WesWorld

There are plenty of what if French, Russian, Italian and Austrian ships that never got built so I'm sure players could have got quite creative if Wesworld had started in say 1880. As it is, I based the Atlantean heavily on the British model because it was what I was most familiar with. If I knew then what I know now I might have thrown in some more American and Japanese idea's with my late pre-dreadnaught era ships (Atlantean Satsuma clone anyone?). I also regret not having my Maritania class armored Cruisers in a more prominent role, a result of my late fascination with Blucher being too late to incorporate into the sim.

As I continue my experiment, I find that it is often an interesting trade off between new construction and the refitting of older units. As mentioned above, I consigned many older units to the scrap yard in order to fund replacement vessels to modern designs but over the life of the experiment, even those 'modern designs' need to be brought up to current standards or fail as combat-worthy vessels (and there are only so many backwaters of the Lauranian 'empire' in which such second line ships might serve. As I learned with modernizing the battle fleet - refits are expensive.

I think the refit system we have in WW is particularly punishing for refits and reconstructions, unfortunately. I've encountered a lot of that with the Russian destroyer flotillas up until about 1940, which aren't economical to rebuild, yet cost too much to replace except over the long term.

I tend to agree with that assessment, I've left many ships to languish in second line fitness as refitting them would effect my ability to build newer more capable units for changing needs, my Melampus class Battleships are a prime example. They should have received refits, even modest ones, but other needs took priority.

I agree. I don't have as much experience with the refit system as you, but for what I have seen is not really attractive to make refit. At least no for the biggest refits needed for older ships.

At the moment I am on the horns of a dilemma. Do I construct a 7600 ton fleet supply ship (it would be the second though) or do I continue with the refit and reconditioning of numerous light cruisers and destroyers dating from the early 1920s that are now more than fifteen years long in the tooth. Delaying the start of the fleet supply ship is one potential solution, in the short term at least, but it then limits other new future construction.

I now comprehend why the IJN cancelled construction of the Kusumi.

Refit, or not refit, that is the question.
I have no idea so I will ask. Is possible to refit a light cruiser to make it a supply ship? or would it cost too much to be worthy?

Quoted from "M_Fredi"

Refit, or not refit, that is the question.
I have no idea so I will ask. Is possible to refit a light cruiser to make it a supply ship? or would it cost too much to be worthy?

Without knowledge of the details of the existing cruiser, or the characteristics desired in the supply ship, the answer to your question is not absolute. Can such a conversion be done? Yes. Would it cost too much to be worthwhile? Most likely.

If you going to convert an existing vessel to a naval supply ship it would be more cost effective to convert a merchant hull. In WW we presume that there are all sorts of merchantmen available that can be taken up from trade and perform auxiliary duties. For ideas, just scroll through the German encyclopedia, where I've done this extensively. Such a conversion can be between 15 and 25% of the tonnage of a purpose built vessel, depending on your armament choices.

Well I was referring more as possible solution to your dilemma (and to ease my curiosity). Although the lose of a light cruiser probably would not compensate, especialy taking in count the amount of materials needed.

Project 39-001, Lauranian Aircraft Carrier laid down 1939

Displacement: 19,900 t light; 20,500 t standard; 22,626 t normal; 24,327 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught

779.85 ft / 748.03 ft x 87.27 ft x 27.89 ft (normal load) [237.70 m / 228.00 m x 26.60 m x 8.50 m]

Armament:

16 - 3.54" / 90.0 mm guns (8x2 guns), 22.24lbs / 10.09kg shells, 1939 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
32 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (8x4 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1939 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side, evenly spread, 6 raised mounts
16 - 0.52" / 13.2 mm guns (8x2 guns), 0.07lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1939 Model Machine guns in deck mounts on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 407 lbs / 184 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 600

Armour:

Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 521.65 ft / 159.00 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 107 % of normal length

Torpedo Bulkhead: 0.98" / 25 mm 521.65 ft / 159.00 m 26.25 ft / 8.00 m

Armour deck: 1.97" / 50 mm, Conning tower: 1.18" / 30 mm

Machinery:

Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 4 shafts, 137,893 shp / 102,868 Kw = 34.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,827 tons

Complement: 922 - 1,199

Cost: £7.340 million / $29.359 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:

Armament: 51 tons, 0.2 %
Armour: 2,494 tons, 11.0 %
- Belts: 419 tons, 1.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 499 tons, 2.2 %
- Armament: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armour Deck: 1,556 tons, 6.9 %
- Conning Tower: 20 tons, 0.1 %
Machinery: 3,731 tons, 16.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8,224 tons, 36.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,726 tons, 12.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 5,400 tons, 23.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 37,379 lbs / 16,955 Kg = 1,680.5 x 3.5 " / 90 mm shells or 4.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 4.9 ft / 1.5 m
Roll period: 16.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 79 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.03
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.89

Hull form characteristics:

Hull has raised forecastle and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.435
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.57 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.89 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 42
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 17.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 39.70 ft / 12.10 m
- Forecastle (22 %): 39.70 ft / 12.10 m (29.53 ft / 9.00 m aft of break)
- Mid (88 %): 29.53 ft / 9.00 m
- Quarterdeck (12 %): 29.53 ft / 9.00 m
- Stern: 29.53 ft / 9.00 m
- Average freeboard: 31.77 ft / 9.68 m

Ship space, strength and comments:

Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 106.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 260.7 %
Waterplane Area: 42,730 Square feet or 3,970 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 144 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 116 lbs/sq ft or 568 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.92
- Longitudinal: 2.16
- Overall: 1.00
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


Air group 64 aircraft - 4096 tons

The price reduction for smaller ships has improved the refit situation to what it was, but i agree its hard to strike a good balance, although refits are expensive, running a fleet is not cheap and in reality manning and running costs in WW would be crippling.
I remember there was a proposal once for running costs to be incorporated into reports and taken from factory production, which was probably less than ideal for capturing it accurately. Needless to say the proposal died but for a while a few of use tried to keep tabs on manpower but that faded away.

I like that carrier design overall, although I'm somewhat worried about the thickness of the deck armour. It seems like just enough armour to fuse an AP bomb, and not enough to stop it...

Quoted from "Hood"

A few of us tried to keep tabs on manpower but that faded away.

I still keep tabs on that, actually, although I don't make much effort to track its growth (and it's almost always growth, never reduction) over time.

-- Russia: 209,003 men
-- France: 106,730 men
-- Chile: 38,113 men

Brock scripset:

Quoted

I like that carrier design overall, although I'm somewhat worried about the thickness of the deck armour. It seems like just enough armour to fuse an AP bomb, and not enough to stop it...

Laurania is happy to trade offensive punch for defensive armor.

As for manpower, I too still kept track of it, at least for the Kriegsmarine. 160,257 officers and men in peacetime, 207,328 officers and men on war establishment - not including naval air group, naval landing troops, naval security troops, and shore establishments. Costly enough, but that is why Germany still has conscription.

Project 40-002, Lauranian Light Cruiser laid down 1940

Displacement: 8,351 t light; 8,714 t standard; 9,542 t normal; 10,205 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught

582.61 ft / 570.87 ft x 59.06 ft x 18.04 ft (normal load) [177.58 m / 174.00 m x 18.00 m x 5.50 m]

Armament:

9 - 5.98" / 152 mm guns (3x3 guns), 107.15lbs / 48.60kg shells, 1940 Model Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes) on centerline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
8 - 3.54" / 90.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 22.24lbs / 10.09kg shells, 1940 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists on side, evenly spread
12 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1940 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
12 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 0.48lbs / 0.22kg shells, 1940 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 1,167 lbs / 529 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250
6 - 21.7" / 550 mm above water torpedoes

Armor:

Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3.15" / 80 mm 360.89 ft / 110.00 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Ends: Unarmored
Main Belt covers 97 % of normal length

Gun armor: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 3.15" / 80 mm 2.36" / 60 mm 3.94" / 100 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.59" / 15 mm 0.98" / 25 mm
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

Armor deck: 1.57" / 40 mm, Conning tower: 3.15" / 80 mm

Machinery:

Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 2 shafts, 84,125 shp / 62,758 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 6,500nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,491 tons

Complement: 482 - 627

Cost: £4.378 million / $17.513 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:

Armament: 146 tons, 1.5 %
Armor: 1,534 tons, 16.1 %
- Belts: 470 tons, 4.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 320 tons, 3.4 %
- Armor Deck: 713 tons, 7.5 %
- Conning Tower: 31 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 2,249 tons, 23.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,222 tons, 44.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,191 tons, 12.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 2.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 16,274 lbs / 7,382 Kg = 151.9 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 1.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.15
Metacentric height 3.0 ft / 0.9 m
Roll period: 14.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 61 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.45
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.35

Hull form characteristics:

Hull has rise forward of midbreak and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.549
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.67: 1
'Natural speed' for length: 27.19 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 60 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 45
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 16.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 29.53 ft / 9.00 m
- Forecastle (10 %): 28.54 ft / 8.70 m
- Mid (50 %): 26.90 ft / 8.20 m (20.34 ft / 6.20 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (40 %): 20.34 ft / 6.20 m
- Stern: 20.34 ft / 6.20 m
- Average freeboard: 24.15 ft / 7.36 m

Ship space, strength and comments:

Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 91.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 220.7 %
Waterplane Area: 24,471 Square feet or 2,273 Square meters
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 129 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 100 lbs/sq ft or 490 Kg/sq meter
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.91
- Longitudinal: 2.37
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

I am still playing with my 'thought experiment', and the question now turns from the largest of the major warships to the smallest sort - motor torpedo boats.

The 'Lauranian' Navy throughout the 1930s paid little attention to such craft, but its Principal European Naval Rival, has a long history of employing such craft, dating back to the War of 1914-1918. With its interests focused on the Mediterranean basin and adjacent coastal waters, the PENR believes it can derive significant benefit from their use. 'Laurania' with its wider colonial interests, does not.

The philosophical question though is how best to counter the employment of such small craft? The first and obvious choice is imitation, setting a poacher to catch another. But what other alternatives could prove more effective?

Your thoughts are welcome.

I think my own response would be the construction of a batch of light destroyers in much the same design lineage as the Royal Navy's Hunt-class. These ships are fast enough to be a threat, cheap enough to be common (and multi-purpose enough to be dangerous to other things), have enough protection to survive damage from an MTB's limited anti-surface weapons, and have enough firepower on their own merits to put down an MTB in very short order. Go ahead and fit some of them as antisubmarine ships, and rig up others as gunships.

Of course, my preferred response (if I have overwhelming coffers) is more nuanced. I'd never use a single weapon system to counter another single weapon system: that's surrendering your initiative to the whims of the enemy's naval designers. I'd ensure I've got light bombers trained in night-flying, radar-equipped destroyers, and motor gunboats of my own. If I've got a lot of littoral areas like the Croatian coastline, I'd probably also add in some gun barges, like the German MFPs, which look like a cargo ship until they unmask their guns, while the torpedoes swoosh harmlessly under their shallow draft.

There's probably no need to match the PENR boat-for-boat, but I'd make sure to at least build a few MTBs and MGBs so that I fully understand both the design principles and the tactical restrictions the enemy will be working under - and preferably, I'll have the chance to practice with them in peacetime, before I need to dance with them in a shooting war.

I've always liked the Steam Gun Boat as an idea, but that feels like more of a wartime expedient. But I'd probably want my Third Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Construction to have some larger gunboat designs already worked out when the balloon goes up.

I'd also make sure my coastal artillery has some satisfactory equipment.

Thank you for such a cogent and multi-pronged approach. The Light Escort Vessel design has come into being for other reasons, but its applicability here is just another card it its deck. The Fairmile Dog Boat seems to be worth pursuing (I never realized that it had such high speed) and there is room in the budget for it.

Time for a “How much is enough” question for a thought experiment.

‘Laurania’ needs to replace its aging small arms that date from well before the War of 1914-1918. Due to the priorities accorded to other ordnance and other common factors, the design of a new infantry rifle is not available for several years, and the new equipment is not ready to enter production until the early 1930s. So, how quickly do the rifles come off the production line?

As an example, I have consulted the official Statistical Digest of the Second World War which details Britain’s output of munitions and other equipment. The figures for .303in rifles for 1938 give me a clue:

1st quarter – 1,510
2nd quarter – 1,693
3rd quarter – 3,974
4th quarter – 4,851

A start of 16 rifles per day, rising to little more than 50 per day over the course of a year. This seems extremely low. The wartime output is far higher. The figures for 1942 tell a much different story:

1st quarter – 86,485
2nd quarter – 126,202
3rd quarter – 128,086
4th quarter – 214,116

Which translates to about 960 rifles per day in the 1st quarter of 1942 rising to 2,378 per day by the close of the year.

‘Laurania’ as at peace when the re-equipment program gets under way – and this will be a multi-year activity – but the number of rifles to be replaced is huge – ‘Laurania’ has a large conscript army and substantial contingents spread across its colonial empire. Given that initially the production numbers will be small, how sharply rising might the curve be and be kept within reason.

Your thoughts are very welcome.

Technically speaking you could elevate those figures, although that might be detrimental for Lauritania's economy.
An option while you wait for the development of the new rifle to begin could be to find a cartridge that suits the ordnance department and purchase the rifles until the new one is ready.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

As an example, I have consulted the official Statistical Digest of the Second World War which details Britain’s output of munitions and other equipment. The figures for .303in rifles for 1938 give me a clue:

...

This seems extremely low.

I think that production numbers alone won't be indicative. It's worth pointing out that the British aren't actively trying to replace the SMLE in 1938 - they were working on various projects including semi-automatic rifles, which of course they hoped to build eventually. The 1938 numbers are probably only covering rifles that are failing the armoury inspections and written off. The relevant decision-makers might feel they still have a sufficient stockpile of LEs from WWI, and so they're concentrating their efforts on other things. A slower buildup, rather than angrily mashing the "Buy" button until it howls...

If you have figures for French production, I'd estimate you'd see a much higher rate of production, since the French were actively trying to replace a mishmash of older rifles with the new standardized MAS-36. The situation there seems more comparable to what you describe you're facing.

I saw a few years ago - I'd need to go find it - production numbers by year for the Swiss Schmidt-Rubins, in their various marks. From what I recall, the Swiss might actually be producing more rifles in 1938 than Britain is. I suspect the reasons are more complicated than they might appear at first glance.