SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Fixed it.
feasibility of keeping WW I battleships around for WW II.
- Thread starter Shortround6
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
See WNT 1922 Part 3 Section 1
"d) No retained capital ships or aircraft-carriers shall be reconstructed except for the purpose of providing means of defence against air and submarine attack, and subject to the following rules: the Contracting Powers may, for that purpose, equip existing tonnage with bulge or blister or anti-air attack deck protection, providing the increase of displacement thus effected does not exceed 3,000 tons (3,048 metric tons) displacement for each ship. No alterations in side armour, in calibre, number or general type of mounting of main armament shall be permitted except:
(1) in the case of France and Italy, which countries within the limits allowed for bulge may increase their armour protection and the calibre of the guns now carried on their existing capital ships so as not to exceed 16 inches (406 millimetres) and;
(2) the British Empire shall be permitted to complete, in the case of the Renown, the alterations to armour that have already been commenced but temporarily suspended."
There was a dispute between the USN and the RN over the legal interpretation of this in relation to the increase in elevation of main armament turrets. In the 1920s the USN believed it was legally possible and did so on the Nevadas, Pennsylvanias and New Mexicos in the early 1930s. They increased the elevation from 15 to 30 degrees to match Hood. Tge Tennessees and Colorados were built with 30 degree elevation.
After the USN began modifying its ships the RN changed its mind and accepted a fait accompli. For that reason the RN did not increase the elevation of any of its 15" turrets until Warspite and subsequent reconstructions. Warspite only got the increase in elevation because her "large repair" was extended due to the need replace her machinery.
The RN 13.5" & 15" turrets were built with 20 degree elevation except for Hood's 15" Mk.2 turrets which had 30 degrees.
Glider
Captain
Thanks for that, much appreciated.
Admiral Beez
Major
I'd like to have kept HMS Canada. Her 14" guns had a greater punch. Not that those same guns in IJN hands were able to penetrate modern US battleship armour.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Not much improvement in gun-power, and requiring the maintenance of a separate supply chain, and this in a time of much-reduced naval funding.
Glider
Captain
She was too slow. An updated BC would be able to support most of the more modern carrier, and modern BB fleets, if only with AA support.
Admiral Beez
Major
Go the Cavour route, where through removing the middle turret and replacing the machinery the class went from 31,000 shp and 21.5 knots to 75,000 shp and 27 knots. So, keep HMS Canada, remove Q turret, replace machinery and we'll get a 8x14" battleship capable to keep up with the KGVs.
- Thread starter
- #288
Shortround6
Major General
the HMS Canada was not built to the same standards as the Iron Dukes or other RN battleships and would have been a poor bargain. Not to mention Britain had to replace her with something in order to keep Chile happy. Like giving them an Iron Duke?
The Canada was long for her size and that allowed for more speed on the same power. However she had thinner armor than the Iron Dukes and may have been closer to the Tiger in protection.
If you can get around the treaties keeping and upgrading the Tiger might have been better and cheaper.
The Canada was long for her size and that allowed for more speed on the same power. However she had thinner armor than the Iron Dukes and may have been closer to the Tiger in protection.
If you can get around the treaties keeping and upgrading the Tiger might have been better and cheaper.
Admiral Beez
Major
What can we do to improve the hitting power of the 13.5 inch? Elevation increases, of course. But can we get a super-heavy Green Boy or the like? Could they bored out to 14 inch to take the KGV class shells?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Something I've always wondered about, is how much drag did the foreward torpedo tubes create on those older warships?
In many of the photos that I've seen, they appear to be just ports without a flush outter door, unlike a submarine.
In many of the photos that I've seen, they appear to be just ports without a flush outter door, unlike a submarine.
- Thread starter
- #291
Shortround6
Major General
why?
They had both light and heavy shells in WW I but the light shells (around 570kg) may have been superseded while the ships were being built.
The heavy shells were around 635kg which put them on par with the Japanese 14 shells at least into the 1930s.
Most of the US 14in gun ships didn't get 680kg shells until the 1930s. They had 635kg shells before then so when to you want to do the rebuild?
If you wait until the 1930s you are really beating a dead horse. Take the money and order another KGV.
How much time and effort does it take to plan/design/test these modifications for a handful of guns?
British need AA guns, AT-guns, army heavy artillery and lots more than they need trick shells for one capital ship.
I have highlighted before that it is not just a question of widening the hole down which the shell must pass, to put it crudely. There is a whole lot more to consider if modifying a "built up" battleship gun (i.e. a weapon that is not constructed from a single billet of steel).
This video gives a good idea of the construction such big guns. Canada's guns were wire wound, a desciption of their construction comes later in the video so it is worth viewing the whole thing from start to finish. Some nice photos of extreme barrel droop & failure of a wire wound gun.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLwsl_BH1Gs
You will find more on the subject here:-
Naval Gun Barrel Construction
a very complete manual of Naval Gun Barrels and interior balistics
www.eugeneleeslover.com
Your proposal is similar to the Italian work in the 1930s. While the Italians reconstructed the Vickers designed 12"/46 (305mm) guns in the Cavour & Duilio classes in the 1930's into 320mm / 44 a lot more than a simple boring out was involved. From Navweaps:-
"The conversion was judged to be satisfactory with 13.4% more muzzle energy being obtained. However, the rebuilt guns had more longitudinal droop and slightly more shell dispersion."
"The Elswick guns were converted by Ansaldo and the Vickers guns by OTO. See the 12"/46 (30.5 cm) Model 1909 data page for the original construction details. The conversion consisted of boring out to remove the original A tube and apparently some of the wire. The remainder was shrunk on to a new A tube. It is possible that a shrunk or tupped inner A tube was also fitted."
14 guns were built for Canada (10 fitted & 4 spares). While Canada was sold back to Chile in 1920 at a knock down price it seems that the spare guns were scrapped in 1922. Her sister ship Almirante Cochrane was completed as the carrier Eagle. The RN retained her after WW1 because the cost of converting her back into a battleship exceeded the Chilean purchase price offered. 10 guns were ordered for her but only 3 built.
Admiral Beez
Major
It's the below water side torpedo tubes that cause a lot of drag due to the need for the guide bar extension.
The later doors were above the waterline. Here's HMS Hood's doors.
I remember being fascinated by the photos of battleship torpedo rooms. Here's HMS Rodney - the only battleship that launched a torpedo at another warship - it is believed that at least one of the torpedoes launched hit Bismarck. Just look at the space dedicated to this weapon system.
Last edited:
As completed Hood was equipped with 6x21" TT (4 above water as seen in the above photo & 2 underwater). The underwater TT were removed in 1937 and the space converted for other puposes in her Feb-June 1939 refit. The underwater tubes were placed across the beam of the ship near the bow.
The 24.5" TT in the Nelrods were not trained abeam. They were angled forward to within about 10 degrees of the axial line.
The 24.5" TT in the Nelrods were not trained abeam. They were angled forward to within about 10 degrees of the axial line.
Alan Stevens
Airman 1st Class
- 113
- May 24, 2023
They all served on Dec. 7, 1941.
In 1931, Utah was demilitarized and converted into a target ship and re-designated as AG-16, in accordance with the terms of the London Naval Treaty signed the previous year. She was also equipped with numerous anti-aircraft guns of different types to train gunners for the fleet. She served in these two roles for the rest of the decade, and late 1941 found the ship in Pearl Harbor. She was in port on the morning of 7 December, and in the first minutes of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, was hit by two torpedoes, which caused serious flooding. Utah quickly rolled over and sank; the vast majority of her crew were able to escape, but 58 men were killed in the attack. The wreck remains in the harbor, and in 1972, a memorial was erected near the ship.
So the attackers treated her with the same priority as with the other battleships.
The IJN were aware of Utah's likely presence that morning and her pilots were briefed not to attack her as it would be a waste of valuable torpedoes. So why was she attacked?
Firstly her location. She was in a berth normally occupied by one of the US Pacific Fleet aircraft carriers and on the opposite side of Ford Island from Battleship Row. The carriers were second on the IJN target priority list after the battleships.
Secondly ,the weather conditions faced by IJN pilots that morning and in particular the angle of the sun and haze that they encountered attacking that side of Ford Island. Interesting article here on this aspect.
The Mystery of the Attack on the Utah
An on-site investigation leads a historical sleuth to a possible explanation for one of the enduring enigmas of Pearl Harbor.
Thirdly, the appearance of the Utah herself that day. As converted in the 1930 she had two roles as noted previously. The relevant one on 7 Dec 1941 was her role as a target ship for USN carrier bombers. For that her armament was covered with large wooden box structures to prevent it being damaged during such operations. The photo in the above linked article clearly shows one such structure over two of her after 5"/38 mounts. It can also be found here.
This is a picture of her in Aug 1941, after her last refit, showing the numerous 5" mounts that needed protection.
And this is the caption.
"August, 1941 photo of the ship at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard being repainted at what was her final refit. Clearly seen is the asymmetrical array of 5"/38 and 5"/25 guns mounted in the old barbettes and along the sides of the ship. At this time, the ship had a dual purpose; as a gunnery training vessel and as a target vessel. In the target vessel role, all of the guns and gun directors were cover with protective wooden sheds which were put in place by the cranes the ship carried."
This from her history on DANFS
"As the ship began to roll ponderously over on her beam ends, 6-by-12-inch timbers, placed on the decks to cushion them against the impact of the bombs used during the ship's latest stint as a mobile target, began to shift, hampering the efforts of the crew to abandon ship"
So we had a ship with a much blockier configuration than a normal battleship courtesy of those wooden structures, in some ways more like a carrier when viewed from near sea level, in less than perfect light conditions, in a position where IJN pilots expected to see a carrier. Add in a bit of confirmation bias on their part and Utah became the target she was never intended to be.
Salvage efforts were made in early 1944, if only to clear an adjacent berth. Those extended to far as righting from her capsized position but were then abandoned later that year.
Edit: reading Zimm's book "Attack on Pearl Harbor - Strategy, Combat, Myths, Deceptions" it was 16 Kate TB from Soryu & Hiryu (8 from each) that were to attack the carrier berths on the north west side of Ford Island with the approach being at an angle to the line of moored ships which were then foreshortened in the line of sight, and increasing the difficulty for some pilots in distinguishing targets. They attack formation was in rwo line ahead strings of aircraft.
It was aircraft from the Soryu string that attacked Utah.
Its leader correctly identified Utah and went looking for another target (he ended up torpedoing Helena), taking his shotai with him. But then two of those broke away and ended up attacking the carrier berths and Utah. The second shotai broke away from the leader and headed for Utah. The final aircraft of the first shotai eventually swung around Ford Island to torpedo California. Note each shotai had been increased from 3 to 4 for this operation.
The string of Hiryu aircraft ended up attacking battleship row, which meant conflicts with the approach of Akagi & Kaga TB making their approach from a different direction.
Two things strike me.
1. The angle of the attack on Utah and the foreshortening effect that had increasing the difficulty of target identification; and
2. How long and how clear a view of the carrier berths did the 2nd shotai leader have if they were playing follow my leader? The string leader (and first shotai leader) was the one with the longest clear view of the target line. He and his no 2 were the ones that went looking for another target. His no 2 also recognised that their were better targets than Helena.
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Major
It must have been a rare instance for an Essex class carrier sailing past a ex-German WW1 battlecruiser.
en.wikipedia.org
And here's SMS Goeben alongside USS Missouri. Big gun warships had come a long way in those thirty-two years between their commissioning in 1912 and 1944.
SMS Goeben - Wikipedia
And here's SMS Goeben alongside USS Missouri. Big gun warships had come a long way in those thirty-two years between their commissioning in 1912 and 1944.
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
The Goeben was another lost opportunity. What an historic ship.
Admiral Beez
Major
Agreed. What British WW1 battleship or battlecruiser that was scrapped in the 1920s would you have liked to have been saved as a museum today?
Given its compact size and Britain's lack of available museum berths, I'd go with the original of them all, HMS Dreadnought, and place her where she was built, HM Dockyard Portsmouth. At 527 ft long and 82 ft wide, Dreadnought could take the place of HMS Warrior, which is 420 ft long (excluding bowsprit) and 58 ft wide, without taking over the still operational and busy naval base. Though Dreadnought's deeper draught at low tide may be an issue. And besides, I'd rather see Dreadnought out of water permanently, like SS Great Britain and Cutty Sark, where you can walk beneath the keel.
And we'd also need a home for Warrior. She was built by the Thames Ironworks and Shipbuilding Company, so perhaps berth Warrior near HMS Belfast.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I'd love to see U.S.S. Olympia moved to a "dryer" dock myself.
I hope you're not disappointed by my stock choice of an RN ship for preservation, H.M.S. Warspite.
I hope you're not disappointed by my stock choice of an RN ship for preservation, H.M.S. Warspite.
