WesWorld

1927
___________________________________________________________________________
1st Quarter
___________________________________________________________________________

Ships Building:

HMS Hector
HMS Priam
HMS Aeneas
HMS Paris

3132t built, each of them receive 1044t

HMS York
HMS Exeter

9000t heavy cruisers, laid down in Armstrong Withworth & Co. slip #4 and #5 (type3)

Each ship receives 1500t

HMS Pegasus

6768t built, she receives 1692t

HMS Maidstone
HMS Forth

5916t built, each of them receive 1479t

HMS Bonaventure

3504t built, she receives 1752t

DE26 class, Batch II, 15 units

174t built, each ship receives 174t (2610t)

Total tons of material needed: 16188t

16 (of 55) factories assigned to shipbuilding material: 16000t
39 (of 55) factories assigned to IP: 3,9 IP

Factory 56; 0,7 IP spent, 4,4 left
Factory 57; 0,7 IP spent, 4,4 left
Factory 58; 0,7 IP spent, 4,4 left
Factory 59; 0,7 IP spent, 4,4 left
Factory 60; 0,7 IP spent, 4,4 left

Dock #2 (Pembroke): 0,1 IP spent, 1 left
Dock #3 (Pembroke): 0,1 IP spent, 1,1 left
Dock #4 (Pembroke): 0,2 IP spent, 1 left

533t of material carried over for the next quarter
___________________________________________________________________________
2nd Quarter
___________________________________________________________________________

Ships Building:

HMS Hector
HMS Priam
HMS Aeneas
HMS Paris

4176t built, each of them receive 637t, finished this turn

HMS York
HMS Exeter

1500t built, each ship receives 1500t

HMS Pegasus

8460t built, she receives 1692t

HMS Maidstone
HMS Forth

7395t built, each of them receive 1358t, finished this turn

HMS Bonaventure

5256t built, she receives 1752t

DE26 class, Batch II, 15 units

348t built, each ship receives 174t (2610t)

Total tons of material needed: 14318t

14 (of 55) factories assigned to shipbuilding material: 14000t
41 (of 55) factories assigned to IP: 4,1 IP

Factory 56; 0,7 IP spent, 3,7 left
Factory 57; 0,7 IP spent, 3,7 left
Factory 58; 0,7 IP spent, 3,7 left
Factory 59; 0,7 IP spent, 3,7 left
Factory 60; 0,7 IP spent, 3,7 left

Dock #2 (Pembroke): 0,2 IP spent, 0,8 left
Dock #3 (Pembroke): 0,2 IP spent, 0,9 left
Dock #4 (Pembroke): 0,2 IP spent, 0,8 left

215t of material carried over for the next quarter
___________________________________________________________________________
3rd Quarter
___________________________________________________________________________

Ships Building:

HMS York
HMS Exeter

3000t built, each ship receives 1500t

HMS Pegasus

10152t built, she receives 1522t, finished this turn

HMS Bonaventure

7008t built, she receives 1752t

HMS Echodale
HMS Ennerdale
(15000t Fleet oiler)

Laid down in Beardmore & Co.slip #6 and #7 (type 2)
Each of them receive 1854t

DE26 class, Batch II, 15 units

522t built, each ship receives 34t (510t), finished this turn

DE27 class, 10 units laid down in 10 type 0 slips, 5 in Portsmouth and 5 in Armstrong Withworth

Each ship receives 186t (1860t)

Total tons of material needed: 12352t

13 (of 55) factories assigned to shipbuilding material: 13000t
42 (of 55) factories assigned to IP: 4,2 IP

Factory 56; 0,7 IP spent, 3 left
Factory 57; 0,7 IP spent, 3 left
Factory 58; 0,7 IP spent, 3 left
Factory 59; 0,7 IP spent, 3 left
Factory 60; 0,7 IP spent, 3 left

Dock #2 (Pembroke): 0,2 IP spent, 0,6 left
Dock #3 (Pembroke): 0,3 IP spent, 0,6 left
Dock #4 (Pembroke): 0,2 IP spent, 0,6 left

863t of material carried over for the next quarter
___________________________________________________________________________
4th Quarter
___________________________________________________________________________

Ships Building:

HMS York
HMS Exeter

4500t built, each ship receives 1500t

HMS Bonaventure

8760t built, she receives 1752t

HMS Echodale
HMS Ennerdale

1854t built, each of them receive 1854t

HMS Oakol
HMS Teakol
HMS Cedarol

10500t fleet oilers, laid down at Chatham´s three type 1 slips

Each of them receive 1596t

DE27 class, 10 units

186t built each ship receives 186t (1860t)

Total tons of material needed: 3000+1752+3708+1860+4788: 15108t

15 (of 55) factories assigned to shipbuilding material: 15000t
40 (of 55) factories assigned to IP: 4 IP

Factory 56; 0,7 IP spent, 2,3 left
Factory 57; 0,7 IP spent, 2,3 left
Factory 58; 0,7 IP spent, 2,3 left
Factory 59; 0,7 IP spent, 2,3 left
Factory 60; 0,7 IP spent, 2,3 left

Dock #2 (Pembroke): 0,1 IP spent, 0,5 left
Dock #3 (Pembroke): 0,2 IP spent, 0,4 left
Dock #4 (Pembroke): 0,2 IP spent, 0,4 left

755t of material carried over for the next quarter
___________________________________________________________________________

RN OOB (End of 1927)

BB: 13
BC: 7 (Princess Royal leased to the Philippines)
CV: 5 (3 CV, 1 CVL, 1 CVX)
CA: 9 (2 more building)
CL: 81
DL: 18
DD: 157
TB: 15
DE: 70 (20 DE23, 20 DE24, 30 DE26 (10 more building))
OSS: 32 (26 L, 6 J)
CSS: 54 (32 H, 12 R, 10 O)

Auxiliaries
3 Seaplane tenders, 5 Fleet Oilers (building), 1 MTB Tender
___________________________________________________________________________

Yikes.

Glad to see the updates, though. I look forward to seeing Exeter and York's sim, the notion of a small CA was something I was interested in for a while.

I´m going to post the sims of all the new ships, and hopefully update the Encyclopedia, shortly. As for the York class I have two main possibilities:

HMS York (4x2 7,5"), British Heavy Cruiser laid down 1927

(The reports have been done with the light displacement of this version, however I could choose the other one with few modifications)

Displacement:
9.048 t light; 9.450 t standard; 10.992 t normal; 12.225 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
584,56 ft / 575,00 ft x 59,00 ft x 21,00 ft (normal load)
178,18 m / 175,26 m x 17,98 m x 6,40 m

Armament:
8 - 7,50" / 191 mm guns (4x2 guns), 210,94lbs / 95,68kg shells, 1927 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 4,50" / 114 mm guns (4x2 guns), 45,56lbs / 20,67kg shells, 1927 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all aft
16 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm guns (2x8 guns), 1,94lbs / 0,88kg shells, 1927 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
12 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 1927 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 2.086 lbs / 946 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
12 - 21,0" / 533,4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 4,50" / 114 mm 396,00 ft / 120,70 m 8,00 ft / 2,44 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 106 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 4,50" / 114 mm 1,00" / 25 mm 3,00" / 76 mm
2nd: 1,00" / 25 mm - -
3rd: 0,50" / 13 mm - -
4th: 0,50" / 13 mm - -

- Armour deck: 1,50" / 38 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 92.665 shp / 69.128 Kw = 32,00 kts
Range 11.115nm at 15,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2.775 tons

Complement:
536 - 697

Cost:
£3,437 million / $13,749 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 261 tons, 2,4 %
Armour: 1.555 tons, 14,1 %
- Belts: 590 tons, 5,4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0 %
- Armament: 314 tons, 2,9 %
- Armour Deck: 651 tons, 5,9 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0,0 %
Machinery: 2.925 tons, 26,6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4.232 tons, 38,5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1.944 tons, 17,7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 0,7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
12.167 lbs / 5.519 Kg = 57,7 x 7,5 " / 191 mm shells or 1,4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,13
Metacentric height 2,8 ft / 0,9 m
Roll period: 14,7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,71
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,20

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0,540
Length to Beam Ratio: 9,75 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23,98 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 59 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 59
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3,00 ft / 0,91 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 24,50 ft / 7,47 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 22,00 ft / 6,71 m
- Mid (50 %): 22,00 ft / 6,71 m
- Quarterdeck (8 %): 22,00 ft / 6,71 m
- Stern: 14,00 ft / 4,27 m
- Average freeboard: 21,88 ft / 6,67 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 105,7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 138,7 %
Waterplane Area: 23.455 Square feet or 2.179 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 115 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 105 lbs/sq ft or 513 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,93
- Longitudinal: 1,80
- 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

And the other one is similar to the historical ones:

HMS York (3x2 8"), British Heavy Cruiser laid down 1927

Displacement:
9.060 t light; 9.450 t standard; 10.992 t normal; 12.225 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
584,56 ft / 575,00 ft x 59,00 ft x 21,00 ft (normal load)
178,18 m / 175,26 m x 17,98 m x 6,40 m

Armament:
6 - 8,00" / 203 mm guns (3x2 guns), 256,00lbs / 116,12kg shells, 1927 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
8 - 4,50" / 114 mm guns (4x2 guns), 45,56lbs / 20,67kg shells, 1927 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all aft
16 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm guns (2x8 guns), 1,94lbs / 0,88kg shells, 1927 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
12 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 1927 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 1.934 lbs / 877 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
12 - 21,0" / 533,4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 4,50" / 114 mm 396,00 ft / 120,70 m 8,00 ft / 2,44 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 106 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 4,50" / 114 mm 1,00" / 25 mm 3,00" / 76 mm
2nd: 1,00" / 25 mm - -
3rd: 0,50" / 13 mm - -
4th: 0,50" / 13 mm - -

- Armour deck: 1,85" / 47 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 92.665 shp / 69.128 Kw = 32,00 kts
Range 11.115nm at 15,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2.775 tons

Complement:
536 - 697

Cost:
£3,381 million / $13,524 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 242 tons, 2,2 %
Armour: 1.642 tons, 14,9 %
- Belts: 590 tons, 5,4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0 %
- Armament: 249 tons, 2,3 %
- Armour Deck: 803 tons, 7,3 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0,0 %
Machinery: 2.925 tons, 26,6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4.177 tons, 38,0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1.931 tons, 17,6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 0,7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
12.689 lbs / 5.756 Kg = 49,6 x 8,0 " / 203 mm shells or 1,5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,16
Metacentric height 3,0 ft / 0,9 m
Roll period: 14,4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 72 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,61
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,23

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0,540
Length to Beam Ratio: 9,75 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23,98 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 59 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 59
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3,00 ft / 0,91 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 24,50 ft / 7,47 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 22,00 ft / 6,71 m
- Mid (50 %): 22,00 ft / 6,71 m
- Quarterdeck (8 %): 22,00 ft / 6,71 m
- Stern: 14,00 ft / 4,27 m
- Average freeboard: 21,88 ft / 6,67 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 104,4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 138,7 %
Waterplane Area: 23.455 Square feet or 2.179 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 116 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 104 lbs/sq ft or 506 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,94
- Longitudinal: 1,83
- 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

I´m most likely to choose the first one but... any opinion is welcome. BTW both ships are oficially 9000t standard.

I'd go with the first one, if only becasue it's Not Another Eight-Inch Cruiser.


(And we'll be wanting a sim of Pegasus, too. :-) )

Easier to standardise on the 203mm gun as carried on the Kents. Only one Class of cruisers carries the 7.5", the Effinghams. You could do what Wes did and convert them back into light cruisers with 152mm guns, like what historically happened. Then again the 7.5" gun doesn't represent a major decrease in power from the 203mm, however political realities might dictate the larger weapon.

Actually the British might be able to use that to their advantage. In treaty talks they might be able to get the gun size of heavy cruisers lowered, requiring every treaty nation to reduce from 210mm or 203mm down to 191mm (x = to someplace between 190 and 200mm).

This could go along with the Filipino case for increasing cruiser sizes and lowering battleship tonnage. Any ship with over (x) size cannon and between (something around 10,000 tons) and 24,000 tons or so is considered a large cruiser or whatever the term will be, and have its own catagory. This will place a lot of heavy cruisers in this new class, but not the new British York-class which would be powerful for a "cruiser" afterwards.

Yes but every other(most?) country will oppose that and changes to the treaty need unaminous consent.

Well it does reflect is some ways the "spirit" of the treaty by reducing the firepower perhaps the number of ships a nation might have. This could be achieved by placing limits on the size of ships or the number of hulls that can be built for battleships and heavy cruisers by dumping them in the "Large Crusier" catagory, which no one wants to build in.

Britain as I recall was the primary power behind the proposed reductions in the Washington Treaty (proposed reduction of new battleship guns to 14 inches, reduction in cruiser gun sizes to 6 inch instead of 8 inch and the removal of even more warships by treaty). This can be seen as a way to maintian their dominance at sea, without having to outbuild their rivals or getting involved in another war, which was the common practice until about the Great War.

Interesting, if the U.K. were to try this in Wesworld they would still be on top for some time.

Countries with 15 inch (380mm or 381mm) gun armed ships in the world.
(Either finished or under construction by the time of the treaty talks of 192

U.K. = 15 battleships and battlecruisers
S.A.E. = 8 battleships
Italy = 4 battleships
Russia = 4 battleships
Nordmark = 3 battleships
Atlantis = 2 battleships
France = 2 battleships
Netherlands = 2 battleships
Denmark = 2 battleships (non-treaty nation)
Japan = 1 battleship?

I was never aware of the RSAN having the most powerful battleline short of the UK.... Are you sure you´re values are correct?

Anyway, why should anybody agree to what you propose?

Atlantis wouldn't settle for anything that would further errode its capital ship strength.

Atlantis would have two 15" armed BB's to Italy and Russia's 4 and the SAE's 8, which certainly wouldn't sit well with Atlantian politicians or the public. The only way Atlantis would accept this rule is if It was still allowed to replace its 4 next builds to replace the Greek BC's and Poseidon with 15" armed ships, thus a compromise at 6 ships with 15" guns.

Not to mention the newer CA designs in Atlantis mount the 8" gun so again I'd have to modify all the CA designs built and developing since the CT's creation. The scrapping of the Chilean CA design would result from these preposals. This second caliber reduction preposal would be less of a pain, but not much less, I've already commited to the 8" despite my liking of the 7.5".

The UK of our timeline proposed those changes as a way to maintain his naval supremacy at a smaller expense, there are as many economic as military or political reasons for those proposals.

The UK in Wesworld is in a very different position, as Wesworld is a world with no ruling naval power because alliances of naval powers are far more common (and there are many more BBs afloat). The RN in WW would able to fight and posibly defeat any single power but other than that... the situation is completely different.

I might go for 7.5in cruisers, but tonnage and hull numbers is the main reason, not a wish for peace and disarmament (especially with the filipinos on the loose ;-) ). And I find quite doubtful we´d reach an agreement for further lowering on gun sizes and tonnage, especially with ships as the new italian or french BBs around, a 14in gunned vessel against one of these behemoths?...

The US Navy is still angry at having to get rid of its brand new 16" gun. While we would love a 14" upper limit, any changes to cruisers would be DOA as far as the US is concerned.

Quoted

changes to the treaty need unaminous consent.

I thought that only increases required an unaminous vote?

...and I only said I had been thinking about reducing the size of battleships; my Japanese allies did not respond favourably to the idea, so the Filipinos, while they might back a proposal by others, will not be the ones to propose it themselves. Disagreements with ninja are not conducive to continued good health. ^_^

Quoted

I was never aware of the RSAN having the most powerful battleline short of the UK.... Are you sure you´re values are correct?

From the capital ships section of "Jane's Fighting Ships of Wesworld, 1927"

South Africa
Mauritius (2) 8x380mm (4x2)
South Afrika (2) 8x380mm (4x2)
Mocambiqué (2) 8x380mm (4x2)
Ophion (2) 9x380mm (3x3)

That's 8 ships armed with 38cm guns.

Unless Nordmark has a lot more then 3 such armed vessels, South Africa holds the number two slot in terms of ships armed with the largest gun type allowed by treaty.

Quoted

Anyway, why should anybody agree to what you propose?

I wouldn't know. I'm putting forth ideas and concepts so that those at the treaty talks will be able to have a very interesting time, and make for some enjoyable reading later on. All these ideas can be seen from different points of view and altered to suit the wants and needs of any country. As stated the Americans would love to bring the world down to the 14 inch level. I imagine they would insist that all 15 inch gun ships be refitted with 14 inch guns. While this would still leave the Italians with the most powerful ship in the world...the Americans would probably have the largest number of guns afloat with most ship carrying 12 guns already...and not requiring a refit to their guns.

As for the Chilean CAs...those would be either reclassified as Large Cruisers, converted to either light cruisers like their predicessor, into carriers, or would give Chile more reason to build more Oyama's at home.

Behind the Americans I think Atlantis is next in line for most 14" armed ships, again however I must state that Atlantis would insist it be allowed to comple four 15" armed ships if it is to accept the 14' gunned limit, bringing the total of 15" armed ships to 6.

That would be veiwed as a compromise between South Africa's 8 and Italy/Russias 4 15" armed BB's. I still don't think anyone will agree to the downsizing with Britain running around with 15 capital ships armed with 15" guns. Thats nearly double the amount of the next teir country's, primarily South Africa.

At any rate this should really be discussed in a CT amendments thread, once we decide where the talks are to be held.

Actually we were discussing the York cruiser's guns to a point. (unfortunately I found some point that was partly related and that became the topic.)

The British choice to put 7.5 inch guns on heavy cruisers could (or should) allow them to have more ships verses building the huge number of 6 inch gun cruisers they did historically. This 6 inch gun cruisers might not have the punch needed in Wesworld with the higher numbers of 10,000 plus ton cruisers.

Yes the Treaty talks....I think they may prove to be entertaining.

The SAE will not spend the money to re-arm their brand-new CAs which are using 210mm guns.

I just hope the Talks and 1928 start soon before we start losing people's interests.

But it is good to put forth ideas for the changes even if they don't pass, it will allow others to at least hear another "point of view".

I might have been a bit too hasty when looking at all the posts since my return in Edmonton...

Quoted

Japan = 1 battleship?

Battleship? Battleship?!?!
You really call that thing a Battleship?!
:-)
As for starting the 1928 talks (which quarter anyway?), I do hope you guys will wait until I am at home.