8 replies to this topic

[mhl67]

Now that GHQ has released a model for this planned class, I was curious, has anyone put together a ship card for this? If not I can put it together myself, but it would obviously be easier if someone had already done so.

[Lonnie Gill]

G' Day mhl67,

 

A ship log was not been prepared for the Sovetsky Soyuz class as they were never completed.  The free Soviet Navy download supplement by Adrian Dobb contains numerous ship logs for most every active warship in the WWII Soviet Navy with sheets for the Baltic Soviet Red Banner Fleet, the Black Sea Fleet, the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet.  Accordingly, we drew the line at ships planned, but not completed. 

 

As you are no doubt aware, there are blank ship log sheets, with the needed graphics provided, in the GQ 3.3 Bonus Files on the website for those that want to prepare their own ship logs.  It would be a nice addition for other gamers if you do decide to create ship logs for the Sovetsky Soyuz vessels and post them on the Forum.  Given that they were under construction when the German invasion of the USSR began, they would make an interesting addition for some "what if" scenarios.

 

Cheers,

 

LONNIE

[Thomas J Fitzgerald]

I have a ship log for the Sovetsky Soyuz and Kronstadt but they are in an excel file. I can't figure out how to cut and paste in here and have them keep their formatting. Attaching the file does not seem to work either. 

[Thomas J Fitzgerald]

Maybe this will work

Attached Files

•  test.pdf   193.65KB   13 downloads

[Kenny Noe]

Worked for me!   Thanks

[mhl67]

I have a ship log for the Sovetsky Soyuz and Kronstadt but they are in an excel file. I can't figure out how to cut and paste in here and have them keep their formatting. Attaching the file does not seem to work either.

It looks good but 2 questions:

1. Shouldn't the armor factor be lower given the production issues with Soviet armor? I'd have given it like BB.

2. Why are the AA factors given in fractions other than 1/2? I've never seen that elsewhere.

[Thomas J Fitzgerald]

mhl67,

 

Feel free to alter to your taste. The data I used to come up with the stats were:

 

1. Battleships, Allied Battleships in World War Two by Garzke and Dulin
2. All the Worlds battleships 1906 - Present by Sturton
3. Conways All the Worlds Fighting Ships 1922-1946

This gave me the info in the table below:

Dimensions BB Soviet Soyuz

Displacement 58220

OA Length

Beam

Draft

Protection

Deck 225mm

Belt 375-425mm

Turret 495mm

Con 425mm

Armament

Main 3x3 406mm

Sec 6x2 152mm

Ter 4x2 100mm

Torp none

Light AA 16x2 37mm, 8x.50cal

Propulsion

SHP 231000

Speed 28

 

 

The armor listed for the Soviet Soyuz would place it in the BA+ rating in GQ3.3. This I did down grade to BA level as it was a layered system. That said, in their book Garzke and Dulin made the following observations on the ships armor: 

• Regarding the belt "This was definitely excellent side armor protection, proof against 406mm shellfire at all reasonable ranges."
•  and the deck "Despite an arrangement deficiency the deck armor protection was superior to that of most capital ships of the World War 2 era."

The AA factors are the actual results when applying the math from the AA bonus files in the GQ3.3 section of this website. You can round up or down or change as you see fit. You can see in my table what the initial light AA would have bee. I suspect if these ships were ever finished, given actual war experience, that AA suite would have changed considerably. 

 

Another open question is what gun chart to use for the Russian 16"/50 installed on these ships. It is stated by Garzke and Dulin that these weapons were influenced by Italian design philosophies and would have good range but a short barrel life. The gun fired a lighter shell than the US 16"/50 but that might be its closest equivalent with the understanding that it doesn't account for how good or bad the Russian fire control system might be.   

[mhl67]

mhl67,
 
Feel free to alter to your taste. The data I used to come up with the stats were:
 

• Battleships, Allied Battleships in World War Two by Garzke and Dulin
• All the Worlds battleships 1906 - Present by Sturton
• Conways All the Worlds Fighting Ships 1922-1946

This gave me the info in the table below:
Dimensions BB Soviet Soyuz
Displacement 58220
OA Length
Beam
Draft
Protection
Deck 225mm
Belt 375-425mm
Turret 495mm
Con 425mm
Armament
Main 3x3 406mm
Sec 6x2 152mm
Ter 4x2 100mm
Torp none
Light AA 16x2 37mm, 8x.50cal
Propulsion
SHP 231000
Speed 28
 
 
The armor listed for the Soviet Soyuz would place it in the BA+ rating in GQ3.3. This I did down grade to BA level as it was a layered system. That said, in their book Garzke and Dulin made the following observations on the ships armor: 

• Regarding the belt "This was definitely excellent side armor protection, proof against 406mm shellfire at all reasonable ranges."
•  and the deck "Despite an arrangement deficiency the deck armor protection was superior to that of most capital ships of the World War 2 era."

The AA factors are the actual results when applying the math from the AA bonus files in the GQ3.3 section of this website. You can round up or down or change as you see fit. You can see in my table what the initial light AA would have bee. I suspect if these ships were ever finished, given actual war experience, that AA suite would have changed considerably. 
 
Another open question is what gun chart to use for the Russian 16"/50 installed on these ships. It is stated by Garzke and Dulin that these weapons were influenced by Italian design philosophies and would have good range but a short barrel life. The gun fired a lighter shell than the US 16"/50 but that might be its closest equivalent with the understanding that it doesn't account for how good or bad the Russian fire control system might be.

My main source was the recently released Super-Battleships of WW2 from osprey. So my knowledge of the topic is probably less than you. That being said the assessment I've read is that the armor was on paper good but that due to the type of construction used it would have been less effective than that of other capital ships.


As for the guns, maybe just shift the 15" up one? I've read that the theoretical range of the guns exceeded the practical ability of the fire control to calculate.

[Dave Franklin]

FYI, several years ago there was a discussion on the forum about the American 16" on the USN Gunnery Table (and 12" IIRC).  The short version is the statement made at that time was the American 16" column did not reflect the 16"/50s on the Iowas, and I believe it said what to change for the 16"/50s.  Do a search for Iowa class, or Iowa and Alaska class, or something similar.

 

This at least might give you a guide on what to use for penetration, if that's the route you want to go, though as Thomas J Fitzgerald stated above, the To Hit #s might need a little adjustment.

 

Dave