You are not logged in.

Cleito Treaty addendum; Canada

  • 1
  • 2

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

21

Sunday, February 12th 2006, 2:27am

The most accurate version is in the Cleito Treaty, revised thread further down the list in this area of the board.

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

22

Sunday, February 12th 2006, 2:52am

One other thing to keep in mind for Canada: Canada might be better served (or feel itself better served, anyway) by choosing other limits than Australia chose. For example, choosing Greek limits would give Canada an additional 35,000 tons of capital ship allotments, but would cost Canada in cruiser and carrier tons.

Ithekro

Sage

Posts: 3,661

  • Send private message

23

Sunday, February 12th 2006, 2:57am

A balancing act. Does Canada need more capital ships or lots more cruisers and possible carriers to cover two (three?) oceans with one being in conjunction with the UK, where as Australia has its local area to cover far from British support.

Swamphen

Mr. Dynamite

Posts: 4,191

  • Send private message

24

Sunday, February 12th 2006, 4:14am

I would think that Canada would be more in the cruiser business...as there is a considerable amount of coastline to cover and they're better suited for the job.

Most likely, R&R would be the only Canadian capital units until the Treaty ended...and perhaps even beyond.

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

25

Sunday, February 12th 2006, 4:56am

I tend to agree with Swampy, I think Canada would focus on CL's or more importantly escort cruisers, DD's, Frigates and patrol craft.

Given the length of coastline to defend they would need 3 cruisers and 5 DD's on the west coast with the remainder of the fleet stationing on the east coast. Without the infrastructure to pump out BB's and CV's cruisers would be the best bang for the buck.

ShinRa_Inc

Mad Scientist at Work

Posts: 4,307

  • Send private message

26

Sunday, February 12th 2006, 5:03am

Well, since stupid me was looking at the wrong treaty (which mislead me into believing Australia had France's treaty limits...whoopsie), that means it's time to rethink a few things.

Question about the training ship provisions in the treaty; if a ship is relegated to training status, does it continue to count against the total tonnage for that category?

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

27

Sunday, February 12th 2006, 5:44am

It falls under training ship limitations via the CT. Those have also been modified in the recent treaty talks at the bottom of the forums. You could likely retain Hermes and the older CLs (when they are eligable to be replaced) as training ships as long as they meet certain requirements.

ShinRa_Inc

Mad Scientist at Work

Posts: 4,307

  • Send private message

28

Sunday, February 12th 2006, 7:25am

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
I tend to agree with Swampy, I think Canada would focus on CL's or more importantly escort cruisers, DD's, Frigates and patrol craft.

Given the length of coastline to defend they would need 3 cruisers and 5 DD's on the west coast with the remainder of the fleet stationing on the east coast. Without the infrastructure to pump out BB's and CV's cruisers would be the best bang for the buck.


"Escort Cruisers" in WW tend to fall under the unlimited CDS category. I plan to produce a fair amount of (relatively) large vessels to fall under this category for coastal defense / convoy escorts once industrial capacity allows for it.

And Canada will accept the remaining ships of the Effingham class.

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

29

Sunday, February 12th 2006, 10:51am

CDS tonnage is not unlimited, everyone gets the same amount (40,000 tons). It's only slow ships not equipped with torpedos under 2000 tons that are unlimited, or faster ships equipped with torpedos under 600 tons that are unlimited.

RLBH

Professional

Posts: 762

  • Send private message

30

Sunday, February 12th 2006, 11:53am

Quoted

CDS tonnage is not unlimited, everyone gets the same amount (40,000 tons). It's only slow ships not equipped with torpedos under 2000 tons that are unlimited, or faster ships equipped with torpedos under 600 tons that are unlimited.


Read the exact wording of the Treaty - you can actually do whatever you like under 600 tons.

RLBH

RLBH

Professional

Posts: 762

  • Send private message

31

Sunday, February 12th 2006, 11:55am

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
And Canada will accept the remaining ships of the Effingham class.


Very well; they will be transferred with effect from Q2/1930.

alt_naval

Professional

Posts: 1,375

  • Send private message

32

Sunday, February 12th 2006, 12:06pm

Quoted

Read the exact wording of the Treaty - you can actually do whatever you like under 600 tons.


Japan has +200 torpedo boats that will assemble together 'Transformer' like, to make a couple of battleships.

Cheers,

alt_naval

Professional

Posts: 1,375

  • Send private message

33

Sunday, February 12th 2006, 12:09pm

Quoted

Canada will accept the remaining ships of the Effingham class.


Is that cause Canadians are wimpy and can only lift 7.5" shells than the usual 8" of foreign ships.

AIGF.

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

34

Sunday, February 12th 2006, 12:23pm

Quoted

Read the exact wording of the Treaty - you can actually do whatever you like under 600 tons.


Sure, but the limitations were that over 600 tons you have to be slow and not equipped with torps to be classed in the unlimited category. Under 600, you can be fast and equipped with torps, or do anything else you'd like, but torps are likely to be your heavy weapons on a boat that size.

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

  • Send private message

35

Sunday, February 12th 2006, 12:24pm

Quoted

Japan has +200 torpedo boats that will assemble together 'Transformer' like, to make a couple of battleships.

Yes, Yamato and Musashi. :-)

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

  • Send private message

36

Sunday, February 12th 2006, 12:24pm

Quoted

but torps are likely to be your heavy weapons on a boat that size.


I've managed to get a 254mm gun onto a 600ton hull. I'm aiming for 305mm but haven't quite got it yet.

Swamphen

Mr. Dynamite

Posts: 4,191

  • Send private message

37

Sunday, February 12th 2006, 5:23pm

Quoted

I've managed to get a 254mm gun onto a 600ton hull. I'm aiming for 305mm but haven't quite got it yet.


The historical Italians got two twelve-inchers on a 350-ton hull...or so says Jane's 1924. ;-)
(Cucco and Vodice...and there's the various "Monte"s with a 15" on a 600t hull...)

ShinRa_Inc

Mad Scientist at Work

Posts: 4,307

  • Send private message

38

Sunday, February 12th 2006, 8:30pm

Quoted

Originally posted by alt_naval

Quoted

Canada will accept the remaining ships of the Effingham class.


Is that cause Canadians are wimpy and can only lift 7.5" shells than the usual 8" of foreign ships.

AIGF.


I had thoughts of replacing the single 7.5" with twin 5.5" turrets and trying to get away with calling them Class B cruisers, but as with most of my crazy ideas so far, that doesn't seem feasible. Most likely they'll be used until domestic cruiser production is up and running, then be downgraded to CDS tonnage

Swamphen

Mr. Dynamite

Posts: 4,191

  • Send private message

39

Monday, February 13th 2006, 1:17am

Quoted

then be downgraded to CDS tonnage


Hmm, that would require ripping out a few boilers...

(What about light CVEs a la Vindictive?)

ShinRa_Inc

Mad Scientist at Work

Posts: 4,307

  • Send private message

40

Monday, February 13th 2006, 1:30am

There's reasons why Vindictive was reverted to a Cruiser; I have different plans for my Carrier tonnage
  • 1
  • 2