Izmail *DONE*

With 24 of them in total, that would be enough to consider bristling for me at least. Anyone have any idea hiw these 24 guns were placed?

Why are we including this WWI era ship in the deck? (According to Wikipedia - see excerpt below) the ship was decommissioned before WWII, and if it hadn't been it very well could have been converted to a carrier... There's a what if the Russian Fleet could use.

From Wikipedia:
In May 1925, the Operational Administration of the Soviet Navy contemplated converting Izmail into an aircraft carrier with a top speed of 27 knots (50 km/h; 31 mph) and a capacity of 50 aircraft. She would have been armed with eight 183-millimetre (7.2 in) guns and her armour reduced to a maximum of 76 millimetres (3.0 in). This proposal was approved by Alexey Rykov, Chairman of the Council of the People's Commissars on 6 July 1925, but the Red Army was strongly opposed to spending more money on naval projects. They managed to block the project by gaining control of a commission appointed to review the needs of the Navy in December, which cancelled the project on 16 March 1926. Izmail was scrapped beginning in 1931 in Leningrad.

Its the only option for a mid range battleship for the reds in 1941.

Constellation, Amagi, Tosa, caracollio are all assumed to be modernised. Same here

If theyre in barbettes then they add zero to AA scores.

Nope, after 1924 the Red Navy considered it an aircraft carrier and had no intention of finishing it off as a battleship. Work on the conversion had started, but financial maneuvering by the Army sapped the budget. Izmail was eventually scrapped in 31. So it never got a 'modernization' plan. But one would have to believe it would be similar to the Ganguts. So torpedo bulges, submerged torp tubes removed, improved fire control and allied radar, AA and armor improvements. The Soviets kept the Gangut's barbets in use, so you would assume that would hold true for Izmail.

Here is the Gangut Modernization from Navypedia for reference. Does not include all the AA added
"In 1928-1938 all three survived battleships have serially passed modernizations in which course have received more developed superstructures with fore funnel gracefully curved back, and also superstructure for the bow for seaworthiness improvement. Thus the type and the form of a foremast and a superstructures on all ships in this or that slightly differed. Also turbines were completely changed by the new ones intended for Izmail class battlecruisers, and also new oil-burning boilers were fitted. These measures have allowed to keep speed at former level, despite the increased displacement. On trials Marat has shown 23.8kts; Oktyabrskaya Revolyutsiya 22.87kts. Parizhskaya Kommuna has received the strengthened deck armour that has negatively affected a stability. Therefore during the second stage of modernization (1939-1941) ship received the bulges which have increased a hull beam on 5.6 m, their 50mm sides gave additional vertical side protection. Underwater protection depth was thus increased to 6.1m. Thus, her original sisterships to the Great Patriotic War beginning had a number of significant differences."

Individually
(Autumn 1928 - 5/1931), Marat: boilers were rebuilt for burning oil (1950t max stowage), 3 boilers were removed (22 boilers remained), main engines were overhauled (61100shp, 23.8kts), clipper bow was built (length oa was 184.9m), 75mm part of upper belt between stem and barbette No 1 was dismantled, 100mm bulkhead was installed between medium and forecastle decks at frame No14. Fore mast was rebuilt, fore funnel was curved. Displacement was 24230 / 26700t.

(9/1931 - 8/1934), Oktyabrskaya Revolyutsiya: all old boilers were replaced by 12 new oil-burning ones, main engines were overhauled (60600shp, 22.5kts, max 2018t of oil), new clipper bow increased length oa to 184.9m, 75mm part of upper belt between stem and barbette No 1 was dismantled, 50mm bulkhead was installed between medium and forecastle decks at frame No14. Fore mast was rebuilt, fore funnel was curved. + 4 x 1 - 45/44 21K, 1 seaplane (without catapult). Displacement was 24234 / 26692t.

1939, Marat, Oktyabrskaya Revolyutsiya: turret roofs armour thickness was increased from 76 to 152mm.

(11/1933 - 1/1938), Parizhskaya Kommuna: all old boilers were replaced by 12 new oil-burning ones, main engines were overhauled (60600shp, 22.5kts, max 2115t of oil), new clipper bow increased length oa to 184.9m, 75mm part of upper belt between stem and barbette No 1 was dismantled, 50mm bulkhead was installed between medium and forecastle decks at frame No14. 25mm medium deck between end barbettes was replaced by 75mm one, turret roofs armour thickness was increased from 76 to 152mm. Fore mast was rebuilt, fore funnel was curved. Maximal angle of main guns elevation was increased to 40°. - 6 x 1 - 76/28, 4 - 450 TT; + 6 x 1 - 76/52 34K, 6 x 1 - 45/44 21K, 12 x 1 - 12.7/79, 2 seaplanes (without catapult) (11/1939 - 2/1941), Parizhskaya Kommuna: bulges were fitted, these bulges were 144m long, extended to upper deck and had 50mm outer plating (so maximal side protection was 275mm), breadth was increased to 32.5m. Underwater protection was 6.1m deep and could resist exploding of 170kg TNT. Displacement rose from 25070/27190 to 27060 / 30395t.

The logic for bristling with guns is that the Izmail had 24 secondaries, but they were in barbets restricting to 12 a side. So the choices were

1 Give it on inflated secondaries line, 8/7/6 or something.

2 Stats for just 12 secondaries, 6/5/4 and give it bristling with guns.

3 Stats for secondaries and tertiaries. 6/5/4 and 5/4/3 or something like that.

I think the thought for BWG was to force the unit to uses its secondary(ies) attacks on two different units and not concentrate it on one enemy. The fear of the inflated line (1) that trying to count all 24 at once could give an attack that was too high for 5.1 guns. And the argument against secondaries and tertiary was that it could use both against the same target. SO BWG is actually a restriction when compared to a second and third attack line.