WesWorld

Mexico Naval Developments - Q1/1942

A. Industrial Allocation

3.5 of 3.5 factories producing warship material for 3,500 tons, plus a stockpile of 0 t, and 950t of sales for 4,450 t. 4,230 t are used, leaving a stockpile of 220 t.


0 of 3 factories are dedicated to infrastructure material production, and produce 0 pts plus 0 bonus points.

B. Infrastructure Development


C. Naval Construction

Veracruz:

S1:
S0:
D2: Scrapping (1-2) Type 1920 destroyers

Acapulco:

S1:
S0:
D$: Scrapping (3-6) Type 1920 destroyers

La Paz:

S0:
D0: Reffiting DD Maia, receives 90t completed

Cancun:

D0: Reffiting DD Merope, receives 90t completed



D. Transactions

900t from China for 6 Yucuman class DDs (completed)
50t from Persia, non-deal on Isfahan's guns (completed)

2,900t to Phillipines for 2 Samal class BCs, and 2 Agbayani class ML (7,500t remaining)
1,100t to USA for 20 Wickes class DDs (2,200t remaining)
50t to India for 1 G-120 class DD (completed)



E. Other Notes

1040 tons to be recovered Q3/42

6 O'Brien class DDs to training ships


New units laid down this quarter:




F. Updated Order of Battle

Note: x(Y)+Z = completed (under repair/refit) + under construction (scrapping)

Capital Ships: 2(0)+2
Carriers: 2(0)+0
Heavy Cruisers: 2(0)+0
Light Cruisers: 15(0)+0
Destroyers: 98(2)+21-18
Gunboats: 4(0)+0
Patrol Boats: 18(0)+0
Frigates: 13(0)+0
Minelayers: 4(0)+2
Torpedo Boats: 10(0)+0
Experimental: 3(0)+0
Submarines: 23(0)+0
Landing Ship: 2(0)+0
Training Ship: 1(0)+6

Quoted

50t from Persia, non-deal on Isfahan's guns (completed)

Er...remind me what this is again?

Nothing for you to worry about. Just before you got here, I was going to buy Isfahan's guns for 50t. Since that deal never went through I'm just making a note of were the 50t are coming from. They are not really from Persia, just tonnage I set aside for that deal.

Maia class refit, mainly life extension plus changing armament to Mexican standards.


Maia class, Mexico (ex-SAE) Destroyer laid down 1923

Displacement:
609 t light; 631 t standard; 698 t normal; 752 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
229.70 ft / 229.70 ft x 25.10 ft x 10.60 ft (normal load)
70.01 m / 70.01 m x 7.65 m x 3.23 m

Armament:
2 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts, 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1923 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread
4 - 1.85" / 47.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 3.17lbs / 1.44kg shells, 1923 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
8 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns (4x2 guns), 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1923 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 138 lbs / 63 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100
4 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
2nd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 17,042 shp / 12,713 Kw = 30.70 kts
Range 4,200nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 122 tons

Complement:
67 - 88

Cost:
£0.241 million / $0.963 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 17 tons, 2.5 %
Armour: 6 tons, 0.9 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 6 tons, 0.9 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 335 tons, 48.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 240 tons, 34.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 90 tons, 12.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 10 tons, 1.4 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
221 lbs / 100 Kg = 3.5 x 5.0 " / 127 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
Metacentric height 0.7 ft / 0.2 m
Roll period: 12.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.44
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.400
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.15 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 17.67 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 73 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 71
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: 19.00 ft / 5.79 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Mid (50 %): 15.00 ft / 4.57 m (11.00 ft / 3.35 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
- Stern: 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
- Average freeboard: 13.32 ft / 4.06 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 174.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 70.2 %
Waterplane Area: 3,683 Square feet or 342 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 54 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 27 lbs/sq ft or 132 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 5.58
- Overall: 0.63
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Nothing for you to worry about. Just before you got here, I was going to buy Isfahan's guns for 50t. Since that deal never went through I'm just making a note of were the 50t are coming from. They are not really from Persia, just tonnage I set aside for that deal.

Double-checking that from the Q2/1941 report:

Quoted

100 tons to Persia for 2 triple 5.12" turrets, completed (can remove if objections present)

This the deal?

That's the one, oh hey I have 50 extra tons.

Forgot about this one. The 6 O'Brien class DDs will be converted to training ships. Basically a set of torpedo tubes and one 5" gun will be removed, as well as half the turbine plant. Nothing is being added so no cost is associated with the conversion.




E-01 class (ex-O'Brien class), Mexico (ex-USA) Training Destroyer laid down 1915

Displacement:
862 t light; 894 t standard; 1,051 t normal; 1,177 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
305.00 ft / 305.00 ft x 31.20 ft x 9.50 ft (normal load)
92.96 m / 92.96 m x 9.51 m x 2.90 m

Armament:
2 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts, 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1931 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 - 1.10" / 27.9 mm guns (1x2 guns), 0.67lbs / 0.30kg shells, 1931 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mount
on centreline aft
Weight of broadside 126 lbs / 57 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
4 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 9,725 shp / 7,255 Kw = 25.00 kts
Range 3,500nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 283 tons

Complement:
92 - 120

Cost:
£0.138 million / $0.553 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 16 tons, 1.5 %
Armour: 3 tons, 0.3 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 3 tons, 0.3 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 368 tons, 35.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 465 tons, 44.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 189 tons, 18.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 10 tons, 1.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
984 lbs / 447 Kg = 15.8 x 5.0 " / 127 mm shells or 0.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.18
Metacentric height 1.2 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 12.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 100 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.18
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.56

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
Block coefficient: 0.407
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.78 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 17.46 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 69
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: 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m (11.00 ft / 3.35 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
- Stern: 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
- Average freeboard: 12.40 ft / 3.78 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 126.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 95.2 %
Waterplane Area: 5,882 Square feet or 546 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 120 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 44 lbs/sq ft or 215 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.90
- Longitudinal: 2.38
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Basically a set of torpedo tubes and one 5" gun will be removed, as well as half the turbine plant. Nothing is being added so no cost is associated with the conversion.

That's not correct. If you're making changes to a ship, then you need to pay for them.

Sorry but Brock is right. Also if nothing added only something is removed you have to pay for it. You didn't pay the material, you pay in this case for the manwork

We've discussed something similar regarding the removal of guns, but that doesn't seem to apply to this situation; this is basically a refit, so it would be paid for.

I completely agree Brock

Hu? All I'm doing is basically partially scrapping the ships... Removing the gun and torpedoes is basically just taking a big wrench to the bolts. I mean the ships can serve as training ships without any changes to them, just figured this was a better way to show their reduced capabilities.

I've long wondered about "partial" scrapping. Say, removing half the engines from a ship. We know their weight, since the machinery weight is listed in the SS report, so could you 'scrap' those engines like you would a ship? Same with guns, we can use SS to easily figure out what they weigh, but could we scrap them? I know in a regular refit were you replace the equipment with new the 'gain' from scrapping the old is just assumed to be part of the overall costs (lost in the shuffle so to speak). However, if you only remove components, and do not replace them, as Fox intends here, could part of the cost of the refit (Which, since he's messing with the engines would be a 50% job) be recouped by 'scrapping' the parts removed?

Quoted

Originally posted by Sachmle
I've long wondered about "partial" scrapping. Say, removing half the engines from a ship. We know their weight, since the machinery weight is listed in the SS report, so could you 'scrap' those engines like you would a ship? Same with guns, we can use SS to easily figure out what they weigh, but could we scrap them? I know in a regular refit were you replace the equipment with new the 'gain' from scrapping the old is just assumed to be part of the overall costs (lost in the shuffle so to speak). However, if you only remove components, and do not replace them, as Fox intends here, could part of the cost of the refit (Which, since he's messing with the engines would be a 50% job) be recouped by 'scrapping' the parts removed?

This line of reasoning was examined some time ago, here.

For simplicity's sake, it appears that with the exception of armament, you cannot recycle material removed during a refit, so no, he could not recoup part of the cost for a refit.

It's unfortunate that touching the engines - even to reduce them - puts the job in the 50% category - but that's our rule.

Well, it'd be a 25% refit for these ships due to their size, but yes.

I would like to propose that the refit rules be modified so that removal of equipment without a corresponding use of said weight savings on other stuff be considered "free of charge". However, once removed, restoring said equipment to the ship would require the corresponding level of refit/rebuild.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
I would like to propose that the refit rules be modified so that removal of equipment without a corresponding use of said weight savings on other stuff be considered "free of charge". However, once removed, restoring said equipment to the ship would require the corresponding level of refit/rebuild.

I dunno Fox, seems pretty outrageous. I mean I stuck those 4x13.2mm M1928 MGs on the Ijelsijk class, seems irresponsible that I be charged less than 1,150 tons (5%) to unbolt them from the superstructure. Next you'll claim it shouldn't take 1.6 months to unbolt 4xMGs.

I jest- we can always find extreme examples- but in WW the idea is labor and paint is essentially free, while precision machinery and high quality steels are fairly precious and allocated from our national economy in accordance to our dependance on the Sea..yielding "factories".

I don't see how removing a boiler in situ requires much more than a cutting torch. Or some really unhappy people with hammers & chisels to remove rivets. Or you can do it the Swamphen way- turn off all the safety pressure releases and stoke it up, tada self-removing boilers !