Soviet Cruisers [Archive] - World Naval Ships Forums

Don Boyer

14-11-2009, 00:09

The Soviet system of communist rule was so incompetent in the manufacturing end of the business that they literally spent billions of rubles stealing technology from every country that had what they needed. Fear of failure and being sent to Siberia was not a real motivator for being ingenious.

A-bomb? borrow America's. Aircraft? They duplicated captured B-29s exactly, and used the B-45 design for the IL-28. The list is endless. In the arena of shipbuilding, they borrowed construction features that worked for their navy...from Germany or anybody else. The stack of the Sverdlov looks quite similar in shape to those on the American Rochester and Salem as well as several German vessels. The fire control directors and secondary batteries do look very German. Operating in Arctic and north sea waters, I'd have covered fire control too. And the gun design was a proven type....no one goes to the gulag for an experimental gun type that doesn't work!

Once Stalinism had gone down the drain, the Soviet navy was more technologically advanced and innovative.

Any identification as to which Sverdlov that is, and where the photo was taken?

harry.gibbon

14-11-2009, 00:37

Hmmmm Don ... people in glass houses shouldn't through stones:rolleyes: as if USA didn't do a bit of 'usurping' themselves...

British Canberra Bomber = B57 USA
(British Canberra Bomber = IL28) USSR

Canberra Bomber RB57F = predecessor of U2

Harrier = AV8A/B

Difference is Soviet spent money in espionage getting/building equivalents.
USA insisted good UK product be built under licence in USA !!!! instead of in UK

Concorde ... put massive restrictions and prevent overland flights = protectionism

TSR2 ... put lean on UK Gov't big style and then offer FB111 which never came off

Little h

astraltrader

14-11-2009, 01:09

Hi Don, it was the old Sverdlov class Russian light cruiser Murmansk that was on tow and on its way to an Indian scrapyard in December 1994 when it hit some rocks and sank off the coast of Norway! It has been partly visible and a rusting mess ever since!!

Last year I think it was inhabitants of a nearby Norwegian village complained loudly to their government because of fears about possible radioactivity and pollution. As it will cost around £10 million+ to remove there was much wrangling between the Norwegian and Russian governments but I am not sure if anything has been agreed yet.

Sailorman

14-11-2009, 02:15

Oddly enough, the Italians assisted the Soviets with warship design in the 1930s, most notably the KIROV class cruisers. The flotilla leader, TASHKENT, was built in Italy for the Red Navy. This did follow a "tradition" of the Tsarist Russian Navy, by buying "foreign". In the early twentieth century century a number French, German and even US built vessels were to be found in the Russian fleet. Seems the Russian adoption of French designs over British (ie BORODINO class battleships) did not bode well for them in the Russo-Japanese War.

Seems the Russians are looking to foreign markets to acquire warships, once again. French ampbibious vessels appear to top the list at present. Hmm.:rolleyes:

designeraccd

15-11-2009, 01:41

The hulk of the Murmansk hides how handsome the Sverdlov's were, IMhO, as an Industrial Designer. They had obvious "influences" from various countries, but in the early 50s they were a big worry to US and NATO planner's as surface raiders.

Here are 3 more of them including the sole class survivor-Mikhail Kutuzov. AFAIK she does still exist, altho the mods they made to her bridge area were perhaps functional but totally graceless compared to their original form........DFO ;)

Don Boyer

15-11-2009, 03:20

Terry: As usual, thanks for the ship ID. And thanks for the extra photos designer...the color one is really impressive, and should go in that thread of Terry's for uber nice photos.

Harry: I never said anything about the US or any other country. I said what the Soviets did, nothing more. Never said I didn't realize all countries play crappy little economic and/or games with each other. I wasn't making comparisons in the interest of brevity. I was stating exactly what happened in the particular circumstances. The Soviet system was it's own best reward.

US B-57 --money was paid to UK regardless of where built.

Russian TU-2 or whatever that was -- the B-29 duplicate. NO money exchanged hands.

AV-8B an outstanding adaptable aircraft and a credit to designers and manufactures...I'd cut a deal to own that too. Wouldn't steal the plans for it from you though..or build a duplicate because one of yours happened to crash land on our turf.

TSR2 -- well, hard to judge, but the F-111B was not a thrill except the Wild Weasel versions. We'd of done better to have played whist than tried to screw your country around with either plane. But we didn't steal the plans for the plane from you.

scjon

15-11-2009, 05:43

Well said Don,
Harry,
I would also have to say that if you can draw the comparison that the Canberra was the predecessor of the U2 I could say that the 1903 Wright Flyer was a predecessor of the Spitfire?
Also for the record the USS South Carolina was designed and laid down before the HMS Dreadnought. So technically the first nation to lay down an all big gun warship was the US. Does that mean I think that Great Britain stole the plans for the Dreadnought from the US Navy? Not at all. We just built at a nice slow pace. Or we would be talking about pre-South Carolina vessels when we refer to those ships now known as pre-Dreadnoughts. The truth is that the US and GB have been very good allies for a very long time, a relationship I hope continues. So the switching and licensing is a good thing, helps both countries in the long run. But it certainly is not one sided. Glass houses indeed... Not trying to offend you, but my pride in country was certainly riled at the previous comments.
Back on topic, it is amazing to me that this cruiser is still just hanging around
and what is the nuclear business all about? That color one is one excellent photograph. Thanks for the Pics.

Don Boyer

15-11-2009, 08:18

I wondered about the "radiation" angle as well. Could just be over-wrought tree-hugging lingo used for media effect without really knowing if anything nuclear was involved in the first place.

Since there was a 6" nuclear shell in the US stockpile back in the earlier Cold War days, and warheads were miniaturized eventually to where a small-yield warhead could be incorporated into ship-to-air missiles and torpedoes, there may have been speculation as to what Murmansk carried on board in her active days. The Sverdlov's were certainly capable of carrying the three, but capable doesn't necessarily mean any particular ship actually carried live ordnance. And even if it did, the residual radiation left behind by functional nuclear weapons is insignificant compared to the power of the Force..I mean, to that of a spent reactor, and this cruiser was of course conventionally powered.

I saw an article that said "they" were going to go ahead and remove it, so it would seem cooler heads (i.e., more knowledgeable) prevailed. If the ship had any significant residual radiation, the newspapers would report the Russians and Norwegians holding the door for each other..."After you!," Oh, no, I couldn't...after you!" ... rather than actually doing anything, regardless of who pays.

All this over photographs of a rusting wreck! It's why I really enjoy this Forum...imagine what the Forum can do with an active commissioned ship!:)

designeraccd

15-11-2009, 12:02

Someplace I read that the M.K. was still surviving and MAYBE would be a Museum ship...maybe. My interest in ships started thanks to my dad, who had served on several Great Lakes BOATS (they are boats on the Lakes) in the 1930s to earn tuition money for College.

Anyhow, one of the very first ships that caught my young eyes was the Sverdlov. One of my earliest scratch built ship models was the Sverdlov along with Chapeav and Kirov. All 3 were done over from scratch later, for much improved models as my skill level had risen! My October Revolution is one of the handful (of 444 built) that I still have on display.

At any rate, here are a couple more pics...now I bet you haven't seen the one of the camera shy Adm. Nakhimov before?! DFO :D

Don Boyer

15-11-2009, 17:37

Post 9 should have deleted...no idea why it didn't when I revised. Hopefully a moderator can pull it....too late for me to do so.
Thanks!

CGRET

15-11-2009, 17:49

Interesting post's to date.

We all can use examples of what country used a design for there own use from another country. I can think of several, but it's pointless in regards to the original post.

As to the Cruiser it would be interesting to see "if" in fact it is preserved for public viewing.

Regards
Charles

designeraccd

15-11-2009, 21:29

Here are several of October Revolution under the torch......DFO :eek:

Krieg1981

15-11-2009, 21:42

Here's a couple more of Murmansk.....

scjon

16-11-2009, 01:32

Nice pictures, how did the ship get righted? The on the on the right looks cold even.

Antoine

16-11-2009, 13:38

The Soviet system of communist rule was so incompetent in the manufacturing end of the business that they literally spent billions of rubles stealing technology from every country that had what they needed. Fear of failure and being sent to Siberia was not a real motivator for being ingenious.

All times Russian had the motivation greater than all -- to protect their Motherland (in spite of political system).

A-bomb? borrow America's. Aircraft? They duplicated captured B-29s exactly, and used the B-45 design for the IL-28. The list is endless.

But what about tanks, for example? "The list is endless".

In the arena of shipbuilding, they borrowed construction features that worked for their navy...from Germany or anybody else. The stack of the Sverdlov looks quite similar in shape to those on the American Rochester and Salem as well as several German vessels. The fire control directors and secondary batteries do look very German.

The "Sverdlov" class (project 68-bis) was further development of the pre-war Kirov class (project 26) which based on the Italian "Condotieri". The main difference is the "world standard" armament -- twelve 152mm guns. Of course projecting based on the war experience of foreign navies -- it's normally.
American for example borrowed protective deck for aircraft carriers from British. It's also normally.

Don Boyer

16-11-2009, 16:35

You're right Antoine, kind of got off-track with the first post. Sometimes I write faster than my brain is working...:o

Soviet designs were a continual progression, with influences (be they actual contractors or just architectural styles) based on the best elements of foreign navies such as the Italian and French and German. Over the years, the designs became uniquely Russian in shape, and they built (and still do) some lovely ships. Effective in their roles, too.

In the early years of the construction of the Sverdlovs, the US had twinges of the "cruiser gap" not unlike the "bomber gap" that was harped on until some one pointed out that it wasn't true. In the case of the cruisers, the nuclear submarine negated to a great deal any threat from that aspect.

And I completely agree with the motivation aspect!

Regards,

Antoine

16-11-2009, 19:18

Thank you, Don!:)

designeraccd

16-11-2009, 23:28

As far as Soviet tanks go....the T-34 was developed by them from a earlier design by the U.S.'s Christie. Of course it was effectively REJECTED by the US Army. The German Panther (probably their best WW2 tank) was a direct reply (psuedo copy) of the T-34 with improvements worked in.

Back to our subject: the Soviet cruisers...the handsome Sverdlovs were indeed directly EVOLVED "descendents" from the Italian CLs. The Kirovs had several weaknesses, which the Chapaevs tried to address. Sverdlovs took the improvements further yet. IMO, as an all gun cruiser our post war Des Moines (all 3) had far more firepower, but they (Sverdlovs) sure looked-on paper-to be a match for CLs of the Cleveland class.

Of course the huge projected, but not built, Soviet Project 66 cruisers were to overwhelm the Des Moines......... DFO ;)

Don Boyer

17-11-2009, 08:29

I had not seen that photo of the Project 66 model.

I am not the least surprised to see that the Soviets followed almost to a "T" the design and refit precepts of the USN during WWII...the tall narrow superstructure and compact masts to clear AA firing arcs, the stacking of AA on pedestals of various heights to reduce interference, lots of fire control for all the guns. Those low stacks might have been uncomfortable in a following wind and such, but otherwise the ship almost looks American-designed.

Designer -- any specs to go with that picture?

Regards...

designeraccd

17-11-2009, 10:53

No specs off hand, but do have info in an issue of W.I.; someplace. Meanwhile here is a line drawing........they would have dwarfed the (IIRC) 717' Des Moines, well over 800' I think. The main battery was 8+ " The lessons of WW2 showed up in every post war design...even late war USN: like Rochester class CA...modified Baltimores with one funnel for better AA arcs etc. DFO :D

designeraccd

17-11-2009, 13:32

Here is more detail from a book I have, but despite the MISlabel-the drawing is actually the even LARGER Proj 82 STALINGRAD class battlecruiser. Very similar looks, but of course with 12" rifles!

The main battery of Proj. 66 would have been 8.66". They were a REPLY to the Des Moines class, which were BIG cruisers! I well remember touring the Des Moines in Hoboken, N.J. during an open ship in late 1956........DFO :D

Don Boyer

17-11-2009, 16:40

Designer: Thanks for the updated information. I'll bet Kuznetzov could spit after the Nautilus took to the sea. Those cruiser were great ships, well matched against their supposed opponents the US heavy cruiser and battle cruiser designs. But not against a nuke sub....I would be that had a lot to do with the death of the older Soviet building program.

Now that the Soviet Union had gone under, I need to get a good reference work on the old Soviet Navy...been ignoring it.

Thanks!

designeraccd

17-11-2009, 17:12

One of the better ones-in English- is Warships of the USSR and Russia 1945-1995. By A.S. Pavlov. Published in U.S. by USNI. ISBN 1-55750-671-X. Also Steven McLaughlin did a VERY GOOD one on Russ/Soviet BBs a few years back.

The major reason always cited for the "death" of all those big ships (BBs, CBs, CAs) post war was the unlamented death of dear "Uncle Joe Stalin". The Sverdlovs were cut from a planned 24 to 14.

BTW, were you on B.H. Richard? I remember seeing her pull into Long Beach in late(?) '68 after I was back from my all expense "vacation" in Nam...courtesy of USMC!........DFO :eek:

CGRET

18-11-2009, 00:27

The Iowa's come to mind when i looked at the line drawings. To have only 8" for main Batteries? That's pretty small caliber for a response to the Newport News. Don is right, it has all the trappings of the WW2 refit's of most of the capital ships in the USN.

Regards
Charles

Don Boyer

18-11-2009, 06:45

Designer dude:

I was on Bon Homme Richard from '67 -- 69. Late '68 she was in drydock in Long Beach for a bit, if I remember correctly, but mostly operating out of San Diego, working up the new Air Wing prior to another joyful tour of Olangapo City and points west. In late '68 I was attending the Nuclear Weapons Refresher Course at the training center on North Island, Sand Diego, and missed BHR's litte run to Long Beach. Many of my best friends while in the navy were Marines, due to them guarding everyplace I ever worked in the navy. Semper Fi.

Marek T

18-11-2009, 08:23

Here are two photos of OKTJABRSKAJA REVOLUCIJA arriving in Gdynia on 21 July 1978 and a third one, with crowd on board, taken 22 July 1978.

designeraccd

18-11-2009, 11:21

Thanks for those GR8 shots of Oct. Rev.! That rebuilt bridge sure ruined her graceful lines. :eek:

Don....I could still get on base at Long Beach with my MCB 29 Palms sticker, but the day I boarded the Long Beach...I was RAPIDLY shown the gangway; fortunately back to shore!! Ooopz! DFO :D

dorupantos

28-02-2010, 14:34

Cruiser VOROSHILOV belongs to soviet KIROV-class modern cruisers in WW2.
This cruiser leads the soviets ships that attempt to attack romanian Constanta-harbour in 1941 . During the battle of Tuzla the cruiser hit a mine and was damaged . Anyway , Cruiser VOROSHILOV was a beautifull designated cruiser .

dorupantos

28-02-2010, 14:45

From the same class of soviet cruisers : KIROV, MAXIM GORKI, MOLOTOV, KAGANOVICH and KALININ .

designeraccd

28-02-2010, 18:39

And eventually the Voroshilov was turned into this! Missile test ship, later an accomodation hulk. DFO ;)

r.morrison

13-03-2010, 22:10

In reply to designeraccd, the T 34 did use a Christie type suspension for the tank hull, which was radicaly different from the type of suspension use on the Panther.
The T 34 used five main wheels each side, a configuration that has not been radically altered since, on the "mainline" Russian tanks. This allowed the tank to operate correctly even in -20+ conditions.
The panther was handicapped by a series of interlocking roadwheels which tended to freeze together if the tank stopped.
However, the Panther, like the T34 were amongst the first tanks to make large scale use of larger caliber main guns.
The T 34 used a 76 and then an 85 mm, the Panther an 88mm. (Both developed from towed anti tank or anti aircraft guns).

Getting back to MURMANSK, Ihave heard that various Norwegian lobbies were furious about a "radioactive contamination". Where would this come from ?
It was conventionally powered and even if 152mm nuclear ammunition existed, the ship was a hulk being towed to India.

Finally, a thought for "Buster" CRABBE who vanished while diving around a SVERDLOV class............................................. ..............

INVINCIBLE

15-03-2010, 14:17

Buster Crabbe dived on the "ORDZHONIKIDZE". The Sverdlovs were smart looking ships. They were confusing to track as the Soviet Navy used to change their hull/pennant numbers from time to time. I took some photos of "ALEKSANDRA SUVOROV" in the Indian Ocean.

r.morrison

15-03-2010, 14:42

INVINCIBLE

15-03-2010, 15:00

Yes, thanks for the precision.

I heard somewhere that this ship was later given to Indonesia and continued it's service until the mid sixties, ending up on a sandbank in 1969.

"Rust to dust ....................."

Yes indeed "ORDZHONIKIDZE" was transferred to the Indonesian Navy in 1962, which caused those of us in the RN involved in the "Indonesian Confrontation" a certain amount of concern. Fortunately the Indonesian Navy did not seem up to making good use of her and she soon was not in a fit state to put to sea. Tim Lewin should be able to provide full details of her subsequent fate.

dorupantos

18-03-2010, 18:50

Another pic of cruiser VOROSILOV .

Don Boyer

19-03-2010, 02:18

Dorupantos, I really appreciate seeing these photographs of the older Russian ships. For so many years those were blurry photos, if any, in our naval annuals. Seeing clear sharp focused photographs these days is really nice, and also shows how things have changed so dramatically in just a few years.

Back in my day, those ships were targets to be destroyed if it came to that. Now they are beautiful ships to be admired for their grace and beauty as well as their fighting abilities. I much prefer it that way, thank you.

Regards,

irishyank

19-03-2010, 14:53

INVINCIBLE

19-03-2010, 15:24

I was browsing around the Net last night and stumbled across mention of the Stalingrad class large cruisers, or battlecruisers if you prefer. They were planned to originally begin construction in 1941, than were delayed to 1943 and finally (after a long redesign period where Stalin himself supposedly had his hand in) the first two keels were laid in 1951-52 but after the Man of Steel's death in 1953 the government cancelled construction.

Does anybody else know anything more about these ships? Sounds like, had they ever been in service, it would have been a nice shot in the arm to the Red Fleet which I'm sure needed it at that time.

I was aware that the Soviets were building a battleship at that time but my 52-53 Janes makes no mention of such a ship. The STALINGRAD, which is mentioned is the ex-Italian cruiser "EMANUELE FILIBERTO DUCA D'AOSTA". In any case they would not have been of very great value as the day of the big gun battleship or cruiser was over. Even the impressive SVERDLOV cruisers were cut right back. I would however be very interested if any other members of this forum have information on the Soviet post WW II battleship construction programme.

mik43

19-03-2010, 17:50

Well done Doru, nice set of pix

Mik

r.morrison

19-03-2010, 19:07

r.morrison

19-03-2010, 19:10

It easy to see the family link with STALINGRAD and SVERDLOV

INVINCIBLE

19-03-2010, 19:23

I was so kindly helped on this subject not so long ago.

The SVERDLOV class was 210m long and displaced over 16,000 tons fully equipped.
Building started in 51/52.
14 units or so were completed, with five others being scrapped incomplete.
The ships were armed with 4 triple 152 mm turrets and 6 double 100mm turrets. 10 torpedo tubes (533mm) and an extensive AA suite completed her weapons.
KRUSHCHEV cancelled these units very quickly after STALIN kicked the can, and the last of these ships was withdrawn from service in the mid eighties.

Three ships were (in)famous.
ORDZHONIKIDZE- "Buster" CRABB went missing after having been sent to inspect this ship by MI6 in the fifties. The ship was later transferred to Indonesia after extensive mods, but ran aground on a sand bar and was scrapped in 1972.

MURMANSK-on being towed to India for scrap in 1994 ran aground off Norway
(A thread is available on this subject)

MIKHAIL KUTUSOV-now a floating museum at NOVOROSSIYSK (have at look on google earth it's easy to see !)

The SVERDLOVS were intended to be employed as Atlantic raiders to sink US/UK re supply convoys. The only answer we had was to deploy "Red Beard" nuclear bombs flown in Sea Vixens and Buccaneers in our carriers. Khruschev considered they were only fit to be used as Admirals flagships. Two of them came to UK for state visits.
Attached picture of a Red Beard from the museum of Naval Firepower in Gosport, which has a complete outfit of RN nuclear weapons from Red Beard to Polaris.

r.morrison

19-03-2010, 20:10

dorupantos

19-03-2010, 20:19

This is the last !

dorupantos

19-03-2010, 21:13

You have censured me !!!

astraltrader

19-03-2010, 21:17

Doru - If you read my PM to you - you will see that I have removed a picture you posted four posts before and have not "censured you!"

irishyank

20-03-2010, 04:10

Invincible, where did you get that photo? It looks familiar.

designeraccd

20-03-2010, 06:23

Here's a model of one of the LARGE cruisers, Project 66 (NOT the Stalingrad class post war battlecruiser). None were finished...were supposed to outgun the USN's Des Moines class CAs...........DFO ;)

Both these and the Stalingrad's were similar in appearance, but the Proj 66 were a "mere" 30,000+ tons armed with 9-8.66"

designeraccd

20-03-2010, 06:36

The Stalingrad's would have been larger yet and were "battlecruisers":

Class overview
Operators: Soviet Navy
Preceded by: Kronshtadt class
Built: 1951-53
Planned: 4, possibly more
Cancelled: 4
General characteristics Project 82 design
Type: Battlecruiser
Displacement: 36,500 tonnes (35,900 long tons) (standard)
42,300 tonnes (41,600 long tons) (full load)
Length: 273.6 m (897 ft 8 in)
Beam: 32 m (105 ft 0 in)
Draught: 9.2 m (30 ft 2 in)
Installed power: 280,000 shp (208,796 kW)
Propulsion: 4-shaft TV-4 geared steam turbines
12 water-tube boilers
Speed: 35.5 knots (40.9 mph; 65.7 km/h)
Endurance: 5,000 nmi (9,260 km) at 18 knots (21 mph; 33 km/h)
Complement: 1,712
Sensors and
processing systems: Giuis-2 air-search radar
Rif-A surface-search radar
Iakor, Zalp, Fut-B fire-control radars
Grot and Shtag-B range-finding radars
Soltnse-1P infrared detectors
Gerkules sonar
Electronic warfare
and decoys: Korall and Machta jammers
Armament: 3 x 3 - 305-millimeter (12.0 in) guns 6 x 2 - 130-millimeter (5.1 in) guns
6 x 4 - 45-millimeter (1.8 in) guns

10 x 4 - 25-millimeter (0.98 in) guns
Armor: Waterline belt: 180 mm (7.1 in)
Upper deck: 50 mm (2.0 in) each
Middle deck: 70 mm (2.8 in)
Turrets: 240 mm (9.4 in)
Barbettes: 235 mm (9.3 in)
Secondary turrets: 25 mm (0.98 in)
Conning tower: 250 mm (9.8 in)
Bulkheads: 140-125 mm (5.5-4.9 in)

crolick

20-03-2010, 10:41

In fact there were two never completed designs by Soviets. The first one was project 69 - two of which were laid down before the war broke out (both around 10% complete in June 1941). The second one was project 82 (or STALINGARD according to western sources). Of those 4 vessels were planned to be built but only three were laid down and after death of Stalin the program of battlecruisers was cancelled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad_class_battlecruiser

Hope it helps,
Andrzej

INVINCIBLE

20-03-2010, 12:32

Thanks INVICIBLE for the marvellous photo !

It is true as well, however, that guided missile ships were on the way and the
SVERDLOV was already obselete.

Finally the Russians have always been firm believers in "a new broom sweeping clean.............."

I took the picture in "EXPLOSION!", the museum of Naval Firepower in Gosport. An excellent museum with a fascinating collection of naval ordnance and armaments from cannons to Polaris strategic nuclear missiles. It has some unique weapons such as the Japanese amazing "Long Lance" torpedo, which nearly won the naval war in the Pacific in WW II.

INVINCIBLE

20-03-2010, 12:36

Invincible, where did you get that photo? It looks familiar.

Irishyank,

Sorry - I seem to have posted my reply to your question about my photo under the wrong "quote". Not sure how I did that but anyway the answer should be above. I will try and be more careful in future!

Antoine

20-03-2010, 16:03

Hi all!

Soviet Navy tried to build large cruisers three times. First time it was the "Project 69" -- the answer to the German "Scharnhorst" class battleships. Two units had been laid: "Kronshtadt" (Nov. 30, 1939, ex-Admiralty Wks, Leningrad) and "Sevastopol" (Nov. 5, 1939, ex-Russud, Nikolaev).

Displacement: 35200 t (standard), 38360 t (normal), 41500 t (full load).
Propulsion: 230000 hp = 33 kts.
Protection: belt -- 230 mm; middle deck -- 90 mm; lower deck -- 30 mm; torpedo protection -- 14-20 mm.
Armament: 9 x 305 mm, 8 x 152 mm, 8 x 100 mm, 8 x 37 mm AA, 8 x 12.7 mm AA.

In 1941 the construction of the "Kronshtadt" had been stopped and some details were used for pill-box. The hull of the "Sevastopol" had been captured by German and partially scrapped.

Next large cruisers were projected according the post-war plans of making the ocean fleet. That fleet had to include large and light cruisers and have no aircraft carriers because of Stalin's preference to large artillery warships (battleships, battlecruisers). Two units were built by this project: "Stalingrad" (Dec. 31, 1951, Nikolaev) and "Moskva" (Sept. 1952, Leningrad). (The third one had to be ordered in Molotovsk.) They had to be launched in 1953, but after Stalin's death (Mar. 5, 1953) the building had been cancelled (Apr. 26). The hull of the "Stalingrad" was used for protection tests.

Displacement: 36500 t (standard), 43000 (full load).
Dimensions: 273.6 m (oa), 250.5 m (wl) x 31.6 m x 9.7 m.
Propulsion: 280000 hp = 35 kts. Range: 5000 nm/18 kts.
Protection: belt -- 180 mm, upper deck -- 50 mm, middle deck -- 100 mm, lower deck -- 20 mm, turrets -- 225/125 mm, CT -- 260 mm.
Armament: 9 x 305 mm, 12 x 130 mm, 24 x 45 mm AA.

The last attempt to built large cruisers was in the very beginning of 1950s when naval minister admiral N. G. Kuznetsov had ordered to project heavy cruisers with 9" guns (Project 66) as an answer to the US "Des Moines" class. Characteristics: 30750 t (full load), 252.5 m (oa) x 31.6 m x 9.0 m. 32.5 kts. Belt -- 155 mm, decks -- 135-170 mm. 9 x 220 mm, 8 x 130 mm, 24 x 45 mm AA, 24 x 25 mm AA. This project was unsuccessful and stopped in 1954.

r.morrison

21-03-2010, 13:28

Nowadays the tendance is certainly towards smaller, more polyvalent ships.

There is still at least one KIROV class in active service, "digne heritier".

Alex Shenec

21-03-2010, 14:49

Hi.

"Kronshtadt"

Best regards

Alex

Don Boyer

23-03-2010, 02:37

Alex -- the two ship portraits. I assume they are variants on the same design -- i.e., one has twin turrets, the other triple?? Or did I miss something in a previous post?

designeraccord -- that photo of the big cruiser model is really interesting. The Russians must have done highly original work and commissioned Gibbs & Cox for the design -- :rolleyes:

Regards,

designeraccd

23-03-2010, 05:33

The two renderings show the pre war Kronshadt battlecruiser design: with original (Soviet) triple 12", then the TWIN 15" German turrets that they were "supposedly" redesigned for as herr adolf had agreed to sell the Soviets turrets/guns (Bismarck type)....b4 he invaded that is. About the only thing the Sov Navy did get was the INCOMPLETE CA Lutzow.

The post war Stalingrad design-previously shown-was 9-12"...period. Interesting, but by then obsolete designs given the USN's air power. Of course, INhO as a designer, the Sverdlovs as built were among the most graceful, handsome cruisers ever completed...anywhere! They do show some traces of pre war Italian "influence", at least visually. As they came into service by mid 50s NATO planners were very concerned that they would be used as surface raiders. One of the earliest articles I remember reading was from a 1956 article in POPULAR SCIENCE (IIRC) that illustrated the ships availible to the Soviet Navy, and specific mention was made of Sverdlov "raiders".

The very large Project 66 was effectively a totally indigenious design. DFO ;)

designeraccd

23-03-2010, 06:00

The ex-Lutzow looked like this upon being towed off, incomplete, to the Soviets in 1940.

Petropavlovsk (Tallin -from 1 September 1944) was a World War II Soviet Navy heavy cruiser which defended Leningrad against German forces in September 1941 despite being only 70 percent complete and not outfitted with a propulsion system. She sunk in 17 September 1941 after severe damage caused by German artillery fire. Raised and repaired she returned to duty on December 1942 and served until end of the Siege of Leningrad in 1944. The hull of cruiser was purchased from Germany under provisions of the German–Soviet Commercial Agreement (1940) signed 11 February 1940. Never completed, it served postwar as a static training ship, then in 1950s as a floating accommodation (barrack) ship. She was scrapped by the beginning of 1960s. from the net.

Also from this website:
Lützow
Laid down on the 2nd August 1937, the Lützow was the last of five of the Hipper/Prince Eugen class of heavy cruisers. She was launched on the 1st July 1939. As part of the Russian/German pact signed on the 23rd August 1939, Lützow was sold to the USSR on the 11th February 1940. On the 15th April 1940 she was towed to the Ordzhonikidze ship Yard at Leningrad. The agreement was for her to be completed under German guidance no later than 1942. OOPZ....
Petropavlosk / Tallin /Dnepr
The ship (the former Lützow) was initially titled Project 53 but in September 1940 became the Petropavlosk. By 1941 she began to look like a fighting ship, having main guns in both A and D turrets.
With Germany secretly planning the invasion of Russia (Operation Barbarossa), the technical support slowly dwindled, leaving her around 75% complete by time of the German invasion. Even at this stage, Petropavlosk was towed to Call harbour on the 15th August 1941 and used as a floating battery, defending Leningrad against advancing German army units. After firing over 600 rounds she became disabled (after receiving 53 hits) on the 17th September 1941, subsequently she flooded and settled in shallow water. After exactly one year the Petropavlosk was raised in darkness, in the early hours of the 17th September 1942 and towed to Neva, so repairs could be started. By January 1944 she possessed only three serviceable 8in guns, which she put to use to bombard retreating German units (firing over 1000 rounds) during the break out of Leningrad. In September 1944 she was renamed the Tallin, moving to the Baltic so her planned construction could be completed. Post war, the Tallin was redesigned, but by 1948 the expense of the modifications was equal to a newly built Sverdlov cruiser. This was unjustifiable and all further work on her was stopped. She next became a static training ship under the name of Dnepr before ending her days as the accommodation ship PKZ-112. The ship was removed from Russian Naval listings in 1958 and broken up in 1960 at the Vtorchermet yards, Leningrad.

DFO ;)

Don Boyer

24-03-2010, 04:03

designerdude:

Thanks for the great response. I thought those twin turrets had something familiar about them. I always thought the Sverdlov's were quite nice in design and "look". Most of that other stuff looks like it was a US design, although obviously it wasn't. Would have been interesting to see them come to fruition, as they would obviously have been ideal platforms for upgrading to missiles.

Regards,

designeraccd

24-03-2010, 12:39

Speaking of the LARGEST Sov/Russian "cruiser" that did get built...Petr Veliky off Toulon.

r.morrison

24-03-2010, 13:54

As regards the Peter Velikley, it was even considered to build a larger sucessor which would have been nuclear powered and would have carried 36 or 40 SSN 19 SHIPWRECK cruise missiles. It would have dwarfed everything we know today.

However, perhaps too vunerable to a missile attack................

" Big is beautiful, but there is big and too big.........................."

INVINCIBLE

24-03-2010, 16:28

Speaking of the LARGEST Sov/Russian "cruiser" that did get built...Petr Veliky off Toulon, IIRC.............If BIG is good, this tub must be GR8!!! DFO :D

Absolutely superb pictures. Very impressive looking ships - many thanks

INVINCIBLE

24-03-2010, 16:34

designeraccd

24-03-2010, 22:51

The open press in the West apparently knew nothing of them due to the extreme Soviet passion for secrecy. I do remember the "illustration" taken, IIRC, from some Swedish source of a missile battleship they were supposed to be building...circa 1951 in JFS. Pure "sci-fi"!

OTOH they apparently did consider a design for a "SMALL" battleship, post war: 5-16" on bow, 7.1" turrets on stern. Think I have a drawing, but can't find it!

However, a very nice, dramatic view of Petry Veliky, note the rust..........DFO :eek::D

r.morrison

25-03-2010, 00:40

Hi, your previous photo was much more up to date, the large, flat, sand coloured radar "TOMBSTONE" visible above the main superstructure (used for the SA N 20 missiles).
It is common to see these ships in a pretty sorry shape...........

In the thread concening the UDALOY class, the very kind reply I received stated that these ships were badly maintanied, poorly designed and all their miseries hidden by paint, so its reasonable to suppose this is common practice.

I will send on some more photos shortly.......

r.morrison

30-03-2010, 19:39

According to certain sources, PETER VELIKLEY has pulled up the anchor this week and is out at sea...........

steve roberts

30-03-2010, 21:11

Does anyone know if the Russian Navy still keeps changing pennant numbers as they used to do during the Cold War period.Just an Idle question.Regards Steve.

INVINCIBLE

31-03-2010, 16:08

Does anyone know if the Russian Navy still keeps changing pennant numbers as they used to do during the Cold War period.Just an Idle question.Regards Steve.

Steve,

Very good question. Don't know the answer, but it was certainly most confusing during the Cold War. Interesting when the top coat of paint was peeling off as in this picture from a distance it was difficult to tell the correct number sometimes.

designeraccd

11-04-2010, 15:09

There was also this very large design, done under Stalin, cancelled and IIRC actually replaced by the Kirovs. DFO ;):D

designeraccd

16-04-2010, 20:24

The Russians recently released some new pics of Petyr Veliky as she was about to sail from the frigid north of Russia to Syria and Indian Ocean....salvage tug chuging along, too! DFO ;)

Don't those half frozen "volunteer" crewmen look happy? Given the weather in the climes she has gone too....no A/C????

r.morrison

16-04-2010, 20:33

I posted some more on the Black Sea Fleet thread..........

designeraccd

16-04-2010, 20:42

Yes you did....MORE the merrier!!! They were nice shots, too. Of course the Black Sea's Moskva is part of the "task group" spreading friendship and joy, too.......DFO ;)

r.morrison

16-04-2010, 21:36

There are always good photos on "MILITARY PHOTOS" with a special Russian photos and videos only section.

Many people were shot for a good deal less only twenty years ago........

r.morrison

16-04-2010, 21:42

With reference to my previous post, done a bit hastily,

The first is not a KIROV, the second shows a satellite view and the last two shots of P.V. (the "matelot" looks a bit peed off !

This post is of two earlier KIROVS:)

designeraccd

16-04-2010, 22:33

Aahh...2 of the NON functioning ones!!! oopzz....... Still, one out of four seemingly able to at least move. One wonders how effective all the electronics and weapons really are? Of course, if nobody ever gets to find out...ok by me! DFO :eek::D

designeraccd

16-04-2010, 22:49

A pair of 2009 shots of the Black Sea Fleet's Moskva; on paper quite a potent cruiser: just ask the Georgian gunboat Navy! She is to or maybe has joined with the Petyr Veliky on this latest "cruise". DFO ;)

designeraccd

17-04-2010, 01:53

A shot of one of my favorites: Sverdlov class...this is the Zhdanov awaiting the scrapper's torch...........DFO :eek:

designeraccd

18-04-2010, 12:11

Our friend in drydock............DFO ;)

designeraccd

24-04-2010, 07:40

The latest "NEWS" from Russia on their glorious battlecruiser, with what sounds like a raw crew of conscripts....on a nuke! Gives one a WARM GLOWING feeling..........

The battle-cruiser Pyotr Veliky
© RIA Novosti. Sergei Eshenko

Russia's Pyotr Veliky missile cruiser to make port call in Syria
Russia's Pyotr Veliky nuclear-powered cruiser plies English Channel
15:5722/04/2010

Although the heavy nuclear-powered cruiser Pyotr Veliky (Peter the Great) has been at sea for the past six months, her voyage is just beginning.

She will take part in a large-scale, high-seas exercise involving other Russian warships and Moscow's military partners, and will also call at various foreign ports. Her combat readiness is facilitated by every crew member.

Although there is not a single ship within several dozen kilometers of the Pyotr Veliky, few of her 800-strong crew feel lonely.

The cruiser's sailors, many of whom only recently graduated from high school, could not imagine only a few months ago that they would find themselves aboard a floating Russian fortress several thousand km from their homeland. The Pyotr Veliky which can effectively destroy coastal, floating and aerial targets, as well as submarines, has become their home for more than six months. Moreover, ships of this class do not sail on long-duration missions every year.

It is a great honor and responsibility for conscript sailors to serve aboard the Pyotr Veliky. All of them have come to realize that much depends on their actions, patience and endurance, and that the lives of the entire crew can depend on one sailor in a critical moment.

"A sailor's exploits aboard the ship imply the routine, monotonous and effective fulfilment of his everyday duties, rather than some heroic feat. Although a sailor often finds it easy to perform his work for one day, it is hard to keep up the pace day after day with maximum concentration and attention," said Captain First Class Sergei Zhuga, commander of a Russian Navy warship unit.

The nuclear-powered Pyotr Veliky which has unlimited endurance can spend several months on the high seas, accomplishing military tasks along the way. Consequently, the physical and mental stability of all crew members becomes a high priority.

The crew eats breakfast, lunch and dinner in two shifts, followed by evening tea and night breakfast for those standing the night watch. The ship's galleys are open round the clock, offering all kinds of soups, salads and second-course meals, the envy of any diner or cafeteria. From the commander down, the crew always eats fresh fruits and vegetables, various meat dishes, fish and chicken and drinks half a glass of dry red wine a day to remove heavy radio-nuclides from the body. Although background radiation levels are normal, this is still a nuclear-powered cruiser.

"The food is good. I like to serve aboard the ship. Although I haven't seen any other, but ... There is no brutal hazing of young recruits here. Of course, this is not civilian life but military service, and everyone realizes that the commanders' orders must be fulfilled," a sailor said.

A guard-of-honor company drilling on the quarterdeck welcomes VIP visitors at foreign ports. In reality, the unit comprises off-duty mechanics, turbine-operators and other crew members. But the most important thing, namely, a foreigners' first impression of the Russian warship, depends on the men, their glimmering bayonets and white peaked caps.

"Although I was scared at first, I felt proud to represent my country when they started playing the state anthem," guard-of-honor company sailor Alexander Letuchy said after meeting a Syrian military delegation aboard. Long deck drills in all kinds of weather produced inspiring results, and the sailors did an excellent job.

The ship is also bustling with activity below deck. The engine-boiler section is a highly responsible post. Sailors standing watch here are rotated every four hours. High temperatures exceeding plus 35 degrees Celsius and noise are big challenges. A sailor on watch must monitor instrument readings and must also use special instruments to detect signs of trouble in every operating mechanism. By promptly exposing even the slightest aberration, it is possible to maintain the trouble-free and long-term operation of the nuclear-powered cruiser's numerous systems.

Most young men serving aboard the Pyotr Veliky will probably never sail the seven seas again. In this situation, commanders must do their best to convince high-school graduates that they are responsible for themselves, their comrades and the entire ship. The sailors learn to live in a difficult physical and psychological environment.

"What's my main objective? I must turn the sailors into patriots and real men. There is still much work to do here," said Arkady Mogilevets, the cruiser's deputy commander. His career proves that determination and willpower can accomplish a lot. Mogilevets was conscripted into the Navy from a village in Belarus and he was eventually promoted to Captain First Class and deputy commander of the largest nuclear-powered cruiser in the world.

All crew members must unfailingly fulfill their duties. The results of each working day are summed up aboard the ship in the evening, with commanders praising more and more young sailors every day.

Doesn't exactly sound like the USN or RN now does it???? DFO :eek:

designeraccd

24-04-2010, 13:31

Recently I read about the supposed POOR conditions and bad treatment Russian conscripts still get in their military. This article seems to allude to that.

Given the training and then advanced Schools that members of our military attend before-many times-reporting to their first duty station; it makes one wonder? For example, after 12 weeks of USMC boot camp and 4 weeks of ITR I spent 13 months attending a very sophisticated school at the Redstone Arsenal. After graduating from that I finally reported to my first unit: TRAINED to maintain the-for the time-highly complex radars that guided the HAWK missiles to their targets.

One doesn't get that impression @ the Veliky's crew...yet that monster is (presumably) far more complex............:eek: Thoughts, input from other Forum members??? DFO

steve roberts

24-04-2010, 14:37

Hi DFO.I seem to recall that the Russian Navy still uses the conscript system.Apart from specialised branches,the average time in uniform is Two Years!!! So I suppose they have to rely in literally "On the job training".
Doesn't say much for the standards of a crew the size of that,and Nuclear to boot:eek:
As for treatment of conscripts,I doubt very much if has changed since Soviet days.Old habits die hard!!!
Regards Steve.

designeraccd

24-04-2010, 16:21

Thought that was what I remembered....sure would seem to say something about the combat efficiency and probable technical proficiency of a crew....especially on board that big monster, the nuke P. Veliky???!

OTOH, from what I've read their officers function, in many respects, like a senior NCO would in our Fleets, as far as work they perform. Their STARPOMS (IIRC...NCOs) don't seem, from what I've read, to perform maint. etc work at a level much above a low level (E-4, E-5) NCO or enlisted man in the West? Or have I misunderstood their "system"?? DFO :eek:

steve roberts

24-04-2010, 17:05

Hi DFO. In the Soviet system(and I have no reason to believe it has changed.)Officers (Junior Grade) do maintenance much as a normal sailor/marine would in Western Navies. Their NCO's are selected at basic training level and require no formal exam for advancement! So in other words Officers do the work,NCO's hold the tool bag,Junior ratings paint and scrub!!!
Regards Steve.

designeraccd

24-04-2010, 17:24

Once a serf....always a serf??? :eek: IMhO, our system might be just a wee bit better and more efficient! DFO ;)

r.morrison

24-04-2010, 18:46

Generally speaking that's it !

The post I commanded in Bosnia was visited by three russian plumbers,th lowest rank was senior captain..........

They did repair our bogs correctly though !
:p

designeraccd

24-04-2010, 19:03

Service with a SMILE??? oi vey.............DFO :eek:;)

Actually when you think about the level of responsibility our young men and women of "low" enlisted ranks are given.......speaks volumes, IMO, about our whole "system" in the West. Of course, when I was that age, after the USMC training I was "lovingly" given...I too did similar work, correctly. The training and discipline I got in the CORPS have frankly served me well ever since! :D

hood51

24-10-2011, 17:41

Here's a picture of a Sverdlov that I got from the Novosti Press Agency in Moscow back in 1972.

DMITRI POZHARSKI in July 68.

Steve

ludsie

12-12-2011, 10:30

Great thread found it really enlightening the cruisers were based on the kirovs which in turn were based on an Italian cruiser design

designeraccd

12-12-2011, 14:32

Finding English sources on the design history of their cruisers (or anything else) is a real trick.

While no doubt Italian "influence" in all three classes, from what I've been able to find the various Sverdlovs were really a Soviet design. Very handsome cruisers, too. As far as I know, one slightly modified one does survive.....see photo. Too bad she has the modified bridge structure which ruined her "CLEAN" lines. DFO ;)

ludsie

16-12-2011, 13:31

Thanks I guess the influence is still there but acknolwedge that the design was probably very much altered from the Kirov's by the time the sverdlov's came along

what's her name and where is she based, really amazing that she's still sailing

designeraccd

16-12-2011, 15:59

No longer active....Mikhail Kutuzov. In service 1955. She is in Black Sea at main Russian Naval Base...now "leased" from Ukraine. DFO ;)

designeraccd

21-12-2011, 20:09

The 1994 issue of WARSHIP has a interesting, albeit to brief for me, article on some of the history of both the Soviet Chapayev and Sverdlov classes. In essence the various versions of the Chapayev designs were done because of percieved weaknesses in the pre-war Kirov design.

Only 5 of the Chapayevs were completed as Stalin wanted a bigger, "standard" design CL. Hence the Sverdlovs came about, altho the Chapayev class was the basis of the design. While the Sverdlov's used the same machinery, main armament and protection as the prior class they adopted an all welded hull with new underwater protection.

After Stalin's death, the new regime started cancelling "gun" ships in favor of missile equipped designs. A total of 14 Sverdlovs did get completed.

DFO :D

Don Boyer

21-12-2011, 20:34

The Sverdlov's were victims of reality in the end. Krushchev recognized that the ships were not going to be able to face the rapidly modernizing US Navy, particularly in the face of the advent of nuclear submarines and supercarriers. Plus they were no match for the US navy's existing Salems, Worcesters and Baltimores even in the traditional gun role. What he did overlook, however, was the exceptional suitability of the existing Sverdlovs to be modified as interim missile carriers at less cost than new designs then in the planning stages. Nice post DFO -- I was unaware that any of the Sverdlovs still existed on the water.

designeraccd

21-12-2011, 21:50

The 2 Sverdlovs actually converted to having missiles (not counting the 2 "command ship" versions) did not work out well.

The Nakimov's experiment with a bow mounted SSM launcher, etc, seems to have been quite a flop. The CLG Dzerzhinski with it's large land based SAM system apparently did not work well either. Unfortunately I've never been able to find concrete details in English about either ones' drawbacks.

It would be interesting to know if any further designs were worked up for missile conversions on Sverdlovs; say along lines of the various Cleveland (USN) ones??? Of course as the Kyndas, Krestas and Kashins were rapidly developed, they apparently satisfied the percieved needs of the Soviet Navy. The 4 huge Kirovs really are another story!

Despite their dubious value as all gun cruisers by mid to late 50s, they certainly were handsome ships and were probably the ultimate (non US) development of a very good WW2 light cruiser. My first recollection of them-mid 50s-was the concern NATO had about them being surface raiders ala the Kriegsmarine in 1939. I'd guess that handled well, any one would have been a handful for any NATO cruiser short of our 3 Des Moines class or the surviving gun equipped Baltimores. Air attacks, even by the Essex CVA versions would have been a different situation: target practice. DFO ;)