WesWorld

The loss of MN France last August came at a most inconvenient time. French design staffs were fully engaged on new cruiser designs, since the Naval Staff judged that existing French battleships would suffice, while France had a severe deficiency in numbers and quality of cruisers. Hence, the Marine Nationale will not be able to lay down a replacement for MN France until 1924. The replacement for MN Courbet will be laid down at the same time. One of the concepts being considered follows:

France class battleships, laid down 1924

Length, 232.0 m x Beam, 32.2 m x Depth, 8.3 m
40634 tonnes normal displacement (37684 tonnes standard)

Main battery: 9 x 38.1-cm (3 x 3; 1 superfiring)
Secondary battery: 16 x 12.0-cm (8 x 2)
AA battery: 8 x 7.5-cm
Light battery: 32 x 4.0-cm

Weight of broadside: 7362 kg

Main belt, 36.0 cm; ends unarmored
Torpedo bulkhead, 1.0 cm
Armor deck, average 14.0 cm
Conning tower, 13.0 cm

Battery armor:
Main, 40.0 cm / secondary, 2.5 cm
AA, 2.5 cm shields / light guns, 2.5 cm shields

Aircraft - 4 Seaplanes, 2 Catapults

or

Fleet Command Bridge

Maximum speed for 89707 shaft kw = 28.00 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 8900 nm / 15 knots

Typical complement: 1431-1860


Estimated cost, $43.251 million (£10.813 million)

Remarks:

Relative extent of belt armor, 88 percent of 'typical' coverage.

Ship has slow, easy roll; a good, steady gun platform.

Ship is roomy, with superior accommodation and working space.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.02

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 70 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.58

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.00


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.00
(Structure weight per square
metre of hull surface: 970 kg)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.00
(for 6.28 m average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment +0.17 m)

Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

Cough cough. MN Courbet was laid down in 1910. That means that you can't replace her until 1930. Unless you're planning a really, really long building time.

Your ship is quite nice, being larger than Caracciolo allows for a bit more belt and deck armour, but thats the only real change. Anyway 3 on 1 aren't good odds anyway. Shouldn't she be either slower or faster? either 25knts to allow parity with Petr Veliki, or 31.5knts to keep up with Vengeance?

Accourding to chapter K I (a) of the Cleito Treaty replacements for capital units can be laid down 17 years from the date of completion of the tonnage to be replaced.

However, this has no effect on ships lost in combat or by accident.

Further more he might be able to build new ships accourding to Part 3, chapter A VI and scrap the old unit(s) he retained.

The building holidays are holed like swiss cheese. :o) *g*

Regards,

HoOmAn

I was sure that part 3 A, VI said 1909, but no, it says 1911 now.

However 1910+17=1927, not 1924.

I must question the use of a 10mm thick torpedo bulkhead. This is almost nothing.

That´s true. 10mm doesn´t offer much protection - it´s more like a thin splinter plate to block splinters or plugs that get free inside the hull once a heayv shell hits the main belt. But even then it´s quite thin...

Cheers,

HoOmAn

Quoted

The building holidays are holed like swiss cheese. :o) *g*

Yes, but do we care that they are? Cause I think if we did actually care, we would have rewritten the treaty (again).

As for replacing lost ships, "this has no effect on ships lost in combat or by accident" what HoOmAn mentioned refers to Part 3, Chapter K, Article I(a), but you should look on and read Part 3, Chapter K, Article IV which reads:
"In case of loss or accidental destruction of vessels of war, they may immediately be replaced by new construction etc, etc..."

So what is mentioned in 3-K-Ia takes care of the building holiday while that what is mentioned in 3-K-IV takes care about the 20 years stuff (and the building holiday as well)... thus the construction of France's battleship starting in 1924 is completely legal according to those two points in the CT.

Walter

Yes but France can only build 1 such ship to replace MN France. She cannot build another to replace MN Courbet in 1924.

That 10mm plate isn't going to stop many splinters.

Guess what? I'm sleeping. ;;

(I think that I was half sleeping when I read that bit has something to do with having spend too many hours this weekend on P.T.O. IV)
Looking at the treaty, I do not see anything mentioning that the replacement for the Courbet is allowed to be laid down in 1924... so I have to agree with Red Admiral now on that point. While the France can be laid down in 1924 accoring to the two articles I mentioned, only 3-K-Ia applies for the Courbet so it cannot be laid down any sooner than 1927 (unless there is something I missed. Originally I thought there was something about that, but I found out that it referred to Chapter "B" (Carriers) and not chapter "A" (Capital Ships)).
So either the France is laid down in 1924 and the Courbet is laid down in 1927 or the design altered so that both ships are laid down in 1927.

Walter

Has france built up to its capital ship tonnage limit or hull numbers limit?

HoOmAn is correct.

Part 3, Chapter A. Article VI.

Each Contracting Power that under Part 3, Chapter A, Article V above, retains at least one capital ship laid down prior to January 1st
1911, and has not given up capital ships laid down after January 1st
1911, shall be permitted to lay down two capital ships in replacement
of two existing capital ships that would otherwise be retained under
the treaty, which are to be disposed of as per Part 3, Chapter H,
Articles I-VIII below, upon completion of the replacement-tonnage.

So MN Courbet, laid down in 1910, may be replaced before the expiration of the building holiday.

Red Admiral asks:

"Shouldn't she be either slower or faster? either 25knts to allow parity with Petr Veliki, or 31.5knts to keep up with Vengeance?"

Russian and French naval design staffs have a few little disagreements. Recal the following from last July:

http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?th…9ebfcfbb&page=2

"Future Russian BB designs won't win any races, but they won't get too badly outdistanced, while resisting hits and packing a lot of powerful guns.

Future French BB designs will keep up with most others, while resisting hits as well, and with not quite so many, relatively lower velocity guns"

So we see that MN France and Imperator Petr Veliki show what ideas French and Russian designers share, and how they differ. They agree on the importance of protection, but disagree on the importance of armament and tactical speed.

My faithful Atlantean ally asks:

"Has france built up to its capital ship tonnage limit or hull numbers limit?"

France is permitted 6 capital ships of 200,000 aggregate tons. France presently has 5 capital ships of 113,067 tons. Plenty of room to make 'em bigger. And the present design is only one of the concepts being discussed, although she's the leader of the pack at the moment.