WesWorld

That was I imagined. Thanks.

Life-extension refit of the Dhoni in 1943

Field Marshall Dhoni, India Landing Ship, Command laid down 1922 (Engine 1931)

Displacement:
7,057 t light; 7,242 t standard; 8,068 t normal; 8,728 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
431.95 ft / 423.23 ft x 75.46 ft x 16.08 ft (normal load)
131.66 m / 129.00 m x 23.00 m x 4.90 m

Armament:
2 - 4.92" / 125 mm guns (1x2 guns), 59.59lbs / 27.03kg shells, 1943 Model
Dual purpose guns in a deck mount with hoist
on centreline forward
4 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 5.65lbs / 2.56kg shells, 1943 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on centreline, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 1.38" / 35.0 mm guns (2x4 guns), 1.31lbs / 0.59kg shells, 1943 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on centreline, all aft, 1 raised mount - superfiring
Weight of broadside 152 lbs / 69 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.18" / 30 mm 0.39" / 10 mm 0.59" / 15 mm
2nd: 0.79" / 20 mm - -
3rd: 0.79" / 20 mm - -

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 13,410 shp / 10,004 Kw = 19.58 kts
Range 12,000nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,486 tons

Complement:
425 - 553

Cost:
£0.870 million / $3.481 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 19 tons, 0.2 %
Armour: 9 tons, 0.1 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 9 tons, 0.1 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 401 tons, 5.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,428 tons, 30.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,011 tons, 12.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 4,200 tons, 52.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
11,433 lbs / 5,186 Kg = 191.8 x 4.9 " / 125 mm shells or 2.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
Metacentric height 3.9 ft / 1.2 m
Roll period: 16.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.01
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.39

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.550
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.61 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 20.57 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 23.95 ft / 7.30 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 13.45 ft / 4.10 m
- Mid (50 %): 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
- Stern: 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
- Average freeboard: 14.08 ft / 4.29 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 75.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 131.8 %
Waterplane Area: 22,288 Square feet or 2,071 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 156 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 86 lbs/sq ft or 419 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.05
- Longitudinal: 1.29
- Overall: 1.07
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

1450t- Accomodations for 725 men
100t- Two catapults and four aircraft
1500t- Working Spaces
650t- Extra boats, cranes, davits
300t- Improved Communication and Command Facilities
200t- Misc weight

Licensed built copies of the SAE multipurpose cruiser completed with the Bharati 57mm DP guns.

Panvel Class, India Light Cruiser laid down 1943

C Panjim, C-45, laid down 1943
C Panchkula, C-46, laid down 1943

Displacement:
7,730 t light; 8,085 t standard; 9,097 t normal; 9,906 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
564.31 ft / 551.18 ft x 56.43 ft x 19.69 ft (normal load)
172.00 m / 168.00 m x 17.20 m x 6.00 m

Armament:
12 - 4.92" / 125 mm guns (6x2 guns), 59.59lbs / 27.03kg shells, 1943 Model
Dual purpose guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 4.13" / 105 mm guns (6x2 guns), 35.32lbs / 16.02kg shells, 1943 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 5.65lbs / 2.56kg shells, 1943 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
24 - 1.38" / 35.0 mm guns (4x6 guns), 1.31lbs / 0.59kg shells, 1943 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
12 - 1.38" / 35.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 1.31lbs / 0.59kg shells, 1943 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 1,254 lbs / 569 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 220

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3.15" / 80 mm 393.70 ft / 120.00 m 11.48 ft / 3.50 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 110 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.77" / 45 mm 1.38" / 35 mm 2.36" / 60 mm
2nd: 0.59" / 15 mm - -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -
5th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 1.57" / 40 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 93,849 shp / 70,012 Kw = 34.21 kts
Range 10,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,820 tons

Complement:
465 - 605

Cost:
£4.963 million / $19.851 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 157 tons, 1.7 %
Armour: 1,449 tons, 15.9 %
- Belts: 586 tons, 6.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 224 tons, 2.5 %
- Armour Deck: 640 tons, 7.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 2,397 tons, 26.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,667 tons, 40.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,367 tons, 15.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 60 tons, 0.7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
11,026 lbs / 5,001 Kg = 185.0 x 4.9 " / 125 mm shells or 1.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.03
Metacentric height 2.3 ft / 0.7 m
Roll period: 15.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.56
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.01

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.520
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.77 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.78 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 62 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 69
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 2.62 ft / 0.80 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 28.87 ft / 8.80 m
- Forecastle (25 %): 23.95 ft / 7.30 m
- Mid (60 %): 23.95 ft / 7.30 m (15.75 ft / 4.80 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 15.75 ft / 4.80 m
- Stern: 15.75 ft / 4.80 m
- Average freeboard: 21.16 ft / 6.45 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 100.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 184.7 %
Waterplane Area: 21,960 Square feet or 2,040 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 120 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 99 lbs/sq ft or 484 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.92
- Overall: 1.04
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

40t - FC and Aircraft Detection radar
20t- Misc. items

Why the 125s AND the 105s? I can understand the 57s and the 35s, but what can the 105s do that the 125s cannot?

Life extension refit of the Sri Pada Frigate in 1943

Sri Pada , India Frigate laid down 1932

Displacement:
1,032 t light; 1,082 t standard; 1,414 t normal; 1,679 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
311.36 ft / 303.48 ft x 32.48 ft x 11.15 ft (normal load)
94.90 m / 92.50 m x 9.90 m x 3.40 m

Armament:
2 - 4.92" / 125 mm guns (1x2 guns), 59.59lbs / 27.03kg shells, 1932 Model
Dual purpose guns in a deck mount with hoist
on centreline forward
4 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 5.65lbs / 2.56kg shells, 1943 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 1 raised mount
12 - 0.59" / 15.0 mm guns (3x4 guns), 0.10lbs / 0.05kg shells, 1943 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 143 lbs / 65 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.18" / 30 mm 0.39" / 10 mm 0.59" / 15 mm
2nd: 0.79" / 20 mm - -
3rd: 0.79" / 20 mm - -

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 10,217 shp / 7,622 Kw = 24.00 kts
Range 14,500nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 598 tons

Complement:
114 - 149

Cost:
£0.424 million / $1.697 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 18 tons, 1.3 %
Armour: 8 tons, 0.6 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 8 tons, 0.6 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 302 tons, 21.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 644 tons, 45.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 382 tons, 27.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 60 tons, 4.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
2,450 lbs / 1,111 Kg = 41.1 x 4.9 " / 125 mm shells or 0.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.18
Metacentric height 1.3 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 12.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 88 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.32
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.76

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.450
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.34 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 17.42 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 21.65 ft / 6.60 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 17.72 ft / 5.40 m
- Mid (50 %): 17.72 ft / 5.40 m (9.84 ft / 3.00 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
- Stern: 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
- Average freeboard: 14.09 ft / 4.30 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 85.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 141.6 %
Waterplane Area: 6,287 Square feet or 584 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 174 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 52 lbs/sq ft or 255 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.91
- Longitudinal: 3.58
- Overall: 1.05
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

25t: Seaplane and aviation facilities
25t: Catapult
10t: Depth Charges

Quoted

Originally posted by Sachmle
Why the 125s AND the 105s? I can understand the 57s and the 35s, but what can the 105s do that the 125s cannot?

Not my design, is a South African one. My guess is to put as many guns as possible in a lighter hull. But just my guess. Need to ask Ho for his reasoning.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99

Quoted

Originally posted by Sachmle
Why the 125s AND the 105s? I can understand the 57s and the 35s, but what can the 105s do that the 125s cannot?

Not my design, is a South African one. My guess is to put as many guns as possible in a lighter hull. But just my guess. Need to ask Ho for his reasoning.

It does not seem to make sense to license another nation's warship design and not have a rationale how the design fits into one's own fleet doctrine. Certainly there is a reason why the Bharati Navy decided to adopt that design rather than any other?

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99

Quoted

Originally posted by Sachmle
Why the 125s AND the 105s? I can understand the 57s and the 35s, but what can the 105s do that the 125s cannot?

Not my design, is a South African one. My guess is to put as many guns as possible in a lighter hull. But just my guess. Need to ask Ho for his reasoning.

It does not seem to make sense to license another nation's warship design and not have a rationale how the design fits into one's own fleet doctrine. Certainly there is a reason why the Bharati Navy decided to adopt that design rather than any other?

My response was based in the why of the 125mm and 105mm guns. Not my design so I let Ho respoind the why of the calibers if he so desires.

The ships have a purpose and fit a couple of niches in the Bharati navy plans. That is why they were adopted.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
My response was based in the why of the 125mm and 105mm guns. Not my design so I let Ho respoind the why of the calibers if he so desires.

The ships have a purpose and fit a couple of niches in the Bharati navy plans. That is why they were adopted.

That is circular logic at its best.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
My response was based in the why of the 125mm and 105mm guns. Not my design so I let Ho respoind the why of the calibers if he so desires.

The ships have a purpose and fit a couple of niches in the Bharati navy plans. That is why they were adopted.

That is circular logic at its best.

Whatever!

It does seem rather odd - you don't know the reason behind the design, and yet you say the reason behind the design is why you bought it?

I think what he's saying is that he don't know the reason behind some of the techincal details, but the reason he bought it is because of the overall role, that of an AA cruiser, that it would fill in Bahrat's fleet.

Quoted

Originally posted by TexanCowboy
I think what he's saying is that he don't know the reason behind some of the techincal details, but the reason he bought it is because of the overall role, that of an AA cruiser, that it would fill in Bahrat's fleet.

Well put.

I suppose my next question would be, does Bharat already have 105mm DP mounts in service, or are you:

A)Building a special wing at a munitions factory just to produce ammo for these ships

B)Buying ammo from SAE for these ships.

The most recent 105mm mounts I can find are the 1924 model AA firing a 17kg shell and the 1929 model firing a 16kg shell.

Quoted

Originally posted by Sachmle
I suppose my next question would be, does Bharat already have 105mm DP mounts in service, or are you:

A)Building a special wing at a munitions factory just to produce ammo for these ships

B)Buying ammo from SAE for these ships.

The most recent 105mm mounts I can find are the 1924 model AA firing a 17kg shell and the 1929 model firing a 16kg shell.

Starting in 1941. A will be the answer. If you notice the encyclopedia this is the second run of this ships, the first one, will be in 1941. The difference now is that a 57mm DP will enter service in late 1942-early 1943. So could I change the original 1941 ships to 57mm before completion? I could but why? It would not affect me OOC and it makes for another entry in the encyclopedia.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99

Quoted

Originally posted by TexanCowboy
I think what he's saying is that he don't know the reason behind some of the techincal details, but the reason he bought it is because of the overall role, that of an AA cruiser, that it would fill in Bahrat's fleet.

Well put.

Well, looking at the two ships planned to be laid down in 1941, and these two, I do have to wonder about Bharati doctrine and planned employment. The ships *are* fairly bristling with anti-aircraft weaponry, to the extent that they are quite top heavy - their stability and seakeeping abilities are borderline. But any significant battle damage would force immediate counterflooding.

Add to that the need to introduce an entirely new DP weapon, their construction as reported seems wasteful. A smaller vessel with the 125mm DP backed up by the new 57mm AA would have seemed a better answer.

Of course, factors other than military necessity may have driven the choice made.

And this is one of the gripes I have with WW. Why built the perfect ship every time? That is completely unrealistic. Everyone is building the "perfect" ships for missions they will never happen.

So the ship will be top heavy? That has not stopped the SAE or India to built them. Why? Because it fits the profile of a heavy armed AA ship. And lucky for me they will never suffer any damage. In real life nobody have insight. If that would be the case I would be a millionare.

To introduce a new gun is wasteful? Yes, but is realistic. I try to make the wrong decisions on purpose once in a while. Is not like they will ever enter combat anyway.

Experiment to blend the Class A and Class B cruisers into one class.

Penshawar, India Light Cruiser laid down 1943

C Penshawar, C-43 laid down 1943
C Karachi, C-44 laid down 1943

Displacement:
10,613 t light; 11,146 t standard; 12,312 t normal; 13,244 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
636.36 ft / 623.36 ft x 62.34 ft x 21.33 ft (normal load)
193.96 m / 190.00 m x 19.00 m x 6.50 m

Armament:
12 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns (6x2 guns), 102.98lbs / 46.71kg shells, 1943 Model
Dual purpose guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 4.92" / 125 mm guns (6x2 guns), 59.59lbs / 27.03kg shells, 1943 Model
Dual purpose guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, evenly spread
12 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 5.65lbs / 2.56kg shells, 1943 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
24 - 1.38" / 35.0 mm guns (6x4 guns), 1.31lbs / 0.59kg shells, 1943 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 2,050 lbs / 930 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 230
8 - 24.0" / 610 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.91" / 150 mm 405.18 ft / 123.50 m 10.66 ft / 3.25 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 5.91" / 150 mm 4.33" / 110 mm 5.12" / 130 mm
2nd: 1.57" / 40 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 1.18" / 30 mm
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 2.36" / 60 mm, Conning tower: 5.91" / 150 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 93,398 shp / 69,675 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 15,000nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,097 tons

Complement:
583 - 759

Cost:
£6.051 million / $24.203 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 256 tons, 2.1 %
Armour: 3,047 tons, 24.7 %
- Belts: 1,063 tons, 8.6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 718 tons, 5.8 %
- Armour Deck: 1,199 tons, 9.7 %
- Conning Tower: 68 tons, 0.6 %
Machinery: 2,412 tons, 19.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,697 tons, 38.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,699 tons, 13.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 1.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
17,850 lbs / 8,096 Kg = 173.3 x 5.9 " / 150 mm shells or 2.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
Metacentric height 3.0 ft / 0.9 m
Roll period: 15.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 53 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.47
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.06

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.520
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.43 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 27.89 ft / 8.50 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Stern: 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Average freeboard: 21.23 ft / 6.47 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 83.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 149.2 %
Waterplane Area: 27,435 Square feet or 2,549 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 122 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 108 lbs/sq ft or 528 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.34
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

120t- 10 tons per DP mounts
10t- Growth
10t- AC and crew comforts
20t air search and fire control radar
20t surface search radar
20t radar-integrated fire control

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
And this is one of the gripes I have with WW. Why built the perfect ship every time? That is completely unrealistic. Everyone is building the "perfect" ships for missions they will never happen.

So the ship will be top heavy? That has not stopped the SAE or India to built them. Why? Because it fits the profile of a heavy armed AA ship. And lucky for me they will never suffer any damage. In real life nobody have insight. If that would be the case I would be a millionare.

To introduce a new gun is wasteful? Yes, but is realistic. I try to make the wrong decisions on purpose once in a while. Is not like they will ever enter combat anyway.

This isn't a matter of 'perfection'. Just because you're ordering a ship of SAE design doesn't mean it rolls off a Ford-style assembly line with no deviation from the SAE ships before it. If India doesn't use that gun, there's no reason to install it on your new ships. Said mounting can be replaced with something you /do/ use. Virtually all ships, unless built simultaneously, have various tweaks, improvements, and modifications compared to earlier iterations, even those nominally of the same class. This is especially true when one nation orders a ship based on another nation's ship. See the Perry-based Frigates built for Australia and Spain, the Ayatollah/Kidd class originally ordered by Iran, the Lutjens class built for West Germany, HMS Erin, Cochrane and Lattore. All three of the latter ships were nominally based on the Iron Dukes, but had improvements and 'localization' changes for their intended customers (up to and including upgunning the Latorres to 14", and as mundane as the style of plumbing and toilets).

In short, when it comes to purchasing a new-built ship, nations generally don't buy "Stock".

Furthermore, I think I'm somewhat disappointed to once again hear you vehemently assert that none of your ships will ever see combat. First, this seem to be a gross error in the purpose of the sim; To design ships from the point of view of the nation you're playing. If your nation assumes it will never engage in conflict, why is it building a military? Second, it implies (if not directly asserts) that you, as a player, have no interest in interacting or dealing with the rest of the sim's players. If interaction and collaborative gaming is not your purpose here, nor discussing realistic design decisions for your ships, what is?

I just presume that - since I am not a perfect Springsharp designer - that my designs reflect my lack of perfection and that I don't need to intentionally screw them up to make them any worse than they already are.