Fantastic work! Real beast!
| Shipbucket http://shipbucket.com/forums/ |
|
| Project 66 Heavy cruiser http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=7375 |
Page 2 of 3 |
| Author: | Shigure [ October 20th, 2016, 1:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Project 66 Heavy cruiser |
Moskva! |
|
| Author: | eswube [ October 20th, 2016, 8:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Project 66 Heavy cruiser |
Fantastic work! Real beast!
|
|
| Author: | Karle94 [ October 20th, 2016, 9:50 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Project 66 Heavy cruiser | |
Moskva!
I apologize, cant resist!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvS351QKFV4 |
||
| Author: | waritem [ October 21st, 2016, 8:07 am ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Project 66 Heavy cruiser | |
 Didn't knew this song.......>straitght in my playlist |
||
| Author: | smurf [ October 21st, 2016, 10:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Project 66 Heavy cruiser |
If I remember the discussion on the old Warships Projects site, these ships with 220mm guns were intended to outrange the US 8in cruisers, but were abandoned when it was realised that at the ranges contemplated, the magazines would be empty before enough hits were likely to be scored. |
|
| Author: | odysseus1980 [ October 21st, 2016, 10:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Project 66 Heavy cruiser |
The US 8in you mention is the Mk12/Mk15 (8"/55) used in Baltimore, Wichita and Oregon City cruisers, right? Russian 220mm had smaller magazine (120 rounds) instead of 150 (US Cruisers). |
|
| Author: | Shigure [ October 21st, 2016, 11:33 am ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Project 66 Heavy cruiser | |
|
||
| Author: | smurf [ October 21st, 2016, 9:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Project 66 Heavy cruiser |
The USSR was also concerned about the high rate of fire of the Des Moines class 8in, which is why they wanted to outrange them. |
|
| Author: | sebu [ October 22nd, 2016, 8:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Project 66 Heavy cruiser |
Great work Chief! Again, we could say: "matkailu avartaa" 
|
|
| Author: | Hood [ October 22nd, 2016, 8:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Project 66 Heavy cruiser |
Looking at the Pr.82, that design had a very similar staggered superstructure block too but in some depictions had a sloping wall just ahead of the fore funnel. I suspect the reason why Pr.66 and Pr.82 had such odd superstructure blocks was the simple fact that the hull was congested with the forward boiler rooms and superfiring secondary mounts not allowing enough space topside to squeeze in the size of block required for the bridge spaces and FC directors. I think the designers were attempting too much on these hulls. |
|
| Page 2 of 3 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|