Sovetsky Soyuz, how long to build?

[Rinasoir]

As the title says, in the event that the Soviet Union could build the class at all (so let's just ignore the whole Barbarossa thing) how long would it have taken to get the ships afloat and operational?

I'm not particularly well versed in naval manners, so I'm curious. If anyone has any ideas on how combat capable they would be, I'm also all ears?

Link for those that need it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovetsky_Soyuz-class_battleship

 

[weasel_airlift]

Afloat AND operational? Honestly, it would probably be on the order of a decade from being laid down at least; there was much infrastructure lacking, and the Soviets couldn't make plates of the required thickness to their own standards (Which were lower than German/British/American). So, to sum up...

The Soviets could not make their own turrets, so they ordered them from Germany. The plant they were ordered from was already overburdened, so there would likely be a delay.

After a year of construction, only about 20% of the armor had been delivered, and half of it was rejected for quality reasons.

The Soviets were attempting to make their own boilers and turbines, but had no experience. The prototype boiler was not completed until 3 years after the ship was laid down, and had not been tested.

She was laid down in 1938, and about 20% complete in 1941, with no boilers or turbines, or turrets ready, and not enough armor.

Even after she was formally complete, I suspect the working up would have been a debacle that would see many people sent to the gulag.

Regardless, it would be an unreasonably long time, without making major changes to design or procurement

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

The Soviets could never get the turbines quite right either. They ordered some sets from Brown-Boveri and attempted to reverse engineer them, which took much longer than expected. Reduction gears in particular are hard to make, to the extent that even the United States had trouble making them in the 1910s and 1920s.

The construction of the Sovetskiy Soyouz ships was plagued with so many problems that one was broken up on the ways because it was so bent out of shape.

 

[weasel_airlift]

The Soviets could never get the turbines quite right either. They ordered some sets from Brown-Boveri and attempted to reverse engineer them, which took much longer than expected. Reduction gears in particular are hard to make, to the extent that even the United States had trouble making them in the 1910s and 1920s.

The construction of the Sovetskiy Soyouz ships was plagued with so many problems that one was broken up on the ways because it was so bent out of shape.

Add to that, a second of the class had many defective rivets (Substandard quality, significantly so). Honestly, the entire project was plagued with almost a ludicrous degree of incompetence.

Honestly, they'd be best off doing what the Japanese did with Kongo. Order one from Britain/Germany/USA, and then attempt to make others on the plans, with the one that you have serving a model. Granted, Stalin wanted 15 of them (!) and I think that is always out of reach.

 

[Alanith]

Add to that, a second of the class had many defective rivets (Substandard quality, significantly so). Honestly, the entire project was plagued with almost a ludicrous degree of incompetence.

Honestly, they'd be best off doing what the Japanese did with Kongo. Order one from Britain/Germany/USA, and then attempt to make others on the plans, with the one that you have serving a model. Granted, Stalin wanted 15 of them (!) and I think that is always out of reach.

I agree, I'm sure the warship yards in the West would have loved a couple major foreign orders during the treaty building holidays, the only question is if the Soviet Union could have gotten London or Washington or Berlin to agree.

 

[weasel_airlift]

I agree, I'm sure the warship yards in the West would have loved a couple major foreign orders during the treaty building holidays, the only question is if the Soviet Union could have gotten London or Washington or Berlin to agree.

They weren't a member of the treaties. One ship doesn't make a lot of difference, especially if you have the plans. There is the whole communism thing, but times were still hard, and that's a fair amount of money. Add to that, the UK had a history of considering under construction ships as a sort of reserve, willingly seizing them for their own use. (See: Agincourt, Erin, Canada, many smaller ships).

Of course, if Stalin commissioned Germany to do it, I'd say there would be a fair chance that the ship would be flying German colors. Which would make for a fun timeline.

The ships, if they could live up to their paper statistics would be powerful units, but if the Soviets built them, I suspect the first one or two off the line would be....substandard. Substantially so. That said, if they lived up to their paper stats, the USSR still didn't have a record of using their existing capital ships well, so it's possible that she gets sunk accomplishing nothing except giving Stalin a massive coronary.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

Add to that, a second of the class had many defective rivets (Substandard quality, significantly so). Honestly, the entire project was plagued with almost a ludicrous degree of incompetence.

Honestly, they'd be best off doing what the Japanese did with Kongo. Order one from Britain/Germany/USA, and then attempt to make others on the plans, with the one that you have serving a model. Granted, Stalin wanted 15 of them (!) and I think that is always out of reach.

With Kongo, it helped that Japan already had a tradition of military shipbuilding, were able to identify where they were deficient, and they knew enough to know what they didn't know. Stalin was trying to build a fleet from scratch which is always a disaster in the making.

 

[weasel_airlift]

With Kongo, it helped that Japan already had a tradition of military shipbuilding, were able to identify where they were deficient, and they knew enough to know what they didn't know. Stalin was trying to build a fleet from scratch which is always a disaster in the making.

Particularly since you didn't have a chance to learn from mistakes...

 

[1Big Rich]

They weren't a member of the treaties. One ship doesn't make a lot of difference, especially if you have the plans. There is the whole communism thing, but times were still hard, and that's a fair amount of money. Add to that, the UK had a history of considering under construction ships as a sort of reserve, willingly seizing them for their own use. (See: Agincourt, Erin, Canada, many smaller ships).

The treaties did prohibit the contracted parties from constructing ships for non-contracting parties outside the treaty limits. So any battleship built for the Soviets by a treaty power is going to be limited to 35,000 tons and 16in (or 14in after Second London) guns.

Of course, if Stalin commissioned Germany to do it, I'd say there would be a fair chance that the ship would be flying German colors. Which would make for a fun timeline.

True, but that's also a lot of steel won't be turned into tanks....

... so it's possible that she gets sunk accomplishing nothing except giving Stalin a massive coronary.

And you still managed a happy ending!!

AIGF,

 

[weasel_airlift]

The treaties did prohibit the contracted parties from constructing ships for non-contracting parties outside the treaty limits. So any battleship built for the Soviets by a treaty power is going to be limited to 35,000 tons and 16in (or 14in after Second London) guns.

I didn't recall that. So that limits to someone comfortable with blatant cheating. Or a different ship altogether, which is outside of the scope of the discussion

True, but that's also a lot of steel won't be turned into tanks....

While that's certainly fair enough, I'm not sure how important that is. To even get this ship finished, there is no Barbarossa on schedule. Also, I imagine that Stalin will be providing at least some of the raw steel, since reasonably enough, Germany's own needs come first.

And you still managed a happy ending!!

Stalin being, well, Stalin...

The ship gets finished. Some sort of attack comes, maybe even it's Stalin as the aggressor, so Germany ends up leading a coalition against communism. Stalin orders the navy to sortie, and accomplish some nebulous goal, without sufficient escort or training. The ship gets jumped by aircraft slowed, and sinks. Or, for extra points, beaches in Finland and is interned. (I assume Soviet damage control would be quite poor). Stalin finds out and has a massive coronary while ordering the entire navy purged.

 

[1Big Rich]

I didn't recall that. So that limits to someone comfortable with blatant cheating. Or a different ship altogether, which is outside of the scope of the discussion

It's in Article XV:

Article XV

No vessel of war constructed within the jurisdiction of any of the Contracting Powers for a non-Contracting Power shall exceed the limitations as to displacement and armament prescribed by the present Treaty for vessels of a similar type which may be constructed by or for any of the Contracting Powers; provided, however, that the displacement for aircraft carriers constructed for a non-Contracting Power shall in no case exceed 27,000 tons (27,432 metric tons) standard displacement.

The ship gets finished. Some sort of attack comes, maybe even it's Stalin as the aggressor, so Germany ends up leading a coalition against communism. Stalin orders the navy to sortie, and accomplish some nebulous goal, without sufficient escort or training. The ship gets jumped by aircraft slowed, and sinks. Or, for extra points, beaches in Finland and is interned. (I assume Soviet damage control would be quite poor). Stalin finds out and has a massive coronary while ordering the entire navy purged.

Always a possibility of Stalin being the aggressor, but your scenario is not unreasonable. In the Baltic, mines are always a threat, even from past wars. IIRC, there are parts of the Baltic closed to navigation today because of the threat...

Regards,

 

[weasel_airlift]

Always a possibility of Stalin being the aggressor, but your scenario is not unreasonable. In the Baltic, mines are always a threat, even from past wars. IIRC, there are parts of the Baltic closed to navigation today because of the threat...

Well, he was in the Winter War, so being the aggressor again (Perhaps against Poland, maybe elsewhere. In a TL where Hitler is either not in power, or is successfully talked into waiting) isn't out of the question. You raise a good point about the mines, a TL could have the Russian crew run the ship into an old minefield, or even a current Russian one for irony points. For extra points, have it happen when they are taking it home from the German yard. Of course, it that happened, I'm sure that Stalin would be convinced of German treachery, and probably attack.

 

[sloreck]

Soviet, and currently, naval construction has always been a problem. Sure many of their ships during the Cold War were bristling with armamment, but had significant reliability issues and living conditions pretty much resembled a floating Gulag. Smaller ships and subs could be pretty decent, although stolen or "acquired" technology (like the infamous propeller machining incident) was often a keystone. Even now look at their one and only carrier, poorly designed poorly built and always a tug along in case it breaks down. Of course even had Stalin been gifted with a half dozen decent battleships in 1939, where would he have based them (Leningrad - bottle them up or sunk by land based air in the Baltic; Murmansk - no facilities; Crimea/Black Sea - really?). Manning them would have been a significant problem, and not just the average sailors as there were not officers with the sort of experience to manage these sorts of ships.

 

[Alanith]

Soviet, and currently, naval construction has always been a problem. Sure many of their ships during the Cold War were bristling with armamment, but had significant reliability issues and living conditions pretty much resembled a floating Gulag. Smaller ships and subs could be pretty decent, although stolen or "acquired" technology (like the infamous propeller machining incident) was often a keystone. Even now look at their one and only carrier, poorly designed poorly built and always a tug along in case it breaks down. Of course even had Stalin been gifted with a half dozen decent battleships in 1939, where would he have based them (Leningrad - bottle them up or sunk by land based air in the Baltic; Murmansk - no facilities; Crimea/Black Sea - really?). Manning them would have been a significant problem, and not just the average sailors as there were not officers with the sort of experience to manage these sorts of ships.

Pretty much, I can imagine a constant stream of officers and crew sent to the Gulag for the slightest problems occuring with Stalin's prize warships.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

The treaties did prohibit the contracted parties from constructing ships for non-contracting parties outside the treaty limits. So any battleship built for the Soviets by a treaty power is going to be limited to 35,000 tons and 16in (or 14in after Second London) guns.
,

The Treaties had effectively lapsed by April 1937 and in 1938 the remaining Signatories which still included Germany via the AGNA effectively activated Article 25 - of course the treaty was worth less than used bog roll on Sept 1st 1939!


"Article 25 however gave the right to depart limitations if any other country authorised, constructed or acquired a capital ship, an aircraft carrier, or a submarine exceeding treaty limits, if such a departure would be necessary for the national security. For this reason, in 1938 the treaty parties agreed on a new displacement limit of 45,000 tons for battleships."


So this is why the 6 SoDaks and NoCals were built with 16" guns and the Iowas were built to 45,000 tons


Russia was never a signatory so could pretty much do whatever they liked.

 

[Kalga]

Russia was never a signatory so could pretty much do what ever they liked.

The Soviets were never invited to the naval treaties because as far as naval matters were concerned they were a nobodies in the relevant time period.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

The Soviets were never invited to the naval treaties because as far as naval matters were concerned they were a nobodies in the relevant time period.

Exactly - and building 15 Sovetsky Soyuz BBs would show those Capatalist swine.......

 

[weasel_airlift]

Exactly - and building 15 Sovetsky Soyuz BBs would show those Capatalist swine.......

Out oars! We'll row off Spithead to show off our spiffy new ships!

 

[1Big Rich]

The Treaties had effectively lapsed by April 1937 and in 1938 the remaining Signatories which still included Germany via the AGNA effectively activated Article 25 - of course the treaty was worth less than used bog roll on Sept 1st 1939!

Cryhavoc,

In my opinion any Soviet capital ship laid down in a treaty country that late is never going to see Soviet service. It will be appropriated by the building country when the international situation deteriorates.

But I was referring to weasel_airlift's earlier idea where he said:

Honestly, they'd be best off doing what the Japanese did with Kongo. Order one from Britain/Germany/USA, and then attempt to make others on the plans, with the one that you have serving a model.

If the Soviets are going to get a battleship from a foreign yard to copy, they're going to have to do it early enough to actually have the ship delivered. The early '30s would be ideal in my opinion, but it would be treaty limited when built by any of the signatories.

"Article 25 however gave the right to depart limitations if any other country authorised, constructed or acquired a capital ship, an aircraft carrier, or a submarine exceeding treaty limits, if such a departure would be necessary for the national security. For this reason, in 1938 the treaty parties agreed on a new displacement limit of 45,000 tons for battleships."


So this is why the 6 SoDaks and NoCals were built with 16" guns and the Iowas were built to 45,000 tons

As I recall, the escalator clause was invoked in two parts, the US first (March?) notifying Britain (and France, IIRC) that it was going to 16in guns, then later (April?) notifying it was going to 45,000 tons. But even with the escalator clause, the North Carolinas, South Dakotas and Iowas are still treaty designs.

Certainly had they been completed the Sovietsky Soyuz class would have been outside the treaty limits, and like Bismarck, an inefficient use of tonnage.

Russia was never a signatory so could pretty much do whatever they liked.

Quite true, but also within the limits of their industry. The Obukhov works were still having trouble producing big guns and mountings, and as pointed out, turbines and reduction gears would likely have delayed the ships.

Regards,

 

[weasel_airlift]

If the Soviets are going to get a battleship from a foreign yard to copy, they're going to have to do it early enough to actually have the ship delivered. The early '30s would be ideal in my opinion, but it would be treaty limited when built by any of the signatories.

Well, Barbarossa automatically forgoes the completion. So, because of that, I like the idea of having Germany building and delivering.