WesWorld

The Carlos V class battleships will be scrapped, but might there be value in retaining some of those guns?

Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1946

Displacement:
6,953 t light; 7,272 t standard; 7,623 t normal; 7,904 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
344.49 ft / 344.49 ft x 88.58 ft x 13.45 ft (normal load)
105.00 m / 105.00 m x 27.00 m x 4.10 m

Armament:
2 - 13.78" / 350 mm guns (1x2 guns), 1,308.20lbs / 593.39kg shells, 1946 Model
Breech loading guns in a turret (on a barbette)
on centreline forward
4 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (2x2 guns), 67.03lbs / 30.41kg shells, 1946 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline, all aft, 1 raised mount - superfiring
8 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 5.65lbs / 2.56kg shells, 1946 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 2,930 lbs / 1,329 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.91" / 150 mm 190.29 ft / 58.00 m 10.86 ft / 3.31 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 85 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.97" / 50 mm 213.25 ft / 65.00 m 16.08 ft / 4.90 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 13.0" / 330 mm 8.66" / 220 mm 9.84" / 250 mm
2nd: 1.97" / 50 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 1.97" / 50 mm
3rd: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -

- Armour deck: 2.95" / 75 mm, Conning tower: 5.91" / 150 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 4,333 shp / 3,233 Kw = 14.00 kts
Range 8,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 631 tons

Complement:
407 - 530

Cost:
£4.014 million / $16.058 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 366 tons, 4.8 %
Armour: 2,670 tons, 35.0 %
- Belts: 604 tons, 7.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 250 tons, 3.3 %
- Armament: 490 tons, 6.4 %
- Armour Deck: 1,277 tons, 16.8 %
- Conning Tower: 49 tons, 0.6 %
Machinery: 108 tons, 1.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,630 tons, 47.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 670 tons, 8.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 178 tons, 2.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
23,960 lbs / 10,868 Kg = 18.3 x 13.8 " / 350 mm shells or 7.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.31
Metacentric height 6.8 ft / 2.1 m
Roll period: 14.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 100 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.25
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.69

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.650
Length to Beam Ratio: 3.89 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.56 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 39 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 59
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 21.33 ft / 6.50 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Stern: 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Average freeboard: 16.80 ft / 5.12 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 57.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 179.5 %
Waterplane Area: 23,377 Square feet or 2,172 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 127 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 130 lbs/sq ft or 634 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.89
- Longitudinal: 2.77
- 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
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Alternately, the guns on El Cid could be re-packaged.

Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1946

Displacement:
5,670 t light; 5,886 t standard; 6,198 t normal; 6,447 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
344.49 ft / 344.49 ft x 82.02 ft x 11.81 ft (normal load)
105.00 m / 105.00 m x 25.00 m x 3.60 m

Armament:
3 - 9.45" / 240 mm guns (1x3 guns), 421.80lbs / 191.32kg shells, 1946 Model
Breech loading guns in a turret (on a barbette)
on centreline forward
4 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (2x2 guns), 67.03lbs / 30.41kg shells, 1946 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline, all aft, 1 raised mount - superfiring
8 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 5.65lbs / 2.56kg shells, 1946 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 1,579 lbs / 716 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.91" / 150 mm 190.29 ft / 58.00 m 10.86 ft / 3.31 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 85 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.97" / 50 mm 213.25 ft / 65.00 m 16.08 ft / 4.90 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 9.06" / 230 mm 3.94" / 100 mm 9.06" / 230 mm
2nd: 1.97" / 50 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 1.97" / 50 mm
3rd: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -

- Armour deck: 2.95" / 75 mm, Conning tower: 5.91" / 150 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 3,846 shp / 2,869 Kw = 14.00 kts
Range 8,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 561 tons

Complement:
349 - 454

Cost:
£2.678 million / $10.712 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 197 tons, 3.2 %
Armour: 2,368 tons, 38.2 %
- Belts: 597 tons, 9.6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 250 tons, 4.0 %
- Armament: 296 tons, 4.8 %
- Armour Deck: 1,182 tons, 19.1 %
- Conning Tower: 43 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 96 tons, 1.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,832 tons, 45.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 527 tons, 8.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 178 tons, 2.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
28,356 lbs / 12,862 Kg = 67.2 x 9.4 " / 240 mm shells or 9.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.34
Metacentric height 6.3 ft / 1.9 m
Roll period: 13.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 100 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.18
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.71

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.650
Length to Beam Ratio: 4.20 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.56 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 37 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 59
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 21.33 ft / 6.50 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Stern: 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Average freeboard: 16.80 ft / 5.12 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 44.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 193.8 %
Waterplane Area: 21,645 Square feet or 2,011 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 144 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 108 lbs/sq ft or 529 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.92
- Longitudinal: 2.50
- Overall: 1.01
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
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Interesting monitors. Expensive and I perhaps not of much value, especially if you've more pressing construction needs, but an interesting design exercise. I think I'd prefer more deck armour though.

I figured it was adequate armor for the usual shore-bombardment work.

No plans to build them, though. Iberia's got enough modern battleships to blow up land targets.

Ruminating on cruisers:

10 x Inigo Montoya CA (1923): 10,600 t light, 8x21cm, 50mm D/120mm B, 32 knots, 25% refit 1942-44
4 x El Jefe CA (1942): 16,700 t light, 12x21cm, 75mm D/200mm B, 32 knots

6 x Hasta Luego CL (1919): 4,200 t light, 6x13cm, 30mm D/50mm B 32 knots, 5% refit in 1940s
6 x Avada Kedavra CL (1921): 7,700 t light, 12x13cm, 20mm D/20mm B 34 knots, 5% refit in 1940s
6 x Teide CL (1925): 5,700 t light, 9x152mm, 50mm D/60mm B, 32 knots, 5% refit in 1940s
5 x San Hainando (192: 5,300 t light, 9x152mm, 30mm D/80mm B, 33 knots, 5% refit in 1940s

14 x Alba de Tormes CLAA (1939): 4,200 t light, 8x13cm, 25mm D/25mm B, 34 knots
8 x Espada Ropera CLAA (1943): 6,100 t light, 12x13cm, 50mm D/75mm B, 32.5 knots

The heavy cruisers are not terrible. The ten Montoyas received recent 25% refits that addressed gaps in their armor protection, modernized their AA batteries, and added modern fire control and radar. The last of the four new CA finishes construction at the end of 1945.

The light cruiser force is a shambles. The two older classes have a weird main battery and minimal protection. The two less-older classes are badly over-gunned for their size and no longer meet our hull strength standards. I'm just finishing up a 5% radar-installation refit for them all.

The fourteen small CLAA are probably adequate as built, but not really more than large destroyers. The larger Espada Ropera class has eight units built or building and are more proper CLAA.

That's a total of 59 hulls, of which I would consider 22 (CA + new CLAA) to be good and 14 (older CLAA) to be adequate. With eleven battleships and eight carriers to be screened, I'd need 57 cruisers in service to meet the oft-recommended 1:3 ratio.

Between the end of construction on the Jupiter class battleships and the completion of the crash infrastructure program at San Hainando, I have the option of pouring more resources into the cruiser force. This could include:

-A more extensive refit of the Avada Kedavra class. These have 0.09 extra hull strength, but wonky main batteries. Rectifying the latter would require a 50% refit.

-Extensive refits of the Teide and/or San Hainando classes. These would have to gain 0.15 hull strength to meet our current standards, which almost certainly means a 50% refit at the least.

-Screw the old stuff, build more new CA

-Screw the old stuff, built more new CLAA.

My inclination is:

-Don't dump more money into old, crappy CL.

-Replace the twenty-three old CL as quickly as possible with additional Espada Ropera-style CLAA; I've got another seven budgeted for Q4/45 to Q4/47, and could probably squeeze out another four to six if I really knuckled down there. Slip availability is not an issue.

-Ride the ten Inigo Montoya CA hard until they reach thirty years of age. They'd likely be replaced on a less than 1:1 basis by new CA, or at 1:1 with additional CLAA. But this would be happening in the early fifties and I don't anticipate being part of the sim at that point.

I'd be curious to have your thoughts...

My thoughts would be "Screw the old stuff, built more new CL(AA)."... but then I like building small cruisers as much as I like building big battleships and carriers.

When you scrap those old cruiser, you will end up with some 19000 tons which is good for 3 Espada Ropera class cruisers. Not sure if you've taken the scrap tonnage into account when you said "could probably squeeze out another four to six if I really knuckled down there"

I tend to agree with your inclinations. After awhile, those older CLs simply have too little life and growth room left to merit heavy refits. I had a pretty similar situation in Russia, and I made the same choice, scrapping fourteen light cruisers and replacing them as quickly as the budget permits (which is not very fast).

I have never been a fan of major rebuildings for older vessels, so I would scrap the least desirable units and build modern vessels of appropriate size. Of course, I tend to see battleships as part of the screen as opposed to vessels to be screened, so multiplying light AA cruisers in huge numbers would not be my first choice.

Bruce - so you're thinking light or heavy cruisers? Or more that the capital ships and destroyers can take of themselves without too many cruisers?

Walter - I wasn't considering scrap value anywhere in that. If so, there's also four dreadnoughts and two armored cruisers that would contribute to funding. Iberia will have no shortage of stuff to junk over the next while.

Quoted from "The Rock Doctor"

Bruce - so you're thinking light or heavy cruisers? Or more that the capital ships and destroyers can take of themselves without too many cruisers?

Some might accuse me of being too "air minded" but I see battleships as large floating flak batteries to protect the aircraft carriers that are the core of the fleet. So, I my mind, they don't need to be screened, they screen. Yes, I've built large light cruisers, but I've stayed away from heavy cruisers as nothing shy of 15,000 tons could stand up to an opponent. So, I prefer to keep my gun cruisers at around 10KT but not build so many; I now regret having had Germany build two small light cruisers but that's life.

For a CLAA I'd go for something around 6 KT, like an Atlanta. The KM is kicking around such a design for the future to complement the projected large Air Defence Destroyers.

Your mileage may vary of course, as your needs might. I mean, there are all those Mexican tin cans that need recycling. :D

I think that part of the problem with the older ships is that our thinking at the very beginning of the sim was a lot different when simming vessels than it is now and thus makes them fairly limited unless they are fairly big. I think with me, the useage of miscellaneous weights is a good indicator as to how I changed.

Battleships
Then: Fuso and Nagato, respectively 0.5% and 0.4% of ship's normal displacement.
Now: Oshima, 3.7% of ship's normal displacement.

Carriers
Then: Hosho and Zuiho, both 18.9% of ship's normal displacement.
Now: Akitsu, Hiyo and Nurikabe, respectively 54.1%, 37.7% and 38.1% of ship's normal displacement.

Heavy/Armored Cruisers
Then: Asama and Jakumo, both 0% of ship's normal displacement.
Now-ish: Myoko 3.5% of ship's normal displacement.

Light Cruisers
Then: Tenryu, Kuma and Nagara, all 0% of ship's normal displacement.
Now: Kikuchi and Ashida, respectively 11.5% and 13% of ship's normal displacement.

Destroyers
Then: Minekaze and Kamikaze, both 2.6% of ship's normal displacement.
Now: Momo, 12.4% of ship's normal displacement.


I think that if I used the same aproach back then as I do now, the older ships would be more flexible and probably more worthy of a rebuild. Now I just scrapped some of the old ships with exeption of the battleships and the Kuma class...

... and the only reason the Kuma class was not scrapped was because I planned to do that after the Nagara class (which per hull gave me more scrap tons thant the Kuma class ships) and by the time I got to that point, all the scrapping was driving me nuts so I decided to take a small scrapping break. I have planned to start scrapping again in Q3/1945.

Quoted

Walter - I wasn't considering scrap value anywhere in that. If so, there's also four dreadnoughts and two armored cruisers that would contribute to funding. Iberia will have no shortage of stuff to junk over the next while.

Those would add more tons for potentially more CLs. Are those four dreadnoughts part of the 11 battleships you mentioned, because if they are, they would bring down the cruiser requirement as well.

Quoted

For a CLAA I'd go for something around 6 KT, like an Atlanta. The KM is kicking around such a design for the future to complement the projected large Air Defence Destroyers.

Your mileage may vary of course, as your needs might. I mean, there are all those Mexican tin cans that need recycling.

I would think that something a bit smaller than Atlanta and with something like 4" RF guns instead of 5" guns would be able to turn the Mexican tin cans into Swiss Cheese.

... actually probably not a bad idea... *starts up Springsharp*

The current run of CLAA (eight laid down) are essentially Atlanta-clones, except with 130mm and 57mm rather than 5" and 40mm. It's a size I think is a reasonable compromise in firepower versus affordability.

I suppose you caught me in a goof, Walter - there will be nine modern battleships when Jupiter and Saturn replace the four old ships. Not eleven. How long the three La Luna type stay in service is a question to resolve - they're smallish.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Quoted from "The Rock Doctor"

Bruce - so you're thinking light or heavy cruisers? Or more that the capital ships and destroyers can take of themselves without too many cruisers?

Some might accuse me of being too "air minded" but I see battleships as large floating flak batteries to protect the aircraft carriers that are the core of the fleet. So, I my mind, they don't need to be screened, they screen. Yes, I've built large light cruisers, but I've stayed away from heavy cruisers as nothing shy of 15,000 tons could stand up to an opponent. So, I prefer to keep my gun cruisers at around 10KT but not build so many; I now regret having had Germany build two small light cruisers but that's life.

Heh - whereas I've gone completely the opposite direction and shun light cruisers in favor of heavy cruisers and powerful destroyers. That's partly because I tend towards the Quality side of the Quality-vs-Quantity argument; and except in certain niche roles, CLs are more appropriate for the Quantity side. Hence why, IRL, the Royal Navy preferred to build CLs and the IJN and USN focused on building CAs.

In general, I don't see battleships primarily as screening elements, although they can do the job with some rough degree of success. It may be more apropos to think of them as prestigious "attack magnets", which defend the fleet by showing up to battle, falling under attack, and being very tough to kill off. Their large AA batteries are nice bonuses, but the same firepower can be provided for much, much less cost by three or four destroyers, which can cover more angles of approach. And if a destroyer is damaged or lost, then it's not such a big deal as losing a battlewagon...

Quoted from "The Rock Doctor"

The current run of CLAA (eight laid down) are essentially Atlanta-clones, except with 130mm and 57mm rather than 5" and 40mm. It's a size I think is a reasonable compromise in firepower versus affordability.

I think it's a good type to continue building, particularly in quantity.

Quoted from "The Rock Doctor"

I suppose you caught me in a goof, Walter - there will be nine modern battleships when Jupiter and Saturn replace the four old ships. Not eleven. How long the three La Luna type stay in service is a question to resolve - they're smallish.

If memory serves, the La Lunas are kinda... I guess the old-fashioned term would have been "Station Ships." Something that looks impressive that can be sent to a colonial station in order to serve as a suitable flagship.

I agree Brock, battleships make nice "attack magnets". But I would never build one for that purpose, and for AA defense, I would far prefer to build a batch of destroyers. Which is why Germany's given up on building battleships - but we do need to make the best use of the assets we've got.

I've posted some stand-in destroyer designs for those classes I know are in service but had no historical sims available. They're nothing fancy, and some are slightly longer than 12:1, but that seems to have been an Iberian thing in the 1920s.

I'll rationalize the two destroyer threads in to one later on.

I would scrap the old CLs too as soon as possible and keep building the CAs, though I would be tempted to build a class of 7,500-8,000ton 6in CLs too. CAs are very expensive these days and given their vulnerability it might be best to look at largish CLs.
I'm a believer in Station Ships so the La Lunas might be worth keeping.

I'm personally of the view that station ships can be viewed as an invitation to sink isolated high-value targets.

Given recent world events, I suspect the class is serving together somewhere. Just not quite sure where.

South America I guess, to keep those pesky Mexicans worried about the safety of their antique destroyer fleet.

IIRC the La Luna's were invisioned as Battleships specifically for the Caribbean/central America theatre, they are powerful enough to keep the smaller powers honest but not so big as to antagonize the larger nations in the region.