feasibility of keeping WW I battleships around for WW II. (1 Viewer)

[Frog]

The French and Italians had nothing newer than 1912, ...

Just : The old Lorraine that took part to Dragoon was launched on april 20, 1913...
The antiquated Courbet launched on august 11, 1911 served as a mole at Ouistreham (Sword Beach). It is now a convenient location for fishing mackerels.

 

[EwenS]

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.

With only 15 capital ships after 1931, Britain was only happy to allow 3 out of service for large repairs / reconstruction at a time during the late 1930s.

You have the modernisation cycle wrong.

All the QEs underwent a first round of modernisations in the 1920s early 1930s. Barham was the last in that round between 1930 & 1934.

In the second round, Malaya, Warspite & Repulse were taken in hand for what was referred to as a "large repair". That took place April 1933 to June 1937. When they opened up Warspite's machinery, it was found to be in such a bad way that it had to be replaced. That allowed time to incorporate some of the changes being planned for the next batch. So she got the new bridge structure but not the new DP armament which was still in development. So she became a kind of halfway house between Malaya & Repulse and the next batch.

1934-36 Royal Oak had a more extensive refit, after which it was decided not to modernise the others and they became the first in line to be replaced. By 1939 Revenge was reported to be in very poor condition and would have been the first to go on completion of KGV but for WW2.

Then QE, Valiant & Renown were taken in hand for "reconstruction" which included replacement of the machinery, new DP armament etc. That took place from Sept 1936 to Jan 1941.

Next were to come the Nelson, Rodney & Hood. starting about late 1940. The Nelrods had priority due to their 16" armament needed to face Japan. Proposals were still floating around for them in 1944. Hood required major work that would probably have started in early 1942 and lasted 3 years. I've seen some discussion that Repulse might have been "reconstructed" along the lines of her sister or at least had her AA armament inproved but nowhere any indication of when this might have been slotted into the schedule.

Without WW2 breaking out I doubt any further reconstructions would have been contemplated. The KGVs were scheduled to complete from 1940-42 with the Lions starting to complete in 1942.

 

[EwenS]

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 what is not going to change.

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.

And the Treaty restrictions as to what could be done to existing vessels were designed precisely to prevent another arms race by the means you are now proposing.

 

[Shortround6]

You have the modernisation cycle wrong.

All the QEs underwent a first round of modernisations in the 1920s early 1930s. Barham was the last in that round between 1930 & 1934.

I knew it was a lot more complicated but there was more value to had for the money rebuilding the 2 QEs and the 2 BC than cutting the Rs in half, building a new midships section and then splicing it all back together again (3 piece hulls?) even the treaties allowed them to do it. Or leave the Machinery in the Barham alone and just redo the upper decks and improve the AA.
Cutting ships in halve has got to be the most complicated way of getting the results wanted. This is a battleship with it's propulsion system and the armor belts. Not a thin cargo/passenger ship.

Italians and Japanese added to bow and/or stern, not the middle of the ship.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Without WW2 breaking out I doubt any further reconstructions would have been contemplated. The KGVs were scheduled to complete from 1940-42 with the Lions starting to complete in 1942.

With a later delay to WW2 I'd hate to see all those twin 15" turrets and guns discarded when more Vanguards could be contemplated as the Rs and QEs are removed from service.

 

[Shortround6]

With a later delay to WW2 I'd hate to see all those twin 15" turrets and guns discarded when more Vanguards could be contemplated as the Rs and QEs are removed from service.

with a longer delay they might have built at least some of the Lions. Which did not use the same guns as the Nelsons. Not quite US 16in shells but 1080kg shells compared to the 15in 879kg shells and a slightly longer range at the same elevation.

 

[EwenS]

With a later delay to WW2 I'd hate to see all those twin 15" turrets and guns discarded when more Vanguards could be contemplated as the Rs and QEs are removed from service.

Vanguard was never going to get any sisters.

It was conceived at a time (early 1939) when with war looming Britain needed every moodern battleship it could get, especially with a view to fighting against the Japanese. The DNC, Sir Stanley Goodall, considered a Vanguard type vessel with 4 twin 15" turrets extravagant. Being longer than a 3 turret Lion they consumed more armour for a given level of protection and would take virtually the same length of time to build as a 3 turret 16" Lion (ultimately by the time Vanguard was ordered the time saving was estimated at 6 months). The first such vessel couldn't be laid down until June 1940 (ultimately Vanguard wasn't ordered until March 1941 and laid down in Oct with completion expected around the end of 1943). In Sept 1941, just before she was laid down, she wasn't expected to complete until the end of 1944.

Add to that that the 1912 vintage 15", (max elevation 30 degrees) even with more modern shells, lacked the range and hitting power of the 16" (max elevation 40 degrees) planned for the Lions. (32,500 yards & 9" of side armour / 5.7" deck armour vs 38,200-43,800 sources vary & up to 11.5" of side armour / 7" of deck armour again sources vary).

A variety of proposals circulated around this time incl a Lion with 3 twin 15" in place of the triple 16".

To start a Vanguard line meant spending £600,000 to reopen the H&W Scotstoun gun factory and dig out the gun pits. That facility would allow the modernisation of only 1 set of turrets per year. But new machinery was already planned to increase 16" gun production.

Delay the start of WW2 takes away the urgency of 1939, allows the ramp up of British armour, gun and gun mounting facilities, and removes the need to consider a Vanguard let alone a whole line of them. Whatever way you look at it another Lion is a much better deal than a Vanguard.

 

[Admiral Beez]

with a longer delay they might have built at least some of the Lions.

Yes, do both. I've just finished reading my copy of The Battleship Builders and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the dreadnought era. The author writes of how after the Treaties led to cancellation of new battleships, the factories that made most of the RN's heavy guns shut down or filled in their pits for other work. Two Lions is all we're going to get. But we have enough 15/L42 guns and mounts to make ten more Vanguards... perhaps one or two is more reasonable.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The DNC, Sir Stanley Goodall, considered a Vanguard type vessel with 4 twin 15" turrets extravagant. Being longer than a 3 turret Lion they consumed more armour for a given level of protection

It does seem under-armed for its size. Now, making Vanguard a super Agincourt with seven twin 15/L42 mounts would have been interesting, if dangerously incendiary.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It's too bad the British were restricted financially and via the Treaties on fortifications as I'd would have liked to have seen some of the nearly two hundred twin 12" turrets be installed in Singapore, Penang and elsewhere in Malaya. The guns were hardly used. Now, we'd need to position them in Singapore and across Malaya (Penang, Kota Bharu, etc.) to counter overland infantry attack. So HE ammunition, higher elevation and clear lines of sight over Johore. As it was, the only British 12" twin battleship gun to become a shore battery is one from the Spanish Dreadnought Jaimie.

 

[EwenS]

It's too bad the British were restricted financially and via the Treaties on fortifications as I'd would have liked to have seen some of the nearly two hundred twin 12" turrets be installed in Singapore, Penang and elsewhere in Malaya. The guns were hardly used. Now, we'd need to position them in Singapore and across Malaya (Penang, Kota Bharu, etc.) to counter overland infantry attack. So HE ammunition, higher elevation and clear lines of sight over Johore. As it was, the only British 12" twin battleship gun to become a shore battery is one from the Spanish Dreadnought Jaimie.

Two elements in your post in relation to the 1922 WNT.

1. The turrets themselves from ships that required to be scrapped. It would have defeated the aims of the Treaty to allow them to be retained while the remainder of the ships needed to be scrapped.

2. Geographical limits on the placement of new defences around the Pacific. Those did not affect Malaya. Relevant extract from the Treaty.

"Article XIX

The United States, the British Empire and Japan agree that the status quo at the time of the signing of the present Treaty, with regard to fortifications and naval bases, shall be maintained in their respective territories and possessions specified hereunder:

(2) Hong Kong and the insular possessions which the British Empire now holds or may hereafter acquire in the Pacific Ocean, east of the meridian of 110º east longitude, except (a) those adjacent to the coast of Canada, (b) the Commonwealth of Australia and its territories, and (c) New Zealand;"

110 degrees east longitude lies just about to the east of French Indochina. So Britain could have armed Malaya any way it wanted, and did so. 1923 Colonial Defence Committee proposed adding the following to the existing 6x6" already in place at Singapore.
4x15"
6x9.2"
2x6"
2x4.7"

"No war for 10 years" policy and Britain's financial position postponed that.

The problem defending Malaya was the unshakeable belief that attack would come from the South and the sea.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The problem defending Malaya was the unshakeable belief that attack would come from the South and the sea.

Thinking and assumptions that fall flat. If you make it impossible through defensive works for an enemy to choose the likeliest route, then the enemy must come from another route. Surely they taught that at staff college? But the Maginot Line and Singapore suggest not.

 

[Alan Stevens]

There were 17 WW I and interwar USN Battleships

Ship "Hull Number" Class Commissioned Decommissioned
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah BB-31 Florida 31-Aug-11 5-Sep-44
Wyoming BB-32 Wyoming 25-Sep-12 1-Aug-47
Arkansas BB-33 Wyoming 17-Sep-12 29-Jul-46
New York BB-34 New York 15-May-14 29-Aug-46
Texas BB-35 New York 12-Mar-14 21-Apr-48
Nevada BB-36 Nevada 11-Mar-16 29-Aug-46
Oklahoma BB-37 Nevada 2-May-16 1-Sep-44
Pennsylvania BB-38 Pennsylvania 12-Jun-16 29-Aug-46
Arizona BB-39 Pennsylvania 17-Oct-16 29-Dec-41
New Mexico BB-40 New Mexico 20-May-18 19-Jul-46
Mississippi BB-41 New Mexico 18-Dec-17 17-Sep-56
Idaho BB-42 New Mexico 24-Mar-19 3-Jul-46
Tennessee BB-43 Tennessee 3-Jun-20 14-Feb-47
California BB-44 Tennessee 10-Aug-21 14-Feb-47
Colorado BB-45 Colorado 30-Aug-23 7-Jan-47
Maryland BB-46 Colorado 21-Jul-21 3-Apr-47
West Virginia BB-48 Colorado 1-Dec-23 9-Jan-47

 

[GrauGeist]

USS Utah was decomissioned as a battleship and reassigned as a training ship (AG-16) and sunk at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941.

USS Oklahoma was sunk at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, eventually refloated for scrapping and sunk while under tow in 1947.

USS Arizona goes without saying.

None of the above named ships served during WWII after December of 1941.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

USS Utah was decomissioned as a battleship and reassigned as a training ship (AG-16) and sunk at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941.

USS Oklahoma was sunk at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, eventually refloated for scrapping and sunk while under tow in 1947.

USS Arizona goes without saying.

None of the above named ships served during WWII after December of 1941.

Aside from Surigao Strait, no American WWI battleships fought against any ships in WWII. For good reason.

 

[EwenS]

There were 17 WW I and interwar USN Battleships

Ship "Hull Number" Class Commissioned Decommissioned
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah BB-31 Florida 31-Aug-11 5-Sep-44
Wyoming BB-32 Wyoming 25-Sep-12 1-Aug-47
Arkansas BB-33 Wyoming 17-Sep-12 29-Jul-46
New York BB-34 New York 15-May-14 29-Aug-46
Texas BB-35 New York 12-Mar-14 21-Apr-48
Nevada BB-36 Nevada 11-Mar-16 29-Aug-46
Oklahoma BB-37 Nevada 2-May-16 1-Sep-44
Pennsylvania BB-38 Pennsylvania 12-Jun-16 29-Aug-46
Arizona BB-39 Pennsylvania 17-Oct-16 29-Dec-41
New Mexico BB-40 New Mexico 20-May-18 19-Jul-46
Mississippi BB-41 New Mexico 18-Dec-17 17-Sep-56
Idaho BB-42 New Mexico 24-Mar-19 3-Jul-46
Tennessee BB-43 Tennessee 3-Jun-20 14-Feb-47
California BB-44 Tennessee 10-Aug-21 14-Feb-47
Colorado BB-45 Colorado 30-Aug-23 7-Jan-47
Maryland BB-46 Colorado 21-Jul-21 3-Apr-47
West Virginia BB-48 Colorado 1-Dec-23 9-Jan-47

1922 WNT allowed the USN to retain 18. Your list missed the following that also saw service after WNT was signed.

BB-28 Delaware
BB-29 North Dakota
BB-30 Florida

The first pair were allowed to remain in service under WNT 1922 until Colorado & West Virginia completed in late 1923. At that point they were decommissioned, Delaware scrapped, and North Dakota became a target ship until 1931 when she was scrapped, so keeping the total at 18.

As a result of the 1930 London Naval Treaty the USN battleship quota was reduced to 15. Utah became a training / target ship (AG-16) in part as a replacement for North Dakota, Florida was scrapped in 1931, and Wyoming became a gunnery training ship (AG-17), stripped of her armour and 2 of her main turrets. She remained in that role until 1947 when she was sold for scrap, undergoing many changes to her armament during WW2, being replaced by the Mississippi (as AG-128).

 

[GrauGeist]

Aside from Surigao Strait, no American WWI battleships fought against any ships in WWII. For good reason.

But that battle was spectacular irony, where those grand Old Ladies, survivors of Pearl Harbor, not only handed the Japanese Navy their ass, but did so in textbook fashion.

 

[Shortround6]

no American WWI battleships fought against any ships in WWII. For good reason.

Yes. They were slow and the Axis ships didn't want to hang around and fight them

Less flippant, by the time the old battleships were repaired/upgraded the Italians were basically out of it and were rather outnumbered as it was.
Germans were down to the Tirpitz and Scharnhorst in various states of disrepair or repair.
Japanese had only 3 old BB is service after the Mutsu blew herself up and the Ise class was taken in hand to be converted to hybrid carriers.
Japanese remainders were still faster than the Americans and could avoid action and so they were seldom even in the same operational areas.
The Japanese were not going to come out and play against the Pennsylvania and later ships unless they had no choice.

 

[Glider]

At the end of the day, the only old WW1 warships worth updating are the RN 13.5in battlecruisers. Extending the guns range by increasing elevation to 30 degree, new machinery to increase the power and better deck armour/protection against torpedo's to better protect against air attack. Do this and you will have a useful naval weapon of war.
Side armour is of little importance assuming you have the minimum needed.

 

[Admiral Beez]

USS Utah was decomissioned as a battleship and reassigned as a training ship (AG-16) and sunk at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941.

Of note, one of the IJNAS air crew who sank USS Utah died recently.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/news/masamitsu-yoshioka-death.html