Talk:Gangut-class battleship

message: 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)
replies: text: Ah thanks, that explains it rather neatly. thestor 07:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transferred?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Icebreaking Design?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gangut-class naming. 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: The source is at the end of the paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for Vickers' Dreadnought Design Candidate