Maintenance

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Wednesday, March 23rd 2005, 3:17pm

Hi,

while preparing my 1927er reports I noticed in Q3/27 rebuilds will cosnume 25% (~6000ts) of the material used. That seems to be a lot so I wondered...

How much material do you guys spend on maintenance, repair and modifications?

Curious,

HoOmAn

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

2

Wednesday, March 23rd 2005, 5:32pm

As much as my building program allows me to use.

Go to the top of the page

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

3

Wednesday, March 23rd 2005, 5:58pm

The only ships I have that are worth refitting/rebuilding are my battleships. Theres little point in rebuilding/refitting destroyers and smaller craft. Newer vessels are so much better. I don't see the need for any destroyer escorts when not at war. Theres no point in me rebuilding/fitting my light cruisers as they are all small, weakly armed and armoured. I lack any armoured cruisers because of the CT.

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

4

Wednesday, March 23rd 2005, 6:14pm

Holy!

You want to laugh?
The percentages of material for refits/rebuilds of the total warship material output.
Compared to a few of mine, your 25 percent seems normal. :-)

1928
Q1 - 0.39%
Q2 - 9.99%
Q3 - 16.37%
Q4 - 6.90%

1929
Q1 - 0.23%
Q2 - 22.52%
Q3 - 30.43%
Q4 - 0.00%

1930
Q1 - 15.90%
Q2 - 26.77%
Q3 - 43.76%
Q4 - 43.41%

1931
Q1 - 9.60%
Q2 - 8.36%
Q3 - 5.27%
Q4 - 2.23%

1932
Q1 - 47.22%
Q2 - 54.02%
Q3 - 71.13%
Q4 - 74.51%

1933
Q1 - plan incomplete 35.82% so far
Q2 - plan incomplete
Q3 - plan incomplete
Q4 - plan incomplete

Unlike Red Admiral, I intend to keep the smaller stuff around a bit longer.

Go to the top of the page

CanisD

Professional

Posts: 1,464

5

Wednesday, March 23rd 2005, 7:52pm

Not alot yet, but the next few years will see my drydocks quite busy with Battleship refits and reconstructions.

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

6

Wednesday, March 23rd 2005, 7:57pm

Man, I hate to think about the battleship rebuilds! Main reason that the percentages in 1932 are so high are battleship refits!

Go to the top of the page

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

7

Wednesday, March 23rd 2005, 10:53pm

I'm not sure exactly what percentage is going to rebuilds and refits, but it is certainly increasing. Between 1926 and 1929, ten of the older cruisers will be (or in two cases, have been) refitted or rebuilt, six older destroyers will be rebuilt as sloops, Otta's doing her thing, there's some story-line repairs to Babur coming (just wear and tear - nothing dramatic). It adds up.

Early thirties will see mid-life refits for the two Trincomalees, and maybe some work on the early twenties destroyers I built. Probably be a need for refits to some of the small stuff, too - sloops, minesweepers, etc, and if I have the resources handy, Babur will be retired as a training ship (leaving me with a ~45 year old pre-dreadnought to retire in some fashion...)

No, the rebuilt cruisers aren't a match for a modern full-sized cruiser. On the other hand, the two rebuilt Kolkata class CL are perfectly capable of escorting Babur until the end of their careers. And that's good, considering that I can't legally replace them until about 1934.

Go to the top of the page

Commodore Green

The Irish Legend

Posts: 3,266

8

Thursday, March 24th 2005, 12:00am

As I started out with not much, most of my tonnage is going into new hulls, i'll probably only start doing refits from 1930 on!

Go to the top of the page

Ithekro

Sage

Posts: 3,661

9

Thursday, March 24th 2005, 12:52am

Chile is looking to replace most of her fleet by the mid-1940s. Only some of the pre-1925 fleet will be refitted or rebuild....the dreadnoughts because they'll need it to be able to last until their replacements can be built, and perhaps one old cruiser, maybe the predreadnoughts, but those would be conversions to something else I imagine..either target ships, training ships, or rebuild them and reclassify them as coastal defense cruisers to go with the new coastal defense battleship.

I only have a few destroyers that are even worth refitting, and I'd probably only refit the two newest of them (the Capitan Herlocks), and replace the other five over time (the first three new builds are replacements for the three lost by other nations in the Great War).

Go to the top of the page

alt_naval

Professional

Posts: 1,375

10

Thursday, March 24th 2005, 3:07am

Greece is looking at having an underage fleet at treaty level by 1937 - 16 years after the treaty has come into affect. This excludes capital ships. I will scrap an overage ship rather than refit it if I'm still under the treaty limit. The old protected cruisers I've just junked are an example (I could have reclassified them as coast defense but this was unnecessary).

I budget not to refit anything below CL as they become overage after 20 years or 16 in the case of DD. I'll have a block obsolescence problem with my armoured scouts in 1941-1945 that may or may not be refitted depending on the international situation.

In time of tension I can instigate a crash program of Destroyers so keeping old ones around is of little use. Greece, being an archipelago nation, is sensitive to an opponent having numbers of fast torpedo craft. Analysis of Turkish capacity - unhindered by a treaty limit, shows that Turkey could overtake Greece's destroyer fleet in numbers and quality (being 30% bigger (1,400ton DD vs 2,000ton ships) within a 3-4 year period.

I'm still not convinced of the advantage of rebuilding by 1909 CA. I don't think it was budgeted for but I can easily cut back on non-limited ships (Escort Program) to accommodate the rebuilds.

Cheers,

Go to the top of the page

AdmKuznetsov

Sage

Posts: 2,918

11

Thursday, March 24th 2005, 4:39am

Rebuilding

Russia rebuilt the Novik class destroyers, and got much better range and 33 kts out of them. On the other hand, the older classes will go to the scrap heap. I probably will reconstruct the Pallada class into something suitable for Baltic and Black Sea defensive operations, but the Admiral Lazarevs will probably get broken up.

I'm leaning towards replacing the 12x305mm BBs. I might rebuild the Izmail class, and the Petr Veliki class will get a rebuild. In the mid-1930s, Russia will be putting a lot into refits/reconstructions.

France is essentially building a cruiser and destroyer force from nothing, so rebuilds won't be too important. France wil replace the last Courbet class BB and one Provence class BB with two new BBs in the 1930s, but rebuilding the remaining two Provence class BBs is under consideration.

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

12

Thursday, March 24th 2005, 7:09am

I'm not exactly sure of the percentage of my infrastucture used as Turkey or Atlantis, I'd have
to take a closer look.

In the case of Turkey, current spending binges on a weapons standarization plan severely limits my building capacity. Dispite the concerns of Greece, the naval plan of Turkey is not as unhindered as they would like to think. Greece will always have the edge with more Factory's and slips.

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

13

Thursday, March 24th 2005, 10:00am

Interesting discussion with many different opinions...

When talking about maintenance I wasn´t referring to complete rebuilds only. What about modernizations every few years to keep AAA up to date for example? True, the rules don´t make it necessary but it seems realistic.

If it is so much easier to build new ships, why were so many ships historically rebuild and readied for a longer life span? Lack of money for new builds? Tradition?

Why won´t we see soemthing similar in WesWorld? Because we don´t sim economics?

Cheers,

HoOmAn

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

14

Thursday, March 24th 2005, 10:09am

I think it is money. It is much cheaper to give a vessel a refit/rebuild than to build a brand new one.

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

15

Thursday, March 24th 2005, 10:11am

Not simming economics plays a HUGE part. Turkey, Chile and the Philippines all have a substantially larger fleets than they ever could sustain realistically and historically.
Without economics there really sin't anything stopping you from continuing to build ships, other than the CT if your in it, and your infrastructure level.

For the life of me cannot understand why some navy's don't rebuild their ships. Its cheaper and faster than building new ones.

Obviously though you don't want to rebuild ships smaller than DD's because the cost difference isn't that great. You could spend 500 tons on a new patrol boat or spend 250 tons on rebuilding an existing one.

I think the key here is smaller navy's that don't have huge factory outputs more or less need to save every ship they can and rebuilds are a cheaper option.

Go to the top of the page

alt_naval

Professional

Posts: 1,375

16

Thursday, March 24th 2005, 12:30pm

Quoted

why were so many ships historically rebuild and readied for a longer life span?

Because of the treaties.

The Kongos & Fusos and other comparable ships would have been replaced in the early 30's without the London Treaty. The London Treaty extended the holiday and so existing ships had to be refitted rather than replaced. Economics had a part to play but we can't escape the notion that these things just have to be replaced. Look at cars - they are junk after 20 years - both physically and in technical terms. They have a lifespan just as ships do.

Imagine a 1901 limitation treaty that would have seen predreads refitted 1910-1920 for war service in 1919-1925. Rebuilt for oil firing with turbines and add a plane for spotting.

Cheers,

Go to the top of the page

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

17

Thursday, March 24th 2005, 2:23pm

Quoted

Turkey, Chile and the Philippines all have a substantially larger fleets than they ever could sustain realistically and historically

Hee hee. I'm amused that India is not included in the list.

Quoted

When talking about maintenance I wasn´t referring to complete rebuilds only. What about modernizations every few years to keep AAA up to date for example? True, the rules don´t make it necessary but it seems realistic.

This is the case with the Columbo and Hyderabad class cruisers, which I'm "refitting" at about eight years of age, about half way through their expected service life. This is obviously a lot sooner than the 15 years our rules require.

A similar situation with the destroyers is to be expected, but the destroyers being retained won't reach their half-life until ~1930. I may opt for re-builds if the output's worthwhile.

Quoted

I think the key here is smaller navy's that don't have huge factory outputs more or less need to save every ship they can and rebuilds are a cheaper option.

The flip side is, not every ship rebuilds well. I've simmed rebuilds of the Hyderabad class, and can get barely a knot's increase in speed and a 3x2 (rather than 6x1) configuration for the main guns. This doesn't seem worthwhile to me - but I can add to the AA suite and upgrade the torps with just a refit.

For me, at least, a consideration with some ships is service career. Quite a few of my older cruisers and destroyers have been through at least one battle, and that has an effect on the condition of the ship even after repairs are made. They'll see the breakers sooner than ships which haven't been damaged.

Finally - the smaller navies do need to make the best use of their resources and manpower. Keeping around old, slow, and small ships isn't always the smartest way to go about it.

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

18

Thursday, March 24th 2005, 2:33pm

I wonder if it had been smart to install some kind of standard degeneration for our ships. Something like 0,5-1% every year instead of 5% in 15 years. I remember we discussed this in length but finally didn´t settle down a rule. I can´t help but think this would have been more realistic - and work intensive, that is. This would have brought an end to endless navy expansions at a break even point where material spend for maintenance equals maxim material producible. Only replacements would then have allowed to get more modern vessels.

From this point of view I wonder how the upkeep rules for Navalism will work out....

Go to the top of the page

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

19

Thursday, March 24th 2005, 2:42pm

I believe I pushed for that kind of system when Navalism started up, but it wasn't adopted.

Of course, that was before I became the sim moderator...

Go to the top of the page

Ithekro

Sage

Posts: 3,661

20

Thursday, March 24th 2005, 8:46pm

Well most of Chile's Navy was built in 1902 or earlier. So most of the fleet needs to be replaced soon, as most of it has been refitted or rebuilt once already.

Go to the top of the page