WesWorld

This thread is for all preliminary information and design regarding the correcting of the Q1/29 to Q2/45 reports for reasons noted here.

Copied from some of my PM's with the mods regarding the reconstruction of the Mariana Millitare.

Regarding the general guidelines

Quoted

--It is accepted that some designs are going to be modified in order to make them work under the new factory numbers.
--The current number of Capital units (Battleships, large cruisers, and large carriers) will not be exceeded.
--Wherever possible, RA's designs will be used as templates.
--Historical weapons will take precedence over ahistorical ones, except in the situation where the weapon set a precedent that was then broadly used.
--Both designs and overall plan will be publicly reviewable before being finalized and accepted.

Some preliminary thoughts on the designs used by the Mariana Millitare

Quoted

Capital Units: I think the pace of building capital units as occurred under RA is not going to quite work under the current factory numbers. My thought is to have two building at a time, possibly with some overlap, and maybe one in the yard undergoing work. The current units for the most part form good templates, but I think the Tripolitania (and by extension my Leonardo de Vinci) class and the Andrea Doria Class might be to large. The templates going forward would be the current Littorio and the Guiseppe Garibaldi.

Battleships: The only two that carry over into the current era that were built at this time are the Cristoforto Columbo and Lepanto. I plan on giving both similar reconstructions to those which they received under RA, but the reconstruction of Lepanto might happen later tonnage dependent. For new construction, I am planing on two Littorio-templated ships in 1934 and two more in 1938-39. There might be a third pair in some stage of construction in Q2/45 with the intent of replacing the two oldest ships (as the current LdV class is meant to do).

Carriers: The Guiseppe Garibaldi class is the template here, the Doria's are to big IMO. One pair in 1936, another in 1940-41. The Europa class might see an earlier rebuild. The Francesco Morosini gets pulled out of service earlier. The Pisa-class conversions do not happen, but I might do 2-4 smaller CVs in their stead. See the Guiseppe Cie for what those might look like.

Armored Cruisers: The Zara Class gets a different rebuild, maybe earlier. The Ceaser class is constructed on schedule, not sure what my plan with them is after that. Im on the fence about building the Saint Class. If I don't build them, Im likely to only have the Zara and Ceaser. The new Reginia Elena might get built still. Would depend on what else needs doing. I sort of like having one of (if not the) fastest capital ships in WW.

Light Cruisers: I rather like the Sant' Achilleo class, and think it would serve as the template. The later classes lacking anything above a 47mm AA gun (sans the DP 152mm that shows up halfway through the run) is somewhat insane. All classes would still be in pairs of two. Not sure if I would make the leap to the Lombardia or not.

Destroyers: Outside of the Soldati class, I am rather satisfied with the current crop up through the Rosolino Pilo. The designs after that I would like to rework to be a better bridge between the Pilo's and my Venezia class. The other option I could work with would be to continue the tradition of "Greyhounds" set up by the Ruggiero. I know this would be a more major rework, but given that the Italians differentiated Destroyers and Escorts, I think the leap to "contre-torpilleurs" is a possibility.

Escorts: Diana and Gabbiano would form the templates here. That gives a large (Frigate) and small (Corvette) type.

Subs: I'm actually rather happy with all of the classes. Also I know the sims are good for all the classes that would need to be built. Likely not to go for quite the spam of coastal boats that RA did. Would likely even out the number of classes.

MAS: Sanity gets put in place here. Likely to be historical types.

Auxiliaries: I would want to keep some of the odd ducks here, like the heavy lift ship. Maybe minor effort to putting up some logistics capability before the AEGIS withdrawal, with the sharp focus on it afterwards (as happened in my plans before all this).

I have a more detailed spreadsheet that diagrams the above a bit better. If you care to look, I have just strait copy-pasted it below with no additional formatting. I might clean that up later.

Quoted

New Construction
Corazzata 1934 Battleship 40,000 2
Corazzata 1938 Battleship 40,000 2
Corazzata 1942 Battleship 40,000 2
Portaerei 1936 Carrier 30,000 2
Portaerei 1940 Carrier 30,000 2
Incrociatori Corazzati 1933 Armored Cruiser 13,000 3
Regina Elena Armored Cruiser 30,000 1
Incrociatori 1932 Light Cruiser 8,000 2
Incrociatori 1934 Light Cruiser 8,000 2
Incrociatori 1936 Light Cruiser 8,000 2
Incrociatori 1938 Light Cruiser 10,000 2
Incrociatori 1940 Light Cruiser 10,000 2
Incrociatori 1942 Light Cruiser 10,000 2
Incrociatori 1944 Light Cruiser 10,000 2
Cacciatorpedinieri 1933 Destroyer 2500 4
Cacciatorpedinieri 1935 Destroyer 2500 4
Cacciatorpedinieri 1937 Destroyer 2500 4
Cacciatorpedinieri 1939 Destroyer 2500 12
Cacciatorpedinieri 1941 Destroyer 2500 12
Cacciatorpedinieri 1943 Destroyer 2500 12
Sottomarino 1930 Fleet Sub 2000 6
Sottomarino 1935 Fleet Sub 2000 6
Sottomarino 1937 Fleet Sub 1600 6
Sottomarino 1942 Fleet Sub 1600 6
Sottomarino 1931 Coastal Sub 500 18
Sottomarino 1933 (Perla) Coastal Sub 423 24
Sottomarino 1945 (Y) Coastal Sub 320 8
Sottomarino H2O2 Coastal Sub 320 2
MAS 1929 MTB 14 48
MAS 1934 MTB 40 24
MAS 1937 MTB 24 48
MAS 1939 MTB 27 48
MAS 1941 MTB 30 48
Fregate 1929 Frigate 1500 4
Fregate 1931 Frigate 1500 4
Fregate 1933 Frigate 1500 4
Fregate 1938 Frigate 1500 18
Corvette 1932 Corvette 600 8
Corvette 1935 Corvette 600 20
Corvette 1937 Corvette 600 18
Ercole Auxiliary 9006 1
Brute Auxiliary 1899 1
FRV-L Auxiliary 7446 3
FRV-S Auxiliary 2195 5

Refits and Reconstructions (Tonnage based off current rebuilds)
Aquila 12010 2 24020
Francesco Ferrucio 3213 1 3213
Sant' Achilleo 3996 2 7992
Incrociatori 1934 4000 2 8000
Cristoforto Columbo 16042 1 16042
Lepanto 20837 1 20837
Incrociatori 1932 4000 2 8000
Incrociatori Corazzati 1933 6660 3 19980
Francesco Ferrucio 3214 1 3214

Under Construction in Q3/45 (Tonnage based off % completed)
Sottomarino 1945 (X) Fleet Sub 1183 4 4732
FRV-S Auxiliary 1096 5 5480

Also, what I hope is a relatively minor thing. RA's naming conventions make no sense. I am going to be redoing most names unless there is very strong objection. I have not quite decided yet what form that will take, so each design will be noted as [Type of Ship] [Year Lead Ship laid].

I appreciate the magnitude of the task you have set for yourself to make this right. As a player, what I would like to see would be a spreadsheet summarizing the quarterly expenditures on ships and infrastructure. I presume you have developed, or will develop, such to keep your own math straight. When you have completed it, could you post a link?

A preliminary version of such a spreadsheet can be seen here. The sheets labeled Naval Construction 19XX-19YY currently only have the units that are fixed based on the requirements above. As designs get finalized, I will add them into the plan. The format is identical to the sheets I have been using to make the current Italian reports.

Quoted from "snip"

A preliminary version of such a spreadsheet can be seen here. The sheets labeled Naval Construction 19XX-19YY currently only have the units that are fixed based on the requirements above. As designs get finalized, I will add them into the plan. The format is identical to the sheets I have been using to make the current Italian reports.

I see. I look forward to seeing the quarterly expenditures.

To start things rolling with actual designs, I present the Corazzata 1934. This is meant to be the direct analog of the Littorio class, but only two are planned. [Name Note: While the ships might originally be called Littorio and Vittorio Veneto, I fee that hanging onto the names after the ouster of the Fascists in 1935 is a bit odd given the meaning of those names.]

Corazzata 1934, Italian Battleship laid down 1934

Displacement:
40,000 t light; 42,123 t standard; 46,091 t normal; 49,266 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
807.08 ft / 787.40 ft x 104.99 ft x 32.81 ft (normal load)
246.00 m / 240.00 m x 32.00 m x 10.00 m

Armament:
9 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (3x3 guns), 1,951.09lbs / 885.00kg shells, 1934 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
12 - 5.98" / 152 mm guns (6x2 guns), 110.23lbs / 50.00kg shells, 1934 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, evenly spread
12 - 3.94" / 100 mm guns (6x2 guns), 30.51lbs / 13.84kg shells, 1931 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
24 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (6x4 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1932 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
24 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (12x2 guns), 0.55lbs / 0.25kg shells, 1934 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 6 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 19,299 lbs / 8,754 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 110

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.4" / 340 mm 511.81 ft / 156.00 m 18.37 ft / 5.60 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.97" / 50 mm 511.81 ft / 156.00 m 27.07 ft / 8.25 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15.0" / 380 mm 8.66" / 220 mm 11.8" / 300 mm
2nd: 5.31" / 135 mm 2.76" / 70 mm 2.76" / 70 mm
3rd: 1.18" / 30 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 0.79" / 20 mm
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
5th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 4.72" / 120 mm, Conning tower: 2.76" / 70 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 160,000 shp / 119,360 Kw = 31.03 kts
Range 4,000nm at 25.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 7,143 tons

Complement:
1,572 - 2,044

Cost:
£18.741 million / $74.965 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,111 tons, 4.6 %
Armour: 15,365 tons, 33.3 %
- Belts: 5,412 tons, 11.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,009 tons, 2.2 %
- Armament: 3,387 tons, 7.3 %
- Armour Deck: 5,480 tons, 11.9 %
- Conning Tower: 76 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 4,603 tons, 10.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 17,766 tons, 38.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,091 tons, 13.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 155 tons, 0.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
70,555 lbs / 32,003 Kg = 41.8 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 10.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.15
Metacentric height 7.0 ft / 2.1 m
Roll period: 16.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.68
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.03

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low quarterdeck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.595
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.50 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 32.43 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 48
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.58 ft / 1.09 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 27.89 ft / 8.50 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 24.61 ft / 7.50 m
- Mid (50 %): 24.61 ft / 7.50 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 15.58 ft / 4.75 m (24.61 ft / 7.50 m before break)
- Stern: 15.58 ft / 4.75 m
- Average freeboard: 23.52 ft / 7.17 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 84.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 186.9 %
Waterplane Area: 62,701 Square feet or 5,825 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 111 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 206 lbs/sq ft or 1,008 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.35
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

2.75m internal deck hight plus .5m Void

Waterline at 2m on 4th deck

Main Belt consists of 280mm main plate and 60mm decaping plate.
Main Belt covers 4th and 5th deck.
Main Belt inclined at 11 degrees. True Hight 5.5m
TDS Extends from bottom of hull to 4th deck

I'm wondering if its worth re-simming the Littorio just to save 26 tons, unless RA's sim was dodgy to begin with.

I also wonder if its more worthwhile to build the 3 Littorios and the 2 Tripolitanias as a single class of 5 Littorios? Assuming you intend to keep the same number of hulls within the revised budget, this would save 8-9,000 tons while only losing the firepower of 6 guns.

It might be handy if you could briefly tabulate the differences per type of warship between what RA spent and what Italy could actually afford. It might help having this overview.

Quoted from "Hood"

It might be handy if you could briefly tabulate the differences per type of warship between what RA spent and what Italy could actually afford. It might help having this overview.

The issue with that is in order to get a truly accurate picture, I effectively need to totally redo the reports. Anything beyond a quarterly breakdown is not going to work.

Quoted from "snip"

Quoted from "Hood"

It might be handy if you could briefly tabulate the differences per type of warship between what RA spent and what Italy could actually afford. It might help having this overview.

The issue with that is in order to get a truly accurate picture, I effectively need to totally redo the reports. Anything beyond a quarterly breakdown is not going to work.

Considering all the build or not build decisions Snip has to face - and accounting for inflows from sales/scrapping, not to mention the ship versus infrastructure decisions, proceeding quarter by quarter along a general plan is about the best approach that can be taken.

Quoted from "Hood"

unless RA's sim was dodgy to begin with.

Missed this one. Given all the issues that have been found in the past, resimming makes me fell more comfortable in this regard.

First crack at the 1936 CV.

Portaerei 1936, Italian Aircraft Carrier laid down 1936

Displacement:
30,000 t light; 30,869 t standard; 35,656 t normal; 39,486 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
856.31 ft / 820.21 ft x 98.43 ft x 29.53 ft (normal load)
261.00 m / 250.00 m x 30.00 m x 9.00 m

Armament:
8 - 5.98" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 110.23lbs / 50.00kg shells, 1934 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side ends, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 3.94" / 100 mm guns (6x2 guns), 30.86lbs / 14.00kg shells, 1931 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (3x4 guns), 1.82lbs / 0.83kg shells, 1932 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
12 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 0.55lbs / 0.25kg shells, 1936 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 1,281 lbs / 581 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 200

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.98" / 152 mm 533.14 ft / 162.50 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Ends: 2.36" / 60 mm 287.04 ft / 87.49 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.97" / 50 mm 533.14 ft / 162.50 m 32.81 ft / 10.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 1.18" / 30 mm 0.79" / 20 mm
2nd: 0.12" / 3 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 0.79" / 20 mm
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 4.33" / 110 mm, Conning tower: 2.76" / 70 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 140,000 shp / 104,440 Kw = 31.57 kts
Range 6,000nm at 25.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 8,617 tons

Complement:
1,296 - 1,686

Cost:
£9.127 million / $36.508 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 156 tons, 0.4 %
Armour: 7,580 tons, 21.3 %
- Belts: 1,577 tons, 4.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,274 tons, 3.6 %
- Armament: 82 tons, 0.2 %
- Armour Deck: 4,582 tons, 12.9 %
- Conning Tower: 64 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 3,928 tons, 11.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 9,912 tons, 27.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,656 tons, 15.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 8,425 tons, 23.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
52,793 lbs / 23,947 Kg = 492.7 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 8.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.20
Metacentric height 6.8 ft / 2.1 m
Roll period: 15.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 61 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.05
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.41

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.524
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.33 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 33.07 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 43
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 5.31 ft / 1.62 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 53.31 ft / 16.25 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 54.95 ft / 16.75 m (17.22 ft / 5.25 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 17.22 ft / 5.25 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 17.22 ft / 5.25 m
- Stern: 17.22 ft / 5.25 m
- Average freeboard: 24.64 ft / 7.51 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 82.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 144.8 %
Waterplane Area: 57,190 Square feet or 5,313 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 142 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 123 lbs/sq ft or 599 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.00
- Longitudinal: 1.00
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

2.75m Internal deck height plus .5m Void

Hanger height is 11m broken up into two 5.25m tall levels.

Misc Weight breakdown
--5184t for 72 Aircraft.
--2100t for 50mm flight deck armor.
--500t for crated spares, parts, and workshops
--150t Aircraft Operations Center
--150t Flag Facilities
--100t RADAR
----2xRSC.1 Suface Warning (10t each)
----2xRAC.1 Air Warning (10t each)
----6xRCF.1 General Gunnery Directors (10t each)
--100t Inert gas shielding for AVGAS lines and tanks
--75t Three hydraulic catapults (Two on bow-end of flight deck, one angled off aft port side)
--50t Crew Comfort considerations
--16t Reserve

First reactions -

No antiaircraft armament? (I note *all* the guns are simmed as breech-loaders only).

Does the angled catapult imply an angled deck? If so, I think it is far too early.

Specifying the hangar as two levels each of only 5.25 meters rather limits you on the overall height of aircraft with wings folded - depending on configuration. Might want to consider that...

No, there should be AA guns. *checks off "derp up the intended roll of armament" on his sim screwups bingo card*

With regards to the other points I refer to RA's drawing of the Guiseppe Garibaldi, which formed the basis for Portaerei 1936


The third catapult I specify is meant to be the on on the aft port portion in the drawing. Only reason I included it was because the Garibaldi had it. Not really attached to it, so if its felt to be to advanced I can give more crew comfort items.

Two-level hanger is also an artifact of the Garibaldi. I would be totally fine with having a single tall hanger. (I had originally planed a single 11m tall hanger, but that felt...odd. Cut it about in half to better match the Garibaldi)

I was not here when RA proposed his "angled deck" carriers, so I am uncertain that the Garibaldi was one of them or not. Personally, the position of that cat is *extremely* odd - I wonder whether an aircraft being launched from it would clear the portside 152mm battery - certainly the guns could not be elevated at time of launch. For 1936 I think it is far too advanced an idea. The same with the double-deck hangar - I think it is an design artifact that could be avoided - of course, others may have their own views - but only 16 or 17 feet of height on a hangar sounds quite cramped to me...

I want to see what others thoughts are on the offset angled catapult before I remove it. I agree that its usefulness is limited.

Do you think 11m (the four decks in the for'castle set this hight) or is that overkill?

Quoted from "snip"

I want to see what others thoughts are on the offset angled catapult before I remove it. I agree that its usefulness is limited.

Do you think 11m (the four decks in the for'castle set this hight) or is that overkill?

Probably overkill - though it does provide space to hang spare aircraft from above (which was occasional USN practice).

I see a few issues/ comments:

The design is heavier than Garibaldi by 650 tons. Certainly not saving any tonnage.
The 152mm and 100mm armament seems to be quite an overkill, I'm not sure where all those mounts would fit and firing arcs would be a problem.
This ship is the same size and only slightly heavier yet carries 12 extra aircraft plus those extra 100mm guns etc.
I have no problems with a double-deck hangar, such things were built or designed OTL before 1936, HMS Ark Royal would be one prime example. The Kaga and Akagi being others.
I have no problems with ditching the odd catapult aft.

I'm still unsure what the exercise is here, is it to redesign ships that need to be modified to fit in with Italy's corrected tonnage or is this an exercise in redaction and erasing RA from the sim? I've seen two ships now that look almost identical to RA's originals with some minor tweaks but in no way fundamentally altering the outcome beyond the odd cut in hull numbers. Remember the total tonnage lost from correcting the factory issue is 48,000 tons, the price of one large battleship or four large cruisers or 19 destroyers. There seems to be some danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater in redesigning every single class of ships RA ever designed and still ending up with exactly the same stuff at the end but of fewer numbers. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the necessary infrastructure/ numbers decisions and leave it at that rather than redesigning an entire navy when probably everything doesn't have to change?

The potential tonnage loss required is on the order of at least 200,000 tons, not a mere 48,000 tons. Three factories magically appeared in the fourth quarter of 1931, and a fourth in the first quarter of 1932. Allowing for their quarterly input over time racks up quite a total; then there is the third EAS factory that was not properly paid for - while it was only accounted for in 1931 and 1932, Snip has to now pay for the projects paid for with its phantom tonnage/IP out of his now-reduced real tonnage/IP. He has also committed to constructing out of real IP the three factories RA constructed using IP tainted by the use of the phantom factories previously created. Unfortunately, since this situation persisted over such a long time there is no easy solution.

By the way, in the main list of new construction, what happened to the Caeser class ships (the 6x12" vessels)?

Quoted from "Hood"

I'm still unsure what the exercise is here, is it to redesign ships that need to be modified to fit in with Italy's corrected tonnage...

This is what should be happening, according to my understanding. Myself, I'd prefer to just tweak quantities of ships rather than redesigning everything, but we allowed ship redesigns in the event that wasn't sufficient.

Apologies, yes my math is faulty, it would be nearer 200,000 tons.

Its just hard to comment on these designs when they don't seem to differ that much from what exists and its not clear what the overall tonnage constraints are per year/overall.