feasibility of keeping WW I battleships around for WW II.

[Reluctant Poster]

I had thought you meant fragmentation shells suitable for ripping up soft targets and other general mayhem as opposed to the "beehive " type anti aircraft shells I have read about. I have never read that description about IJN ammo before. I thought that there were two different kinds of shells.
The things one learns here.

The shells were not effective in the AA role but were quite effective in the "ground attack" role wrecking 56 out of 87 aircraft parked on Henderson Field during the bombardment of Oct 13/14, 1942.

 

[SaparotRob]

I had thought it was two separate types of ammo. I did read that they weren't effective anti-air ordnance.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I had thought it was two separate types of ammo.

My understanding is that the Japanese also had standard HE shells as well. They would use both the HE and the "AA" shells for shore bombardments, to my knowledge.

 

[SaparotRob]

That's what I thought.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's what I thought.

Right, and I'm wondering if that is not where a miscommunication might be. To be fair, most of what I've read about Hiei and Kirishima mention ammo loadout for "shore bombardment" but do not go into specifics. A couple mention that they had the "AA" shells in the turrets' ready-rooms too, but most don't specify. Most just say the immediate rounds to hand were not AP, but for bombardment duties.

I've read that Kirishima hit South Dakota with "AA" shells first, then switching to AP. Hiei, I think, had the same transition of ammunition shot two nights earlier.

 

[GrauGeist]

The IJN did have Anti-Aircraft rounds for their large caliber guns, including the 18.1" guns aboard Yamato and Musashi.

They were called Sanshikidan or "San Shiki" and often called "Beehive" rounds (as mentioned above).

They did use the San Shiki for shore bombardment, which were quite effective.
These shells were like monster flaming claymore mines on steroids.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Right, and I'm wondering if that is not where a miscommunication might be. To be fair, most of what I've read about Hiei and Kirishima mention ammo loadout for "shore bombardment" but do not go into specifics. A couple mention that they had the "AA" shells in the turrets' ready-rooms too, but most don't specify. Most just say the immediate rounds to hand were not AP, but for bombardment duties.

I've read that Kirishima hit South Dakota with "AA" shells first, then switching to AP. Hiei, I think, had the same transition of ammunition shot two nights earlier.

Exactly
From Imperial Battleships:
!st Battle
"During the battle, KIRISHIMA fires 27 Type 1 AP, 22 Type 3 and 8 Type 0 incendiary 14-in shells, plus 313 secondary caliber shells."

2nd Battle
"Within the next few minutes KIRISHIMA fires a total of 117 14-inch shells (68 Type 3 incendiaries, 22 Type 0 Common and 27 Type 1 APC), scoring multiple hits with secondary and main guns. One Type 1 APC explodes against SOUTH DAKOTA's No. 3 turret's barbette."
In this case the Type 0 common is the HE shell. The APC hit took place late in the battle.

The bombardment of Henderson Field
"KONGO fires 435 14-in. shells (104 Type 3, 331 Type 1) and twenty-seven 6-in shells. HARUNA fires 433 14-in. shells (189 Type 0, 294 Type 1) and twenty-one 6-in shells.
The 1,378-lb HE Type 3 "Sanshikidan" is used by KONGO for the first time in action. Only KONGO receives them before departure because there are not enough available for both battleships. Originally designed as anti-aircraft rounds, each time-fused shell contains 480 incendiary (rubber thermite) tubes and 192 steel stays. The older Type 0 is similar to the Type 3, but their 1,000 incendiary tubes are filled with a mix of rosin, magnesium, barium and sulphuric acid. Some 1,485-lb. Type 1 AP shells are also fired."

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Exactly
From Imperial Battleships:
!st Battle
"During the battle, KIRISHIMA fires 27 Type 1 AP, 22 Type 3 and 8 Type 0 incendiary 14-in shells, plus 313 secondary caliber shells."

2nd Battle
"Within the next few minutes KIRISHIMA fires a total of 117 14-inch shells (68 Type 3 incendiaries, 22 Type 0 Common and 27 Type 1 APC), scoring multiple hits with secondary and main guns. One Type 1 APC explodes against SOUTH DAKOTA's No. 3 turret's barbette."
In this case the Type 0 common is the HE shell. The APC hit took place late in the battle.

The bombardment of Henderson Field
"KONGO fires 435 14-in. shells (104 Type 3, 331 Type 1) and twenty-seven 6-in shells. HARUNA fires 433 14-in. shells (189 Type 0, 294 Type 1) and twenty-one 6-in shells.
The 1,378-lb HE Type 3 "Sanshikidan" is used by KONGO for the first time in action. Only KONGO receives them before departure because there are not enough available for both battleships. Originally designed as anti-aircraft rounds, each time-fused shell contains 480 incendiary (rubber thermite) tubes and 192 steel stays. The older Type 0 is similar to the Type 3, but their 1,000 incendiary tubes are filled with a mix of rosin, magnesium, barium and sulphuric acid. Some 1,485-lb. Type 1 AP shells are also fired."

Thanks for the clarity, much appreciated. I'm just shocked I was somewhat right!

 

[delcyros]

Scharnhorst & Gneisenau were among the most succesful naval surface combatants of ww2. Combined they sank:

CV GLORIUS, 22,690ts
DD ARDENT, 1,773ts
DD ACASTA, 1,773ts
AMC RAWALPINDI, 16,697ts

additionally. the following merchant vessel were sank or captured by both vessels during north Atlantic raid in 1941
A D HUFF, 6,219ts
ATHELFOAM, 6,554ts
BIANCA, 5,668ts
BRITISH STRENGTH, 7,139ts
CHILIAN REEFER, 1,793ts
DEMERTON, 5,215ts
EMPIRE INDUSTRY, 3,721ts
GRANLI, 3,721ts
HARLESDEN, 5,483ts
KANTARA, 3,237ts
LUSTROUS, 6,156ts
MANGKAI, 8,298ts
MARATHON, 7,926ts
MYSOM, 4,564ts
POLYCARP, 6,405ts
RIO DORADO, 4,507ts
ROYAL CROWN, 4,388ts
SAN CASIMIRO, 8,046ts
SARDINIAN PRINCE, 3,491ts
SILVERFIR, 4,347ts
SIMNIA, 6,197ts
TRELAWNY, 4,689ts

by whatever metric this is considerable accomplishment for a small navy like the KM.

 

[Admiral Beez]

British WW1 era battleships and battlecruisers would have firepower to take on anything in the Atlantic or Mediterranean smaller than a Bismarck or Littorio class, as the Axis are fielding 11" and 12.3" guns. Give HMS Tiger a Kongo treatment and she'll be good to face a Scharnhorst or Cavour class. But the Japanese failed in their effort to use WW1 spec ships in ww2, for example the 14" guns could not penetrate the USN battleships.

 

[Shortround6]

British WW1 era battleships and battlecruisers would have firepower to take on anything in the Atlantic or Mediterranean smaller than a Bismarck or Littorio class, as the Axis are fielding 11" and 12.3" guns. Give HMS Tiger a Kongo treatment and she'll be good to face a Scharnhorst or Cavour class. But the Japanese failed in their effort to use WW1 spec ships in ww2, for example the 14" guns could not penetrate the USN battleships.

Keeping the WW I ships around depends on doing away with the naval treaties.
Of course doing away with the treaties means the larger, wealthier nations can just build new ships and not "rebuild" the old ships.
Rebuilds could be austere or very extensive. Very extensive rebuilds were almost as costly as new ships.
Do you want a rebuilt Tiger or do you want a KGV ?

I would note that just about nobody rebuilt any of the old Armored Cruisers.

 

[EwenS]

British WW1 era battleships and battlecruisers would have firepower to take on anything in the Atlantic or Mediterranean smaller than a Bismarck or Littorio class, as the Axis are fielding 11" and 12.3" guns. Give HMS Tiger a Kongo treatment and she'll be good to face a Scharnhorst or Cavour class. But the Japanese failed in their effort to use WW1 spec ships in ww2, for example the 14" guns could not penetrate the USN battleships.

In the Med the rebuilt Cavours & Cavours & Dulios have such a speed advantage they can choose whether to fight or run away.

The Italian rebuilds also increased the elevation of their guns allowing them to significantly outrange unmodified WW1 British ships.

United Kingdom / Britain 13.5"/45 (34.3 cm) Mark V - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

Italy 320 mm/44 (12.6") Model 1934 and Model 1936 - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

 

[Shortround6]

In the Med the rebuilt Cavours & Cavours & Dulios have such a speed advantage they can choose whether to fight or run away.

And this goes to the heart of the problem. The Italian ships got such extensive renovations because the Italians were prohibited from build new ships until Littorio class.
But the Italians had a real problem

The old Italian battleships were armed with 12in guns, they had thin deck armor (nobody was fighting at long range in 1910) and they were slow. 21.5kts just out of dock was not going work against even the R class.
Yanking "Q" turret and more than doubling the engine power got them to 27kts. Which put them in a different class of ship.

If they had been allowed to build new ships in the 1930s would they have simple scrapped the old ones (or demoted them to training ships/yard hulks) and built new ships?

British fooling around with Tiger calls for a scenario in between the historical treaties and no treaties.
The British would be allowed to keep her but outright replacement is restricted enough to make it worth while to pour millions of pounds into her reconstruction (she needs completely new machinery)

 

[Admiral Beez]

Keeping the WW I ships around depends on doing away with the naval treaties.

We'd need modified British terms. Otherwise no chance.

I would note that just about nobody rebuilt any of the old Armored Cruisers.

I don't think any armoured cruisers had turbine engines. That's an issue. Though I like Averoff.

 

[EwenS]

And this goes to the heart of the problem. The Italian ships got such extensive renovations because the Italians were prohibited from build new ships until Littorio class.
But the Italians had a real problem
View attachment 801115
The old Italian battleships were armed with 12in guns, they had thin deck armor (nobody was fighting at long range in 1910) and they were slow. 21.5kts just out of dock was not going work against even the R class.
Yanking "Q" turret and more than doubling the engine power got them to 27kts. Which put them in a different class of ship.

If they had been allowed to build new ships in the 1930s would they have simple scrapped the old ones (or demoted them to training ships/yard hulks) and built new ships?

British fooling around with Tiger calls for a scenario in between the historical treaties and no treaties.
The British would be allowed to keep her but outright replacement is restricted enough to make it worth while to pour millions of pounds into her reconstruction (she needs completely new machinery)

Under WNT 1922 Italy was allowed to keep 10 battleships, tonnage 182,800 tons. 4xRegina Elena class, Dante Alighieri, 3xCavour (Leonardo da Vinci was to be salvaged & reconstructed), & 2xDoria.

The first 4, being small, were discarded between 1923 & 1927 while da Vinci wasn't rebuilt and Dante Alighieri disposed of in 1928. Italian finances played a part in this.

More importantly, Italy secured a concession that, despite the 10 year moratorium on new capital ship construction (later extended to the end of 1936), allowed Italy to lay down 35,000 tons of new capital ships in each of 1927, 1929 & 1931, 45,000 tons in 1932 and 25,000 tons in 1933. So, had the state of the Italian economy allowed it, the entire Italian battlefleet of 1922 could have been replaced by new tonnage by 1937. No reconstructions necessary.

In the 1930 London Treaty they were allowed to keep the 1927 & 1929 tonnage allocations. And that is why Italy could lay down the first 2 Littorios in 1935. By then the first 2 reconstructions were underway.

France secured a similar concession.

 

[Admiral Beez]

An interesting note, all of Britain's WW1 battleships that served in WW2 were laid down before the Great War.

QE class: first laid down Oct 1912, final commissioning in Feb 1916.
Revenge class: laid down Nov 1913, final comm Sep 1917.

These ships then went on to see significant service in WW1, while for the most part the other Powers had newer ships. Putting Britain at a disadvantage in the interwar Treaties.

If the technology and money existed (and the terms of the Treaties were favorable) I would have liked to have seen the Revenge class cut in half and extended with a plug for more machinery and overall length.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln6bsOMClX4

 

[Shortround6]

An interesting note, all of Britain's WW1 battleships that served in WW2 were laid down before the Great War.

QE class: first laid down Oct 1912, final commissioning in Feb 1916.
Revenge class: laid down Nov 1913, final comm Sep 1917.

These ships then went on to see significant service in WW1, while for the most part the other Powers had newer ships. Putting Britain at a disadvantage in the interwar Treaties.

The French and Italians had nothing newer than 1912, anything newer was scrapped on the slips except the Bearn. Maybe a reason they were granted those concessions?
And the British BCs were laid down in 1915 (Renowns) and 1916 Hood.
Japan only got 4 battleships newer than 1913.
The US was big winner with 8 ships newer than 1914.

On another line, the British were using oil fuel from the QEs onward, the US was using oil fuel only in the Nevada's and onwards.
Japanese were using mixed firing in everything.
Italians were 100% coal fired.
French ships were sort of mixed, only around 300tons of oil which sounds like using the oil as a supplement at high speed, like oil spray on coal beds.

 

[Shortround6]

If the technology and money existed (and the terms of the Treaties were favorable) I would have liked to have seen the Revenge class cut in half and extended with a plug for more machinery and overall length.

You would be better off building new ships.
For one thing this requires a dry dock and you only have so many available, most (all?) of which are already being used refits/rebuilds of other ships.
Since this sort of work required around 3 years (maybe a bit less) The British would only allow so many ships out of service at one time to keep from being caught with their pants down (1/2 their ships in dry dock at the same time).
The British didn't even get the Hood, Repulse, Barnham and Malaya rebuilt up to standards, which should have been a priority over the Rs.

 

[EwenS]

An interesting note, all of Britain's WW1 battleships that served in WW2 were laid down before the Great War.

QE class: first laid down Oct 1912, final commissioning in Feb 1916.
Revenge class: laid down Nov 1913, final comm Sep 1917.

These ships then went on to see significant service in WW1, while for the most part the other Powers had newer ships. Putting Britain at a disadvantage in the interwar Treaties.

Newer doesn't necessarily mean better.

It was the existence of more modern 16" armed Colorado class (laid down between April 1917 & April 1920) and Nagato class (laid down 1917/18) that allowed Britain to negotiate an exception to the basic WNT 1922 and lay down the Nelrods in 1922 for completion in 1927. The cost of doing that was to lose Thunderer (Orion class 13.5" completed 1912) and 3 KGV (1911 version 13.5". Completed 1912/13. Centurion survived as a disarmed target ship)

The US position was actually in a worse position after Washington.

Of the 18 they were allowed to keep by the end of 1922, only 8 had been laid down after the outbreak of WW1 (New Mexicos, Tennessees & only the 3 Colorados after Jutland). The oldest 6 only had 12" guns, 4 had triple expansion engines. Their main armament turrets only had an elevation of 15 degrees (increased during the 1930s in some to 30 degrees) before the Colorados when they moved to 30 degrees leapfrogging the RN at 20 degrees. So the RN could outrange them. In 1941 The USN still had the 12" armed Arkansas in service ) as well as New York, Texas & Oklahoma with triple expansion machinery. Only Oklahoma became a war loss with the other 3 all in service off Okinawa in 1945.

 

[Admiral Beez]

You would be better off building new ships.

Yes, that's why I suggested if the Treaties were favourable, i.e. allowing such a rebuild while prohibiting a new build. If we leave the Treaties unchanged then what we historically saw is not going to change.

Since this sort of work required around 3 years (maybe a bit less) The British would only allow so many ships out of service at one time

To expedite the project while reducing the time out of service, the new centre sections and machinery could be completed while the ships remain in service.