--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 4/22/16, xxxxxx@gmail.com <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [TML] Off-topic but incredible!
 To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com
 Date: Friday, April 22, 2016, 7:57 AM

 On 21 Apr 2016 at 21:44,
 Joseph Paul wrote:

 > I
 would love to see some concrete cites on costs of converting
 base
 > models to changed use
 requirements. What exactly does a change of
 > requirement mean to you? it didn't
 seem to cost too much to convert a
 > C-47
 into Puff the Magic Dragon. The Israeli's seemed to have
 done
 > quite well with modding the M-4
 Sherman to be able to compete against
 >
 T-54/55 models. We have done some extensive modifications of
 armored
 > vehicles  - the Churchill
 being made into the AVRE (or any other MBT
 > being the base for a combat engineering
 and recovery vehicle), the M4
 > chassis
 being used for tank destroyers, up-gunned, made into
 troop
 > carriers,  mounting MRLs,
 Hobarts funnies, etc. Better engines (or
 > just changing from gas to diesel to cut
 down on flammability!), more
 > armor -
 sometimes as field expedient add-ons. Is the TUSK add-on
 for
 > M1 tanks a change of requirement?
 How about the Soviet adoption of
 >
 reactive armor? These are all examples of states not
 deciding to
 > create a new vehicle to
 fulfill a role (which they could do) but to
 > modify an existing vehicle for that role
 or to meet changing
 > battlefield
 conditions.  These sort of things have certainly been
 > done by states that had other armaments
 available to them but could
 > not afford
 them so your assertion that, because of cost, "This
 option
 > is the least viable and usually
 the last option taken when nothing
 > else
 is available." seems odd to me.

 Note also the practice of modifying and
 rebuilding warships. Some of the changes were
 quite radical, such as taking old ships of the
 line, cutting off the upper deck, and
 re-rating them as an even lower rate and using
 them as frigates (yes, frigates were
 often
 actual, rated, ships of the line - just not ones you wanted
 in a fight with 1st to 3rd
 rates).

 Then there were the ships
 converted to aircraft carriers after WWI. And those
 converted from gun armaments to missiles after
 WWII.

 And while the
 rebuilds of battleships between WWI & WWII were due to
 treaties, it
 was still a much cheaper
 process than building all new ships. Refits of warships
 with
 better radars and AA systems was normal
 throughout WWII. So was refitting
 destroyers
 with better ASW systems. Hell, upgrading ships and aircrafts
 with new
 electronics is big business these
 days - it's hella expensive, but still cheaper than
 buying a whole new plane or ship.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of the BB's attacked at Pearl Harbor, except the AZ & OK, were eventually completely rebuilt & put back into action.
(Note: AZ blew up so was reconstruction was jot an option while the OK rolled over, making reconstruction difficult. However the OK *was* in the process of reconstruction when the war ended & just might have gotten back into action if Japan had held out into 1946, as most expected)
The makeovers varied but some ships wound up strikingly different.
I addition to cost, speed was also a factor. Rebuilding/reconstructing was a lot faster than building a new ship.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------