WesWorld

Quoted

What exacly where the changes? Can we see a before and after SS2?

Encyclodpaedia here

Quoted

And when, in the near future, he puts all the stuff back, what will it cost to do that?

Well I'd argue nothing, but by 1936 I'd probably want to refit them with radar and different light AA guns so 15%.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Well the parallel I'm drawing is that when I go to scrap the old Ijelsijk class BCs, no one is going to claim that I need to pay tonnage or IPs to remove the turrets and put them in storage.

RA has- I believe, already "paid" the material cost for these items he and Roo are showing deleted, and it appears that the route taken will essentially be removing these things and putting them in storage, which seems quite similar to the scrapping process.

Presuming he's not doing things like de-armoring barbettes, all he should have to do is plate over the space, which at most would be 5% for minor superstructure work, not one of the higher refits. Or at least that appears logical to me

In the case of scrapping, you don't pay to remove things because that's part of the process. The ship, as a ship, goes away and you get some parts (maybe) and some scrap back. It takes time, and doesn't cost because the costs are already factored into the small amount you get back.

What's being proposed here, though, is not scrapping, the ship is not going away. That means it's a refit, of some level.

I'm inclined to think a 5% minor refit in terms of cost and time to remove stuff. There is some cost required, due to the plating-over of barbettes and hoists, the replacement of the TT deck armor, and so on. This isn't really "termporary" in the sense of a false funnel, since it could be there for years, but the amount of material is not large.

I'm also inclined to think a 5% minor refit in terms of time (only, not cost) to put the stuff back on. I'll accept the argument that the stuff in storage should not be charged for a second time.

Those of you who have not commented on this should do so.

5% seems awfully cheap, considering that the Infrastructure Rules say a change to exterior armor (another thing that's being changed) is a 25% cost. Also, 5% is a Manual Refit, it can be done without use of any facilities outside the ship. Good luck taking the 8" turret off the ship without a crane.....


The danger here, IMO, is not in the particular case, it's that it has the potential to set a precedent. If this case is NOT a refit, I can't see why anyone would ever use the refit rules for anything other than a 15 year refurbishment, it will always (or almost always) be cheaper to buy the items to be installed separately then install them "for free, since I already paid for them".

Example: Germany would like to remove the 500mm torpedo tubes from inventory and replace them with 533mm tubes. There are 500mm tubes on 13 different ships (11 destroyers, 2 smallish light cruisers), and the level of refit required is, under the Infrastructure Rules, a 15% refit. So it's not a huge cost, but it's noticeable. But, if I take the precedent offered here, I can cut the price by over 80% by just buying the tubes separately, then installing them "for free, since I already paid for them."

Valid point about the precendent.

I wasn't intending to suggest that the turret could be removed without a dockside crane. I thought that part of it was a given, regardless of cost/time.

5% will not cover it. For example if I wanted to remove 4 13.5" guns from Iron Duke to convert her into a Training ship I would have to pay over 12,000 tons! If I wanted to remove the 4" AA guns it would cost me 6,000 tons.

Quoted

Level 3: Major Refits (cost = 25%)

-Alterations to guns of 66mm-195mm not involving barbette alterations: P

Level 4: Partial Reconstruction (cost = 50%)

-Alterations to guns 196mm and larger not involving barbette alterations: P

And if its that simple then I didnt have to pay 70 tons (which is at 1/2 cost) for installing 15 tons of weapons (2 5" guns) on the Maple class Frigates. And according to what has been proposed I would now have to pay 140 tons for those 2 guns.

I left the deck armour over the TT there.

What was removed:
1 x 203mm triple mount
5 x 100mm duple mounts
Torpedoes, not torpedo tubes
Aircraft and stores, not catapult

Which makes the displacement come down to <13650tons

Given that a large percentage of players have declined to comment on this issue, and those that have did not reach a consensus, I believe the moderators will have to make a call here.

It seems stupid to suggest that the removal of, say a turret, and the plating over of the barbette would cost a large amount of tonnage. Replacing it with another turret or someother peice of equipment would fall under the refit rules, but we are talking about the REMOVAL of these items with NO replacement being added.

Thanks for chipping in, Mac. Anybody else?

The problem with that statement is that that's EXACTLY what's been done in the case of ships being converted into training vessels. So what's the difference, why is this case special?

I think I'll build some 40,000 ton hulls with a single quad 381mm turret, and 3 empty barbettes. The bottom of the armor belt will be about the waterline. They'll go pretty fast too, maybe 29.5 kts. Great seaboats, lots of freeboard. I'll also build a bunch of 420mm triple turrets, with suitable shell-handling equipment, and put them in warehouses near the fitting-out area at the port of Archangelsk.

Shouldn't cost much or take long to put the big triples on in wartime or after the Treaty expires.

Perhaps the problem is that the refit/replacement rules are clunky and dont make sense when applied to some situations. The torpedo tubes are a great example, why would replacing 500mm TTs with 533mm cost more for larger displacement vessels? Take my pending ZP refit, the cost wont vary if I do or dont replace the main armor belt, even though it must displace &frac12; of the total cost of the refit. Kinda on a related topic&we dont cover such mundane news items as barrel replacements and relinings, but via those rules, theyd be mighty expensive. The rules appear to be more suited to the question of whats the most I can change for this cost?.

The fact that we all have to live with these rules is what makes them acceptable, but they appear geared for replacements of Item A with Item B. Even in the case of a training ship, normally some interior mods would be expected to suit it for the new role, or just to spruce up an old ship. I certainly paid a lot for my training conversions. In this case, is not quite as simple as pulling up to a crane and having it yanked, but closer to it than what the rules seem to be oriented towards. I still think removing a turret is far more akin to scrapping than anything else.

So to me, it would seem that this situation doesnt fall within design of those rules and some logical accommodation should be made. However I can buy the counter argument that these are the rules we have, and so we should stick with them. But can anyone truly avow that removal of weapons from a brand new ship is what they were designed to cover?

PS. Um, interesting idea Admiral.

And if such actions have little/no material cost, that's exactly where we'll end up.

I myself am not sure what to think of it.
On one hand I would say: "In reality, you'd probably need something like 10-20 tons of plating to cover things up, it will take a couple of days and probably cost something like 100,000 USD" (just putting down some numbers so they don't need to be accurate).
On the other hand I would say: "In reality, with what has been removed, you're not going to get under 14,000 tons, no matter what SS tells you."
1x triple 203mm turret = 287 tons
5x twin 100mm turrets = 59 tons
2x planes = 50 tons
Torpedoes = 48 tons
Total = 444 tons
14,550-444 = 14,006 tons.
... and those figures are including the barbette armor for the 203mm turret.
Barbette weight...
Total main Armament armor = 804 tons
Without barbettes = 345 tons
4 Barbettes = 804 - 345 = 459 tons
1 Barbette = 114.75 tons
So the actual standard displacement of those ships will be 14,120.75 tons

The reason I proposed costing this refit at only 25%, instead of the 50% cost it is under the rules, is because it's only a one-way transfer: guns going off, nothing of large value going on. In the future, when it is time to reinstall the guns, then that would be another 25% charge, because again, its a one way transfer: guns going on, nothing of great value or difficulty in removing coming off.

That might be a good midpoint Hrolf. And also serve as a barrier to exploitation of the loophole the Admiral pointed out.

That sort of loophole is exactly what concerns me about this situation. If we start going down the road of "I just pay the material cost" for refits, we essentially make the refit rules meaningless AND we open ourselves up to the sort of abuse that AdmK so clearly demonstrated. I'd rather we didn't go there, myself.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
The problem with that statement is that that's EXACTLY what's been done in the case of ships being converted into training vessels. So what's the difference, why is this case special?

The refit rules, as far as I can see, are written with the purpose of updating warships in mind. They are seriously flawed when it comes to conversion of first line vessels to second line or support vessels.

What we are talking about here is the deliberate down-grading of a vessel.

And as for AK hypothetical ship, if the treaty collapses, who will care anyway, every one will be doing something similiar....who hasn't contemplated twin 18" turrets instead of the triple 15" turrets currently shipped?

"And as for AK hypothetical ship, if the treaty collapses, who will care anyway, every one will be doing something similiar....who hasn't contemplated twin 18" turrets instead of the triple 15" turrets currently shipped?"

Yes, after the Treaty lapses I expect several of us will up-gun BBs now in service. But their capabilities will still be limited by their tonnage. I expect that many post-Treaty ships will be significantly bigger that present BBs, with significantly greater capabilities.

The problem with the scenario I outlined is it puts a ~50,000 ton BB with 12x420mm into sea trials within a month of the Treaty going bust. And that would not be good for our little game.