WesWorld

17inc
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 8
(4/21/03 10:04:50 pm)
RAN ships up to and post treaty 1930 to 1935 to 1940
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well this my Javes bay class BB guys as you can see she to replace my 13.5 gun BBs in 1933 by the way 40,000tons is given as her displacement to the worlds Press like the real powers i lie and cheat on the numbers of tons there over by .
there 3ships of this class they are HMAS javes Bay
Batemans BAY
Kiama



Javes bay class, Royal Australian Navy Battleship laid down 1933

Displacement:
54,174 t light; 57,181 t standard; 61,914 t normal; 65,452 t full load
Loading submergence 2,344 tons/feet

Dimensions:
819.00 ft x 129.70 ft x 30.00 ft (normal load)

Armament:
12 - 15 " (381 mm) (3 Main turrets x 4 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
20 - 4.5 " (114 mm) (10 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
25 - 1.56 " (40 mm) AA
35 - 0.8 " (20 mm)
Weight of broadside 21,218 lbs (9,633 kg)

Armour:
Belt 15.00 ", upper belt 11.00 ", end belts 8.00 ", belts cover 100 % of normal area
Main turrets 17.00 ", 2nd turrets 5.00 ", AA gun shields 1.00 ", Light gun shields 2.00 "
Armour deck 8.00 ", Conning tower 17.00 ", Torpedo bulkhead 4.00 "

Machinery:
207,191 shp steam turbines, oil fired boilers = 30.00 kts, range 12,000nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
1,962 - 2,551

Cost:
£23.490 million / $93.962 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,652 tons, 4.3 %
Armour: 28,062 tons, 45.3 %
Belts: 7,915 tons, 12.8 %, Armament: 5,066 tons, 8.2 %, Armour Deck: 12,141 tons, 19.6 %
Conning Tower: 577 tons, 0.9 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 2,364 tons, 3.8 %
Machinery: 6,037 tons, 9.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 17,348 tons, 28.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 7,739 tons, 12.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 0.1 %

Metacentric height 10.5

Remarks:
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.21
Shellfire needed to sink: 56,900 lbs = 33.7 x 15.0 " shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 11.2
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 47 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.26
Relative quality as seaboat: 0.74

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.68
Sharpness coefficient: 0.45
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6.33
'Natural speed' for length: 28.62 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim: 60
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 77.5 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 163.7 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 101 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.79
(Structure weight per square foot of hull surface: 169 lbs)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 0.71
(for 20.55 ft average freeboard, freeboard adjustment -1.26 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 0.73


this one a town class DD buit in 1937 post treaty

towns class, Austraian Destroyer laid down 1937

Displacement:
3,730 t light; 3,840 t standard; 4,212 t normal; 4,493 t full load
Loading submergence 274 tons/feet

Dimensions:
455.00 ft x 36.00 ft x 20.00 ft (normal load)

Armament:
6 - 4.5 " (114 mm) (3 Main turrets x 2 guns, 2 superfiring turrets)
15 - 1.56 " (40 mm) AA
16 - 0.8 " (20 mm)
Weight of broadside 306 lbs (139 kg)
12 - 21 " above water torpedoes

Machinery:
46,546 shp steam turbines, oil fired boilers = 31.00 kts, range 5,000nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
261 - 339

Cost:
£1.872 million / $7.490 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 38 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 1,290 tons, 30.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,402 tons, 57.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 482 tons, 11.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Metacentric height 1.2

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is extremely poor
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.07
Shellfire needed to sink: 3,526 lbs = 77.4 x 4.5 " shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 0.8
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 54 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.33
Relative quality as seaboat: 0.92

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.45
Sharpness coefficient: 0.29
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 8.61
'Natural speed' for length: 21.33 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim: 59
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 106.7 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 45.1 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 146 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.74
(Structure weight per square foot of hull surface: 122 lbs)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 2.48
(for 13.00 ft average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 0.26 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.81

this one comes afthere the treaty is gone
NEW SOUTH WALES, Australian Battleship laid down 1939

Displacement:
163,873 t light; 170,170 t standard; 184,100 t normal; 194,506 t full load
Loading submergence 4,244 tons/feet

Dimensions:
1,049.00 ft x 189.00 ft x 50.00 ft (normal load)

Armament:
9 - 18.8 " (478 mm) (3 Main turrets x 3 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
20 - 5 " (127 mm) (10 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
100 - 1.56 " (40 mm) AA
175 - 0.8 " (20 mm)
Weight of broadside 31,386 lbs (14,249 kg)

Armour:
Belt 19.00 ", upper belt 16.00 ", end belts 10.00 ", belts cover 100 % of normal area
Main turrets 20.00 ", 2nd turrets 5.00 ", AA gun shields 1.00 ", Light gun shields 2.00 "
Armour deck 19.00 ", Conning tower 20.00 ", Torpedo bulkhead 10.00 "

Machinery:
366,153 shp steam turbines, oil fired boilers = 30.00 kts, range 20,000nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
4,443 - 5,777

Cost:
£57.010 million / $228.040 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3,923 tons, 2.1 %
Armour: 90,082 tons, 48.9 %
Belts: 15,539 tons, 8.4 %, Armament: 8,304 tons, 4.5 %, Armour Deck: 52,217 tons, 28.4 %
Conning Tower: 1,408 tons, 0.8 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 12,614 tons, 6.9 %
Machinery: 10,148 tons, 5.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 59,569 tons, 32.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 20,227 tons, 11.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 150 tons, 0.1 %

Metacentric height 22.4

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.36
Shellfire needed to sink: 428,685 lbs = 129.0 x 18.8 " shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 188.2
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 57 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.10
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.10

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.65
Sharpness coefficient: 0.46
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 5.64
'Natural speed' for length: 32.39 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
Trim: 52
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 40.1 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 165.6 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 130 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.22
(Structure weight per square foot of hull surface: 317 lbs)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.31
(for 26.00 ft average freeboard, freeboard adjustment -1.12 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.23
this ones a sloop

Bathurst class, Australian sloop laid down 1937

Displacement:
945 t light; 968 t standard; 1,080 t normal; 1,165 t full load
Loading submergence 97 tons/feet

Dimensions:
210.00 ft x 30.00 ft x 15.00 ft (normal load)

Armament:
1 - 1 " (25 mm))
10 - 1.56 " (40 mm) AA
10 - 0.8 " (20 mm)
Weight of broadside 22 lbs (10 kg)

Machinery:
4,960 shp steam turbines, oil fired boilers = 20.00 kts, range 8,800nm at 10.00 kts

Complement:
94 - 122

Cost:
£0.298 million / $1.192 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 137 tons, 12.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 730 tons, 67.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 135 tons, 12.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 6.9 %

Metacentric height 0.6

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation & workspaces is cramped
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 0.86
Shellfire needed to sink: 1,096 lbs = 2,191.1 x 1.0 " shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.3
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 80 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.04
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.04

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.40
Sharpness coefficient: 0.33
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6.25
'Natural speed' for length: 14.49 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 59 %
Trim: 77
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 52.1 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 68.4 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 290 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 2.18
(Structure weight per square foot of hull surface: 106 lbs)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 8.05
(for 9.90 ft average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 0.20 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 2.48


this ones a CA

Ballrat class, Royal Australian navy cruiser laid down 1930

Displacement:
10,771 t light; 11,242 t standard; 12,309 t normal; 13,114 t full load
Loading submergence 865 tons/feet

Dimensions:
590.00 ft x 68.50 ft x 16.40 ft (normal load)

Armament:
9 - 8 " (203 mm) (3 Main turrets x 3 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
8 - 4.5 " (114 mm) (4 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
16 - 1.56 " (40 mm) AA
12 - 0.8 " (20 mm)
Weight of broadside 2,702 lbs (1,227 kg)
12 - 21 " above water torpedoes

Armour:
Belt 4.00 ", ends unarmoured, belts cover 100 % of normal area
Main belt does not fully protect magazines and engineering spaces
Main turrets 8.00 "
Armour deck 3.00 ", Conning tower 8.00 "

Machinery:
100,746 shp steam turbines, oil fired boilers = 31.50 kts, range 6,900nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
584 - 759

Cost:
£4.550 million / $18.201 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 338 tons, 2.7 %
Armour: 3,205 tons, 26.0 %
Belts: 634 tons, 5.2 %, Armament: 798 tons, 6.5 %, Armour Deck: 1,681 tons, 13.7 %
Conning Tower: 92 tons, 0.7 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 3,053 tons, 24.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,100 tons, 33.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,539 tons, 12.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 0.6 %

Metacentric height 3.1

Remarks:
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.04
Shellfire needed to sink: 9,277 lbs = 36.2 x 8.0 " shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.6
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 54 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.36
Relative quality as seaboat: 0.65

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.65
Sharpness coefficient: 0.40
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 7.82
'Natural speed' for length: 24.29 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 60 %
Trim: 83
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 102.6 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 124.8 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 102 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.88
(Structure weight per square foot of hull surface: 100 lbs)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 0.69
(for 15.89 ft average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 0.10 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 0.73


Edited by: 17inc at: 4/21/03 11:46:17 pm

thesmilingassassin
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 24
(4/21/03 10:29:48 pm)
Waaaaaaaaaaaaay over treaty limits...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
......either this should be a design kept on the shelf untill the treaty breaks down, or the treaty will fall apart with a ship so blatently over the treaty limits, and Atlantis could easily outclass and outbuild if it decided to and i'm sure others are as well.

aowwt
Administrator
Posts: 46
(4/21/03 10:39:09 pm)
Re: Waaaaaaaaaaaaay over treaty limits...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i am not concerned. With australia halfway around the world it makes no diffrence to me.
Lessons for modern warfare:
"human intel is necessary, always be on the look out, and expect the unexpected"

Come to the Wargamer Forum at JPs Panzers Board

aowwt
Administrator
Posts: 47
(4/21/03 10:49:16 pm)
Re: Waaaaaaaaaaaaay over treaty limits...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i have to say that the last design is a concern. 9-18" guns is a bit much. it pretty much looked like my original prussian battleship. Way too big for any navy to build!
Lessons for modern warfare:
"human intel is necessary, always be on the look out, and expect the unexpected"

Come to the Wargamer Forum at JPs Panzers Board

thesmilingassassin
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 25
(4/22/03 4:26:40 am)
168,000 ton battleship?!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is completely unrealistic......i can't wait to here the others opinions on this, namely hoomans!!

17inc
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 11
(4/22/03 7:45:57 am)
Re: 168,000 ton battleship?!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
side note 168,000ton battleship is to be built if japan leaves the treaty and starts to build 16" 95,000 BB by the late 1930s or teaty breaks down

AdmKuznetsov
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 14
(4/22/03 9:24:37 am)
Re: RAN ships up to and post treaty 1930 to 1935 to 1940
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quoted

well this my Javes bay class BB guys as you can see she to replace my 13.5 gun BBs in 1933 by the way 40,000tons is given as her displacement to the worlds Press like the real powers i lie and cheat on the numbers of tons there over by .

Well, anyone walking by seeing a ship 819' long and 129.7' wide can do the math themselves...

Cheating kept within 3-5% or so of treaty limits probably won't be made much of. It will probably be <suspected> in naval intelligence circles, but an open accusation won't be made. Much more that that will become a real international issue.

More worrisome is the low hull strength of the Javes bay class. 0.73 is perfectly okay for an expendable destroyer, butnot for a battleship. Try to get it above 1.00, unless you like the idea of it breaking in half during a storm.

Also, I would have a look at the seakeeping of several of your ships. Water is supposed to stay <out> of the boat...

From
home.online.no/~anderse/toptech/rframe/sea.html

Seakeeping performance affects:
comfort and safety of passengers and crew
loads on equipment, cargo and structure
speed loss and service operability

So if you want your ships to operate in anything but smooth seas, get your seakeeping above 1.00. The easiest way to do that is by raising the freeboard. This increases longitudinal hull strength and reduces cross-sectional hull strength, while increasing seakeeping.

Visit my Russian/French fantasy fleet page:
admkuznetsov.tripod.com

The Rock Doctor
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 39
(4/22/03 10:53:53 am)
Re: RAN ships up to and post treaty 1930 to 1935 to 1940
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regards to the designs themselves:

Javes Bay class battleship

The armament of the type seems reasonable for the size of the ship. Speed's good, too, but...

The ship's got some serious shortcomings, most of which are related. The armor deck is extremely thick, more so than is either necessary or reasonable. This is the main reason you're getting hull strain warnings; a ship with hull strength values in the .7 range risks losing its bow in a storm.

The ship's also a lousy seaboat. Raising the freeboard would help although your hull strength limits your ability to do so. Reducing the ship's block coefficient from .68 to around .6 would also help, but I'm guessing you need that chunky hull to keep the stability up. Bear in mind that poor seaboats are not steady gun platforms; this ship could be a capable design in good sea conditions, but you won't get them often. Admiral Kuznetzov has a design with a similar main battery, it may be of interest to you - check his website out.

Battleaxe class Destroyer

This is a destroyer armament on a light cruiser hull, and it shows in the ample hull strength you have to work with. The anti-aircraft battery might be on the heavy side for this time period. Some would say that she's also on the slow side for a can. Her range seems a bit low, too, and you've got room to add fuel in that hull.

The hull dimensions are the root of the problems with this design. The length to beam ratio is around 14:1, making a long, narrow, and unstable hull. A length to beam ratio of 10:1 or less would improve your margin of stability, and in turn let you raise the freeboard the foot or two necessary to dump the "poor seaboat" warning.

With those modifications, and more main guns, you may have yourself a sound anti-aircraft cruiser design here.

New South Wales class battleship

The Japanese historically put a similar armament on a hull about 40% of the size in question here; since the hull itself is super roomy, I'm guessing the huge hull is needed to handle the massive deck armor (which by itself outweighs a treaty battleship) and torpedo bulges. By cutting these back to more reasonable levels - maybe 8 and 4 inches respectively - you could probably halve the size of the hull.

Bear in mind that while the ship is tough, the same materials could build three Yamatos, with three times the firepower and tactical mobility.

Hero class sloop

Well protected against short-range aerial attacks, but you'd be in trouble if you met any surface vessel (including submarines) with a 40mm as your largest guns.

Increase the freeboard a few feet, and ease off on the steadiness, so you get a better seaboat and don't risk capsizing.

Ballarat class cruiser

I'm having my own fun designing a treaty heavy cruiser, so I can sympathize here.

A longer, leaner, and less blocky hull might help you in a few respects. You'd find that you need less horsepower to power you along, which would increase your hull strength; you could then raise the freeboard to negate the poor seaboat warnings.

And, from a diplomatic point of view

Regarding the Javes Bay class, I agree with other folks that this design too blatantly violates the treaty. As the Admiral states, one can extrapolate the displacement with some basic information.

While aowwt may not be concerned - which I think is a mistake, considering that Germany was fighting Australian forces just a few years earlier - you have other, closer neighbours who are going to think differently. Japan, South Africa, France, Russia, and India to name five. Four of those navies are world players; the fifth could be by the late 1930's. Building outlandish capital ships is a good way to convince your neighbours to band together. You'll find yourself in an arms race you can't win.

As for the New South Wales class, while it's an interesting armchair exercise, I see no place for something of this magnitude in the sim or in reality. Nothing remotely close has ever been done in reality, so unless we're going into a science-fiction setting, I see no place for it in the sim.

Bear in mind that a ship of that size will take about 14 years to build. She'll be launched at the end of WWII, and won't commission until after the Korean War, at which time she will be utterly obsolete. One good nuke will put an end to her. Either that or somebody will have eight years to sink her while she's fitting out - and then you've got the problem of trying to raise three Titanics at once.

Regards,

J

King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 50
(4/22/03 12:17:50 pm)
You asked for my opinion?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wonder why......?!

There is only one possible answer: Pure nonsense.

This guy eats up our time and ressources (realtime) when he forces us to correct him time and again.

So there are two alternatives, though. Skip him or ignore him. I choosed the later for I´m not the moderator.

Ciao,

HoOmAn

thesmilingassassin
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 28
(4/22/03 8:12:48 pm)
battleship displacements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all honesty with a treaty in place, the same thing will happen in a war in the SIM as it did historically, all the nations will abide by the treaty for as long as they possibly can untill they see a threat that will force them to pull out. In WW2 the only battleships completed with a displacement over 50,000 tons was the Yamato class. They took years to build, were an incredible waste of resorces and were too few in numbers. They displaced around 68,000 tons built and 72,000 tons near the end of the war. Only two were completed as battleships, while the third was oddly completed as an aircraft carrier transport and not a true carrier, she surely would have had a huge airgroup had she been a fleet carrier.
In my view 50,000 tons in wartime is reasonable, any larger and it eats up valuable resorces and takes an insane amount of time to build. If a nation did decide to build larger, 80,000 tons in wartime would be posible but as i said would be an incredible waste of time and resorces. The monster preposed by Austrailia in my opinion is completely unrealistic, 168,000 tons is just preposturious, she is larger than a modern Nimitz class carrier!
That just dosn't fit in the SIM, the original players in the SIM wanted a challenge, even Aowwt who also loves large designs has agreed to scale down in the spirit of the challenge to stick to small realistic designs. I'd hate to have to take a dictatorship type aproach to the sim and regulate the max displacement of ships as an unwriten rule but 168,000 tons just has me shaking my head laughing.

aowwt
Administrator
Posts: 50
(4/22/03 8:47:02 pm)
Re: battleship displacements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think when i first designed my Prussian class Battleship i was just starting to figure out springstyle. Well i made it with 12 - 46cm guns in a 4 tripple layout. It turned out pretty good but was almost as large as a modern day nimitz. I have then done more research and found out the germans were designing a 42cm gun. Well that turned my super battleship into a smaller 75,000 ton ship in its current form. I also did one thing that most ship designers also did at the time. Figure out a good immunity zone and over the future classes of ships i increased that immunity zone. As for my prussians in the sim, right now i have no need for them. Plus i am not allowed to have them under the current treaties. Anyhow if I did construct them it would take 75 months to complete under the 1000 ton per month rule. Anyhow the Prussians are just too big for this sim. As for Germany not caring, well they dont. For one thing they are not part of the naval limitations but have a stiffer one under versiles. As for Italy, well Italy is concerned. They have colonies on the Indian ocean and will be upset if those designs ever get beyond the drawing board. Well until that occurs Italy will keep a watchful eye on Australia.

**********************************************

As for action to be take upon 17inc, well since i am the moderator i will decide upon you guys. If we come to the conclusion that he is taking the Sim to places we dont want to be in then we should as a group talk to him about toning down his thoughts. I could of course just delete this message altogether and try to forget he even brought up these ideas. It would be much easier but would make 17 much more mad. So I leave it up to you guys.
Lessons for modern warfare:
"human intel is necessary, always be on the look out, and expect the unexpected"

Come to the Wargamer Forum at JPs Panzers Board

17inc
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 12
(4/22/03 9:45:39 pm)
Re: battleship displacements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dont lose any slep over it guys this will be if and i do if? and when japan breaks the treaty you could say this ship is a plan A there is a plan B my navy minister was a old boy scout all way be preped all opshons on the table never rule out any thing

thesmilingassassin
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 30
(4/23/03 8:13:16 am)
good to have a plan but...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
....anything over 80,000 tons will just be unrealistic no mater who builds it. Wartime production will make it nearly imposible to build and in peace time only a short window of opertunity will exist to build maybe two behemuths before war eventually starts and after the treaty disolves for whatever reason.