WesWorld

German Naval Developments - Q1/37

A. Industrial Allocation

Factory Allocation:

Warship Material: 27
Infrastructure (Committed): 4
Infrastructure (Non-committed): 0

Warship Material Produced: 27000 tons
Stockpile: 5220 tons
Recycled Scrap: 7 tons
Export Orders: 3190 tons
Material Used on Construction: 34498 tons
New Stockpile: 1832tons

B. Infrastructure Development

None

C. Naval Construction

At Wilhelmshaven

1 Type 2 drydock: Idle
1 Type 1 slip: SS U-100 laid down, receives 350 tons
1 Type 0 slip: SS U-43 laid down, receives 135 tons
1 Type 0 slip: SS U-44 laid down, receives 135 tons
1 Type 0 drydock: MH R-29 laid down, receives 161 tons
Free-floating:
SS U-37 receives 135 tons
SS U-38 receives 135 tons
SS V-80 receives 20 tons, completed, begins trials

At Bremerhaven

1 Type 3 slip: Idle
1 Type 3 drydock: scrapping BB Prinz Regent Luitpold
1 Type 1 slip: SL F-7 laid down, receives 329 tons
1 Type 0 slip: SL F-6 laid down, receives 161 tons
Free-floating:
CB Derrflinger receives 2078 tons
CB Seydlitz receives 2078 tons

At Cuxhaven

1 Type 4 slip: Battleship Ersatz N receives 2626 tons
1 Type 4 drydock: Battleship Ersatz O receives 2626 tons
1 Type 2 slip: Idle
1 Type 2 drydock: Refit DD Z-211 receives 372 tons, completed, begins trials
1 Type 1 slip: Idle
1 Type 0 slip: MH R-30 laid down, receives 161 tons
Free-floating:
Battleship Tirpitz receives 2443 tons
Battleship Hindenburg receives 2443 tons

At Kiel

1 Type 4 slip: Battleship Ersatz K receives 2626 tons
1 Type 4 drydock: Battleship Ersatz P receives 2626 tons
1 Type 2 slip: Idle
1 Type 2 drydock: Refit DD Z-212 receives 372 tons, completed, begins trials
1 Type 1 slip: Idle
1 Type 1 drydock: Refit SL VP-1 receives 266 tons, completed, begins trials
1 Type 0 slip: SS U-45 laid down, receives 135 tons
1 Type 0 slip: SS U-46 laid down, receives 135 tons
1 Type 0 drydock: PB VP-19 laid down, receives 192 tons, launched
Free-floating:
Battleship Bismark receives 2443 tons
Battleship Mackensen receives 2443 tons
SS U-39 receives 135 tons
SS U-40 receives 135 tons
PB VP-18 receives 83 tons, completed, begins trials

At Hamburg

1 Type 2 slip: idle
1 Type 2 slip: DD Z-250 laid down, receives 571 tons
1 Type 0 slip: SS U-47 laid down, receives 135 tons
1 Type 0 slip: SS U-48 laid down, receives 135 tons
Free-floating:
SS U-41 receives 135 tons
SS U-42 receives 135 tons

At Vienna

1 Type 0 slip: Idle
1 Type 0 drydock: Idle
Free-floating:

At Memel

1 Type 1 slip: SL F-5 laid down, receives 161 tons
1 Type 1 drydock: Refit MH R-1, receives 184 tons, completed, begins trials
1 Type 0 slip: SL F-3 laid down, receives 161 tons
1 Type 0 slip: SL F-4 laid down, receives 161 tons


D. Transactions
2232 tons transferred to Nordmark for construction of CV Peter Strasser
2232 tons transferred to Nordmark for construction of CV Graf Zeppelin
2190 tons received from Argentina for Argentine BC
1000 tons received from Turkey for the Karlsruhe class CLs, payment completed
3446 tons to be received from scrapping of Prinz Regent Luitpold in Q4, 1937.
BB Markgraf donated to Kiel as a museum ship.
300 tons to LurssenWerke for 4 S-boats (S-13, S-14, S-15, & S-16)
368 tons to Abeking & Rasmussen for 4 R-boats (M-01, M-02, M-03, M-04)

0.4 IP to building D2 at Palanga, Lithuania.

E. Other Notes
PB VP-16 completes trials
DD Z-240 continues trials
SS U-31 continues trials
SS U-32 continues trials
MH R-27 continues trials
DD Z-241 continues trials
DD Z-242 continues trials
MH R-28 continues trials
DD Z-243 continues trials
SS U-33 continues trials
SS U-34 continues trials
PB VP-17 continues trials
DD Bernd von Arnim continues trials
DD Erich Giese continues trials
SS U-35 continues trials
SS U-36 continues trials
SS V-80 begins trials
DD Z-211 begins trials
PB VP-18 begins trials
MH R-1 begins trials

F. Updated Order of Battle, 03/31/36

Note: Y)+Z = completed (under repair/refit) + under construction

BB: 0(0)+8
CB: 2(0)+2
CV: 0(0)+2
CA: 4(0)
CL: 24(0)+1
DD: 52(2)+2
SS: 36(0)+12
SL: 8(1)
AM: 28(1)+6
MTB: 12(0)+4
Target: 1(0)+0
CV (training): 1(0)
TK: 5(0)
PB: 18(0)+1
GB: 2(0)
RPB: 6(0)

Quoted

3139 tons from Kiel for purchase of BB Markgraf as a museum ship

Might be a bit of a dangerous precedent being set here.

Actually, the precedent, if there is one, was set back a couple quarters when the same thing was done with Prinz Regent Luitpold. It's the same price as I'd get for scrapping them, but instead the children get to see the old ships.

In a sence however Kiel has just created 3,139 tons and Markgraf is still intact, whereas scrapping removes the ship from play. If thats the case I could claim scrap tonnage for my third Lyra class AC currently preserved as a museum ship.

....but scrapping does not leave any of the ship behind for the little kids to run around on........

Found this, and I have worked on this before for Denmark's only museum ship.

That IS the plan: both of them will be museums, no longer manned or maintained for service. Spares for her are being either scrapped or sent to other uses, neither ship is going to be moved again.

And the fact that the owning nation doesn't get any refunded scrap value from a donated museum ship is why they aren't that plentiful.

For all the USN museum donations, the ship is essentially donated as-is, not paid for. At which point maintainance and other costs are responsability of the museum organization; The museums don't pay for the ships. I'm not sure, but I believe the same is true for other museum ships around the world.

ShinRa on-the-lam
Deerfield Beach FL

I find myself agree-ing with Shin-Ra....what is the world coming to?

Based on the fact that, after recycling, there is only 15% of the ship left to re-use, how would it be possible to reclaim 15% of the value of a museum ship, AND still have a vessel that looks anything like the original vessel?

Well, why not? Why shouldn´t a town pay for its namesake ship to save it from the scrapyard? It´s roleplaying, it fits our scrapping rules and how we treat material....

So why bother as long as the town, museum or whatever has not paid more than scrap value?

It´s clearly stated the ships will never move again and are out of the game. Leave it at that.

First, let me say I agree with ShinRa...

...and then...

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
It´s clearly stated the ships will never move again and are out of the game.

So long as these qualifications are met and the ships are not abused, I don't intend to make any objections.

I will say that should I ever turn Varna or one of the Chilean battleships into a museum, I'm using ShinRa's method.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Well, why not?

Because it's free tonnage, for a ship that could be returned to service. And there is nothing in the rules that says that it can't!

If you want to have a museum ship, it should cost you something. If it doesn't cost anything, why don't we all have our ENTIRE historical fleets sitting around as museums?

I would say we don't do it in real life, because it's impratical.
Museum ships cost money to operate and maintain.

I therefore propose that museum ships should NOT return tonnage to the fleet, that is the penalty paid for having one.

Sorry if this upsets anyone, but it's how I feel!!

I'm checking to see what if anything I spent on the AC Lyra's conversion to Museum ship. If we are to use this method I'd veiw it as unfair that if I did pay for a conversion that someone else gained tonnage for the same action.

My fear is that some here will use this as a lucrative source of tonnage to build new ships, I certainly could with Turkey as they have quite a few elderly ships to cast off soon, hence why I feel the ships should be considered "out of play" but not granting any tonnage as obviously the tonnage cost would go into making them static "emasculated" displays.

Most rules were set to CT standards, now that the CT is dead perhaps we need to re-examine those rules?

Okay, okay.

Mac, I know what you mean but he said she won´t move or be used ever again, the guns never re-used etc. and we all heard it. That´s bullet proof as we can always came back to this threas and say: "See here!"

In other words: The ship is out of the SIM and only serves a roleplaying purpose now. Completely fine with me.

So I also have no problem with Hrolf getting some material as if he had scrapped her. The only purpose of getting scrap value is to have a reason for ships to be kicked out of the game.

MY question would be if Hrolf calculated to have the small or big amount of material - the latter would normally require a dock which would be blocked for some time. As this is not the case Hrolf can only claim the smaller amount for his ships. If that´s taken care of the discussion can end right here.

Should be noted that I paid for my ships to be turned into museum ships (rebuild cost to be exact). If you want a museum ship, fine, but I think you should pay for it as well. Consider it fitting out the vessel so it can last a long time.

In the case of these two ships, I used the higher amount of scrap value (15%), but if folks think I should tie up a drydock to do that I can, Bremerhaven's D3 is available for the jobs.

[Here in the US, Duluth for years was trying to get the last of the Des Moines class CAs as a museum, but it never managed to come up with the money to get it from the USN, get it to the city and build the museum. This is the process I thought of when I came up with the below.]

My reasoning was that the KM wants to retire the two old warhorses, but cutting them up for razor blades is a solution to be avoided if possible. There were proposals to turn one or both of them into training ships, but the age and state of their hulls and the battle damage from the Great War mitigated against that. The cities of Wilhelmshaven and Kiel, though, could come up with the funds to buy the ships at scrap prices, and then build a museum for them.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
Should be noted that I paid for my ships to be turned into museum ships (rebuild cost to be exact). If you want a museum ship, fine, but I think you should pay for it as well. Consider it fitting out the vessel so it can last a long time.

Well, but the reason you paid for it was a different one as you stated in a discusseion elsewhere. I propose to NOT discuss Japans museum projects right now and right here.

I was actually referring to the Okinoshima and Mishima, not the Shoho. I might as well sell the Fuso class BBs to various cities because they have enough funding to buy them for harbour defence. Wilhelmshaven and Kiel are part of Germany so their funds are part of Germany's funds. I have been looking around for that Atlantean AC. It does not appear that Wes paid for its conversion to a museum, but he did not get any money for it either from the city where it went to.

My opinion :

I see no reason why Germany would not want to turn these into museum ships.

However, there is then work involved in setting up a dock, putting them in mothballs, etc.

Unless cutting torches are broken out, and the ship sliced up, there are not thousands of tons of high quality metal coming off of her. Slice off the screws to prevent fouling in sediments..and they become lovely exhibit gates.

I have no desire to make one pay for creating a museum ship, but as they are not physically scrapped, there is nothing of value coming off of them.

German cities draw from the same coffers as the German government. Your left hand giving your right hand $400 bucks so it can park your old car on the lawn means you don't have anything to turn in at the dealer and you are no richer, you just have a nostalgia piece quietly rusting on your lawn. This is the opportunity cost of a role playing decision.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
I was actually referring to the Okinoshima and Mishima, not the Shoho. I might as well sell the Fuso class BBs to various cities because they have enough funding to buy them for harbour defence. Wilhelmshaven and Kiel are part of Germany so their funds are part of Germany's funds. I have been looking around for that Atlantean AC. It does not appear that Wes paid for its conversion to a museum, but he did not get any money for it either from the city where it went to.

I couldn't find anything either so it appears we have people with various opinions on how to deal with museum ships. We are left with a few facts both real life and in sim life.

1) Seeing as we don't have an economy outside of the naval infrastructure money appears from essentially nowhere without a way to determine if there is enough or not. Thats not a bad thing alltogether as it allows for more room role playing wise.

2) In real life most ships including the U.S.S. enterprise went to the breakers because enough money couldn't be raised to purchase them.

3) Ships cost money to maintain regaurdless if they are in service or not. When they are not in service the level of care is much less and unless steps are taken to ensure they can be taken care of in a static condition, the ship deteriorates due to insuficient care, U.S.S. Texas and HMCS Haida come to mind.

4) Some ships have permanent berths created and work undertaken to make them static displays, removal of machinery, gun mutilation ect. North Carolina comes to mind.

So the question is what in our limited sim terms does it cost, and who foots the bill. Do we need to examine a civil/airforce/army infrastructure idea again or do we simply make the cost/benifit of creating a musuem ship essentially nothing?

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
I have no desire to make one pay for creating a museum ship, but as they are not physically scrapped, there is nothing of value coming off of them.

Scrap VLAUE does not represent material actually cut out of the ship in question but represents the money/resources you re-gain by selling the ship for scrap. In fact, would we have a complex exonomic set up with daily steel prices it could very well be that a scrapyard sells the armor plates etc. for more than what the government got as scrap value.

Again: Scrapping was added to the rules to generate a reason to take old ships away from the game. Hrolf clearly took his ships off the board so why shouldn´t he get some money/material for it?

Why is it a problem that money is created from nothing by those cities? Is any other warhsip material, the money to build ships and the crews NOT coming out of nowhere? How do our factories produce metal? How to we fuel our fleets?

This whole Sim-thing is flawed when it comes to economics and suddenly 3000ts for a museum ship which is clearly stated as "out of the game" is a problem? C´mon, you can´t be serious. Even the smallest navy in WesWorld would need much more than that just for maintenance had we set up such rules (like proposed by alt_naval for example).

Keep your feets on the ground and stop hair splitting!