RedBear87

I didn't think about it, but it's a good guess. I'm a little perplex because the article of Andrea Saba on Storia Militare says that the OTO cruiser for Romania was equipped with only two seaplanes (somewhere I heard a claim of six, but with no source), even if upscaled (the Romanian cruiser was quite small at 4,500 tons standard displacement) I don't think it could have carried more than 4-6 seaplanes, making it more like a scout cruiser (comparable to Tone) than a "seaplane carrier" like Chitose.

Well, poor little Mutsuki still had some combat potential left because of the 61cm torpedoes, but they were indeed obsolete. Anyway, I made a little research in Japanese to check out whether I could find more infos about the sloped stern and guess what I found? This.

Well, I'm fine with any solution as long as it's applied consistently, but personally I would use the project index in similar cases. In all honesty I would be even fine with using only the project index for every ship, but ships that were actually built usually are best known in the west under the name of the lead ship. P.S.: Welcome to the EU forum!

A few sources actually give Uzuki as the only Mutsuki class destroyer refitted with a sloped stern to offload landing barges on the move, CombinedFleet in particular mentions that this refit was carried out in late (September-December) 1942. On the other hand the profile of Uzuki in 1944 on "Drawings of Imperial Japanese Naval Vessels" doesn't show any sloped stern of sort, I never saw a wartime picture of Uzuki thus actually confirming this refit is kind of difficult (for me, at least). At any rate it was apparently a limited refit compared to those carried out on the Minekaze, Momi and Wakatake class destroyers converted into "patrol boats", which variously lost one (second class destroyers) or two (Minekaze) boilers, all torpedo tubes and most guns.

That's fine as well, the only "problem" with this approach is that you should add the project index to the other Soviet warships as well (like Project 26 Bis for Gorky, Project 20 for Tashkent and so on) for sake of consistency, which could be a bit time-consuming. If you feel like taking this route you can find the relevant infos here. Well, the Zarist ones would be the exception.

I have a small suggestion in their regards, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to unify the naming scheme, either name both with the respective project index or name them after the lead ships (Soobrazitelnyy for Project 7U); probably naming them after the lead ship is a better option for ships that were actually built.

It coincided with the ending phase of the peace negotiations at Versailles.

The scuttling happened later on 21 June 1919.

Here you go: http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/ONI/ Keep in mind that these should be intended as historical documents, being intelligence reports made during the war they're prone to contain mistakes, for example they mention an incorrect number of Soldati class destroyers under construction. EDIT: In case you're wondering, this particular mistake was probably caused by the fact that they overlooked those seven destroyers were 1:1 substitutions. ONI is also the probable source for a widespread mistake concerning the Battle of Ko Chong, many books, including for example Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships, say that both Thai coastal defence ships were involved in this battle.

I don't see how the economic conditions can't be considered relevant, Britain being nearly bankrupted could be considered a hyperbole, but the economic situation wasn't that good, in particular compared to the high growth rate elsewhere in the world during the same period, incidentally it was the same decade that saw the deletion of two major navy projects, the new carriers (CVA-01) and the large destroyers (Type 82).

We can always claim in hindsight that more could have been done, but at which price? If you have to choice between raising wages to keep morale high and helping with the preservation of an old ship, because arguably in one way or another either the navy directly or the government will have to give some measure of economical support, which one would you choose? From my point of view, the one of a country where not a single WWII-era major warship has been preserved, I would say that a whole lot has been done in Britain. Sure, a certain other country did more, but everyone's circumstances are different, there's no point in recriminating past choices or envying others.

"Clearly not", how? Was there a serious proposal by any private group to preserve her? No. Why? Because it would have been too expensive for anyone at the time, private associations and government alike. And why I can't compare costs today with those in the 1960s? Drydocking, painting, substitution of corroded metal plates was for free or cheaper in the 1960s? I'm getting the impression you think that RN warships have been scrapped because there's an evil lobby who's trying to destroy British historical heritage...

Annual maintenance would have been in the range of hundreds of thousands per year, regular preservation efforts can be in the range of several millions; Missouri's recent restoration costed $18 millions, more than half of that sum was granted by the US Navy, the rest came from private donations, tickets won't get you anywhere near covering those costs.

And this is supposed to be a "fact"? A "fact" is that no private association was formed to preserve HMS Vanguard, a "fact" is that Belfast would have been scrapped if the Belfast Trust had not been formed to preserve her. And a "fact" is that paying for the upkeep of a battleship is quite more expensive than paying for the upkeep of a cruiser. Saying that "she could have been preserved like HMS Belfast" is not a fact, it's just fantasy.

Your last entry in the random warship fact thread vaguely reminded me of this book, I've read it recently and this passage was quite fresh in my memory, but I thought it could have been just a coincidence. Instead it looks like I was right. :D

Another vote for the cruisers. It's just a wild guess, maybe you need to achieve a certain number of posts before voting in polls?

There are some more stats here: It would look like they simply had a technical requirement rather than having an actual design.

Pretty impressive compilation. I think Hashidate class gunboat had project index E-16, but I can't find any source besides Japanese wikipedia to confirm it at the moment.

BTW, did you go there eventually? You didn't make any mention about it in the tech tree thread. Anyway I thought the archives were at the USMM at Rome.

Apparently the seaplane carrier was offered to the navy by Ansaldo with the support of the air force.

Thank you, I fully agree. Did you try to contact the support? I actually had no idea it was possible to post as guest...

I wonder if they couldn't have picked a middle measure... maybe they could have convinced the parliament to approve just one capital ship, like Australia, New Zealand and Malaya did.

Well, I completely agree that Somers at tier IX is truly a mystery, they displaced 1850 tons (standard) to be exact and the logic followed by WG probably was around the lines of "eight guns are going to hurt a lot", but I don't really buy it atm. About Pensacola and Northhampton, they're marked as CA, light green is CA, dark green is CL. About the Germans, the destroyer line is largely incomplete, either because we didn't ask enough questions or they still haven't given it enough thoughts; that Seydlitz is the WWI-era battlecruiser, not the WWII-era cruiser. You should keep in mind that only a part of what you can see here has been already implemented in game, the developers also shared what are their current plans for the future.

Enrico Cernuschi and Vincent O'Hara also mentioned in their article about the Breakout Fleet (Warship 2006) a 1936 seaplane carrier design, armed with three triple 152mm mounts forward and equipped with two catapults on the stern to launch floatplane fighters and recons, which was sold to the USSR. Did you ever read anything about it?

You're welcome, Ainen confirmed that the link I posted before should essentially feature all what can be said about that project, it was abandoned because it couldn't achieve the desired parameters on the required displacement, while on a larger displacement it didn't have enough margin of superiority over contemporary American and British designs. Same here, it surprised quite a few people actually.