WesWorld

Chile will probably be laying down one or two of these designs in 1931, with perhaps one being laid down in mid to late 1930 instead. We have here a heavy armored cruiser, a battlecruiser (which are in competition at this time) and a new battleship. Any suggestions.


Capitan Oyama

Chilean Heavy Armoured Cruiser laid down 1931

Displacement:
22,026 t light; 22,913 t standard; 27,000 t normal; 30,162 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
737.52 ft / 720.00 ft x 92.00 ft x 29.00 ft (normal load)
224.79 m / 219.46 m x 28.04 m x 8.84 m

Armament:
9 - 10.00" / 254 mm guns (3x3 guns), 530.00lbs / 240.40kg shells, 1931 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
12 - 4.33" / 110 mm guns (6x2 guns), 40.61lbs / 18.42kg shells, 1931 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
24 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (12x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1931 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 6 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 5,295 lbs / 2,402 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 115

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 8.50" / 216 mm 440.00 ft / 134.11 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 94 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.00" / 25 mm 440.00 ft / 134.11 m 20.00 ft / 6.10 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 8.50" / 216 mm 4.13" / 105 mm 8.00" / 203 mm
2nd: 4.13" / 105 mm 4.13" / 105 mm -
3rd: 0.25" / 6 mm - -

- Armour deck: 4.00" / 102 mm, Conning tower: 8.50" / 216 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 3 shafts, 150,000 shp / 111,900 Kw = 33.41 kts
Range 10,000nm at 20.00 kts (Bunkerage = 7,357 tons)

Complement:
1,053 - 1,369

Cost:
£8.406 million / $33.625 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 628 tons, 2.3 %
Armour: 6,774 tons, 25.1 %
- Belts: 1,610 tons, 6.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 326 tons, 1.2 %
- Armament: 1,302 tons, 4.8 %
- Armour Deck: 3,371 tons, 12.5 %
- Conning Tower: 165 tons, 0.6 %
Machinery: 4,486 tons, 16.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 10,063 tons, 37.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,974 tons, 18.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 0.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
33,880 lbs / 15,368 Kg = 67.8 x 10.0 " / 254 mm shells or 4.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.16
Metacentric height 5.8 ft / 1.8 m
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.37
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.14

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.492
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.83 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.27 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 61
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25.82 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Mid (50 %): 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Stern: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Average freeboard: 24.91 ft / 7.59 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 93.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 204.7 %
Waterplane Area: 45,554 Square feet or 4,232 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 130 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 151 lbs/sq ft or 736 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.55
- 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capitan Oyama

Chilean Battlecruiser laid down 1931

Displacement:
27,807 t light; 28,910 t standard; 30,500 t normal; 31,650 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
733.88 ft / 720.00 ft x 92.00 ft (Bulges 100.00 ft) x 30.00 ft (normal load)
223.69 m / 219.46 m x 28.04 m (Bulges 30.48 m) x 9.14 m

Armament:
8 - 12.00" / 305 mm guns (4x2 guns), 925.00lbs / 419.57kg shells, 1931 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 4.33" / 110 mm guns (6x2 guns), 40.61lbs / 18.42kg shells, 1931 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
24 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (12x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1931 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 6 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 7,925 lbs / 3,595 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 110

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 410.00 ft / 124.97 m 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
Ends: 5.50" / 140 mm 310.00 ft / 94.49 m 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
Main Belt covers 88 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
1.25" / 32 mm 410.00 ft / 124.97 m 28.00 ft / 8.53 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 9.50" / 241 mm 9.00" / 229 mm
2nd: 5.50" / 140 mm 4.13" / 105 mm 3.00" / 76 mm
3rd: 0.25" / 6 mm - -

- Armour deck: 4.13" / 105 mm, Conning tower: 12.00" / 305 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 3 shafts, 130,000 shp / 96,980 Kw = 31.56 kts
Range 6,500nm at 15.00 kts (Bunkerage = 2,862 tons)

Complement:
1,153 - 1,500

Cost:
£10.029 million / $40.116 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 930 tons, 3.0 %
Armour: 10,534 tons, 34.5 %
- Belts: 3,892 tons, 12.8 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 531 tons, 1.7 %
- Armament: 2,374 tons, 7.8 %
- Armour Deck: 3,484 tons, 11.4 %
- Conning Tower: 253 tons, 0.8 %
Machinery: 3,888 tons, 12.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 12,381 tons, 40.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,693 tons, 8.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 0.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
39,555 lbs / 17,942 Kg = 45.8 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 5.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.03
Metacentric height 5.3 ft / 1.6 m
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.57
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.20

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.494
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.20 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.50 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.37 degrees
Stern overhang: 2.00 ft / 0.61 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Mid (50 %): 35.00 ft / 10.67 m (25.00 ft / 7.62 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Stern: 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Average freeboard: 27.76 ft / 8.46 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 85.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 210.6 %
Waterplane Area: 45,650 Square feet or 4,241 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 118 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 176 lbs/sq ft or 857 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.94
- Longitudinal: 1.67
- 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
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capitan Prat

Chilean Battleship laid down 1931

Displacement:
28,413 t light; 29,878 t standard; 31,250 t normal; 32,223 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
712.00 ft / 700.00 ft x 100.00 ft x 26.00 ft (normal load)
217.02 m / 213.36 m x 30.48 m x 7.92 m

Armament:
8 - 14.00" / 356 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1,372.00lbs / 622.33kg shells, 1931 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 4.30" / 109 mm guns (6x2 guns), 39.75lbs / 18.03kg shells, 1931 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
24 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (12x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1931 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 6 raised mounts
6 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns in single mounts, 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1931 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 11,491 lbs / 5,212 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 130

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 15.5" / 394 mm 455.00 ft / 138.68 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.25" / 32 mm 455.00 ft / 138.68 m 25.00 ft / 7.62 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15.5" / 394 mm 5.50" / 140 mm 10.0" / 254 mm
2nd: 4.25" / 108 mm 4.25" / 108 mm -
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

- Armour deck: 5.50" / 140 mm, Conning tower: 15.50" / 394 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 87,000 shp / 64,902 Kw = 26.79 kts
Range 5,000nm at 15.00 kts (Bunkerage = 2,470 tons)

Complement:
1,174 - 1,527

Cost:
£11.194 million / $44.774 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,436 tons, 4.6 %
Armour: 12,059 tons, 38.6 %
- Belts: 3,668 tons, 11.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 526 tons, 1.7 %
- Armament: 2,432 tons, 7.8 %
- Armour Deck: 5,101 tons, 16.3 %
- Conning Tower: 333 tons, 1.1 %
Machinery: 2,602 tons, 8.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 12,241 tons, 39.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,837 tons, 9.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 0.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
41,327 lbs / 18,746 Kg = 30.1 x 14.0 " / 356 mm shells or 6.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
Metacentric height 5.9 ft / 1.8 m
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.59
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.21

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.601
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.46 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 21.36 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Mid (50 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Stern: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Average freeboard: 21.70 ft / 6.61 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 78.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 176.4 %
Waterplane Area: 50,132 Square feet or 4,657 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 108 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 179 lbs/sq ft or 872 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.98
- Longitudinal: 1.25
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Well, they're rather different ships, likely for different roles, so it's hard to compare them without knowing what the role is.

The BB's range is possibly a little short, and I find the use of direct drive turbines a bit odd considering the date. I'd also suggest using mount & hoists for the secondaries, you won't want a chain of men on the deck feeding them under fire. For relatively small-caliber guns, they're pretty well armored, you might thin the armor a bit. I'd also think the BC and BBs are a little lightly equipped on the secondary front: 6 110mms on either beam are perhaps a bit light in total.

[The heavy cruiser and battlecruiser are interesting. Good job.]

More like this? The 15.5 inch belt was intended to be able to take on ships armed with 15 inch guns if necessary. 13.5 inch seems more reasonable for a 14 inch gun armed ship.

Capitan Prat

Chilean Battleship laid down 1930

Displacement:
27,848 t light; 29,135 t standard; 31,000 t normal; 32,368 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
715.00 ft / 700.00 ft x 100.00 ft x 26.00 ft (normal load)
217.93 m / 213.36 m x 30.48 m x 7.92 m

Armament:
8 - 14.00" / 356 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1,372.00lbs / 622.33kg shells, 1930 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
20 - 4.30" / 109 mm guns (10x2 guns), 39.75lbs / 18.03kg shells, 1930 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
24 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (12x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1930 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 6 raised mounts
6 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns in single mounts, 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1930 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 11,809 lbs / 5,356 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.5" / 343 mm 455.00 ft / 138.68 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.25" / 32 mm 455.00 ft / 138.68 m 25.00 ft / 7.62 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 13.5" / 343 mm 5.50" / 140 mm 10.0" / 254 mm
2nd: 4.25" / 108 mm 4.25" / 108 mm -
3rd: 0.25" / 6 mm - -
4th: 0.25" / 6 mm - -

- Armour deck: 5.00" / 127 mm, Conning tower: 13.50" / 343 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 89,000 shp / 66,394 Kw = 26.99 kts
Range 7,000nm at 15.00 kts (Bunkerage = 3,356 tons)

Complement:
1,167 - 1,518

Cost:
£10.840 million / $43.359 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,476 tons, 4.8 %
Armour: 11,109 tons, 35.8 %
- Belts: 3,193 tons, 10.3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 526 tons, 1.7 %
- Armament: 2,489 tons, 8.0 %
- Armour Deck: 4,613 tons, 14.9 %
- Conning Tower: 288 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 2,697 tons, 8.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 12,491 tons, 40.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,152 tons, 10.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 0.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
40,071 lbs / 18,176 Kg = 29.2 x 14.0 " / 356 mm shells or 5.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.08
Metacentric height 5.8 ft / 1.8 m
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.65
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.21

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.596
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.46 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 23.97 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Mid (50 %): 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Stern: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Average freeboard: 22.35 ft / 6.81 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 81.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 180.6 %
Waterplane Area: 49,867 Square feet or 4,633 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 109 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 182 lbs/sq ft or 888 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.29
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Capitan Oyama

Chilean Battlecruiser laid down 1930

Displacement:
27,731 t light; 28,784 t standard; 30,500 t normal; 31,751 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
735.00 ft / 720.00 ft x 92.00 ft (Bulges 100.00 ft) x 30.00 ft (normal load)
224.03 m / 219.46 m x 28.04 m (Bulges 30.48 m) x 9.14 m

Armament:
8 - 12.00" / 305 mm guns (4x2 guns), 864.00lbs / 391.90kg shells, 1930 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
20 - 4.33" / 110 mm guns (10x2 guns), 40.61lbs / 18.42kg shells, 1930 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
24 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (12x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1930 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 6 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 7,761 lbs / 3,520 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 468.00 ft / 142.65 m 13.00 ft / 3.96 m
Ends: 5.50" / 140 mm 252.00 ft / 76.81 m 13.00 ft / 3.96 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
1.25" / 32 mm 468.00 ft / 142.65 m 27.00 ft / 8.23 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 9.50" / 241 mm 9.00" / 229 mm
2nd: 5.50" / 140 mm 4.00" / 102 mm 4.00" / 102 mm
3rd: 0.25" / 6 mm - -

- Armour deck: 4.00" / 102 mm, Conning tower: 12.00" / 305 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 3 shafts, 130,000 shp / 96,980 Kw = 31.56 kts
Range 7,000nm at 15.00 kts (Bunkerage = 3,089 tons)

Complement:
1,153 - 1,500

Cost:
£9.773 million / $39.092 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 970 tons, 3.2 %
Armour: 10,478 tons, 34.4 %
- Belts: 3,773 tons, 12.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 584 tons, 1.9 %
- Armament: 2,489 tons, 8.2 %
- Armour Deck: 3,378 tons, 11.1 %
- Conning Tower: 253 tons, 0.8 %
Machinery: 3,939 tons, 12.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 12,269 tons, 40.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,769 tons, 9.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 0.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
39,096 lbs / 17,733 Kg = 45.2 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 5.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.03
Metacentric height 5.3 ft / 1.6 m
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.55
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.21

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.494
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.20 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.50 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 19.44 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 34.00 ft / 10.36 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Mid (50 %): 32.00 ft / 9.75 m (23.00 ft / 7.01 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Stern: 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Average freeboard: 27.66 ft / 8.43 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 85.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 204.8 %
Waterplane Area: 45,650 Square feet or 4,241 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 116 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 174 lbs/sq ft or 850 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.67
- 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
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

More like that, yes. Germany's opinion is that a cannon of less than 135mm is a bit light as a secondary weapon on capital ships, but more tubes can help ameliorate this concern.

The improvement in range on the BBs is a good step, as well.

I can´t judge them without knowing the scenario the Chilean Navy is planning for but the modern AC looks most promising to me because of her speed and the overall layout.

I can't give you a full idea of what they ships are for at this moment, as I don't have the time to type it out right now.

However I will point out that while the AC Oyama is a nice ship...you can build two of just about anyone's Treaty CAs for the price of just one of these. But I don't think any of the Treay CAs have the armor, nor firepower of an Oyama. Some might have the speed and range though. However she is no battlecruiser as she can't take the kind of punishment a modern BC can put out, though with 4 inches of deck armor and a 8.5 inch belt, she's more heavily armored than the early BCs.

I agree with Hoo, the Oyama (10) looks like the best bet.

Build a few of those, and I might have to bring back Basilan in her original form... ;-)

If you're modernizing the Latorres, then leave the BB (which happens to be a pretty good design, I think) till later.

After that - the BC is better suited to dealing with Argentine BCs, so that'd be my pick.

The current plan is to start building the first new battleship after at least one of the older dreadnoughts is finished rebuilding. These battleships are suppose to replace the aging Swiftsure and Triumph.

The BC or AC concepts are related in that they have a similar purpose, but different methods of carrying themn out. The ACs are cheaper by more than 5,500 tons, yet twice as expensive as the Heavy Cruisers currently finishing up in Atlantis and Chile. The ACs are nearly 2 knots faster than the BCs and have a much greater range and cruising speed. They are heavily armored for a cruiser and pack a considerable punch over the typical 8 inch or 210mm cannon of a Treaty CA.

The BCs have heavier armor and firepower over the ACs and slightly better seakeeping (though the ACs are much more stable). The eight 12 inch guns in four turrets easily outweight the nine 10 inch guns in three turrets of the AC. The BC could engage some capital ships with a possible chance of doing real damage depending on the 12 inch guns used (likely the 12"/55 cal that seems to be floating around South America of late, though I did envision a heavier shell of 926 pounds). The 10"/50 cal would be potent, but not have the range or power to punch through the heavier capital ship's armor, and while the both designs have 4 inches of deck armor, the 8.5 inches of belt armor of the AC will not stop a 12 inch shell like a 12 inch armored belt can.

However Chile sees these two designs as cruiser killers and long range scouting elements, not as part of the battleship like....though would not be opposed to making up a cruiser line as a secondary force. Both designs are faster than the 8 inch armed Capitan Tylor which is more a novelty that could engage two cruisers at a time, but likely never will. However the building plans vary at this time. Chile was only envisioning building two BCs while the alternate is building 4 ACs, this could be reduced to 2 ACs, but somehow two Oyamas and one Tylor don't seems to be enough of a fighting force were four Oyamas and Tylor do. Economics will tell I guess, and the final word on the BBs and BCs.

A question. With the rebuilt Lattores, does Chile need a new BB or two, or would building the BCs and ACs be better (with the situation in South America seeming to be returning to an arms race between the ABC nations again)?

The AC/BCs are being built to replace Chile's old cruisers, though that was also the reason they built the two CAs. Originally the 5 ACs (Tylor, two Libertads (now replaced by two more Oyamas instead), and two Oyamas) were to replace the Prat, the two Predreadnoughts, and the two Armored Cruisers. Those all seem to be covered now with the Gideon, Tylor, and the two CAs, but I've not taken into account the PCs and old CLs, so those will be what the CAs and CLs are replacing. That means the Prat and the Esmeralda have been replaced but O'Higgins and the others have not yet.

[Well, if you really think this is an arms race of some kind between the ABC nations, you're going to be building a lot more cruisers than that if you're looking to win. Personally, I don't see it that way because I'm building what I am to get the job done locally against either Iberia or the SAE, if it comes down to that. However, the more other nations build up, the more likely South America will succeed in kicking out the foreign conquistadors.]

Well if you were trying to race the SAE, they got a really big head start with 12 capital ships, 8 of which have 15 inch guns if I recall. Plus around 40 cruisers of various sizes, mostly smaller types. And lots and lots of destroyer types and submarines. Combined between the ABC nations and the other smaller independent nations of South America...we don't have the firepower to take on the SAE Fleet in total.

Iberia on the other hand....I don't know anymore. Much of that information was not posted where it could be easily found, and has since been lost. However some information still exists in Jane's Fighting Ships of Wesworld. I point out that Iberia also has 12 capital ships (counting El Cid and a group of 3 ACs) to the continents combined 12 capital ships ranging from Swiftsures and the Queens to the Latorres to the Tylor and Gideon.

[Notice I said locally. And presently the combined strength of South America isn't sufficient to win, but I think that will change. South America has a lot of room to grow, but neither Iberia nor the SAE do.

12 capital ships, 2 carriers, 41 light cruisers, 62 destroyers, and an unknown number of submarines belong to Iberia.

12 capital ships, 7 carriers, 9 heavy cruisers, 50 light cruisers, 75 destroyers, 73 submarines belong to the SAE.

Seems to me the SAE has built about as many ships as they can, and Iberia has probably gone a little CL crazy. Speaking of which, who was reading Harry Potter when they named that last class of Iberian light cruiser?]

7 carriers? Seems I missed something! :o) I guess you also counted those small floatplane carrier/tenders because full scale aircraft carriers I have only 2 - right now.

Regarding room to grow - if the SAE stays within the CT the upper end for growth regarding capital ships is clearly reached (even though I will further modernizise the RSANs battle line). However, the combined firepower - as Ithekro pointed out - should be suffice to deal with any thread at the South American front. Regarding cruisers and such I´m very far from reaching my CT limits and if things turn out to get really nasty the SAE is allowed to step back from CT limitations in an emergency - as are all signatories.

But this kind of sabber rattling doesn´t help, does it? :o) The ABC powers will not unit and then reach a combined naval strength that can compete with the SAE within the next decade, I´m sure.

(Note that I have not yet counted in any other kind of support or alliance.)

[*grins* Okay, you say so. And Brazil hasn't been rattling any sabers, it's just been quietly modernizing its fleet. I was just pointing out how things look from my end. Keep in mind that any Brazilian plans, especially the short term ones, are in the decade range. It probably won't even finish modernizing its fleet until the late '30s, but I imagine that by then Brazil will have what it needs to undertake the planned expansion.]

I welcome the chance to clearify a few things. The line about the sabber rattling was less important compared to the real message: CT powers can step back from any limitation in case of war or other emergency. That´s something to be kept in m ind and what might have escaped a new player....

I agree, Atlantis certainly has the capacity (and the wish) to increase its Cruiser and CV numbers but the CT prevents that, which is its main purpose.

The worst case senario would see the treaty colapse in 1936, six years from now. If Brazil is no where near SAE limits I doubt they will be in six years,particularily when the SAE can still build more ships.

Things look worse when the fact that the four part alliance failed miserably against Nordmark, a power similar in strength to Iberia but further away and less experience dealing with South American polotics.

With Argentinia emasculated and the SAE/Nordmark presence even more solidified, they won't be going anywhere soon, that spells further trouble for the other three South American countrys from the original 4 party alliance.

Your more likely to get results in the region diplomatically.

[I read the entirety of Cleito, I understand what those signatories are and aren't able to do. However, I also understand the limitations of a trans-oceanic empire. You boast of your 15" line of battle, and it is impressive, but I'm willing to bet that all of those ships are concentrated at home into a single squadron, not in South America where it can't protect the SAE's expansive empire in Africa. That makes sense, but neither the best nor the entirety of your fleet actaully represent what's available where you'd need it Right Damnit Now if you had to throw down with Brazil.

And while we're talking about the building limitations of Cleito, let's consider what actually backing off the current building plan means for the SAE. In the event of a war, the SAE would either have to clear docks or finish enough current construction to make way for newer, larger construction. At the same time whatever the SAE's version of BuPlan is would have to come up with a ship equal to or better than whatever they thought they needed to counter. That right there is going to take at least three months. Then they'd have to whistle up the resources to start construction, which is going to take a while. Then they'd have to build the thing. And then they'd have to do a shakedown cruise. And by then the war's already over, one way or another. And South Africa's just sunk money into a ship it can't use under the treaty limitations and will have to scrap and they just might get 15% of the value out of it. No, in the event of any war the SAE will have to go to war with the fleet it has.

Brazil, on the other hand, doesn't face the same limitations. All it's territory is concentrated on one continent and for the time being its entire coastline is in the Atlantic. It also isn't bound by the limitations of the Cleito treaty, so in the event of a war it doesn't have to step off its building plan because it'll be building exactly what it wants, not what a piece of paper dictates. That means there won't be any delays for design, materials allocation, and building. Brazil's great weakness is that its building capacity isn't as great, both in hulls and the size of the hulls. However, the longer any potential Brazil/SAE conflict waits, the shorter that margin becomes.

And let's consider both country's limitations as they relate to economy and population. Right now, the SAE is less populous than Brazil by a little over 4 million but has the more industrialized economy. However, that won't last. Eventually Brazil is going to have roughly the same GDP per capita as the SAE or Nordmark, at least, and because it has a greater population it'll be able to afford a larger fleet. All Brazil needs is the kick in the butt to industrialize and take advantage of the resources it has. Let's also consider that transoceanic empires, just on their own, are hideously expensive affairs to maintain, never mind having to raise a military to defend it all. Whatever imperial ambitions Brazil has, and they do exist because Isabel II is a Habsburg, they aren't transoceanic; another point in Brazil's favor.

In the short run the SAE and its Nordmark ally have all the cards. But, whether you want to believe it or not, South America holds three rising powers. Insisting on seeing the ABCs as The Enemy and trying to keep a leg over is going to really hurt in the long run. My personal, OOC, advise? The peace pipe is going to be passed your way, smoke with the ABCs and your empire can benefit greatly. Don't smoke, and you're going to end up like every empire that ever tried to keep the locals down.]

I agree the route of Peace makes more sence...when you see these numbers....

Brazil:

BB's.....2
CBB's ..1+1 building
PC ......1
CL's.....4
DD's.....12
SS........3

SAE in same or equivilent catigory's

BB's.....12
CDS... ..4
CA's......7
CL's.....40
DD's.....74
SS........84

Plus 2 CV's

That means the SAE could send a quarter of its forces to the region and still lay a beat down.

As I already pointed out a 4 party alliance already tried and failed to route the foreigners, with Argentina not too keen on getting into another scrap things get worse.
Any new builds in the entire region can be matched by the SAE alone.