WesWorld

I wager you could get more money selling them than scrapping them. Or find another purpose for the hulls.

Explanations could rest on the steadily increasing capabilities of aircraft. 10 years ago, planes didn't have the range to cover the entire Med...but now they do, for the most part.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
I'm just hazzarding a guess but I'm fairly sure the countrys with 30+ factory will be paying 1/3rd of their tonnage output for one quarter to
perform maintinence, perhaps more. I don't even want to know what Britains maintinence costs will be!

It won't be a problem for such huge industrial powers or ??? But it's fair ... if you will keep a huge fleet running, you have to pay a lot for it.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I wouldn't object to that - it sounds pretty workable to me. That way, we'd be forced to balance a bit more on replacing aged units, rather than just collecting a dozen generations of ships to inflate our orbats.

I have to fully agree.

Fleet size and manpower are the problems that affect all navies.
Having 1,800 small craft just isn't feasible. I'd assume logically most are laid up, in mothballs and few have seen much seatime other than perhaps a builder's trial. Still they can be stored on land/ quaysides so shouldn't rot away too soon.

The RN has largely come to the end of its MTB programme since only two/three geographical areas are useful zones to use them.
Overall I'm slowly trimming the RN back, getting rid of all the Great War relics and don't forget peacetime manning levels are lower than wartime ones.

With all this talk why do nations keep buying all this 1915-1919 floating junk? China is one culprit, any old hulk finds its way to China or Persia etc. Why would any professional Navy bother with the Chesters/ Simpsons etc when many nations can provide their own designs in WW and the big nations can easily provide modern export designs. Those old hulks have less than 5 years use, perhaps some are already deathtraps at sea. Buying a new ship gives you 25-30 years effective life. 1 ship per 30 years or six ships per 30 years? Which looks the better value to you?

Greece may have carriers but it built them and they are still useable ships. If she had brought 30 1910 era ships in 1930 she wouldn't be so well off now with a whole load of crap iron to dispose of.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
With all this talk why do nations keep buying all this 1915-1919 floating junk? China is one culprit, any old hulk finds its way to China or Persia etc. Why would any professional Navy bother with the Chesters/ Simpsons etc when many nations can provide their own designs in WW and the big nations can easily provide modern export designs. Those old hulks have less than 5 years use, perhaps some are already deathtraps at sea. Buying a new ship gives you 25-30 years effective life. 1 ship per 30 years or six ships per 30 years? Which looks the better value to you?

Cause why would you not buy somthing for below scrapping value?

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Fleet size and manpower are the problems that affect all navies.
Having 1,800 small craft just isn't feasible. I'd assume logically most are laid up, in mothballs and few have seen much seatime other than perhaps a builder's trial. Still they can be stored on land/ quaysides so shouldn't rot away too soon.

Sure, fleet size and manpower are problems of every navy. But even, if you mothball all the small crafts on quayside, you have to maintain them. Check their preparedness for emergency for example.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
The RN has largely come to the end of its MTB programme since only two/three geographical areas are useful zones to use them.
Overall I'm slowly trimming the RN back, getting rid of all the Great War relics and don't forget peacetime manning levels are lower than wartime ones.

Sure, but how low ??? In my eyes in peacetime the crew is surely round about 75 - 80% of wartime. (may be i'm completely wrong, i'm not a ship expert).

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
With all this talk why do nations keep buying all this 1915-1919 floating junk? China is one culprit, any old hulk finds its way to China or Persia etc. Why would any professional Navy bother with the Chesters/ Simpsons etc when many nations can provide their own designs in WW and the big nations can easily provide modern export designs. Those old hulks have less than 5 years use, perhaps some are already deathtraps at sea. Buying a new ship gives you 25-30 years effective life. 1 ship per 30 years or six ships per 30 years? Which looks the better value to you?

Why in OTL GB absolutely wants via the land-and-lease law the 50 four-pipers from the US ? Quite simply, it could not be built so fast new vessels. Sure if i have a huge economy in the background,
it isn't a problem, but for small countries it's necessary to fill their gaps.
By the way what modern aircraft wounded the Bismarck deadly ? It was an old "string bag". Or how long could a modern BB survive against a fleet of even old destroyers ? Moreover, too many hunters are the rabbits dead.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Greece may have carriers but it built them and they are still useable ships. If she had brought 30 1910 era ships in 1930 she wouldn't be so well off now with a whole load of crap iron to dispose of.

I never said the ships are useless. I only raised the question, does a country like Greece (NO overseas colonys, all land located in the mediterranean) REALLY need a fleet with 6 carriers ??

The problem is much more, in my mind, that many fleets were built with the knowledge of today.

Atlantis, I would estimate, would have over 14,000 service members in its 1,720 strong small craft fleet if fully manned, that said I'd estimate that 2/3rds of the acctual fleet would be in active service and a similar fraction of crew members manning the boats. There is no need to man every gun but the training has to be maintained.

I would assume that older types like the MTB-1 and 82 types would be laid up while newer types like the MTB-202, CMB type 2 and 200 MGB type's 1 and 2 would be more active. I simply haven't detailed their deployment/status well enough as I focus more on the large vessels. Wooden coastal vessels if used under peace time conditions shouldn't really take much punishment unless your running them up at speed on a regular basis.

Most of them could be refitted in wartime with improved light weapons but without a war there isn't much incentive to do so and Atlantis hasn't done so with any of its light craft. I'd assume the life span of wooden vessels would be around 10-15 years which would mean half the Atlantean fleet of 400 MTB's would be nearing the end of their life span.

Some types like the Atlantean CMB type 2 are not very manpower intensive, with just a crew of 3, while others like the MGB type 1 perform many tasks in many different environments from river patrols to possible mining operations in wartime.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
With all this talk why do nations keep buying all this 1915-1919 floating junk? China is one culprit, any old hulk finds its way to China or Persia etc. Why would any professional Navy bother with the Chesters/ Simpsons etc when many nations can provide their own designs in WW and the big nations can easily provide modern export designs. Those old hulks have less than 5 years use, perhaps some are already deathtraps at sea. Buying a new ship gives you 25-30 years effective life. 1 ship per 30 years or six ships per 30 years? Which looks the better value to you?

I've done a bit of secondhand buying over the past few years, always with a particular justification. I prefer new vessels in all but a very few special examples (favorite vessels such as the Salt Lake City or the Emdens). When I buy used, it's often with a very specific purpose; Chile's purchase of the entire Alphabet-B/C/D destroyer classes, and the Temerarios, took place in the tensions surrounding the Peruvian War, where new construction just flat out couldn't do the job fast enough and cheap enough to answer. Regarding light craft... um, what light craft? Chile sees very little point at present to build MTBs - there's no place to deploy them in anything approaching an effective manner. They've been looking at a sort of super-heavy MTB-Gunboat, but it's unlikely to get past the stage of careful consideration.

Regarding manpower considerations - Chile's just hawked off three of their capital units to reduce that problem. The crews from the two battlecruisers Santiago and Valparaiso will be consolidated to form the crew of the Capitan Prat, as an example. The manpower considerations are 60% of the reason I was willing to trade two battlecruisers for one.

Ireland's bought a few used ships - the Salt Lake City/Granuaile, the four S-class/Contaes, and the H-class submarines. The latter two groups are already being replaced; the first replacement for the Contaes was laid down in 1940, and the replacements for the H-boats are being launched this same quarter. In these cases, I bought both the S-class and the H-boats to provide some good introductory experience to the INS. That goal done, they're being hurriedly shuffled off as fast as the Irish can replace them. So far as small craft go, Ireland has a few of them - sixteen coastal minesweeper/subchaser vessels serving as patrol boats, and three squadrons of MTBs in service by 1942. There's really no need for any more, quite frankly. As it stands right now, Ireland's light combatants compose nearly 1/4th of the current manpower requirements - over a thousand men. That's a pretty steep curve.

Bulgaria's the same way. I've bought a few secondhand ships, but it's not a regular thing. Bulgaria's got a lot more light craft, but I feel in this case it's more justified; many of those light craft are deployed as (unarmed!) police boats on the Danube.

One of the reasons I've attempted to avoid building light craft is that they have a higher ratio of crew-per-ton of ship. On average, the Irish Naval Service has to deploy around one crewman per 4.3 tons of Light Craft built; compared to one crewman per 9.7 tons in destroyers. That's a bit of an out-of-character decision, however. I'd argue, additionally, that except in very specialized circumstances, one 2000t destroyer is more valuable than twenty 100t MTBs.

I'd wonder how many of us have actually gone through our navies and had a serious look at how our manpower situation breaks down. I can look at my spreadsheets and tell you the exact manning requirements for the Irish, Bulgarian, and Chilean navies - broken down by class and by vessel type. The manpower considerations actually drive, in no small part, many of the shipbuilding decisions I make.

Belgium, which has a navy more for political reasons, doesn't buy old vessels, much preferring home built for employment reasons.

The Dutch have been trying hard to field maximum strength in the early 1940s, and so looked at many of the old ships being proffered, but the effective life spans of many without refit are low, while the cost of refitting them kills the 'deal' in most cases.

The SAE Konigs were a notable exception, as refitted capital units available when the Dutch worry they will need them, and they came with the instruction manuals already in Dutch

Manpower is a concern, but a lesser one. They draw from a 100million population base, but most recruitment is from @30million people.

On small craft, I figured on having 40 bases with 12 MTBs each, for 480, at which point new builds will start replace the old craft worn by 5-6 years of tropical service. I expect a rather short life span for those. All of these are expected to work inside the DEIs. Some forays outside might be doable, but range is a limiter, and I don't think they would fare well in open seas.

With Siam, much of my work was refitting the vessels purchased in the past. The Italian vessels gained basically round out the fleet and prices offered reflected age and refit needs.

Quoted

With all this talk why do nations keep buying all this 1915-1919 floating junk? China is one culprit, any old hulk finds its way to China or Persia etc. Why would any professional Navy bother with the Chesters/ Simpsons etc when many nations can provide their own designs in WW and the big nations can easily provide modern export designs. Those old hulks have less than 5 years use, perhaps some are already deathtraps at sea. Buying a new ship gives you 25-30 years effective life. 1 ship per 30 years or six ships per 30 years? Which looks the better value to you?

Because when you have 3 measly factories, buying used is the ONLY way you can go. If taken care of even old ships still have plenty of life in them. Yavus served from 1914? to 1970's? Mexico still has ex-US destroyers in service since WWII. Also I have tried to buy ships only from certain nations mainly the US, Atlantis, and India, makes it easier to maintain the ships.

As for Mexico's huge DD and SS fleet, about half would be in reserve. And my light ships are necessary for policing and patrol duties.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Because when you have 3 measly factories, buying used is the ONLY way you can go.

I have Bulgaria and Ireland that disagree with this statement.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Because when you have 3 measly factories, buying used is the ONLY way you can go.

I have Bulgaria and Ireland that disagree with this statement.

But you don't have Foxy's delusions of being a central and pivotal Great Power with either of those nations. (:

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
But you don't have Foxy's delusions of being a central and pivotal Great Power with either of those nations. (:

Tru dat.

Neither of those nations have two huge and separate coastlines, and my population and economic power is more than both those nations combined.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Neither of those nations have two huge and separate coastlines, and my population and economic power is more than both those nations combined.

You're correct on population, but incorrect on economic power, I'm afraid. And neutering your oil industry through nationalization just didn't help you.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Because when you have 3 measly factories, buying used is the ONLY way you can go.

I have Bulgaria and Ireland that disagree with this statement.

And Yugoslavia, with its two factories, will second the sentiment. Certainly it does not have the coastline that Mexico has; neither does it feel the need to develop a fleet capable of challenging its neighbors in open combat.

As actions will confirm, I am not a fan of huge numbers of coastal craft as part of a peacetime naval establishment. Most of the smaller craft I inherited have been disposed of - and the ten vessels still in the inventory are, I believe, an appropriate number for a small navy, particularly one with few base options for them.

They have their place, but huge fleets of CMBs are not the proper use of scarce naval resources.

It didn't cause much problems in OTL don't see why it would be the case here.

Looking at current economic power Mexico comes out at 13/14, Ireland at 37/38, Bulgaria at 71/73:

List of Countries by GDP

Sure its OTL 2010, but Mexico is definitely not a third world country by any standards. And combined Bulgaria and Ireland only come out to 1/3 of Mexico's GDP.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
It didn't cause much problems in OTL don't see why it would be the case here.

"Between 1938 and 1939, PEMEX survived by trading oil for money and machinery to European countries with fascist governments"

Of which there are none. No one's stepped in to buy Mexican oil. If no one's buying, you're...having problems, dude. Presumably, you're dumping capital into trying to hire or produce the specialists who operate the machinery and find the oil (replacing the foreign experts who you threw out), but you have zero money coming in from sales.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
It didn't cause much problems in OTL don't see why it would be the case here.

Looking at current economic power Mexico comes out at 13/14, Ireland at 37/38, Bulgaria at 71/73:

List of Countries by GDP

Sure its OTL 2010, but Mexico is definitely not a third world country by any standards. And combined Bulgaria and Ireland only come out to 1/3 of Mexico's GDP.

Citing 2010 GDP stats as an example for any country is not relevant; the IMF does not track GDP data before 1970 because of inaccuracies in the means of measuring data.

Much of Mexico's economic growth came in the 1970s and 1980s, and the basis for is was laid in the aftermath of the Second World War.

In any case, since Wesworld economics have little in common with real-world economics, it is a moot point.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
It didn't cause much problems in OTL don't see why it would be the case here.

Looking at current economic power Mexico comes out at 13/14, Ireland at 37/38, Bulgaria at 71/73:

List of Countries by GDP

Sure its OTL 2010, but Mexico is definitely not a third world country by any standards. And combined Bulgaria and Ireland only come out to 1/3 of Mexico's GDP.

Unlike you, I researched the historical GDPs for the 1940s, not 2010. First of all, you've failed to account for a number of historical events which have led to the modern change: first of all, Mexico's population has increased by 600% and the economy has increased by over 2000% since the 1940s, while Bulgaria's economy was sucked dry by the Communists and Bulgaria's population increased by less than 25%. The exact figures are a bit inaccurate due to the measurement systems involved, but in 1940, Mexico's GDP was approximately 40 billion pesos (in modern money), while Bulgaria's GDP at the time of the start of WWII was between 1/2 to 3/4ths the size of 1940s Mexico. And that's ignoring that Wesworld Bulgaria doesn't have twenty years of reparations sucking the country dry and tripping up the Bulgarian economy.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
It didn't cause much problems in OTL don't see why it would be the case here.

Presumably because you've conveniently forgotten that all of the factors which made Mexico's decision less disastrous (note that I did not use the word "successful" - it set the Mexican economy back by a full decade or more) aren't present in Wesworld.

Quoted

"Between 1938 and 1939, PEMEX survived by trading oil for money and machinery to European countries with fascist governments" Of which there are none.

No one's stepped in to buy Mexican oil. If no one's buying, you're...having problems, dude. Presumably, you're dumping capital into trying to hire or produce the specialists who operate the machinery and find the oil (replacing the foreign experts who you threw out), but you have zero money coming in from sales.

That's what you think... If it's cheaper people will buy it, maybe not the US, GB, or Dutch, but there are other customers out there...

Quoted

Citing 2010 GDP stats as an example for any country is not relevant; the IMF does not track GDP data before 1970 because of inaccuracies in the means of measuring data.

I know, but its the best thing I found and I am upset with people painting Mexico as the least economically developed country in the world...

Quoted

Much of Mexico's economic growth came in the 1970s and 1980s, and the basis for is was laid in the aftermath of the Second World War.

Actually the Peso crashed in the 1970's setting the country back a decade. It only recovered by 2000.

As for WW effects, Mexico was one of the hardest hit countries by the Great Depression which never happened here.

Quoted

Presumably because you've conveniently forgotten that all of the factors which made Mexico's decision less disastrous (note that I did not use the word "successful" - it set the Mexican economy back by a full decade or more) aren't present in Wesworld.

Funny how the Mexican 'Economic Miracle' came after the Oil Expropration.... Despite Mexico's 'Disastrous' Decision.