|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 24, 2020 21:21:24 GMT -6
Oldpop, I don't intend this as being mean, but that is incorrect. Indian cotton is of low quality, so the British bred Indian and South American cotton and grew that in Egypt which became their cotton source in the late American civil war. I do not take your comment as being mean, you are educating me and I thank you. I will have to do some research on this, because you have peaked my interest. My mistake. Thanks a lot.
|
|
|
Post by decourcy2 on Sept 25, 2020 0:29:04 GMT -6
Indian cotton was grown in Syria in Roman times, when I was young I wondered why people were excited about new world cotton if they already had cotton, so I learned about it at U of M.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 25, 2020 7:09:02 GMT -6
Indian cotton was grown in Syria in Roman times, when I was young I wondered why people were excited about new world cotton if they already had cotton, so I learned about it at U of M. Apparently scientist found cotton bolls and pieces of cotton cloth in caves in Mexico. It was about 7000 years old. It was also found in America. The Indus River Valley in Pakistan cotton was being grown, spun and woven in to cloth about 3000 years ago and in the Nile Valley it was being made into cotton clothing. Cotton was brought into Arabia during the Wars of Alexander the Great. The reference is to tree cotton. This is getting really interesting. During the Civil War the British turned to Egyptian cotton. I have to study this more and get the different types of cotton. Here is an interesting article but you probably already know all this. robinsonlibrary.com/agriculture/plant/field/cotton.htm
|
|
|
Post by vasious on Sept 29, 2020 2:36:31 GMT -6
Indian cotton was grown in Syria in Roman times, when I was young I wondered why people were excited about new world cotton if they already had cotton, so I learned about it at U of M. Apparently scientist found cotton bolls and pieces of cotton cloth in caves in Mexico. It was about 7000 years old. It was also found in America. The Indus River Valley in Pakistan cotton was being grown, spun and woven in to cloth about 3000 years ago and in the Nile Valley it was being made into cotton clothing. Cotton was brought into Arabia during the Wars of Alexander the Great. The reference is to tree cotton. This is getting really interesting. During the Civil War the British turned to Egyptian cotton. I have to study this more and get the different types of cotton. Here is an interesting article but you probably already know all this. robinsonlibrary.com/agriculture/plant/field/cotton.htmWell not what I expected on a Forum about a Battleship game but excellent reading And oddly on topic for another game I am playing, Ymir, where there is currently a war over cotton
|
|
|
Post by andrewm on Sept 30, 2020 8:35:36 GMT -6
The end of European (British the rest of Europe was dominated by Britain at sea)dominating as a naval power does not come historically until part way through WW2 Historically as the American Navy builds up to massive levels, even then the British navy remains easily the second most powerful nation for a long time. America could probably have surpassed Britain the the 20's-30's but did not as they had no desire to enter a naval armsbuilding race with Britain. Britain in the same period had sufferred massive economic damage from WW1 and so could not afford an arms race with the US or at least would have ended up in a position of either fighting before the Americans surpassed them or giving up which was another good reason to avoid an arms race. Hence the Washington naval treaty the most sensible arms control treaty in history as everyone got what they wanted from it (except the Japanese but see below) 1) No arms race 2) America got rid of the huge british fleet of legacy Battleships which guaranteed British dominance for quite a while before the Americans had built enough ships to offset it 3) Britain avoided having to build a lot of modern battleships to match the ones the Americans would have built , and which it was doubtful we could afford enough of. 4) The British got to keep the Hood which was technically too big for the treaty but as it was built on an older design style was recognised by the Americans as something we could be allowed to keep for prestige without being a huge advantage as a large modern ship would have been.
The Japanese were not allowed to build up their fleet to match the British and Americans this upset their admirals but pleased the army (because they hated the navy more than anu possible foreign enemy) and the not insanely nationalist politians who recognised that any arms race with America or Britain would result in Japan being massively outbuilt and making their situation far worse than the one locked in by the traety , the Japanes admirals lived in a world where only the Japanese would build ships and Japan had infinite resources, they wer probably channeling the Kaiser as a naval strategy advisor.
So no WW1 with its devestating costs in lives and money in France and the UK remains the dominant naval power until the American economy expands enough that they can build a bigger navy (without WW1 that takes longer as their economy grows more slowly and the British are in better shape) and then either Britain negotiates and an accomodation is reached or we get the rise of tensions that happened between Germany and England and possibly a war if there is some spark.
If America is not reasonable at the Wahington treaty (or the British are not reasonable, an unreasonable America seems more likely as they would actually win an arms race the the British knew they would not) and you may get an Anglo-Japanese alliance reinforced and a war in the 1920's where we find out if the American economy is big enough yet to bury the rest of the worlds navies .
|
|
euchrejack
Full Member
Don't feed the Trolls. They just get bigger and more numerous.
Posts: 139
|
Post by euchrejack on Oct 2, 2020 13:55:22 GMT -6
I checked a British game of 1920 and HMS Hood designed and built in 1912. Cost per month of 2455, total cost is 63830. Now, 1920, scrapping cost is 748. If that is depreciation that is something. 704.375 in eight years.
Not sure exactly how you are using depreciation here. On first read, I had thought you had mistaken the scrapping amount for depreciation, but I can see that I was mistaken.
The whole point of depreciation is to take the cost of an item and spread it out over the expected life use of the item. It's also an Accounting tool, not really an Economic tool per say.
It is also more useful for comparisons. Saying the HMS Hood is expensive is like saying a Porsche is expensive. Duh. But is the HMS Hood more or less expensive than the Deutschland or the Bismarck? Historically, the Hood has a distinct advantage of its longer service life over both vessels, which could be seen by analyzing all three vessels through a depreciation lens.
It is still not the appropriate use of depreciation, but I'm not an accountant. Depreciation in actuality is more of a forecasting tool: You account for depreciation when you acquire an asset, not when you dispose of it. When you dispose of it, you compare the actual use to the expected depreciation. Was your forecast right, and how did it differ?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 2, 2020 16:46:48 GMT -6
I checked a British game of 1920 and HMS Hood designed and built in 1912. Cost per month of 2455, total cost is 63830. Now, 1920, scrapping cost is 748. If that is depreciation that is something. 704.375 in eight years.
Not sure exactly how you are using depreciation here. On first read, I had thought you had mistaken the scrapping amount for depreciation, but I can see that I was mistaken.
The whole point of depreciation is to take the cost of an item and spread it out over the expected life use of the item. It's also an Accounting tool, not really an Economic tool per say.
It is also more useful for comparisons. Saying the HMS Hood is expensive is like saying a Porsche is expensive. Duh. But is the HMS Hood more or less expensive than the Deutschland or the Bismarck? Historically, the Hood has a distinct advantage of its longer service life over both vessels, which could be seen by analyzing all three vessels through a depreciation lens.
It is still not the appropriate use of depreciation, but I'm not an accountant. Depreciation in actuality is more of a forecasting tool: You account for depreciation when you acquire an asset, not when you dispose of it. When you dispose of it, you compare the actual use to the expected depreciation. Was your forecast right, and how did it differ?
I actually agree that depreciation is an accounting tool. So let's dispense with it. Let's do like the US Navy and the government does it. Let's look at the cost of procurement and the operating costs of the ship. This last variable includes or should, initial costs of support facilities and the operating costs of support facilities. In the Navy, the operating costs are given the abbreviation OM&N or operations and maintenance Navy. This is how naval ships have been costed out. Over time, the Navy will either decommission the ship when it decides that it is better to scrap the ship than perform a SLEP or service life extension program. We used to do the same thing for aircraft. At some point, the ship is just too old, the hull has shown signs of deterioration, due to constant bending and salt water etc. It is at this time, the decision is made. Now, how do we cost this out? That is a good question. We could examine the individual cost of the ship, but we don't have that information all we have is the total cost of procurement. We can also use the cost of upgrade. I have an AH Battlecruiser that cost about 62769 to build. Now, when I do a basic upgrade to machinery, armament, bulge etc. the price now is 71643. Is the upgrade the new cost, or is it the difference between when it was built and now. I am not certain.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 3, 2020 12:00:28 GMT -6
Here is some information from "In Defense of Naval Supremacy" By Jon Sumida:Finance, Technology, and the British Naval Policy 1889-1914 Sumida, John Tetsuro. In Defence of Naval Supremacy: Finance, Technology, and British Naval Policy 1889-1914 (Kindle Locations 421-426). Since accounting was and still a vital part of weapons procurement and operations, then depreciation makes sense. Example: Austria-Hungary - Heavy Cruiser built in 1899 cost 52118. Estimated rebuild cost is 1335 in 1925. Added replace machinery and fuel type to oil. Now rebuild cost is 10723 Selected local yard for rebuild - cost is now 11039 Upgraded fire control for main guns- cost is now 12264 Improved secondary guns - cost is now 17479 Improved main guns - cost is now 18055 Added secondary director fire control - cost is now 18155 Added bulging - cost is now 18292 Boosted the speed to the limit- 25 knots - Cost is now 35193 Added additional rounds per gun to 150 - cost is now 35470 This is, IMO, just basic upgrades. The ship originally cost 52118 and to upgrade it now costs 35470. The difference between the original cost and it's upgrade is 16648. So, IMO, in 1925, at the time of upgrade, the ship was worth, due to technology improvements from 1899 to 1925, just 16648. So the depreciation was 35470. Does this seem correct or am I misinterpreting the issue. I am trying find ways of determining whether you should upgrade or scrap. In that vain, I used the original design, renamed it and built a ship in 1925 with similar configuration except is now has torpedo protection 2 and will now do 27 knots. It also has an inclined belt and unit machinery. Procurement cost is 52606. I added another design based on the original ship. This ship has 10 inch guns and light AA guns. I don't think the cost difference is that much. I have decided to go ahead with this design, and scrap the old ship.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 4, 2020 1:35:06 GMT -6
Relating to costs of upgrade there are several areas which costs in RTW most: 1. machinery upgrade 2. main guns/turrets upgrade 3. secondary guns upgrade 4. other upgrades are usually cheap and easily done Another thing to consider is technology innovations. In the first 20 years of the 19th century it was really fast and slow down in next 20 years, than again but in this case in different areas usually some of them easily to upgrade the ship (eg. radar). If we look of mostly costly upgrades in game perspective. Machinery upgrade It costs quite a lot, faster is ship (large machinery), it costs more related to her construction costs. Increase speed is even more costly. Up to 1920 ships usually are obsolete quite rapidly and not only by speed requirements. So to fund such expensive refit is usually not worth the costs. From 20s the speed is not increase dramatically, so upgrade of machinery is not usually about speed but weight saving and using it for another upgrades. But it is still expensive. The only way how to make such upgrades reasonable costly is at least decrease speed of a ship by 1 knot. This usually saves some funds. So generally machinery upgrade is not worth the costs however if ship is still good to be used and can be even a little slower, machinery can have sense. As example in this way you can do machinery upgrade, slower the ship and increase deck armour by 1" with additional upgrades you would not have so much free tonnage to do. Main guns/turrets upgradeThis is quite costly too. So to have reason to do it, you need to increase quality quite a bit. Going from Q0 to Q1 is usually not such increase to be worth the costs. So it remains going from Q-1 to Q1. But usually from 20s your guns are at least Q0, so it seems that you can upgrade this way only ship built in the first 20 years. But such a ship is usually not you primary combatant so invest a lot of funds into ship in the second or third line is really questionable. Another way is that you change caliber and replace your triple turrets with double ones with larger caliber. But usually you need more tonnage for that so without machinery refit is is unlikely and with machinery refit the costs for such refit is usually over 50 % of brand new ship with better capabilities. Secondary guns upgradeAs they are not primary combatants the range and penetration you can get but upgrade is usually not worth the costs as they are meant to fire against lightly armed ships anyway. Example Scharnhorst class battlecruiser designed in April 1926, commissioned in June 1929. Her configuration in 1943 after quick emergency refit during war in 1941 and she has 33 tons spare. I will discuss her main components: a) main guns 3 triple 11" Q1 - They are unable to penetrate enemy battleships however they can still demolished superstructure, disabled main guns, destroying radar, fire control etc. making enemy ship difficult to continue fight effectively. Upgrading turrets to double 15" Q1 turrets is short about 1600 tons. Only double 13" Q1 turrets makes refit tonnage equal. So there is no reason to do it. b) armour - Her vertical protection is still top class making her only vulnerable to bombs and plunging fire. Adding 1" of deck armour needs 1120 tons. c) machinery - her speed is top class however her 31 knots advantage is no more and in her duties as carrier escort, fighting enemy capital ships or cruisers even 30 knots will be sufficient so there is possibility for such refit and savings weight elsewhere. Possibility to upgrades: 1. machinery upgrade to 30 knots from 31 knots and replacement for diesel engines - costs 26,346, free tonnage 1628 2a. 1" deck of armour increase - costs 30,750, free tonnage 527 tons 2b. upgrade guns to double 15" - costs 47,873, free tonnage 139 tons, which can be used for minor upgrades as fire control and AA guns Now we can try build same brand new ship with configuration of 2b - 114,565 with and 28500 tons ship as components are lighter. As you can see the refit costs related to new construction is huge and it is ship and time when innovation progress in guns, armour and speed is not high as at start of century. And if you built new ship you would rather build better ships which suits actual needs better. So are extensive refits still worth the costs?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 4, 2020 8:38:32 GMT -6
Relating to costs of upgrade there are several areas which costs in RTW most: 1. machinery upgrade 2. main guns/turrets upgrade 3. secondary guns upgrade 4. other upgrades are usually cheap and easily done Another thing to consider is technology innovations. In the first 20 years of the 19th century it was really fast and slow down in next 20 years, than again but in this case in different areas usually some of them easily to upgrade the ship (eg. radar). If we look of mostly costly upgrades in game perspective. Machinery upgrade It costs quite a lot, faster is ship (large machinery), it costs more related to her construction costs. Increase speed is even more costly. Up to 1920 ships usually are obsolete quite rapidly and not only by speed requirements. So to fund such expensive refit is usually not worth the costs. From 20s the speed is not increase dramatically, so upgrade of machinery is not usually about speed but weight saving and using it for another upgrades. But it is still expensive. The only way how to make such upgrades reasonable costly is at least decrease speed of a ship by 1 knot. This usually saves some funds. So generally machinery upgrade is not worth the costs however if ship is still good to be used and can be even a little slower, machinery can have sense. As example in this way you can do machinery upgrade, slower the ship and increase deck armour by 1" with additional upgrades you would not have so much free tonnage to do. Main guns/turrets upgradeThis is quite costly too. So to have reason to do it, you need to increase quality quite a bit. Going from Q0 to Q1 is usually not such increase to be worth the costs. So it remains going from Q-1 to Q1. But usually from 20s your guns are at least Q0, so it seems that you can upgrade this way only ship built in the first 20 years. But such a ship is usually not you primary combatant so invest a lot of funds into ship in the second or third line is really questionable. Another way is that you change caliber and replace your triple turrets with double ones with larger caliber. But usually you need more tonnage for that so without machinery refit is is unlikely and with machinery refit the costs for such refit is usually over 50 % of brand new ship with better capabilities. Secondary guns upgradeAs they are not primary combatants the range and penetration you can get but upgrade is usually not worth the costs as they are meant to fire against lightly armed ships anyway. Example Scharnhorst class battlecruiser designed in April 1926, commissioned in June 1929. Her configuration in 1943 after quick emergency refit during war in 1941 and she has 33 tons spare. I will discuss her main components: a) main guns 3 triple 11" Q1 - They are unable to penetrate enemy battleships however they can still demolished superstructure, disabled main guns, destroying radar, fire control etc. making enemy ship difficult to continue fight effectively. Upgrading turrets to double 15" Q1 turrets is short about 1600 tons. Only double 13" Q1 turrets makes refit tonnage equal. So there is no reason to do it. b) armour - Her vertical protection is still top class making her only vulnerable to bombs and plunging fire. Adding 1" of deck armour needs 1120 tons. c) machinery - her speed is top class however her 31 knots advantage is no more and in her duties as carrier escort, fighting enemy capital ships or cruisers even 30 knots will be sufficient so there is possibility for such refit and savings weight elsewhere. Possibility to upgrades: 1. machinery upgrade to 30 knots from 31 knots and replacement for diesel engines - costs 26,346, free tonnage 1628 2a. 1" deck of armour increase - costs 30,750, free tonnage 527 tons 2b. upgrade guns to double 15" - costs 47,873, free tonnage 139 tons, which can be used for minor upgrades as fire control and AA guns Now we can try build same brand new ship with configuration of 2b - 114,565 with and 28500 tons ship as components are lighter. As you can see the refit costs related to new construction is huge and it is ship and time when innovation progress in guns, armour and speed is not high as at start of century. And if you built new ship you would rather build better ships which suits actual needs better. So are extensive refits still worth the costs? I think many of the answers about extensive refits and the progress of technology rests with how your research budget is configured. If you raise Machinery development, hull construction, ship design and possibly armor development to high when the game starts, leaving the budget at 8%, the technology will move ahead quicker and possibly in 10 years you might be able to do a cost effective upgrade. However, after that I don't believe it is cost effective based on our assessments. I think we are looking at a 20 year time span for the use of a ship after that, it needs to be replaced and scrapped. More research is needed.
|
|
|
Post by andrewm on Oct 4, 2020 8:48:00 GMT -6
I think the only time expensive refits is really worth it is during an arms limitation treaty when you cannot build new battleships , so spending some of the funds you would have spent on those new ships on upgrading your olds ones is potentially worthwhile. You will have to fight 2-3 years of war before any new ships built after war ends the treaty can be avialble so making your current ships combat worthy can be worth the cost
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 4, 2020 9:21:09 GMT -6
Another potential time to do extensive reconstructions on major warships is late in the game when SAMs become available. 50M to put SAMs on an existing battleship might be more worthwhile than 150-200M to build a new SAM-equipped battleship, because unless the existing battleship is particularly old you're probably not going to get a much better battleship by building a new ship than you would by upgrading the old one, and you can upgrade three or four of the old ones for the same total cost as building a new one.
I don't think extensively rebuilding ships for increased speed, additional deck armor, or improved guns is generally worthwhile when not constrained by arms limitations treaties, though. Even when constrained by treaty, I would generally prefer to spend the money on building modern cruisers and destroyers than on upgrading old capital ships, because the old capital ships will generally remain adequate - they'll probably be facing their contemporaries and maybe treaty-limited peers in the next war, not something clearly superior - even if they're not great.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 4, 2020 9:38:24 GMT -6
Another potential time to do extensive reconstructions on major warships is late in the game when SAMs become available. 50M to put SAMs on an existing battleship might be more worthwhile than 150-200M to build a new SAM-equipped battleship, because unless the existing battleship is particularly old you're probably not going to get a much better battleship by building a new ship than you would by upgrading the old one, and you can upgrade three or four of the old ones for the same total cost as building a new one.
I don't think extensively rebuilding ships for increased speed, additional deck armor, or improved guns is generally worthwhile when not constrained by arms limitations treaties, though. Even when constrained by treaty, I would generally prefer to spend the money on building modern cruisers and destroyers than on upgrading old capital ships, because the old capital ships will generally remain adequate - they'll probably be facing their contemporaries and maybe treaty-limited peers in the next war, not something clearly superior - even if they're not great.
I would completely agree with both of you. During treaty periods, refits are probably the only option. Without treaties, I would prefer to build new ships as the technology increases and the expense of refit probably get's close to 50% of the cost of a new ship.
|
|
|
Post by holoween on Oct 4, 2020 9:58:53 GMT -6
Refitting 20s bbs that start with 15"guns and 24knots speed can be quite valuable 10-15 years later for smaller nations. Thos ships can easily be refitted to be 27/28 knots and with improved guns, fire controll and aa can easily hold their own against more modern ships while being cheaper to upgrade and more importantly faster. Goin this route allows a a small nation to keep a battleline that can manage the major nations and still allow building of carriers.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 4, 2020 10:08:33 GMT -6
Refitting 20s bbs that start with 15"guns and 24knots speed can be quite valuable 10-15 years later for smaller nations. Thos ships can easily be refitted to be 27/28 knots and with improved guns, fire controll and aa can easily hold their own against more modern ships while being cheaper to upgrade and more importantly faster. Goin this route allows a a small nation to keep a battleline that can manage the major nations and still allow building of carriers. I agree that nations with smaller budgets and economies, may have to make decisions about keeping their ships longer. It is a judgement call and the decisions for Italy and Japan, probably won't be applicable to the UK, Germany, possibly Russia and the US. You have to adapt your decisions based on the above mention differences.
|
|