Prev: Re: Why superships cost more per mass Next: RE: [sg] More on the Gurkhas

Re: Why superships cost more per mass

From: Allan Goodall <awg@s...>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 01:51:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Why superships cost more per mass

On Mon, 2 Jul 2001 06:24:03 +0100, "Bif Smith"

>That`s why I included the FDR in the second post. It was designed and
>as just a carrier, and at the same time as the others (thus making

I replied before I saw the followup. 

>I thought that during the war, these ships would all be built at the
>times posible (well, the carriers and CL`s anyway), with the most
number of
>warm bodies thrown at them (after all, the CL`s were required just as
>as the CV`s, for escort and convoy work). Having said that, you`re
>right about the man hours bit anyway.

They were built based on resources and strategic need. Remember that
prior to
Coral Sea and Midway, the use of carriers was still pretty much
Pearl Harbor not withstanding. The naval war in the Atlantic was an
different beast with an emphasis on submarines and more "traditional"
ships. Carrier building accelerated incredibly in the latter part of the
The US had, what, 4 carriers in 1941? I remember from my World War II
class at university that they had 140-odd carriers by war's end, with
50 in some stage of construction.

As for resources, early in the war ship construction was competing for
with the army. Carriers would also be pegged to the construction of
aircraft and the training of navy pilots. My point is that ship
wouldn't have been as fast as absolutely possible, nor would it
necessarily be
as fast early in the war as later in the war. 

Your data, though, is very, very useful. Thank you. 

Allan Goodall
Goodall's Grotto:

"Now, see, if you combine different colours of light,
 you get white! Try that with Play-Doh and you get
 brown! How come?" - Alan Moore & Kevin Nolan, 
   "Jack B. Quick, Boy Inventor"

Prev: Re: Why superships cost more per mass Next: RE: [sg] More on the Gurkhas