WesWorld

Remind me, folks: If I yank guns off a ship and stick them in the ground as a shore battery, is there an IP or tonnage cost associated with this?

Let's consider the 35 cm turrets and 15 cm mounts of the Atahualpa class battleship as the likely weapons in question.

In short, no, or at least not that I'm aware of.

That is also as I understand it.

I have wondered about this as well, and never got around to asking. I also wondered, what about purpose built new guns? I presume they would be simmed in SS and then the associated weight payed for in tonnage. Is this correct?

Quoted

Originally posted by Sachmle
I have wondered about this as well, and never got around to asking. I also wondered, what about purpose built new guns? I presume they would be simmed in SS and then the associated weight payed for in tonnage. Is this correct?

Yes. In SS, you sim just the gun and the armour on it, set it as Turret/M&H/whatever, and then you can add the weight of the gun, the weight of the armour, and the associated systems in the "Distribution of weights at normal displacement" category of the SS report.

The idea is that concrete, rebar and labor are free.
New Gunshields or turret stalks require metal. furnaces and machining, so they are not. Recycled from ships..just needs concrete for the emplacement and are "free".

Thats what I was told, and it's what I've used for the hundreds of coastal guns studding the DEI.

For weight of smaller guns, I've found if I put in a really large number, I can get SS to give me a tonnage, which I can then use to get the weight it's assigning per gun.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
For weight of smaller guns, I've found if I put in a really large number, I can get SS to give me a tonnage, which I can then use to get the weight it's assigning per gun.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Can you elaborate?

I think Kirk is referring to the fact that SS doesn't think small enough weight wise be useful for small numbers of small caliber guns, like AA guns. As an example, 5 twin 20mm w/o armor weight nothing according to SS, but if you up it to 20 it weighs 1 ton. So, shouldn't 10 weight 0.5 ton?

Quoted

Originally posted by Sachmle
I think Kirk is referring to the fact that SS doesn't think small enough weight wise be useful for small numbers of small caliber guns, like AA guns. As an example, 5 twin 20mm w/o armor weight nothing according to SS, but if you up it to 20 it weighs 1 ton. So, shouldn't 10 weight 0.5 ton?

Ah, I see what you mean, I think. Though there's enough information on the weight of small caliber mountings such as 40mm and such that I'd presume you could go research the actual mounting weight and use that. I certainly would prefer that to trying to use Springsharp to sim them.

The 40mm were the ones I was referring to, though I think I may have encountered rounding issues on 125mm as well and so done that there.

I wound up making a spreadsheet of projected batteries and tonnages, so where my breakpoint is I don't recall.

While Navweaps is good with weights and that would be an option, I felt that since we commit to SS for a 40mm on board a ship, it was reasonable to use it for a 40mm on land as well- the two *should* require the same mass of industrial material.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
While Navweaps is good with weights and that would be an option, I felt that since we commit to SS for a 40mm on board a ship, it was reasonable to use it for a 40mm on land as well- the two *should* require the same mass of industrial material.

For the gun itself, I'd agree; but many of the 40mm mountings are truck-towed mobile guns, so I'd be cautious of making a blanket assumption that way.

But we don't buy trucks w/ our tonnage, why pay extra for a truck mounted AA gun, when the truck shouldn't count anyway? Shouldn't the mount still weigh roughly the same, discounting the weight of the truck?

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
While Navweaps is good with weights and that would be an option, I felt that since we commit to SS for a 40mm on board a ship, it was reasonable to use it for a 40mm on land as well- the two *should* require the same mass of industrial material.

For the gun itself, I'd agree; but many of the 40mm mountings are truck-towed mobile guns, so I'd be cautious of making a blanket assumption that way.

In which case I'd argue they count as army-type equipment, and not requiring naval payment at all. My general assumption is that anything not really intended to be aimed at a ship, and isn't on a ship, falls under that umbrella, though there's no hard rules either way.

I know that I assume Canada has anti-aircraft weaponry at various, logical places, but I haven't detailed or 'paid' for them.

Quoted

Originally posted by Sachmle
But we don't buy trucks w/ our tonnage, why pay extra for a truck mounted AA gun, when the truck shouldn't count anyway? Shouldn't the mount still weigh roughly the same, discounting the weight of the truck?

You wouldn't necessarily be paying extra for a truck-towed gun - you may be paying less, as the gun would have a completely different sort of base suitable for towing. This leads into a can of worms, of course, as your army can essentially buy regular artillery and then use it in the coast defense role (and under our system, it isn't paid for) but then you have to pay for coast defense guns. The Rules Loophole Lawyer in me asks "Why not just have the army take over coast defense, that way I never have to pay for coast defense batteries ever again?"

So my theory is, if the gun's towable, then it's Army and not paid for by the naval budget. If the gun's not towable and guarding a naval port (ie it's in a static mounting) then it should be paid for out of the naval construction budget.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
So my theory is, if the gun's towable, then it's Army and not paid for by the naval budget. If the gun's not towable and guarding a naval port (ie it's in a static mounting) then it should be paid for out of the naval construction budget.

Sounds logical to me, I've always assumed that, certainly large guns used for coastal defence 6in + should be paid for, when emplaced in turrets etc. they would be almost identical to ship turrets and would be sourced from the same production lines as naval turrets.

I should note - Cleito put severe limits on what I could build, so I went to both smaller ships- my gunboats and MTBs, and coastal defenses.

In my case, since I was providing both large DP guns (125mm) and small AA (40mm) for my coastal batteries...I paid for them. They have a naval purpose as part of the coastal defenses.

In my case, they are in concrete revetments. The 125mm have direct fire capacity through embrasures, but the 40mm are sited for AA coverage.

As for trucks..here's my "spin" Things like trucks are built from mild steel and use a different aspect of one's production base than fine quality machined steel - thus the lack of need to pay for the truck portion of the naval gun if that should arise as an issue.

Now Shin Ra has a point- and I don't specify what aerial defenses major cities/refineries/etc have, but for naval matters I kinda presume the population center has some...but I also went and added large AA batteries around my harbors to protect the guns, airstrips, ships, facilities, etc.


for me, most of the "small" facilities have a simple 8x152mm, 8x40mm, 2 battalion force, generally associated with an MTB and/or Seaplane base.

But Soerabaja - my most important base which has all of the above...it has a boatload of DP and AA guns.

So I'm reading all this as consensus that yanking a turret out of a ship and sticking in the ground will cost me nothing.

Excellent. Good to know.

*Eyeballs Atahualpa*

Rats, we must have goofed and provided an answer, curses. Well there is always next time.

Hmmm would Peru be willing to sell the guns instead?

Offers can be entertained.