WesWorld

There are plenty of designs of the same size and speed that can take a fair number more torpedoes than Canada, which is probably why we're thinking it's a bit low. After all, the 30 knot German Mackensen design can survive 10 torpedoes, the 28 knot Baden can survive 11, the 30 knot British St. Vincent can survive 9, and the Nordmark BB33 design can withstand 13.

Regarding the main guns, my first impression of the picture was 13.5 inch guns for some reason.

Quoted

Agree that the torpedo rating seems fine - after all my 50,000 ton monster plan is rated at 9.5.

A mere 9.5 torpedoes? You probably got a lot of stuff inside then. BTW is it 50,000 tons standard or normal?

Quoted

I assume Canada wants the R's freed up from non-battlecruiser-chasing tasks like keeping Japan away from Vancouver Island.

Pretty hard to keep one of Japan's most dangerous weapons away from there: The Japanese Tourist.
:-)

Well, that hullform suggests that she's a fine-hulled tanker or bulk carrier (either of which might manage 16 knots downhill with a following wind), or otherwise has an awful lot of bulk on her. The drawing is certainly too fine for that hullform: Cw is 0.84, and that drawing looks like 0.65. Upshot is, there ain't nearly enough beam at the ends. But, once you've enlarged the turrets some so they're in proportion, you'll probably need more beam fore & aft anyway.

I'm surprised Canada is accepting a ship with such low seakeeping and which has such poor ability to withstand recoil, especially on that beam. You'd expect a full hull with over 100 feet of beam to have at least moderate ability to counter the recoil: might, to my mind, be somewhat symptomatic of poor stability when damaged, regardless of SpringSharp's 1.10 value for (presumably intact) stability. That would explain the apparently lacking torpedo resistance, too.

If you're looking to improve things, and keep it in a Class III dock, I think your best shot is to stretch it out some to use the full length of the dock, whilst reducing Cb as simmed to give a slightly finer hull. You'll need a more even distribution of buoyancy fore and aft, though, to support the turrets; probably not worth dropping below a Cb of 0.65 with that in mind.

What does Canada actually want out of a ship? I get the impression this one is meant to make people worry, but can't really see what it achieves other than being a small guy with a hell of a punch. The UK has some scheming for the post-Treaty scenario; I don't think it'll help Canada, but if you discuss the needs, I'm sure we can come to some sort of arrangement.

On my encyclopaedia, it needs more than updating! I have it in mind to redo the encyclopaedia completely by the New Year, basically so that it's in a consistent order and so I can tinker with the specs for ships that are there under Gravina's account.

Incidentally, if Gravina's about, I'd like to request permission to repost his pictures within my updated encyclopaedia entries; I will, of course, include adknowledgements.

I suspect the recoil issue is a result of: 1, being narrower than a lot of ships of this size and not bulged; 2, having more and bigger guns than most ships of her size (12 15" and 20 5.5" vs 8-9 15" and 12-15 6" on those ships with heavy secondaries).

Not sure where you guys got the notion the torpedo rating wasn't good....

I agree on the BC and seakeeping points raised.

I don't see why you can't use Gravina's pitures with Kudo's to his artwork.

The bc was right in the middle of the "Battleship" rating on the slider scale, so I didn't think it'd be a problem

I'm wary of building in the Type 4 docks I have in case something comes up and R&R need them. My industrial capacity is mostly dedicated to upgrading the Type 0 and 1 docks into slightly more useful facilities.

While Canada would prefer a ship with excellant seakeeping and all that, it's also concerned that the treaty is on the way out, and may have to contend with very large ships being built elsewhere. A 9 gun version would probably be faster and a better seaboat, but might be found lacking against whatever Walter's planning to build. Canada is a bit more confident that a 12 gun ship will still be competative.

Gravina's previously given me permission to use his graphics as source material for my Canadian ships, do I'd think he'd be okay with the originals being used, so long they're properly credited.

As for the turret sizes, Gravina couldn't remember the scale of the graphic I was using as source material, so I guestimated it. The original had twin turrets, so I edited them into triples. I can scale up the turrets tho, since everyone seems to think they're too small.

btw, that's a 1p = 1ft scale drawing, as I've used it.

On a side note, if Canada is really feeling frisky and doesn't care about treaty issues anymore, I could bring back this idea....

Perhaps buying Hood would be a better option?

I thought you had dibs on Hood.

Besides, that way I'd have two.

Quoted

A mere 9.5 torpedoes? You probably got a lot of stuff inside then. BTW is it 50,000 tons standard or normal?

~50,000 Standard. But Filipino tons, not Siamese...so...

The Canada is a fascinating ship.
The AA battery seems a bit much for a ship of the 30's - it is closer to the upgrades applied during the 2nd WW.

Why 5.5" secondaries?
They are a bit large for DP's - the shells would be difficult to handle
Why not adopt the 5.25" DP that the UK was developing?

Lets all process that a little bit. Hood, and two Semi-Hoods based on Refit and Repair, outside of treaty limits....

Scary.

the 5.5" debate surfaces again;

Canada got stuck with most of the RN's 5.5" armed ships, and has adopted it as it's medium caliber. It's spent the past few years trying to develop a reliable and practical DP 5.5 weapon due to it's desire to have simplified logistics, rather than add 5" DP and 6" CL guns to it's supply train.

AA fits tend to be heavier than historical in WW, so I'm just following the trend there.

It's also worth noting that if the 8 barrel pompoms are probably going to be replaced with Bofors mounts at some point or another, unless the WW pompoms are more effective than historical.

I'd more or less echo what Rob said.

You'll probably want to make full use of the Panamax 108ft beam, which will allow you to decrease the Cb significantly to a 0.55-0.65 value that is more reasonable, probably verging on hte lower side because of the speed. The buoyancy issue aft is negated to some extent by the larger waterplane created by the transom.

Turrets are definitely too small for triple 15" (new build 45-cal?)

I would have thought that Canada would have gone for 30/31knt speed to keep pace with Renown/Repulse. Which means, either less armament or bigger ship.

Bofors vs. 2pdr well they're not really that distinct. The RN estimated the Bofors to be twice as good against torpedo bombers, because of higher mv, but about the same vs. kamikazes. However, the octuple 2pdr only weighs marginally more than the quad Bofors and you'll get a larger hit ratio.

Actually I havent decided on whether to buy Hood . Australia would love to have her, but she uses non-standard weapons. What I would really like to have is THE Splendid Cat, HMS Lion. But it looks like she didn't survive Cleito. The other option is the remaining IDs but they are too slow. Unless they are turned into Training Ships (which GB doesnt have..hint...hint) and the 4 turrents sold to Australia where I can use them in making a new Lion, Vanguard style.

Back to the main topic. Its always good to have your ally building big ships, that distracts your enemies from your own nefarious but much less visible plans! He...he...he...

108 ft beam and bc of 0.677 results in;


Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
61,572 lbs / 27,928 Kg = 36.5 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 8.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.13
Metacentric height 7.1 ft / 2.2 m
Roll period: 17.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.79
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.01

Trim adjustments still can't get seaboat over 1.01


As for the specific type of 15", I'd have to hear what RLBH is putting on the St. Vincents. I put in the same shell weights as the 15"/42 tho.

Hood's 5.5" Secondaries would mesh nicely with Canada's logistics, if the Crown is planning to part with her.

To get the sea-keeping up you'll probably have to raise the freeboard.

In fairness, I think high seakeeping on a hullform like that might be overly optimistic; if Canada considers the Type 3 slip compatibility a must, it's a tradeoff that may need to be taken.

Hood's not due for replacement under the Treaty for a good few years yet, which complicates sale. In a post-Treaty world, she fills a useful place in my force structure, so I wouldn't imagine her being disposed of until 3 or 4 years after the Treaty dies.

The new 15" gun fires the existing shells, to ease logistics (they're fairly decent anyway), with the possibility of upgrading to a slightly longer round, although I can't see that becoming necessary. Muzzle velocity is 2,510 feet per second, length 45 calibres. Pretty much as per the 15"/45 Mark II.

Panamax is an option, but you may want to ask Canis what the width of the Mexican canal is.

Whats your range at in the latest design Shin?

Haven't tinkered with range. the Extra 8 ft just went to improving recoil, bc and whatnot.

I'm still trying to keep it within the 'gentleman's rule' of 5% within 40k tonnes, so I'm not sure there's room to improve range or other qualities, and still retain the 12 guns.

I've only got 2 Class 4 docks, and like I said, I'm trying to keep them free in case R&R need them (be it emergency repairs, or their eventual rebuilds). If I use them to build anything, they'll be occupied for at least a year, I think, probably longer. If something happens with R&R, that means sending them to the US, or to Australia/London. In addition to the practical matters of sending a possibly wounded ship on a nonessential transoceanic voyage, there's the political 'embarassment' involved to consider.

You do have two Type 3s that could be enlarged as well, 1 of them could be upgraded in Q4 of 1932 (instead of your current project) and the other in Q2 of 1933.