You are not logged in.

41

Tuesday, July 28th 2020, 12:53am

There are plenty of what if French, Russian, Italian and Austrian ships that never got built so I'm sure players could have got quite creative if Wesworld had started in say 1880. As it is, I based the Atlantean heavily on the British model because it was what I was most familiar with. If I knew then what I know now I might have thrown in some more American and Japanese idea's with my late pre-dreadnaught era ships (Atlantean Satsuma clone anyone?). I also regret not having my Maritania class armored Cruisers in a more prominent role, a result of my late fascination with Blucher being too late to incorporate into the sim.

42

Tuesday, July 28th 2020, 3:04am

As I continue my experiment, I find that it is often an interesting trade off between new construction and the refitting of older units. As mentioned above, I consigned many older units to the scrap yard in order to fund replacement vessels to modern designs but over the life of the experiment, even those 'modern designs' need to be brought up to current standards or fail as combat-worthy vessels (and there are only so many backwaters of the Lauranian 'empire' in which such second line ships might serve. As I learned with modernizing the battle fleet - refits are expensive.

43

Tuesday, July 28th 2020, 4:27am

I think the refit system we have in WW is particularly punishing for refits and reconstructions, unfortunately. I've encountered a lot of that with the Russian destroyer flotillas up until about 1940, which aren't economical to rebuild, yet cost too much to replace except over the long term.

44

Tuesday, July 28th 2020, 4:58am

I tend to agree with that assessment, I've left many ships to languish in second line fitness as refitting them would effect my ability to build newer more capable units for changing needs, my Melampus class Battleships are a prime example. They should have received refits, even modest ones, but other needs took priority.

45

Tuesday, July 28th 2020, 3:48pm

I agree. I don't have as much experience with the refit system as you, but for what I have seen is not really attractive to make refit. At least no for the biggest refits needed for older ships.

46

Tuesday, July 28th 2020, 4:44pm

At the moment I am on the horns of a dilemma. Do I construct a 7600 ton fleet supply ship (it would be the second though) or do I continue with the refit and reconditioning of numerous light cruisers and destroyers dating from the early 1920s that are now more than fifteen years long in the tooth. Delaying the start of the fleet supply ship is one potential solution, in the short term at least, but it then limits other new future construction.

I now comprehend why the IJN cancelled construction of the Kusumi.

47

Tuesday, July 28th 2020, 6:38pm

Refit, or not refit, that is the question.
I have no idea so I will ask. Is possible to refit a light cruiser to make it a supply ship? or would it cost too much to be worthy?

48

Tuesday, July 28th 2020, 6:48pm

Refit, or not refit, that is the question.
I have no idea so I will ask. Is possible to refit a light cruiser to make it a supply ship? or would it cost too much to be worthy?


Without knowledge of the details of the existing cruiser, or the characteristics desired in the supply ship, the answer to your question is not absolute. Can such a conversion be done? Yes. Would it cost too much to be worthwhile? Most likely.

If you going to convert an existing vessel to a naval supply ship it would be more cost effective to convert a merchant hull. In WW we presume that there are all sorts of merchantmen available that can be taken up from trade and perform auxiliary duties. For ideas, just scroll through the German encyclopedia, where I've done this extensively. Such a conversion can be between 15 and 25% of the tonnage of a purpose built vessel, depending on your armament choices.

49

Tuesday, July 28th 2020, 8:26pm

Well I was referring more as possible solution to your dilemma (and to ease my curiosity). Although the lose of a light cruiser probably would not compensate, especialy taking in count the amount of materials needed.

50

Thursday, July 30th 2020, 3:22am

Project 39-001

Project 39-001, Lauranian Aircraft Carrier laid down 1939

Displacement: 19,900 t light; 20,500 t standard; 22,626 t normal; 24,327 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught

779.85 ft / 748.03 ft x 87.27 ft x 27.89 ft (normal load) [237.70 m / 228.00 m x 26.60 m x 8.50 m]

Armament:

16 - 3.54" / 90.0 mm guns (8x2 guns), 22.24lbs / 10.09kg shells, 1939 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
32 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (8x4 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1939 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side, evenly spread, 6 raised mounts
16 - 0.52" / 13.2 mm guns (8x2 guns), 0.07lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1939 Model Machine guns in deck mounts on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 407 lbs / 184 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 600

Armour:

Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 521.65 ft / 159.00 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 107 % of normal length

Torpedo Bulkhead: 0.98" / 25 mm 521.65 ft / 159.00 m 26.25 ft / 8.00 m

Armour deck: 1.97" / 50 mm, Conning tower: 1.18" / 30 mm

Machinery:

Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 4 shafts, 137,893 shp / 102,868 Kw = 34.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,827 tons

Complement: 922 - 1,199

Cost: £7.340 million / $29.359 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:

Armament: 51 tons, 0.2 %
Armour: 2,494 tons, 11.0 %
- Belts: 419 tons, 1.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 499 tons, 2.2 %
- Armament: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armour Deck: 1,556 tons, 6.9 %
- Conning Tower: 20 tons, 0.1 %
Machinery: 3,731 tons, 16.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8,224 tons, 36.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,726 tons, 12.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 5,400 tons, 23.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 37,379 lbs / 16,955 Kg = 1,680.5 x 3.5 " / 90 mm shells or 4.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 4.9 ft / 1.5 m
Roll period: 16.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 79 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.03
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.89

Hull form characteristics:

Hull has raised forecastle and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.435
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.57 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.89 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 42
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 17.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 39.70 ft / 12.10 m
- Forecastle (22 %): 39.70 ft / 12.10 m (29.53 ft / 9.00 m aft of break)
- Mid (88 %): 29.53 ft / 9.00 m
- Quarterdeck (12 %): 29.53 ft / 9.00 m
- Stern: 29.53 ft / 9.00 m
- Average freeboard: 31.77 ft / 9.68 m

Ship space, strength and comments:

Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 106.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 260.7 %
Waterplane Area: 42,730 Square feet or 3,970 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 144 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 116 lbs/sq ft or 568 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.92
- Longitudinal: 2.16
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather


Air group 64 aircraft - 4096 tons

51

Saturday, August 1st 2020, 11:18am

The price reduction for smaller ships has improved the refit situation to what it was, but i agree its hard to strike a good balance, although refits are expensive, running a fleet is not cheap and in reality manning and running costs in WW would be crippling.
I remember there was a proposal once for running costs to be incorporated into reports and taken from factory production, which was probably less than ideal for capturing it accurately. Needless to say the proposal died but for a while a few of use tried to keep tabs on manpower but that faded away.

52

Saturday, August 1st 2020, 3:32pm

I like that carrier design overall, although I'm somewhat worried about the thickness of the deck armour. It seems like just enough armour to fuse an AP bomb, and not enough to stop it...

A few of us tried to keep tabs on manpower but that faded away.

I still keep tabs on that, actually, although I don't make much effort to track its growth (and it's almost always growth, never reduction) over time.

-- Russia: 209,003 men
-- France: 106,730 men
-- Chile: 38,113 men

53

Saturday, August 1st 2020, 8:22pm

Brock scripset:

Quoted

I like that carrier design overall, although I'm somewhat worried about the thickness of the deck armour. It seems like just enough armour to fuse an AP bomb, and not enough to stop it...


Laurania is happy to trade offensive punch for defensive armor.

As for manpower, I too still kept track of it, at least for the Kriegsmarine. 160,257 officers and men in peacetime, 207,328 officers and men on war establishment - not including naval air group, naval landing troops, naval security troops, and shore establishments. Costly enough, but that is why Germany still has conscription.

54

Sunday, August 2nd 2020, 3:50am

Project 40-002

Project 40-002, Lauranian Light Cruiser laid down 1940

Displacement: 8,351 t light; 8,714 t standard; 9,542 t normal; 10,205 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught

582.61 ft / 570.87 ft x 59.06 ft x 18.04 ft (normal load) [177.58 m / 174.00 m x 18.00 m x 5.50 m]

Armament:

9 - 5.98" / 152 mm guns (3x3 guns), 107.15lbs / 48.60kg shells, 1940 Model Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes) on centerline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
8 - 3.54" / 90.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 22.24lbs / 10.09kg shells, 1940 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists on side, evenly spread
12 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1940 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
12 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 0.48lbs / 0.22kg shells, 1940 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 1,167 lbs / 529 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250
6 - 21.7" / 550 mm above water torpedoes

Armor:

Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3.15" / 80 mm 360.89 ft / 110.00 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Ends: Unarmored
Main Belt covers 97 % of normal length

Gun armor: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 3.15" / 80 mm 2.36" / 60 mm 3.94" / 100 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.59" / 15 mm 0.98" / 25 mm
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

Armor deck: 1.57" / 40 mm, Conning tower: 3.15" / 80 mm

Machinery:

Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 2 shafts, 84,125 shp / 62,758 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 6,500nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,491 tons

Complement: 482 - 627

Cost: £4.378 million / $17.513 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:

Armament: 146 tons, 1.5 %
Armor: 1,534 tons, 16.1 %
- Belts: 470 tons, 4.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 320 tons, 3.4 %
- Armor Deck: 713 tons, 7.5 %
- Conning Tower: 31 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 2,249 tons, 23.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,222 tons, 44.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,191 tons, 12.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 2.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 16,274 lbs / 7,382 Kg = 151.9 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 1.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.15
Metacentric height 3.0 ft / 0.9 m
Roll period: 14.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 61 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.45
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.35

Hull form characteristics:

Hull has rise forward of midbreak and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.549
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.67: 1
'Natural speed' for length: 27.19 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 60 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 45
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 16.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 29.53 ft / 9.00 m
- Forecastle (10 %): 28.54 ft / 8.70 m
- Mid (50 %): 26.90 ft / 8.20 m (20.34 ft / 6.20 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (40 %): 20.34 ft / 6.20 m
- Stern: 20.34 ft / 6.20 m
- Average freeboard: 24.15 ft / 7.36 m

Ship space, strength and comments:

Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 91.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 220.7 %
Waterplane Area: 24,471 Square feet or 2,273 Square meters
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 129 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 100 lbs/sq ft or 490 Kg/sq meter
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.91
- Longitudinal: 2.37
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily