# Talk:Gangut-class battleship

How could the Sovjets transfer a battleship to the Black sea Fleet? Wasn't the Bosporaus Strait off-limits to large warships due to a treaty?

No, not at that time. See Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Turkish Straits. Nevfennas 19:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah thanks, that explains it rather neatly. thestor 07:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the 1945 edition of Jane's this class of ships had icebreaking bows, making them the only icebreaking battleships ever built.  The article does hint at this but does not explicitly state so.  Is this failure an oversight or is this in some way disputed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk • contribs) 04:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 

I believe just Gangut And Sevestapol had the ice breaking bows upon completion, and therefore were slightly larger. Sevestapol and Gangut were the longest at 184.9 meters long, although Gangut and Poltava would have been left abandoned from 1918-1925. 2601:985:477F:8E50:B0BC:7275:3D1:2D46 (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Where did information come about Type Sevastopol ships having name of last ship in series? Which was launched and commissioned last but somehow become lead-ship.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GunLinser (talk • contribs) 19:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gangut-class battleship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016042711/http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/russia/battleships/gangut2/gangut.html to http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/russia/battleships/gangut2/gangut.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Were the boilers Admiralty or Yarrow types?  Recent (unsourced) changes have changed this from Admiralty to Yarrow, and they're not the same thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

My source says Yarrow Admiralty-type small-tube boilers. Which is the better link, Yarrow or Admiralty-type? I'm not even sure about an Admiralty type in the teens when these ships were built.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
From the age, Yarrow does look more likely - but that's sheer OR. What do sources say and how did 'Admiralty' get in there in the first place?  Also, what were they? Do they have downcomers?  Straight tubes or curves into cylindrical water drums? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
You know how much attention boilers get in ordinary warship articles :-( All my other sources call them Yarrow boilers with the only more detailed reference in Conway's being that they were much lighter than Belleville boilers which improved the speed of the ships by 1.5 knots.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I still keep meaning to do an article on the Battle of the Boilers and the large tube / small tube question.  This is just the country and era of ship where it was a live question.
If there's nothing clear stating "Admiralty", then go with Yarrow. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Sevastopol1947-1948.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Under "Design and Construction", this article makes reference to a Vickers Dreadnought Design that was almost adopted by the Russian Navy: "The requirements for a new class of dreadnoughts were in a state of flux during 1907, but Vickers Ltd submitted a design that met the latest specifications and was very nearly accepted by the Navy for a 22,000-long-ton (22,000 t) ship with twelve 12-inch (305 mm) guns in triple, superimposed turrets. However rumors of a contract with Vickers raised a public outcry as they had some problems with the armored cruiser Rurik then building in England." 
I can find no source referenced for this included in the article. It would be good to have this claim referenced, if only to guide readers interested in looking into it further.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C83B:5300:64E4:9134:9266:967F (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC) 

The source is at the end of the paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The infobox says 4 ships planned, 4 ships constructed, 1 ship lost, 4 ships scrapped.  The math doesn't add up.  I'm guessing someone is counting Marat as "lost" and also scrapped, which would be incorrect - Marat was salvaged after being bombed, so it should not count as lost.  Unless someone knows of a good reason why 4 ships should become 5, the infobox should be corrected.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:C7C0:E1B1:B378:4317:DEF (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC) 

Good catch--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)