other old pre-dreadnoughts) were increased by turret modification.

P.S. Should also point, that Russian naval gunfire during World War I was universally regarded as excellent, especially on long ranges. Tusima lessons were learned well.

The Tsarist Navy fire control was really advanced in some ways, they had their gunfire direction to a point that two predreadnaughts in close formation could combine their main battery fire and essentially become an 8 gun dreadnought. ISTR that this is what the Tsesarevich and Slava did at the battle of Moon Sound, successfully beating off a couple of German dreadnoughts (for the loss of Slava). Given that the Russians almost always seemed to be outnumbered and poorly equipped every time they encountered the Germans, and STILL gave a good account of themselves, I suspect that had the Kaiserlich Marine encountered the Ganguts in a straight fight the KM would have had a bit of a rough time.