Re: Size Class Escalation -- How high in Mass?

devans@uneb.edu wrote:

> ***
> >   Number one, you get fewer examples to work on.
>
> This may NOT be true. Example -- dreadnoughts of
> World War I. They built a LOT of those.
> ***
>
> 'A lot' in this case is a very relative term. Less than in a single
class
> of DD, I think, but I'll have to check my Jane's. On top of this, for
any
> particular class of dreadnought, there were, at most, only four or
five.

The only ships that were ever mass produced were the liberty ships of
WWII.
They were also the only ships built on an assembly line.  Every other
vessel
was more or less hand assembled like a Rolls Royce motor car (but with
cranes
to do the heavy lifting).  Plus all of the ships after HMS Dreadnought
were
designed with mostly rectangular hull plates, giving larger vessels
another
economy of scale.  The last big bonus of large ships is that
manufacturing
tolerances are a fraction of the overall size, so larger vessels are
easier to
build than small vessels because the accuracy of the assembly equipment
is
independant of the size of vessel construct (except in relative terms).

>
>
> ***
> >   Number two, the same part usually costs more if
> > applied to a more
> > expensive system.
>
> That's american marketing, not reality
> ***
>
> ;->= Yeah, I had problems with that one, though it's not JUST
'merican.
>
> ***
> Your assumptions say they're uncommon, so they're
> expensive so they're uncommon -- circular reasoning.
> ***
>
> Well, not entirely circular, as the 'first' case is so different
between a
> DD and DN.
>
> ***
> So, it depends on the universe. The construction
> rules don't seem to support the contention that
> bigger weapons and ships are unnaturally harder
> to construct than equivalent mass in smaller ships.
> If this were the case (and you're welcome to make
> it the case in your universe) where's the evidence?
> ***
>
> Unfortunate, but true, for the rules. In the 'real world' of course,
there
> is increasing cost for increasing size. Bridges, buildings, ships,
become
> more difficult and more expensive, though admitted not always as fast
as
> the increasing 'value'.

It is patently obvious that the value of a large ship increases faster
than
its costs, or there would not be so damn many of them, and each one
bigger
than the last (referring to commercial vessels).

>
>
> This is a bit nebulous in discussion, though. Some real world examples
> would be useful, such as the difference in cost between a slipway for
a DD
> and a DN, length of construction time, etc.

This is a real cost difference, and it favors the DD, but after removing
that
cost consideration, the DN is cheaper per ton.	Construction of american
supercarriers is not a good example to base the costs of a large ship,
as they
are deliberately built in such a way as to have the next keel being laid
when
slip is cleared.  They are deliberately constructed as slow as possible,
to
maintain an employed group of skilled workers.

>
>
> I'm not sure I've the info on these, but I'll see if I can't work out
some
> costs per ton on ships of WWI era, and see if there's anything
interesting
> there.
>
> The_Beast

WWI is probably a good time to look at as whole new classes were added
to