You are not logged in.


Friday, April 7th 2006, 6:50am

Strangley I have yet to design a ship over 24,000 tons that would have a good chance of being built.

Is it a waste of money? Im sure the GB could have used plenty of these ships. Times are changing and tactics are changing, what was true for WWI might not be true for WWII. It might seem as a waste of money but in the never know.


Friday, April 7th 2006, 7:52am

The treaty distorts design. GB has the capacity to replace its battlefleet over the next 7-8 years. No R's or QE's left by the mid-late 30's.



Friday, April 7th 2006, 8:34am


Originally posted by Ithekro
I wonder why some of us have a fasination with the 14,000 - 24,000 ton range and others find it a total waste of time and resources?

I can see it as a waste of hulls in the limited by treaty sense, but without that restriction, or for a power that wants to invest in the as least materially cheaper vessels for hulls, why not build large cruisers and heavy armored cruisers?

Its not like we'll have anyone fighting another Jutland or anything....right?

Well basically as Roger say's the CT distorts disigns.

If the limit is 13,000 tons and 8" guns for a CA you want to build up to that limit as much as possible to compete with other similar designs. In the case of BB's its the same but with BB's the size difference is much more accentuated, would you want to face a 40,000 ton Mennon or PEdS with El-Cid or this design?

Even facing superior numbers of inferior designs is a risky prospect as there is a chance that one of the enemy's ships may manage to survive making the loss of the 20,000 ton AC much more severe given the resources needed to build a replacement for either design. Losing a 10,000 ton CA hurts less.

The only reason larger navy's would build this type of design would be to reach both Hull number and agregate tonnage limits in the CT. Barring that there are much smaller cruisers and much more capable BB designs that can do some of the same tasks more efficiently.

Smaller navy's would love this design but the resources needed is a burden. A 25,000 ton Osmaneih is enough of a burden for Turkey, building her with 9.5" guns would make for a less potent design.


Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message


Friday, April 7th 2006, 9:21am

The RN in WesWorld has less possessions to overlook but still can build the worlds largest cruiser force - using cruiser tonnage alone.

Hence I really can´t see why the British should give away their superiority in the capital ship category. I´d build as many full-size BBs (37-40kts) as possible. There´s no need to build "cruiser killers" that lack the speed to actually hunt cruisers.

The design posted is way too slow and heavily armed for its intended role.


Friday, April 7th 2006, 4:56pm

I wonder if the British could use their leverage at the top to get these classified as cruisers and use that cruiser tonnage for these larger cruisers?

A sort of super-class using some of the cruiser tonnage and maybe a little of the Battleship tonnage? I mean if Britian can't pull strings, who can?


Friday, April 7th 2006, 5:10pm

Well, it's possible the Brits could lobby for such a thing, but I'm doubting they'd get unanimous agreement amongst the Cleito signatories.....


Friday, April 7th 2006, 5:36pm


I mean if Britian can't pull strings, who can?

What would GB have to give away to get this? Too much for too little gain.


Friday, April 7th 2006, 6:23pm


All new British Battleships limited to 35,000 tons and 14 inch guns. Perhaps shift of cruiser tonnages with some of the battleship tonnage that could reflect that shift but no change in hull numbers for capital ships.