In attempting to navigate the shoals of the Peruvian sim reports, I find that it is necessary to ask that the player-base allow me to retcon the existing Peruvian 1Q45 sim report to eliminate serious math errors and data gaps.
The report in question can be found here:
The production side of the report states:
3/4 Factories to Naval Materials: +3,000 t
1/4 Factories to Infrastructure: +0.2 IP + 0.0 bonus IP
Stockpile: 4674 t
Transfers: -1560 t (to Italia)
Scrap: 0 t
Total Available Tonnage: 6114 t
Total Tonnage Used: 2922 t
Surplus to Next Quarter: 3192 t
The first point – the number of IP produced is incorrect: A single factory would only produce 0.1 IP in the first quarter, not 0.2 IP.
The second point – the production numbers do not add up right
Stockpile from Previous Quarter: 4,674 tons
Tonnage Produced (3 of 4 factories): 3,000 tons
Total Tonnage Available: 7,674 tons
This is compared to the 6,114 tons stated in the current 1Q45 report
The third point – the expenditures do not add up right either
…Transfers: -1560 t (to Italia)
… S2.5A: Start 13700t heavy cruiser Ilo, receive 1200t, 12500t to finish
…D3A: Start 9800t CVE Atahualpa, receive 1200t, 8600t to finish
…MS7 - 200t Minesweeper, receive 200t, 0t to finish
…RPB1- 36t River Patrol Boat, receive 36t, 0t to finish
…RPB2- 36t River Patrol Boat, receive 36t, 0t to finish
…1000t Oiler conversion, receive 500t, 500t to finish, com 10/1945
This translates to:
Allocated to CA Ilo: 1,200 tons
Allocated to CVE Atahualpa: 1,200 tons
Transfer to Italy - payment for DD: 1,560 tons
Minesweeper MS-7 (duplicate?): 200 tons
Two River Patrol Boats: 72 tons
Oiler Conversion: 500 tons
Total Expended: 4,732 tons
This is compared with the 2,922 tons cited in the current report. The end-of-quarter stockpiles are off as well – 2,942 tons versus the 3,192 tons cited.
The expenditures contained in the 1Q45 Peruvian report present several issues:
The purchase from Italy is not documented elsewhere, and neither the buyer nor seller is available to explain their financial arrangements. Based upon cost price to Argentina for eight similar destroyers acquired in the same time frame, 4,560 tons, we might presume the cost to Peru was the same – but that is a presumption.
The Minesweeper MS-7 was also paid for in 4Q44 – so the citation in 1Q45 is either a duplicate (in which case the tonnage could be deducted) or it represents a further vessel. But that again would require a presumption.
While there were minor math errors in the 2Q44, 3Q44, and 4Q44 reports they were on the order of 20 tons and tended to net themselves out. I see no great reason to go back and retcon those and would prefer to draw a line at that point and proceed on firm ground.