feasibility of keeping WW I battleships around for WW II.

[Shortround6]

To keep from derailing a few other threads I am opening up this thread to discuss possible retention of WW I battleships for duties in WW II.

Extensive rebuilds were costly and the Japanese and Italians lied ( or were rather disingenuous) as to the actual increase in displacement which was supposed to be 3,000 tons by treaty.

Because new machinery was hundreds if not thousands of tons lighter than old machinery it offered a considerable area of "fog" when hiding weight added other places. That and the treaty might not have counted machinery weights? only armor and armament?

In any case a small chart from Nelson to Vanguard by D.K. Brown says

Machinery weights

Ship....................................................................lbs/SHP
Queen Elizabeth, as built............................86.1
Hood, Small tube boilers............................65.9
Queen Elizabeth, modernized..................43.9
King George V................................................37.3

Please note that cruiser machinery was lighter and destroyer machinery was even lighter. But since there were more of those ships a higher number of breakdowns (or more maintenance)could be tolerated.

Please note that reliability and/or expectations of the same varied greatly from Navy to Navy and actual comparisons are difficult.



The Tiger , it required 85,000hp for it's design speed of 28kts. I don't know how far off they were but 91,103hp was required to make 28.38knots on trials in 1914. 104,635hp only got the Tiger to 29.07kts.
The Queen Elizabeths were just about the same beam and draft but about 58ft shorter, on trials they could make nearly 24kts on 71-76,000hp.
The Iron Dukes were about 23ft shorter and were good for abou 21kts on 29-30,000hp. A longer hull has less wave making resistance (the reason for that long skinny bow on the New Jerseys and the Italians and Japanese lengthening some of their hulls).

 

[Reluctant Poster]

To keep from derailing a few other threads I am opening up this thread to discuss possible retention of WW I battleships for duties in WW II.

Extensive rebuilds were costly and the Japanese and Italians lied ( or were rather disingenuous) as to the actual increase in displacement which was supposed to be 3,000 tons by treaty.

Because new machinery was hundreds if not thousands of tons lighter than old machinery it offered a considerable area of "fog" when hiding weight added other places. That and the treaty might not have counted machinery weights? only armor and armament?

In any case a small chart from Nelson to Vanguard by D.K. Brown says

Machinery weights

Ship....................................................................lbs/SHP
Queen Elizabeth, as built............................86.1
Hood, Small tube boilers............................65.9
Queen Elizabeth, modernized..................43.9
King George V................................................37.3

Please note that cruiser machinery was lighter and destroyer machinery was even lighter. But since there were more of those ships a higher number of breakdowns (or more maintenance)could be tolerated.

Please note that reliability and/or expectations of the same varied greatly from Navy to Navy and actual comparisons are difficult.



The Tiger , it required 85,000hp for it's design speed of 28kts. I don't know how far off they were but 91,103hp was required to make 28.38knots on trials in 1914. 104,635hp only got the Tiger to 29.07kts.
The Queen Elizabeths were just about the same beam and draft but about 58ft shorter, on trials they could make nearly 24kts on 71-76,000hp.
The Iron Dukes were about 23ft shorter and were good for abou 21kts on 29-30,000hp. A longer hull has less wave making resistance (the reason for that long skinny bow on the New Jerseys and the Italians and Japanese lengthening some of their hulls).

The Tiger might have been upgraded in a similar manner to her near sisters in the Kongo class and provide some useful service. The Iron Dukes were too small and slow to justify upgrades, note the the much newer R class was retained in service but not upgraded. Even though the Queen Elizabeth's were older than the Rs 3 of them were upgraded, Also the 13.5" guns on the Iron Dukes were not nearly as capable a weapon as the 15" guns on the Queen Elizabeth's and Rs.

 

[Shortround6]

There are a host of small problems with keeping old ships in service.
The older ships used mixed firing, some coal boilers and some oil, exact proportions varied with class. Replacing boilers on battleships means tearing out the superstructure and decks down to the top of the boiler rooms. Changing the turbines was probably a good idea even though expensive and required tearing the superstructure and decks above the turbine rooms out.
Habitability was poor on the older ships and would only get worse with larger crews unless some way of cutting the crews was found (less engine room staff, cut the 6 in guns and so on)
the older ships didn't have the electrical generation capacity of newer ships or the redundancy, often an important part of damage control. Later ships got large and more numerous pumps. Domestic use of electricity (lighting and fans) went up in addition to the radios/radar and the greater fitting of light weapons requiring electric power (in some cases an electric motor powering a hydraulic pump for elevation and traverse. British 2pdr octuple mount used an 11 hp electric motor for example).

Some of the firing arcs of the main guns on the older ships was an illusion. The British ships for example were often built for a battleline engagement with ships sailing bow to stern and firing to the broadside. Blast damage at limits of train was often severe and the 13.5in turrets had a flaw in where the sights were located. the superfiring turrets could not be fired over the lower turrets through a 30 degree arc over the bow and stern (or 30 degrees to one side of the bow/stern?) without concussing the gun aimers in the lower turret. A major flaw in single or small numbers engagements in bow and stern chases. Yes it could be fixed.
short range of the main armament of the older ships could be fixed by changing the elevation, this was not as easy at sounds as the area behind and below the breeches had to be lowered to allow for the elevation and the recoil movement at high elevation. Japanese may have gone overboard in modifying some of their ships to 43 degrees of elevation.

On some of the older ships the coal bunkers were actually part of the protection. Shell getting through the outer armor had to travel through a number of feet of coal before penetrating the inner armor or bulkhead. Just changing the boilers and going to oil fuel doesn't solve the protection problem (at least one ship kept coal in the coal bunkers after changing to oil fuel simply for the protection).

Given enough money and time none of these problems are unsolvable. Different nations (French and Italians instance) adopted different solutions due to national ambitions and finances.
French spent very little on modernizing old battleships during the 20s as they were recovering from WW I and their ships were among the oldest designs, prewar and early war French building times were longer than British and German build times meaning their ships were often obsolescent or borderline when completed. Even the Bearn was completed with reciprocating steam engines for cruising because early turbines were very uneconomical at cruising speeds. Other nations had solved that problem in other ways. But the french may have concluded that building new ships was a better bargain that rebuilding old ones.

 

[GrauGeist]

There were quite a few WWI era battleships that saw action in WWII.
The U.S. had the Nevada (BB-37) which was commissioned 11 March 1916 (her sister ship in the class, Oklahoma (BB-37) was sunk 7 December 1941 and lost during salvage operations in 1944).
The Pennsylvania (BB-38) commissioned 12 June 1916 (her sister ship Arizona (BB-39) was lost 7 December).
The New Mexico (BB-40), Mississippi (BB-41) and Idaho (BB-42) all served during WWII, the three bwing commissioned between 1917 and 1919.
Then there were the New York (BB-34) and Texas (BB-35), both commissioned in 1914.
Older still, the Wyoming (BB-32) and Arkansas (BB-33) were both commissioned in 1912.
The Japanese had the Kongo class, Karachi class and Fuso class - all from the WWI era...so it wasn't all that unusual to have old battlwagons kept in service and up-fitted to remain modern.

 

[Shortround6]

It was not uncommon but it was limited by treaties and economics.
Without the treaties there may have been more scrapping of old ships and more construction of newer ships. The treaties not only limited total tonnage but they placed limits on the age of ships or minimum limits on how soon certain ships could be replaced. The provision/s in the treaties that allow "improvements" is part of what fuelled the major rebuild programs.

As to age of ships, the USS Arizona was not ordered until four of the Queen Elizabeth's had been laid down. In some of these navies the building programs were such that they were on the 3rd or 4th design or modification before the 1st went to sea which meant that quite a few ships were completed with some rather dubious features or were modified while building.
The Arizona was ordered in March of 1913, laid down in March of 1914 launched June of 1915 and commissioned Oct of 1916. about 5 months after Jutland.

The US needed some other older ships to make up numbers/tonnage allowed by treaty while other navies were faced with scrapping ships of the same age or newer.

Some of the American ships had seen less service (time at sea) than British ships of the same age. Not all machinery aged at the same rate. I don't know when the US started using chemical additives to the feed water to prevent corrosion and scaling but the British resisted such advances for quite a number of years. (engineering officer who tried it in the carrier Victorious in the Pacific was threatened with court martial).

The British, French and to some extent the Italians could not afford the new construction they had planned or were sitting on the ways. The Japanese would have been hard pressed to complete their 8-8 program. The US had no need to build it's planned battleships/battlecruisers if the Japanese and British backed off.

 

[WARSPITER]

Although the Queen Elizabeth class was of WWI vintage they lent themselves to modernisation due to being more advanced than contemporaries.

The point raised about mixed coal/oil burning is very valid as a case in point. The Elizabeths were full oil burners so upgrades in the mid 30's to the propulsion systems
lightened them enough to be able to add more armour. 6" gun numbers were lowered to allow more AA and electronics while keeping the weight / balance good.

Of these Warspites upgrade cost over two million pounds after the initial build cost in WWI of two and a half million giving nearly five all up. Compared to the King
George V class of 1940 of over seven million it looks reasonable. After inflation from 1915 to 1940 the cost of the KGV ships is only .3 million more.

The difference is also stark in that the KGV's were built to specifically house the latest electronics / AA and were a step up in range (15600 nautical miles at 10 knots
vs 5000 nautical miles at 12 ) as well as speed (28.3 knots vs 24). The armour was well thought out and when introduced the KGV's were only beaten for protection
by the Yamato class.

Britain had gone for armour and torpedo protection as a design priority. Many of the earlier British ships could not be upgraded as the Queen Elizabeth class could
be without incurring an overall cost greater than that of a brand new KGV ship.

When it comes down to useful ships, what Britain really needed from 1940 on was not more or better Battleships or too many more aircraft carriers. The ship needed
was the ASW capable destroyer. There were not enough of these and they would be pushed in the longest sea campaign / campaign of the war - The Battle of the
Atlantic.

 

[Shortround6]

I'm sure that after the Japanese seizure of Manchuria and Japan walking out of the League of Nations then it was clear to all that war with Japan was inevitable. My idea does two things. It provides upgrades for 4 battleships and 1 battle cruiser built in 1914 by 1937 so providing a deterrent against Japan in China, and 3 new deck edge lift Ark Royal carriers by 1940/41 for the Indian Ocean and for 2 more in 1942 for use in the Pacific. Surely that is not only a sufficient deterrent but eminently plausible.

Japan doesn't walk out of the league of Nations until 1933, well after all these ships (except the Iron Duke) have been turned into razor blades and Austen 7 fenders.

The Iron Dukes were not built in 1914, they commissioned in 1914, they were laid down in 1912 to a design that mostly complete in 1911. First two ships laid down in Jan of 1912.
This may seem to be a bit picky but the Iron Dukes were laying down 5 years and 3 months after the HMS Dreadnought started sea trials and 2 1/2 years before WW I started.
There was considerable development going on at this time in marine propulsion. There was also rapid development in guns, projectiles and mounts and the beginnings of central fire control. in just under two years the Revenge class was being laid down with the QEs in between. And the "R"s were supposed to be a slightly smaller, cheaper QE.

The Japanese tried a lot of things to get around the treaties even while paying lip service to them.

The Kongos were rebuilt twice. they originally had "65,000 shaft horsepower (48,000 kW), using steam provided by 36 Yarrow or Kampon water-tube boilers, with working pressures ranging from 17.1 to 19.2 atm (1,733 to 1,945 kPa; 251 to 282 psi).[10] The boilers, arranged in eight compartments, were mixed-firing with fuel oil sprayed onto the coal for extra power. The ships had a stowage capacity of 4,200 long tons (4,300 t) of coal and 1,000 long tons (1,000 t) of oil, giving them a range of 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km; 9,200 mi) at a speed of 14 knots (26 km/h; 16 mph).[11] The battlecruisers were designed to reach a speed of 27.5 knots (50.9 km/h; 31.6 mph) and all of them exceeded that speed on their sea trials. "

during the 20s the Japanese reboilered them with "10, 11 (Hiei) or 16 (Haruna) Kampon boilers, and their fuel stowage was rearranged to accommodate 2,661 long tons (2,704 t) of coal and 3,292 long tons (3,345 t) of oil. This increased their range to 8,930 nautical miles (16,540 km; 10,280 mi) at 14 knots and allowed the fore funnel to be removed, which greatly decreased smoke interference with the bridge and fire-control systems. Coupled with the addition of external torpedo bulges, this reduced their speed to 26 knots (48 km/h; 30 mph) and caused the IJN to reclassify them as battleships."

and then in the 30s they went to " eleven oil-fired Kampon boilers.[15] These upgraded boilers gave the Kongō and her sister ships much greater power, with the ships of the class capable of speeds exceeding 30.5 knots (56.5 km/h; 35.1 mph). " they may have gotten new turbines at this time?

The Fuso was rebuilt twice and her sister the Yamashiro was rebuilt once. these rebuilds included new boilers and turbines and almost doubled the installed power despite removing the forward boiler room, the 6 new boilers providing steam for 75,000hp vs teh 24 old boilers making 40,000hp. speed increased by a knot and half despite the increase in displacement and range went up about 50%. the improvements to the Ise class were roughly similar.

The Iron Dukes, without a large increase in speed could not catch the Japanese 12 gun ships let alone (or never) the Kongo class. The Japanese had provided their ships with greatly increased main gun elevation, perhaps more than needed, but even at 20 degrees elevation they out ranged the Iron Dukes by 3-4,000 yds.

The Japanese might not have been deterred by the moderately rebuilt Iron Dukes. Since the British never really modernised the "R" class one wonders if there was enough money or dock yard capacity to upgrade even older ships.

We are also back to timing and possible modifications to the treaty. Ships modernized in the 20s may not have the extent of improvements that ships modernized it the 30s got (again, marine propulsion was constantly evolving.

as to the treaty, is it modified to allow the British to keep an extra 100-110,000tons of battleships?
Do the British get to keep the Iron Dukes but have to give up the Nelson and Rodney (and perhaps the Renown or Repulse?)

Do the US get to keep some of their older ships ( and perhaps the Washington BB-47)?

Do the Japanese get an extra 60-70,000tons?
an extra two Nagatos or some sort of Nagato-Tosa hybrid?

The chances of the British keeping 4 battleships and a Battlecruiser and the other nations not getting something extra are pretty slim.

 

[swampyankee]

WW1 battleships were kept around for WW2, so it was certainly feasible

Just about everybody's armed forces were under severe financial pressure in the 1920s and 1930s, for different reasons: isolationism and calls for reduced government spending* (US), external war debts (UK, France, and Italy), infrastructure damage (France), civil war (USSR cum Russia), and anti-militarism (France, UK: in both because the war as reported by the combat survivors was totally mismanaged by incompetent, callous, ill-informed, dimwitted generals who would ignore any data disagreeing with their personal opinions. While pacifism was certainly present in both countries pre-war, having 10 to 25 percent of a nation's military age men killed or maimed would seem to strengthen one's belief in the futility of war).

Limiting this to "why weren't RN battleships kept around for WW2," well, they were: the Rs and Queen Elizabeth class ships were WW1 ships. So was the unfortunate HMS Hood. The older ships had been hard-used and were seen as both superfluous and incompatible with the demands of modern warfare, even without aircraft, such as limited gun range, mediocre protection against long-range gunfire, poor underwater protection, and deficiencies in ammunition storage. While there are some cases where having more capital ships would be useful -- having one of the RN's Lion-class battle cruisers or HMS Tiger meet up with Graf Spee likely wouldn't permit that ship's captain the option of scuttling -- the British taxpayer** would have to support several thousand more sailors (each ship had a crew of about 1500, plus some number of additional personnel in shore support roles, plus additional support ships, plus all the stores needed to support the ships' armament and machinery) and a very expensive modernization on each ship.



----

* The GOP of the 1920s was not pro-military; they largely viewed the military as just another government program.

** While there do seem to be some people who believe that the defense budget comes out of some magical pot of leprechaun gold, it doesn't. In the case of the UK (and France and ...), since a great deal of that defense budget seemed to exist solely to keep the natives from governing themselves, one wonders how a day laborer would react to his taxes going up so the viceroy of India needn't worry about losing his palace.

 

[Shortround6]

There is no question that there were WW I ships kept around till and during WW II.

For this discussion it is how many, with what modifications and to what effect.
Just as importantly, as Swampyankee notes, was what was the cost?
the older ships were not very cost effective. The rate of progress was phenomenal from 1905 to 1918. Just a few years could see a capital ship go from first rate to 2nd class. Even before WW I there were two classes, Dreadnoughts (usually 12 in guns or under) and Super Dreadnoughts ( over 12 in guns) and by the end of WW I the 13.5/14in gun ships were being demoted to 2nd class if not 3rd. Britain had introduced the 15in gun early but the US and Japan had leapfrogged to the 16in gun. with the British and Japanese talking about 18in guns. (actual Hardware in England)

The Italians and Japanese did the most extensive renovations (British did not extend or modify hulls) , in part due to treaty limits, they were trying to make the most effective ships possible under the rules of the treaty rather than send WW I ships unmodified into battle. Both countries could expect to face superior numbers and quality was their only hope.

With the "R"s going unmodified (basically, a small change in AA guns notwithstanding) and not all the QEs getting a really extensive modernization the idea that there was a lot of money available or dockyard capacity to substantially change the combat capabilities of the Iron Dukes and Tiger in the late 20s or early/mid 30s to where they would not just be targets for the Japanese needs a lot disregard for the actual situation of the times.

A Rebuilt "R" might be close to the capabilities of a QE and be a better bargain than rebuilt Iron Duke.

As an example of how fast things were changing another table from D.K. Brown


Ship.....................................year.....................SHP.................Wt(lbs/shp)..................space(sq.ft./shp)..................fuel(lbs/shp/hr)

Dreadnought.................1905...................23,000..................184.......................................0.45........................................1.522
Lion....................................1909..................70,000...................154......................................0.25.........................................1.67
Repulse.............................1914................112,000..................113......................................0.166.......................................1.28
Hood.................................1916.................144,000....................84......................................0.136.......................................1.11

Not all WW I battleships (or even pre WW I) were equal in propulsion technology let alone armament or fire control. Fire control was subject to constant revision, even after the main armament got director control as new/er directors, new and larger rangefinders, new plotting tables and computers (mechanical) and other aids were fitted. Later directors incorporated a gyro system to automatically fire the guns as the ship went through 0 degrees in the roll rather than depend on the director operators judgement.

Modern ships (and some refitted ones) had the fire control center located below the armored deck with the range finders/gun sights (and later radar ) feeding information down to it and the information (bearing and range/elevation) going back out to the guns rather than going from a director mounted high up and then going to the guns.

 

[WARSPITER]

The Carrier was the other problem as not a lot was known re capabilities / impact. The only info gained was from inter war games against the USN. In these it was found
that he who strikes first wins. The US went for more carrier fighter protection which was sensible given the distances involved in the Pacific which made the biggest
threat aircraft from opposition carriers.

Ark Royal was designed and built as a counter to the rise of Japan. It was more along the lines of the US type.

Fairly soon after things changed as Germany and Italy became a real threat. For this a different type of carrier was required - enclosed flight decks to cater for operations
anywhere from the Med through to the Arctic and North Seas. The armoured deck came into being as well due to the high likelihood of attacks from land based aircraft.
This also became a quandary for Britain. Build X number of the Ark type for Indo - Pacific operations and X number for home based or concentrate on home based.
Home based won out and events proved this to be the correct way to go.

As has been noted, the resources and time to perform difficult upgrades on WWI battleships / Dreadnoughts as opposed to building the more modern KGV class
would have taken away from carrier program which in the end was more important to Britain (operations in the Mediterranean bear this out).

 

[The Basket]

One point is that in WW2, a R class or QE class was a match for any other European battleship and apart from the Yamatos, in the world.

Rodney maybe slow but no enemy battleship would want to tangle with it.

The UK had problems with naval warfare in that we had a world empire which needed ships to defend. Whereas Italian navy was a Mediterranean navy so didn't have issues with numbers or range.

So Royal Navy had a number of battleships which could neither chase or run away from the latest German or Italian or Japanese battleships so was at a disadvantage when the Bismarck and Prinz Eugene showed up.

 

[Shortround6]

Bumping this thread to cover HMAS Australia.

The Australia was a bad bargain as she was obsolete when laid down.
The Lion was laid down 29 September 1909 while the Australia was laid down 23 June 1910.
The Australia was completed just over a year after the Lion.
In Fact the Japanese Kongo was completed just two months after the Australia.

As shown in post #9 there was very rapid advancement in ship propulsion before and during WW I (and after) and the Indefatigable class suffered by being near repeats of the Invincible which means that their propulsion system was closer to the Dreadnought than to later ships. The Invincible's being laid down in 1906 and the Indefatigables pretty much duplicating the machinery with some minor improvements.

On the Broadside they were often restricted to six guns, they were supposed to have better firing arcs than the Invincible but there was still blast damage to the decks and superstructure from the cross firing turret.
The Indefatigable class were tight, crowded ships with poor habitability, especially in the tropics.

For the Australia, just what shape her machinery was in after WW I is subject to question, She had seen much service.

She would need at least some upgrading just to fight the new "treaty" cruisers of the late 20s. And since the County class started laying down in 1924 it is not hard to see the advancements just 14-15 years had brought.
The Australia was coal fired. This required a large crew, large machinery spaces and meant short range and several days of back breaking work to refuel.
Her guns had limited elevation and thus were short ranged, about 20,000yds with the mid WW I change in elevation and using 4 cal radius shells.

Anything can be fixed if you spend enough time and money on it.

But for the Australia to be much use at all it needs new boilers (oil fueled), revised fuel stowage (make sure the old coal bunkers are oil tight.)
Improved habitability (smaller boiler room crew will help), increase elevation on the main guns, better fire control.

It is still a fuel hog (needs new turbines, etc) Needs a new secondary battery/improved AA. Protection against 8in cruiser guns may be adequate?

Chances against a Kongo, even a 1918 Kongo are not good.

By 1922-24 it is neither fish nor fowl. Not strong enough to stand up to even a weak battleship and too slow to chase modern cruisers.

As for turning it into a carrier?

Ship......................................length..................................beam........................................speed
Australia..............................590.........................................80...............................................26kts
Canada................................661..........................................92..............................................22.5kts
Glorious..............................787..........................................81..............................................32kts
Kent......................................630..........................................68 (bulges) ...........................31kts
Cleveland...........................608...........................................66..............................................32kts

Canada was sister to the Eagle, Glorious is as battlecruiser, Kent is county class cruiser, under design in 1922-24, Cleveland is what they built the Independence class carriers on.
The Australia had a deeper draft than the cruiser hulls. That is one reason she displaced much more water, She didn't really have that much extra useable volume inside the hull.

Best you can hope for is a short, narrow Eagle that is just a bit faster. Limited in as to both the ability of the planes it can carry and the number it can carry.

The Japanese poured money into rebuilding their old battleships not because it was cheaper than new construction but because the treaties forbid new ships leaving expensive rebuilds as the only way to try to match the US and Britain.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Bumping this thread to cover HMAS Australia.

The Australia was a bad bargain as she was obsolete when laid down.
The Lion was laid down 29 September 1909 while the Australia was laid down 23 June 1910.
The Australia was completed just over a year after the Lion.
In Fact the Japanese Kongo was completed just two months after the Australia.

As shown in post #9 there was very rapid advancement in ship propulsion before and during WW I (and after) and the Indefatigable class suffered by being near repeats of the Invincible which means that their propulsion system was closer to the Dreadnought than to later ships. The Invincible's being laid down in 1906 and the Indefatigables pretty much duplicating the machinery with some minor improvements.

On the Broadside they were often restricted to six guns, they were supposed to have better firing arcs than the Invincible but there was still blast damage to the decks and superstructure from the cross firing turret.
The Indefatigable class were tight, crowded ships with poor habitability, especially in the tropics.

For the Australia, just what shape her machinery was in after WW I is subject to question, She had seen much service.

She would need at least some upgrading just to fight the new "treaty" cruisers of the late 20s. And since the County class started laying down in 1924 it is not hard to see the advancements just 14-15 years had brought.
The Australia was coal fired. This required a large crew, large machinery spaces and meant short range and several days of back breaking work to refuel.
Her guns had limited elevation and thus were short ranged, about 20,000yds with the mid WW I change in elevation and using 4 cal radius shells.

Anything can be fixed if you spend enough time and money on it.

But for the Australia to be much use at all it needs new boilers (oil fueled), revised fuel stowage (make sure the old coal bunkers are oil tight.)
Improved habitability (smaller boiler room crew will help), increase elevation on the main guns, better fire control.

It is still a fuel hog (needs new turbines, etc) Needs a new secondary battery/improved AA. Protection against 8in cruiser guns may be adequate?

Chances against a Kongo, even a 1918 Kongo are not good.

By 1922-24 it is neither fish nor fowl. Not strong enough to stand up to even a weak battleship and too slow to chase modern cruisers.

As for turning it into a carrier?

Ship......................................length..................................beam........................................speed
Australia..............................590.........................................80...............................................26kts
Canada................................661..........................................92..............................................22.5kts
Glorious..............................787..........................................81..............................................32kts
Kent......................................630..........................................68 (bulges) ...........................31kts
Cleveland...........................608...........................................66..............................................32kts

Canada was sister to the Eagle, Glorious is as battlecruiser, Kent is county class cruiser, under design in 1922-24, Cleveland is what they built the Independence class carriers on.
The Australia had a deeper draft than the cruiser hulls. That is one reason she displaced much more water, She didn't really have that much extra useable volume inside the hull.

Best you can hope for is a short, narrow Eagle that is just a bit faster. Limited in as to both the ability of the planes it can carry and the number it can carry.

The Japanese poured money into rebuilding their old battleships not because it was cheaper than new construction but because the treaties forbid new ships leaving expensive rebuilds as the only way to try to match the US and Britain.

Excellent post. Indefatigable was the product of very muddled thinking by the Admiralty. The Lion was already designed by the time she was laid down. To build the HMAS Australia 2 years later was sheer folly. Australia had no place in any post WWI navy and would have been scrapped anyway.

 

[The Basket]

If Oz wanted a battle cruiser then Tiger would have been a better bet.

But Australia, given a full Kongo style refit would have been interesting.

Australia could act as a deterrent based on the fleet in being idea. You know Australia is in a given area so you can't operate cruisers and you have to send major capital ships to meet her which is resource intensive and so maybe not worth it.

A Yamato AP shell would make a terrible mess. I wonder if it could go clean through one armour belt and out the other armour belt?

 

[Shortround6]

Australia could act as a deterrent based on the fleet in being idea. You know Australia is in a given area so you can't operate cruisers and you have to send major capital ships to meet her which is resource intensive and so maybe not worth it.

As stated above, without very extensive renovations the Australia is hard pressed to fight more than a single 8in gun cruiser at the same time. It would have trouble with a single 8in gun cruiser. Even with higher elevation guns than it ended WW I with it cannot out range the 8in cruisers. It cannot out run them (or chase them). It guns fire much slower and due to the cross deck arrangement it's ability to bring more than 6 guns to bear is limited. Many times it will be four guns.

Graf Spee didn't do so well against one cruiser with six 8in and two with eight 6in. The Australia doesn't need a capitol ship to oppose it. A heavy cruiser division would steam roller it.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I think without major retrofits, their value would be more secondary such as coastal bombardment, support amphibious landings, or loaded up with light & medium (ie 20mm & 40mm) guns and used as AA platforms which IIRC is what Germany did with their 2 remaining WW1 battleships.

 

[Shortround6]

German old battleships were pre-dreadnoughts and had a lot more superstructure space to put AA guns on.

Australia had a somewhat limited superstructure and with 3 funnels unless re-powered poor sky arcs.
The staggered wing turrets really suck up deck space and restrict gun placement due to blast problems.

Australia (the country) has a lot less money than Germany and shouldn't be wasting it on dubious ships that might be useful in specialized scenarios.
Supply is a problem that needs new machinery to fix, not just converting to oil fuel but new, geared turbines instead of the old, direct drive turbines. Pacific distances are much greater than European. Australia needs ships with long range, not ones that need refueling every few days unless running at10 kits.

 

[The Basket]

As advised, Australia with a full refit would still have been hell as a cruiser killer.

Without any kind of refit, then Australia is limited to either Blockship, barracks ship or museum ship.

Problem is the Australia's minimum peer opponent in the Pacific is Kongo and that is not good match up

Many a WW1 ship staggered into WW2 without much to do. The R class is a good example of a warship too slow to catch a cold but still can do sterling work within its limited sphere.

Graf Spee had thinner armour and less guns.

So basically any WW1 spec capital ship is in a heap of trouble in ww2.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

If Oz wanted a battle cruiser then Tiger would have been a better bet.

But Australia, given a full Kongo style refit would have been interesting.

Australia could act as a deterrent based on the fleet in being idea. You know Australia is in a given area so you can't operate cruisers and you have to send major capital ships to meet her which is resource intensive and so maybe not worth it.

A Yamato AP shell would make a terrible mess. I wonder if it could go clean through one armour belt and out the other armour belt?

Trying to give Australia a Kongo style refit would be polishing a turd. There is no comparison in the capabilities of each ship. Australia was a badly compromised design with its peculiar armament arrangement and generally poor protection. The 12 inch 50 cal gun it was equipped with was not successful and had a reputation for poor accuracy. The poor performance of the 12 inch spurred the development of the 13.5, a far superior weapon. The Australia was also much slower than the Kongo. I don't see it catching many cruisers. As I stated previously the Admiralty had some very peculiar ideas at the time Indefatigable was designed resulting in a ship that wouldn't look out of place in the French navy.

Correction the Australia was armed with the 12 inch 45 caliber.

 

[The Basket]

I am merely being the Devil's advocate.

I agree that HMAS Australia was not perfect and her scuttling was a fair fate for her.

But as this is an internet forum so I am duty bound to stir the pot a little.

The threat the RAN would have faced was obviously the IJN. And any refit to the Australia was small potatoes to what she could face.