You are not logged in.

1

Tuesday, November 21st 2006, 9:43pm

Chilean Naval buildup, 1933-1935

By the look of things the Cleito Treaty is on waht could be its last legs. Chile both hopes so and hopes not. The hope is that the present flawed system will fall and be replaced by something that works better than the original rather than the stance that the treaty is completely a failure. However Chile will continue with its planned buildup and replacement plan from 1925.

While the details change over time, the overall goal of replacing the pre-1925 fleet with a modern force remains intact. The slight deviation might be the purchase of a refitted Nordmark Battlecruiser of the same vintage as the two Nordmark-built Dreadnoughts Chile has recently rebuilt. This would be in place of a purpose built battleship or battlecruiser of greater power, and thus keep the ABC powers on a more even footing than introducing 15 inch guns to the continent.

Chile in 1932 has laid down an additional "light" cruiser and in 1933 will lay down the second Oyama-class Armored Cruiser. In addition to this is the projected completion and construction of 3 heavy destroyers and 6-8 destroyers to replace the pre-Great War vintage destroyers built in Britian as well as the pre-war light cruisers built in Nordmark.

The remaining turn of the century warships will be retired in the next few years. The O'Higgins to be replaced by the second Oyama, the two remaining protected cruisers will be disposed of as well. The two predreadnoughts will be replaced, one by the purchased battlecruiser and the other by a projected battleship, though she might be retained instead as a coastal unit or marine warship (depends entirely on what is going on by 1936 when she is due for retirement).

Plans to built a third and a fourth of the Oyama-class cruiser will be determined later in 1934 or 1935, also depending on the global situation. It is expected Mr. Oyama will want to convert the third one into a hybrid carrier cruiser after seeing the Australian designs. The fate of the fourth cruiser and the final look of the third will be made known once they are actually under construction in the late 1930s.

The purchase of two Atlantean submarines, 12 new subchasers, and two refitted tenders brings the Chilean coastal forces up to a reasonable level.

More destroyer prodection is forseen, just that capacity is limited to the existing slips and leaving a few docks open in case of emergency. Plans to expand the Zero slips and docks to Type One might be in order to increase their usefulness in building destroyers.

Any other suggestions?

2

Tuesday, November 21st 2006, 9:48pm

Rebuilt Battlecruiser? Folkunga lion is still in all but original condition

3

Tuesday, November 21st 2006, 10:01pm

Presently yes. She'll need to be refitted or rebuilt to keep technological pace with the newly refitted Dreadnoughts.

4

Tuesday, November 21st 2006, 10:03pm

If I was you, I would work to emphasize aviation, start developing something similar to the Nell. You have a long coastline that's difficult to cover.. a long-range torpedo bomber would serve you well.

5

Wednesday, November 22nd 2006, 2:05am

I recognize that the Nordish BC shares common armaments with the dreadnoughts...but modernized or not, the hull is still over twenty years of age.

I'm commented before that I think the Chilean armada is dangerously top-heavy and I still think that way. You're looking at seven or more capital ships (2 x Latorre, the BC, the new BB, Tylor, and the Oyamas), one to two carriers, and seven modern cruisers: ~15-16 ships, versus 14 destroyers by my reckoning. It's impossible to properly screen your major units from AA or submarine attack with so few escorts.

You're also bereft of sloop-type ships with an ocean-going capability. The subchasers are on the small size, will be limited to coastal waters, and may not be suitable for the more southerly latitudes. Consequently, you're also incapable of properly screening civilian traffic on your sealanes.

My recommendations would be to cancel the purchase of the BC and the new-build BB. Use the ~6000 + 12,000 +~35,000 t to build Chile another fifteen destroyers (giving you a still tight 1:2 big/small ship ratio) and half a dozen to a dozen ocean-going sloops.

Regarding slips: your three Type 1 slips can produce, with proper sequencing, about eight hulls each in a three year span (months 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 26, 31, 36). If you can avoid the temptation to try and build everything at once, this'll be adequate.

6

Wednesday, November 22nd 2006, 2:35am

I've not found an effective ship yet that can be built in under nine months (under our rules). At least of destroyer size. All previous models have been rejected as not worth the effort by enlarge.

While I understand the top heavy issue Chile (dispite what the treaty says) considers the armored cruisers as cruisers and hopefully designed to protect themselves.

Hyatt has been placed with the floatplane carriers for the most part and usually not considered when talking about fleet balance.

The replacement BB is still in the works and will likely not be built until after the Oyamas are completed. The BC is in the works as it will be cheaper in the short term, but will likely be obsolete, even in Chile's navy by the mid-1940s. But that is still a good ten years of life left for an aging capital ship. She'll likely retire with the Dreadnoughts.

More destroyers are planned but probably of a better design than those currently in production.

7

Wednesday, November 22nd 2006, 2:52am

Quoted

Regarding slips: your three Type 1 slips can produce, with proper sequencing, about eight hulls each in a three year span (months 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 26, 31, 36). If you can avoid the temptation to try and build everything at once, this'll be adequate.


I'm just referring to lay-down dates. A ship of 1,000 to 1,500 t will take 10 to 10.5 months to build. 40% of that time is spent in the slipway - 4 months to ~4.5 months. So you can lay down a 1,500 ship on 1/1/33, launch her 15/5/33, and after two weeks the slip is ready for a new lay-down on 1/6/33.

You're right that a smaller ship isn't very practical in an oceangoing role, but I'm not advocating it.

8

Wednesday, November 22nd 2006, 5:27am

An option is to outsource the destroyers. There are countries who will build them for you.

BTW Mexico would buy the 2 Nordmarkian Destroyers if you are willing to sell them.

9

Wednesday, November 22nd 2006, 5:35am

Not planning on selling the two remaining Nordmark destroyers yet, they still have a good range. They'll be replaced later in the decade. The British ships go first (being older).

Outsourcing is a possibility, though it isn't needed yet since to do so would require that Chile has the funds to build the ships in the first place, which with two cruisers building and a factory under construction...and a BC to purchase, funds are limited to a few at a time.

10

Wednesday, November 22nd 2006, 7:09am

Plenty of used DD's to purchase on the cheap, plenty of opertunity's to play reruns of "No you can't have that!"