WesWorld

Just curious how did we get the 12:1 ratio? I seem to recall heavy discussion on the 11;1 ratio being the preferance, hence the "(as currently proposed)" tagline.

I want to clairify, I'm not disputing the limit, I'm just trying to recall how we reached those limits.

Perhaps because there were a few historical designs over 11:1

Walter is right. There were some historical designs with a l:b ratio beyond 11:1. Hence we set the limit for WW to 12:1.

So, I wasn´t commenting on the l:b ratio because I thought she could not be build even thought she´s clearly at the upper end of to what we agreed.

However, her hull will surely suffer from extraordinary stress to the longitudal strength elements. Being a tin can she´ll be lightly build and I expect her to flex more than ships with a lower l:b. And if pushed to the limits....in a storm out ther in the North Sea or Atlantic Ocean.....

Note that I´m aware of our agreement on ships length in relation to docks and slips. However, I was under the impression we corrected that when SS2.0 was available. My fault - guess I had a private conversation with somebody regarding that point and memory mixed things up. I´m getting old, you know... ;o)

So, for the future, how will we deal with docks? Like we did before (waterline length). Would be easiest, wouldn´t it?

Yes, waterline length for drydocks is what we agreed, and I think that's the way it should stay.

Quoted

I´m getting old, you know... ;o)

You're not the only one...

Not sure about other options but the way I see it, it would be either as it is right now, or slips using length (w.l.) and docks using length (o.a.).
Personally I think that it should remain as it is since I do not see any impact the length (o.a.) has on the SS designs, except to give a bit more info on how the ship looks like. If it did have an impact on the SS design (better seakeeping, more HS, or something like that), I might have gone for the other option.

Okay, fine with me. Personally I´ll go with length over all as I did in the past anyway.

Hmmmm, I see my memory was faulty: for some reason I was thinking that 1500, rather than 1600, tons was the cut-off for CT category (b) destroyers. So I've got a bit more tonnage to play with than I thought I had on these, which will allow them to grow a little bit in beam.

Is a 4" gun adequate to deal with 1500 ton DD? Given that the HSF went from 3.5" to 4.1" during WW1 and then finally to 5.9" why go back to 4.1" when foreign DD are at 1500 tons (not 1000 tons as in WW1)?

I'm sure tallented German gun designers would be able to come up with a 5" gun in short order? DP? You only need MG to shoo away planes. ; )

Cheers,

The 105mm is regarded as what's available NOW to fill the need. The Navy would LIKE to have something in the 128-130mm range instead, but given how late the real-world Germans were to produce something like that, I'm taking my time. The thinking is that 6 105mm's, vs the 3-4 of Great War TBs, with hoists and enclosed, protected mountings rather than open deck mounts, should be able to put out enough shells to get the job done. They won't hit with the authority of a larger round, but the numbers should add up. Not to mention that looking around there are a fair number of DDs with similar, or lighter, armaments.

And while it's possible to shoo away aircraft with MGs and ligh cannon in 1929, it's regarded as doubtful that it will remain so over the 15+ year lifespan of new-production DDs.

The 1500 t limit came from Germany's WW-Versaille limits.

Eleven destroyers built by Germany in the early '20s used an Iberian-designed 130 mm gun...so a such a weapon is available, though not domestic....

Ah, right, that 1500t limit, so that's where my brain was.... Hmmmm, that would work well, then, I can leave these as is and lay the first ones down in 1929, a planned build regardless of what happens with the Copenhagen talks.

Is the Iberian 130mm a DP mount, though? Given the date of first manufacture (and the 88mm carried on those destroyers), I'm doubtful. Yeah, I might be able to justify it, but I'd rather not have Germany producing a 5" or 5.1" DP gun in 1929, because then I should use it everywhere and the upcoming BBs get it and look like US BBs, rather than German BBs.