WesWorld

Keep in mind Britain is a neutral country.

Quoted

Keep in mind Britain is a neutral country.

I'm not sure about other nations who wish to take out Australia, but does it look like I care? Just means that I'll need to take out a "few" more ships when I want to conquer Australia and control the south end of the Pacific. :-)
Also means that I need to keep an eye out for reinforcements from Britain coming through the Suez Canal.

I shall now consult the Magic 8-ball and see if it is wise to take on the British Empire...

... "Very Doubtful"

Hmmm... will have to shelf my attack plans for now.

How about the US?

... "Yes definitely"

...
...
...
... I think I'll ask again later. ;;



Walter

What if someone does attack Austrailia? We all agreed that both the U.S. and UK would be above all actions neutral seeing as they weld great power. If thats the case the defence treaty is nothing more than a peice of paper. Perhaps Austrailia should seek a treaty with someone else. Indonesia and the Netherlands would be the closest nabour that is not influenced by somebody. China may get you into hotwater with japan, but there is always the other alliances to join.

... that just means I'll have to attack the British ships first.

*evil plan mode on*
And to ensure my nation will remain safe, I'll make sure my ships will fly the Atlantean flag.
>:-))
*evil plan mode off*

Quoted

China may get you into hotwater with japan

Maybe...

*evil plan mode on*
But... I might actually have some evil plan to get my greedy hands on China using the aid of Australia. Who knows?
>:-))
*evil plan mode off*

I like evil plans. :-)

Walter

Personally, I can accept some kind of treaty in this case, given the historical relationship between the two nations. I would argue that 20% of Britain's battleline is perhaps excessive given the number of capital ships closer to home - at the very least, I would not expect the Brits to deploy their most modern units.

As Britain is a neutral nation, I would expect those ships to be doing nothing more than sitting in Australian waters, deterring attackers.

I'll provide an official Indian reaction in the news wrap-up.

Quoted

at the very least, I would not expect the Brits to deploy their most modern units.

I was thinking the same thing. Maybe one of the more modern vessel, but the rest would be older vessels... and by looking at a previously givven lise a few pages back, that could mean the ships of the Iron Duke class.

Quoted

As Britain is a neutral nation, I would expect those ships to be doing nothing more than sitting in Australian waters, deterring attackers.

I think so too...
... If one is smart on will wait until the British ships are gone. Patience is a Virtue.

One other thing. Iron Dukes will need a refit in 1929 while they'll stay around Australia till the end of 1931...
That could means one of the next things:
1) They'll have to be refitted in Australia, meaning that the Australians cannot use 4 of their docks for a period of time.
2) Four other ships are sent to Australia to relieve those ships and they head back to Britain to be refitted.
3) No ships are sent to Australia and the four ships are called back to Britain to be refitted.

And the last one means...
*evil plan mode on*
A window of opportunity to take Australia by surprise with a truly evil plan to conquer it, which involves Sake, Sushi and Sumo!! (The Triple 'S' Total Conquest Plan)
>:-))
*evil plan mode off*

Walter

This treaty isn't to stop countries from attacking Australia for no reason other than "it was there", it's to protect the RAN in their baltant breach of treaty by fielding an aircraft carrier of 34,000t.


What ships does Australia actually have? I thought 2 ships each of the KGV and Iron Duke classes and a QE? Can anyone elaborate?

"That ain't no Aircraft Carrier. That's an Island."
"Looks like your island is floating away?"
"Rats! Who forgot to... to... 'tie up' our island?"

Walter

Australia fields three of the 13.5" ships - don't recall specific classes - and a QE. It's on the infrastructure board somewhere.

I had forgotten about the abnormal weight of HMAS Hobart. Evidently I will need to put an official Indian position forward on the subject.

J

The BBs are:
QE class: Australia
Iron Duke Class: Iron Duke
King George Class: Ajax ,Centurion,

mentioned here

Classes I looked up in Jane's.

Walter

Found the Hobart in this thread. Scroll down. You can't miss it.

Would put her 4,900 tons over the limit.

Walter

I'm surprised that the RAN has 80 planes that it can put on 1 carrier. The Regia Aeronautica currently has only 12 planes.

Well when we negotiated the tonage limits for carriers I thought the 27,000 ton conversion limit to be a bit low, how do you convert a 32,000 ton BB on the slip ways to a 27,000 ton carrier? Never the less I accepted the limit and found a way to complete two carriers above this limit (albeit at the expence of my BB fleet for a while), perhaps Austrailia should take a look at the treaty rules again and find a loophole?

By cutting the draft down to 30 feet, which I think is closer to historical, my first pass puts the ship down to 28,400 t. Still over the limit, but much less so.

The reduced powerplant necessary, as well as the minimum miscellaneous weight (6400 t, not 8,000, as I understand the rules) keeps the hull strength in good standing.

Good luck with loopholes - I've been looking.

J

Quoted

how do you convert a 32,000 ton BB on the slip ways to a 27,000 ton carrier?

Well, you throw all the stuff off the ship that you do not need and the more you throw off it, the higher it'll sit in the water.

Hmmm... better keep the flight deck on it.

I've looked at the design of the Hobart, and it should be no problem to get weight down to 27,000 tons.

Walter

Quoted

The reduced powerplant necessary, as well as the minimum miscellaneous weight (6400 t, not 8,000, as I understand the rules) keeps the hull strength in good standing.

Exactly what I did. It also has a belt coverage of 1.5 which is not necessary. Might be an error: 1.5 instead of 1.05.

I have this:


hobart, laid down 1919

Length, 635 ft x Beam, 104.0 ft x Depth, 29.0 ft
30752 tons normal displacement (27408 tons standard)

Main battery: 12 x 4.5-inch (6 x 2)
Secondary battery: 10 x 4.0-inch
AA battery: 15 x 0.5-inch

Weight of broadside: 868 lbs

Main belt, 5.0 inches; ends unarmored
Torpedo bulkhead, 2.0 inches
Armor deck, average 3.0 inches
C.T., 5.0 inches

Battery armor:
Main, 3.0" / secondary, 2.0"
AA, 1.0" shields

Maximum speed for 175105 shp = 31.62 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 28500 nm / 10 kts

Typical complement: 1161-1509


Estimated cost, $16.554 million (£4.139 million)

Remarks:

Oil firing.

Relative extent of belt armor, 114 percent of 'typical' coverage.

Ship has slow, easy roll; a good, steady gun platform.

Magazines and engineering spaces are cramped, with poor
watertight subdivision.

Roomy upper decks; superior accommodation and working space.

Main deck secondary guns subject to being washed down
in a seaway.


Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armament ......................... 108 tons = 0 pct
Armor, total ..................... 5101 tons = 17 pct

Belt 1253 tons = 4 pct
Torpedo bulkhead 886 tons = 3 pct
Deck 2491 tons = 8 pct
C.T. 106 tons = 0 pct
Armament 365 tons = 1 pct

Machinery ........................ 6218 tons = 20 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 8892 tons = 29 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 4032 tons = 13 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 6400 tons = 21 pct
-----
30752 tons = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 6.1 ft

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 26720 tons
Standard displacement: 27408 tons
Normal service: 30752 tons
Full load: 33305 tons

Loading submergence 1283 tons/foot

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.08

Shellfire needed to sink: 26738 lbs = 586.8 x 4.5-inch shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 3.7
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 71 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.05

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.08

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.56
Sharpness coefficient: 0.41
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 6.20
'Natural speed' for length = 25.2 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 63 percent


Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 113 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 203 percent


Displacement factor: 124 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.96
(Structure weight per square
foot of hull surface: 134 lbs)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.89
(for 27.5 ft average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment +8.5 ft)

Relative composite hull strength: 1.03

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

635.00 x 104.00 x 29.00; 27.50 -- Dimensions
0.56 -- Block coefficient
1919 -- Year laid down
31.62 / 28500 / 10.00; Oil-fired turbine or equivalent -- Speed / radius / cruise
6400 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
12 x 4.50; 6; 0 -- Main battery; turrets; superfiring
:
10 x 4.00; 0 -- Secondary battery; turrets
Main deck battery
:
15 x 0.50 -- Tertiary (QF/AA) battery
Gun-shields
:
0 -- No fourth (light) battery
0 -- No torpedo armament
++++++++++
5.00 / 0.00 / 0.00 / 2.00; 114 -- Belt armor; relative extent
3.00 / 5.00 -- Deck / CT
3.00 / 2.00 / 1.00 / 0.00 -- Battery armor


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Your right reduceing a 32,000 ton BB is easy to get down to 27,000 tons, I'm having flashbacks to my carrier experience of taking the only suitable hulls near enough to completion, the Vengeance class BCs which weighed in at 37,200 tons and try in vain to get them down to 27,000 tons. The original design for the Vengeance class BC's was bigger but I had to change that in order to get my carrier conversions to not be insanely over the limits.

Well, I've just done a test with a 1936 design BC (normal displacement of 37,588 tons) thowing everything off the ship (and I mean everything). This will leave you with only the "Hull, fittings & equipment" bit (don't know how to break that number down). The hull weight (+ fittings and equipment) given was 13,357 tons.
In order to get to 13,357 tons, I had to change the draft from 32 feet and 9.6 inches to 11 feet and 7.9 inches. That's a bit more than 21 feet I lost there.
That makes it almost fall into the heavy cruiser category. :-)

As for the Hobart, I got down to this:

Hobart, Australia CV laid down 1919

Displacement:
26,306 t light; 26,985 t standard; 30,304 t normal; 32,838 t full load
Loading submergence 1,282 tons/feet

Dimensions:
634.50 ft x 104.00 ft x 28.60 ft (normal load)
193.40 m x 31.70 m x 8.72 m

Armament:
12 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns (6 Main turrets x 2 guns)
10 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns
15 - 0.50" / 13 mm guns
Weight of broadside 868 lbs / 394 kg

Armour:
Belt 5.00" / 127 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 113 % of normal area
Main turrets 2.00" / 51 mm, 2nd gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm
Light gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm
Armour deck 3.00" / 76 mm, Torpedo bulkhead 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 170,338 shp / 127,072 Kw = 31.48 kts
Range 28,500nm at 10.00 kts

Complement:
1,148 - 1,492

Cost:
£4.055 million / $16.221 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 108 tons, 0.4 %
Armour: 5,254 tons, 17.3 %
Belts: 1,241 tons, 4.1 %, Armament: 214 tons, 0.7 %, Armour Deck: 2,489 tons, 8.2 %
Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 1,309 tons, 4.3 %
Machinery: 6,049 tons, 20.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8,495 tons, 28.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,998 tons, 13.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 6,400 tons, 21.1 %

Metacentric height 6.4

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

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.10
Shellfire needed to sink: 26,288 lbs / 11,924 Kg = 577.0 x 4.5 " / 114 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 3.9
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 70 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.04
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.04

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.562
Sharpness coefficient: 0.41
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6.23
'Natural speed' for length: 25.19 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 62 %
Trim: 67
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 112.7 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 193.5 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 123 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.95
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 131 lbs / square foot or 637 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.72
(for 26.00 ft / 7.92 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 7.10 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.01


Walter