Quoted
Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
I'm just hazzarding a guess but I'm fairly sure the countrys with 30+ factory will be paying 1/3rd of their tonnage output for one quarter to
perform maintinence, perhaps more. I don't even want to know what Britains maintinence costs will be!
Quoted
Originally posted by Brockpaine
I wouldn't object to that - it sounds pretty workable to me. That way, we'd be forced to balance a bit more on replacing aged units, rather than just collecting a dozen generations of ships to inflate our orbats.
Quoted
Originally posted by Hood
With all this talk why do nations keep buying all this 1915-1919 floating junk? China is one culprit, any old hulk finds its way to China or Persia etc. Why would any professional Navy bother with the Chesters/ Simpsons etc when many nations can provide their own designs in WW and the big nations can easily provide modern export designs. Those old hulks have less than 5 years use, perhaps some are already deathtraps at sea. Buying a new ship gives you 25-30 years effective life. 1 ship per 30 years or six ships per 30 years? Which looks the better value to you?
Quoted
Originally posted by Hood
Fleet size and manpower are the problems that affect all navies.
Having 1,800 small craft just isn't feasible. I'd assume logically most are laid up, in mothballs and few have seen much seatime other than perhaps a builder's trial. Still they can be stored on land/ quaysides so shouldn't rot away too soon.
Quoted
Originally posted by Hood
The RN has largely come to the end of its MTB programme since only two/three geographical areas are useful zones to use them.
Overall I'm slowly trimming the RN back, getting rid of all the Great War relics and don't forget peacetime manning levels are lower than wartime ones.
Quoted
Originally posted by Hood
With all this talk why do nations keep buying all this 1915-1919 floating junk? China is one culprit, any old hulk finds its way to China or Persia etc. Why would any professional Navy bother with the Chesters/ Simpsons etc when many nations can provide their own designs in WW and the big nations can easily provide modern export designs. Those old hulks have less than 5 years use, perhaps some are already deathtraps at sea. Buying a new ship gives you 25-30 years effective life. 1 ship per 30 years or six ships per 30 years? Which looks the better value to you?
Quoted
Originally posted by Hood
Greece may have carriers but it built them and they are still useable ships. If she had brought 30 1910 era ships in 1930 she wouldn't be so well off now with a whole load of crap iron to dispose of.
Quoted
Originally posted by Hood
With all this talk why do nations keep buying all this 1915-1919 floating junk? China is one culprit, any old hulk finds its way to China or Persia etc. Why would any professional Navy bother with the Chesters/ Simpsons etc when many nations can provide their own designs in WW and the big nations can easily provide modern export designs. Those old hulks have less than 5 years use, perhaps some are already deathtraps at sea. Buying a new ship gives you 25-30 years effective life. 1 ship per 30 years or six ships per 30 years? Which looks the better value to you?
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Kaiser Kirk" (Oct 7th 2010, 4:39pm)
Quoted
With all this talk why do nations keep buying all this 1915-1919 floating junk? China is one culprit, any old hulk finds its way to China or Persia etc. Why would any professional Navy bother with the Chesters/ Simpsons etc when many nations can provide their own designs in WW and the big nations can easily provide modern export designs. Those old hulks have less than 5 years use, perhaps some are already deathtraps at sea. Buying a new ship gives you 25-30 years effective life. 1 ship per 30 years or six ships per 30 years? Which looks the better value to you?
Quoted
Originally posted by Brockpaine
Quoted
Originally posted by Desertfox
Because when you have 3 measly factories, buying used is the ONLY way you can go.
I have Bulgaria and Ireland that disagree with this statement.
Quoted
Originally posted by Desertfox
Neither of those nations have two huge and separate coastlines, and my population and economic power is more than both those nations combined.
Quoted
Originally posted by Brockpaine
Quoted
Originally posted by Desertfox
Because when you have 3 measly factories, buying used is the ONLY way you can go.
I have Bulgaria and Ireland that disagree with this statement.
Quoted
Originally posted by Desertfox
It didn't cause much problems in OTL don't see why it would be the case here.
Quoted
Originally posted by Desertfox
It didn't cause much problems in OTL don't see why it would be the case here.
Looking at current economic power Mexico comes out at 13/14, Ireland at 37/38, Bulgaria at 71/73:
List of Countries by GDP
Sure its OTL 2010, but Mexico is definitely not a third world country by any standards. And combined Bulgaria and Ireland only come out to 1/3 of Mexico's GDP.
Quoted
Originally posted by Desertfox
It didn't cause much problems in OTL don't see why it would be the case here.
Looking at current economic power Mexico comes out at 13/14, Ireland at 37/38, Bulgaria at 71/73:
List of Countries by GDP
Sure its OTL 2010, but Mexico is definitely not a third world country by any standards. And combined Bulgaria and Ireland only come out to 1/3 of Mexico's GDP.
Quoted
Originally posted by Desertfox
It didn't cause much problems in OTL don't see why it would be the case here.
Quoted
"Between 1938 and 1939, PEMEX survived by trading oil for money and machinery to European countries with fascist governments" Of which there are none.
No one's stepped in to buy Mexican oil. If no one's buying, you're...having problems, dude. Presumably, you're dumping capital into trying to hire or produce the specialists who operate the machinery and find the oil (replacing the foreign experts who you threw out), but you have zero money coming in from sales.
Quoted
Citing 2010 GDP stats as an example for any country is not relevant; the IMF does not track GDP data before 1970 because of inaccuracies in the means of measuring data.
Quoted
Much of Mexico's economic growth came in the 1970s and 1980s, and the basis for is was laid in the aftermath of the Second World War.
Funny how the Mexican 'Economic Miracle' came after the Oil Expropration.... Despite Mexico's 'Disastrous' Decision.Quoted
Presumably because you've conveniently forgotten that all of the factors which made Mexico's decision less disastrous (note that I did not use the word "successful" - it set the Mexican economy back by a full decade or more) aren't present in Wesworld.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH