Alternate warships of nations (2024)

steamboy said:

RN Warrior Class 'Super-Cruiser'.

Click to expand...

Hrm. Everything reads good, but for the capabilities of the ship, 22,500 tons standard seems a little high, even with that armor and everything you've included (especially considering that's a 1938 design).

Or was that intentional in purpose?

steamboy said:

RN Warrior Class 'Super-Cruiser'.

Click to expand...

One wonders what would have happened if one of the nations who had not signed the Five Power Treaty at Washington had built something like this?

edgeworthy said:

One wonders what would have happened if one of the nations who had not signed the Five Power Treaty at Washington had built something like this?

Click to expand...

Honest question: who had the money and/or technology to build this, apart from the signataires? Maybe a south american nation could order it built in the US or Europe?

Hammerbolt said:

Honest question: who had the money and/or technology to build this, apart from the signataires? Maybe a south american nation could order it built in the US or Europe?

Click to expand...

Then someone would secretly believe it was being built for them, and that outsourcing it was just a cover.

Though, wouldn't this have about the same throw weight as the Deutschland class panzerschiffe?

Hammerbolt said:

Honest question: who had the money and/or technology to build this, apart from the signataires? Maybe a south american nation could order it built in the US or Europe?

Click to expand...

Technically The Netherlands didn't sign the 5 Power Agreement, what is commonly known as the Washington Naval Treaty, only the Nine Power Treaty. And they were always having plans to update the defence force in the Dutch East Indies.
(Plans for new Battleships never amounted to anything, a larger cruiser is more plausible)
Then there's always the Soviet Union, especially with inter-war technical aid from Germany.

And it might look to be a possibility for Norway or Sweden, or even Finland, looking to replace their old coastal defence ships?

edgeworthy said:

Technically The Netherlands didn't sign the 5 Power Agreement, what is commonly known as the Washington Naval Treaty, only the Nine Power Treaty. And they were always having plans to update the defence force in the Dutch East Indies.
(Plans for new Battleships never amounted to anything, a larger cruiser is more plausible)
Then there's always the Soviet Union, especially with inter-war technical aid from Germany.

And it might look to be a possibility for Norway or Sweden, or even Finland, looking to replace their old coastal defence ships?

Click to expand...

Too big for a coastal defence post, IMHO. But the other 2 nations are good possibilities.

Aye, coastal defense is too much. Other two could happen, but I think the Netherlands would be the best bet for a similar one in OTL WNT/LNT environment.

Makes me wonder if Great Britain and the Netherlands would ever come to an agreement about the defense of the East Indies, with Britain basically indicating that having a true cruiser killer to hunt down the Japanese cruisers would be a good compliment to their battlewagons who can take on the Japanese capital ships.

The biggest issue is where to get modern intermediate caliber guns.

And also leading to questions of "how long until the secret gets out and causes butterflies elsewhere".

Luminous said:

Aye, coastal defense is too much. Other two could happen, but I think the Netherlands would be the best bet for a similar one in OTL WNT/LNT environment.

Makes me wonder if Great Britain and the Netherlands would ever come to an agreement about the defense of the East Indies, with Britain basically indicating that having a true cruiser killer to hunt down the Japanese cruisers would be a good compliment to their battlewagons who can take on the Japanese capital ships.

The biggest issue is where to get modern intermediate caliber guns.

And also leading to questions of "how long until the secret gets out and causes butterflies elsewhere".

See Also

Lantau Longing — The Tai O Heritage HotelArena of Valor v1.51.1.2 MOD APK (Menu, Map Hack, WideView)

Click to expand...

Finland purchased the 10" Guns for the Väinämöinen Class from Bofors, and Sweden was not a signatory to the WNT either.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFIN_10-45_Bofors.php

The Royal Netherlands Navy obtained the 6" Guns for its Light Cruisers also from Bofors.
There is a pre-existing connection.

edgeworthy said:

Finland purchased the 10" Guns for the Väinämöinen Class from Bofors, and Sweden was not a signatory to the WNT either.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFIN_10-45_Bofors.php

The Royal Netherlands Navy obtained the 6" Guns for its Light Cruisers also from Bofors.
There is a pre-existing connection.

Click to expand...

So, 10" gun cruiser? Be still my beating heart.

Anywho, relatively modern design, so they'd actually be good guns at the outbreak of the war. The only issue is either designing a triple turret, or going for a 4x2 or 5x2 design and using existing guns off the shelf.

...Now I'm imagining a Dutch super-Mogami.

Luminous said:

So, 10" gun cruiser? Be still my beating heart.

Anywho, relatively modern design, so they'd actually be good guns at the outbreak of the war. The only issue is either designing a triple turret, or going for a 4x2 or 5x2 design and using existing guns off the shelf.

...Now I'm imagining a Dutch super-Mogami.

Click to expand...

From what I can find on Navweaps the Finnish twin 10" Bofors turret appears to be of a very similar mass to a USN 8"/55 Triple Turret.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk9.php
A 4x2 design of 15,000+/- tons does not seem to be completely unreasonable?

edgeworthy said:

From what I can find on Navweaps the Finnish twin 10" Bofors turret appears to be of a very similar mass to a USN 8"/55 Triple Turret.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk9.php
A 4x2 design of 15,000+/- tons does not seem to be completely unreasonable?

Click to expand...

I've gamed a US 10" gun cruiser before; I'll have to dig my stats, but you can get 4x2 with massive aviation facilities, range, ~33 knots and 5" of armor, with aviation facilities, for 15k tons. In 1921.

A 1930-32 Dutch super cruiser could make 5x2 of those same guns, probably a higher speed and better armor, for 20k tons.

Luminous said:

I've gamed a US 10" gun cruiser before; I'll have to dig my stats, but you can get 4x2 with massive aviation facilities, range, ~33 knots and 5" of armor, with aviation facilities, for 15k tons. In 1921.

A 1930-32 Dutch super cruiser could make 5x2 of those same guns, probably a higher speed and better armor, for 20k tons.

Click to expand...

Okay, I've Springsharp'd a version. (Has anyone else noticed how fussy the copy and paste is with this?)

The hull is based on the Baltimore Class, with Algerie as the starting point ... its the only 8" Treaty Cruiser on Springsharp 3.0.
Which as a reference point makes you notice that its considerably more costly than a normal heavy cruiser Algerie is costed at £3.909/$15.636m, Celebes is 50%+ more costly.

edgeworthy said:

Okay, I've Springsharp'd a version. (Has anyone else noticed how fussy the copy and paste is with this?)

HNLMS Celebes, Netherlands Heavy Cruiser laid down 1931

Displacement:
14,583 t light; 15,345 t standard; 16,414 t normal; 17,269 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(677.03 ft / 664.00 ft) x 70.00 ft x (24.00 / 24.95 ft)
(206.36 m / 202.39 m) x 21.34 m x (7.32 / 7.61 m)

Armament:
8 - 10.00" / 254 mm 45.0 cal guns - 504.26lbs / 228.73kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1931 Model
4 x 2-gun mounts on centreline, evenly spread
2 raised mounts

16 - 4.70" / 119 mm 45.0 cal guns - 52.35lbs / 23.75kg shells, 150 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1931 Model
8 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread

16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 2.14lbs / 0.97kg shells, 1,500 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1931 Model
8 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread

Weight of broadside 4,906 lbs / 2,225 kg

Main Torpedoes
6 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m torpedoes - 1.524 t each, 9.146 t total
In 2 sets of deck mounted side rotating tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 6.00" / 152 mm 444.88 ft / 135.60 m 10.04 ft / 3.06 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 103 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
1.50" / 38 mm 444.88 ft / 135.60 m 21.43 ft / 6.53 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 62.00 ft / 18.90 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 8.00" / 203 mm 3.50" / 89 mm 6.00" / 152 mm
2nd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 3.00" / 76 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 4.00" / 102 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 110,928 shp / 82,753 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 9,800nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,924 tons

Complement:
724 - 942

Cost:
£6.087 million / $24.347 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,273 tons, 7.8 %
- Guns: 1,254 tons, 7.6 %
- Weapons: 18 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 3,981 tons, 24.3 %
- Belts: 1,100 tons, 6.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 529 tons, 3.2 %
- Armament: 850 tons, 5.2 %
- Armour Deck: 1,445 tons, 8.8 %
- Conning Tower: 56 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 3,317 tons, 20.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,012 tons, 36.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,831 tons, 11.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
21,381 lbs / 9,698 Kg = 42.8 x 10.0 " / 254 mm shells or 2.5 torpedoes

Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.15
Metacentric height 3.8 ft / 1.2 m
Roll period: 15.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 44 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.74
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.02

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern

Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.515 / 0.521
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.49 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 25.77 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 39
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 18.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):

Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 16.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Forward deck: 19.00 %, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Aft deck: 48.00 %, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Quarter deck: 17.00 %, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Average freeboard: 22.51 ft / 6.86 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 101.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 178.7 %
Waterplane Area: 31,397 Square feet or 2,917 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 112 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 135 lbs/sq ft or 659 Kg/sq metre

Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.45
- Overall: 1.00

Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room

The hull is based on the Baltimore Class, with Algerie as the starting point ... its the only 8" Treaty Cruiser on Springsharp 3.0.
Which as a reference point makes you notice that its considerably more costly than a normal heavy cruiser Algerie is costed at £3.909/$15.636m, Celebes is 50%+ more costly.

Click to expand...

Sounds about right considering the time period. Granted, if one is building it to overmatch the Japanese cruisers while being able to run away, what about increasing the length of the ship, adding a 5th turret, and trying to bump up the machinery so you can get speed up to at least 33 knots? That way you have a healthy gap over the reconstructed Kongous.

If the Dutch would be willing to spend more, they might as well up it as much as possible.

Killer in said:

I presume such a Dutch cruiser is for Far Eastern fleet.

Click to expand...

Quite. Only real place for such a vessel, and would likely arise relative to some British/Dutch understanding of defense of the East Indies.

edgeworthy said:

Celebes is 50%+ more costly.

Click to expand...

cost is basically linked to weight and since SS will model this way why are you surprised that a 15k CA is 50 % more than 10K one?

Specifically

edgeworthy said:

16 - 4.70" / 119 mm 45.0 cal guns - 52.35lbs / 23.75kg shells, 150 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1931 Model
8 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread

Click to expand...

Why centreline? I would be willing to cut to less 4"/100mm and accept that you will need the main guns to defend from large DD/CL attacks.

edgeworthy said:

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
1.50" / 38 mm 444.88 ft / 135.60 m 21.43 ft / 6.53 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 62.00 ft / 18.90 m

Click to expand...

with 70ft Beam that's inly 4ft on each side not worth it IMO?

edgeworthy said:

= 32.00 kts

Click to expand...

I might suggest a bit faster to catch IJN CAs?

jsb said:

I might suggest a bit faster to catch IJN CAs?

Click to expand...

Unless you want to go for 35 knots and redesign the whole ship, don't bother. The US Navy went through the war only building cruisers that could do 33 knots. I would also suggest setting your power instead of speed.

Okay so what people want is this?
(And if you don't specify a distance between bulkheads the program gets very snippy, and won't let you see how to adjust the displacement. And cost is a consideration, the Dutch Government was reluctant to fund building Light Cruisers. And Springsharp tends to default to US construction costs, other nations often built for less, for example the North Carolina's cost twice the KGV's.)

(Essentially we just re-invented the Alaska's)

NB: There is no way to account for an aircraft capability on Springsharp ... the below article can be used as a rough suggestion for allowing 25 tons per aircraft in miscellaneous weight.

(Now this is only an approximate guide, it frequently doesn't work with historical designs. Which often descends into arguments, especially when you can't get Yorktown or Essex to carry 90+ Planes without going over their recorded displacements, and you can design Illustrious to come in under weight, and then squabble about exactly how you define what is suggested in the last sentence and if it is really applicable at all if you've designed a Aircraft carrier where armour already takes up 32% of Displacement. Twice that your Essex design, and three times the percentage of your Yorktown. Oddly it actually seems to work with HMS Ark Royal?)
... sorry about the rant.

edgeworthy said:

Okay so what people want is this?
(And if you don't specify a distance between bulkheads the program gets very snippy, and won't let you see how to adjust the displacement. And cost is a consideration, the Dutch Government was reluctant to fund building Light Cruisers. And Springsharp tends to default to US construction costs, other nations often built for less, for example the North Carolina's cost twice the KGV's.)

HNLMS Celebes II, The Netherlands Heavy Cruiser laid down 1931

Displacement:
21,782 t light; 22,745 t standard; 24,113 t normal; 25,207 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(733.03 ft / 720.00 ft) x 90.00 ft x (32.00 / 32.96 ft)
(223.43 m / 219.46 m) x 27.43 m x (9.75 / 10.05 m)

Armament:
10 - 10.00" / 254 mm 45.0 cal guns - 504.26lbs / 228.73kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1931 Model
5 x 2-gun mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
2 raised mounts - superfiring

12 - 4.00" / 102 mm 45.0 cal guns - 32.28lbs / 14.64kg shells, 150 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1931 Model
6 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread

16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 2.14lbs / 0.97kg shells, 1,500 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1931 Model
8 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread

Weight of broadside 5,464 lbs / 2,479 kg

Main Torpedoes
6 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m torpedoes - 1.524 t each, 9.146 t total
In 2 sets of deck mounted side rotating tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 6.00" / 152 mm 662.40 ft / 201.90 m 11.38 ft / 3.47 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 142 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
1.50" / 38 mm 662.40 ft / 201.90 m 23.59 ft / 7.19 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 62.00 ft / 18.90 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 8.00" / 203 mm 3.50" / 89 mm 6.00" / 152 mm
2nd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 3.00" / 76 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 4.00" / 102 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 189,665 shp / 141,490 Kw = 35.00 kts
Range 9,800nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,462 tons

Complement:
966 - 1,257

Cost:
£8.943 million / $35.773 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,486 tons, 6.2 %
- Guns: 1,468 tons, 6.1 %
- Weapons: 18 tons, 0.1 %

Armour: 5,932 tons, 24.6 %
- Belts: 1,760 tons, 7.3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 867 tons, 3.6 %
- Armament: 1,038 tons, 4.3 %
- Armour Deck: 2,195 tons, 9.1 %
- Conning Tower: 72 tons, 0.3 %

Machinery: 5,672 tons, 23.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8,567 tons, 35.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,331 tons, 9.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 125 tons, 0.5 %
- Hull above water: 125 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
28,529 lbs / 12,941 Kg = 57.1 x 10.0 " / 254 mm shells or 3.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.25
Metacentric height 6.4 ft / 2.0 m
Roll period: 14.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 49 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.32
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern

Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.407 / 0.413
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.83 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 48
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 18.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m

Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 4.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Forward deck: 19.00 %, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Aft deck: 73.00 %, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Quarter deck: 4.00 %, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Average freeboard: 22.13 ft / 6.74 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 140.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 171.5 %
Waterplane Area: 40,054 Square feet or 3,721 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 109 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 154 lbs/sq ft or 752 Kg/sq metre

Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.53
- Overall: 1.00

Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room

125t misc weights account for 5 Scout Seaplanes.

(Essentially we just re-invented the Alaska's)

NB: There is no way to account for an aircraft capability on Springsharp ... the below article can be used as a rough suggestion for allowing 25 tons per aircraft in miscellaneous weight.

By Rick Robinson

"Carriers.

Spring Style is designed for ships armed
primarily with guns, but carriers become important from the end of World War I on. Here is a method for simming carriers:

Design the ship as you normally would. Put in as much
miscellaneous weight" as you can - that will usually
determine how big an airgroup your CV can carry. Now,
get out your pocket calculator. You'll make two pretty simple calculations, each of which gives a possible airgroup limit.

1) Take the square root of miscellaneous weight; e.g., if miscellaneous weight is 10,000 tons, the eight-based limit for your carrier is 100 aircraft. (In addition, allow at least 25 tons per aircraft, i.e., if miscellaneous weight is just 100 tons, your ship can carry 4 planes, not 10.)

2) Multiply length x beam (both waterline) and divide by 750; e.g., if your CV is 900 ft x 100 ft, the space limit is 120 aircraft.

For the metric gang, divide by 70 instead; if your CV is 280 metres x 30 metres, the size limit is also 120 aircraft.

Use waterline dimensions (if available), NOT flight deck dimensions; they can vary a lot more, and we want a consistant rule.

Your carrier's airgroup is whichever number is LOWER.
So in the example above, your CV has an airgroup of 100
aircraft. (That is for WW II or earlier planes. For postwar CVs with jets, I'd estimate about 2/3 of the airgroup calculated by this method.) Usually, the weight rule gives a lower number of planes and thus sets the limit; the size limit will usually apply to CVEs converted from merchant ships with a great deal of miscellaneous weight.

Use a word processor, etc., to adjust your ship report. I list the air group above guns, since it is obviously a carrier's main armament!
Conversions: If you convert a battlecruiser, etc., to a CV, follow the same basic procedure. Start with the original ship, modify main guns, armor, etc., put in miscellaneous weight (i.e., the flight deck), and there is your carrier.

Note: This rule works pretty well for American and Japanese carriers. British-type carriers with armored flight decks may require a lower airgroup limit, perhaps 2/3 the number generated by this rule."

(Now this is only an approximate guide, it frequently doesn't work with historical designs. Which often descends into arguments, especially when you can't get Yorktown or Essex to carry 90+ Planes without going over their recorded displacements, and you can design Illustrious to come in under weight, and then squabble about exactly how you define what is suggested in the last sentence and if it is really applicable at all if you've designed a Aircraft carrier where armour already takes up 32% of Displacement. Twice that your Essex design, and three times the percentage of your Yorktown. Oddly it actually seems to work with HMS Ark Royal?)
... sorry about the rant.

Click to expand...

Heh, I like it. And it's not so much reinventing, but working on the Design 1047 vessels ahead of their initial time.

Yeah, messing with aircraft in that program tends to be the pain. Best I could tell is that you're representing catapults, hangers, and other minutiae with that. But on a vessel that long, you'll have room for hangers and such.

And the best impetus might be a better Chinese resistance to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, which leads to Japan investing more and more forces in order to defeat the Chinese, which ends but after an even more aggressive showing by the Japanese. As such, that may be enough to drive the Dutch into expanding their navy, seeing how eager the Japanese were to expand against weakly held neighboring territories.

Luminous said:

Heh, I like it. And it's not so much reinventing, but working on the Design 1047 vessels ahead of their initial time.

Yeah, messing with aircraft in that program tends to be the pain. Best I could tell is that you're representing catapults, hangers, and other minutiae with that. But on a vessel that long, you'll have room for hangers and such.

And the best impetus might be a better Chinese resistance to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, which leads to Japan investing more and more forces in order to defeat the Chinese, which ends but after an even more aggressive showing by the Japanese. As such, that may be enough to drive the Dutch into expanding their navy, seeing how eager the Japanese were to expand against weakly held neighboring territories.

Click to expand...

One of the issues I had with the re-design is that for another 4-5000 tons, and the increase in costs, time and resources, you could get a Design 1047. Or a Dutch built Dunkerque, the Netherlands did attempt, as an alternative, to obtain the plans from the French. With Celebes II we are moving from Heavy Cruiser and into Battlecruiser tonnage. The largest vessels ever built to be considered a Heavy cruiser, the Des Moines Class, were only 17,531 tons Standard Displacement.

In the event of a Dutch reaction to a more aggressive Japanese move into Manchuria constructing a Trio of alt-Dunkerques, does seem to be the most obvious alternative?
(Assuming a prompt response in the early 30's)
A Dunkerque, or Design 1047, would be a still greater more of a deterrent to a Treaty Cruiser, even with the level of cheating by the IJN. And a not un-reasonable counter to the Kongos.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm actually sort of surprised no ones asked about the Carrier designs I came up with using Sprinsharp so here is HMS Ark Royal, which is one of the few historical designs that actually seems to work, and come close to the recorded tonnage!?