Kronshtadt Displacement

Discussion in 'Construction' started by Flakman08, Oct 9, 2011.

  1. Flakman08

    Flakman08 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Posts:
    34
    I know its not the greatest resource, but its the free one...Wikipedia says displacement of the Kronshtadt was 39,660 metric tons standard after its revisions. I have read multiple displacements on this ship. What revision counts and how many units would it receive based on its displacement under Treaty Rules?
     
  2. Flakman08

    Flakman08 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Posts:
    34
    I am referencing the revision and submitted order for October 1940, as Project 69-I (Importnyi—Imported) when they changed from 9 11.1in turrets to 6 15in turrets, which was the last and most current revision.
     
  3. rcengr

    rcengr Vendor

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Posts:
    1,300
    Location:
    Ohio
    The Kronshtadt is a 5.5 unit ship in Treaty. The full displacement is 38360 which allows your model to weigh up to 28.78 lbs. Guns are listed as 9 x 12". The statistics used for the Treaty ship list came from Conways I believe.
     
  4. Flakman08

    Flakman08 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Posts:
    34
    lol...was hoping for that extra half unit
     
  5. Flakman08

    Flakman08 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Posts:
    34
    Battlecruisers of Russia by McLaughlin, Stephen (2004). "Project 69: The Kronshtadt Class Battlecruisers". lists the displacement of the project 69-I as 39660 metric tons standard
     
  6. froggyfrenchman

    froggyfrenchman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Posts:
    3,358
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    Treaty uses Conways as our primary reference. We also list the Garzke-Dulin books.
    They both list the standard displacement for the Russian battlecruisers as 35,240.
    Mikey
     
  7. glaizilla

    glaizilla Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Posts:
    375
    I am not sure if the difference in displacement from the different sources would make much of a differance in potential armaments, as a more inexperienced Captain I can say that reliability not number of units has more to do with success(read fun). More units, more cannons, more headaches, I can speak as an expert on this matter, first vessel, DKM Hindenburg, first four sorties, no cannons working, pump intermitant, two of three rudders working, etc etc, battled a Pennsylvania next with three cannons, not six, and had alot more fun, now I am running the Hindenburg, but she has been completely rebuilt on the inside. I would recommend building the ship you like, and then making it work for you, even with an extra half unit, it wont be a deciding factor. Not trying to rant or drive you off, we want to help you to build what ever ship you like for what ever reason you like the ship.
     
  8. Tugboat

    Tugboat Facilitator RCWC Staff Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Posts:
    8,300
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    Good thoughts, Glaizilla. I most heartily second the opinion. Reliability wins battles! Every frustrating moment I've had on the pond(s) has been due to a system failure somewhere on my ship, not a one due to enemy action :) I've operated everything from a light cruiser up through a mighty Vanguard class battleship, but I have found it's easier to get the reliability thing down with 3 or 4 guns. I guarantee you'll still have fun, regardless of format. :)
     
  9. Kun2112

    Kun2112 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Posts:
    710
    To add another voice to Matt and Clark's: don't do what I do and "finish" a boat after midnight the day before a battle. That whole reliability thing gets you every time.