Pre ww1 naval question

Does anyone have a source that quotes operating costs for predreadnoughts and dreadnought in the pre ww1 era.

I was thinking of an atl where Britain scraps 20 predreadnoughts (overtime) but pays for a significant amount of extra construction. I was wondering how many extra ships it would pay for. I know the capital costs but I can't find any sources on the operating costs savings.

If 20 doesn't work out I want to look at scrapping the predreads that were historically scrapped for monitor guns in 1915 in 19 stages between 1910 and 1914.
 
Let's say for simplicity sake you replace two majestic with a dreadnought, in reality you would be replaying a Royal Soverign who historically were scrapped before ww1 with a majestic being scrapped when the royal sovereign was scrapped.

For simplicity 1906 a second dreadnought is ordered. 2 Majestics are scrapped. You save about 400 crew which is actually roughly about £20,000-25,000 per annum in salaries.

Not actually a huge saving in salaries. I expect maintenance and minor refilts and gunnery practice would have a cost as well.

There's a cost in excess of £300 in 1914 for a 12 inch naval shell but I would imagine that a dreadnought would fire as many 12 inch shells in practice as two predreads so the cost of the secondary 6 inch guns on the predreads would be more relevant.

I've a source a monthly gunnery practice session on a king Edward the 8 predreadnought in 1910 and she fired 31 salvos.

If we assume that a six inch shell costs 1/4 of a 12 inch shell at £75 pound monthly gunnery practice for the six inch guns would be £28,000 or £335,000 per year.

With two ships being scrapped and 6 inch gunnery and salaries alone in excess of £810,000 a year you would pay the capital costs for half a dreadnought each year in the savings.

Something has to be wrong with my source on gunnery practice. Maybe it was an unusually full month of gunnery.
 
As a general rule the British spent about 10% of the cost of building a ship on keeping it afloat for a year. that would include everything including from the crew, the dockworkers, coal and maintenance Scrapping a predreadnought would save about 100,000 pounds

There's a cost in excess of £300 in 1914 for a 12 inch naval shell but I would imagine that a dreadnought would fire as many 12 inch shells in practice as two predreads so the cost of the secondary 6 inch guns on the predreads would be more relevant.

I've a source a monthly gunnery practice session on a king Edward the 8 predreadnought in 1910 and she fired 31 salvos.

If we assume that a six inch shell costs 1/4 of a 12 inch shell at £75 pound monthly gunnery practice for the six inch guns would be £28,000 or £335,000 per year.

With two ships being scrapped and 6 inch gunnery and salaries alone in excess of £810,000 a year you would pay the capital costs for half a dreadnought each year in the savings.

Something has to be wrong with my source on gunnery practice. Maybe it was an unusually full month of gunnery.

On gunnery practice the ships would fire a training round or basically a dead round with no explosive or fuse. Many would also be fired at shore where they could be recovered. Never priced British shells but the Russians only spent 300 rubles for a 12 inch shell in 1900. 1914 shells are much better but that should give a guess on the cost of a training round. Russian army 6-inch shrapnel shells only cost 25 rubles . On the other hand, you don't include the cost of the powder. One pound= 9.1 rubles, so I think we could slash your estimate of gunnery costs by about 90%
 
As a general rule the British spent about 10% of the cost of building a ship on keeping it afloat for a year. that would include everything including from the crew, the dockworkers, coal and maintenance Scrapping a predreadnought would save about 100,000 pounds
Gunnery is probably included in that 10% rule. Given the higher cost that the dreadnoughts have over the early predreads scrapping 2 predreads for every extra dreadnought is not an idea that balances the books even over 10 years.

Scrapping 3 for every extra dreadnought probably reduces hull numbers by too much.
 
I was thinking of an atl where Britain scraps 20 predreadnoughts (overtime) but pays for a significant amount of extra construction.

You might find it profitable to look at British shipyard capacity to see if it is possible for them to build a lo more new stuff. You might find that the warship yards were pumping out new capital ships at close to peacetime capacity. IIRC there was a thread where someone spelled out how many yards that could build each class of warship.
 
You might find it profitable to look at British shipyard capacity to see if it is possible for them to build a lo more new stuff. You might find that the warship yards were pumping out new capital ships at close to peacetime capacity. IIRC there was a thread where someone spelled out how many yards that could build each class of warship.
1909/1910 naval program ie the time of we want eight and we cannot wait built to capacity.

Most other years have the possibility of squeezing in an extra capital ship or two. No more than two a year and in some years only one but there winsome capacity. Of course there are also years when if you add one capital ship to the program the next year's program would have to do without an extra.

I would appreciate reading that thread you reference if you can remember the name of it.
 

SsgtC

Banned
I know the USN sold 2 pre-dreadnoughts to Greece and used the money to buy a super-dreadnought.

The US could also build Battleships cheaper than just about any country on earth at that time due to something like 70% of world-wide steel production being in the United States.
 
operating costs for predreadnoughts

As a general rule the British spent about 10% of the cost of building a ship on keeping it afloat for a year. that would include everything including from the crew, the dockworkers, coal and maintenance Scrapping a predreadnought would save about 100,000 pounds
My question would be, how active are the ships you could afford to scrap? I think the cost of upkeep varied a lot from the new first line ships with full crews and training to the 3rd class reserve etc tied up with little done to them to cost anything? So you might not save much more than the sale/scrap costs?
 
My question would be, how active are the ships you could afford to scrap? I think the cost of upkeep varied a lot from the new first line ships with full crews and training to the 3rd class reserve etc tied up with little done to them to cost anything? So you might not save much more than the sale/scrap costs?

My research indicates that the Royal Navy ships at the time had three states for ships.

1 fully operating
2 nucleus status (60% crew and cost)
3 reserve (tied up in port 25% crew and cost)

If I'm looking at scrapping 2 ships in the reserve I would be moving two newer ships from nucleus standing to the reserve and two others from active status to nucleus status. We wouldn't be looking at taking two ships from the reserve out for scrapping and having an extra ship fully active.

The US could also build Battleships cheaper than just about any country on earth at that time due to something like 70% of world-wide steel production being in the United States.

Are you sure about this, I was under the impression that the British had better economies of scale in gun pit production.

Unfortunately American sources for battleship costs in this era tend to be annoying as congress often approved the payment for a battleship and the payment for armaments in separate acts.
 
Last edited:

SsgtC

Banned
Are you sure about this, I was under the impression that the British had better economies of scale in gun pit production.

Unfortunately American sources for battleship costs in this era tend to be annoying as congress often approved the payment for a battleship and the payment for armaments in separate acts.

From what I've read, yes. The US could produce steel far cheaper than anyone else at the time. One thing that gets overlooked, is what US battleships are made of. They're hull and decks are made from Special Treatment Steel. This is armor grade steel. And they paid the same for this material as other nations did for standard structural steel
 
And they paid the same for this material as other nations did for standard structural steel
Really they paid the same or they just didn't really care about cost compared to say the RN or IJN as the problem was that US was very rich but congress would only authorise limited ships so you might as well gold plate them if you are not going to be able to realistically buy more cheaper ships or the same number but massively larger and over treaty weight?
I don't have the numbers but USN BBs are much more expensive than RN ships and I doubt its all just the better paid shipyard workers?
 
From what I've read, yes. The US could produce steel far cheaper than anyone else at the time. One thing that gets overlooked, is what US battleships are made of. They're hull and decks are made from Special Treatment Steel. This is armor grade steel. And they paid the same for this material as other nations did for standard structural steel
HMS Iron Duke cost 1.9 million sterling or 7.7 million us dollars

USS New York cost 6million us dollars + armaments which was approved separately..

I will try and find either the cost of armaments on the iron duke or the cost of armaments on the new York in order to make them comparable.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Really they paid the same or they just didn't really care about cost compared to say the RN or IJN as the problem was that US was very rich but congress would only authorise limited ships so you might as well gold plate them if you are not going to be able to realistically buy more cheaper ships or the same number but massively larger and over treaty weight?
I don't have the numbers but USN BBs are much more expensive than RN ships and I doubt its all just the better paid shipyard workers?

I'm guessing a little of both.
 
HMS Iron Duke cost 1.9 million sterling or 7.7 million us dollars

USS New York cost 6million us dollars + armaments which was approved separately..

I will try and find either the cost of armaments on the iron duke or the cost of armaments on the new York in order to make them comparable.
Should we not look at KVG v NC&SD as I don't think USS New York was built from STS was it as it was mainly used post WNT?
 
Should we not look at KVG v NC&SD as I don't think USS New York was built from STS was it as it was mainly used post WNT?
Well the US building battleships cheaper was stated in relation to pre ww1 conditions. So I picked the first 'super dreadnought' built by each country.
 
Top