feasibility of keeping WW I battleships around for WW II.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I agree that it is a shame none were preserved. I think the SMS Goeben was around until 1975 or so. At least we have U.S.S. Texas. The last dreadnought.

My son and I visited her about seven years ago. Two things struck me: 1) the turrets with their 14" guns being so big on the outside, they were pretty cramped on the inside; and 2) the gallery deck with the casemated 5" guns would have been hell to fight in a battle with steel flying around.

 

[SaparotRob]

Agree. You can't even dig a hole and hide.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Agree. You can't even dig a hole and hide.

Right? And every surface around you provides ricochet, unlike mother Earth.

 

[Shortround6]

Japan was an ally at the time. So bring out 2 powerful Billy big balls Lions or Tigers or even an Orion class battleship or two and the Japanese would lose it.

They would feel a pinch and no mistake. So by sending 2 weaker Indefatigable to the Pacific doesn't send the wrong signals to the IJN.

12 inch guns were the best the Germans were doing and so her time line German equivalent was Goeben.

She wouldn't meet a German capital ship so her weakness was not that weak. Unless you end up at Jutland but that wasn't why she was built for.

Ah, so to avoid upsetting the Japanese you spend your tax money on a 2nd rate ship?

The Japanese are not likely to impressed by it.

If the Japanese in 1910 and onward do become an enemy the HMS Australia is not likely to influence them very much.

The Early British battlecruisers made a lot of claims but they were short of substance.

They may have been good for chasing commerce raiders but they weren't very good commerce raiders themselves. They either had to to 12in guns and use up ammo on freighters or try to use 4in guns, neither was a good solution. The British had accepted low elevation main guns and they increasing outclassed by other ships.

The Japanese had to two large armored cruisers that took quite a while to build, but they had four 12in guns and eight 8in guns and they could out range the Australia,
The Ibuki-class as had fourteen 4.7 in guns which meant as commerce raiders they didn't have to use their 12in guns on freighters.
The Japanese also had two post 1905 battleships with four 12 in guns and twelve 10in guns guns.
And they had two "dreadnoughts" that were building before the Australia was laid down.
Odd balls in that they had four 12in 50cal guns and eight 12in 45 cal guns but they were powerful ships for their time (1912 which was about a year before the Australia was completed.)

One big British battlecruiser won't swing the balance but building a 2nd rate ship isn't going to impress the Japanese, especially in 1911-1913 when the Japanese can see just how fruit-loopy the British design process was. The Japanese sure didn't get sucked into those Lion fiascoes.

 

[SaparotRob]

Right? And every surface around you provides ricochet, unlike mother Earth.

Probably some Armageddon grade echo as well.

 

[The Basket]

Japan was a firm ally in 1910 so there was no need to impress them or base future threat strategy against them. Japan would help us so no matter.
Japan would also buy into the Battle cruiser concept with the Kongo.
By the standards of the time, NZ would still have been considered a powerful ship and certainly more powerful than any cruiser or Pre-Dread. I think the idea was to use her as a flagship for cruiser squadrons and in this role she would have been fine.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Probably some Armageddon grade echo as well.

Right, could you imagine the kerrang?

 

[Shortround6]

Actually the Japanese didn't buy into the British Battlecruiser concept as much as the British did.
And they were the ones had the most experience with it in battle. They were also the ones who had the most experience with long range gunnery, having opened fire at 19,000yds in teh Yellow sea in 1904. The Japanese Kongo class had more protection than the Lion class did let alone the older ships.

The utility of the Battlecrusier was also in doubt once people figured out the cost of such ships, there was no way ANY navy could afford such ships in the numbers that would be needed. Unfortunately many navies took a 3-5year gap in the design of cruisers while they figured out which way to go.
Fisher's insistence that no type of ship was needed in-between the battlecruiser and large destroyers was a damper to development.

And like I have said the, The Australia and New Zealand were border line when compared to some of the semi-dreadnoughts.
The limited firing arcs meant they often could not bring more than 4-6 guns to bear so the theoretical fire power advantage wasn't as great as it appeared. The fact that the 12in guns were only built to allow 13.5degrees of elevation (later modified to 16 degrees) limited their max range to an alarming degree. Ammo capacity was "The initial war outfit was 33 APC, 38 CPC and 39 HE"
With the secondary battery being 4" breech loading guns with a rate of fire of 6-8 rpg and with only 100 rounds per gun their combat endurance was limited.

 

[SaparotRob]

Right, could you imagine the kerrang?

What was that? I can't hear you.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

What was that? I can't hear you.

 

[The Basket]

Not sure about that comment but IJN didn't build 4 Kongo cos they didn't like battle cruises. Very much part of the 8-8 plan of the IJN.

Whether Kongo was a wotever is a difficult discussion.

But Lion and Kongo and Tiger were all British Battlecruiser. Kongo was an improvement over Lion and Tiger was an improvement over Kongo.

I am not saying NZ is a jet fighter. All I is saying is that NZ makes sense within it's narrow logic of the narrow time window that it was originally designed and was built for. Who is going to invade New Zealand? That is an amphibious landing to beat them all.

So as a Pacific cruiser killer taking care of business with our Japanese allies in perpetual peace and harmony then it's all gravy.

Australia was certainly earmarked for Pacific service as the Oz wanted a navy and obviously Australia was going to be the flagship.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Neither Australia nor New Zealand did anything of note in the Pacific.

 

[Shortround6]

But Lion and Kongo and Tiger were all British Battlecruiser. Kongo was an improvement over Lion and Tiger was an improvement over Kongo.

The Japanese built Battlecruisers that were biased more to fast battleships than the tin cans Fisher was pushing.
The Lion and the Princess Royal were both laid down before the Australia and New Zealand, The Lion was laid down about 8 months earlier showing that the Australia and New Zealand were obsolete as built. The Germans laid down the Moltke and the Goeben before the the British ships were laid down. In fact the Moltke was launched before the British ships were. The Seidlitz was laid down later but finished earlier (about one month) reinforcing what a bad bargain the Australia was. But the checks were signed and Australia was stuck with it.

am not saying NZ is a jet fighter. All I is saying is that NZ makes sense within it's narrow logic of the narrow time window that it was originally designed and was built for. Who is going to invade New Zealand? That is an amphibious landing to beat them all.

The logic was more related to Press releases rather than military need. Ships also have to be able to be used for more than a few years. Yes this was a time of very rapid change but the Australia and New Zealand were repeats ( a year late) of the Indefatigable which were pretty much repeats of the Invincible class of 1906. This was close to deciding to order Gloster Gladiators in 1940 when you already had the plans for the Hurricane and Spitfire on your desk and building in the factories.
How many light cruisers/destroyers could have been built for the price of the Australia?
You want a large cruiser to match the German ships on the China station? Then build a large cruiser with eight-ten 9.2 inch guns and some 4.7in or 6in secondary guns.
Something that could out match the Blucher if the Germans deicide to send her out to the China station.

So as a Pacific cruiser killer taking care of business with our Japanese allies in perpetual peace and harmony then it's all gravy.

All is good if the Australia only has to kill one ship per sortie. And if the enemy ship is kind enough to allow the Australia to get with in range.

and going back to the thread title. The Australia was even more useless by 1919 let alone keeping her until the 1930s.
A Kent class Cruiser was more effective than the Australia without a very, very costly rebuild.

 

[The Basket]

I could be harsh and say NZ and Australia were vanity projects designed to be shiny white elephants to show the world that the colonial outposts were playas.

But they also had deterrent factor. Von Spee didn't run away at Coronel. He did from the battlecruisers. Had he seen NZ on the horizon he would of ran away too HMS Warrior or Defence he may have felt were fair game. So they are making tactical and strategic choices simply by existing.

Japan wanted battlecruisers and they got Kongo more by timing than design. A few years earlier and they may have got a NZ. Remember one ship a navy don't make. IJN was trying to make a battle fleet and New Zealand wasn't.

Certainly that era was moving so fast that 2 years late is obsolete overnight. We may say Von Der Tann had good stuff but it had 11 inch guns and Warspite shrugged of 11 inch shells as if they were sweeties. Goeben ran like a beehatch when she was cornered. So even the much vaunted German battlecruisers were no match for time.

Of course by ww2 standards NZ was obsolete but so would be the Kongos. So yeah a total rebuild.

 

[Shortround6]

How much did Von Spee rearm? Was he able to refill his magazines after Colonel?

Not saying that would have made the difference in eventual outcome but it shows the difference in commerce raiding vs chasing a force of raiders. It also shows one of the things that should be takin into account when selecting ships for that role.

A raiding force should only accept battle when it knows it can win. Cradock

Cradock had no hope of winning, the best he could hope for was to cripple or heavily damage one or both of the big German ships.
But with only two 9.2 in guns in his force and everything else 6in or smaller he was facing very poor odds.
Even if the Germans misidentified the Monmouth for a cruiser with a pair of 9.2s it was not going to change things. Each of the German ships had eight 8.2 guns Which of which six could fire on the broadside.
The Germans could hold the range outside where the British 6in guns could either hit or be effective.

At the Falklands the British had the overwhelming advantage of not only the battlecruisers but numbers.

The Warrior and Defense were both significantly stronger than the older British armored cruisers.

Goeben's "job" wasn't to die in glorious battle against superior forces. It was to cause as much trouble as she could, and if opportunity resent itself, then cause damage to the British forces. In the Goeben is sometimes said to have cause more suffering than any other ship in history history.

The Von Der Tann may have been no match for the Warspite but it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
The Von Der Tann was about 19,400tons.
The Warspite was about 33,600 tons.
The Australia was about 18,500tons.

It wasn't a question of the Von Der Tann equaling the Warspite, it was a question of the Australia equaling (or providing a good value) the Von Der Tann.
The Australia and New Zealand were poor value for the money.
Granted a lot of naval engagements do come down to luck but the Von Der Tann managed to sink the Indefatigable with 5 rounds hitting out of 52 fired in 14-15 minutes.
Von Der Tann took 4 shell hits during Jutland from 13.5 guns and above and was seriously damaged but was still making 18 kts and had two turrets working at the end.
A better value for the money?

 

[The Basket]

I could be blunt and say the whole high seas fleet was a total waste of money.

Better spent on anything else.

Warspite fought against German battlecruisers so it was certainly a question. The battlecruisers had a secondary role filling the battle line so an 11 inch gun was no hope against anything modern.

Craddock was a British admiral who had the choice of dying or being court martial for cowardice. Hardly a choice. Even though he should have had Defence and Canopus and let down by London.

I would be fair to say that NZ had no place in any line of battle. I would fancy my chances on a modern British battlecruiser like Hood or Queen Mary or Repulse....err....

NZ had plot armour and that is far better than steel. Better not get hit in the first place.

 

[SaparotRob]

The High Seas Fleet may have been more than a waste of money. It may have wound up costing the Kaiserreich the Kaiserreich itself.

 

[Shortround6]

The QE's were fast battleships. They could make 24 kts or about 3 knots more than the standard battle line. They were about 3,000 tons (about 10%) heavier than the Revenge class that came after them but were good for 21-22 kts. The early Battlecruisers were only good for about 25kts.

Both sides filled their fleets with ships that should not have been there since you cannot pick and chose which ships out of line ships you "duel" with. Most of the British ships with 12in guns should not have been there if the German ships with 11in guns should not have been.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

WNT and LNT meant that obsolete battleships needed to be upgraded and kept in service. I think only the QEs managed that process in a combat-effective manner, but even they were mainly pitched against Italian BBs of mainly the same vintage.

 

[The Basket]

Don't bring 11 inches to a 15 inch gunfight.

That's why Scheer got out of Dodge when he knew what's what.