Other Costs

[ctwaterman]

Read up on Eli Whitney and the Idea of the Interchangable part.  Durring the Revolutionary War Eli Whitney was a supplier of Muskets to the Continental Army.   He pushed for stadardization in parts.  Several other US Armories succeded at the Idea before Whitney did but his armory finally succeed in 1825.   His pushing for this form of manufacturing led to the Armory System or US System of Manufacturing.

The Cotton Gin was not his only invention and probably not his best one.

In the Early 18th Century even the British Crown Musket the Brown Bess was manufactured by a huge number of differect craftsperson meaning the Armorer to simply replace a broken hammer or even trigger guard had to take the old one use it to make a cast, cast the new part and then file away at the new part until it fit.
Things such as even the screws holding the Flint in place were all individualy made for the gun and to no real set pattern as long as it could pass muster litteraly.

Now yes there is a difference between Mass Production and an object produced in Mass.

Torpedoes were produced in mass durring peace time by a few hundred specialist workers.  Only durring World War II did even the United States start producing them using the technology we would call Mass Production or in this case assembly line construction.  The same could be said for the early Fuzes for artillary shells and naval guns.

Charles

[Blooded]

Hiya,

Why am I being singled out...?

If the shoe fits.....  ;)

In this case... I know you like 'Fisher's Follies' or at least Fisher. (I just got 'Sir John Fisher's Naval Revolution' (Studies in Maritime History) by Nicholas A. Lambert). Apparently Fisher wanted ONLY his follies but had to compromise... including Dreadnought and ALL BBs thereafter. You consistantly propose that a forward thinking and reasonable Nation would decide to ONLY to rely on speed and if ANY N3 rule would detract from that advantage then it will be protested on the basis of..... sillyness.....

Perhaps the problem isn't the economic system but the battle system...  ;)

The Battle system is very bad.... based on Torp Hits alone... but NO ONE has derided it(or suggested a better... or a modification)... including you(since it has been soo horrible to you)... that I noticed.

Yes, I was the most vocal proponent of torpedoes in N-verse. But can you blame me? I lost the greatest amount of warships to torpedoes, heck at one point in time all my losses where due to torpedoes. And yes I do agree that torpedoes where way too effective. And btw I launched my "ASB" airstrike, after I had been the victim of a similar airstrike.

Perpetuating 'sillyness' is by definition 'silly'..... thus you have no defense... ;D

[Carthaginian]

Torpedoes were produced in mass durring peace time by a few hundred specialist workers.  Only durring World War II did even the United States start producing them using the technology we would call Mass Production or in this case assembly line construction.  The same could be said for the early Fuzes for artillary shells and naval guns.

That is sort of the point I'm trying to make, Charles.
Even though the 'modern' idea of 'Henry Ford'-style mass production didn't exist, the concept of mass production did in fact exist as far back as our starting era- and was in fact in widespread use over many aspects of society by this time.
There might be a distinction between 'mass production' and 'produced in mass'... but the real issue with something like torpedoes or shell fuses isn't the motorized production line- it is the fact that they were 1.) produced in mass quantities and 2.) made of interchangeable parts. This is really the basic qualification for what I guess I should more properly word 'standardized production.'
Basically, what I'm getting at is that while torpedoes were the product of skilled craftsmen, they were not individual works of art like 18th century firearms. They were FAR more akin to the Model T than the Brown Bess when it came to their production.

[Blooded]

Howdy,

The Springfield Armory is the best example of this which I can think of. By the 1850's, you could take a part from any of thousands of the service rifles in the United States military and exchange it with the same part from an identical rifle, and it would still function.

I have worked on early/mid 19th C. Springfields and I disagree. Any part may 'fit' but as far as I have seen they all required modification to 'function'. Time may have taken its toll but...

My definition of 'Mass produced' would be more like... an item produced to exacting tolerances which will perform EXACTLY the same as any other identically produced item. Early Torpedos(1870-1900) IMO were not 'Mass' produced. In a test, I believe, You could launch 10 from the same spot and each would end up in a different area within 1000 yards. Sure... Bob and his bro's made all 10 torps but....

I get the impression that we may just be painting with different sized brushes... but our art is the 'same'. Regardless out of respect I wont continue on this particular detail. Too many times I recall our 'Frame of mind being the same'.

[Carthaginian]

I have worked on early/mid 19th C. Springfields and I disagree. Any part may 'fit' but as far as I have seen they all required modification to 'function'. Time may have taken its toll but...

My definition of 'Mass produced' would be more like... an item produced to exacting tolerances which will perform EXACTLY the same as any other identically produced item. Early Torpedos(1870-1900) IMO were not 'Mass' produced. In a test, I believe, You could launch 10 from the same spot and each would end up in a different area within 1000 yards. Sure... Bob and his bro's made all 10 torps but....

Well, you are saying 'early/mid' 19th century... and I specifically stated post-1850.
That would be mid-late 1800's... generally any Antebellum example (of any weapon) is NOT going to interchange without some tweaking. I have 'piddled' with some examples from the Civil War era and later (percussion cap pieces, all) and found that they have a fairly high rate of function after replacement parts are fitted. And while I'm no polished historian, I am a certified gun nut who can build simple firearms and have also repaired my (all matching serial number) Webley & Scott Mk I (a period piece) and am trying to build a second from non-firing examples (ATM I have a good cylinder and frame, but good internals are hard to find and most barrels are pitted badly).
And, yes, time doth take a tool... after 150 years, you can hardly expect a 'factory' spring to fit a rifle that has been wearing a certain way. Heck, it's hard to do with the Webley and she's not only a few decades younger, but is all machine tooled... the parts are simply and bluntly worn to the point that the GUN is no longer factory spec and might need some pieces to be modified certain ways to be effective- even if they are factory-spec parts.

I also handload- a lot- and fire blackpowder weapons on a semi-regular basis.
I can understand that a dozen bullets can be cast in the same mold and each will have different ballistic characteristics due to minor flaws in the individual castings (especially true of round balls with sprues). This isn't a flaw in production, though, it simply is a margin of error that must be lived with. Likewise, torpedoes without some form of gyroscopic stabilization and self-correcting capabilities are similarly fickle weapons. It wouldn't have mattered any more if Bob built them or John- just like it wouldn't matter if I cast the bullets or my father did. Likewise, it doesn't matter if I built the zip gun or my father- they will function the same, their parts will be interchangeable... but tiny variations in barrel placement, minor imperfections in sight placement, etc can cause some major differences in point of aim.

And I soundly disagree about your 'exacting tolerance' statement: two firearms will have different points of aim, no matter how 'exacting' their tolerances. I know very well how 'exacting' the production tolerances on a Glock are (having calipered mine and a friend's identical one) and yet two weapons with completely interchangeable parts will have completely different points of aim- and any weapon made of their combined parts will have another different point of aim.

[ctwaterman]

Can we all just agree that for its time the White Head torpedo was an expensive and not all that a reliable weapon.   It was working off bleeding edge technologies both in propulsion, Stablization, and fuzes.  Heck the Explosive was cutting edge....

Talk about a machine with built in problems its like the Early Subs.

Charles

[Korpen]

On the original subject of this thread:
I am fine with costs for torpedoes and mines and think it sounds good.
Torpedoes was bloody expensive after all (I remember reading that the torpedo outfit for the early Swedish TB fleet cost almost as much as the boats, will look it up when I got time) so keeping track of them would help getting rid of the more ridicules over-use of them.
It could also create interesting choices about switching types in case one already has large existing stocks.

Experimental equipment should be handled on a case-by-case basis, no need for extra rules about it.

[Sachmle]

*Checks to make sure Hell hasn't frozen over*
I agree with Korpen and whoever started this mess (Blooded I think). Torpedoes are not produced en-mass like artillery and naval shells. Much like mines, all of a certain 'type' are similar, and may have even been built off the same plans with 'matching' parts, but they are unique. Also, as Korpen pointed out (and perhaps others before, long silly thread), torpedoes are damnable expensive in our time frame. 1 more row on a spreadsheet or one more note on a notepad doc, or however you each track stuff isn't going to make that big of an impact. Even if it's 2 lines (torps and mines) it still makes sense to me to track them.
*Reconfirms Hell is in fact NOT frozen over*

[Nobody]

Torpedoes are complicated but mines? Especially the early ones? They were just "boxes" with lot of explosives in them, plus a few contact fuses. If we keep track of both mines should be much cheaper (per weight).

P.S.: Some torpedoes in N3 were two heavy. Even the biggest 21" torpedo hardly exceed 1.5 tons.

[Tanthalas]

Puts on Economist hat (God I didnt want to do this) Technical data is drawn from Contours of the World Economy

in 1870 the US GDP was 98374000000 thats ninghty eight billion, three hundred seventy four million 1990 dollars.  a white head torpedo cost 1800 and change in the same period thats somthing like .000000002 % of the GDP so equivilant cost for us would be somthing like .001 per torpedo assuming the $6000.00 number I saw somewhere on the site.  Or in otherwords, so small as not to be worth messing with IMHO.

Takes off Economist hat and trys to cool off his brain (said I didnt want to do that)

[Korpen]

Torpedoes are complicated but mines? Especially the early ones? They were just "boxes" with lot of explosives in them, plus a few contact fuses. If we keep track of both mines should be much cheaper (per weight).

Agree the mines are much simpler then a torpedo, and not more complex then say an artillery shell.
But it is still a good idea to track the inventory of them.

P.S.: Some torpedoes in N3 were two heavy. Even the biggest 21" torpedo hardly exceed 1.5 tons.

It included the weight of the tube and the mount as well.

[Logi]

From "The War-ships and Navies of the World":

"The Whitehead Torpedo is said to be about $1,846, and that of the Woolwich $1,458."

[Tanthalas]

From "The War-ships and Navies of the World":

"The Whitehead Torpedo is said to be about $1,846, and that of the Woolwich $1,458."

the change realy didnt effect my calculations so I droped it  ;D

[TexanCowboy]

Logi, did you steal my reference from last night?

Torpedoes aren't that expensive, tho. It cost the US the amount of a small 200 ton torpedo boat ($235,000) to produce 100 Whiteheads under license, enough to outfit, with spares, at least 10 of those boats. It would have been even cheaper if the Howell design was used. It's not worth keeping track of without going to the WTF MICROMANAGEMENT SUCKS RAGEQUIT level.

[P3D]

Torpedoes are complicated but mines? Especially the early ones? They were just "boxes" with lot of explosives in them, plus a few contact fuses. If we keep track of both mines should be much cheaper (per weight).

P.S.: Some torpedoes in N3 were two heavy. Even the biggest 21" torpedo hardly exceed 1.5 tons.

And some are OK, but in general, they are too light if the weight of the TTs are included in the calculation.