Cost of an Ancient Warship
Charles Talleyrand
some terms I can understand. I great answer would be of the form
"To build an 80 ft sailing vessel in 1492 took about 14,000 man/hours" or
something like that.
Or "One could buy a 100 ft sailing vessel in Venice for 9000 florins,
and each florin could hire a skilled worker for a week."
I'm interested in any time period from ancient Egypt to maybe Napoleon.
I'm just trying to get an order of magnitude informed guess.
Significant Google searching didn't help. Can anyone here help?
Mycroft
obviously we are talking a 1st rater ship of the line, also remember that
these ships were used for decades. Victory was laid down before Nelson was
born and at the time he was given his choice of flagship she was a prison
hulk, but he wanted her for sentimental reasons.
Myc
Andrew Toppan
wrote:
>I'm interested in any time period from ancient Egypt to maybe Napoleon.
>I'm just trying to get an order of magnitude informed guess.
>Significant Google searching didn't help. Can anyone here help?
10 seconds of Googling for HMS VICTORY indicates that she "cost £63,176. For
comparison, this would be equivalent to the cost of building an aircraft
carrier today."
http://www.hms-victory.com/factsandfigures.htm
--
Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/
Andrew Toppan
>these ships were used for decades. Victory was laid down before Nelson was
>born and at the time he was given his choice of flagship she was a prison
>hulk, but he wanted her for sentimental reasons.
Let's see...surveyed 1797, unfit for service, handed over for conversion to
hospital ship, but reconsidered as a 1st rate after IMPREGNABLE was lost.
Refit at Chatham 1800-1803, and sailed for the Med 16 May under Hardy with
Nelson aboard.
Considering the refit began 4 years before Nelson came aboard, and in the
interim Nelson had been off fighting at Copenhagen, I really don't see that he
had anything to do with her fate at that point.
Mark Sieving
>10 seconds of Googling for HMS VICTORY indicates that she "cost £63,176. For
>comparison, this would be equivalent to the cost of building an aircraft
>carrier today."
According to the calculator at the Economic History Services
website (http://www.eh.net/ehresources/howmuch/poundq.php),
£63,176 in 1765 would be the equivalent of about £5.3 million in
2002. I don't think you could build much of an aircraft carrier
for that.
That's not so much to dispute the HMS Victory website as to show
that trying to compare purchasing power from different eras is a
tricky business.
Mark Sieving
Arved Sandstrom
news:vklanj8...@corp.supernews.com...
Chris Ware (in his book The Bomb Vessel) describes the costs of building 4
ships of the type of the FIREDRAKE as 2828 pounds each (I don't believe this
includes the costs of the mortars). This would have been in the 1690's. I am
not going to add any more figures, as his book (and presumably many other
references) are replete with costing data for ships.
I'm no economist, but I did find out from http://eh.net/hmit/ that the
relative value of a pound in 1693 was roughly 95 times that of the pound in
2002. And I don't imagine that a skilled workman in the 1690's made much
more than 50-100 pounds per year; probably closer to the lower figure,
really.
These are interesting questions, and quite frankly I am sure that much good
material exists on this in university libraries. I have only to look at my
copy of "War in the Middle Ages", by Philippe Contamine, to see meticulous
listings of the costs of medieval warfare. I think Googling does not always
work.
AHS
Charles Talleyrand
"Andrew Toppan" <acto...@gwi.net> wrote in message news:c6clkvoisv9bofidb...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:33:51 -0400, "Charles Talleyrand" <rapp...@nmu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >I'm interested in any time period from ancient Egypt to maybe Napoleon.
> >I'm just trying to get an order of magnitude informed guess.
> >Significant Google searching didn't help. Can anyone here help?
>
> 10 seconds of Googling for HMS VICTORY indicates that she "cost £63,176. For
> comparison, this would be equivalent to the cost of building an aircraft
> carrier today."
>
> http://www.hms-victory.com/factsandfigures.htm
>
And the USS Constitution cost $302,718 in 1797 US dollars,
although the Brits could build a 74 gun ship for less.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/constitution.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Alley/5443/supfrig.htm
I'm trying to understand these numbers in terms of something like
manhours needed to build the ship. I note that the pay for a US
sailor was 10-17 US$ per month. Therefore it took something
like 25,000 man-months to build a Constitution (or a British 74).
Does this seem reasonable?
If you're curious, the Constition was 3x over budget in part due to
political problems with Congressional funding, and is therefore a bad
example to use. That's why I'm asking for other examples. And please
don't pull this thread into a 'Congress has always sucked' direction. Can
we please have one thread without current politics?
Can someone offer other examples, particularly from a different
time period and/or a different sized ship? That would be
most helpful.
-Thanks
Keith Willshaw
>
> "Andrew Toppan" <acto...@gwi.net> wrote in message
news:c6clkvoisv9bofidb...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:33:51 -0400, "Charles Talleyrand"
<rapp...@nmu.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I'm interested in any time period from ancient Egypt to maybe Napoleon.
> > >I'm just trying to get an order of magnitude informed guess.
> > >Significant Google searching didn't help. Can anyone here help?
> >
> > 10 seconds of Googling for HMS VICTORY indicates that she "cost £63,176.
For
> > comparison, this would be equivalent to the cost of building an aircraft
> > carrier today."
> >
> > http://www.hms-victory.com/factsandfigures.htm
> >
>
>
> And the USS Constitution cost $302,718 in 1797 US dollars,
> although the Brits could build a 74 gun ship for less.
> http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/constitution.htm
> http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Alley/5443/supfrig.htm
>
>
> I'm trying to understand these numbers in terms of something like
> manhours needed to build the ship. I note that the pay for a US
> sailor was 10-17 US$ per month. Therefore it took something
> like 25,000 man-months to build a Constitution (or a British 74).
> Does this seem reasonable?
>
In 1815 the aervage wage for an unskilled laborer in Britain was
around 15 shillings per week. A highly skilled craftsman like
a cooper or carpenter could make 30 shillings per week
However these costs for Victory need clarification
Do they apply to the hull only or included rigging ?
How about the guns ?
I suspect they are the costs of the hull and the total costs
including weapons , stores and rigging was much higher.
Finally you have to recall how expensive maintaining these ships
could be
One source I have seen estimates the cost of building HMS Victory
at £63,176 but her refit in 1778 cost £37,523 and that of 1803 cost
a further £70,993
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
news:yKB2b.62097$PD3.4...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> "Charles Talleyrand" <rapp...@nmu.edu> wrote in message
> news:vklanj8...@corp.supernews.com...
> > I'm trying to understand the cost of building an oceangoing ship in
> > some terms I can understand. I great answer would be of the form
> > "To build an 80 ft sailing vessel in 1492 took about 14,000 man/hours"
or
> > something like that.
> >
> > Or "One could buy a 100 ft sailing vessel in Venice for 9000 florins,
> > and each florin could hire a skilled worker for a week."
> >
> > I'm interested in any time period from ancient Egypt to maybe Napoleon.
> > I'm just trying to get an order of magnitude informed guess.
> >
> > Significant Google searching didn't help. Can anyone here help?
>
> Chris Ware (in his book The Bomb Vessel) describes the costs of building 4
> ships of the type of the FIREDRAKE as 2828 pounds each (I don't believe
this
> includes the costs of the mortars). This would have been in the 1690's. I
am
> not going to add any more figures, as his book (and presumably many other
> references) are replete with costing data for ships.
>
The average wage of an agricultural labourer in 1650 was around a
shilling per day and that of a skilled laborer might be double that amount
Average 10 shillings per week for shipwrights and you probably
wont be far wrong.
> I'm no economist, but I did find out from http://eh.net/hmit/ that the
> relative value of a pound in 1693 was roughly 95 times that of the pound
in
> 2002. And I don't imagine that a skilled workman in the 1690's made much
> more than 50-100 pounds per year; probably closer to the lower figure,
> really.
>
Half that amount is nearer reality, 50-100 pounds per year was
about right for 1800
Keith
Staale Sannerud
> around 15 shillings per week. A highly skilled craftsman like
> a cooper or carpenter could make 30 shillings per week
>
> However these costs for Victory need clarification
>
> Do they apply to the hull only or included rigging ?
>
> How about the guns ?
>
Off hand, I doubt that the guns were included in the Victory sum given.
The (iron) guns for a ship of the line would cost roughly as much as the raw
hull itself - but this is complicated by the fact that a gun could last a
very, very long time indeed, several lifetimes of an individual ship, so
that a new-built ship could inherit older guns that were already paid for so
to speak. Including the price of the guns in the ship building price would
make sense if the guns were cast especially for that ship, which sometimes
did happen esp. with bronze guns. They were around 4x as expensive as iron
ones by the way.
Staale Sannerud
Vince Brannigan
Staale Sannerud wrote:
Including the price of the guns in the ship building price would
> make sense if the guns were cast especially for that ship, which sometimes
> did happen esp. with bronze guns. They were around 4x as expensive as iron
> ones by the way.
do you have a cite for this 4x figure.
vince
Keith Willshaw
"Vince Brannigan" <fir...@pressroom.com> wrote in message
news:3F4B41BF...@pressroom.com...
The table at
http://www.cwartillery.org/art-cost.html
shows bronze guns costing between 4 times and 6 times
an iron gun in the early 1860's
Keith
Peter Skelton
<acto...@gwi.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:33:51 -0400, "Charles Talleyrand" <rapp...@nmu.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>I'm interested in any time period from ancient Egypt to maybe Napoleon.
>>I'm just trying to get an order of magnitude informed guess.
>>Significant Google searching didn't help. Can anyone here help?
>
>10 seconds of Googling for HMS VICTORY indicates that she "cost £63,176. For
>comparison, this would be equivalent to the cost of building an aircraft
>carrier today."
>
>http://www.hms-victory.com/factsandfigures.htm
That's an obviously incorrect comparison. How many first rates
did the world have just before the Napoleonic wars? How many
aircraft carriers does it have now? What was the population then,
what is is now?
If the text were written in the 1940's, it might make sense but
today?
____
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
<rapp...@nmu.edu> wrote:
You might try "The 74 Gun Ship" Jean Boudret, French originally
but well translated, or Lavery's "The Ship of the Line." I'm not
certain they'll have exactly what you want, but allow a week,
they tend to be adicting and they aren't thin.
Good luck
____
Peter Skelton
Jack Linthicum
J. Richard Steffy, Wooden Shipbuilding and the Interpetation of
Shipwrecks, Texas A&M University Press, 1994.
Vince Brannigan
not for gun of about the same size.
the 3 inch ordnance rifle cost $330 the Comparably sized 12pounder
napoleon cost 490. Most of the cost of a cannon is in the boring and
turning , which don't change much with the size.
Vince
Keith Willshaw
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7164002b.03082...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Can someone offer other examples, particularly from a different
> > time period and/or a different sized ship? That would be
> > most helpful.
> >
>
>
> J. Richard Steffy, Wooden Shipbuilding and the Interpetation of
> Shipwrecks, Texas A&M University Press, 1994.
While doing a little research thus lunchtime I came across the
following site which has some interesting data regarding the
early USN
http://www.iment.com/maida/familytree/henry/genealogy/smiththompsonletter.htm
No construction costs I'm afraid but some information
on running costs
Keith
Gregg Germain
: I'm trying to understand the cost of building an oceangoing ship in
Samuel Eliot Morison's book on Columbus has the costs of buying (not
building) the boats Chris used. The cost is in maravedis and I have
found conversions. I am not home now so I don't have access to the
book.
However a goggle search on:
cost+maravedis+nina
generates a lot of hits. here are a few extracts:
Mr. Harrisse shows that the expense to the crown amounted to 1,140,000
maravedis. This, as he counts it, is about sixty-four thousand dollars
of our money.
The total cost of the expedition, consisting of three ships, wages of
the crew, stores and provisions, was 1,167,542 maravedis, about
L950(in 1900).
--- Gregg
Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:
http://home.attbi.com/~saville/backstaffhome.html
Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:
http://home.attbi.com/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm
Steambending FAQ with photos:
http://home.attbi.com/~saville/Steambend.htm
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."
gr...@head-cfa.harvard.edu
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558
Glenn Ashmore
present but once you get an idea of labor and material it will probably
be good from the first century up through the 16th. While designs
changed materials and construction methods did not change very much and
while material prices varied over time long term inflation was virtually
unheard of.
I can give you a small modern day comparison of labor if not total cost.
I have a favorite stopping point in Bay des Cays Haiti that I have
stopped by several times over the years. For the past 2 years there has
been a group of 3 men directed by an incredibly old guy building a 65'
schooner on the beach. They are doing it the old fashioned way with
axes and adzes, pegs, oakum and tar. Keel was laid in February 2000 and
when we stopped by in May of this year they were preparing to set the
masts.
I figure they can only work 10 hours a day probably 300 days a year so a
SWAG would be 18,000 hours + - maximum if my math is right. (2 yrs*300
days*10 hours*3 men.) Actual time is probably a lot less because they
had to spend a lot of time scrounging material. (We donated an old
blown out genoa and a worn halyard.)
Other adjustments include:
Labor and material requirement goes up as the cube of the length so an
85' hull would probably require twice the labor of a 65' one.
A 15th century trading vessel would have been a bit more elaborate than
this boat and a war ship considerably more.
A 15th century ship yard would have more tools and equipment to work
with than these poor fellows.
--
Glenn Ashmore
I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com
Keith Willshaw
You are comparing Apples and Oranges
The napoleon was a smoothbore and its production involved
much less boring and turning than a rifle
The true comparison is between an iron
smoothbore and a napoleon. The columbiads
while admittedly larger than the napoleons
were also smoothbores
Keith
Arved Sandstrom
> Can someone offer other examples, particularly from a different
> time period and/or a different sized ship? That would be
> most helpful.
I offered one example - the bomb vessel series from 1692 - in another post
in this thread. Keith helpfully corrected me on contemporary wages,
suggesting that skilled labour at the time (shipwrights etc) was probably
closer to 25 pounds per individual per annum.
The construction cost estimates that I cited for those bomb vessels were
2828 pounds total - of that, 1919 pounds were for the timber, planks,
trenails, pitch, tar, mast, sundry material and workmanship, masts and
yards, and 909 pounds were for furnishing with rigging and ground tackle
sails and sea stores for the boatswain's and carpenter's store, and eight
months provision of sea stores.
This Navy Board estimate does not include ordnance stores.
Again, without including ordnance stores, Chris Ware states that the total
cost of purchased/converted bombs in the period 1690-95 was 13,315 pounds
(this for eight vessels), and 31,872 pounds for fourteen purpose-built
bombs. For purposes of comparison, he mentions that with this total
expenditure (45,187 pounds) one could have purchased two Third Rates
(without sea and ordnance stores).
Costs of the INFERNAL class of bombs (late 1750's) ranged from 3355 to 3758
pounds. These are building costs only. In fact, a average of another 400
pounds was expended per vessel of this class to fit them for service (i.e.
fitting the mortar beds), and the cost would still not include the ordnance.
As another complementary set of figures, from the same source, we find that
the costs of fitting out a 1690's bomb with mortars and ordnance stores was:
ca. 3480 pounds for a 13in mortar and all materials and officers to attended
(wages for Ordnance staff)
60 pounds for the mortar @ 12s per ton
140 pounds for two carriages
700 pounds for five hundred 12 1/4 inch bombs (the HE ammo)
175 pounds for 125 carcasses (incendiary ammo)
ca. 14 pounds for 750 fuzes
480 pounds for a 100 ton tender
Of course, one then still has to add wages for officers and seamen who
manned the vessel. As this helps also give an idea of the costs of a ship,
I'll note that Michael Lewis ("The Navy of Britain") mentions that in the
13th and 14th centuries the average seaman received 9 shillings a month.
These wages dropped considerably in the following few centuries. In the mid
1600's the wages for a seaman were 14-15 shillings per month, but
considering inflation, things had actually gotten worse. Of course, at close
to ten pounds per annum, in the 17th century, the average sailor was doing
better than most. After the Spithead mutiny in 1797, pay was roughly a
shilling per day (assuming you actually got paid).
If you look at Web sources like
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/current/howmuch.html, I think you'll find
that there is a great deal of information about wages and costs at various
times.
AHS
Peter McLelland
Firstly the smoothbore cannon were quite typically sold by finished weight,
a common practice then and certainly still used for estimating purposes in
metal industries until recently to my knowledge. This gives a significant
price difference between bronze and steel at the beginning of the war when
material prices were least distorted. Similar sized guns would have weighed
about the same.
BTW my reading of the table give the Parrot rifle a cost of 185 at the start
and the bronze 12 pdr 490. considering that the rifle had additional
machining processes then it still seem to fit the 4 to 1 ratio reasonably
well.
Peter
vincent Brannigan
Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> The napoleon was a smoothbore and its production involved
> much less boring and turning than a rifle
>
> The true comparison is between an iron
> smoothbore and a napoleon. The columbiads
> while admittedly larger than the napoleons
> were also smoothbores
I agree that rifling adds to cost, but not that much. The cost of boring
(drill the main center tube) and turnign (trunnions) is the same. Bronz if
anything is cheaper to bore and turn than iron.
Vince
Keith Willshaw
"vincent Brannigan" <fir...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:3F4B6F63...@wam.umd.edu...
>
>
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> >
> > The napoleon was a smoothbore and its production involved
> > much less boring and turning than a rifle
> >
> > The true comparison is between an iron
> > smoothbore and a napoleon. The columbiads
> > while admittedly larger than the napoleons
> > were also smoothbores
>
> I agree that rifling adds to cost, but not that much.
I rather disagree.
> The cost of boring
> (drill the main center tube) and turnign (trunnions) is the same.
However the machinery required to cut rifling in a cannon
bore is of an entirely different order from the simple boring
process adopted for a smoothbore. There's a good reason
why rifled cannon didnt appear on the battlefield before
the 1850's and the rise of the machine tool is a large part of it.
It wasnt until 1841 that the first standardised screw threads
were introduced by Whitworth for example.
Moreover the Parrott's were reinforced with wrought
iron hoops on the breech.
> Bronz if
> anything is cheaper to bore and turn than iron.
>
> Vince
>
It being softer thats hardly surprising.
Keith
TMOliver
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:33:51 -0400, "Charles Talleyrand"
> <rapp...@nmu.edu> wrote:
>
>>I'm interested in any time period from ancient Egypt to maybe
>>Napoleon. I'm just trying to get an order of magnitude informed guess.
>>Significant Google searching didn't help. Can anyone here help?
>
> 10 seconds of Googling for HMS VICTORY indicates that she "cost
> £63,176. For comparison, this would be equivalent to the cost of
> building an aircraft carrier today."
>
Awww, no....
That could only build one of those cut rate RN CVs to be, you know, two
thrudeck crusiers welded together, one island removed, and a bit of
planking laid across the gap.
TMO
I suspect that for most sailing warships, especially the 1st and 2nd Rates,
the cost of the "Pupkeep" far outweighed those of the original "pup".
vincent Brannigan
Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>
> > The cost of boring
> > (drill the main center tube) and turnign (trunnions) is the same.
>
> However the machinery required to cut rifling in a cannon
> bore is of an entirely different order from the simple boring
> process adopted for a smoothbore.
no it is not. you still advance the cutterbut you synchronize the
forward and rotational action. its called a "screw cutting"
> There's a good reason
> why rifled cannon didnt appear on the battlefield before
> the 1850's and the rise of the machine tool is a large part of it.
> It wasnt until 1841 that the first standardised screw threads
> were introduced by Whitworth for example.
Does not affect cannon. all you need for cannon is a precisly cut tool
feeding controller. Cannon barrels did not require the precision that a
machine screw required.
> Moreover the Parrott's were reinforced with wrought
> iron hoops on the breech.
>
Sure, but they did burst. a lot, because the thermal effects werenot
well understood.
>
>
> It being softer thats hardly surprising.
but you could also make guns lighter than an equivalent Iron gun. which
is why iron was preferred for naval and caost defense gusn and bronze
for field guns.
Vince
Keith Willshaw
>
>
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > The cost of boring
> > > (drill the main center tube) and turnign (trunnions) is the same.
> >
> > However the machinery required to cut rifling in a cannon
> > bore is of an entirely different order from the simple boring
> > process adopted for a smoothbore.
>
> no it is not. you still advance the cutterbut you synchronize the
> forward and rotational action. its called a "screw cutting"
>
Yes I know
> > There's a good reason
> > why rifled cannon didnt appear on the battlefield before
> > the 1850's and the rise of the machine tool is a large part of it.
> > It wasnt until 1841 that the first standardised screw threads
> > were introduced by Whitworth for example.
>
> Does not affect cannon. all you need for cannon is a precisly cut tool
> feeding controller. Cannon barrels did not require the precision that a
> machine screw required.
>
But without screw threads how do you make your "precisly cut tool
feeding controller. "
Such devices were made possible by Whitworth and his colleagues
and the simple fact is the maching of a rifled barrel requires a fair degree
of accuracy if you are to have consistent accuracy which is rather
the point. After all until 1745 cannon were basically hollow cast
with maching being confined to cleaning out the bore.
> > Moreover the Parrott's were reinforced with wrought
> > iron hoops on the breech.
> >
>
> Sure, but they did burst. a lot, because the thermal effects werenot
> well understood.
>
Its more to do with the fact that cast iron is a poor material
under tension.
> >
> >
> > It being softer thats hardly surprising.
>
> but you could also make guns lighter than an equivalent Iron gun. which
> is why iron was preferred for naval and caost defense gusn and bronze
> for field guns.
>
Actually bronze guns were preferred for all uses until such time
as iron was available in adequate quality as well as quantity.
They lasted better and were more consistent but the huge
reduction in the cost of producing iron and increases in quality
around 1776 with the introduction of the use of coke
made them very much cheaper
Keith
Jack Love
wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:05:02 -0400, Andrew Toppan
><acto...@gwi.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:33:51 -0400, "Charles Talleyrand" <rapp...@nmu.edu>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I'm interested in any time period from ancient Egypt to maybe Napoleon.
>>>I'm just trying to get an order of magnitude informed guess.
>>>Significant Google searching didn't help. Can anyone here help?
>>
>>10 seconds of Googling for HMS VICTORY indicates that she "cost £63,176. For
>>comparison, this would be equivalent to the cost of building an aircraft
>>carrier today."
>>
>>http://www.hms-victory.com/factsandfigures.htm
>
>That's an obviously incorrect comparison. How many first rates
>did the world have just before the Napoleonic wars? How many
>aircraft carriers does it have now? What was the population then,
>what is is now?
But also what was the GDP? One might be able to argue 'as a
percentage' of GDP.
>If the text were written in the 1940's, it might make sense but
>today?
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
Here's an inflation calculator. Which doesn't seem to correspond to
other statements 1800-2002 available and basically it gives a 10x over
the whole interval. So, I'm moderately skeptical that inflation
itself is a complete answer.
>
>Peter Skelton
Dott. PIergiorgio
>
> 10 seconds of Googling for HMS VICTORY indicates that she "cost £63,176.
> For comparison, this would be equivalent to the cost of building an
> aircraft carrier today."
I doubt. albeit in these days Britannia was nearing their height, but I
doubt than the price of a SOL will be equibalent to a CV, because the uS
hve a mere dozen when the Britannia of yore have many dozens of SOL (and at
their height, the Jubilee Rewiew, there was 70 pre-dreadnaught battleship
and a gross of cruisers).
best regards from Italy.
--
Dottor Piergiorgio d' Errico- MIlitary and Naval historian
Niitakayama nobore ichi ni rei ya
Michael P. Reed
> > Bronz if
> > anything is cheaper to bore and turn than iron.
>
> It being softer thats hardly surprising.
Which also made them unsuitable as rifles. The James Rifles wore out fast,
which is why they were phased out of service as quickly as possible.
--
Regards,
Michael P. Reed
Michael P. Reed
> You are comparing Apples and Oranges
>
> The napoleon was a smoothbore and its production involved
> much less boring and turning than a rifle
>
> The true comparison is between an iron
> smoothbore and a napoleon.
Wrought Iron or cast iron? The 3-inch Ordnance Rifle was far more expensive
than the cast iron Parrot. The Columbiads though were coastal/siege artillery,
and also not comparable to a field gun. A better comparison would be between
the iron guns and the bronze James Rifles (pattern II?) (though I'm not certain
if the latter were wrought or cast bronze). Unfortunately, info on the James
(the manufactured as rifles version and not the old rifled 6 pounder
smoothbores) is rather rare.
ZZBunker
Rifling costs nothing. It's knowing the pitch of the
rifling that costs a fortune. Which is why
smoothbores still do what they've always done on
the battlefield. Which is die in numbers too large
to fit in New York City, or Gettysburg. So we
have are forced to open new cemetaries in Washington, D.C.
>
> Vince
Jack Love
<pg...@libero.it> wrote:
>Andrew Toppan wrote:
>
>>
>> 10 seconds of Googling for HMS VICTORY indicates that she "cost £63,176.
>> For comparison, this would be equivalent to the cost of building an
>> aircraft carrier today."
>
>I doubt. albeit in these days Britannia was nearing their height, but I
>doubt than the price of a SOL will be equibalent to a CV, because the uS
>hve a mere dozen when the Britannia of yore have many dozens of SOL (and at
>their height, the Jubilee Rewiew, there was 70 pre-dreadnaught battleship
>and a gross of cruisers).
>
>best regards from Italy.
But it's also a question of range and lethality. In the good old
days it could take 4-6 months to get major combattants where you
needed them. These days it's probably a month. So the number of
ships can be greatly reduced. During the pre-dreadnought era the
range of ships was in the 100s of miles rather than the 1000s of miles
of today. So prepositioning was a very important characteristic which
increased the count needed.
The comparison of lethality between the modern ships and even the WWII
simply doesn't exist...not even counting nuclear weapons. So, many
fewer are needed to provide whatever response is required.
On the other hand in a war of national survival e.g. the Napoleonic
era, WWI or WWII, the first line combatants will be enormously out of
proportion to what a 'peace time' standing fleet would be. US WWII
carrier strength in, more or less first line ships reached 40ish.
Keith Willshaw
"Dott. PIergiorgio" <pg...@libero.it> wrote in message
news:p4M2b.266942$Ny5.8...@twister2.libero.it...
> Andrew Toppan wrote:
>
> >
> > 10 seconds of Googling for HMS VICTORY indicates that she "cost £63,176.
> > For comparison, this would be equivalent to the cost of building an
> > aircraft carrier today."
>
> I doubt. albeit in these days Britannia was nearing their height, but I
> doubt than the price of a SOL will be equibalent to a CV, because the uS
> hve a mere dozen when the Britannia of yore have many dozens of SOL (and
at
> their height, the Jubilee Rewiew, there was 70 pre-dreadnaught battleship
> and a gross of cruisers).
>
> best regards from Italy.
>
On the other hand at the end of WW2 there were a hell of a lot
of carriers of all rates in service in the USN. The RN fielded a lot
of ships of the line during wartime but they tended to get laid
up fairly quickly in peacetime.
Keith
Dott. PIergiorgio
> The comparison of lethality between the modern ships and even the WWII
> simply doesn't exist...not even counting nuclear weapons. So, many
> fewer are needed to provide whatever response is required.
You indirectly get the point.
The trouble is, if two or three of the US CV get lost ? it's another
question of putting too eggs in the basket.
Let's take this scenario: A regional power X came to quarry with US, US send
carriers to the theatre, the regional power X manage to sink three of the
carriers, The US recall other carriers from other theatres (let's suppose
that there's no other crisis in course, by the vay, i have many doubts on
the Win-hold-win doctrine) and finally manage to get in check the said
regional power X, but after the loss of another pair of carrier.
End result ? the destabilization of the world during the long time needed to
the US to rebuild their carrier strenght.
Best regards from Italy.
Justin Broderick
>
> I'm interested in any time period from ancient Egypt to maybe Napoleon.
> I'm just trying to get an order of magnitude informed guess.
>
I found this fascinating link:
http://www-atm.physics.ox.ac.uk/rowing/trireme/thesis.html
For reference, Kagan gives one drachma as a good day's pay for a skilled
Athenian craftsman, and there were 6000 drachmas in a silver talent.
--Justin
Charles Talleyrand
"Keith Willshaw" <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:bifl35$lc5$1...@selma.aspentech.com...
>
> While doing a little research thus lunchtime I came across the
> following site which has some interesting data regarding the
> early USN
>
> http://www.iment.com/maida/familytree/henry/genealogy/smiththompsonletter.htm
>
> No construction costs I'm afraid but some information
> on running costs
Wow. That's interesting but hard to understand.
The Constitution cost $300,000 in the 1790s. By 1822 they
were listing the cost of keeping a 44 gun frigate on cruise at
$112,000 per year. Scaling 1822 dollars to 1790 dollars we find
that keeping a Constitution should cost $87,000.
Why would it cost $87,000 to keep a $300,000 ship on cruise for
a year?
And if these figures are anything like close, it difficult for the navy to keep
ships on cruise and out of ordinary. The same analysis says the Constitution
costs only $4,000 (1790 dollars) to keep in ordinary.
John Halliwell
<rapp...@nmu.edu> writes
>Can someone offer other examples, particularly from a different
>time period and/or a different sized ship? That would be
>most helpful.
A quick dig through 'The History of Ships', Peter Kemp, ISBN
1-84013-504-2 gives:
Prince Royal 1610, 114x43ft, 1330 tons, 55 guns:
Overall building cost was 20,000 pounds
of which 441 went on carving and 868 7s on painting/guilding
Sovereign of the Seas 1637 (size not mentioned)
Overall building cost 65,586 pounds 16s 9.5d (including guns)
of which 6,691 pounds on carving & decoration.
--
John
Jack Love
<pg...@libero.it> wrote:
>Jack Love wrote:
>
>> The comparison of lethality between the modern ships and even the WWII
>> simply doesn't exist...not even counting nuclear weapons. So, many
>> fewer are needed to provide whatever response is required.
>
>You indirectly get the point.
>The trouble is, if two or three of the US CV get lost ? it's another
>question of putting too eggs in the basket.
>Let's take this scenario: A regional power X came to quarry with US, US send
>carriers to the theatre, the regional power X manage to sink three of the
>carriers, The US recall other carriers from other theatres (let's suppose
>that there's no other crisis in course, by the vay, i have many doubts on
>the Win-hold-win doctrine) and finally manage to get in check the said
>regional power X, but after the loss of another pair of carrier.
>End result ? the destabilization of the world during the long time needed to
>the US to rebuild their carrier strenght.
Regional powers at this point have little to no ability to contest the
USN. When, and if, they grow to that point, changes to the force
structure can be made. While nothing prevents an absolute disaster
the likelihood of losing 3 carriers to any existing regional power is
extremely low.
>Best regards from Italy.
Arved Sandstrom
news:L5S2b.4692$Jh2....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Another very interesting reference:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1229novgorod-germans.html
I have to admit, I have no idea as to what the value of a marten's head was
in 1229. For that matter, if you were paid in cloaks, exactly how many
cloaks do you need? Do you fob them off to your relatives?
Some of my favourite passages:
"When summer guests come to the torrent, which is called Vorsch the ferrymen
will take them immediately, without any delay, to the fishermen's inn,
where, on arrival, each boat will pay to the ferrymen four loaves of bread,
and a scutella of butter: if they do not want bread, two kunen will be given
in place of each loaf, and three martens' heads for the butter.
To each ferryman will be given eight martens' heads, and one pair of cloaks,
or, in place of the cloaks, three martens' heads. The summer guests will
observe the same law for paying thelony as is given above for winter guests.
When a guest brings skiffs into Novgorod, if such skiffs meet ships in Nü,
each skiff will receive its own price and a gammon of bacon, or five marks
kunen for the gammon. If the skiff meet merchants in Lake Ladoga, or in the
Volga, it will receive half the price, and half the bacon, or three marks
kunen. If any skiff, piloted with other skiffs, does not arrive at the
appointed time, it will lose its fee. If any skiff, piloted, but not laden,
is wrecked or endangered in the descent, it likewise will lose its fee. When
the merchants ascend by skiffs, and perchance some dispute arise between the
merchants and the ferrymen, or if an open quarrel occur, and the strife be
settled by agreement, the dispute should not be aired further."
The whole article is delightful. Thelony of course is tolls. The same
website comments on that in
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/805Chartoll.html , which is also
interesting.
All in all, I would have settled for several marten's heads, a cloak, and a
gammon of bacon, plus a few marks kunen.
AHS
Trevor Rabey
Athens supremacy at sea was founded upon her ability to utilise the trieres
as an effective weapon. She capitalised upon her role in the battle at
Salamis in 480 to win hegemony over some of her former allies. Thanks to the
encouragement of Themistokles, Athens had channelled the proceeds of a
windfall from the silver mines at Laurium into a fleet. They were designed
by Themistokles himself "for speed and quick handling" (Plutarch Cimon
12.2). Her fleet of 200 triereis were built before the second Persian
Invasion, for a naval war with Aegina, and enabled the Greeks to repel the
invasion successfully. After the repulsion of the Persians the naval forces
under Athenian command liberated the Greek cities of Asia Minor and the
offshore Islands, part of Cyprus and even invaded Egypt (Morrison and
Coates, 1986).
but how long did it take to build the 200 ships, ie from getting the silver
to Salamis 480?
"Justin Broderick" <justi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:L5S2b.4692$Jh2....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
Staale Sannerud
> A quick dig through 'The History of Ships', Peter Kemp, ISBN
> 1-84013-504-2 gives:
>
> Prince Royal 1610, 114x43ft, 1330 tons, 55 guns:
> Overall building cost was 20,000 pounds
> of which 441 went on carving and 868 7s on painting/guilding
>
> Sovereign of the Seas 1637 (size not mentioned)
> Overall building cost 65,586 pounds 16s 9.5d (including guns)
> of which 6,691 pounds on carving & decoration.
>
> --
> John
Note that both of these ships were large "prestige" vessels and _absurdly_
expensive for their firepower. The Sovereign (100 guns btw) especially so.
Staale Sannerud
Staale Sannerud
The price diff is merely the material cost btw (copper was expensive you
know), actually casting and working the bronze was simpler than working with
iron.
Staale
Gregg Germain
:> http://www.iment.com/maida/familytree/henry/genealogy/smiththompsonletter.htm
:>
:> No construction costs I'm afraid but some information
:> on running costs
: Wow. That's interesting but hard to understand.
: The Constitution cost $300,000 in the 1790s. By 1822 they
: were listing the cost of keeping a 44 gun frigate on cruise at
: $112,000 per year. Scaling 1822 dollars to 1790 dollars we find
: that keeping a Constitution should cost $87,000.
: Why would it cost $87,000 to keep a $300,000 ship on cruise for
: a year?
I suspect it's for the same reason that the cost of a CVN hull is
nothing as compared to the cost of running it for a year:
cost of humans.
To keep Constitution humming along you need some extra wood, sails
and cordage, sure. But you also need food, water, and all the sundry
other articles to keep the humans fit and operable.
: And if these figures are anything like close, it difficult for the navy to keep
: ships on cruise and out of ordinary. The same analysis says the Constitution
: costs only $4,000 (1790 dollars) to keep in ordinary.
Well Navies are not cheap entities. ;^)
--- Gregg
Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:
http://home.attbi.com/~saville/backstaffhome.html
Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:
http://home.attbi.com/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm
Steambending FAQ with photos:
http://home.attbi.com/~saville/Steambend.htm
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."
gr...@head-cfa.harvard.edu
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558
Peter Skelton
Well there's the small group of elite terrorists at 39.5 N 77 W
who can do it any time they damn well like and seem to rattle
their sabres against the USN about every ten years.
____
Peter Skelton
Ståle Sannerud
in the late 1700s:
First, I misremembered the cost of the guns relative to the cost of the
hull. I stated that they were rougly equal, in fact the guns would cost
around half of the hull. The overall expense was roughly: Hull 50%,
artillery (guns and carriages) 25%, sails and rigging 25%. My bad! (Source:
Linjeskibet Holsten 1772-1814, Ole L Franzen. Numbers taken from an
administrative overview drawn up ca 1780 by the Danish Navy's chief
constructor, Henrik Gerner)
From the document by Gerner we find that the guns, carriages and full
ammunition load of a 70-gun ship ca 1780 cost 35.740 riksdaler (an ordinary
seaman's yearly wages at that time was 60 rdl, a vice-admiral's 2.388 rdl,
just to set the numbers into some kind of context) out of a total "system
cost" of 186.514 rdl for the ship as built and fitted out. The similar kit
for an 80-gun ship cost a whopping 211.069 riksdaler out of a total cost of
390.152 rdl, or around six times as much as for the 70. There are 10 more
guns on the 80 of course, and they are of caliber 36-18-12 pounds instead of
24-18-8 on the 70, but above all they are bronze guns on the 80 (prestige
ship and all that, designed and built as a squadron or fleet flagship) and
plain old iron on the 70. So the 4x figure does not seem to be too far off
the mark. For a bronze-armed 90 the guns cost 212.107 rdl by the way, but
again the calibers are rather smaller than on the 80, total weight of fire
was a smidgeon smaller for the 90 in fact.
Denmark-Norway made both bronze (in Denmark) and iron (in Norway) guns
domestically, so the prices stated should not have been modified for
"balance of payment" reasons. It should be stated though that the last
complete set of naval bronze guns in the country were cast for the 90gun
fleet flagship "Christian VII" ca 1765, so the 1780 numbers discussed in the
last paragraph are probably estimated costs of how much it would take if one
were to buy complete sets for the 80- and 90-gun ships at that date rather
than actual invoice sums! While ships were still being fitted with bronze
guns until after 1800 these were by then old guns that had been around the
block a few times - two-ton lumps of metal did not wear out in a hurry after
all! The most bizarre example I've come across refers to an 80-gun ship
launched in 1790, in 1801 she was listed as carrying 12-pounder bronze guns
cast around 1650(!)
Another document referenced in "Linieskibet Holsten...", presumably written
around 1770, states that the artillery etc for an 80 should cost 47.620
riksdaler - and it is explicitly stated that they are _not_ bronze guns -
while arty for a 70-gun ship would cost 39.035 rdl and a 60-gun ship 31.011
rdl. Here the increase from one ship-class to the next is pretty much
linear, keeping in mind that the bigger ships also carry heavier guns.
(Danish Rigsarkivet archive number: "Orlogsverftet afl. 1945. Reg 154b, nr
92", for what it's worth)
A final note on relative costs: Bronze guns were generally quite lavishly
decorated with coats-of-arms, royal monograms and what have you, while iron
guns were on the whole rather plain. This would add to the cost differential
of course.
Bronze is an alloy of something like 75% copper and 25% tin according to
Google - does anybody know how much those raw metals cost relative to iron
back in the 16-1700s? From what I can gather zinc has lately been ~3 times
as expensive as iron, copper ~6 times as expensive? I'd expect that iron has
grown relatively cheaper since the industrial revoltion - but what do I
know...
Regards,
Staale Sannerud
"Vince Brannigan" <fir...@pressroom.com> skrev i melding
Charles Talleyrand
"Gregg Germain" <gr...@elway.cfa.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:3f4c...@cfanews.cfa.harvard.edu...
> : Why would it cost $87,000 to keep a $300,000 ship on cruise for
> : a year?
>
> I suspect it's for the same reason that the cost of a CVN hull is
> nothing as compared to the cost of running it for a year:
>
> cost of humans.
Nah, I don't think that adds up.
The Constitution cost about 1/4 of it's construction price to operate per year. Can
one really but a destroyer for four years operating budget?
I changed it from CVN to destroyer because any analysis of a CVN is going to
get all messed up when someone says "what about the air wing" which is a
large budget item both for initial construction and for operations.
Also, the Constitution was approximately "the largest ship you would normally send
on solo operations" and that sounds pretty destroyer-like to me.
Finally, I would be suprised if the cost of a CVN with airwing was dominated by
the saleries of the crew. I've always assumed without evidence the cost was
more in parts and mainenence and fuel (for the planes).
Fred J. McCall
:Nah, I don't think that adds up.
So construct your case for why it doesn't.
:Finally, I would be suprised if the cost of a CVN with airwing was dominated by
:the saleries of the crew. I've always assumed without evidence the cost was
:more in parts and mainenence and fuel (for the planes).
Multiply it out. Rough grab of 7,000 crew. Just paying them amounts
to over 1/4 billion dollars per year. Now add in the cost manning for
all of the shore establishment that helps with maintenance and
such....
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Alan Lothian
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Charles Talleyrand" <rapp...@nmu.edu> wrote:
>
> :Nah, I don't think that adds up.
>
> So construct your case for why it doesn't.
I doubt if Charles has any prospect of doing so.
>
> :Finally, I would be suprised if the cost of a CVN with airwing was dominated
> :by
> :the saleries of the crew. I've always assumed without evidence the cost was
> :more in parts and mainenence and fuel (for the planes).
>
> Multiply it out. Rough grab of 7,000 crew. Just paying them amounts
> to over 1/4 billion dollars per year. Now add in the cost manning for
> all of the shore establishment that helps with maintenance and
> such....
Yes, it all adds up. To put it in a more historical context, RN pay
rate mid-18th century for an able seaman was 24 shillings a month
(before deductions, but the govt didn't get any of the deductions).
His victuals were valued [by NAM Rodger, source of the other figures,
too, and good enough for me] at 25s a month; lunar months in each case.
Hmm, that's GBP 31 16s 6d per annum. Ordinary seamen and landsmen were
paid a little less, higher grades substantially more, but they all had
to eat. So if we multiply the AB rate plus victuals by the ship's
complement, we will not be far wrong as to the total. So a 64-gun 3rd
rate, with 500 men, would have cost just under 16,000 GBP annually in
food and wages alone. That's at least equivalent to 70,000 dollars[1] .
_Constitution_ had fewer people but they were better paid and fed, so
we're in the right ballpark. And that cost is before you've spent a
penny on cordage, spars and sailcloth, never mind powder and shot. Or
medical supplies. Not to mention Fred's shore establishments, which did
not (and do not) come cheap.
Comparing these figures with various construction costs other people
have come up with, it would seem that annual running costs of around a
third of construction costs, in the age of fighting sail, is not only
plausible: it's probably well below par for the course.
Warships have *always* been expensive to run.
[1] Dollar exchange rates (and much other interesting currency stuff)
may be found at the fascinating
http://www.eh.net/hmit/
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun
My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try alan dot lothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk
Gregg Germain
: "Charles Talleyrand" <rapp...@nmu.edu> wrote:
: :Nah, I don't think that adds up.
: So construct your case for why it doesn't.
: :Finally, I would be suprised if the cost of a CVN with airwing was dominated by
: :the saleries of the crew. I've always assumed without evidence the cost was
: :more in parts and mainenence and fuel (for the planes).
: Multiply it out. Rough grab of 7,000 crew. Just paying them amounts
: to over 1/4 billion dollars per year. Now add in the cost manning for
: all of the shore establishment that helps with maintenance and
: such....
yes and just paying them is not, I believe, the major cost these
days. You have health care, various allowances, etc. And as you say
all the suport personnel that are requried (service doctors,
medicines, buildings, paperwork people, billeting people etc).
Now it's true we take better care of our people than they did back
then. But we have a much larger economy as well.
--- Gregg
Fred Williams
messages ago, but your lack of direct service experience is beginning to
wear on the thread, IMHO.
Is anyone involved in building a CVN? Will it be a "nuke"?
I think I should point out the life expectancy of any CVN is approximately <
15 minutes in an encounter with any submarine, including the oldest in
commision.
Maybe y'all should rethink your plans...
Former FTB2 (SS)
US Submarine Service
"We go down for money"
"Gregg Germain" <gr...@elway.cfa.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:3f4d...@cfanews.cfa.harvard.edu...
Arved Sandstrom
news:yop3b.35982$081....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Being an ex USN Sailor, I found this discussion semi interesting about 30
> messages ago, but your lack of direct service experience is beginning to
> wear on the thread, IMHO.
To be fair, "direct service experience" is hardly relevant to most
discussions of this sort. Any self-educated, articulate and intelligent
layman can compete with veterans when it comes to most topics military.
About the only thing that people who have never served are at a loss for is
first-hand accounts, which stands to reason, since they were not there -
whatever _there_ is.
I spent roughly ten years total (in two separate militaries) as an artillery
gunner, fire direction center operator, radio operator, and mostly as a
forward observer. That experience hardly qualified me to comment on the
costs of the weapons systems, or the labour costs. How many people who have
served on subs actually know how much they cost? Same goes for aircraft
carriers. The list goes on and on.
You may be able to pick a few holes in Tom Clancy's book "Submarine", but
I'm guessing not many, seeing as how his book on the USMC was pretty darned
accurate. I'm wondering if _you_ could have written a book that good. And
John Keegan never served a day in his life, as another example.
AHS
Gregg Germain
: Being an ex USN Sailor, I found this discussion semi interesting about 30
: messages ago, but your lack of direct service experience is beginning to
: wear on the thread, IMHO.
Just who exactly are you speaking to?
If me, how did you arrive at the conclusion that I have no direct
service experience?
: Is anyone involved in building a CVN? Will it be a "nuke"?
: I think I should point out the life expectancy of any CVN is approximately <
: 15 minutes in an encounter with any submarine, including the oldest in
: commision.
What has this to do with the discussion at hand? Is it possible you
are replying to the wrong thread?
: Maybe y'all should rethink your plans...
Maybe y'all better regain consciousness and realize where you
are.
: Former FTB2 (SS)
:>
--
The Blue Max
"Ståle Sannerud" <ssan...@chello.no> wrote
> The overall expense was roughly: Hull 50%,
> artillery (guns and carriages) 25%, sails and rigging 25%.
Something often commented on in the shot-and-sail genre of fiction (O'Brian,
Forester, etc) is the cost of giving a man of war a pretty colour scheme,
usually out of the officers' pocket. Apparently this was a smart career
move, as scruffy ships didn't impress admirals. Does your source give any
details on at what cost and intervals ships were painted with gold leaf,
etc?
< snipped great post >
Ståle Sannerud
news:d8cf857c195f0453...@news.teranews.com...
Not in the Danish source, no. However, I bought a book on shipmodeling from
Editions Ancre around Christmas, this is Jean Boudriot's publishing house
and a small booklet written by him discussing painting of French ships in
the late 1700s was enclosed as a surprise bonus. The following data is from
that source (more or less translated from the French text by yours truly, a
language that I am not even remotely fluent in), copied from a posting I
made to a Yahoo discussion group some time back, discussing the appropriate
painting of ship models:
"
Prices as of 1780, "£" = 1 Louis d'or á 20 sols,
1 quintal = 100 livres á 489 gram.
Crushed red ochre oil paint - £40/quintal
Crushed yellow ochre oil paint - £40/quintal
Gray oil paint - £40/quintal
Crushed red and yellow ochre - £5/quintal
Flanders-glue (spacle, I think) - 16s/livre
Sinober red - £6/livre
Lead white - £35/quintal
Lead white oil paint - £43/quintal
Preussian blue - £18/livre
Regular enamel (for azure blue) - 20s/livre
Green oil paint - 32s/livre
Neaples yellow - 32s/livre
Lamp blacking oil paint - 16s/livre
Grey green and mountain green - 16s/livre
Vermillion-red - £6 10s/livre
Nut-oil - £40/quintal
Linseed oil - £30/quintal
Gold leaf in 3.5" square leaves - £2 5s per leaf
For instance, preussian blue was 45 times more expensive than plain
old yellow ochre - they'd use the one for the French royal coat of
arms on the stern, the other for the ship's sides :) So while I
would not doubt that even something as large as a figurehead could
be very brilliantly painted indeed I'd tend to take exception to
brilliant colours being used on the hull itself to any degree! (And
looking at the price of gold leaf I can certainly see how they
managed to blow 6000 pounds on decorating the Sovereign of the
Seas...)
"
(I hope Outlook Express does not post this in rich-text format, my apologies
in advance if it does...)
It should be obvious that rich colours were for detail-work only, not
something to paint a 180-foot long hull with. In the French navy at least,
the powers that be simply dumped X tons of the cheapest colours on the
captain, and more or less left him to do his worst with it. He was also
given the minimum amount of preussian blue and gold leaf for the
coat-of-arms only, as I recall from Boudriot's "the 74-gun ship". Anything
more, he'd have to fork out the money for it himself I guess.
I'd expect painting of ships to be a more or less continuous process (then
as now, I guess...), given the quality of paints available at the time. Even
the Atlantic liners, in the early 1900s, sometimes arrived in port after the
Atlantic crossing sans large areas of paint at the bows, it having been
stripped right off the hull during a single trip.
Staale Sannerud
Charles Talleyrand
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:t61rkvkefdjknu3sj...@4ax.com...
> "Charles Talleyrand" <rapp...@nmu.edu> wrote:
>
> :Nah, I don't think that adds up.
>
> So construct your case for why it doesn't.
>
> :Finally, I would be suprised if the cost of a CVN with airwing was dominated by
> :the saleries of the crew. I've always assumed without evidence the cost was
> :more in parts and mainenence and fuel (for the planes).
>
> Multiply it out. Rough grab of 7,000 crew. Just paying them amounts
> to over 1/4 billion dollars per year. Now add in the cost manning for
> all of the shore establishment that helps with maintenance and
> such....
But the historic situation was the direct salaries and food of only the sailors actually
on the ship. There was no overhead for training establishments, port facilities,
etc. It was just the actual crew on board the ship.
So, 7000 crew time $70,000 per year is $470,000,000. That's assuming
$45,000 for salary and $25,000 for benefits (which is the ratio for direct
and indirect benefits where I work).
Does the average sailor make $70,000 per year including benefits. I don't
think so, but I don't know. Remember, there are alot more at the bottom
rung than there are at the top.
But what does it cost to run a carrier plus air wing per year? I don't know.
What does the "shore establishment" cost? I don't know.
When I said "I've always assumed without evidence" that meant I was
just guessing and didn't really know the right numbers.
Charles Talleyrand
Much thanks to the people who helped add to this collection. Can anyone add more?
Unless stated otherwise, all prices are without weapons. For a normal
man-o-war the weapons might be 25% of the hull price give or take alot.
Sails might be the same amount.
A Greek Trireme in the ~400BCs cost ABOUT 5,000 drachma and the equipment
for it cost about 2,200 drachma. Each drachma is about a day's salary.
http://www-atm.physics.ox.ac.uk/rowing/trireme/thesis.html
A medium trader of 40 tons or more carring capacity must have cost about £100 when new
in 1580.
Prince Royal 1610, 114x43ft, 1330 tons, 55 guns:
Overall building cost was 20,000 pounds of which 441 went on carving and 868 7s on painting/guilding
Sovereign of the Seas 1637 of 169 foot on the gun deck and 1461 tons
http://www.kotiposti.net/felipe/England/england.html
Overall building cost 65,586 pounds 16s 9.5d (including guns)
of which 6,691 pounds on carving & decoration.
To build a 'bomb vessel' of about 100 feet in 1692 cost 2828 pounds which was about 120
man-years worth of salary for a skilled laboror, or 283 man-years for a common
sailor.
To build a "Third Rate" in 1692 would have cost about 22,000 pounds which is about
880 man-years salary (skilled) or 2,200 (common sailor)
In 1750 the Infernal bomb ship had a crew of 80 men and was ship-rigged at 96 ft long and 385
tons and cost about 3500 pounds. http://home.wnclink.com/russell/thunder.htm
which is the equivelent of 249,000 pounds in 2002.
http://eh.net/hmit/ppowerbp/pound_result.php?year1=2002£s=3500&shillings=&pence=&year2=1790&action=compare
The HMS Victory of 100 guns and 186 foot on the gun deck displacing 2126 tons
cost 63,176 pounds.
A Dainish 70 gunner in 1780 cost 187,000 reichsguilder or 3,000 man-years of
for an ordinary sailor including guns and sails.
A Danish 90-gunner in 1790 cost 212,700 reichsguilder or about 3,500 man-years
for an ordinary sailor including sails and bronze guns.
And the USS Constitution cost $302,718 in 1797 US dollars,
although the Brits could build a 74 gun ship for less.
It took something like 25,000 man-months to build a Constitution (or a British 74).
The Constitution was way over budget, which was only $100,00.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/constitution.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Alley/5443/supfrig.htm
Fred Williams
I suspect you may not know were you are.
If this thread has any relavance to building boats, then please carry on.
If not, take it to private e-mail.
You are boring the rest of us, with you endless prattle.
Fred
"Gregg Germain" <gr...@elway.cfa.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:3f4e...@cfanews.cfa.harvard.edu...
Fred J. McCall
:I think the title of this list is "rec.boats.building."
It's not a 'list'. They're called 'newsgroups'.
:I suspect you may not know were you are.
Apparently, neither do you.
:If this thread has any relavance to building boats, then please carry on.
:If not, take it to private e-mail.
:
:You are boring the rest of us, with you endless prattle.
Not nearly as boring as some self-important top-posting pratt. If you
want to whine about topicality, please stay in your own newsgroup.
:Fred
Oh, and I'll thank you to stop using my first name, too.
Ogden Johnson III
>I think the title of this list is "rec.boats.building."
New to Usenet newsgroups, are you Fred? You have already posted to
this thread, so your newsreader told you that it is a cross-posted
thread. I don't know why the original poster chose to cross-post, but
he did.
>I suspect you may not know were you are.
I'd hazard a guess that most of us know better than you where we are,
'cause we know how Usenet works over here in s.m.n, and most of us
take notice when a thread has been cross-posted.
>If this thread has any relavance to building boats, then please carry on.
Cost has relevance to building boats, ancient or new, warship or
skiff.
OJ III
Paul J. Adam
<fmc...@earthlink.net> writes
>"Charles Talleyrand" <rapp...@nmu.edu> wrote:
>:Finally, I would be suprised if the cost of a CVN with airwing
>:was dominated by
>:the saleries of the crew.
Single biggest cost over the carrier's life.
>: I've always assumed without evidence the cost was
>:more in parts and mainenence and fuel (for the planes).
>
>Multiply it out. Rough grab of 7,000 crew. Just paying them amounts
>to over 1/4 billion dollars per year. Now add in the cost manning for
>all of the shore establishment that helps with maintenance and
>such....
To add some hard numbers I turned up a while ago...
Predicted lifecycle costs for the REAGAN are that over a fifty-year
service life she'll cost $21,300 million dollars (at constant 1998
value). This cost relates only to the ship, not to her embarked air
wing.
Of that, her initial procurement price is only $4,300 million, or 20% of
the lifecycle cost. Crewing and maintenance through her life account for
over two-thirds of the total cost of ownership ($9.3bn): routine
maintenance clocks at $5.2bn, SLEP for $2bn and disposal for half a
billion.
The airwing won't be cheap, but you see the costs you're up against.
(You also see why crew-reduction is getting popular)
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
alanl...@mac.com (Alan Lothian) wrote:
> it would seem that annual running costs of around a
> third of construction costs, in the age of fighting sail, is not
> only plausible: it's probably well below par for the course.
Prior to coppering ships had to be docked at yearly or less intervals
for bottom cleaning. Ships in active service IIRC needed a small
repair at 3 to 5 year intervals and a Great Repair at 5 to 10 year
intervals. Spars and masts had to be replaced on a regular basis. Even
ships in ordinary needed maintenance which was why the carpenter was
one of the standing warrants.
When the US Congress passed an act limiting the amount that could be
spent on maintaining wooden ships, it resulted in the rapid scrapping
of the existing US fleet and the start of the New Navy built in iron.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Those who cover themselves with martial glory
frequently go in need of any other garment. (Bramah)
Fred Williams
since before there was an "internet".
If you want to keep this idiot thread up, carry on. I've put the whole mess
in my "Twit filter"
Carry on dumb sh__ts.
"Ogden Johnson III" <o...@cpcug.org> wrote in message
news:0t6ukvkag47bfigge...@4ax.com...
Paul J. Adam
<nsf.wi...@verizon.net> writes
>Being an ex USN Sailor, I found this discussion semi interesting about 30
>messages ago, but your lack of direct service experience is beginning to
>wear on the thread, IMHO.
>
>Is anyone involved in building a CVN? Will it be a "nuke"?
Done supporting work for CVF, for which nuclear propulsion was very
briefly considered and quickly rejected.
>I think I should point out the life expectancy of any CVN is approximately <
>15 minutes in an encounter with any submarine, including the oldest in
>commision.
Not our carriers, mate, and probably not the USN's either. There's a gap
between seeing the carrier in your periscope, and hearing it sink, which
consists of putting enough weapons into it to let all the air out: and a
lot of successful work has gone into persuading the enemy's torpedoes
not to hit their intended targets.
Gregg Germain
: since before there was an "internet".
: If you want to keep this idiot thread up, carry on. I've put the whole mess
: in my "Twit filter"
You might have done that in the first place and spared us all the
spectacle of you making an ass of yourself.
Still waiting to hear how you determined I have no service
experience.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Charles Talleyrand) wrote:
> There was no overhead for training establishments, port facilities,
> etc. It was just the actual crew on board the ship.
Training facilities no. Training was done aboard ship. However for
the entire period there was an extensive shore support network.
Depending on period for the RN it included the Royal Dockyards, dry
and wet docks, victualling services and ordnance services. If anything
wooden ships required more dockyard services than iron ones.
Not all of these services were directly charged against naval
budgets. The Ordnance and Victualling Boards also served the army.
However navies have required shore facilities since the dawn of time.
Thomas Billings
"Charles Talleyrand" <rapp...@nmu.edu> wrote:
While I've seen quotes from N.A.M. Rodger in this thread, I haven't seen
any mention of the Scottish ships built by James IV between 1504 and
1510. Rodger's "Safeguard of the Sea" says that the 6-700 tom Margaret
"cost a quarter of a year's revenue for James IV. That seems to work out
to about 1,250 Marks.
Note this doesn't include the 'shore establishment' that is so important
to actually sustaining naval power over significant numbers of decades.
Regards,
Tom Billings
--
Oregon L-5 Society
John Mianowski
<nsf.wi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Being an ex USN Sailor, I found this discussion semi interesting about 30
>messages ago, but your lack of direct service experience is beginning to
>wear on the thread, IMHO.
>
>Is anyone involved in building a CVN? Will it be a "nuke"?
I think the "N" in "CVN" means "nuclear"?
JM
Fred J. McCall
:For all you old timers out theres information, I've been using news groups
:since before there was an "internet".
Well, apparently not, or you would know it's "newsgroups", not "news
groups".
:If you want to keep this idiot thread up, carry on. I've put the whole mess
:in my "Twit filter"
FIDO was hardly "newsgroups" and it didn't predate News. And it's not
a "Twit filter", Mr Williams. It's called a "killfile".
:Carry on dumb sh__ts.
What do you think we've BEEN doing but trying to carry on the (top
posting) dumb sh_t? Or perhaps your real intent was to have a comma
in that remark?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Fred Williams
Enough! Back to boat building. This whole thread sucks :-(
I'm no longer going to "play".
"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:608E5HDnm3T$Ew...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
Arved Sandstrom
news:itsd1-1CA673....@news04.west.earthlink.net...
[ SNIP ]
> While I've seen quotes from N.A.M. Rodger in this thread, I haven't seen
> any mention of the Scottish ships built by James IV between 1504 and
> 1510. Rodger's "Safeguard of the Sea" says that the 6-700 tom Margaret
> "cost a quarter of a year's revenue for James IV. That seems to work out
> to about 1,250 Marks.
>
> Note this doesn't include the 'shore establishment' that is so important
> to actually sustaining naval power over significant numbers of decades.
At that time period, most of the "navy" ships in the British Isles were
privately owned, and were normally employed in commerce. For example, 163
out of the the 197 ships which opposed the Spanish Armada in 1588 were
privately owned - merely subject to a levee en masse.
There is quite a nice article about the Scottish naval situation at
http://www.maritime-scotland.com/scotINDEX.htm It's worth pointing out that
with respect to the "ship money", this is something that Charles I of
England first tried in England, and hence James I of Scotland predated him
by several centuries. There are some references to costs, for ship
construction and wages both. It appears the case that the Scottish "navy"
was very much like the English "navy".
One highlight - the St Michael, built in Scotland in 1511, cost 30,000
pounds, which is staggering for that time period.
AHS
Jim
"Keith Willshaw" <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bifutj$ol4$1...@selma.aspentech.com...
>
> "vincent Brannigan" <fir...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
> news:3F4B6F63...@wam.umd.edu...
> >
> >
> > Keith Willshaw wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The napoleon was a smoothbore and its production involved
> > > much less boring and turning than a rifle
> > >
> > > The true comparison is between an iron
> > > smoothbore and a napoleon. The columbiads
> > > while admittedly larger than the napoleons
> > > were also smoothbores
> >
> > I agree that rifling adds to cost, but not that much.
>
> I rather disagree.
>
> > The cost of boring
> > (drill the main center tube) and turnign (trunnions) is the same.
>
> However the machinery required to cut rifling in a cannon
> bore is of an entirely different order from the simple boring
> process adopted for a smoothbore. There's a good reason
> why rifled cannon didnt appear on the battlefield before
> the 1850's and the rise of the machine tool is a large part of it.
> It wasnt until 1841 that the first standardised screw threads
> were introduced by Whitworth for example.
I'll chime in here being a Gun enthuist as well as knowing a thing or two
about the rifling process.
to rifle the barrel is actually a 3 step process, Bore, Ream and rifle.
you start with a single point rifle drill to drill the basic hole this is
the most dificult part drilling a stright hole.
then you ream it easist part to the finished Lands demension.
Then you rifle. The rifling process takes about 4-5x the amount of time to
Bore or ream.
The rifle cutter will cut one grove per pass it then indexs and cuts another
and it cuts a very little bit of metal. ( in 0.00001") per pass.
so to rifle a barrel takes literally thousounds of repeated passes. Even on
a fully automated machine it takes a long time.
Jim
The Blue Max
"Ståle Sannerud" <ssan...@chello.no> wrote
> For instance, preussian blue was 45 times more expensive than plain
> old yellow ochre - they'd use the one for the French royal coat of
> arms on the stern, the other for the ship's sides :) So while I
> would not doubt that even something as large as a figurehead could
> be very brilliantly painted indeed I'd tend to take exception to
> brilliant colours being used on the hull itself to any degree!
Clearly. These figures go a long way towards explaining why the black and
yellow stripe scheme of Nelson's day was so commonplace: it was cheap, as
were the alternatives of red and black or red all over.
In one of the O'Brian's there is a description of the frigate Java as
sporting an extravagant colour scheme of a blue stripe along the hull
between black stripes edged with white. It does indeed sound pricey, and at
40 times the price of yellow one can see why the wealthy captains of pretty
warships were so loth to practice the messy business of gunnery.
> I'd expect painting of ships to be a more or less continuous process (then
> as now, I guess...), given the quality of paints available at the time.
Even
> the Atlantic liners, in the early 1900s, sometimes arrived in port after
the
> Atlantic crossing sans large areas of paint at the bows, it having been
> stripped right off the hull during a single trip.
I believe this is also the reason why oil tankers are painted red...hides
the rust. I've also heard the other favoured scheme of black hull / white
superstructure is designed to defeat photogrpahy - if you can read the
ship's name the photo is too over- or under-exposed to publish. I think it's
an urban myth though.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
asand...@accesswave.ca (Arved Sandstrom) wrote:
> t's worth pointing out that
> with respect to the "ship money", this is something that Charles I
> of England first tried in England,
Ship Money predated Charles I which was why he did not need
Parliament to vote it for him. What was controversial was his attempt
to extend it to inland counties which had not paid previously.
Arved Sandstrom
news:bipuq3$pju$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
> In article <ghO3b.63848$PD3.4...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>,
> asand...@accesswave.ca (Arved Sandstrom) wrote:
>
> > t's worth pointing out that
> > with respect to the "ship money", this is something that Charles I
> > of England first tried in England,
>
> Ship Money predated Charles I which was why he did not need
> Parliament to vote it for him. What was controversial was his attempt
> to extend it to inland counties which had not paid previously.
Yes, you're quite right. I read the passage rather too hastily. It is not
now clear to me exactly when Ship Money started in England. Michael Lewis is
not too clear on this, as he appears to first use the term in reference to
Charles I, although a careful perusal of his words indicates that the term
must have existed earlier. But I'd be curious to find out how much earlier
both the practice and the name existed.
It was nice to find out that Ship Money is still provided in a ceremonial
form every year. Somewhat reminiscent of the Point Pleasant Park ceremony in
Halifax, Nova Scotia every year, where one shilling is presented to the
lieutenant-governor or another representative of the queen for the annual
payment for the 999 year lease (yes, 999 years, started during Queen
Victoria's reign...pretty good bargain for 178 acres).
AHS
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
asand...@accesswave.ca (Arved Sandstrom) wrote:
> But I'd be curious to find out how much earlier
> both the practice and the name existed.
Unfortunately I am not sure of that. It probably originated as a
commutation of an obligation to provide ships, see the Cinq Ports. I
really must reread books.
Ståle Sannerud
> for bottom cleaning. Ships in active service IIRC needed a small
> repair at 3 to 5 year intervals and a Great Repair at 5 to 10 year
> intervals. Spars and masts had to be replaced on a regular basis. Even
> ships in ordinary needed maintenance which was why the carpenter was
> one of the standing warrants.
>
Tidbit of info, re this:
Ships in the Danish navy, late 1700s, had an expected lifetime of 34 years,
with Great Repairs 14 and 26 years after launch (not that those exact
numbers would be always be obeyed in real life, but this was the
administrative norm as specified in The Book). This would be in a peace-time
navy, with most of the fleet in Ordinary at all times and only singletons or
small squadrons fitted out in any single year for specific missions. A
wartime navy would have to step up the frequency of repairs, of course,
and/or write ships off earlier.
Staale Sannerud
Ståle Sannerud
of
> for an ordinary sailor including guns and sails.
>
> A Danish 90-gunner in 1790 cost 212,700 reichsguilder or about 3,500
man-years
> for an ordinary sailor including sails and bronze guns.
>
NB! The 292.700 riksdaler for the 90 is for the bronze guns _only_, hull and
rigging coming on top of that! The total cost for an eighty-gun ship on the
other hand, including hull, guns and rigging, was 390.152, bronze guns
included. For the record, the 90 would cost 410.382 riksdaler, all told.
The numbers above were drawn up in the same document, ca 1780.
Staale Sannerud
Angus McLellan
<asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
>There is quite a nice article about the Scottish naval situation at
>http://www.maritime-scotland.com/scotINDEX.htm It's worth pointing out that
>with respect to the "ship money", this is something that Charles I of
>England first tried in England, and hence James I of Scotland predated him
>by several centuries. There are some references to costs, for ship
>construction and wages both. It appears the case that the Scottish "navy"
>was very much like the English "navy".
>
>One highlight - the St Michael, built in Scotland in 1511, cost 30,000
>pounds, which is staggering for that time period.
But what sort of pounds ?
I'd think those would be pounds Scots, worth about a quarter of an
English pound in the reign of James IV. If that's the case, James IV's
Great Michael cost a more credible 7,500 pounds sterling.
The alternative, that it cost 30,000 English pounds, isn't at all
credible. James IV had revenues of 44,500 pounds Scots in 1512.
Accounting for the downward spiral of the Scots pound, that's a
threefold increase in royal income over 80 years. Adding in the 8,000
pounds spent on the Margate, I don't believe that James could have
spent over three years' income, even if some was raised by extra
taxes, on just two ships.
As for running costs, the victualling & wages bill for Mary Rose in
1512 ran to £ 234 4s 6d per 28 day month. Lots more information in :-
http://www.maryrose.org/history/history_of_the_mary_rose.pdf
Angus
Arved Sandstrom
news:7b12lv0qv3qncio80...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 17:00:16 -0300, "Arved Sandstrom"
> <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
>
> >There is quite a nice article about the Scottish naval situation at
> >http://www.maritime-scotland.com/scotINDEX.htm It's worth pointing out
that
> >with respect to the "ship money", this is something that Charles I of
> >England first tried in England, and hence James I of Scotland predated
him
> >by several centuries. There are some references to costs, for ship
> >construction and wages both. It appears the case that the Scottish "navy"
> >was very much like the English "navy".
> >
> >One highlight - the St Michael, built in Scotland in 1511, cost 30,000
> >pounds, which is staggering for that time period.
>
> But what sort of pounds ?
>
> I'd think those would be pounds Scots, worth about a quarter of an
> English pound in the reign of James IV. If that's the case, James IV's
> Great Michael cost a more credible 7,500 pounds sterling.
>
> The alternative, that it cost 30,000 English pounds, isn't at all
> credible. James IV had revenues of 44,500 pounds Scots in 1512.
> Accounting for the downward spiral of the Scots pound, that's a
> threefold increase in royal income over 80 years. Adding in the 8,000
> pounds spent on the Margate, I don't believe that James could have
> spent over three years' income, even if some was raised by extra
> taxes, on just two ships.
Your arguments sound...sound. The St Michael apparently accounted for
roughly a quarter of the annual revenue. Of course, one quarter is still a
hefty expenditure.
AHS
Alan Minyard
<pg...@libero.it> wrote:
>Jack Love wrote:
>
>> The comparison of lethality between the modern ships and even the WWII
>> simply doesn't exist...not even counting nuclear weapons. So, many
>> fewer are needed to provide whatever response is required.
>
>You indirectly get the point.
>The trouble is, if two or three of the US CV get lost ? it's another
>question of putting too eggs in the basket.
>Let's take this scenario: A regional power X came to quarry with US, US send
>carriers to the theatre, the regional power X manage to sink three of the
>carriers, The US recall other carriers from other theatres (let's suppose
>that there's no other crisis in course, by the vay, i have many doubts on
>the Win-hold-win doctrine) and finally manage to get in check the said
>regional power X, but after the loss of another pair of carrier.
>End result ? the destabilization of the world during the long time needed to
>the US to rebuild their carrier strenght.
>
>Best regards from Italy.
Just what "regional power" is going to be capable of sinking one, much
less three, US CVNs? And how would you propose that they sink them?
That is simply not a rational scenario.
Al Minyard
The Blue Max
"Alan Minyard" <aminy...@netdoor.com> wrote
> Just what "regional power" is going to be capable of sinking one, much
> less three, US CVNs? And how would you propose that they sink them?
> That is simply not a rational scenario.
Actually I think he's suggesting the power in question would sink 5 carriers
in total. IIRC that is 1 more fleet CV than Japan managed in WW2...
Are there not mines nowadays which are essentially a homing torpedo in a
can? I.e they sit on the seabed until a target comes past, and then launch
themselves? One of those would discomfit a CVN if fitted with a nuclear
warhead, would it not - if the USN were ever stupid enough to send a CVN
into waters where such a weapon might lurk. And if the owner could afford to
scatter hundreds everywhere a CVN might go.
Hmm.
Some regional power...
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Alan Minyard" <aminy...@netdoor.com> wrote
:
:> Just what "regional power" is going to be capable of sinking one, much
:> less three, US CVNs? And how would you propose that they sink them?
:> That is simply not a rational scenario.
:
:Actually I think he's suggesting the power in question would sink 5 carriers
:in total. IIRC that is 1 more fleet CV than Japan managed in WW2...
:
:Are there not mines nowadays which are essentially a homing torpedo in a
:can? I.e they sit on the seabed until a target comes past, and then launch
:themselves?
Captor.
:One of those would discomfit a CVN if fitted with a nuclear
:warhead, would it not - if the USN were ever stupid enough to send a CVN
:into waters where such a weapon might lurk. And if the owner could afford to
:scatter hundreds everywhere a CVN might go.
And if the Captor was sophisticated enough to be able to differentiate
a CVN from other targets passing by, since you'd hate to waste a nuke
on just anyone.
:Hmm.
:
:Some regional power...
Yeah.
--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
Gregg Germain
: Enough! Back to boat building. This whole thread sucks :-(
: I'm no longer going to "play".
Yeah you've said that before. Obviously you couldn't stay away.;^)
No discipline, eh?
So it must be more interesting to you than you are willing to let on.