Originally posted by Dreadnought
View Post
Design is partially based on the German Bismarck. Red Army, when was in Germany, found the blue prints for the Bismarck, brought them home. They made the first Kirov from them, adding more modern weapons and equipment
?
Sorry, although I do know that Russia took many naval documents (and a carrier loaded with machinery) and a few other prizes back to Moscow after Berlin (where they were kept) fell I find it rather diffacult to believe for a moment that the Kirov class built (1973-) and probably designed a few years before had any origins from the KM Bismarck design built in (1936) some 37 years earlier.
There is not barely one feature the two share outside of length and somewhere close in draft?
In beam Bismarck is wider, In weight Bismark is twice the Kirov's weight, In draft Bismarck is deeper, particularly at maximum draft. The propulsion and layout of propulsion is completely different between the two ships. Bismarck also had twice the crew numbers so the entire habitat and its capability were different as well. the weapons not even comparible.
Even the compartment layouts are clearly different, Kirov not having a fraction of the Bismarcks compartments and the Kirov class having large open well compartments for the missle bays that are quite visible through the transome stern hull doors.
So where is this relationship in design between Kirov and Bismarck come in besides nowhere but close in length and painted grey?
Kirov:
Displacement: 24,300 tons standard, 28,000 (full load)
Length: 252 m (827 ft)
Beam: 28.5 m (94 ft)
Draft: 9.1 m (30 ft)
Propulsion: 2-shaft CONAS, 2× KN-3 nuclear propulsion with 2× GT3A-688 steam turbines
140,000 shp[1]
Speed: 32 knots (59 km/h)
Range: 1,000 nautical miles (2,000 km) at 30 knots (56 km/h) (combined propulsion),
unlimited at 20 knots (37 km/h) on nuclear power
Complement: 710
Bismarck:
Class and type: Bismarck-class battleship
Displacement: 41,700 tonnes standard
50,900 tonnes full load
Length: 251 metres (823.5 ft) overall
241.5 metres (792.3 ft) waterline
Beam: 36.0 metres (118.1 ft) waterline
Draft: 9.3 metres (30.5 ft) standard
10.2 metres (33.5 ft) full load
Propulsion: 12 Wagner high-pressure boilers;
3 Blohm & Voss geared turbines 150,170 shaft horsepower (111.98 MW);
3 three-blade propellers, 4.70 metres (15.42 ft) diameter
Speed: 30.1 knots (34.6 mph; 55.7 km/h) during trials (one work claims a speed of 31.1 knots (35.8 mph; 57.6 km/h) [1]
Range: 8,525 nautical miles (9,810 mi; 15,788 km) at 19 knots (22 mph; 35 km/h)
Complement: 2,092: 103 officers 1,989 men (1941)
I'm not sure how you get your information but im not believeing for a moment that Russia would use a 37 (give or take a few) year old design from Bismarck (that is if they even got it to begin with) to be used during somewhat of the beginning at the height of its naval power until the late 1980's/early 1990's when clearly there is no real match in the overwelming majority of characteristics.
And although you claim to have served a navy (assuming Russian) for three years as mentioned above and with all due respect but I fail to see how you could possibly compare the two vessels sharing a design origin of sorts outside of being somewhat the same length and being the color grey.
No other charteristics are evident to me unless you would like to point them out and also your above facts about American carrier groups are a bit misplaced. Apparently you are not too sure about what comprises a CVBG or its assigned escort classes or duties.
Sorry, but raising the flag of BULLSHIT on this one!
?
Sorry, although I do know that Russia took many naval documents (and a carrier loaded with machinery) and a few other prizes back to Moscow after Berlin (where they were kept) fell I find it rather diffacult to believe for a moment that the Kirov class built (1973-) and probably designed a few years before had any origins from the KM Bismarck design built in (1936) some 37 years earlier.
There is not barely one feature the two share outside of length and somewhere close in draft?
In beam Bismarck is wider, In weight Bismark is twice the Kirov's weight, In draft Bismarck is deeper, particularly at maximum draft. The propulsion and layout of propulsion is completely different between the two ships. Bismarck also had twice the crew numbers so the entire habitat and its capability were different as well. the weapons not even comparible.
Even the compartment layouts are clearly different, Kirov not having a fraction of the Bismarcks compartments and the Kirov class having large open well compartments for the missle bays that are quite visible through the transome stern hull doors.
So where is this relationship in design between Kirov and Bismarck come in besides nowhere but close in length and painted grey?
Kirov:
Displacement: 24,300 tons standard, 28,000 (full load)
Length: 252 m (827 ft)
Beam: 28.5 m (94 ft)
Draft: 9.1 m (30 ft)
Propulsion: 2-shaft CONAS, 2× KN-3 nuclear propulsion with 2× GT3A-688 steam turbines
140,000 shp[1]
Speed: 32 knots (59 km/h)
Range: 1,000 nautical miles (2,000 km) at 30 knots (56 km/h) (combined propulsion),
unlimited at 20 knots (37 km/h) on nuclear power
Complement: 710
Bismarck:
Class and type: Bismarck-class battleship
Displacement: 41,700 tonnes standard
50,900 tonnes full load
Length: 251 metres (823.5 ft) overall
241.5 metres (792.3 ft) waterline
Beam: 36.0 metres (118.1 ft) waterline
Draft: 9.3 metres (30.5 ft) standard
10.2 metres (33.5 ft) full load
Propulsion: 12 Wagner high-pressure boilers;
3 Blohm & Voss geared turbines 150,170 shaft horsepower (111.98 MW);
3 three-blade propellers, 4.70 metres (15.42 ft) diameter
Speed: 30.1 knots (34.6 mph; 55.7 km/h) during trials (one work claims a speed of 31.1 knots (35.8 mph; 57.6 km/h) [1]
Range: 8,525 nautical miles (9,810 mi; 15,788 km) at 19 knots (22 mph; 35 km/h)
Complement: 2,092: 103 officers 1,989 men (1941)
I'm not sure how you get your information but im not believeing for a moment that Russia would use a 37 (give or take a few) year old design from Bismarck (that is if they even got it to begin with) to be used during somewhat of the beginning at the height of its naval power until the late 1980's/early 1990's when clearly there is no real match in the overwelming majority of characteristics.
And although you claim to have served a navy (assuming Russian) for three years as mentioned above and with all due respect but I fail to see how you could possibly compare the two vessels sharing a design origin of sorts outside of being somewhat the same length and being the color grey.
No other charteristics are evident to me unless you would like to point them out and also your above facts about American carrier groups are a bit misplaced. Apparently you are not too sure about what comprises a CVBG or its assigned escort classes or duties.
Sorry, but raising the flag of BULLSHIT on this one!
Compare yourself
Not identical, but there are similarities.
Comment