feasibility of keeping WW I battleships around for WW II.

SaparotRob said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's why I asked about your pick of those British battleships scrapped in the 1920s. Warspite is a given otherwise. Though berthing such a big ship in the UK would be an issue.

My favourite period of British battleships is the late Victoria period, starting with the genesis of all high freeboard pre-dreadnoughts, the Royal Sovereign class. In those days of the Pax Britannica the Royal Navy's battleships and cruisers were brightly painted in white and buff on black hulls. As such I would have liked to have kept Admiral Fisher's favourite flagship, HMS Renown, scrapped in 1913/14. She was smaller and lighter armed than the Royal Sovereign class, but at 200ft shorter and only 9ft wider than the museum ship HMS Belfast, Renown is ideally scaled for economical display in 2024 in her original Victorian colour scheme. And who wouldn't want to take a seat in Fisher's opulent cabin shown below?



I belong to a R/C model ship club and one day I will buy and build the pre-dreadnought HMS Magnificent from Deans Marine.



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlWfl28gVzg

Beautiful model.

SaparotRob said:

Beautiful model.

Click to expand...

Agreed. One day I will get to visit the closest thing to a RN predreadought, the British-built IJNS Mikasa.


Mikasa is preserved in concrete. This is an interesting way to avoid corrosion while still supporting the hull.

It would not surprise if there are more British-built warship museums outside of the UK than in their country of origin. For example, the revolutionary turret ship Huascar in Chile would be very nice to visit. Here in Canada I can think of four British-built warship museums (HMCS Haida, Sackville, Ojibwa and Onondaga).

Mikasa is on my bucket list.

SaparotRob said:

Mikasa is on my bucket list.

Click to expand...

I fear we may be disappointed, as access appears to be just the bridge and upper deck structure.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NHFqITqVLP0&pp=ygULSWpucyBtaWthc2E%3D

If I remember correctly, that's all I could see on U.S.S. Olympia.

SaparotRob said:

If I remember correctly, that's all I could see on U.S.S. Olympia.

Click to expand...

In that case it probably wasn't safe due to corrosion and risk of sinking. In Mikasa's case i believe she was stripped out in the 1940s, see below. I don't think there's anything left below the upper deck nor inside the turrets - assuming the turrets are not empty reproductions.

The Basket said:

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.

Click to expand...

What of the 15in. Bayern-class? Had they both survived their visit to Scapa Flow (one was salvaged) and gone to Italy as reparations (to assuage their frustrations at Versailles, where many Italians felt that the concessions did not meet the promises made in the 1915 Treaty of London) what would they look like by the 1940s?



The Bayerns are rather short and wide battleships, so made for short ops - ideal for the MTO. Would we see the Italians lengthen the bows and replace the machinery in order to take these 21 knot ships to over 25 knots to sail alongside the modernized Cavours and Dorias? What about extending the stern to improve the Speed/length ratio? And lastly, thoughts on adding speed-killing buldges? The Italians skipped that on other dreadnought modernizations. Here's a British Revenge class in the 1940s. Shows bulges and AA.



Of course we must set aside our contrarian tendencies that are now shouting that there's no way Britain, France, USA or even Japan would allow Italy to get Germany's super dreadnoughts in the Treaty of Versailles and later WNT. I chose Italy as they're the nation where 15" armed ships would be a big impact on their otherwise 12" armed interwar battlefleet. The question here isn't if Italy getting the Bayerns is feasible, but if they would be useful in WW2.

Admiral Beez said:

What of the 15in. Bayern-class? Had they both survived their visit to Scapa Flow (one was salvaged) and gone to Italy as reparations (to assuage their frustrations at Versailles, where many Italians felt that the concessions did not meet the promises made in the 1915 Treaty of London) what would they look like by the 1940s?

View attachment 804221

The Bayerns are rather short and wide battleships, so made for short ops - ideal for the MTO. Would we see the Italians lengthen the bows and replace the machinery in order to take these 21 knot ships to over 25 knots to sail alongside the modernized Cavours and Dorias? What about extending the stern to improve the Speed/length ratio? And lastly, thoughts on adding speed-killing buldges? The Italians skipped that on other dreadnought modernizations. Here's a British Revenge class in the 1940s. Shows bulges and AA.

View attachment 804440

Of course we must set aside our contrarian tendencies that are now shouting that there's no way Britain, France, USA or even Japan would allow Italy to get Germany's super dreadnoughts in the Treaty of Versailles and later WNT. I chose Italy as they're the nation where 15" armed ships would be a big impact on their otherwise 12" armed interwar battlefleet. The question here isn't if Italy getting the Bayerns is feasible, but if they would be useful in WW2.

Click to expand...

The Italians didn't need to add external bulges in the reconstructions of the Cavours & Dorias because they adopted the Pugliese System of internal bulges which took up a lot of space internally within the existing hull outline. This comprised a hollow absorbing cylinder running the length of the armoured citadel contained within a larger water filled compartment. Some sources indicate that the absorbing tube was filled with closed, crushable tubes in the same way that the external bulges of Ramilles were when she first emerged with external bulges. The hull of these ships limited the width of the system that could be fitted and therefore its effectiveness. The system proved difficult to repair once damaged. In addition their machinery layout had to be changed from 4 shaft to 2 shaft presumably because the space in the centre of the hull was that much narrower. The Cavours still got a 5m increase in beam so far as I can see.

It was also fitted in the Littorio class where the air filled absorbing cylinders were each 3.8m wide (in that water filled compartment) in a hull with a beam of 32m.

One of the sacrifices the Italians had to make with the Cavours & Dorias when they were reconstructed was the midships triple 305mm turret, as the space it occupied was now required for the new machinery inside the Pugliese defensive system.

This was the setup in the Cavour class.




And in Littorio while under construction.



The Bayern has no midships turret to sacrifice to generate the additional space for new and rearranged machinery. Here is a schematic of her internals (beam 30m). Seems to be little room outside the machinery spaces to fit a Pugliese system without encroaching on the machinery spaces. So external bulges would seem to be required, unless you can fit sufficiently powerful and compact boilers and turbines. into less space and probably going to a 2 shaft arrangement.

Does Italy have the money for two more complete rebuilds without sacrificing other shipbuilding projects?

Thumpalumpacus said:

Does Italy have the money for two more complete rebuilds without sacrificing other shipbuilding projects?

Click to expand...

Italy might have been better off with a somewhat smaller navy, and using the resources left over from not building these ships to copy/license a (several?) of the German synthetic fuel plants, in order to actually be able to use the fleet they had rather than having it sit in harbor without fuel.

z42 said:

Italy might have been better off with a somewhat smaller navy, and using the resources left over from not building these ships to copy/license a (several?) of the German synthetic fuel plants, in order to actually be able to use the fleet they had rather than having it sit in harbor without fuel.

Click to expand...

That's a good point, though I have no idea how the costs balance out. But the biggest fleet in the theater means nothing, as you point out, if they're swaying at anchor for the lack of go.

The question then arises if Commando Supremo would actually use that smaller but better-fueled fleet in a manner aggressive enough to make a difference. I don't have an answer for that either.

There is also the issue of Italian Naval operations - they had a sizable force in the Med, but did not make good use of it.

Admiral Beez said:

The Bayerns are rather short and wide battleships, so made for short ops - ideal for the MTO. Would we see the Italians lengthen the bows and replace the machinery in order to take these 21 knot ships to over 25 knots to sail alongside the modernized Cavours and Dorias? What about extending the stern to improve the Speed/length ratio?

Click to expand...

Admiral Beez said:

Of course we must set aside our contrarian tendencies that are now shouting that there's no way Britain, France, USA or even Japan would allow Italy to get Germany's super dreadnoughts in the Treaty of Versailles and later WNT. I chose Italy as they're the nation where 15" armed ships would be a big impact on their otherwise 12" armed interwar battlefleet. The question here isn't if Italy getting the Bayerns is feasible, but if they would be useful in WW2.

Click to expand...

So basely keep the turrets, barbettes, some of the armor, and the name plates and build new hulls, new machinery, deck armor (at a minimum) fire control systems and secondary armament and AA armament?

That is a lot of work and even if the Italians do it, can the they afford to build the Littorio's in addition to the rebuild work?
Or do the Italians try to mount Littorio 15in guns in place of the German guns during the rebuild?

Or do the Italians get to keep and rebuild the Bayerns and scrap the Cavours but keep the Dorias?

If the Italians had secured the two more modern Bayerns under the Versailles Treaty, I doubt the big 3 would have been quite so generous at either Washington in 1921/22 or London in 1930 with regard to scrapping older vesels and replacement tonnage.

Italy's financial position inter-war didn't allow it to keep all the old ships it was entitled to retain under WNT. Of the 10 ships it could retain, 4 old pre-dreadnoughts were disposed of 1923-27 without replacement under the terms of the WNT. The fleet was further reduced to just 4 (Cavour & Doria classes) because Italy couldnt afford to rebuild Leonardo da Vinci (as permitted by WNT) or maintain Dante Alighieri in service.

So if it gained 2 Bayerns, then financially Italy would have to sacrifice the two Cavours in the 1920s.

Under WNT the Italians secured the right to build 35,000 tons of new battleship tonnage in 1927, & 1929 due to the age of their existing fleet, and despite the 10 year moratorium agreed to by the big 3. They retained that right in the 1930 London Treaty. That allowed them to lay down the first two Littorios (originally intended to be 35,000 tons) in Oct 1934 (although not much work was done until 1935 while the design as finalised). That was over two years before the big 3 could start on replacement tonnage. So maybe the first two Littorios can't enter service in 1940, unless their build time could be reduced (as it was for Roma). IIRC as well as design changes, the Littorios were delayed by steel shortages in Italy and by a worldwide shortage of scrap steel in the mid-1930s on which Italy was relying.

So you would get to June 1940 with Italy having 2 reconstructed Dorias, 2 reconstructed Bayerns and the Littorios still under construction, having been started later. That leaves the Italian Navy in a worse position than historical.

Thumpalumpacus said:

Does Italy have the money for two more complete rebuilds without sacrificing other shipbuilding projects?

Click to expand...

Interwar 1919-39 Italy seemed to have the money for significant naval projects. In addition to undergoing significant upgrades to the four Cavour/Doria class, they built seven CAs, fourteen CLs, over fifty submarines and over seventy destroyers. Perhaps the first two Littorio class begun in 1934 are delayed to free up money for the Bayerns…. though that seems a poor choice.

So, the more likely choice is to sacrifice or delay the at least two units of the Cavour/Doria project. Their original British-made 12" guns were bored out to 12.4" but suffered from accuracy issues, and were never going to have the hitting power to take on the Royal Navy's battle line. But imagine Bayern and Baden with upgraded elevation and fire control, returning the 15" shells of HMS Warspite and Malaya at the Battle of Calabria.

Admiral Beez said:

Interwar 1919-39 Italy seemed to have the money for significant naval projects. In addition to undergoing significant upgrades to the four Cavour/Doria class, they built seven CAs, fourteen CLs, over fifty submarines and over seventy destroyers.

Click to expand...

Exactly my point. Adding two more big upgrades will either require a big budget increase, or forgoing other necessary project.

Another thing that occurs to me about the Bayerns is that sourcing spare parts will probably be a little tough to do.

The Bayern class also had steel barrels. Short life plus not able to be relined. Not a spare part you could get from Krupp by then
anyway.

Admiral Beez said:

But imagine Bayern and Baden with upgraded elevation and fire control, returning the 15" shells of HMS Warspite and Malaya at the Battle of Calabria.

Click to expand...

Well, there are several problems with this.
Without upgraded machinery the Bayern and Baden are about the same speed as the Royal Sovereign and would have a hard time either escaping the two faster (a relative term for these ships) British battleships or chasing them down should they decide to retreat.
Without rebuilding the armor layout the Bayern and Baden are little better protected than the Royal Sovereign and well behind the Warspite.
The 15in guns on the Bayern and Baden were the weakest 15in guns ever built and while much more powerful than the Italian 12.6in guns they are not the same as the British 15in guns.
Something may have or may not have done in upgrading the elevation and that would be upgrading/modifying the shell hoists and shell handling equipment to take longer/more streamlined shells.
Malaya, Barham, Repulse and the five Royal Sovereign class battleships had not yet been upgraded by 1939 to take the newer, more streamlined shells. The British came up with "patch" in the form of a 'super charge' powder charge to give increased velocity to unmodified ships. But this didn't show up until 1941 and there is no record of it being used in action.

BTW the Italian 15in gun was about 30,000kg heavier per barrel so dropping them into the Bayern and Baden turrets was probably a no go.

Keeping the 11 (out of 14) coal fired boilers doesn't do as much as it seems for Italian fleet mobility as Italy was importing coal anyway. Assuming that the old boilers had not been replaced/modified in the 20 years.

The more money spent on these two ships is less money to spent on the Italian ships.

To fully understand the Italian Navy inter-war construction programmes yu also need to study those of France as well, because these two countries effectively became locked in their own little a naval arms race to allow their navies to control the Med, or at least to prevent the other from controlling it. With both having extensive colonies in North Africa this was essential. Both came out of WW1 with fleets that were badly in need of modernisation. Throughout the period to the mid-1930s there were hopes for worldwide disarmament and the politics surrounding that also affected what was ordered and when.

Capital ships
In the 1920s both Italy & France studied new battleships and both secured concessions at Washington that would allowed them to start replacement programmes in 1927. Neither could afford it financially. France, also facing a resurgent German Navy from 1929 (when the pocket battleship Deutschland was laid down), finally had to bite the bullet and lay down Dunkerque & Strasbourg in 1932 & 1934 (planning of these began in 1929). The Italian response, with negotiations between the two countries failing, was to reconstruct the two Cavours as an interim measure (actually begun Oct 1933) pending the outcome of the 1930 London Naval Conference where there had been moves to limit the size of individual new capital ships (which came to nothing in the end). With that out of the way the Italians decided to build two Littorio class (laid down Oct 1934) to outclass the Dunkerques. Germany responded to the French Dunkerques by building the Scharnhorsts (laid down 1935), while France reponded to the Littorios with the first pair of Richelieus in 1935 & 1936.

The decision to reconstruct the Dorias didn't come until Feb 1937, after the 1936 London Naval treaty was signed with the second pair of Littorios being authorised by Mussolini in Dec that year.


Heavy cruisers
In common with other countries, if they couldn't acquire battleships due to Treaty or financial woes, France & Italy bought 10,000 ton heavy cruisers. Cheaper than new capital ships and numbers not Treaty limited. The French started the ball rolling with the design of the 2 Duquesna class from 1922 (laid down in 1924 & 1925). The Italians matched that with the two Trentos ordered in 1924 and laid down in 1925. France followed with further ships laid down in 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929 & 1931. Italy followed up its initial pair by laying down two in 1929, two in 1930 and one in 1931. Each succeeding class was an improvement on the one before and an attempt to outperform the other country. So the two nations matched each other in numbers. But these were still expensive ships to build.

The 1930 London Naval Treaty put an end to construction of these large 8" cruisers. While France & Italy did not sign up to that part of the Treaty, they informally agreed to abide by it and not build any more.


Light cruisers, Contre-torpilleurs, Esploratori, & destroyers
In the 1920s and early 1930s France laid down a large number of large destroyers (the contre-torpilleurs). The Italian response was to build the large Navigatore class Esploratori (later reclassified as destroyers) and the Guissano & Cadorna class light cruisers from 1927 & 1928-30 respectively.

And so it went on through the 1930s. Post London both nations built 6 light cruisers through to the end of 1937.

As the French continued to build their large destroyers of the Le Fantasque & Mogador types, the Italian response from 1939 was the Capitani Romani class light cruisers (12 ordered, 4 completed).

Neither country could afford to continue building large numbers of contre-torpilleur / Esploratori type destroyers & small cruisers so had to settle for other smaller destroyer classes.

Delve deep and it is interesting how things played out between the various navies in this period.