Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

C.O.R.E HOI - USSR

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Re: Russian Naval Technology

Originally posted by MateDow
Here are my thoughts when I was putting together the Russian OOB and tech...

Sovyetskiy Soyuz class battleships-
These were basically modified Italian Vittorio class battleships designed to take into account differing priorities in design. The had practically the same main armament, the 28 kt speed and armor protection. They were layed down in 1938. These ships were laid down after extensive advice for Italian designers and incorperated an Italian protection scheme. Russia did not have the ability to build these battleships without outside design help. Gibbs and Cox (an American firm) was asked for design help around the same time period but wasn't allowed to participate because of restrictions placed on them by the US government.
Click to expand...
I have to dissagree :). I am no fleet-expert, but I learnt a lot about the Programme when we first made the events.

The Soviet Union ordered designs from the US and Italy, so far so good. From Gibbs & Cox they recieved plans for a BB/Carrier hybrid, similar to ships the Japanese had built (but the US Gov. stepped in because they exeded the Treaty limits I think), and the Italian company Ansaldo designed a BB very much like the Littorio-class. The plan was that they would build these BB:s in Italy for the Soviets, but it was still undecided by the summer of '41 (wich obviously canceld any deal :). I don't think they were ever laid down).
They also tryed to get BB designs from Germany, but they only agreed to cooperate with cruisers. All this happend in the middle to late 30's.

But from what I have been able to find out, the Sovyetskiy Soyuz was a soviet design, probably inspired by all the foreign designs they had studied. And I don't think it could be classed as a Littorio. As warships.com describes them: "These huge ships would have been equals to the U.S. Iowa class in firepower and would have had far more armor."
There displacment were between 60-65 000 tons and they were armed with 9 x 16"/50 cal in 3 triple turrets and 12 x 6"/57 cal in 6 twin mountings (I think 16"/50 cal is 406 mm and 6"/57 is 155 mm?)

I have no idea how SOV could start building these monsters, but four were laid down. The war came inbetween though and they weren't finished. From what I understand they should at least be classed as Post Treaty BB:s.
Krasny Krim class light cruisers-
These are traditional WWI era cruisers. 15x5.1 guns laid out in 15 single mounts. They were actually slower than their foreign counterparts.
Click to expand...
 So they should be 'Light Cruisers', right?
Krazy Kavkaz vs Kirov
The Kavakaz only had four 7" guns. The standard treaty cruiser had at least double that amount. They were slower than their foreign counterparts and didn't even have as much armor as the famously underarmored US Northampton class cruisers. The Kriov completed three years later was the first design that matched foreign ships in speed, armament, and protection. She more than doubled the number of main battery guns, doubled the thickness of the belt armor and added 6 kts of speed. Not really like designs.
Click to expand...
 Ok! :) As I said I'm no expert. When I classed them I just looked at the guns and the tonnage and compared to your tech descriptions (I didn't take the number of guns in account).
The 'Krasni Kavkaz' (only one was built) was actually an up-gunned and modernized 'Krasni Krim', so maybe it should be a 'Light Cruiser' to. But couldn't we give it an extra seattack point due to it's 180 mm guns? I think that is possible to do in the OOB.

The 'Kirov' class was a design from the Ansaldo company, based on the 'Raimondo Montecuccoli' (two built). The ''Maxim Gor'kiy' class was an improved Kirov. Should these be Treaty Light or Heavy Cruisers?
Storozhevoy (sp?) class destoryers-
These are listed as Silny class in the data sheets that the game uses. They are 2500 ton destroyers in terms of name. IRL the Silny (Type-7U) class destroyers were 1600 ton destroyers armed with 4 5.1" guns. This is comperable to the US Livermore class that was being about the same time. Russia completed their first 1500 ton destroyer (Type 7 class) in 1937. Before that all of their contruction had been WWI standard.
Click to expand...
 I think they go under both names. There were however a lot of different destroyer classes being built. Could you take a look at the models I posted (previous page) and suggest some improvments?
As for starting technology, I am willing to listen. I have seen no evidence that Russia was doing any experimentation with carriers or seaborne aircraft (6300 level techs) or had done any work with high pressure steam systems, advanced hull forms, advanced torpedo designs, or advanced fire control systems which are the the techs that are required for the Washington Treaty designs that were being built by other countries in that time period. MDow
Click to expand...
 I agree. They had no carrier knowledge, and on a whole they could hardly be classed as having 'Treaty Tech'. But all tech-trees are more or less abstract, and they did build the Kirovs (1935) and the Maxim Gor'kys (Jan. 1937). This suggests that they would have some sort of 'Treaty technology' (due to the foreign designs and their ambitios Naval Programme). Please tell me if I'm wrong. :)

And lastly, a great thankyou for all the naval tech. It's a huge improvment from the original, and I'm sure it took some time...

Cheers! :)
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: Avtomat Kalashnikova

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
I try to minimalize sitiuations, when technology is given "for free". Soon someone will suggest, that Germans should have turbojet engine from the start, or given in the event in 1937. Or Me-262 in 1942.

Bear in mind, that Imp. Assault Rifle automatically improves all units stats, when AK was introduced to the units for quite a time. Technology in HoI means not only project, but in most cases implementation. AK and AKM were fully implemented in USSR in second half of 50-ties.
Click to expand...

I agree with your point here. What do you think, then, about breaking up the assault rifle ( and possibly some other weapons techs) into Prototype and Implementation stages? Prototype would represent pure research/testing and implementation would represent the time and effort to upgrade the weapons production plants. Both would have reduced IC/time req's which can be tweaked.

Prototype tech then could be given to CCCP (USSR) to represent the genius of Kalashnikov: ie the point of this event would be to reflect that Kalashnikov's research produced an improved and not a basic weapon. Btw, historically Kalashnikov was in research throughout most of the war and worked on several submachine guns prior to the famous assault rifle and its derivatives.

To balance, the prototype techs would not require any doctrines, while implementation would require experience or doctrine techs - to represent the need for these weapons on the battlefield.
 
Soviet Naval Construction

I am willing to give the Soviets 6614 (Treaty Heavy Cruiser) without the prerequisites. That will allow a Soviet player to build the Kirov class cruisers at the beginning of the game. If we can get the details, we can even add them to the build que if that won't destroy the Soviet economy.

We can write a series of events that will allow the Soviets to get the technical knowledge that they need for building a treaty battleship by 1941. I don't know if it will be possible to get them the knowledge to build a post treaty battleship by the historical build date without destroying any chance they have of fielding tanks powerful enough to keep the Germans away.

It would probably take a couple of events looking for help from the Swiss (they provided boilers and turbines), the Italians and Americans (design assistance), and the Germans (fire control assistnace). Without all of that coming together, it would have been impossible IMHO for the Soviets to make the progress that they made. MDow
 
Re: Soviet Naval Construction

Originally posted by MateDow
I am willing to give the Soviets 6614 (Treaty Heavy Cruiser) without the prerequisites. That will allow a Soviet player to build the Kirov class cruisers at the beginning of the game. If we can get the details, we can even add them to the build que if that won't destroy the Soviet economy.

We can write a series of events that will allow the Soviets to get the technical knowledge that they need for building a treaty battleship by 1941. I don't know if it will be possible to get them the knowledge to build a post treaty battleship by the historical build date without destroying any chance they have of fielding tanks powerful enough to keep the Germans away.

It would probably take a couple of events looking for help from the Swiss (they provided boilers and turbines), the Italians and Americans (design assistance), and the Germans (fire control assistnace). Without all of that coming together, it would have been impossible IMHO for the Soviets to make the progress that they made. MDow
Click to expand...

Both Kirov class cruisers were laid down in October 1935, with teh Kirov completed September 38, and teh Voroshilov in June 1940. Both used Yarrow-Normand boilers on 2 shfat diesel turbines.
 
re: Sovyetsky Soyuz

Three of this class were laid down:
Sov.Byelossiya-Nov.1939
Sov. Soyuz-August 1938
Sov.Ukraina-Nov.1938

None of the three were either launched or completed, and were broken up for scrap in the late 40's.
 
Well, four of them actually:

'Sovyetskiy Soyuz', Leningrad, laid Jul.15/38.
'Sovyetskaya Ukraina', Nikolayev (Black Sea), laid Oct.31/38.
'Sovyetskaya Byelorussiya', Molotovosk Yard, laid Dec.21/39.
'Sovyetskaya Rossiya', Molotovosk Yard, laid Mar.21/40.

Is the Molotovosk Yard in the Far East? I cant find any information about it.

More specifics on the Kirovs:

'Kirov', Leningrad, laid Oct.22/35, commisioned Sep.23/38.
'Voroshilov', Nikolaiev, laid Oct.15/35, commisioned Jun.20/40.

...and Maxim Gor'kys:

'Maxim Gor'kiy', Leningrad, laid Dec.20/36, commisioned Oct.25/40.
'Molotov', Nikolayev, laid Jan.14/37, commisioned Jun.16/41.
'Kaganovich', Komsomolsk (Far East), laid Aug.26/38, commisioned Dec.6/44 (towed to and finished in Vladivostok).
'Kalinin', Komsomolsk, laid in 37 or 38, towed to Vladivostok but never finished.

To MateDow: Have you looked at the events we have (USSR Naval Programme)?
 
Originally posted by barrabas
To MateDow: Have you looked at the events we have (USSR Naval Programme)?
Click to expand...

I have read it. I haven't ever played as the Soviets, so I haven't seen it actually run.

I think that we should break it up into a couple of differnt events for a couple of different countries that give the countries the option of turning down assistance. The first one should probably be the event with Italy, then the others. If all three of those don't work, you won't be able to build the Soyuz. If only a couple of the countries agree, then that will make the research that much easier.

Give the Soviets the pre-requisites, but still make them do the research for treaty battleship design. That will make them have to do a little bit of work for the design rather than having them handed to them on a silver platter.

That is how I feel that it should work. I will also work up the changes for the .inc file for the cruiser construction and added techs. MDow
 
Originally posted by barrabas
Well, four of them actually:

'Sovyetskiy Soyuz', Leningrad, laid Jul.15/38.
'Sovyetskaya Ukraina', Nikolayev (Black Sea), laid Oct.31/38.
'Sovyetskaya Byelorussiya', Molotovosk Yard, laid Dec.21/39.
'Sovyetskaya Rossiya', Molotovosk Yard, laid Mar.21/40.

Is the Molotovosk Yard in the Far East? I cant find any information about it.

More specifics on the Kirovs:

'Kirov', Leningrad, laid Oct.22/35, commisioned Sep.23/38.
'Voroshilov', Nikolaiev, laid Oct.15/35, commisioned Jun.20/40.

...and Maxim Gor'kys:

'Maxim Gor'kiy', Leningrad, laid Dec.20/36, commisioned Oct.25/40.
'Molotov', Nikolayev, laid Jan.14/37, commisioned Jun.16/41.
'Kaganovich', Komsomolsk (Far East), laid Aug.26/38, commisioned Dec.6/44 (towed to and finished in Vladivostok).
'Kalinin', Komsomolsk, laid in 37 or 38, towed to Vladivostok but never finished.

To MateDow: Have you looked at the events we have (USSR Naval Programme)?
Click to expand...

Heh. I had to hunt to find the Rossiya. According to Conway's, it was only parts, no keel was ever laid for it.

Again, from Conway's about the Gorky's:
The Kaganovich and Kalinin were both launched in 43, towed to Vladivostok for fitting, as their drafts were too deep for the Amur R. While the Kalinin was commissioned in 43, and the Kaganovich in 1944, neither saw active duty.

Molotovosk and 402yd are both on the White sea.
 
Originally posted by barrabas
Well, four of them actually:

'Sovyetskiy Soyuz', Leningrad, laid Jul.15/38.
'Sovyetskaya Ukraina', Nikolayev (Black Sea), laid Oct.31/38.
'Sovyetskaya Byelorussiya', Molotovosk Yard, laid Dec.21/39.
'Sovyetskaya Rossiya', Molotovosk Yard, laid Mar.21/40.
Click to expand...

Sovyetskaya Rossiya was never laid down. Material for construction was collected at the Molotovosk Yard 402, but construction never started.

Is the Molotovosk Yard in the Far East? I cant find any information about it.
Click to expand...

I think that Molotovosk is somewhere in the Black Sea region but I am not sure. I found something that refers to the material collected for Byelorussia being collected at Mardi Yard in Nikolayev. MDow
 
Sorry about the Rossiya, you guys are right.

I like your event ideas MateDow. The payment for designs and tech could be made with resources perhaps, just like we have done with the present one.

So wich countries should be involved. Italy, Germany, US. You mentioned Swiss. Is that Switzerland (fells a bit strange that they provide naval tech :))?

But the Programme was much more than just obtaining foreign designs. I suggest reading this. It is a really interesting paper on the soviet navy and the programme. If you don't read french you can babelfish it.

Anyway, it was a deliberate plan to reform and build up the soviet navy, and huge resources were sent it's way. The numbers of vessels they intended to build is almost ridicolous.

Thanks for helping out guys!
 
Yes I know it is tough to believe, but the Swiss.

In Conway's All the World's Battleships it says:
Four turbine sets were ordered from Brown, Boveri of Switzerland, and three were delivered...
Click to expand...

I think that Italy, United States, Germany and Switzerland are your choices with the further posibility of France and England. British machinery had been used in some of the cruisers that were built and being built in Russia at that time. WE could break it up like this:

Italy
6515 Seconday Battery Turrets
6516 Sloped Belt Armor

Germany
6530 Advanced Turret Optics
6531 Improved Main Battery Directors

United States
6522 Dual Purpose Guns

Switzerland
6517 Small Tube Boilers

That would leave the Russians to develop the 16" gun on their own which they did historically. That is a second level artillery tech (14257). They should be able to have that done by the middle of 1938 when the first one of these battleships was laid down.

I am not sure what an appropriate price is going to be for this tech. The priority choice should be for acceptance by the responding countries. I think that the whole thing would have a 5% chance per country of failing so it should be done most of the time. If we really wanted to be sadistic, a rejection of the naval technologies would disable the M-R Pact or at least make it fire differently. I will let someone else make those kind of choices. MDow
 
Yes, I saw that when I re-read the french site. Brown-Boweri, they are part of the swedish/swiss firm ABB now. Go figure...

I'll think about the events and post some suggestions in a few days.

BTW, JRaup you were right. The Molotovosk is close to Archangelsk.
 
Originally posted by Halibutt
BTW, what in Tech Tree terms are finnish 'Suomi' and its' clones (like soviet 'PPSh' or polish 'Mors'?
Cheers
Click to expand...

Basic MG. MP 38, PPSz 41, Sten I-III, Suomi, Mors...

General thing about infantry weapons (it's also answer to Mortu question) - we can make infantry weapons to have effect after the upgrade, not immediate - and it simulates difference between prototype stage and real use of the weapon somehow.

Problem - players hate withdrawing their units from the front to add proper tech. And even if they wait for few more techs to "pile up" it's really annoing thanks to HoI interface (try to upgrade 100 infantry divisions in 30 various locations...).

We could make extra prototype stage of more infantry techs(making it Imp. Assault Rifle only seems a bit strange to me), but that would mean serious overhaul of whole infantry tree. Prototype should be rather cheap (3 IC?), but with the very long time of development (300 days?). Implemantation should be costly (15 IC?) and long (210 days?).
 
Does CORE include any events concerning Russia (USSR) like in the New Order mod concerning the creation of a Vlasov ruled russia?
 
Originally posted by Copper Nicus
You mean 80 events instead of 40? :D But you are right, I'll make 1/2 events ai=yes.




Yeap, Murmansk, Archangielsk, Komsomolsk na Amurie, persian ports... What's more, if Germans got Narvik, only 50% of Murmansk convoys will reach their destination, and when US is at war with Japan Pacific Route is closed. :)
Click to expand...
I'm not 100% on this, but I'm pretty sure that I've read somewhere that even after the US war-entry lend/lease kept arriving to the Pacific ports through Japanese waters in US ships, wearing soviet colours (flaggs). Some got torpedod anyway, but from what I remeber most got through. If this is correct perhaps a 50-75% reduction would be more appropriate.

Has anyone else heard of this?

Edit: I don't think any lend/lease at all had started arriving before Peral Harbor. So if the Pacific rout existed (and I think it did) it must have been under the circumstances described.
 
Originally posted by barrabas
I'm not 100% on this, but I'm pretty sure that I've read somewhere that even after the US war-entry lend/lease kept arriving to the Pacific ports through Japanese waters in US ships, wearing soviet colours (flaggs). Some got torpedod anyway, but from what I remeber most got through. If this is correct perhaps a 50-75% reduction would be more appropriate.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll check that - I thought that after the Pearl Harbour only Soviet and neutral ships were carring the ferry....

Originally posted by barrabas
Edit: I don't think any lend/lease at all had started arriving before Peral Harbor. So if the Pacific rout existed (and I think it did) it must have been under the circumstances described.
Click to expand...

It has started in autumn 1941, got statistical info on that. This, and other, similar elements of American politics at the end of 1941 were quite a provocation - without knowing that it's hard to understand Hitler's declaration of war (it was stupid decision anyway, but US were unoficial member of Allies quite a time). :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back