Plans for naval defence of Romania and Yugoslavia

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

Marek Gutkowski

Professional

Posts: 1,280

Friday, January 27th 2006, 4:40pm

Plans for naval defence of Romania and Yugoslavia

For Romania I plan to bild
Max treat tonege Destroyers with heavy main Altylery
and CA of 13000t
Also some subchesers

Yugoslavia 4 DD and 4 subs.

What do you think?

Go to the top of the page

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

Friday, January 27th 2006, 4:53pm

Neither nation is a CT signatory, so I wouldn't worry about the size of the destroyers too much. If they are bigger than CT limits, or their guns are, so what? MTBs might be a good buy for both countries, and minesweepers/layers.

Go to the top of the page

Fyrwulf

Professional

Posts: 792

Friday, January 27th 2006, 7:15pm

Well, the problem is that all the nations with the big shipyards are CT signatories and they can't build for non-signatories outside the limits. Besides, I'm not a signatory and I plan to follow the CT, although that's for my own purposes.

Go to the top of the page

Ithekro

Sage

Posts: 3,661

Friday, January 27th 2006, 7:29pm

I guess that leaves Chile as the only nation doing radical designs.

You'll need to make the designs for Romania based on combat ability on the Black Sea.

Go to the top of the page

RLBH

Professional

Posts: 762

Friday, January 27th 2006, 7:33pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Fyrwulf
Well, the problem is that all the nations with the big shipyards are CT signatories and they can't build for non-signatories outside the limits.

However, your "2,500 ton, 135 mm gun" destroyer (for example) is counted as a cruiser by the Treaty - so it can be built. The only issue there is that there might be a premium for the ship type, depending on how much of a profiteer the shipbuilder is.

Essentialy, you can't buy ships over 40,000 tons or armed with greater than 15" guns. Even there, there are ways around it...

RLBH

Go to the top of the page

Fyrwulf

Professional

Posts: 792

Friday, January 27th 2006, 7:44pm

Quoted

Originally posted by RLBH
However, your "2,500 ton, 135 mm gun" destroyer (for example) is counted as a cruiser by the Treaty - so it can be built. The only issue there is that there might be a premium for the ship type, depending on how much of a profiteer the shipbuilder is.

Essentialy, you can't buy ships over 40,000 tons or armed with greater than 15" guns. Even there, there are ways around it...

RLBH

You mean like not fitting the weapons and calculating the official standard displacement with 15" guns and later, "Honest, I didn't realize they'd fit 16" guns on their ships!"

Go to the top of the page

RLBH

Professional

Posts: 762

Friday, January 27th 2006, 7:48pm

Quoted

You mean like not fitting the weapons and calculating the official standard displacement with 15" guns and later, "Honest, I didn't realize they'd fit 16" guns on their ships!"

At the least.

Go to the top of the page

Ithekro

Sage

Posts: 3,661

Friday, January 27th 2006, 8:25pm

Typical illegal sizes for treaty ships:
16"
16.5"
17"
18"
18.1"

Some of these guns likely do exist in Wesworld, they are just not mounted on any existing ship.

Be interesting if someone has a 15.5" gun but is calling it a 15" gun because it could be difficult to see a half inch difference at a distance.

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

Friday, January 27th 2006, 8:36pm

Yes, who's going to notice the 0.5 inch difference in the distance. makes me wonder why the Filipinos were so honest with their 155mm guns...

Go to the top of the page

Desertfox

Ambitious Packrat

Posts: 4,058

Friday, January 27th 2006, 9:21pm

Quoted

Yes, who's going to notice the 0.5 inch difference in the distance. makes me wonder why the Filipinos were so honest with their 155mm guns...

*Takes look at Filipino 155s*

My, my what big barrels you have...

Go to the top of the page

Swamphen

Mr. Dynamite

Posts: 4,191

Friday, January 27th 2006, 10:02pm

Quoted

makes me wonder why the Filipinos were so honest with their 155mm guns...

Sometimes we wonder too...

Go to the top of the page

Marek Gutkowski

Professional

Posts: 1,280

Saturday, January 28th 2006, 12:43am

hmm(think of a way around the treaty)
Order hull of your specifications.Call it an oceanliner
buy russian 420mm coustal cannons
billd a large drydock
Strap armour on the hull.
And presto Polands hase a Weissenburg (L-20) battleship with 8x420mm.

Nah to expensive.

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

Saturday, January 28th 2006, 7:12am

Quoted

Originally posted by Marek Gutkowski
For Romania I plan to bild
Max treat tonege Destroyers with heavy main Altylery
and CA of 13000t
Also some subchesers

Yugoslavia 4 DD and 4 subs.

What do you think?

I'd say Serbia (yugoslavia) would also require subchasers, more so than Romania. In the case of Romainia its difficult for subs to get into the Black sea without first making it past Greek/Atlantean/Byzantean/Turkish waters and then hit Romanias coast, where as Serbia's coast is more open to any nation who can muster up a force in the med.

Go to the top of the page

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

Saturday, January 28th 2006, 7:24am

If Serbia/Yugoslavia has virtually no coastline, and no significant port, I see no point in building a navy above the level of maybe a couple of coastal minesweepers and a few patrol boats.

If things change and a port comes into play, the coastline is still so limited that I might just consider a nice fort to be more suitable than a few ships.

Not sure that Romania needs a CA, but I can't say I have strong feelings on the matter.

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

Saturday, January 28th 2006, 12:41pm

I second the Doc on this one: I don´t see how either of such country can make good use of a navy as projected.

Go to the top of the page

Marek Gutkowski

Professional

Posts: 1,280

Saturday, January 28th 2006, 1:43pm

Yugoslavia

Subchesers are a must they are the backbone of Yugoslavia's fleet ill bill in many of them The DD are to be order from out side sorces.Subs are to be domestic bild.

Romania

The heavy cruisers are the type to be orderd from outside, big DD will be domesic bild ,subchasers propebly domestic.

Theres a problem designing ships below 500t in SS as I dont know what to do with MTB as of now.

Go to the top of the page

Swamphen

Mr. Dynamite

Posts: 4,191

Saturday, January 28th 2006, 4:10pm

Yugoslavia aka Serbia does have some coastline - they have an ex-Austrian-via-Atlantian-internment light cruiser and a number of light destroyers already.

Rumania would likely have the CA as a fleet flagship - but only one, and only after scrapping the Radetzky type predread they have now.

wonders what Bulgaria is doing with that ex-Filipino predread...

Go to the top of the page