WesWorld

If small Motor Torpedo Boats, originally constructed via our factory rules, are to be scrapped,

(a) Would the normal 15% recovery rate apply?
(b) What would be the cycle time applied to their group scrapping?

My own answers to the questions are (a) yes, and (b) the dock would be tied up for the full quarter. However, I could see it being argued that the dock could be tied up for less than a full quarter. I am wondering what the consensus of the player base would be.

a) I would think that the scrapping rules apply to all sizes of ships so also for ships less than 200 tons. So 15% when scrapped in a dock or 7% when on a beach (since the MTBs are smaller than 2000 tons)



b) Scrapping time is 1/3 the construction time and 40% of that time is spent in drydock.

A 400 ton ship would take 4.5 months to build and thus 1.5 months to scrap. Of those 1.5 months, about 18 days is spent in a drydock (= 0.6 months).

So to me, your suggestion of tying up a drydock for an entire quarter for these small boats is quite weird as a ship between 200 and 500 tons would only have to be in dock for about 18 days which is about 1/10 of a quarter. Why should a ship smaller than 200 tons need to be in a dock 10 times longer than a ship between 200 and 500 tons?

Now for the small vessels of <200 tons it takes 1 quarter to build them thus it takes 1 month to scrap them. 40% of that is about 12 days. Maybe for simplicity assume that the dock would be unusable for half a month when scrapping those small boats. Alternatively just scrap them as you would scrap the 200-500 tons ships (thus base their scrapping time on the 4.5 month construction time).

Scrapping a ship takes 1/3rd the amount of time to construct, so per the rules it'd only take 1/3rd of a month.

Good you mentioned that, Brock. I read through the rules too quickly and I thought it was 1 quarter but reading the rules again construction time is 1 month. Actually that would mean that an MTB would has to spend 4 days in a drydock for scrapping (40% of 1/3rd of a month). Adding the 7 day turnaround time means that it might not be a bad idea to use the simple assumption that the dock will be unusable for half a month.

Seems ok to me, I usually assume that even if a ship needs 1 month to build its a full quarter in terms of sim reports anyway but that's me.

What would be the appropriate level of refit to apply to a depot ship that is changing role but not specifically any factors (guns, superstructure, etc.) addressed by our refit rules?

IIRC it would be the cost in misc tonnage used for tender duties specifically. As to the percentage of time spent refitting I'm not sure but it sounds like a 15% refit but certainly not more than 25%.

On the face of it sounds similar to the existing 25% "refurbishment of internal fittings for life extension", i.e. replacement of the fittings necessary for one role for another.
Of course lathes, foundries and general engineering kit should suffice for almost all surface repair needs etc. A sub tender would have some special items like battery charging and compressed air pumps, an aircraft tender would need engine workshops etc.
Could you give some more details Bruce of what you have in mind? 25% might be too pricey if your only replacing some items that require conversion of spaces or insertion of ventilation trunks etc.

Yeah, I'd say 15 or 25% is kinda extreme for the sort of 'conversion' I'm thinking of. Honestly, I've never made that much differentiation between tender types - I presume that a destroyer tender can serve in a pinch for subs and vice-versa, even if it's not ideal.

I'd see this as something more in the 5% refit range, myself - unless you're doing something like swapping out cranes or major internal fittings...

The first question in this thread is tied to the Type 1936 motor torpedo boats currently in service; they are getting on in years, and no longer reflect the Kriegsmarine’s status as a blue-water navy. I am considering scrapping them out of service; the second-hand market is not likely to absorb them, or, potential customers are blacklisted. There are a small number of more modern MTBs that can fulfill practice and training needs.

If I go that route the Carl Peters class MTB Depot Ships will become redundant. So, in considering what to do with them, I would like to reassign them to supporting the mine force as depot ships for minesweepers or motor minesweepers. Having depot ships to service the mine force would allow these vessels to be stationed in ports other than the main naval bases, which are getting pretty crowded at this point.

Honestly, I am looking at a low-cost conversion or simple reassignment of function. Other than the spaces dedicated to torpedo storage, I don’t see anything that might need yard work. But I wanted to seek the consensus of the player-base.

Quoted

I am considering scrapping them out of service; the second-hand market is not likely to absorb them, or, potential customers are blacklisted.

I noticed France and Bulgaria have a few of them so maybe one of them is interested in a few more. Pacifica might be interested as well if the price is right. Maybe there are more nations interested that Germany is willing to deal with, but you will never know if you do not throw them on the market, even if it is for 2 quarters.

Quoted

Honestly, I am looking at a low-cost conversion or simple reassignment of function. Other than the spaces dedicated to torpedo storage, I don’t see anything that might need yard work. But I wanted to seek the consensus of the player-base.

To me you go from a depot ship to another type of depot ship. If nothing else is changed other than the 150 tons for the torpedo storage of that vessel being used for mines, I would think that that should at most be a 2.5% job as the only thing being done is slightly rearranging the interior of the hold that holds the torpedoes so it can hold mines instead.

Quoted

To me you go from a depot ship to another type of depot ship. If nothing else is changed other than the 150 tons for the torpedo storage of that vessel being used for mines, I would think that that should at most be a 2.5% job as the only thing being done is slightly rearranging the interior of the hold that holds the torpedoes so it can hold mines instead.

Paravanes and other sweeping gear, not mines, but that is about what would be necessary.

I might post the boats for sale if only to save tying up the docks.

I definitely feel this is a lesser level of rebuild - something in the 2.5% to 5% range. Unfortunately it's just not covered very well by the written rules. I'm struggling to think of how we could add a line to the refit rules that would adequately cover this particular task, without simultaneously causing unintended consequences elsewhere...

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Quoted

I am considering scrapping them out of service; the second-hand market is not likely to absorb them, or, potential customers are blacklisted.

I noticed France and Bulgaria have a few of them so maybe one of them is interested in a few more.

France, no... Bulgaria, maybe, I'd have to know what sort of quantity and price.

They might also make a decent buy for Latvia or Lithuania, too - and since I'm in the middle of putting together projects for them, it might be worthwhile to discuss.

Well one way to avoid un intended side effects would be to create a tender specific refit rule.

It sounds like a 5% job at most, though to be honest if you changed the name and paid no tonnage at all I wouldn't be bothered.
I agree if you were switching to something more specialised like submarines then it might cost more and might warrant a special rule, but this case seems so minor.

MTBs don't age well, being 1936 era boats might as well scrap them. I've ditched many older MTBs but haven't bothered scrapping them but written them off.

Quoted from "Hood"

It sounds like a 5% job at most, though to be honest if you changed the name and paid no tonnage at all I wouldn't be bothered.

I thought of that, and if no one raised objections, merely redesignating them would be my preference. But I wanted to be transparent, so I asked. ;)

Quoted

MTBs don't age well, being 1936 era boats might as well scrap them. I've ditched many older MTBs but haven't bothered scrapping them but written them off.

I've run the numbers and mass scrapping, while possible, is not that worthwhile. If the Baltic states turn out to be interested, that would be fine; if not, I foresee some live fire exercises to clean them off the books.

I wouldn't worry about paying to change tender roles. I'm sure the different types would have some unique details but most of the ship will be doing the same thing regardless.

I've scrapped some MTB in drydock, but only because I have one idle.