The Japanese also sold 2 Ibuki-class armored cruisers modified to have an all 10/45 gun main armament. It's true the cost of 7 major ships were expensive to the Peruvians. They basically became a Japanese protectorate but in the long run the payments Japan received throughout the '20s paid off for them.
I really like but would she not really have to be a capital ship with the Sovereigns name attached, cant really pretend a nuclear 65kt CVN is a through deck escort cruiser?
With Peru being a protectorate the US might want the Peruvian ships to be counted against the Japanese tonnage. Or they might decide that the WNT is not worth bothering with, or Britain would complain that they can't provide ships to their dominions which means that it gives Japan an unfair loophole.
Neither the US or the UK want Japanese influence in South America, and they have the economic muscle to prevent it. After all they can both give Peru better deals on better warships than Japan can offer.
And paying off 7 capital ships undergoing major refits isn't really plausible. The largest ship Peru have at this point is the 3200 ton Almirante Grau class of 2 vessels. I doubt they have the money or trained manpower for this fleet. And that is not even talking about the lighter ships they would need to get as they only have 2 old scout cruisers and 1 destroyer.
Suggest to Japan that they regard the Monroe doctrine as sacred and will do some very bad stuff if Japan doesn't go home..... as in yesterday and take everything or we will embargo your trade and out build you massively and fortify the PIs and give free stuff to China....
This is the sticking point. This exact scenario is what the US was trying to avoid, in regard to Britain. The dominions could act as a dumping point for just out-of-date battleships and other vessels, and Britain would not have to worry about approaching their cap - or could just keep even more than recommended.
So, yeah, if this happens after the WNT is signed, we have a violation of the WNT and the other nations will proceed, either giving more to dominions or simply building more ships themselves. Let's see, the ships would have a total displacement of...
14,636 x 2 + 15,950 x 2 +19,372 x 2 + 20,823 = 120739 long tons normal displacement
With 5:3 ratio...
201231.667 long tons.
Hrm...
An extra Colorado would be 32600, so that is the Washington not spent on target practice. and, with that removed, you have 168631.667 tons left over. Divide that in 4, and you get 42157.9 tons. That's just about the size of a South Dakota.
So, for giving 7 obsolescent battleships to Peru, Japan has managed to create enough tonnage that the US, at least, could conceivably claim they have the right to keep Washington and finish South Dakota, Indiana, North Carolina, and Iowa. Not the best of tradeoffs. (and not taking into account what Britain would do as well!)
One comment, requesting some advice. Been messing with the stats of a potential maximum battleship, and was messing with some numbers in Springsharp to try and establish a baseline before doing later modifications. I was trying to make it as similar to the original design as possible, with the major difference being that the ship has a fixed HP of 180k instead of the 90k as originally designed. (I think this is the same as what the Lexingtons were, but just speculating). Assuming it doesn't get laid down until 1921 as well.
I assumed the deck armor over the propulsion (in the quarterdeck) was an average of its maximum and minimum values (14" max 7" min, so 10.5") Considering that this armor is sloped, however, would it be better to assume that it is even thicker? I don't quite have a view of the angle, but I can alter it later just to bring armor weight up to expected.
I got the armor weights and hull fittings to spit out similar numbers to the original design. If I am correct, the US did not factor in separate armor weights for their protective decks? As, otherwise, the thickness of the 4 protective decks (comes out to 10" total) would lead to an additional armored deck weight of 10k tons or so, which is definitely off the expected values.
Link to original plans here.
I assumed the deck armor over the propulsion (in the quarterdeck) was an average of its maximum and minimum values (14" max 7" min, so 10.5") Considering that this armor is sloped, however, would it be better to assume that it is even thicker? I don't quite have a view of the angle, but I can alter it later just to bring armor weight up to expected.
I got the armor weights and hull fittings to spit out similar numbers to the original design. If I am correct, the US did not factor in separate armor weights for their protective decks? As, otherwise, the thickness of the 4 protective decks (comes out to 10" total) would lead to an additional armored deck weight of 10k tons or so, which is definitely off the expected values.
Link to original plans here.
Constellation, USA Maximum Battleship laid down 1921 (Engine 1922)
Displacement:
68,728 t light; 73,545 t standard; 80,007 t normal; 85,177 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(998.00 ft / 975.00 ft) x 108.00 ft x (32.75 / 34.64 ft)
(304.19 m / 297.18 m) x 32.92 m x (9.98 / 10.56 m)
Armament:
15 - 18.00" / 457 mm 48.0 cal guns - 2,900.01lbs / 1,315.42kg shells, 125 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1924 Model
2 x 3-gun mounts on centreline, forward deck forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
3 x 3-gun mounts on centreline, aft evenly spread
1 raised mount aft
21 - 6.00" / 152 mm 53.0 cal guns - 105.01lbs / 47.63kg shells, 150 per gun
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1924 Model
16 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
16 raised mounts
5 x Single mounts on centreline, aft evenly spread
5 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in heavy seas
6 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm 50.0 cal guns - 24.01lbs / 10.89kg shells, 150 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1924 Model
6 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
6 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 45,849 lbs / 20,797 kg
2nd Torpedoes
4 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 0.00 ft / 0.00 m torpedoes - 0.000 t each, 0.000 t total
In 1 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 531.67 ft / 162.05 m 19.88 ft / 6.06 m
Ends: 1.88" / 48 mm 150.00 ft / 45.72 m 19.88 ft / 6.06 m
293.33 ft / 89.41 m Unarmoured ends
Main Belt covers 84 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined -3.00 degrees (positive = in)
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 21.0" / 533 mm 10.0" / 254 mm 15.0" / 381 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm - -
- Protected deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 0.00" / 0 mm
Forecastle: 0.00" / 0 mm Quarter deck: 10.50" / 267 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 18.00" / 457 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 180,002 shp / 134,281 Kw = 28.73 kts
Range 12,243nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 11,632 tons
Complement:
2,378 - 3,092
Cost:
£20.244 million / $80.977 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 9,679 tons, 12.1 %
- Guns: 9,679 tons, 12.1 %
Armour: 19,647 tons, 24.6 %
- Belts: 7,644 tons, 9.6 %
- Armament: 8,974 tons, 11.2 %
- Armour Deck: 2,310 tons, 2.9 %
- Conning Tower: 720 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 6,106 tons, 7.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 33,296 tons, 41.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 11,279 tons, 14.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
101,976 lbs / 46,256 Kg = 35.0 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 4.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.00
Metacentric height 5.6 ft / 1.7 m
Roll period: 19.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 59 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 1.89
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.38
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a straight bulbous bow and small transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.812 / 0.817
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.03 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 33.15 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 43
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 37.94 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 18.00 %, 29.50 ft / 8.99 m, 29.50 ft / 8.99 m
- Forward deck: 35.13 %, 29.50 ft / 8.99 m, 29.50 ft / 8.99 m
- Aft deck: 29.53 %, 29.50 ft / 8.99 m, 29.50 ft / 8.99 m
- Quarter deck: 17.33 %, 29.50 ft / 8.99 m, 29.50 ft / 8.99 m
- Average freeboard: 29.50 ft / 8.99 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 78.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 225.7 %
Waterplane Area: 95,527 Square feet or 8,875 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 105 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 286 lbs/sq ft or 1,396 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.14
- Longitudinal: 1.28
- Overall: 1.15
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
Displacement:
68,728 t light; 73,545 t standard; 80,007 t normal; 85,177 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(998.00 ft / 975.00 ft) x 108.00 ft x (32.75 / 34.64 ft)
(304.19 m / 297.18 m) x 32.92 m x (9.98 / 10.56 m)
Armament:
15 - 18.00" / 457 mm 48.0 cal guns - 2,900.01lbs / 1,315.42kg shells, 125 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1924 Model
2 x 3-gun mounts on centreline, forward deck forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
3 x 3-gun mounts on centreline, aft evenly spread
1 raised mount aft
21 - 6.00" / 152 mm 53.0 cal guns - 105.01lbs / 47.63kg shells, 150 per gun
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1924 Model
16 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
16 raised mounts
5 x Single mounts on centreline, aft evenly spread
5 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in heavy seas
6 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm 50.0 cal guns - 24.01lbs / 10.89kg shells, 150 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1924 Model
6 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
6 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 45,849 lbs / 20,797 kg
2nd Torpedoes
4 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 0.00 ft / 0.00 m torpedoes - 0.000 t each, 0.000 t total
In 1 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 531.67 ft / 162.05 m 19.88 ft / 6.06 m
Ends: 1.88" / 48 mm 150.00 ft / 45.72 m 19.88 ft / 6.06 m
293.33 ft / 89.41 m Unarmoured ends
Main Belt covers 84 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined -3.00 degrees (positive = in)
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 21.0" / 533 mm 10.0" / 254 mm 15.0" / 381 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm - -
- Protected deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 0.00" / 0 mm
Forecastle: 0.00" / 0 mm Quarter deck: 10.50" / 267 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 18.00" / 457 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 180,002 shp / 134,281 Kw = 28.73 kts
Range 12,243nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 11,632 tons
Complement:
2,378 - 3,092
Cost:
£20.244 million / $80.977 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 9,679 tons, 12.1 %
- Guns: 9,679 tons, 12.1 %
Armour: 19,647 tons, 24.6 %
- Belts: 7,644 tons, 9.6 %
- Armament: 8,974 tons, 11.2 %
- Armour Deck: 2,310 tons, 2.9 %
- Conning Tower: 720 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 6,106 tons, 7.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 33,296 tons, 41.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 11,279 tons, 14.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
101,976 lbs / 46,256 Kg = 35.0 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 4.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.00
Metacentric height 5.6 ft / 1.7 m
Roll period: 19.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 59 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 1.89
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.38
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a straight bulbous bow and small transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.812 / 0.817
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.03 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 33.15 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 43
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 37.94 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 18.00 %, 29.50 ft / 8.99 m, 29.50 ft / 8.99 m
- Forward deck: 35.13 %, 29.50 ft / 8.99 m, 29.50 ft / 8.99 m
- Aft deck: 29.53 %, 29.50 ft / 8.99 m, 29.50 ft / 8.99 m
- Quarter deck: 17.33 %, 29.50 ft / 8.99 m, 29.50 ft / 8.99 m
- Average freeboard: 29.50 ft / 8.99 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 78.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 225.7 %
Waterplane Area: 95,527 Square feet or 8,875 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 105 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 286 lbs/sq ft or 1,396 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.14
- Longitudinal: 1.28
- Overall: 1.15
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
Modern battleships would be designed using the "Armoured decks - multiple decks" option, I think. Using protected decks would increase the angle at which incoming fire impacts the armor (closer to perpendicular) and therefore reducing the effective depth of the armor. Also, only having quarterdeck armor means that there is only armor on the rear part of the ship over the steering gear and no armor over the citadel.
Whats frustrating me with this thread now is people are just using springsharp and half arsing some info about the ship, this isn't even really an alternate warships thread anymore.
I'm not sure I agree some of the other ship are simply so outlandish they might as well be in the ASB forum what's wrong with Siming ships? (admittedly I don't think Springsharp really works for maximum battleships due to its database)
Anyway to keep you happy my token gesture,
Type 71 Arctic littoral combat ship
Great Britannia built the type 71 ships for the royal Navy to defend its Polar and Antarctic territory. The type 71 can be described as a specialist cold weather fusion powered hovercraft, it is able to operate on sea ice and snow covered land. It incorporated many new technologies and abilities and was a considered a resounding success coming in both on time and on budget.
Type 71 S class
HMS Suffolk
HMS Sydney
HMS Shannon
HMS Southampton
HMS Saskatchewan
S class batch II
HMS Swiftsure
HMS Sirius
HMS Spartan
HMS Sentinel
HMS Scylla
HMS Sirius
HMS Serpent
Interesting.I'm not sure I agree some of the other ship are simply so outlandish they might as well be in the ASB forum what's wrong with Siming ships? (admittedly I don't think Springsharp really works for maximum battleships due to its database)
Anyway to keep you happy my token gesture,
Type 71 Arctic littoral combat ship
Great Britannia built the type 71 ships for the royal Navy to defend its Polar and Antarctic territory. The type 71 can be described as a specialist cold weather fusion powered hovercraft, it is able to operate on sea ice and snow covered land. It incorporated many new technologies and abilities and was a considered a resounding success coming in both on time and on budget.
Type 71 S class
HMS Suffolk
HMS Sydney
HMS Shannon
HMS Southampton
HMS Saskatchewan
S class batch II
HMS Swiftsure
HMS Sirius
HMS Spartan
HMS Sentinel
HMS Scylla
HMS Sirius
HMS Serpent
Polar and Antarctic Territory?
Scotty for the win?
Aye, I'm aware of that. It's my problem, as there is no deck armor even shown on the diagram - it is only listed in poundage for the deck plating. In that sense, I think the US designers here actually integrated the deck armor with the structure of the ship rather than plating armor on top.
Let me show the diagram in question. I'll point out below there is plenty of armor over the shafts, back on the quarterdeck. However, for the citadel, the only armor listed is for 200# and 180# plate, which translates to about 5 and 4.5 inches each (assuming 40 pounds per inch). However, as shown on the armor scheme, it's not treated as plate armor, but as part of the internal structure. So I'm not sure how to represent it in the program, if at all.
My initial thought, but it's more just trying to get it in the area so I can use it to estimate what the addition of the similar bulging as done to the Tennessee would be.
Considering I was trying to establish to do a future modified version of the ship, as I posted on the previous page... This was just a baseline I need help establishing before a refit could be considered - I needed help with a section, and it was better to ask than to do nothing.
I mean, is that not alternate enough? Even so, this thread does have plenty of experienced users here to assist and are skilled enough with the system to assist.
He's made a complaint similar to this here before.
One of the few times he's posted here..
Recently I came across this shipbucket design, of a refitted Hood (obviously)
I quite like it, although I don't like the space between the Main Tower and the first funnel.
Regarding the forward superstructure, it's a bit unique, sort of a blend of Hood, Nelson and the cruisers bridge designs. Does anyone know the basis of it?
I quite like it, although I don't like the space between the Main Tower and the first funnel.
Regarding the forward superstructure, it's a bit unique, sort of a blend of Hood, Nelson and the cruisers bridge designs. Does anyone know the basis of it?
i like the look but that's wasted space between the funnel and forward tower. Really wonder what would of happened had she had a full overhaul/ refit when she was supposed.
I've been messing with RTW of late on some interesting Pre WWI and twenty builds. For the RN and USN and some French navy also.
Try here on HMS Hood.com.
http://www.hmshood.com/history/construct/repair42.htm
These are theorized drawings based upon the admiralty specs for the rebuild.
http://www.hmshood.com/history/construct/repair42.htm
These are theorized drawings based upon the admiralty specs for the rebuild.
Ok firstly I do want to apologise to you all, having a really bad day mentally is no excuse for acting like a tit, it really is up to people how they wish to do these. The fact people work hard on them and love doing what they do with them is up to them and should be encouraged.
Secondly, it is nice to see how much people like to share this stuff and create their own universes based on them, again should be encouraged.
Secondly, it is nice to see how much people like to share this stuff and create their own universes based on them, again should be encouraged.