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.
Yes the model of the ship which is found at the Central Naval Museum at St. Petersburg has similar sloping wall ahead the funnel like in the Project 82 but the line-drawing shows different shape of the fore superstructure. Indeed the whole siluette of this and project 82 is dictated by the desire to have two tandem-fit 130mm guns behind the usual A and B position in the center-line. It dictates the funnels to be stuck together and the bridge and superstructure to be blocked upwards in very distinctive shape. The desire to have the AA guns in the center-line seems to be rather important for the soviet designers at the time as it is mentioned and highlighted at several occasions when talking about these designs and their related "big brother" Project 24 Battleship.
Quick links
FAQ
Register
Login![[Post Reply]](./styles/legacy/theme/en/button_topic_reply.gif "Post a reply"){kind=small}
![[*]](./styles/legacy/theme/images/button_topic_tools.gif){kind=small}
![[Profile]](./styles/legacy/theme/en/icon_user_profile.gif "Profile: Obsydian Shade"){kind=icon}
![[Quote]](./styles/legacy/theme/en/icon_post_quote.gif "Reply with quote"){kind=icon}
