You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

1

Monday, February 27th 2006, 8:44pm

Re: Treaty Question

I was planning to convert two of the Sackets Harbor class carriers into training carriers, but my reading of the treaty leaves this in serious doubt. From my reading of it, no capital ship may be replaced before its 20 years old. Therefore, even if their tonnage once converted isn't counted against my CV limit, there would still be a 19,640 ton "block" of tonnage that I couldn't use until 1945-1946 when the ships would be legally eligible for replacement. Is this a correct assumption or is a unit converted to a training ship treated differently?

2

Monday, February 27th 2006, 8:50pm

I don't think so, because of the text of Part 3, section H.I. Here it is: " No vessel converted or retained by a Contracting Power in accordance with points (ii) to (vi) above, as more closely described in Articles V-X below, shall be charged against any tonnage allowed that Contracting Power." That seems pretty clear to me.

3

Monday, February 27th 2006, 9:18pm

I've got a question of my own...

Quoted


III.



Vessels, other than capital ships, which have been retained for

target, experimental or training purposes, shall finally be scrapped

or converted to hulks.





IV.



Notwithstanding Part 3, Chapter H, Article I, a Contracting Power

may retain the following:
(a) One capital ship due to be disposed of, for experimental purposes
(b) One capital ship due to be disposed of, for training-purposes
(c) One aviation training ship
(d) Two cruisers, one of which may be of Sub-Category A, for training purposes
(e) One destroyer of Sub-Category B, for training purposes
(f) One submarine of Sub-Category B, for training purposes

Contracting Powers entitled to twelve or more capital ship hulls shall

shall be allowed to double the entitlements noted in Sections C through E

above. If further vessels of the above categories are retained in the

mentioned roles, they shall be charged towards the tonnage of the category

towards which they were previously charged.


If I have no capital ships for (a) and (b), could a cruiser be substituted? Specifically, I want to have an testbed/experimental ship, but I'm not going to convert a valuable capital ship to that role.

As I read the treaty, that would be illegal, but I'm wondering if anyone would seriously object.

4

Monday, February 27th 2006, 11:33pm

I would say that as long as they are demilitarized per the treaty requirements there shouldn't be objections. Its my understanding that experimental ships are basically immobile, unarmed hulks unless they are specifically testing propulsion or weapons systems.

5

Tuesday, February 28th 2006, 1:55am

Like I said, it sounds technically illegal, but I don't see why anyone would really object, so I figured I'd get a consensus before further planning.

6

Tuesday, February 28th 2006, 2:05am

Germany would not object.

7

Tuesday, February 28th 2006, 3:30am

"Lazy fair" here.

8

Tuesday, February 28th 2006, 3:43am

My interpretation is that you can't replace the ship's tonnage for X years after it's commissioned, regardless of the fate of the ship.

Another consideration is that you can only operate one training carrier, rather than two.

9

Tuesday, February 28th 2006, 4:56am

The first stone.

Chile of course would suggest breaking the treaty and see what anyone can do about it since it removes inferior ships from service to be replaced (keeping the number the same and staying within tonnage) by more effective ships. The Training carriers might prove a problem treaty wise, but again Chile says go with it....or sell them to someone who is interested in owning a slightly used "light" carrier. (Chile might have an interest, but I can think of a few other nations that might also want such a ship).

10

Tuesday, February 28th 2006, 5:05am

Quoted

or sell them to someone who is interested in owning a slightly used "light" carrier. (Chile might have an interest, but I can think of a few other nations that might also want such a ship).
Mexico might be one, if I can find the cash.

11

Tuesday, February 28th 2006, 5:09am

Canada might be interested in one, but I'm not sure.

Also, larger countries (such as the US) are entitled to two training carriers, as a I read it.

Also, if it wouldn't be too much to ask I'd like to know who's talking about the US Carrier issue, and and who's replying to my experimental cruiser issue.

12

Tuesday, February 28th 2006, 2:22pm

Quoted

Also, larger countries (such as the US) are entitled to two training carriers, as a I read it.


You're correct. My mistake.

Again, however, a contracting power can take a vessel out of service at any time - but it can't replace the vessel until the minimum period of time is up. The only exception is when the ship is lost.

13

Tuesday, February 28th 2006, 6:54pm

Quoted

As I read the treaty, that would be illegal, but I'm wondering if anyone would seriously object.


The United Kingdom would 'strongly advise' the Canadians against this course of action, but (at worst) will arrange for some exports to go via Singapore.

14

Tuesday, February 28th 2006, 7:48pm

Well, if mom and dad say "no"... <<

Anyone have any ideas on what to do for a treaty-legal testbed ship, then?

15

Tuesday, February 28th 2006, 7:50pm

The obvious way to get a treaty-legal testbed ship would be to build it from scratch, without any problematic armor or weapons.

16

Tuesday, February 28th 2006, 8:03pm

Quoted

Vessels retained for experimental purposes:

(a) A vessel to be disposed of by conversion to experimental purposes exclusively shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Part 3, Chapter H, Article VI, Paragraph (a) above.

(b) Without prejudice to the general rules, and provided that due notice be given to the other Contracting Power, reasonable variation from the conditions prescribed in Part 3, Chapter H, Article VI, Paragraph (a) above, in so far as may be necessary for the purposes of a special experiment, may be permitted as a temporary measure.

Any Contracting Power taking advantage of this provision is required to furnish full details of any such variations and the period for which they will be required.

(c) Each Contracting Power is permitted to retain for experimental purposes exclusively at any one time:

(1) Not more than two vessels (cruisers or destroyers), but of these two vessels only one may exceed 3,000 tons (3,048 metric tons) standard displacement;

(2) One submarine.

(e) On retaining a vessel for experimental purposes the Contracting Party concerned undertakes not to recondition it for warlike service.


Shinra - this may answer your question, though the text might seem contradictory to your quote from earlier in the treaty.

17

Tuesday, February 28th 2006, 9:52pm

...exxxxxcellent.