WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
Me too, but for some dark, sinister reason, the Italians decided to classify it as a destroyer.

It's only a name. It doesn't have any particular meaning without some rigid treaty framework. E.g. Canada's 18,000ton "Frigates".

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
Me too, but for some dark, sinister reason, the Italians decided to classify it as a destroyer.

Knowing You Japan will build a 20000t destroyer acting as an escort to the Yamato-ish ships.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
The US would actually be a little better than that, with the planned laying down of 2 more 18" BBs and 6 more 6" cruisers after the latest update (I need to get those turns up-to-date, I just hate the format Canis used and creating one similar to the one I use for Germany will be time-consuming with all the US infrastructure). But still, the USN is not overly impressive, agreed.

U.S. also needs to add some ship name lists for some of its ships too! Fletchers are in that 2,500 ton range of DDL's.

Iberia is too high, they dumped a lot of the old PC's.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Marek Gutkowski
With that way of thinking 20000t cruiser can me dubbed frigates. I think some time ago someone on this board did just that.
The lines are blurry.

The Commonwealth calls them frigates.

In the interest of clarity, the RCN has given the Frigate nomenclature to the 9.2" armed ships under construction, but the RN and RAN has not similarly done so for their 9.2" armed ships (Last I checked, anyway). So that minor crusade of mine is likely not going anywhere, sadly.

Okay, okay. Fixed.

Quoted

The Commonwealth should call them frigates.

Also, Bulgaria has chosen to classify the "large cruisers" as frigates, too. Just for the record.

Quoted

In the interest of clarity, the RCN has given the Frigate nomenclature to the 9.2" armed ships under construction, but the RN and RAN has not similarly done so for their 9.2" armed ships (Last I checked, anyway). So that minor crusade of mine is likely not going anywhere, sadly.

Well that's cause Canada is in charge of PR. Canada says that frigates carry 9.2" guns, Australia just lists 25 frigates in its annual report to Jane's...

I shouldn't have added the Cathedrals, it just opened a can of worms. The problem is, if I add the DDLs you just mentioned, I would have to add everyones DDLs, and then I might as well add DDs as well, which I kinda don't want to do this round, for various reasons. Anyhow, to simplify this im going to have to make some rules regarding classification for the Polish Reports.

Regarding Capital Ships:
A Capital ship is any battleship or battlecruiser designated as such. However, due to certain treaties in various parts of the world, some nations wish to sidestep this by rating their ships as cruisers. Therefore, if a ship has 6 or more guns of greater than 11in, belt and deck armour both exceeding 9 and 3in respectively, and can make 20 knots or greater, it is to be considered a capital ship and ranked accordingly.

Regarding Aircraft Carriers:
An Aircraft Carrier is any ship designed or reconstructed with the purpose of carrying attack aircraft. An aircraft carrier must be able to carry at least two squadrons worth of aircraft on the ship.

Regarding Cruisers:
A Cruiser is any ship designed for either trade protection/interdiction, or fleet work. A Cruiser should have main guns of more than 4in, and less than 11in, some belt armour up to 9in, and some deck armour up to 4in. As well, a cruiser should have a relatively high speed, so except in the case of an escort cruiser, a cruiser should be able to make at least 25 knots.

Regarding CDS/Monitors:
CDS/Monitors are those ships specifically designed for guarding the coast of a nation. Usually having 1 to 6 main guns of between 6in to 15in, Speed is usually low, protection is usually similar to that of an armoured cruiser, between 6in to 9in belt, 2in to 4in deck (although this is not always the case).

Well there you have it. And now things got a bit difficult, because rather than going through everyones sim reports, finding out when their ships will be completed, and using those numbers, now I get to go through everyones encyclopedia's and find out which ships meet the critieria, and which of the various torpedo/scout cruisers around don't (goes screaming off into a snowstorm). Should anyone wish to assist by either posting or PM'ing me the numbers of ships in their nation that meet the above mentioned criteria, I will never say no to help.

Quoted

The US would actually be a little better than that, with the planned laying down of 2 more 18" BBs and 6 more 6" cruisers after the latest update (I need to get those turns up-to-date, I just hate the format Canis used and creating one similar to the one I use for Germany will be time-consuming with all the US infrastructure). But still, the USN is not overly impressive, agreed.

Are any of those 6 6in cruisers complete by the end of Q1/39? I don't think the 18in BBs will be.

Quoted

You might want to talk to Mac (CG) as some of Iberia's ships (cruisers) are quite old and have been taken out of service. Also I don't think your counting training carriers or ships building?

I just went with what Mac has posted in his last sim report (Q3/3, which is 11+4+5+10+44+4+2=80. The last 2 represents the two CV's Seville and Porto which should be complete by the end of Q1/39. And yes, im not counting ships building nor training carriers, the first don't count, and the second aren't to be profiled this time, due to the sheer number of ships involved.

Quoted

I think you're are not counting the Indian monitors.

Nope missed them, will adjust their numbers.

Quoted

BTW, where would you put the 5210 t Italian destroyer in a report? In the Cruiser category or in the Destroyer category?

They will be in the Cruiser category, under the rules.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian

Quoted

The US would actually be a little better than that, with the planned laying down of 2 more 18" BBs and 6 more 6" cruisers after the latest update (I need to get those turns up-to-date, I just hate the format Canis used and creating one similar to the one I use for Germany will be time-consuming with all the US infrastructure). But still, the USN is not overly impressive, agreed.

Are any of those 6 6in cruisers complete by the end of Q1/39? I don't think the 18in BBs will be.

Not quite, the CLs will complete in 1/40, so all of them would fall under the Under Construction section of the report.

You might want to set minimum armor thicknesses for belt and deck armor to count as a cruiser: under my current reading of your guidelines, LOTS of DDs count as cruisers (guns larger than 4", belt less than 9", deck less than 4"). Up to you, of course, but.....

Fixed (added that little word "some") in there.

The Cathedrals are listed as light cruisers in my report tally and operate as two Light Cruiser Squadrons rather than in a standard eight-ship British Destroyer Flotilla.

The are scouts, probably more DL than CL but their role is more CL orientated than DL.


If a 9.2in gunned ship is a frigate than a battleship must be a Man O' War!

Man O' War, Ship of the Line, Battleship are basically interchangeable. Cruiser - Frigate not really so.

In my own fantasy fleet a large sea empire did used term frigate for a ships that any other will use a light cruiser.
That was done because they acted as a smallest ships with long cruising range and capable of sustained single operations.

Yeah but Man O' War sounds cooler.

"Avast, there be five Men O' War on the horizon! Load up the 15 inch cannon matelots. Har Har! Where's me Rum!"
[SIZE=1]The above quote is from 'The Royal Navy Offical Speech Guide for Modern Sea Warfare for Officer Cadets' HMSO Publications 1938, London, GB; unauthorised use of such language as contained herewithin will be punished by five days in the stocks [/SIZE]

"Ahoy, there be five Men O' War on me radar scope! Load up the 25 inch hypercavitating torpedoes matelots. Har Har! Where's me Rum!"

Quoted

Originally posted by Marek Gutkowski
Man O' War, Ship of the Line, Battleship are basically interchangeable. Cruiser - Frigate not really so.

In my own fantasy fleet a large sea empire did used term frigate for a ships that any other will use a light cruiser.
That was done because they acted as a smallest ships with long cruising range and capable of sustained single operations.

While smaller cruisers have the cruising range, Canada doesn't feel any of it's Light Cruisers will (or should) conduct independant operations given the prevelance of heavier combatants (and the likelihood of encountering numerous smaller ones) worldwide. In fact, while capable of independant operations, Canada currently has no plans of operating it's frigates solo.

Could be worse. The former player for the Netherlands over at Navalism called his Battlecruisers Frigates...his last one was 30,000t+ light w/ 15" guns and 30kts...in 1916.

Well RAM went with fairly conventional nomenclature, and I have followed. The only exception being the erzatz Ijelsijks, and thats just a cover story.

I think the Dutch may be 1 lo as the Ijelsijks should complete in 1938, but I should be able to get the Dutch back up to speed Sunday... I think.

Belgium should be down for 2 - The King Albert and the CL-1 Wandeslar should both count.

Edit : Siam should be +1, the Narden the Dutch gave them isn't listed under their CDS vessels.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Yeah but Man O' War sounds cooler.

I agree, sounds great!! I've got a few books were they called Man O' War!!

I've read the new RN report and it sounds great. Well balanced with some good info and some analysis not far off the mark.

A good peice of work which obviously spent some time on.

When Latvia is done, note that we have 6 ship's over 2,500 tons, with our new purchase. That means that we are before Persia...