WesWorld

I still don´t understand why Mexico needs an eggshell with hammers? To me this design is completely unbalanced.

First of all it is difficult to understand why little Mexico tried its luck with capital ships anyway. With just one modern (?) BBs on each coast nothing is gained from a military point of view. A single ship will achieve little and given normal harbor time it cannot be at sea more often than perhaps 50% of the time. With two or three units you could rotate allowing at least one unit to be where you want a BB to be at all times. But with one? It might be wiser to build a squadron of super-CAs....

So I assume it´s all about prestige? To join the BB club? It´s expensive, costs you material for units you´d better have instead but okay. The question now is - why such an unbalaned design? What are big guns good for when the ship acting as carrier gets blown away because her thin armor is penetrated? Those huge guns are obvisously the most dominat design feature, yet they are not really well protected. Any capital ship and even some super-CAs carry weapons that can quite easily penetrate those gun houses.

If the Mexicans were my ally I´d talk to them and make them check other designs of similar size that are around in WesWorld. More balanced designs, that is, which offer improved tactical options. And I´d also try to make the Mexicans skip their BB ideas in favour of a balanced and powerful cruiser fleet.

But I´m not Mexicos ally, so all I say is of no relevance. ;o)

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
So I assume it´s all about prestige?

It could be to an extent, but one could also view it as an effort to create a mismatch, or to create a unit to make the country a more attractive ally. Or Fox just wants to build it.

In an era where strength was popularly determined by battleline units, being able to bring +1 or +2 to the table would presumably make you more of a 'player' and desirable to break the balance.

Belgium is going the other route. The two countries she wants to be an attractive ally to are France and the Netherlands. Both have decent long and vulnerable lines of communication. A 'supercruiser' prestige unit, and then a number of capable cruisers and escorts. This will allow a high seas presence, and keeps them out of the 'thick of it', but should prove attractive.

That "attractive ally" thing covers a significant part of my planning. That usually entails building smaller units like DDs, MSWs, and such, IMHO.

It might be unbalanced but so where the Pocket Battleships and they went on to have very succesful careers.

Why a BB? Well I already have plenty of everything else. Others might have top-heavy navies, Mexico's is bottom-heavy. Yes prestige is part of the equation, and yes Mexico want's to join the BB Club.

But Kaiser nailed the true reason. The main reason for it is to create a mismatch on the Pacific side against Iberia. That is why Mexico has invested so much effort into various ways to take out the Panama Canal. Take it out and the entire AEGIS strength on the Pacific side becomes a lone Light BB at Panama, the Peruvian fleet (2 old BBs), and whatever is in the Far East. My Heavy Cruisers can then operate more effectively and Iberia would now be forced to deploy feavy units to counter the Mexican BB.

Also the Mexican Pacific Fleet has been designed to operate with the US Pacific Fleet. The US fleet is based around a battleline and three separate scouting groups. The Mexican Fleet could then form 1-2 more scouting groups, operating individually or together with the battleline.

As for other options, Mexico already has more destroyers than it can man, and I can only build two more Villas for the price of one of these BBs. The Villas are nice but they can't stand up to La Luna or the Peruvian ships.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
As for other options, Mexico already has more destroyers than it can man, and I can only build two more Villas for the price of one of these BBs. The Villas are nice but they can't stand up to La Luna or the Peruvian ships.

I can't honestly say I'm confident this design will, either. Yes, it is technically a better-armed, faster ship, but its margin of superiority is minimal (and in the case of protection, nonexistent). IMHO, the outcome of a combat between a La Luna and the Chapultepec will hinge on more vital issues such as surprise, sea state, atmospheric conditions, fire control, additional ships present, quality of crew training... any one of which could turn for or against this ship. Heaven forbid that Chapultepec encounter a Mercury-class... a Mercury would wipe the floor with her.

Against the Peruvian battleships... well, thanks to Chapultepec's light armour, the Peruvian guns can still cause some heavy damage. The Mexican ship's speed can help her maintain range and hope for some good deck-penetrating hits, but that's not always possible.

IMHO, it's a decent design... for a battlecruiser. But battlecruisers shouldn't fight battleships, regardless of their armament.

These ships seem to want to compare with R&R....so, for about 4k cheaper you've got a ship with slightly larger guns, but slower, a lighter secondary/AA fit, and with inferior armour (except on the deck). Furthermore, the RCN intends for their pair of ships to operate together for mutual support if at all possible, and would only engage a modern capital ship in the most dire of circumstances.

-shrug-

Naturally I compare them to the similar sized Triumph class....

Why, btw, an all forward armament? Doesn´t this rob you off some operational capailities and tactics? There is no benefit in SS from such arrangement after all....

Shorter citadel? The only instance where I could see it being a negative is if sh's being chased be a battleships, she can't lob a few shells aft to deter the capital ships persuit. Besides that she can fire full broadsides as well as her entire main armament in a head on attack. This design would do much harm to other battlecruisers but she'd better get the telling hits first because her armament is inferior to quite a few ships in her size range.

Personally I'd rather see a 3x3 14" armed battlecruiser because it has more guns and the ability to fire aft and split her fire more effectively.

Skimping on tonnage is always going to get a less than desirable design.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Shorter citadel?

Sure, that´s the idea. But you don´t get that out of springstyle, do you?

I´m also not that confident that she is in disadvantage in a stern chase only. There are many reasons why in a gun fight the target could move to a sector just aft of abreast. In such case she might be able to fire if arcs for her guns are prepared that way BUT all deck equipment in that area will be in danger of blast damage (16" guns generate quite a powerful blast, methinks). So nothing valuable can be stored or installed there - leaving much less deckspace for AA guns and the like.

Which in return also means you have inferior AA protection in your forward arcs...

All-forward might be a good arrangement if you really gain weight. If not, why use it?

Btw, when the OTL US Navy run their calculations in preparation of the first treaty BBs (North Carolina class) they also simed some all-forward layouts. Opposite to the British (see Nelson class) or French (Dunkerque and Richelieu) they came to the conclusion it´s not worth it. Any gain in weight (if any) would buy just too many disadvantages.

That being said - I always liked the French BBs for their look and might even be willing to have my own Richelieu. So I understand why such layouts are appealing. :o)

The USN worked by adopting a fixed length of armoured citadel in order to protect buoyancy. Being able to place the turrets closer together wouldn't decrease the length of the citadel because this was already fixed. As such, they were only left with the disadvantages.

The USN also looked at all aft arrangements for the North Carolina, with aircraft facilities forwards.

I'm not a great fan of this ship. It stands a good chance of being mauled and sunk in a fight with two or three 8" cruisers. Torpedo protection is pretty minimal with 90ft of beam and a triple 16" turret.

To be honest I'd rather have either two Pancho Villa's or a North Carolina clone than this design, it can't really be called a heavy battleship as it certainly can't fight another one. Also 6.7 torpedo's hits to sink for a capital ship that size is fairly weak torpedo protection, I agree.

I'd say mexico has to hit the drawing board again if it wants a real capital unit because the Chapultepec can be replaced by other more capable ships in the various roles it will have to carry out. Leave the speedy raiding to the Pancho's and the heavy hitting to a rebuilt Arizaba. Purchasing some ex-American battlewagons wouldn't hurt either. The only other option is to build a 35,000 ton BB with more armour, less speed.

I do not consider the design as unbalanced as others. It is designed to operate on the open Pacific, where long range shootouts are the order of the day. And at long range it outclasses all of its potential enemies (no I don't see the Mercuries operating in the Pacific).

A straight up gunfight with an opposing BB is not what this ship is designed for. Its role is to provide a backup to the Villas . An Admiral Villar or El Cid hunting a Villa now has to keep one eye back, wondering if this ship is going to show over the horizon. Also if forces an enemy to deploy BBs in an attack on the Mexican Pacific Coast.

I don't see more Villas or Arizaba as options. The Villas are too small, especially if Peru gets the second Villar , while Arizaba is much to slow (as are the US BBs). Any ship on the Pacific fleet has to be capable of at least 30knots, which drives one of the design factors. And well this IS Mexico, I don't have wads of cash just lying around to spend on ships.

As for torpedo protection, how probable is a torpedo attack in this ship's are of operation? It won't be going near land based airpower or destroyer range, subs will have a hard time finding it, and Iberia only has 4 carriers. Doubt even 2 of them will be in the Pacific.

Why an all-fow? It looks cool and not many have done it. If all your nation can afford is one BB, make sure it sets the fashion and doesn't disappear among all the rest vanilla BBs. I mean just how many 3x3 15" BBs are out there right now?

If your aiming to back up the Villa's vs, an El-Cid or Villar why not simply upsize the Villa design and arm with 14-15" guns?

Their guns would still outrange her potential enemy's not to mention still outclass their armour and yet the smaller guns would still allow for much better protection in case the Iberians do decide to send a Murcury into the Pacific. You could also consider building two and sell/scrap your existing capital ships to cover some of the cost. You'd lose your existing capital units but gain two much more capable units.

What happens if you need your Pacific fleet to shore up your Caribbean fleet?

Also, with a 6.7 torpedos to sink rating that means if you take 3.4 torpedo's on one side your likely to sink, you also have to worry about subs who may try to lurk around your coasts.

I think for the role intended you don´t need a large and expensive design as proposed.

Why not scrap your two old pre-dreads, use the material and guns gained and build something like the one below?

I think it can do all you want it to do and still forces an enemy to send a real BB or carrier which will then be missed elsewhere.

Design Study, Mexican Battlecruiser laid down 1938

Displacement:
22.696 t light; 23.677 t standard; 26.235 t normal; 28.281 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
719,41 ft / 702,10 ft x 88,58 ft x 24,61 ft (normal load)
219,28 m / 214,00 m x 27,00 m x 7,50 m

Armament:
8 - 12,01" / 305 mm guns (4x2 guns), 865,70lbs / 392,68kg shells, 1938 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 5,00" / 127 mm guns (8x2 guns), 62,50lbs / 28,35kg shells, 1938 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 1,85" / 47,0 mm guns (8x2 guns), 3,17lbs / 1,44kg shells, 1938 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
12 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm guns in single mounts, 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 1938 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 7.979 lbs / 3.619 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11,0" / 280 mm 410,11 ft / 125,00 m 11,48 ft / 3,50 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 90% of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,18" / 30 mm 410,11 ft / 125,00 m 24,61 ft / 7,50 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 11,8" / 300 mm 5,51" / 140 mm 11,0" / 280 mm
2nd: 1,57" / 40 mm 0,98" / 25 mm 1,57" / 40 mm
3rd: 0,47" / 12 mm - -
4th: 0,47" / 12 mm - -

- Armour deck: 3,94" / 100 mm, Conning tower: 1,18" / 30 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 112.601 shp / 84.000 Kw = 30,62 kts
Range 12.500nm at 15,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4.605 tons

Complement:
1.029 - 1.339

Cost:
£11,632 million / $46,530 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 997 tons, 3,8%
Armour: 8.116 tons, 30,9%
- Belts: 2.266 tons, 8,6%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 441 tons, 1,7%
- Armament: 1.934 tons, 7,4%
- Armour Deck: 3.453 tons, 13,2%
- Conning Tower: 22 tons, 0,1%
Machinery: 3.083 tons, 11,8%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 10.424 tons, 39,7%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3.539 tons, 13,5%
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 0,3%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
45.420 lbs / 20.602 Kg = 52,5 x 12,0 " / 305 mm shells or 6,4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,16
Metacentric height 5,5 ft / 1,7 m
Roll period: 15,9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,55
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,03

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0,600
Length to Beam Ratio: 7,93 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 30,47 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 49
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 6,56 ft / 2,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 29,53 ft / 9,00 m
- Forecastle (30%): 24,28 ft / 7,40 m
- Mid (75%): 24,28 ft / 7,40 m (16,40 ft / 5,00 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15%): 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
- Stern: 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
- Average freeboard: 22,94 ft / 6,99 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 87,4%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 200,5%
Waterplane Area: 47.408 Square feet or 4.404 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 117%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 160 lbs/sq ft or 779 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,98
- Longitudinal: 1,24
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

I'm confused as to what the Mexican Navy's role is.

- Strike at the Panama canal to restrict the movement of Iberian ships between the West and East coasts makes sense.

- Commerce interdiction. Iberian traffic is going to be coastal from Guatemala to Panama. Without the canal, the traffic gets routed south in between the Galapagos and Peru. From there, the main shipping route splits, one going down the Chilean coastline and the other making a direct route to Cape Horn.

- Coastal support of Mexican forces on an initial offensive

I don't see commerce interdiction in the area around central america to be possible. Its always in within land based air cover and there are quite a few Iberian units in the area. Especially for a ship this large, it doesn't make much sense. This pretty much limits strikes to the region between Peru and Cape Horn, which is a 10,000mile + voyage with Iberian forces in the way.

Personally, I always envisaged Italian forces being deployed to the Pacific in support and staging out of the Galapagos and Panama. Depending on when exactly, a sizeable force would be likely for deployment.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Personally, I always envisaged Italian forces being deployed to the Pacific in support and staging out of the Galapagos and Panama. Depending on when exactly, a sizeable force would be likely for deployment.

Unfortunately such a deployment would have a few nations in the region a little tiffed (not just Atlantis) so its likely a good thing it's never occured.

I like Hoo's idea, it gives Mexico a fast unit it desires for the Pacific and doesn't give up Mexico's more valuable capital units.

Best leave Iberian to kick Mexico's ass by themselves.

Well NATO alone has made it fairly clear that Mexico will not be allowed to be invaded but also not support Mexican beligerance against Iberia so conflict is unikely.

Considering how relations between NATO/AEGIS and FAR-AEGIS have improved such a deployment would be a signal that those relations would have taken a turn for the worse.

Quoted

What happens if you need your Pacific fleet to shore up your Caribbean fleet?

Right now I would have absolutely no way of doing so. Plus the Gulf/Carribbean is no place for a battleship. Sending large expensive units such as this one into the Gulf would only be done as an act of desperation.

Quoted

I like Hoo's idea, it gives Mexico a fast unit it desires for the Pacific and doesn't give up Mexico's more valuable capital units.

A decent ship but too small for my needs. It is just the equal of a Villar and can not stand up to La Luna or any of the Peruvian BBs. My design with 16" superheavy shells at least stands the chance of inflicting serious damage on a Mercury.

The current design only has the normal-weight projectiles, the US superheavy projectiles for the 16" gun are 2700 pounds each.