Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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).
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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?