Soviet unbuilt project battleship

Am I assume it was the Battleship design from 1936 by Vladimir Polievktovits Kostenko?

11.jpg
 
This drawing doesn't show it clearly but the under side is concave it was kind of a air lubricated hull like that proposed by thornycroft in the 1890s.
 
yes john i. thornycroft experimented with model boats with a hollow space between the bow and the stern that was filled with air to reduce drag .
 
Yeah it was slightly representing a catamaran or trimaran double or triple hull. With this hull the and bow which is somewhat similar to a shuttleboat, Kostenko wanted to achieve higher speeds because of the lower water resistance.

Her armour was unique as well as others mentioned the anti torpedo defence was unique and the inner belt armour was 355 and the deck armour was 200mm thick. The armoured citadel (compared to the ships 275m length) was only 150m

Also the propulsion system would be revolutionary at that time: 3x 50K shp Gas Turbines (Yes Gas Turbines!) which woudl give the ship 33-35knots speed!
 
Gentlemen,

V.P. Kostenko was one of the best Russian naval engineers, and he had been with battleship design since the Great War. Interestingly, I have seen another side elevation of this battleship showing a much more conventional hull layout. This one surely looks more interesting!

HN
 
Hawker Nut said:
Gentlemen,

V.P. Kostenko was one of the best Russian naval engineers, and he had been with battleship design since the Great War. Interestingly, I have seen another side elevation of this battleship showing a much more conventional hull layout. This one surely looks more interesting!

HN
Click to expand...

Are you referring my drawing of it?

http://tzoli.deviantart.com/art/Kostenko-1936-Battleship-179353988
 
Similar, but not this one! Wish I could remember - probably in some Russian website now gone...
Yours is just a re-interpretation, with a different, more conventional type hull type, but very interesting nevertheless: it reminds me of the Iowa class, or perhaps even Yamato...
 
Hawker Nut said:
Similar, but not this one! Wish I could remember - probably in some Russian website now gone...
Yours is just a re-interpretation, with a different, more conventional type hull type, but very interesting nevertheless: it reminds me of the Iowa class, or perhaps even Yamato...
Click to expand...

Interesting. Myselff too did not able to find the drawing you referring to even by using Russian words in the google. Mostly I found the 1917 BB design
 
Hawker Nut said:
it reminds me of the Iowa class, or perhaps even Yamato...
Click to expand...


I wonder, is this because of the three-triples main armament? That seems to have been where most navies' thinking on battleship main-armament evolution converged, viz. the Yamatos, the Iowas, the Littorio class, and the Lions had they been completed. The (admittedly unbuilt) G3/N3 and the Nelson classes were already there, of course, albeit with a different turret layout, and the calibre was different in many cases (15 all the way up to 18 inch); but it does seem enough of a common solution in multiple design departments to perhaps be regarded as the best.
 
pathology_doc said:
Hawker Nut said:
it reminds me of the Iowa class, or perhaps even Yamato...
Click to expand...


I wonder, is this because of the three-triples main armament? That seems to have been where most navies' thinking on battleship main-armament evolution converged, viz. the Yamatos, the Iowas, the Littorio class, and the Lions had they been completed. The (admittedly unbuilt) G3/N3 and the Nelson classes were already there, of course, albeit with a different turret layout, and the calibre was different in many cases (15 all the way up to 18 inch); but it does seem enough of a common solution in multiple design departments to perhaps be regarded as the best.
Click to expand...

Even for the KGV 3 Triple 15inch were proposed!
 
I'm surprised they didn't go with triples in 14 or 15 inch, actually - they'd had ten years or more of experience with triple turrets to build on (practical in the case of the Nelsons, and the preliminary design work for the G3s), and it would have given them only one 14" gun less than they actually had or one 15" gun more than in the QEs or the R class. The 15" was already a fine and well-proved piece of ordnance, while nine 14" in a well-designed and reliable triple would have been... well, about as many guns working as the actual KGVs ever managed in battle, if I recall correctly.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom