feasibility of keeping WW I battleships around for WW II. (2 Viewers)

SaparotRob · 2024-10-20T15:39:26-0400

Glider said:
At the end of the day, the only old WW1 warship worth updating is Warspite.

Fixed it.

EwenS · 2024-10-20T16:06:01-0400

Glider said:
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.

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 · 2024-10-20T16:58:40-0400

Thanks for that, much appreciated.

Admiral Beez · 2024-10-20T17:33:28-0400

Glider said:
At the end of the day, the only old WW1 warships worth updating are the RN 13.5in battlecruisers.

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 · 2024-10-20T18:03:14-0400

Admiral Beez said:
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.

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 · 2024-10-20T18:22:19-0400

Admiral Beez said:
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.

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 · 2024-10-20T20:43:19-0400

Glider said:
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.

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.

Shortround6 · 2024-10-20T21:24:21-0400

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.

Admiral Beez · 2024-10-20T21:28:17-0400

Shortround6 said:
If you can get around the treaties keeping and upgrading the Tiger might have been better and cheaper.

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?

feasibility of keeping WW I battleships around for WW II. (2 Viewers)

More options

SaparotRob

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

EwenS

Tech Sergeant

Glider

Captain

Admiral Beez

Major

Thumpalumpacus

Major

Glider

Captain

Admiral Beez

Major

Shortround6

Major General

Admiral Beez

Major

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads