WesWorld

Possible opponents to the Iberian battlefleet are, in alphabetical order:

Atlantis

6 x Neptune (9x16.5", 30 kts)
4 x Memnon/Improved Memnon (9x15", 28 kts)

China

2 x Koning (10x14", 26.5 kts)
1 x Taipei (9x12", 32 kts)

Mexico

1 x Chapultepec (6x16", 30 kts)
2 x Bohol (6x12.6", 31.6"

SAE

4 x Leviathan/Thunderer (9x16.5", 29 kts)
4 x Monarch/Imperator (9x15", 29 kts)
2 x Radiance (8x11", 33 kts)
2 x Triumph (8x13", 32 kts)

United States

4 x Montana (12x16", 28 kts)
2 x Lexington (8x16", 32 kts)

This list obviously does not include older ships in the orders of battle. Against this, Iberia could muster:

4 x Jupiter (?)
4 x Mercurio (9x15", 30 kts)
3 x La Luna (6x15", 28 kts)

It's the specifics of the Jupiter class that I'm trying to work out.

Mac had sketched out a 12x15", 30 kt design - basically, a Mercurio with an extra turret. He'd also mused about an 18" design, likely with four twins. Either would be a reasonable match with the modern Atlantis/American/SAE designs.

A side issue remains, though - the Iberians will have to junk their four armored cruisers soon. Their potential opponents - including the most belligerent Mexican and Chinese fleets - have cruiser-killer types in the 32 knots range.

So, do the Iberians look to kill two birds with one stone by trading firepower for speed in the Jupiter class? Or should they leave the task of anti-Chapultepec duty to a new class? Or just let aircraft take care of them?

Prelim sims in SS3 suggest Iberia can have the Jupiters turn out in one of the four following variants:

-4x3 15", 30kts. This is the baseline enlarged Mercurio, and is 100% compatable with that class.

-4x2 17.7", 30 kts. This is the baseline with heavier main battery, but protection/speed siimlar to the Mercurios. Better penetration against hard targets in the USN, Atlantean, and SAE fleets, but logistical issues created by a new major gun caliber.

-3x3 15", 32 kts. This would be an enlarged Mercurio with additional machinery rather than firepower. Not necessarily up to a 1:1 brawl with the heavier major power units, but can keep pace with the various AC/BC types and kill most of them pretty handily.

-3x2 17.7", 32 kts. As above, swapping out the main gun type. We get the logistical issues, and they're now incompatible with the Mercurios' speed and gunnery. On the other hand, those big shells will punch through pretty much anything afloat, and they'll deal quite handily with the AC/BC types they encounter.

These latter two types, while not quite equal to the largest foreign battleships, could save the Iberians from having to build ~80,000 t of new armored cruisers in the 1940s.

What are your thoughts? What would you do? Bear in mind we're looking at a decision made ~1939/40

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
China

2 x Koning (10x14", 26.5 kts)
1 x Taipei (9x12", 32 kts)

Also don't forget that China has two 6x11.1" armed pocket battleships.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
Prelim sims in SS3 suggest Iberia can have the Jupiters turn out in one of the four following variants:

-4x3 15", 30kts. This is the baseline enlarged Mercurio, and is 100% compatable with that class.

-4x2 17.7", 30 kts. This is the baseline with heavier main battery, but protection/speed siimlar to the Mercurios. Better penetration against hard targets in the USN, Atlantean, and SAE fleets, but logistical issues created by a new major gun caliber.

-3x3 15", 32 kts. This would be an enlarged Mercurio with additional machinery rather than firepower. Not necessarily up to a 1:1 brawl with the heavier major power units, but can keep pace with the various AC/BC types and kill most of them pretty handily.

-3x2 17.7", 32 kts. As above, swapping out the main gun type. We get the logistical issues, and they're now incompatible with the Mercurios' speed and gunnery. On the other hand, those big shells will punch through pretty much anything afloat, and they'll deal quite handily with the AC/BC types they encounter.

These latter two types, while not quite equal to the largest foreign battleships, could save the Iberians from having to build ~80,000 t of new armored cruisers in the 1940s.

What are your thoughts? What would you do? Bear in mind we're looking at a decision made ~1939/40

Myself, of the alternatives listed, I'd probably have gone for option one, the 4x3 15" armed version at 30 knots. That seems to me to be the best balance of capabilities. However, keep in mind that I don't have a high regard for gun calibers over 16", and when I design a capital ship, I don't usually pursue speeds above 27-29 knots.

However, given your alternatives - the difficulties with foreign armoured cruisers among them - I kinda like the idea of the 9x15" 32 knot ship. While it's not as dramatic as some of the other alternatives named, I think that's actually a good thing. For one, if you go with option three, the ships will not appear as discomfiting to some of the neighboring powers. I would not take the 6x17.7" option, myself - I rarely feel that six-gun capital ships are useful ways to use tonnage.

I must admit that I feel a bit of trepidation, as Wes has already said, at the appearance of Iberian ships via catch-up; naturally, I have not been able to relate back and forth to what they're doing as I plan stuff in France, even though I don't see Iberia as an immediate foe. From my standpoint as France, I could more easily say "Oh, the Iberians are just building fast 9x15" ships; those are similar to what I've got. No response would've been seen as necessary." But if they were the 8x17.7" ships, France would probably have felt a bit compelled to at least study an equivalent vessel (even though France lacks the money to build one). A bit alarming, given the number of countries around France which have exceeded the 15" gun caliber already (Germany, Britain, and the Dutch (!?!?!), and formerly the SAE, though they now figure low on the French naval planning list). Only Italy has retained 15" so far.

I would go for the 4x3 15", 30kts option myself, although I agree with Brock the 9x3, 32kts has some merit.
Countering ACs is hard in WW given how big and powerful they are. A 15in gunned ship seems wasteful for that task given an Iberian fleet facing a combined NATO force, for example, would face a multitude of capital ship targets without, perhaps, the desired freedom Iberia would want beyond concentrating its battleline against enemy capital ships.

Maybe a four super-CAs could follow the Jupiters down the slips? More carriers though might be more cost effective for anti-CA duties.

I toyed with big 17-19 inch guns for the Admirals but felt the smaller number of barrels offered no real advantage despite the greater punch and range. As to Brock's assessment, in 1939/40 the RN's Admiral Class were still being publicly toted as repeat Saint Vincents or 4x3 15in battleships. I feel had the Sachens not been so heavily armed the RN would have found it easier to ignore the Japanese 18in as a fluke and gone with 4x3 15in, for reasons of cost.

From Germany's perspective:

A - we are happy not to be on the Iberian hit list.

B - I think that Option One - four triple 15-inch, 30 knots - is probably the most cost-effective option in the end, unless you go overboard with the design.

The Sachsens were designed before my time and are far larger (and costlier) than anything I would have built had they not been so far along. Any tonnage saved in building a more cost-effective (if less impressive) battleship can be put into other categories, which need equal attention.

It's also worth noting that the USN's Montanas were laid down with the intent of shipping 8x18", but saner heads prevailed and they completed with 16"

I dare ask - why 18" as the only possible step up from 15"? What about 16" or 16,54" (420mm)? You get quite a balanced design on 50,000ts. IMHO, 50kts is a waste if fitted with 15" only, though 12x15" might be impressive. But the armor thickness on many modern WesWorld battleships may require more than a 15" shell...

With the introduction of El Cid Iberia surprised many in WesWorld and started the race for super-CAs.

If you want to stick to 15" because of your supply chain, I propose to reduce size of the Jupiters. Shouldn't be an issue as no design posted matches Iberia's reports. To re-do both design and report could be required anyway. 9x15" on 40kts should do, freeing some tons so you can probably launch a new generation of El Cid's. The latter you may need to hunt/escort carriers, CA and anything else smaller and weaker than a full-size BB. The combination of smaller BB plus super-CA also buys you more hull in total.

Just my two cents...

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

I must admit that I feel a bit of trepidation, as Wes has already said, at the appearance of Iberian ships via catch-up; naturally, I have not been able to relate back and forth to what they're doing as I plan stuff in France, even though I don't see Iberia as an immediate foe. From my standpoint as France, I could more easily say "Oh, the Iberians are just building fast 9x15" ships; those are similar to what I've got. No response would've been seen as necessary." But if they were the 8x17.7" ships, France would probably have felt a bit compelled to at least study an equivalent vessel (even though France lacks the money to build one). A bit alarming, given the number of countries around France which have exceeded the 15" gun caliber already (Germany, Britain, and the Dutch (!?!?!), and formerly the SAE, though they now figure low on the French naval planning list). Only Italy has retained 15" so far.

Mac had listed the ships in his sim reports some time ago, so I don't feel a lot of guilt about the hulls showing up in general. Atlantis and others know that there are battleships under construction.

That said, I fully get the concern about the heavier-than-expected caliber. I wouldn't necessary enjoy a similar bombshell going off next door to me.

Edit: And it's my sense that the Iberians lean towards more barrels than heavier shells, which counts for something.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
If you want to stick to 15" because of your supply chain, I propose to reduce size of the Jupiters. Shouldn't be an issue as no design posted matches Iberia's reports. To re-do both design and report could be required anyway. 9x15" on 40kts should do, freeing some tons so you can probably launch a new generation of El Cid's. The latter you may need to hunt/escort carriers, CA and anything else smaller and weaker than a full-size BB. The combination of smaller BB plus super-CA also buys you more hull in total.

That's a distinct possibility, I suppose. Lop the ships from 49,000 t to 40,000 t and there's 36,000 t to play with.

There are also the 6 rebuilt Tennessee class which you may wish to consider in Iberia's calculations, they do have 8x16in and can make 26 knots though they throw the lighter shell.

At present, the USN considers the Iberians the weakest out of its potential foes, mainly due to the fact that much of the Iberian battleline is old and reaching obsolesce, and their cruisers are museum pieces. The Jupiters in whatever form they appear along with a cruiser progamme would do much to change that, and give the USN a new conundrum.

Present USN OOB thinking places the 4 Montana's along with 4 of the Tennessee's in the Pacific with the Lexington's and theAlaska's along with the Essex's Yorktown and Enterprise. The Atlantic is covered by the 21 knoters with California and Tennessee as a "fast wing". Wasp and Hornet will be the carriers.

My impression is the more barrels aspect as well. RA was a proponent of the KGV concept that against modern ships critical penetration was unlikely, rendering fewer larger shells less valuable, as the sheer kinetic force of multiple shells hitting would do more damage. I had the impression Mac bought into that. Dunno if its well founded, but I was expecting a 12x15.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
I dare ask - why 18" as the only possible step up from 15"? What about 16" or 16,54" (420mm)? You get quite a balanced design on 50,000ts. IMHO, 50kts is a waste if fitted with 15" only, though 12x15" might be impressive. But the armor thickness on many modern WesWorld battleships may require more than a 15" shell...

Depending on when they were laid down, pre/post Dutch departure, the Dutch 435mm/49 BL firing a 1410kg shell @ 776mps would be available. Actually, the Dutch would happily provide that post departure as well. Though as Brock noted, that may have provoked a French response.

..I find Brocks and the Dutch (!?!?!) rather cute- yes and the Dutch.

Heck, even Greece jumped the 15" shark thanks to Alt_Naval's 16" Lysandros class. Still wish those were 10-12 x 15" instead of 8 x 16". Don't get me started on the 6" "DP" guns...argh

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
Mac had listed the ships in his sim reports some time ago, so I don't feel a lot of guilt about the hulls showing up in general. Atlantis and others know that there are battleships under construction.

That said, I fully get the concern about the heavier-than-expected caliber. I wouldn't necessary enjoy a similar bombshell going off next door to me.

Edit: And it's my sense that the Iberians lean towards more barrels than heavier shells, which counts for something.

That's likewise been my sense of Iberia.

I'm not too terribly concerned about new Iberian battleships, since I did know about the Jupiters beforehand and I had some idea about the capabilities that could be fit onto such a hull. I also recognized the great age of the mainstream Iberian navy would either require mass refits, or a bloated and barely-seaworthy navy (like Mexico's).

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
If you want to stick to 15" because of your supply chain, I propose to reduce size of the Jupiters. Shouldn't be an issue as no design posted matches Iberia's reports. To re-do both design and report could be required anyway. 9x15" on 40kts should do, freeing some tons so you can probably launch a new generation of El Cid's. The latter you may need to hunt/escort carriers, CA and anything else smaller and weaker than a full-size BB. The combination of smaller BB plus super-CA also buys you more hull in total.

That's a distinct possibility, I suppose. Lop the ships from 49,000 t to 40,000 t and there's 36,000 t to play with.

I have no objection, either as a player or a moderator, to reducing the size of the Jupiters and using the tonnage for other projects, particularly since there's no posted sim of the ship.

Adding in my two cents, by the way - I've always thought that Iberia, which built the Almirante Grau for Peru, really ought to build themselves an armoured cruiser or two on that same class.

As a player I will have to protest if the Jupiters are reduced in size and the tonnage used elsewhere. Wheater they are 45k tons or 55k tons doesn't affect me, but 40k tons of other more useful smaller ships does affect directly.

To be honest, options 1 and 3 make the most sence, more so with 3. They don't raise new concerns with rivals, they utilise an existing, capable gun and they counter multipul threats adequately, both reasonably sized battleships and the smaller armoured cruisers as well.

As to the preposal to reduce the size of the Jupiters as completed, I don't have any real objection to them being downsized as the design wasn't really finalized (to my knowledge). To be honest IMO it effects more nations but in a less drastic way. As a rather blunt example four 50,000 ton 17" armed ships effect Atlantis planning in a serious way (I would certainly be inclined to build 2 more Neptunes) and say Mexico marginally while four 40,000 ton 12x15" gunned ships effect both Atlantis and Mexico (and others) equally. They are a force to be wary of but not panic about.

Does that sound somewhat selfish? Perhaps, but in the long run I think Iberia will be building these ships to counter multipul threats. I highly doubt Iberia would build ships to outclass Neptunes and Montana's and leave Mexico's threat out of the equation. I believe they would want to design ships to cover as many threats as possible.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
As a player I will have to protest if the Jupiters are reduced in size and the tonnage used elsewhere. Wheater they are 45k tons or 55k tons doesn't affect me, but 40k tons of other more useful smaller ships does affect directly.

Just for you, I'll increase the size of the battleships, and their main armament will be a catapult that shoots destroyers at the enemy.

Probably an exellent idea for Mexico, seeing how they tend to buy a lot of DDs.

We've generally permitted players picking up a country some flexibility in dealing with just-laid-down designs put together by the previous player, particularly if there is something like a Springsharp error. In this case, since there is no posted Springsharp, I think we need to be consistent with past precedent and at least allow Rocky the alternative to re-design with a slightly lower tonnage.

As a player I also have to protest if the Jupiters are reduced in size and the tonnage will be used elsewhere.
It's a difference if a 55k BB will be built or a 40K BB and 15x 1k DD. I have no problems if the tonnage
will be stored and used later, but in my eyes the number of the vessels which are layed down in that
time frame should not be modified.

I don't object to the ship being downsized. As far as I'm concerned everything after Q4/41 is a blank sheet and Rocky should have the freedom to build or refit within that period to now. The Jupiters are going to be nearing completion now in game terms anyway.

If you look at the Iberian reports the Jupiter class are listed as 49,794 tons. A four-turret Mercurio would probably come out at around 43-44,000 tons so the saving will be more like 6-5,000 tons. Looking at that it seems CG may have had bigger guns in mind originally since 49,700 tons is a lot for twelve 15in guns.

I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but the Mercurio is an SS3 sim and should really be resimmed in SS2. I've tried a rough and ready copy and the current ship doesn't really work in SS2 that well. The 0.600 hullform is too big with lots of excess hull strength, stability is low and tonnage is slightly more.