| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Cost of an Ancient Warship
I'm trying to understand the cost of building an oceangoing ship in
some terms I can understand. I great answer would be of the form "To build an 80 ft sailing vessel in 1492 took about 14,000 man/hours" or something like that. Or "One could buy a 100 ft sailing vessel in Venice for 9000 florins, and each florin could hire a skilled worker for a week." I'm interested in any time period from ancient Egypt to maybe Napoleon. I'm just trying to get an order of magnitude informed guess. Significant Google searching didn't help. Can anyone here help? |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:33:51 -0400, "Charles Talleyrand"
wrote: I'm interested in any time period from ancient Egypt to maybe Napoleon. I'm just trying to get an order of magnitude informed guess. Significant Google searching didn't help. Can anyone here help? 10 seconds of Googling for HMS VICTORY indicates that she "cost £63,176. For comparison, this would be equivalent to the cost of building an aircraft carrier today." http://www.hms-victory.com/factsandfigures.htm -- Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself" "Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/ |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 01:39:59 +0100, "Mycroft" wrote:
these ships were used for decades. Victory was laid down before Nelson was born and at the time he was given his choice of flagship she was a prison hulk, but he wanted her for sentimental reasons. Let's see...surveyed 1797, unfit for service, handed over for conversion to hospital ship, but reconsidered as a 1st rate after IMPREGNABLE was lost. Refit at Chatham 1800-1803, and sailed for the Med 16 May under Hardy with Nelson aboard. Considering the refit began 4 years before Nelson came aboard, and in the interim Nelson had been off fighting at Copenhagen, I really don't see that he had anything to do with her fate at that point. -- Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself" "Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/ |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
Andrew Toppan wrote:
10 seconds of Googling for HMS VICTORY indicates that she "cost = =A363,176. For comparison, this would be equivalent to the cost of building an aircraft carrier today." =20 According to the calculator at the Economic History Services website (http://www.eh.net/ehresources/howmuch/poundq.php), =A363,176 in 1765 would be the equivalent of about =A35.3 million in 2002. I don't think you could build much of an aircraft carrier for that. That's not so much to dispute the HMS Victory website as to show that trying to compare purchasing power from different eras is a tricky business. Mark Sieving |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
"Andrew Toppan" wrote in message ... On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:33:51 -0400, "Charles Talleyrand" wrote: I'm interested in any time period from ancient Egypt to maybe Napoleon. I'm just trying to get an order of magnitude informed guess. Significant Google searching didn't help. Can anyone here help? 10 seconds of Googling for HMS VICTORY indicates that she "cost £63,176. For comparison, this would be equivalent to the cost of building an aircraft carrier today." http://www.hms-victory.com/factsandfigures.htm And the USS Constitution cost $302,718 in 1797 US dollars, although the Brits could build a 74 gun ship for less. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s...nstitution.htm http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Al...43/supfrig.htm I'm trying to understand these numbers in terms of something like manhours needed to build the ship. I note that the pay for a US sailor was 10-17 US$ per month. Therefore it took something like 25,000 man-months to build a Constitution (or a British 74). Does this seem reasonable? If you're curious, the Constition was 3x over budget in part due to political problems with Congressional funding, and is therefore a bad example to use. That's why I'm asking for other examples. And please don't pull this thread into a 'Congress has always sucked' direction. Can we please have one thread without current politics? Can someone offer other examples, particularly from a different time period and/or a different sized ship? That would be most helpful. -Thanks |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
In 1815 the aervage wage for an unskilled laborer in Britain was
around 15 shillings per week. A highly skilled craftsman like a cooper or carpenter could make 30 shillings per week However these costs for Victory need clarification Do they apply to the hull only or included rigging ? How about the guns ? Off hand, I doubt that the guns were included in the Victory sum given. The (iron) guns for a ship of the line would cost roughly as much as the raw hull itself - but this is complicated by the fact that a gun could last a very, very long time indeed, several lifetimes of an individual ship, so that a new-built ship could inherit older guns that were already paid for so to speak. Including the price of the guns in the ship building price would make sense if the guns were cast especially for that ship, which sometimes did happen esp. with bronze guns. They were around 4x as expensive as iron ones by the way. Staale Sannerud |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
Staale Sannerud wrote: Including the price of the guns in the ship building price would make sense if the guns were cast especially for that ship, which sometimes did happen esp. with bronze guns. They were around 4x as expensive as iron ones by the way. do you have a cite for this 4x figure. vince |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
"Vince Brannigan" wrote in message ... Staale Sannerud wrote: Including the price of the guns in the ship building price would make sense if the guns were cast especially for that ship, which sometimes did happen esp. with bronze guns. They were around 4x as expensive as iron ones by the way. do you have a cite for this 4x figure. vince The table at http://www.cwartillery.org/art-cost.html shows bronze guns costing between 4 times and 6 times an iron gun in the early 1860's Keith |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:05:02 -0400, Andrew Toppan
wrote: On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:33:51 -0400, "Charles Talleyrand" wrote: I'm interested in any time period from ancient Egypt to maybe Napoleon. I'm just trying to get an order of magnitude informed guess. Significant Google searching didn't help. Can anyone here help? 10 seconds of Googling for HMS VICTORY indicates that she "cost £63,176. For comparison, this would be equivalent to the cost of building an aircraft carrier today." http://www.hms-victory.com/factsandfigures.htm That's an obviously incorrect comparison. How many first rates did the world have just before the Napoleonic wars? How many aircraft carriers does it have now? What was the population then, what is is now? If the text were written in the 1940's, it might make sense but today? ____ Peter Skelton |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:33:51 -0400, "Charles Talleyrand"
wrote: I'm trying to understand the cost of building an oceangoing ship in some terms I can understand. I great answer would be of the form "To build an 80 ft sailing vessel in 1492 took about 14,000 man/hours" or something like that. Or "One could buy a 100 ft sailing vessel in Venice for 9000 florins, and each florin could hire a skilled worker for a week." I'm interested in any time period from ancient Egypt to maybe Napoleon. I'm just trying to get an order of magnitude informed guess. Significant Google searching didn't help. Can anyone here help? You might try "The 74 Gun Ship" Jean Boudret, French originally but well translated, or Lavery's "The Ship of the Line." I'm not certain they'll have exactly what you want, but allow a week, they tend to be adicting and they aren't thin. Good luck ____ Peter Skelton |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message ...
"Andrew Toppan" wrote in message ... On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:33:51 -0400, "Charles Talleyrand" wrote: I'm interested in any time period from ancient Egypt to maybe Napoleon. I'm just trying to get an order of magnitude informed guess. Significant Google searching didn't help. Can anyone here help? 10 seconds of Googling for HMS VICTORY indicates that she "cost £63,176. For comparison, this would be equivalent to the cost of building an aircraft carrier today." http://www.hms-victory.com/factsandfigures.htm And the USS Constitution cost $302,718 in 1797 US dollars, although the Brits could build a 74 gun ship for less. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s...nstitution.htm http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Al...43/supfrig.htm I'm trying to understand these numbers in terms of something like manhours needed to build the ship. I note that the pay for a US sailor was 10-17 US$ per month. Therefore it took something like 25,000 man-months to build a Constitution (or a British 74). Does this seem reasonable? If you're curious, the Constition was 3x over budget in part due to political problems with Congressional funding, and is therefore a bad example to use. That's why I'm asking for other examples. And please don't pull this thread into a 'Congress has always sucked' direction. Can we please have one thread without current politics? Can someone offer other examples, particularly from a different time period and/or a different sized ship? That would be most helpful. J. Richard Steffy, Wooden Shipbuilding and the Interpetation of Shipwrecks, Texas A&M University Press, 1994. |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
Keith Willshaw wrote: "Vince Brannigan" wrote in message ... Staale Sannerud wrote: Including the price of the guns in the ship building price would make sense if the guns were cast especially for that ship, which sometimes did happen esp. with bronze guns. They were around 4x as expensive as iron ones by the way. do you have a cite for this 4x figure. vince The table at http://www.cwartillery.org/art-cost.html shows bronze guns costing between 4 times and 6 times an iron gun in the early 1860's Keith not for gun of about the same size. the 3 inch ordnance rifle cost $330 the Comparably sized 12pounder napoleon cost 490. Most of the cost of a cannon is in the boring and turning , which don't change much with the size. Vince |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message om... Can someone offer other examples, particularly from a different time period and/or a different sized ship? That would be most helpful. J. Richard Steffy, Wooden Shipbuilding and the Interpetation of Shipwrecks, Texas A&M University Press, 1994. While doing a little research thus lunchtime I came across the following site which has some interesting data regarding the early USN http://www.iment.com/maida/familytre...psonletter.htm No construction costs I'm afraid but some information on running costs Keith |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
It is not going to be easy to equate pre-17th century cost to the
present but once you get an idea of labor and material it will probably be good from the first century up through the 16th. While designs changed materials and construction methods did not change very much and while material prices varied over time long term inflation was virtually unheard of. I can give you a small modern day comparison of labor if not total cost. I have a favorite stopping point in Bay des Cays Haiti that I have stopped by several times over the years. For the past 2 years there has been a group of 3 men directed by an incredibly old guy building a 65' schooner on the beach. They are doing it the old fashioned way with axes and adzes, pegs, oakum and tar. Keel was laid in February 2000 and when we stopped by in May of this year they were preparing to set the masts. I figure they can only work 10 hours a day probably 300 days a year so a SWAG would be 18,000 hours + - maximum if my math is right. (2 yrs*300 days*10 hours*3 men.) Actual time is probably a lot less because they had to spend a lot of time scrounging material. (We donated an old blown out genoa and a worn halyard.) Other adjustments include: Labor and material requirement goes up as the cube of the length so an 85' hull would probably require twice the labor of a 65' one. A 15th century trading vessel would have been a bit more elaborate than this boat and a war ship considerably more. A 15th century ship yard would have more tools and equipment to work with than these poor fellows. Charles Talleyrand wrote: I'm trying to understand the cost of building an oceangoing ship in some terms I can understand. I great answer would be of the form "To build an 80 ft sailing vessel in 1492 took about 14,000 man/hours" or something like that. Or "One could buy a 100 ft sailing vessel in Venice for 9000 florins, and each florin could hire a skilled worker for a week." I'm interested in any time period from ancient Egypt to maybe Napoleon. I'm just trying to get an order of magnitude informed guess. Significant Google searching didn't help. Can anyone here help? -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
"Vince Brannigan" wrote in message ... Keith Willshaw wrote: "Vince Brannigan" wrote in message ... Staale Sannerud wrote: Including the price of the guns in the ship building price would make sense if the guns were cast especially for that ship, which sometimes did happen esp. with bronze guns. They were around 4x as expensive as iron ones by the way. do you have a cite for this 4x figure. vince The table at http://www.cwartillery.org/art-cost.html shows bronze guns costing between 4 times and 6 times an iron gun in the early 1860's Keith not for gun of about the same size. the 3 inch ordnance rifle cost $330 the Comparably sized 12pounder napoleon cost 490. Most of the cost of a cannon is in the boring and turning , which don't change much with the size. You are comparing Apples and Oranges The napoleon was a smoothbore and its production involved much less boring and turning than a rifle The true comparison is between an iron smoothbore and a napoleon. The columbiads while admittedly larger than the napoleons were also smoothbores Keith |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
... [ SNIP ] Can someone offer other examples, particularly from a different time period and/or a different sized ship? That would be most helpful. I offered one example - the bomb vessel series from 1692 - in another post in this thread. Keith helpfully corrected me on contemporary wages, suggesting that skilled labour at the time (shipwrights etc) was probably closer to 25 pounds per individual per annum. The construction cost estimates that I cited for those bomb vessels were 2828 pounds total - of that, 1919 pounds were for the timber, planks, trenails, pitch, tar, mast, sundry material and workmanship, masts and yards, and 909 pounds were for furnishing with rigging and ground tackle sails and sea stores for the boatswain's and carpenter's store, and eight months provision of sea stores. This Navy Board estimate does not include ordnance stores. Again, without including ordnance stores, Chris Ware states that the total cost of purchased/converted bombs in the period 1690-95 was 13,315 pounds (this for eight vessels), and 31,872 pounds for fourteen purpose-built bombs. For purposes of comparison, he mentions that with this total expenditure (45,187 pounds) one could have purchased two Third Rates (without sea and ordnance stores). Costs of the INFERNAL class of bombs (late 1750's) ranged from 3355 to 3758 pounds. These are building costs only. In fact, a average of another 400 pounds was expended per vessel of this class to fit them for service (i.e. fitting the mortar beds), and the cost would still not include the ordnance. As another complementary set of figures, from the same source, we find that the costs of fitting out a 1690's bomb with mortars and ordnance stores was: ca. 3480 pounds for a 13in mortar and all materials and officers to attended (wages for Ordnance staff) 60 pounds for the mortar @ 12s per ton 140 pounds for two carriages 700 pounds for five hundred 12 1/4 inch bombs (the HE ammo) 175 pounds for 125 carcasses (incendiary ammo) ca. 14 pounds for 750 fuzes 480 pounds for a 100 ton tender Of course, one then still has to add wages for officers and seamen who manned the vessel. As this helps also give an idea of the costs of a ship, I'll note that Michael Lewis ("The Navy of Britain") mentions that in the 13th and 14th centuries the average seaman received 9 shillings a month. These wages dropped considerably in the following few centuries. In the mid 1600's the wages for a seaman were 14-15 shillings per month, but considering inflation, things had actually gotten worse. Of course, at close to ten pounds per annum, in the 17th century, the average sailor was doing better than most. After the Spithead mutiny in 1797, pay was roughly a shilling per day (assuming you actually got paid). If you look at Web sources like http://www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/current/howmuch.html, I think you'll find that there is a great deal of information about wages and costs at various times. AHS |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
Keith Willshaw wrote: The napoleon was a smoothbore and its production involved much less boring and turning than a rifle The true comparison is between an iron smoothbore and a napoleon. The columbiads while admittedly larger than the napoleons were also smoothbores I agree that rifling adds to cost, but not that much. The cost of boring (drill the main center tube) and turnign (trunnions) is the same. Bronz if anything is cheaper to bore and turn than iron. Vince |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
Andrew Toppan vented spleen or mostly mumbled...
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:33:51 -0400, "Charles Talleyrand" wrote: I'm interested in any time period from ancient Egypt to maybe Napoleon. I'm just trying to get an order of magnitude informed guess. Significant Google searching didn't help. Can anyone here help? 10 seconds of Googling for HMS VICTORY indicates that she "cost £63,176. For comparison, this would be equivalent to the cost of building an aircraft carrier today." Awww, no.... That could only build one of those cut rate RN CVs to be, you know, two thrudeck crusiers welded together, one island removed, and a bit of planking laid across the gap. TMO I suspect that for most sailing warships, especially the 1st and 2nd Rates, the cost of the "Pupkeep" far outweighed those of the original "pup". |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
Keith Willshaw wrote: The cost of boring (drill the main center tube) and turnign (trunnions) is the same. However the machinery required to cut rifling in a cannon bore is of an entirely different order from the simple boring process adopted for a smoothbore. no it is not. you still advance the cutterbut you synchronize the forward and rotational action. its called a "screw cutting" There's a good reason why rifled cannon didnt appear on the battlefield before the 1850's and the rise of the machine tool is a large part of it. It wasnt until 1841 that the first standardised screw threads were introduced by Whitworth for example. Does not affect cannon. all you need for cannon is a precisly cut tool feeding controller. Cannon barrels did not require the precision that a machine screw required. Moreover the Parrott's were reinforced with wrought iron hoops on the breech. Sure, but they did burst. a lot, because the thermal effects werenot well understood. It being softer thats hardly surprising. but you could also make guns lighter than an equivalent Iron gun. which is why iron was preferred for naval and caost defense gusn and bronze for field guns. Vince |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
"vincent Brannigan" wrote in message ... Keith Willshaw wrote: The cost of boring (drill the main center tube) and turnign (trunnions) is the same. However the machinery required to cut rifling in a cannon bore is of an entirely different order from the simple boring process adopted for a smoothbore. no it is not. you still advance the cutterbut you synchronize the forward and rotational action. its called a "screw cutting" Yes I know There's a good reason why rifled cannon didnt appear on the battlefield before the 1850's and the rise of the machine tool is a large part of it. It wasnt until 1841 that the first standardised screw threads were introduced by Whitworth for example. Does not affect cannon. all you need for cannon is a precisly cut tool feeding controller. Cannon barrels did not require the precision that a machine screw required. But without screw threads how do you make your "precisly cut tool feeding controller. " Such devices were made possible by Whitworth and his colleagues and the simple fact is the maching of a rifled barrel requires a fair degree of accuracy if you are to have consistent accuracy which is rather the point. After all until 1745 cannon were basically hollow cast with maching being confined to cleaning out the bore. Moreover the Parrott's were reinforced with wrought iron hoops on the breech. Sure, but they did burst. a lot, because the thermal effects werenot well understood. Its more to do with the fact that cast iron is a poor material under tension. It being softer thats hardly surprising. but you could also make guns lighter than an equivalent Iron gun. which is why iron was preferred for naval and caost defense gusn and bronze for field guns. Actually bronze guns were preferred for all uses until such time as iron was available in adequate quality as well as quantity. They lasted better and were more consistent but the huge reduction in the cost of producing iron and increases in quality around 1776 with the introduction of the use of coke made them very much cheaper Keith |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
In message , "Keith Willshaw" wrote:
Bronz if anything is cheaper to bore and turn than iron. It being softer thats hardly surprising. Which also made them unsuitable as rifles. The James Rifles wore out fast, which is why they were phased out of service as quickly as possible. -- Regards, Michael P. Reed |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
In message , "Keith Willshaw" wrote:
You are comparing Apples and Oranges The napoleon was a smoothbore and its production involved much less boring and turning than a rifle The true comparison is between an iron smoothbore and a napoleon. Wrought Iron or cast iron? The 3-inch Ordnance Rifle was far more expensive than the cast iron Parrot. The Columbiads though were coastal/siege artillery, and also not comparable to a field gun. A better comparison would be between the iron guns and the bronze James Rifles (pattern II?) (though I'm not certain if the latter were wrought or cast bronze). Unfortunately, info on the James (the manufactured as rifles version and not the old rifled 6 pounder smoothbores) is rather rare. -- Regards, Michael P. Reed |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
vincent Brannigan wrote in message ...
Keith Willshaw wrote: The napoleon was a smoothbore and its production involved much less boring and turning than a rifle The true comparison is between an iron smoothbore and a napoleon. The columbiads while admittedly larger than the napoleons were also smoothbores I agree that rifling adds to cost, but not that much. The cost of boring (drill the main center tube) and turnign (trunnions) is the same. Bronz if anything is cheaper to bore and turn than iron. Rifling costs nothing. It's knowing the pitch of the rifling that costs a fortune. Which is why smoothbores still do what they've always done on the battlefield. Which is die in numbers too large to fit in New York City, or Gettysburg. So we have are forced to open new cemetaries in Washington, D.C. Vince |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message ... I'm interested in any time period from ancient Egypt to maybe Napoleon. I'm just trying to get an order of magnitude informed guess. I found this fascinating link: http://www-atm.physics.ox.ac.uk/rowi...me/thesis.html For reference, Kagan gives one drachma as a good day's pay for a skilled Athenian craftsman, and there were 6000 drachmas in a silver talent. --Justin |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
In article , Charles Talleyrand
writes Can someone offer other examples, particularly from a different time period and/or a different sized ship? That would be most helpful. A quick dig through 'The History of Ships', Peter Kemp, ISBN 1-84013-504-2 gives: Prince Royal 1610, 114x43ft, 1330 tons, 55 guns: Overall building cost was 20,000 pounds of which 441 went on carving and 868 7s on painting/guilding Sovereign of the Seas 1637 (size not mentioned) Overall building cost 65,586 pounds 16s 9.5d (including guns) of which 6,691 pounds on carving & decoration. -- John |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
"Justin Broderick" wrote in message
ink.net... "Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message ... I'm interested in any time period from ancient Egypt to maybe Napoleon. I'm just trying to get an order of magnitude informed guess. I found this fascinating link: http://www-atm.physics.ox.ac.uk/rowi...me/thesis.html For reference, Kagan gives one drachma as a good day's pay for a skilled Athenian craftsman, and there were 6000 drachmas in a silver talent. Another very interesting reference: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sourc...d-germans.html I have to admit, I have no idea as to what the value of a marten's head was in 1229. For that matter, if you were paid in cloaks, exactly how many cloaks do you need? Do you fob them off to your relatives? Some of my favourite passages: "When summer guests come to the torrent, which is called Vorsch the ferrymen will take them immediately, without any delay, to the fishermen's inn, where, on arrival, each boat will pay to the ferrymen four loaves of bread, and a scutella of butter: if they do not want bread, two kunen will be given in place of each loaf, and three martens' heads for the butter. To each ferryman will be given eight martens' heads, and one pair of cloaks, or, in place of the cloaks, three martens' heads. The summer guests will observe the same law for paying thelony as is given above for winter guests. When a guest brings skiffs into Novgorod, if such skiffs meet ships in Nü, each skiff will receive its own price and a gammon of bacon, or five marks kunen for the gammon. If the skiff meet merchants in Lake Ladoga, or in the Volga, it will receive half the price, and half the bacon, or three marks kunen. If any skiff, piloted with other skiffs, does not arrive at the appointed time, it will lose its fee. If any skiff, piloted, but not laden, is wrecked or endangered in the descent, it likewise will lose its fee. When the merchants ascend by skiffs, and perchance some dispute arise between the merchants and the ferrymen, or if an open quarrel occur, and the strife be settled by agreement, the dispute should not be aired further." The whole article is delightful. Thelony of course is tolls. The same website comments on that in http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/805Chartoll.html , which is also interesting. All in all, I would have settled for several marten's heads, a cloak, and a gammon of bacon, plus a few marks kunen. AHS |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
your link gives this:
Athens supremacy at sea was founded upon her ability to utilise the trieres as an effective weapon. She capitalised upon her role in the battle at Salamis in 480 to win hegemony over some of her former allies. Thanks to the encouragement of Themistokles, Athens had channelled the proceeds of a windfall from the silver mines at Laurium into a fleet. They were designed by Themistokles himself "for speed and quick handling" (Plutarch Cimon 12.2). Her fleet of 200 triereis were built before the second Persian Invasion, for a naval war with Aegina, and enabled the Greeks to repel the invasion successfully. After the repulsion of the Persians the naval forces under Athenian command liberated the Greek cities of Asia Minor and the offshore Islands, part of Cyprus and even invaded Egypt (Morrison and Coates, 1986). but how long did it take to build the 200 ships, ie from getting the silver to Salamis 480? "Justin Broderick" wrote in message ink.net... "Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message ... I'm interested in any time period from ancient Egypt to maybe Napoleon. I'm just trying to get an order of magnitude informed guess. I found this fascinating link: http://www-atm.physics.ox.ac.uk/rowi...me/thesis.html For reference, Kagan gives one drachma as a good day's pay for a skilled Athenian craftsman, and there were 6000 drachmas in a silver talent. --Justin |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
A quick dig through 'The History of Ships', Peter Kemp, ISBN 1-84013-504-2 gives: Prince Royal 1610, 114x43ft, 1330 tons, 55 guns: Overall building cost was 20,000 pounds of which 441 went on carving and 868 7s on painting/guilding Sovereign of the Seas 1637 (size not mentioned) Overall building cost 65,586 pounds 16s 9.5d (including guns) of which 6,691 pounds on carving & decoration. -- John Note that both of these ships were large "prestige" vessels and _absurdly_ expensive for their firepower. The Sovereign (100 guns btw) especially so. Staale Sannerud |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
Will check refs tonight and come back to you with accurate figures!
The price diff is merely the material cost btw (copper was expensive you know), actually casting and working the bronze was simpler than working with iron. Staale "Vince Brannigan" wrote in message ... Staale Sannerud wrote: Including the price of the guns in the ship building price would make sense if the guns were cast especially for that ship, which sometimes did happen esp. with bronze guns. They were around 4x as expensive as iron ones by the way. do you have a cite for this 4x figure. vince |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
OK Vince, found a book with numbers in it, relevant to Danish naval service
in the late 1700s: First, I misremembered the cost of the guns relative to the cost of the hull. I stated that they were rougly equal, in fact the guns would cost around half of the hull. The overall expense was roughly: Hull 50%, artillery (guns and carriages) 25%, sails and rigging 25%. My bad! (Source: Linjeskibet Holsten 1772-1814, Ole L Franzen. Numbers taken from an administrative overview drawn up ca 1780 by the Danish Navy's chief constructor, Henrik Gerner) From the document by Gerner we find that the guns, carriages and full ammunition load of a 70-gun ship ca 1780 cost 35.740 riksdaler (an ordinary seaman's yearly wages at that time was 60 rdl, a vice-admiral's 2.388 rdl, just to set the numbers into some kind of context) out of a total "system cost" of 186.514 rdl for the ship as built and fitted out. The similar kit for an 80-gun ship cost a whopping 211.069 riksdaler out of a total cost of 390.152 rdl, or around six times as much as for the 70. There are 10 more guns on the 80 of course, and they are of caliber 36-18-12 pounds instead of 24-18-8 on the 70, but above all they are bronze guns on the 80 (prestige ship and all that, designed and built as a squadron or fleet flagship) and plain old iron on the 70. So the 4x figure does not seem to be too far off the mark. For a bronze-armed 90 the guns cost 212.107 rdl by the way, but again the calibers are rather smaller than on the 80, total weight of fire was a smidgeon smaller for the 90 in fact. Denmark-Norway made both bronze (in Denmark) and iron (in Norway) guns domestically, so the prices stated should not have been modified for "balance of payment" reasons. It should be stated though that the last complete set of naval bronze guns in the country were cast for the 90gun fleet flagship "Christian VII" ca 1765, so the 1780 numbers discussed in the last paragraph are probably estimated costs of how much it would take if one were to buy complete sets for the 80- and 90-gun ships at that date rather than actual invoice sums! While ships were still being fitted with bronze guns until after 1800 these were by then old guns that had been around the block a few times - two-ton lumps of metal did not wear out in a hurry after all! The most bizarre example I've come across refers to an 80-gun ship launched in 1790, in 1801 she was listed as carrying 12-pounder bronze guns cast around 1650(!) Another document referenced in "Linieskibet Holsten...", presumably written around 1770, states that the artillery etc for an 80 should cost 47.620 riksdaler - and it is explicitly stated that they are _not_ bronze guns - while arty for a 70-gun ship would cost 39.035 rdl and a 60-gun ship 31.011 rdl. Here the increase from one ship-class to the next is pretty much linear, keeping in mind that the bigger ships also carry heavier guns. (Danish Rigsarkivet archive number: "Orlogsverftet afl. 1945. Reg 154b, nr 92", for what it's worth) A final note on relative costs: Bronze guns were generally quite lavishly decorated with coats-of-arms, royal monograms and what have you, while iron guns were on the whole rather plain. This would add to the cost differential of course. Bronze is an alloy of something like 75% copper and 25% tin according to Google - does anybody know how much those raw metals cost relative to iron back in the 16-1700s? From what I can gather zinc has lately been ~3 times as expensive as iron, copper ~6 times as expensive? I'd expect that iron has grown relatively cheaper since the industrial revoltion - but what do I know... Regards, Staale Sannerud "Vince Brannigan" skrev i melding ... Staale Sannerud wrote: Including the price of the guns in the ship building price would make sense if the guns were cast especially for that ship, which sometimes did happen esp. with bronze guns. They were around 4x as expensive as iron ones by the way. do you have a cite for this 4x figure. vince |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote:
:Nah, I don't think that adds up. So construct your case for why it doesn't. :Finally, I would be suprised if the cost of a CVN with airwing was dominated by :the saleries of the crew. I've always assumed without evidence the cost was :more in parts and mainenence and fuel (for the planes). Multiply it out. Rough grab of 7,000 crew. Just paying them amounts to over 1/4 billion dollars per year. Now add in the cost manning for all of the shore establishment that helps with maintenance and such.... -- "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." -- Charles Pinckney |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
In article , Fred J. McCall
wrote: "Charles Talleyrand" wrote: :Nah, I don't think that adds up. So construct your case for why it doesn't. I doubt if Charles has any prospect of doing so. :Finally, I would be suprised if the cost of a CVN with airwing was dominated :by :the saleries of the crew. I've always assumed without evidence the cost was :more in parts and mainenence and fuel (for the planes). Multiply it out. Rough grab of 7,000 crew. Just paying them amounts to over 1/4 billion dollars per year. Now add in the cost manning for all of the shore establishment that helps with maintenance and such.... Yes, it all adds up. To put it in a more historical context, RN pay rate mid-18th century for an able seaman was 24 shillings a month (before deductions, but the govt didn't get any of the deductions). His victuals were valued [by NAM Rodger, source of the other figures, too, and good enough for me] at 25s a month; lunar months in each case. Hmm, that's GBP 31 16s 6d per annum. Ordinary seamen and landsmen were paid a little less, higher grades substantially more, but they all had to eat. So if we multiply the AB rate plus victuals by the ship's complement, we will not be far wrong as to the total. So a 64-gun 3rd rate, with 500 men, would have cost just under 16,000 GBP annually in food and wages alone. That's at least equivalent to 70,000 dollars[1] . _Constitution_ had fewer people but they were better paid and fed, so we're in the right ballpark. And that cost is before you've spent a penny on cordage, spars and sailcloth, never mind powder and shot. Or medical supplies. Not to mention Fred's shore establishments, which did not (and do not) come cheap. Comparing these figures with various construction costs other people have come up with, it would seem that annual running costs of around a third of construction costs, in the age of fighting sail, is not only plausible: it's probably well below par for the course. Warships have *always* been expensive to run. [1] Dollar exchange rates (and much other interesting currency stuff) may be found at the fascinating http://www.eh.net/hmit/ -- "The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun My .mac.com address is a spam sink. If you wish to email me, try alan dot lothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
Being an ex USN Sailor, I found this discussion semi interesting about 30
messages ago, but your lack of direct service experience is beginning to wear on the thread, IMHO. Is anyone involved in building a CVN? Will it be a "nuke"? I think I should point out the life expectancy of any CVN is approximately 15 minutes in an encounter with any submarine, including the oldest in commision. Maybe y'all should rethink your plans... Former FTB2 (SS) US Submarine Service "We go down for money" "Gregg Germain" wrote in message ... In rec.boats.building Fred J. McCall wrote: : "Charles Talleyrand" wrote: : :Nah, I don't think that adds up. : So construct your case for why it doesn't. : :Finally, I would be suprised if the cost of a CVN with airwing was dominated by : :the saleries of the crew. I've always assumed without evidence the cost was : :more in parts and mainenence and fuel (for the planes). : Multiply it out. Rough grab of 7,000 crew. Just paying them amounts : to over 1/4 billion dollars per year. Now add in the cost manning for : all of the shore establishment that helps with maintenance and : such.... yes and just paying them is not, I believe, the major cost these days. You have health care, various allowances, etc. And as you say all the suport personnel that are requried (service doctors, medicines, buildings, paperwork people, billeting people etc). Now it's true we take better care of our people than they did back then. But we have a much larger economy as well. --- Gregg "Improvise, adapt, overcome." Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Phone: (617) 496-1558 |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
In rec.boats.building Fred Williams wrote:
: Being an ex USN Sailor, I found this discussion semi interesting about 30 : messages ago, but your lack of direct service experience is beginning to : wear on the thread, IMHO. Just who exactly are you speaking to? If me, how did you arrive at the conclusion that I have no direct service experience? : Is anyone involved in building a CVN? Will it be a "nuke"? : I think I should point out the life expectancy of any CVN is approximately : 15 minutes in an encounter with any submarine, including the oldest in : commision. What has this to do with the discussion at hand? Is it possible you are replying to the wrong thread? : Maybe y'all should rethink your plans... Maybe y'all better regain consciousness and realize where you are. : Former FTB2 (SS) : US Submarine Service : "We go down for money" : "Gregg Germain" wrote in message : ... : In rec.boats.building Fred J. McCall wrote: : : "Charles Talleyrand" wrote: : : : :Nah, I don't think that adds up. : : : So construct your case for why it doesn't. : : : :Finally, I would be suprised if the cost of a CVN with airwing was : dominated by : : :the saleries of the crew. I've always assumed without evidence the : cost was : : :more in parts and mainenence and fuel (for the planes). : : : Multiply it out. Rough grab of 7,000 crew. Just paying them amounts : : to over 1/4 billion dollars per year. Now add in the cost manning for : : all of the shore establishment that helps with maintenance and : : such.... : : yes and just paying them is not, I believe, the major cost these : days. You have health care, various allowances, etc. And as you say : all the suport personnel that are requried (service doctors, : medicines, buildings, paperwork people, billeting people etc). : : Now it's true we take better care of our people than they did back : then. But we have a much larger economy as well. : : : --- Gregg : "Improvise, adapt, overcome." : : Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics : Phone: (617) 496-1558 : -- --- Gregg "Improvise, adapt, overcome." Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Phone: (617) 496-1558 |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
"Ståle Sannerud" wrote The overall expense was roughly: Hull 50%, artillery (guns and carriages) 25%, sails and rigging 25%. Something often commented on in the shot-and-sail genre of fiction (O'Brian, Forester, etc) is the cost of giving a man of war a pretty colour scheme, usually out of the officers' pocket. Apparently this was a smart career move, as scruffy ships didn't impress admirals. Does your source give any details on at what cost and intervals ships were painted with gold leaf, etc? snipped great post |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
"The Blue Max" skrev i melding
s.com... "Ståle Sannerud" wrote The overall expense was roughly: Hull 50%, artillery (guns and carriages) 25%, sails and rigging 25%. Something often commented on in the shot-and-sail genre of fiction (O'Brian, Forester, etc) is the cost of giving a man of war a pretty colour scheme, usually out of the officers' pocket. Apparently this was a smart career move, as scruffy ships didn't impress admirals. Does your source give any details on at what cost and intervals ships were painted with gold leaf, etc? snipped great post Not in the Danish source, no. However, I bought a book on shipmodeling from Editions Ancre around Christmas, this is Jean Boudriot's publishing house and a small booklet written by him discussing painting of French ships in the late 1700s was enclosed as a surprise bonus. The following data is from that source (more or less translated from the French text by yours truly, a language that I am not even remotely fluent in), copied from a posting I made to a Yahoo discussion group some time back, discussing the appropriate painting of ship models: " Prices as of 1780, "£" = 1 Louis d'or á 20 sols, 1 quintal = 100 livres á 489 gram. Crushed red ochre oil paint - £40/quintal Crushed yellow ochre oil paint - £40/quintal Gray oil paint - £40/quintal Crushed red and yellow ochre - £5/quintal Flanders-glue (spacle, I think) - 16s/livre Sinober red - £6/livre Lead white - £35/quintal Lead white oil paint - £43/quintal Preussian blue - £18/livre Regular enamel (for azure blue) - 20s/livre Green oil paint - 32s/livre Neaples yellow - 32s/livre Lamp blacking oil paint - 16s/livre Grey green and mountain green - 16s/livre Vermillion-red - £6 10s/livre Nut-oil - £40/quintal Linseed oil - £30/quintal Gold leaf in 3.5" square leaves - £2 5s per leaf For instance, preussian blue was 45 times more expensive than plain old yellow ochre - they'd use the one for the French royal coat of arms on the stern, the other for the ship's sides :) So while I would not doubt that even something as large as a figurehead could be very brilliantly painted indeed I'd tend to take exception to brilliant colours being used on the hull itself to any degree! (And looking at the price of gold leaf I can certainly see how they managed to blow 6000 pounds on decorating the Sovereign of the Seas...) " (I hope Outlook Express does not post this in rich-text format, my apologies in advance if it does...) It should be obvious that rich colours were for detail-work only, not something to paint a 180-foot long hull with. In the French navy at least, the powers that be simply dumped X tons of the cheapest colours on the captain, and more or less left him to do his worst with it. He was also given the minimum amount of preussian blue and gold leaf for the coat-of-arms only, as I recall from Boudriot's "the 74-gun ship". Anything more, he'd have to fork out the money for it himself I guess. I'd expect painting of ships to be a more or less continuous process (then as now, I guess...), given the quality of paints available at the time. Even the Atlantic liners, in the early 1900s, sometimes arrived in port after the Atlantic crossing sans large areas of paint at the bows, it having been stripped right off the hull during a single trip. Staale Sannerud |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message ... "Charles Talleyrand" wrote: :Nah, I don't think that adds up. So construct your case for why it doesn't. :Finally, I would be suprised if the cost of a CVN with airwing was dominated by :the saleries of the crew. I've always assumed without evidence the cost was :more in parts and mainenence and fuel (for the planes). Multiply it out. Rough grab of 7,000 crew. Just paying them amounts to over 1/4 billion dollars per year. Now add in the cost manning for all of the shore establishment that helps with maintenance and such.... But the historic situation was the direct salaries and food of only the sailors actually on the ship. There was no overhead for training establishments, port facilities, etc. It was just the actual crew on board the ship. So, 7000 crew time $70,000 per year is $470,000,000. That's assuming $45,000 for salary and $25,000 for benefits (which is the ratio for direct and indirect benefits where I work). Does the average sailor make $70,000 per year including benefits. I don't think so, but I don't know. Remember, there are alot more at the bottom rung than there are at the top. But what does it cost to run a carrier plus air wing per year? I don't know. What does the "shore establishment" cost? I don't know. When I said "I've always assumed without evidence" that meant I was just guessing and didn't really know the right numbers. |
Cost of an Ancient Warship (Summary)
Here's a summary of the data about old-time ship construction I've gathered.
Much thanks to the people who helped add to this collection. Can anyone add more? Unless stated otherwise, all prices are without weapons. For a normal man-o-war the weapons might be 25% of the hull price give or take alot. Sails might be the same amount. A Greek Trireme in the ~400BCs cost ABOUT 5,000 drachma and the equipment for it cost about 2,200 drachma. Each drachma is about a day's salary. http://www-atm.physics.ox.ac.uk/rowi...me/thesis.html A medium trader of 40 tons or more carring capacity must have cost about £100 when new in 1580. Prince Royal 1610, 114x43ft, 1330 tons, 55 guns: Overall building cost was 20,000 pounds of which 441 went on carving and 868 7s on painting/guilding Sovereign of the Seas 1637 of 169 foot on the gun deck and 1461 tons http://www.kotiposti.net/felipe/England/england.html Overall building cost 65,586 pounds 16s 9.5d (including guns) of which 6,691 pounds on carving & decoration. To build a 'bomb vessel' of about 100 feet in 1692 cost 2828 pounds which was about 120 man-years worth of salary for a skilled laboror, or 283 man-years for a common sailor. To build a "Third Rate" in 1692 would have cost about 22,000 pounds which is about 880 man-years salary (skilled) or 2,200 (common sailor) In 1750 the Infernal bomb ship had a crew of 80 men and was ship-rigged at 96 ft long and 385 tons and cost about 3500 pounds. http://home.wnclink.com/russell/thunder.htm which is the equivelent of 249,000 pounds in 2002. http://eh.net/hmit/ppowerbp/pound_re...action=compare The HMS Victory of 100 guns and 186 foot on the gun deck displacing 2126 tons cost 63,176 pounds. A Dainish 70 gunner in 1780 cost 187,000 reichsguilder or 3,000 man-years of for an ordinary sailor including guns and sails. A Danish 90-gunner in 1790 cost 212,700 reichsguilder or about 3,500 man-years for an ordinary sailor including sails and bronze guns. And the USS Constitution cost $302,718 in 1797 US dollars, although the Brits could build a 74 gun ship for less. It took something like 25,000 man-months to build a Constitution (or a British 74). The Constitution was way over budget, which was only $100,00. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s...nstitution.htm http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Al...43/supfrig.htm |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
I think the title of this list is "rec.boats.building."
I suspect you may not know were you are. If this thread has any relavance to building boats, then please carry on. If not, take it to private e-mail. You are boring the rest of us, with you endless prattle. Fred "Gregg Germain" wrote in message ... In rec.boats.building Fred Williams wrote: : Being an ex USN Sailor, I found this discussion semi interesting about 30 : messages ago, but your lack of direct service experience is beginning to : wear on the thread, IMHO. Just who exactly are you speaking to? If me, how did you arrive at the conclusion that I have no direct service experience? : Is anyone involved in building a CVN? Will it be a "nuke"? : I think I should point out the life expectancy of any CVN is approximately : 15 minutes in an encounter with any submarine, including the oldest in : commision. What has this to do with the discussion at hand? Is it possible you are replying to the wrong thread? : Maybe y'all should rethink your plans... Maybe y'all better regain consciousness and realize where you are. : Former FTB2 (SS) : US Submarine Service : "We go down for money" : "Gregg Germain" wrote in message : ... : In rec.boats.building Fred J. McCall wrote: : : "Charles Talleyrand" wrote: : : : :Nah, I don't think that adds up. : : : So construct your case for why it doesn't. : : : :Finally, I would be suprised if the cost of a CVN with airwing was : dominated by : : :the saleries of the crew. I've always assumed without evidence the : cost was : : :more in parts and mainenence and fuel (for the planes). : : : Multiply it out. Rough grab of 7,000 crew. Just paying them amounts : : to over 1/4 billion dollars per year. Now add in the cost manning for : : all of the shore establishment that helps with maintenance and : : such.... : : yes and just paying them is not, I believe, the major cost these : days. You have health care, various allowances, etc. And as you say : all the suport personnel that are requried (service doctors, : medicines, buildings, paperwork people, billeting people etc). : : Now it's true we take better care of our people than they did back : then. But we have a much larger economy as well. : : : --- Gregg : "Improvise, adapt, overcome." : : Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics : Phone: (617) 496-1558 : -- --- Gregg "Improvise, adapt, overcome." Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Phone: (617) 496-1558 |
Cost of an Ancient Warship
In message , Fred J. McCall
writes "Charles Talleyrand" wrote: :Finally, I would be suprised if the cost of a CVN with airwing :was dominated by :the saleries of the crew. Single biggest cost over the carrier's life. : I've always assumed without evidence the cost was :more in parts and mainenence and fuel (for the planes). Multiply it out. Rough grab of 7,000 crew. Just paying them amounts to over 1/4 billion dollars per year. Now add in the cost manning for all of the shore establishment that helps with maintenance and such.... To add some hard numbers I turned up a while ago... Predicted lifecycle costs for the REAGAN are that over a fifty-year service life she'll cost $21,300 million dollars (at constant 1998 value). This cost relates only to the ship, not to her embarked air wing. Of that, her initial procurement price is only $4,300 million, or 20% of the lifecycle cost. Crewing and maintenance through her life account for over two-thirds of the total cost of ownership ($9.3bn): routine maintenance clocks at $5.2bn, SLEP for $2bn and disposal for half a billion. The airwing won't be cheap, but you see the costs you're up against. (You also see why crew-reduction is getting popular) -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:43 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com