WesWorld

Gentlemen, I am planning a possible disaster for the KDM.
However before I commit the vessel in question to a watery grave, I wouold like to know your opinion on the following idea.

What would be the feelings if to replace the lost vessel, Denmark was to purchase a vessel awaiting scrapping in a foreign port, and refitting it to get it back to usable standard. I propose that this only be a short term solution, until a new build vessel comes into service, at which time the purchased vessel would be scrapped.

Hi,

Denmark is a non-signatory so you can do whatever you want.

However, whoever sells that ship (vessel of war) to you has to keep in mind Part 3, chapter H, No. I:

"The present Treaty does not provide for disposal by way of sale to another Contracting Power or to a non-Contracting Power ."

Regards,

HoOmAn

I wonder if it includes sales of war prizes?

Quoted

I wonder if it includes sales of war prizes?

Not sure. If anything can determine that in the treaty, I think it wil be Part 3, Chapter H, Article V-a:

Quoted

A vessel to be disposed of by scrapping, by reason of its
replacement, or of its being surplus to tonnage-allowances under
the present treaty, must be rendered incapable of warlike service
within six months of the date of the completion of its successor,
or of the first of its successors if there are more than one, or of
the coming into effect of the treaty, if scrapped to comply with
the treaty.

A war prize is obviously not going to be replaced, but is it considered to part of one's navy? If it is, then it should be scrapped as it says in the treaty. As Peng mentioned some time ago in a similar discussion, you can sell the ship, but it will still be considered to be part of the navy that sells it when it comes to tonnage. So I guess it can be sold, but the government will not like it and perhaps not allow it. End result would be the same: 'you cannot sell the ship' (if it is not because of the treaty, it will be because of the government).
If a war prize is not considered to be part of one's navy, then I think that such a vessel could be sold without too much problem.
Anyone have a different view on the Treaty?

Walter

That´s an interesting point...

I agree with Walter and I´m also not sure if a war prize is part of ones navy. I think it´s a matter of being a warship or not. If the prize is a transport, oiler, tender or repair ship it is up to the prize takers decision. If it is a vessel of war it has to be rated against a countries tonnage.

Right at the beginning I wished to have RSANs CVX WIM KRAASH to be owned by the Durban Naval Institute as a testbed but was told the carrier has to be rated against carrier tonnage anyway and thus it didn´t make a difference if it is part of the navy or not.

So it doesn´t matter if it belongs to the navy as long as it belong to the signatory/country. And if it is in excess of what the CT allows for said country something has to be scrapped - most likely the war prize as it will not be build to a countries own standards.

Regards,

HoOmAn

If thats the case then my Turkish story may have a problem, seeing as the victorious allies in the Med. have Turkish and Austrian ships interned untill its decided just what is to be done with them.

In the case of the ships Atlantis has in internment most will be either scraped or sunk in target practice, while turkey will recieve some of its ships preveously interned under a treaty being negotiated. Would this mean Atlantis is in breach of the treaty or is there a clause we need to form to deal with ships interned?

Almost certainly as a result of Nordmark being victorious over the South American alliance the Nords will almost definately aquire some war repairations and internments after the end of hostility's. I would think technically ships of other nations being "held" under treaty negotiations would be in a sort of loophole.

Hi,

we better don´t mix war prizes with war reparations or internmed ships.

War prizes are ships captured from an enemy. They belong to the one who takes them and it is up to him if he integrates them into his fleet (rate against treaty tonnage), uses them as test objects (take care of treaty restrictions regarding ships used as testbeds), sells them or simply sinks them.
One has to note that during wartimes the treaty limits could be loosend if necessary.

War reparation also include a change of ownership (but after a war). Treaty restrictions are in place again and thus any ship taken into service, used as a testbed, sold etc. has to be done so under the terms of the treaty. The treaty does not allow to "stockpile" ships (at least no capital ships).

Internments don´t change the ownership of a vessel. They still belong to their original owner and will return to their use once the war is over. Interned ships thus do not rate against the country´s tonnage limits that has interned them. They are under controll of but not owned by the country in question.

Of course the status of internments can change either into war prize or war reparation if the war ends or the country making the internments gets dragged into the war.

So if the turkish ships are interned then they do not rate against Atlantis´ tonnage limits. If they are war reparations or war prizes they do - except you´ll scrap them or render them useless in any other way (i.e. gunnery tests) what has to be done within a timelimit set by the CT.

That´s how I understand it...

HoOmAn

Ok so I'm on the right track then, only my wording is somewhat contradictary, any ships not handed back to Turkey or Austria or other nations would thus become war prizes and would have to be emediately disposed of.

Thanks for the clairification.