WesWorld

Quoted

And as for AK hypothetical ship, if the treaty collapses, who will care anyway, every one will be doing something similiar....who hasn't contemplated twin 18" turrets instead of the triple 15" turrets currently shipped?

Its not really a secret that Russia and possibly France is going remount triple 420mm guns on their ships. Even the UK is building 16.5" guns. The treaty is dead, long live the treaty?

The refit rules are for _alterations_ to equipment. Removal things that aren't bolted down is something different. The turrets are just held in place by gravity. The aircraft aren't held in place at all.

I still reckon its either nothing or 5%.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
The reason I proposed costing this refit at only 25%, instead of the 50% cost it is under the rules, is because it's only a one-way transfer: guns going off, nothing of large value going on. In the future, when it is time to reinstall the guns, then that would be another 25% charge, because again, its a one way transfer: guns going on, nothing of great value or difficulty in removing coming off.

I agree with Hrolf on the 25/25 rule or something similar.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

And as for AK hypothetical ship, if the treaty collapses, who will care anyway, every one will be doing something similiar....who hasn't contemplated twin 18" turrets instead of the triple 15" turrets currently shipped?

Its not really a secret that Russia and possibly France is going remount triple 420mm guns on their ships. Even the UK is building 16.5" guns. The treaty is dead, long live the treaty?

Rather than pointing fingers at each other, which is why I've stayed out of this conversation as long as I have, lets come up with a solution to this?

That isn't finger pointing. This is trying to adhere to the treaty. Which means taking things off the ships. It seems really stupid to pay again but massively more, for things that have already being paid for.

I would strongly recomend that we limit this discussion to the technical aspect of the issue. If the issue is that you or your nation is irritated at Italy's conduct, it should be dealt with in-character.

As I said we could discuss the actual cost for removing items and then placing them back on the ship at a later date. So far the majority feel it should cost something, otherwise we have a HUGE loophole for anyone to exploit.

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green
but we are talking about the REMOVAL of these items with NO replacement being added.

Something better be added, or the ships are gonna look awfully funny with having a permanent down angle on the bow.

I agree, ships are designed with weight placement in mind, simply removing something just causes more problems.

We are talking construction rules here right? What comes out of this effects everyone treaty or no treaty.

The situation is presented because a vessel is found to be too large for the treaty restrictions. Some thing that was found on the Lexingtons. What was done there? The guns were redesigned to fire older shells to bring the vessel into compliance. It cost something but I don't recall what the United States paid.

What rules do we have for "Vangarding"? Those might be useful in relation to the removed items in terms of reducing costs of a future rebuild/refit.

This is also similar in some respects to converting an cruiser or battleship under construction into an aircraft carrier. You stop partway though, then rebuild the ship from that point forward until you've reached your ship as is status, then continue normal construcion to until the carrier is completed.

So therefore, this vessel is being rebuilt to bring itself within weight constrictions by removing items...however the vessel will need something to trim it out as you are loosing a lot of weight in that turret. As Walter points out, it might be impossible to bring the vessel down to treaty tonnage without significant work done to make the vessel balanced and sound.

It might be simple to remove the turret and aircraft from the vessel and a relatively simple matter of riveting plates over the hole, but it will still cost a little. Afterward you'll not have as effective a ship, and it might need to have concrete or something to fill the hole/weight issue. However that might not be enough for the treaty, and therefore became an exercise in futility without a more substancial rebuild to get the vessel down to the 13,000 ton limit.

I would suggest forgoing the rebuild...and the treaty, and just keep the ships. That seems like the original plan of these vessels anyway.

Exactly, this is a rules question that does not DIRECTLY bear on the Treaty. Decisions made based on the rules question may affect the Treaty, but that's a separate issue that I'm not interested in right now.

Re: "Vanguarding", any turrets stored can later be used to reduce the cost of future builds. For instance, in this case, if Italy wanted to, the later 5-turret ACRs could use the turrets removed from the Saints and save the cost on their own builds.

Here is one solution we could have.

To take off something we could use the 25% rule and not pay anything but the ship would occupy the dock for the alloted 25% build time.

When the removed guns/stuff are put back on another vessel perhaps charge say 25% of the original cost but keep the 50% of build time for rebuilding or just reduce the overall build time by 25% for newbuilds.

Afterall reusing old turrets is meant to save money so why pay twice for something but you can't shorten the time it takes to do the job. The ship is still unuseable in the dock however much they pay

Quoted

Something better be added, or the ships are gonna look awfully funny with having a permanent down angle on the bow.

On this note, can the matter be addressed in a simple fashion - leaving some forward fuel bunkers unused, for example? Being an Italian ship, she's going to carry far more fuel than she's losing in removed weight...

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor

Quoted

Something better be added, or the ships are gonna look awfully funny with having a permanent down angle on the bow.

On this note, can the matter be addressed in a simple fashion - leaving some forward fuel bunkers unused, for example? Being an Italian ship, she's going to carry far more fuel than she's losing in removed weight...

I would think that this is a problem easily dealt with, either by ballasting (put lots of lead ingots in the magazine and around the barbette, for instance) or by, as you say, compensating in other areas.

Permanent ballast would not help matters, as it would be counted in the standard displacement. Offhand, I can't remember if ballast *water* is counted in the standard displacement; I know it isn't for submarines. If not, then some provision for ballast tanks might be possible.

is excluded from Standard Displacement calculations. Ballast is not excluded from the Cleito Treaty definition of Standard Displacement for surface ships:

"VII. STANDARD DISPLACEMENT OF A SURFACE VESSEL

The standard displacement of a ship is the displacement of the

ship complete, fully manned, engined, and equipped ready for sea,

including all armament and ammunition, equipment, outfit,

provisions and fresh water for crew, miscellaneous stores and

implements of every description that are intended to be carried

in war, but without fuel or reserve feed water on board."

So she could have lots and lots of boiler feed water to make her trim right.

It would take a bit of plumbing to make the story plausible, and might be considered an alteration to bunkerage.

Beg your pardon, gentlemen, but I don´t understand your problem.

Our rules how to build/rebuild a ship state that re-using existing turrets cuts down your building time by a month.

"2.3.3 Re-using guns taken off a ship scrapped

Before scrapping a ship her guns can be taken off her and re-used when building new vessels. If those guns are installed as a new designs main armament, the building time for that new vessel is reduced by 1 month (not impairing slip time). If those guns are installed as a new designs secondary armament, the building time for that new vessel is reduced by 1 month (not impairing slip time). Both cases are cumulative. Using those guns as tertiary armament on a new ship will not result in a reduction of the time necessary to build said new ship.

Guns taken off ships scrapped can be stored indefinitely for later use."

So the ship has to be build and paid for as normal, only its building TIME is impaired. Point is: Every discussion about the costs of re-using guns is moot.

Regarding the Italian modifications (which I rate only as an example, it could be somebody else too) I think they cost something. The question is how much. SO let´s take a look at our rules....

Situation as I understand it: Nation x has miscalculated its ships (if by intention or accidentally doesn´t matter). Hence they need to be modified - and such modifications costs time, labor and material even if things are "only" removed in general. That´s the way it is OTL and so it should be in WesWorld. Nation X has to pay these costs.

According to our rules modifications to guns above 195mm bore require a partial reconstruction costing 50% if the barbets remain untouched (simply plating them over to close the hole to prevent rain and water to enter is "untouched" to me).

Putting the turrets in store for later use results in no extra costs as the costs of storing and installing them are paid for when re-using the turrets (that´s why re-using turrets cuts down time only and not the ships costs).


To sum it up: In our actual case Italy has to pay 50% and do a partial reconstruction to make these ships treaty compliant.

If Italy is willing to do so, however, is a completely different thing and needs to be dealt with IC.

Quoted

2.3.3 Re-using guns taken off a ship scrapped

I don't think we are talking about a ship that is going to be scrapped Hooman. We're talking about removal and remounting of the original armament, not removal and re-using old guns from scrapped ships on another ship. To me that's two different things.
So I still stand by my points (and add a few).
When looking at reality:
a) Removing will take about a week, will need some 10-20 tons of plating and cost something like 100,000 USD. Re-arming will take a week or so and another 100,000 USD. For sim purpose, converting that cost into materials means 131 tons + 20 tons of plating = 151 tons total.
b) With what has been removed, you're not going to get under 14,000 tons, no matter what BS SS tells you.
c) Looking at the Zara displacement example that was given, it is unlikely that that overweight is going to be spotted in the first place... The only reason we 'spotted' it is because of the 5% cheat/error bit we agreed upon.
d) If it was spotted and the stuff was to be removed, it would be too obvious that the stuff would be put back into the ship once the treaty is over so the changes to the ship could be considered to be not acceptable. Same would be true for Admiral K's example of the Izmail replacements. It would be too obvious what will be done with it.

My Conclusion...
To me, b) is the strongest point in the matter: you're just not going to get that ships under the 14,000 ton mark that way. So the only ways to properly solve this matter is:
a) Scrap the Saints. (we'll just have to turn a blind eye regarding the replacement issue that would arise then)
b) Scrap one of the older ships and stop construction of the Caesar IIs and start scrapping them right away. (we'll just have to turn a blind eye regarding the 'too early' replacement issue that would arise then)
c) Let the treaty colapse.

I tend to agree with walter on this one.

Not worth the expendature which is a must by our rules and too obvious.

Option 2 involves stripping the belt armour and secondary armament. 25% cost and still gives a unit massively superior to anything else. Probably start the refit in Q4.

Saint I, Italian ACR laid down 1931

Displacement:
13,022 t light; 13,643 t standard; 15,679 t normal; 17,307 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
638.12 ft / 623.36 ft x 65.62 ft (Bulges 75.69 ft) x 23.26 ft (normal load)
194.50 m / 190.00 m x 20.00 m (Bulges 23.07 m) x 7.09 m

Armament:
12 - 7.99" / 203 mm guns (4x3 guns), 291.01lbs / 132.00kg shells, 1931 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
40 - 1.85" / 47.0 mm guns (10x4 guns), 3.17lbs / 1.44kg shells, 1931 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all forward, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 1.00" / 25.4 mm guns in single mounts, 0.52lbs / 0.24kg shells, 1931 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all forward, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 3,623 lbs / 1,643 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 4.72" / 120 mm 436.35 ft / 133.00 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 0.79" / 20 mm 65.62 ft / 20.00 m 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Main Belt covers 108 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
1.57" / 40 mm 305.12 ft / 93.00 m 32.81 ft / 10.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 7.48" / 190 mm 4.92" / 125 mm 5.91" / 150 mm
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -

- Armour deck: 2.97" / 75 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 86,000 shp / 64,156 Kw = 31.14 kts
Range 6,765nm at 20.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,663 tons

Complement:
699 - 910

Cost:
£5.023 million / $20.093 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 399 tons, 2.5 %
Armour: 3,858 tons, 24.6 %
- Belts: 869 tons, 5.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 583 tons, 3.7 %
- Armament: 850 tons, 5.4 %
- Armour Deck: 1,555 tons, 9.9 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 2,572 tons, 16.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,093 tons, 38.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,657 tons, 16.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
24,598 lbs / 11,157 Kg = 96.4 x 8.0 " / 203 mm shells or 4.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.20
Metacentric height 3.7 ft / 1.1 m
Roll period: 16.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 55 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.45
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.11

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.500
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.24 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.95 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 31.53 ft / 9.61 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 23.33 ft / 7.11 m
- Mid (70 %): 23.33 ft / 7.11 m (15.12 ft / 4.61 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (20 %): 15.12 ft / 4.61 m
- Stern: 15.12 ft / 4.61 m
- Average freeboard: 21.52 ft / 6.56 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 107.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 169.6 %
Waterplane Area: 28,340 Square feet or 2,633 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 128 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 132 lbs/sq ft or 644 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.40
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent


Belt; 30+150@15°
0 forward 80 machinery 100 magazines 50 aft = 75.35 average
40tons for 25mm deck over torpedoes
25tons = 1 catapults
50tons for auxilary diesels
=100tons

Hmmmm. How do you get it to 120mm belt armor, when the decapping plate was only 30mm thick and the inner main belt was 150mm? Are you having to remove part of the inner main belt? Or what?

Well its possible for "-Changes to external armor belts: P (upper), D (ends, main) " and considering both the 30mm and 150mm plates are exterior they'll just be replaced with a 120mm plate at 15°