WesWorld

Looking through the forums today I saw a treaty rule that pointed out that I have a serious flaw in my building plans for Atlantis...

Part 3, Chapter H, Article I, no Contracting Power

may retain more than one capital ship due to be disposed of, for

experimental purposes, and one capital ship due to be disposed of,

for training-purposes. No Contracting Power may retain more than two

vessels classed as Cruiser sub-category (a) otherwise due to be

disposed of, for training-purposes. If further vessels of the above

categories are retained in the mentioned roles, they shall be charged

towards the tonnage of the category towards which they were

previously charged.

Currently Atlantis is converting the BB Agamemnon and the AC's Venezuela and Cape Verde to training ships. According to the rules I'm only allowed to retain 1 capital ship for training purposes and 2 heavy cruisers for the same purpose. The problem is the AC's in their current planned conversion are being converted as if they were capital ships which means I have one to many ships converting. Even if classed as cruisers the planned design is also one main turret too many and the caliber is in breach of the treaty (9.2"). When I attempted to solve this issue and redesign the ships in Sprinsharp I discovered a similar problem as when I redesigned the Tyrrhenia class BB's, they are way larger than they need to be according to their capability's. Originally this is what the designs stats were...

Maritania class AC's 1908
Maritania (re-named Lyra in 1916), Venezuela, Cape Verde
Demensions:485/74/27
Armament: 10x9.2"(5x2), 8x6", 4x3", 10x.78"
3x18" torpedo tubes (underwater)
25 knots, 15,719 tons
Lyra now a floating museum in Aufidus being in an enclosed berthing and having her machinery and guns incapasitated, Venezuela and Cape verde are decomisioned in preparation for conversion to training ships, Venezuela is in a decrepid state.

Keeping the stats the same (except for speed) Hull strength and stability were way better than the minimum requirements for a good design, therefore I downsized the hull abit and heres what I got...

Lyra, Venezuela and Cape Verde, Atlantis Armored Cruiser laid down 1908

Displacement:
13,142 t light; 13,769 t standard; 14,717 t normal; 15,476 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
485.00 ft / 485.00 ft x 74.50 ft x 27.00 ft (normal load)
147.83 m / 147.83 m x 22.71 m x 8.23 m

Armament:
10 - 9.20" / 234 mm guns (5x2 guns), 389.34lbs / 176.60kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward
8 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, evenly spread
4 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1908 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
10 - 0.78" / 19.8 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1908 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 4,814 lbs / 2,184 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 120
3 - 18.0" / 457.2 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 6.75" / 171 mm 310.00 ft / 94.49 m 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
Ends: 3.50" / 89 mm 175.00 ft / 53.34 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Upper: 4.50" / 114 mm 310.00 ft / 94.49 m 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
Main Belt covers 98 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 6.00" / 152 mm 3.50" / 89 mm 4.50" / 114 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.50" / 38 mm -

- Armour deck: 1.25" / 32 mm, Conning tower: 5.50" / 140 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 54,009 shp / 40,291 Kw = 26.00 kts
Range 7,800nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,708 tons

Complement:
667 - 868

Cost:
£1.347 million / $5.389 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 602 tons, 4.1 %
Armour: 3,934 tons, 26.7 %
- Belts: 2,447 tons, 16.6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 845 tons, 5.7 %
- Armour Deck: 571 tons, 3.9 %
- Conning Tower: 71 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 2,728 tons, 18.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,828 tons, 39.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,575 tons, 10.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 0.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
17,168 lbs / 7,787 Kg = 44.1 x 9.2 " / 234 mm shells or 2.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.06
Metacentric height 3.6 ft / 1.1 m
Roll period: 16.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.74
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.30

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.528
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.51 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 22.02 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 58 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 54
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 25.00 ft / 7.62 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Mid (0 %): 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Stern: 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Average freeboard: 24.08 ft / 7.34 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 94.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 169.3 %
Waterplane Area: 24,703 Square feet or 2,295 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 103 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 146 lbs/sq ft or 713 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.00
- Longitudinal: 3.08
- Overall: 1.12
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
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Originally I wasn't able to keep these ships as they would have rated as capital ships with their guns and displacement, however after designing them in springsharp they have shrunk considerably. There is no logical reason why they should be as large as they are, so with a refit in reguards to armament they could be retained as CA's.

If I did this would anyone have a problem with it? It was definately not my intention to find a way to retain these ships but given the situation I find myself in it would seem it is possible to keep them. Please note my Tyrrhenia class BB's shrunk by nearly 3000 tons after their redesign. If there are no problems I will change the rebuilds currently underway and instead have them converting to CA's.

Quoted

Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes) on centreline ends, majority forward

So they look like a 1908 Takao?

Cheers,

Acctually the layout is like HMS Dreadnought. i'm thinking I should sim the wing turrets as the secondary armament so I can more accurately mount them on the wings at midships.

No problemo here

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser
Why not sleeve the 9.2 in guns down to 210mm weapons as part of the conversion?

A 50 Calibre 9.2in would come out as a 56 Calibre 210mm.

that's quite an effective and ellegant solution, I'd say...

It's elegant, but illegal under Pt.3, K, V:

Quoted

No retained capital ships or aircraft carriers shall be reconstructed except for the purpose of providing means of defence against air and submarine attack, and subject to the following rules: The Contracting Powers may, for that purpose, equip existing tonnage with bulge or blister or anti-air attack deck protection, providing the increase of displacement thus effected does not exceed 5,000 tons (5,080 metric tons) displacement for each ship. No alterations in side armor, in calibre, number or general type of mounting of main armament shall be permitted.

If your intention is to keep the AC's in service as combantants, they're "retained" as above. That's why Italy did their Regina Elena thing before the Treaty came into effect.

If they're being converted to training vessels, you're converting too many vessels.

Converting the two ACs to an experimental (gun testing platform, maybe) ship and a target might be legit, and aspects of both ships' new missions would probably allow for some training to take place. Imagine the fun of having cadets working inside the target ship Cape Verde as shells bounce off her belts...

What Jason sez is true.

"No alterations in side armor, in calibre, number or general type of mounting of main armament shall be permitted."

I still don't see the need for this clause in the treaty at all if you are limiting other factors already, this could (and seems to) cause the construction of newer ships rather than have a nation retain an older ship and make it better (or worse) by reducing it. Addition is one thing, subtraction is another. The degrating of a vessel should be permitted I would think. Making an old cruiser into a semi-modern cruiser by changing to a legal gun size sounds quite reasonable and even logical given the needs of the treaty. To not have this would invite the construction of more warships. Either this rule needs to be laid to rest, or you all are going to have to have a talk to correct this flaw in another conference....and by then the ships might all be gone.

I will be over in the Pacific trying to put my new toys together.

The basic problem is:

Too many capital ships converting to training ships but....

Siming the AC's in Springstyle shows that they are waaay to large as they were originally designed.

Do I class them as capital ships or AC's? If they are classed as capital ships one or both will have to go and as such are a waste of the materials already put into them. If rated AC's I can downsize the guns in a rebuild and retain them.

As I stated there really sin't a need to keep them at 15,000 odd tons, they are excessivly strong hull wise and they would likely ride out Hurricanes like Cadillacs.

At the moment Italy still has the Armoured Cruiser San Marco. She is only 10,000t but carries 10" guns, hence I've rated her a capital ship.

If they are over the limit then you'll have to junk them.

I thought about reclassifying Greece's two 7" armed PC as Escorts to get them out of cruiser tonnage but your ships are too big for that.

I did think of a special transport for a CP to classify her as 'experimental'. Does this work?

Cheers,

Yes but using the same logic as with the Tyrrhenia class redesign, these ships can stand to lose 2000 tons to be a properly balanced design. At 13,000 tons they can still be retained as cruisers with a refir to twin 8" turrets.

They have already used 3,900 tons of materials each in their rebuilds as training ships.

Quoted

At 13,000 tons they can still be retained as cruisers with a refir to twin 8" turrets.

Ok, so you made a little 'clerical error', what's the problem?

Why not sell them to Turkey? ; )

Cheers,

I'm already in breach of the treaty, so why not? *heavy sarcasm*

I'd convert them to Carriers but thats blocked by the treaty too, only two hulls can be converted to carriers, thats if they are still rated as capital ships.

Basically what Rocky said earlier is correct, but if they are 13,000 ton AC's from the start (or after a more accurate springsharp redesign) it dosn't apply, they could be rearmed to conform to the Cruiser catigory.

"At the moment Italy still has the Armoured Cruiser San Marco. She is only 10,000t but carries 10" guns, hence I've rated her a capital ship."

If I kept the main armament on the Lyra class I would be doing the same and I would then imediately be in breach of the treaty. In Italy's case she dosn't have her hulls limit toped out so the San Marco can be lumped into the capital ship catigory, theres no emidiate need to convert or scrap her. In my case I'm topped out due to the CV clause. I could stretch things abit and say the turrets were removed prior to the treaty being signed.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Originally I wasn't able to keep these ships as they would have rated as capital ships with their guns and displacement, however after designing them in springsharp they have shrunk considerably. There is no logical reason why they should be as large as they are, so with a refit in reguards to armament they could be retained as CA's.

Seems I got lost in the explanation..

are you talking about redesigning the ship as it was from a start, not about changing her design after converted?. I thought you were asking if it was acceptable to change the re-design details, not the original ships.

I don't have problems with any of both, but if we agree to let you do something like that it should be made clear that this is an one-time happening, and won't be repeated. Because if we let someone change a ship "Spring-sharped" design some other could ask why one of the players can do this while the others not.


I understand the nature of the error, and that 3900 tons is quite an inversion. As I say, I have no problem with you changing the original design as long as we make clear this is an EXCEPTION and something not be tolerated again no matter who comes asking about it .

I disagree.

IIRC we said we would use SS2.x only for newer designs and if we re-design older units with it they have to be kept as designed with earlier SS-versions.

Hence I think a re-design of the original ship is a no-no. They were introduced to the world and used as 16kts units all the time, they can´t be downsized suddenly.

Reducing their weight during a re-build could be done but according to the CT you´re not allowed to rearm them. I don´t see why there should be an exception for Atlantis.

To sum it up: It is my opinion that you should stick to the original design and do whatever is allowed. No exceptions. It probably was an error not to detect that problem earlier but just because you´ve already spend some "time and money" on them is no reason for me to bend the rules the way you´re asking for. Call it bad planning on navy architects side, make a news report and stick to what we already agreed on in WesWorld.

Then I say keep them. Be the first to ignore a section of the treaty because you disagree with it. Force a new round of debates and a new treaty revision.

You might have to scrap them in the end, but make a big deal out of it. I'd rather they be made useful instead of discarded. This discard would force Atlantis to build new heavy cruisers instead of keeping old armored cruisers that, as it has been said about my designs, any battlecruiser could take out.

Keep them.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
I disagree.

IIRC we said we would use SS2.x only for newer designs and if we re-design older units with it they have to be kept as designed with earlier SS-versions.

Hence I think a re-design of the original ship is a no-no. They were introduced to the world and used as 16kts units all the time, they can´t be downsized suddenly.

I don't recall us barring the redesign of ships, only the non-requirement of having to redesign them, in order to tackle the problem of what to do with them I need to re-sim them as target ships, experimental ships or treaty compliant cruisers. This is difficult to do when I no longer have springstyle.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn Reducing their weight during a re-build could be done but according to the CT you´re not allowed to rearm them. I don´t see why there should be an exception for Atlantis.

This is true if they are still classed as capital ships. At 13,000 tons re-designed in Springsharp, my hulls limit capped out and materials already put into the design classing them as cruisers rebuilding to conform to the treaty would be the easiest solution to the problem of too many Capital ships converting to training ships.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn To sum it up: It is my opinion that you should stick to the original design and do whatever is allowed. No exceptions. It probably was an error not to detect that problem earlier but just because you´ve already spend some "time and money" on them is no reason for me to bend the rules the way you´re asking for. Call it bad planning on navy architects side, make a news report and stick to what we already agreed on in WesWorld.

We have bent the rules far worse in the case of the Japanese Mikasa replacing a completely different ship.