Quoted
Serdityi-class (Project 69U), Russian Destroyer laid down 1946
Displacement:
2,350 t light; 2,565 t standard; 2,948 t normal; 3,254 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
446.19 ft / 429.79 ft x 41.01 ft x 13.78 ft (normal load)
136.00 m / 131.00 m x 12.50 m x 4.20 m
Armament:
6 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (3x2 guns), 79.37lbs / 36.00kg shells, 1946 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
4 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (1x4 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1946 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in a deck mount with hoist
on centreline aft, all raised guns - superfiring
8 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1946 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
12 - 0.55" / 14.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 0.08lbs / 0.04kg shells, 1946 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 496 lbs / 225 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 550
8 - 25.6" / 650 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.38" / 35 mm 0.98" / 25 mm 1.38" / 35 mm
2nd: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.79" / 20 mm -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
- Conning tower: 3.15" / 80 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 47,465 shp / 35,409 Kw = 34.00 kts
Range 5,000nm at 18.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 689 tons
Complement:
199 - 260
Cost:
£2.114 million / $8.455 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 63 tons, 2.1 %
Armour: 43 tons, 1.5 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 29 tons, 1.0 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 14 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 1,165 tons, 39.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 920 tons, 31.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 598 tons, 20.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 160 tons, 5.4 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1,106 lbs / 502 Kg = 16.5 x 5.1 " / 130 mm shells or 0.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.18
Metacentric height 1.8 ft / 0.5 m
Roll period: 12.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.55
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.16
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.425
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.48 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23.80 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 63 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 60
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 27.75 degrees
Stern overhang: 1.64 ft / 0.50 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 28.05 ft / 8.55 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Mid (40 %): 21.00 ft / 6.40 m (14.01 ft / 4.27 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 14.01 ft / 4.27 m
- Stern: 14.01 ft / 4.27 m
- Average freeboard: 17.37 ft / 5.29 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 154.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 94.8 %
Waterplane Area: 11,448 Square feet or 1,064 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 96 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 43 lbs/sq ft or 210 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.52
- Longitudinal: 1.65
- Overall: 0.59
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Quoted
Yenisei-class, Russian Icebreaker laid down 1946
The Yenisei-class icebreakers were designed for series production to begin replacing elderly Belomore-class icebreakers. They were optimized for use on the Baltic Sea and the White Sea
Displacement:
5,200 t light; 5,360 t standard; 6,894 t normal; 8,121 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
305.31 ft / 295.28 ft x 59.06 ft x 21.33 ft (normal load)
93.06 m / 90.00 m x 18.00 m x 6.50 m
Armament:
4 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 12.87lbs / 5.84kg shells, 1946 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread
4 - 0.57" / 14.5 mm guns in single mounts, 0.09lbs / 0.04kg shells, 1946 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 52 lbs / 24 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 750
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 167.32 ft / 51.00 m 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
Ends: 1.97" / 50 mm 111.52 ft / 33.99 m 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
16.44 ft / 5.01 m Unarmoured ends
Main Belt covers 87 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.18" / 30 mm 167.32 ft / 51.00 m 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.59" / 15 mm 0.20" / 5 mm 0.20" / 5 mm
2nd: 0.20" / 5 mm 0.20" / 5 mm -
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 3 shafts, 4,948 shp / 3,691 Kw = 15.00 kts
Range 15,500nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,761 tons
Complement:
377 - 491
Cost:
£1.460 million / $5.838 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 8 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 713 tons, 10.3 %
- Belts: 543 tons, 7.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 168 tons, 2.4 %
- Armament: 3 tons, 0.0 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 124 tons, 1.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,056 tons, 29.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,694 tons, 24.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 2,300 tons, 33.4 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
14,359 lbs / 6,513 Kg = 1,115.5 x 3.0 " / 75 mm shells or 4.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 2.7 ft / 0.8 m
Roll period: 15.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 63 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.01
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.84
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.649
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 17.18 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 34
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Forecastle (25 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
- Stern: 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
- Average freeboard: 14.80 ft / 4.51 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 67.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 93.1 %
Waterplane Area: 13,344 Square feet or 1,240 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 207 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 104 lbs/sq ft or 510 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.35
- Longitudinal: 3.50
- Overall: 1.49
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather
Notes:
One of the shafts is located in the bow, used for backing away from sea ice during icebreaking operations.
Breakdown of Miscellaneous Weights:
Not yet available.
Ships in Class:
- Yenesei: laid down January 1946.
- Ob: laid down July 1946.
- Irtysh: laid down January 1947.
- Argun: laid down July 1947.
The Yenisei design leaves me scratching my head. I have never heard of a historical icebreaker in this period having a third shaft running forward. I can also see a lot of engineering problems with one engine plant running shafts in two directions. If it were possible I could see it with a turbo-electric system where power is generated and then shunted as necessary to the engine shafts. Gearing the powerplant would be quite difficult IMHO, unless you had two separate power units - one for the forward shaft, and one for the regular shafts aft.
The Yenisei design leaves me scratching my head. I have never heard of a historical icebreaker in this period having a third shaft running forward. I can also see a lot of engineering problems with one engine plant running shafts in two directions. If it were possible I could see it with a turbo-electric system where power is generated and then shunted as necessary to the engine shafts. Gearing the powerplant would be quite difficult IMHO, unless you had two separate power units - one for the forward shaft, and one for the regular shafts aft.
Bruce and I discussed this on the IRC channel, but I'll post this here for reference. The three shaft design was used on Jääkarhu in 1926, and so I feel it represents a legitimate design element.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH