You are not logged in.

Italian Saint I class CAs

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

1

Monday, April 24th 2006, 4:55pm

Italian Saint I class CAs

Quoted

Displacement:
Officially announced as 13.000tons in 1930
13,874 t light; 14,550 t standard; 16,585 t normal; 18,213 t full load


I'm thinking this is a bit outside the 5% fudge factor.....

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

  • Send private message

2

Monday, April 24th 2006, 5:12pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty
Scroll down a bit (below "Effects") and you will read this bit:

Quoted

Italy simply lied about the tonnage of their ships.

Is the same thing being done by Wesworld Italy?? O_O
When I mentioned that bit to Wes, I told him: "After all, an error or cheat would be 5% or less. A deliberate lie could be much greater than 5%."
^_^

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

  • Send private message

3

Monday, April 24th 2006, 5:24pm

I fail to see what the problem is. It was clearly stated in the past that Italy would forgo the construction of battleships in favour of smaller ACRs. The battleships might have to be built in response to others, but that is a different naval program.

The only information available to countries' governments currently is that they are 13.000tons. When they are finished and someone says they are too big, Italy replies "they are below 40.000tons"

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

4

Monday, April 24th 2006, 6:56pm

If Italy wants to claim them as capital ships, there IS no problem. There's only going to be a problem if Italy attempts to claim that a ship with those dimensions and equipment fits under 13,000 tons.

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

  • Send private message

5

Monday, April 24th 2006, 6:57pm

Quoted

There's only going to be a problem if Italy attempts to claim that a ship with those dimensions and equipment fits under 13,000 tons.


Which it is at the moment as no one can prove overwise considering they've only just(or will be in Q1) been laid down.

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

  • Send private message

6

Monday, April 24th 2006, 7:22pm

Yes. One cannot have any idea about what the ship will be like when it is under construction on a slip or in a dock. You can only start making guesses regarding its displacement when it is in the water in the post launch construction. Even then it is still hard to figure out because not all the stuff is on the ship yet.

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

7

Monday, April 24th 2006, 7:47pm

Heh, well, when Italy follows it's CT section K.III.4 obligations various countries might start getting suspicious that something is not kosher. The dimensions are going to be a pretty good tipoff.....

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

  • Send private message

8

Monday, April 24th 2006, 8:08pm

Quoted

Heh, well, when Italy follows it's CT section K.III.4 obligations various countries might start getting suspicious that something is not kosher.

True, you only need to inform other nations about the ship's standard displacement in tons principal dimensions (length at waterline, extreme beam at or below waterline, mean draft at standard displacement). There is no need for a nation to reveal anything else. No armor. No speed. No calibers of armament.

Quoted

The dimensions are going to be a pretty good tipoff.....

But for all we know, this thing has a 20 foot draught at wich point it is a legal vessel. As long as it is on the slips or in the dock, you cannot know that.

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

  • Send private message

9

Monday, April 24th 2006, 8:30pm

Quoted

Heh, well, when Italy follows it's CT section K.III.4 obligations


That would be the same as every other country follows them? That bit often gets overlooked.

Currently they are "13.000tons standard", when eventually found to be larger (in reality never), "oophs, they sit a bit lower in the water than we intended."

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

  • Send private message

10

Monday, April 24th 2006, 8:53pm

Quoted

Currently they are "13.000tons standard", when eventually found to be larger (in reality never), "oophs, they sit a bit lower in the water than we intended."

Yes. Should it happen then Italy will have a few fresh 'vollunteers' for those 'human torpedoes'
:-)

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

11

Monday, April 24th 2006, 9:14pm

Quoted

That would be the same as every other country follows them? That bit often gets overlooked.


Certainly Germany's following them, and I've been assuming everyone else is as well.

Quoted

Currently they are "13.000tons standard", when eventually found to be larger (in reality never), "oophs, they sit a bit lower in the water than we intended."


And if Italy announces same and counts them as part of their capital ship allocation, no one will have any complaint.

Ithekro

Sage

Posts: 3,661

  • Send private message

12

Tuesday, April 25th 2006, 2:16am

Quoted

And if Italy announces same and counts them as part of their capital ship allocation, no one will have any complaint.


Unless Italy is already over its treaty granted number of hulls or tonnage limits for all of its capital ships already by that time.

And you know what...there is nothing to stop them either. No penalties, nothing.

Why do you think Chile views this treaty as a joke at worse, and a tool against the smaller powers at best.

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

13

Tuesday, April 25th 2006, 3:41am

Quoted

And you know what...there is nothing to stop them either. No penalties, nothing.


More correctly, there's nothing in the treaty itself saying what penalties there are for being caught cheating. Hardly a surprise, treaties rarely have such things in them. Of course, those countries that feel themselves harmed will likely come up with some sort of penalty, whether that is raising the duty on all goods from the cheat's country to punitive levels, a stiff diplomatic note, or considering joining an opposing alliance depends on the country.

Ithekro

Sage

Posts: 3,661

  • Send private message

14

Tuesday, April 25th 2006, 3:51am

Didn't Italy and France pull out of the Washington Treaty early in real life?

When the cruiser issue surfaced then the Japanese felt slighted and by 1936 dropped out leaving just the United States and Great Britain holding to the rules until they figured out they'd be in the same side in the coming war?

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

  • Send private message

15

Tuesday, April 25th 2006, 6:35am

IMO a 14,000 ton cruiser is a waste of tonnage, CT limits or not. With 14,000 tons you can get a decent 11,000 ton cruiser and 2 DD's.

As for treaty penalty's, there really are none, but as allready stated there are diplomatic reprocussions if one is caught cheating. If cheating is suspected it will most likely be countered by more cheating by nations that would be most effected.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

  • Send private message

16

Tuesday, April 25th 2006, 11:31am

OOC: If those units fit under Italy´s capital ship tonnage and hull number - fine with me. If not I feel we need to deal with this OOC. As stated we have no tools at hand to deal with those that cheat so we have to rely on players accepting the mechanics of this SIM.

Hence I rely on RA that he just wants these units for a good story arc. This "oops, they turned out bigger than expected" will surely be good for some news and probably Italian designers and naval planners to revise their official (!) building plans - now that there are units in a different class than originally intended.... Right?

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

17

Tuesday, April 25th 2006, 11:49am

On the actual ship design itself, a couple questions.

1 - A TDS on a ship of this size? Or is it contained in the 3.7m bulges?

2 - Decapping plates on a cruiser? How common was that, historically? Or will these become de riguer for everyone now?

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

  • Send private message

18

Tuesday, April 25th 2006, 2:15pm

Quoted

1 - A TDS on a ship of this size? Or is it contained in the 3.7m bulges?




I decided it was feasible to have a 2 compartment system over the machinery on account of the large beam. Its probably enough against 500lb wh. There is no TDS alongside the magazines. The bulges are an integral part of the hull like Renown or Hood, not external additions. The TDS means increased compartmentalisation within the hull as well.

Quoted

2 - Decapping plates on a cruiser? How common was that, historically? Or will these become de riguer for everyone now?


Its exactly the same arrangement as for RN Duca degli Abruzzi apart from the inner plate is at 15° instead of 12°.

On decapping plates in general, does their use on 5 ships historically, all Italian (Littorio + Abruzzi), give sufficient precedence so as to constitute their use on the much larger number of ships in WW? Especially when these cruisers will be the first Italian ships to use the system.

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

  • Send private message

19

Tuesday, April 25th 2006, 2:18pm

http://www.hmshood.com/photos/HoodPhotos3.html

Picture of Hood from the ends if you scroll down a bit. You can see the bulges and the wasp-section of the hull.

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

20

Tuesday, April 25th 2006, 2:25pm

On decapping plates, they're already in use on non-Italian ships, see the 1924 Dutch Utrechts. Precedence-wise, keep in mind that there's been claims made that everyone's working from the same "equipment list", ie, national factors like quality control, etc, aren't in play. And as HOo pointed out in his long post on Bismark some time back, other countries certainly examined decapping plates, even if they did not take the next step historically and use them.