Talk:Sverdlov-class cruiser

Translate

To quote:

Operating on their own as commerce raiders they would be extremely vulnerable in good weather to USN aircraft carriers and the few remaining Baltimore, 8 inch gunned cruisers, but the RNs few remaining Colony and Tiger class gun cruisers probably lacked the range [2] and speed to provide any answer and the Daring and Forrest Sherman inchoate cruiser destroyer, didn't, if as planned the Sverdlovs had been used to intercept trade with major UK food basket in the Plate off Buenos Aires, the Battle of North Cape suggesting the Royal Navy trade route cruisers, lacked the rough water speed and armour to deal with, even solo heavy raiders, unless aided by communications intercept and heavy guns.

I'm sure this means...something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.63.166 (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggest consultation- A.Clarke. 'Sverdlov Class cruisers, and the RN Response on Global Maritime History source. The relevant Russian Navy and British Admiralty files suggest the Sverdlovs were intended as Prinz Eugen/ Graf Spee commerce raiders intended to hit in Plate against the UK/ Argentina and as political warships of presence in the contested third world as much as for coastal anti sub and anti cruser ops off the Arctic Russian coast and in the Baltic Med and Black Sea. The official RN assesment of the threat was high to justify planned new carriers and actual built asymetrical response ( Clarke) of the Buccanear and its tactical nuclear attack. But in reality the threat posed by the Sverdlovs was considered rather modest by the RN and the initial RN Cruiser/Destroyer design was simply a Mitscher copy lite which would have fitted with 3/ US single 5 inch 54 calibre auto and 3/50 calibre AA. The abundant RN budget expected during the Korean War and with the election of the supposed all the way with RN, Winston Churchill led to the upgraded specs of the stillborne UK 5 inch/62 calibre and 3/70 armament but cost and the fact a twin 5/62 was the size of a Tiger twin Mk 26 mean nothing happened as the NA 39 strike aircraft combined with a Daring Destroyer squadron or even a couple of T41 Leopards on the South Atlantic stations was almost seen as an adequtte counter. Post cold war the Sverdlov could be reassesed as far more capable that thought combining an update of orginal Kreigsmarine Hipper / Prinz Eugen 4 X 6 inch main armament with the latest US/ German hull construction and subdivision and 6 inch well designed armour and likely performance that meant off the North Cape a Colony/ Tiger update had neither the speed, size or armour to be relevant ( Clarke)- paraphase and elaboration — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.175.44 (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Radars

Three points:

A. There are four different air search radars listed. Some information on why they were all there (or what they did) would be helpful.

B. There are three different gun fire control radars. Some information on why they were all there (or what they did) would be helpful.

C. The line '1x 'Knife Rest' air search radar*' end with an asterisk as if there is a note but I cannot see one.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

My impression is that the radar equipment differ between ships of this class. The most common air-search radar should be 'Top Trough' (Kaktus) or its successor 'Big Net' (MR-500 Kliver). The only ship I've seen the 'Knife Rest' (Dolphin) on is Admiral Ushakov. It is possible that it was a part of the upgrade with AK-230 AA-guns and the 'Drum Tilt' (MR-104 Rys) FC-radar. In that case should Oktyabrskaya Revolutsia and Mikhail Kutuzov also have it, but it is gone from Kutuzov today.

There was one type of FC-radar for each type of gun. 'Top Bow' for the 152mm, 'Sun Visor' for the 100mm and 'Egg Cup' for the 37mm. 'Drum Tilt' (MR-104 Rys) was added to the ships that was upgraded with AK-230 30mm guns (Ushakov, Oktyabrskaya and Kutuzov).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.130.26 (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2011

Molotovsk

How about Molotovsk, a sister ship to Sverdlovsk? --Årvasbåo (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Renamed Oktyabrskaya Revolutsia in august 1957. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.130.26 (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

A query

The page on the Crabb affair says Sverdlov had superior manouverability due to being equipped with a bow thruster. Can anyone confirm this? There’s no mention of it in this article. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Poorly translated

Much of the article seems like it was translated from Russian by someone who is only marginally fluent in English, with the result that the translations may be a bit too literal or just plain bad. Some of the grammar may make perfect sense in Russian but it's borderline nonsensical in English. Run-on sentences, subject/verb agreement, and tense mismatches are all present in the text. Dziban303⁓talk 16:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Service / In Commission

Table at top of page list service through 2000. Lower down table listing individual ships show none in commission after 1991. Any insight into this discrepency? Wfoj3 (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wfoj3 Changed 2000 to 1992 per https://naval-encyclopedia.com/cold-war/ussr/soviet-cruisers-1947-90.php?amp=1 – Itsfullofstars ^(Talk) 18:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Dzerzhinsky

please check if the missile launcher "replaced the aft turrets in 1960-62" or only the X one. pietro/suppongoche (italian for "I feel that ...")Suppongoche (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC) The infobox contain 14 TT instead of 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suppongoche (talk • contribs) 11:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Good spot about Dzerzhinsky - now fixed.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)