feasibility of keeping WW I battleships around for WW II.

[WARSPITER]

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.

The Italian 15" guns had range capability far exceeding any other nations but the price was a barrel life of only around half
that of any other nations. Dispersion of shot was also bad.

The ammunition was of the Forrest Gump box of chocolates type - you never knew what you were going to get in each batch.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Italian 15" guns had range capability far exceeding any other nations but the price was a barrel life of only around half
that of any other nations. Dispersion of shot was also bad.

I find it interesting that only Italy fielded triple 15" guns. Did Britain, seemingly forever leaning on twin 11-15" guns ever consider triple 15" mounts? Of course the French went for quad 15".

The ammunition was of the Forrest Gump box of chocolates type - you never knew what you were going to get in each batch.

Sounds like Italian cars.

 

[Shortround6]

Twins had several advantages and several disadvantages.
With the lack of real combat experience a lot this is theoretical.
Four twin mounts allowed for half salvos (although you could use a 4-5 split ?) and 4 guns was considered the minimum salvo for group size/location.
You could fire the turrets in pairs. Triple turrets had problems firing splits. The outer guns could be fired together for balance. The inner gun could be fired by itself.
A triple was often cramped and was supposed to have a lower rate of fire.
Triples allowed for shorter hulls and increased armor.
Twins allowed for preserving more fire power due to combat damage although one hit on either a 4 turret twin or a 3 turret triple leaves both with 6 guns remaining.
6 twins vs 4 triples was a better argument but then four bigger twins allowed for the shorter hull and thicker armor over the 12 small gun ships.
Britain went for the triple turrets in the 16in designs.
The KG Vs were an attempt to limit ships size by using small guns but somebody got their sums wrong. Or requirements changed. The initial 3 quad turrets were reduced to two quads and a twin due to weight.
Lets also remember that the British were fooling around with 18 in guns in 1916-17.
Triple 15in turrets may have been considered a backwards step?

 

[z42]

I find it interesting that only Italy fielded triple 15" guns. Did Britain, seemingly forever leaning on twin 11-15" guns ever consider triple 15" mounts? Of course the French went for quad 15".

Yes, a number of Washington treaty compliant battlecruiser designs IIRC had triple 15", culminating in F3 design. In the event they decided they rather wanted the equivalent battleship design variant (O3), which became the Nelrods.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I find it interesting that only Italy fielded triple 15" guns. Did Britain, seemingly forever leaning on twin 11-15" guns ever consider triple 15" mounts?

They did, for the Lion-class, which ofc never got built due to war breaking out.

 

[z42]

They did, for the Lion-class, which ofc never got built due to war breaking out.

The Lion's had triple 16", not 15". But indeed the war breaking out caused them to be repeatedly postponed and eventually canceled outright.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Lion's had triple 16", not 15". But indeed the war breaking out caused them to be repeatedly postponed and eventually canceled outright.

Oh, thanks for the correction. For some reason whenever Drach mentions the Lions I guess I hear "triple fifteens"? Anyway, good catch.

 

[EwenS]

During the 1935 design process for the KGVs a number of main armament options were examined based on the old WNT Treaty limit of 16" guns.

1. 3x4 gun 14"
2. 3x3 gun 15"
3. 3x3 gun 16"

The design of all 3 weapons had much in common allowing a scaling from one size to another in manufacture.

The design for the KGVs originally selected in 1935 was the 15" version. BUT that choice only lasted for a few weeks. A political decision was then made to go to the London Conference, which started in Dec 1935, to argue for a new, reduced, 14" limit. That became the new limit in the 1936 Treaty but with the "Escalator Clause". The hope was if everyone adopted the new limit, particularly the USA, the cost of new ships would be reduced.

The 15" design never progressed beyond an outline design and is generally forgotten about.

Also forgotten is that the USN initially designed the North Carolinas around quad 14" before deciding to go to the max size permitted by Treaty - 16", following Japan failing to indicate agreement, as a non signatory, to adhere to the new limit, so triggering the escalator clause. Unfortunately that came too late for Britain & the KGV design.

See Friedman's British Battleships book.

British ship designers felt they couldn't get a "balanced" (in terms of armament, armour & speed mix) 16" armed battleship on the Treaty limit of 35,000 tons. So the 15" option was considered the next best. The decision to reduce the KGV armament from 12 to 10 guns involved discussions about various trade offs involved in meeting the 35,000 ton Treaty limit. At that point they needed to save about 500 tons on the detailed design. IIRC to have carried 12 guns some secondary 5.25" DP armament would have had to be sacrificed or a move to 4.5", neither of which was considered acceptable.

Details of the new 15" gun can be found here.

United Kingdom / Britain 15"/45 (38.1 cm) Mark II - NavWeaps

navweaps.com

 

[EwenS]

Lets also remember that the British were fooling around with 18 in guns in 1916-17.
Triple 15in turrets may have been considered a backwards step?

The 18"/40 Mk.I was designed in 1915 with two single gun turrets intended to be installed in the large light cruiser Furious. In the end she emerged with aviation facilities in place of the forward turret, while the after turret was replaced in Nov 1917 with another aircraft hangar topped by a landing on deck.

BUT an extra pair of twin 15"/42 turrets were built for Furious, designed to be interchangable with the 18" turrets, in case the latter didn't work out.

In 1918 a couple of the 18" guns were fitted in fixed mounts to fire on the beam of a some monitors.

United Kingdom / Britain 18"/40 (45.7 cm) Mark I - NavWeaps

navweaps.com

A Mk.II version was amongst various big gun designs studied 1920-22 until the WNT capped gun size at 16".

United Kingdom / Britain 18"/45 (45.7 cm) Mark II and other Proposed Guns 1920-1922 - NavWeaps

navweaps.com

The USN also dabbled with an 18" gun in the 1920s

USA 18"/48 (45.7 cm) Mark 1, 16"/56 (40.6 cm) Mark 4 and 18"/47 (45.7 cm) Mark A - NavWeaps

navweaps.com

So did Japan.

Japan 46 cm/50 (18.1") 5th Year Type - NavWeaps

navweaps.com

Japan 36 cm/45 (14.2") 5th Year Type - NavWeaps

navweaps.com

Before of course adopting an 18.1in gun for the Yamato class which they hid the true size of

Japan 40 cm/45 (15.7") Type 94 - NavWeaps

navweaps.com

And Japan was planning an even larger 20.1in weapon for a Super-Yamato that we cancelled.

Japan 51 cm/45 (20.1") "A" Type 98 (?) - NavWeaps

navweaps.com

Without the WNT there is little doubt that 18in guns would have become the standard in the 1920s on the largest capital ships.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

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

IJN Battleship Mikasa: A Photo Guide

Discover IJN Battleship Mikasa, Japan's hero of the Russo-Japanese war. Uncover the ship's history and its huge guns.

tokyo-in-pics.com

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).

Sackville was built in Canada

 

[Admiral Beez]

Sackville was built in Canada

Thanks. I should have known that, having lived in NB for years and visited the ship several times on my trips to NS. It's interesting that we never made any destroyers until the postwar St. Laurent-class. I suppose with so many war surplus ships and a short lived peace dividend there was no need.

In 1990, the St. Lawrence-class ship, HMCS Saguenay visited Toronto on her farewell tour and I recall as a teenager touring the ship. She was only thirty-four years since her 1956 commissioning. HMCS Halifax is now thirty-two years from commissioning and will likely be forty years plus before she's replaced by a River class.

 

[EwenS]

Thanks. I should have known that, having lived in NB for years and visited the ship several times on my trips to NS. It's interesting that we never made any destroyers until the postwar St. Laurent-class. I suppose with so many war surplus ships and a short lived peace dividend there was no need.

In 1990, the St. Lawrence-class ship, HMCS Saguenay visited Toronto on her farewell tour and I recall as a teenager touring the ship. She was only thirty-four years since her 1956 commissioning. HMCS Halifax is now thirty-two years from commissioning and will likely be forty years plus before she's replaced by a River class.

You are forgetting the Canadian Tribals. While the first 4 (Athabaskan, Iroquois, Haida & Huron) were built in Britain by Vickers Armstrong Tyne, the last 4 were built in Canada.at Halifax by Halifax Shipyards.

Ordered April 1941, laid down May 1942
Micmac - completed 14 Sept 1945 just too late for WW2
Nootka - completed Aug 1946

Ordered April 1942, laid down May 1944 & Oct 1943 respectively.
Athabaskan (ii) completed Jan 1948
Cayuga completed Oct 1947.

 

[don4331]

Thanks. I should have known that, having lived in NB for years and visited the ship several times on my trips to NS. It's interesting that we never made any destroyers until the postwar St. Laurent-class. I suppose with so many war surplus ships and a short lived peace dividend there was no need.

In 1990, the St. Lawrence-class ship, HMCS Saguenay visited Toronto on her farewell tour and I recall as a teenager touring the ship. She was only thirty-four years since her 1956 commissioning. HMCS Halifax is now thirty-two years from commissioning and will likely be forty years plus before she's replaced by a River class.

Canada built 4 Tribal class destroyer prior to the St. Laurent class. While they did miss WWII, it wasn't by much: Micmac commissioned in Sept '45

Frigates were in higher demand for the Battle of the Atlantic, so Canada built just short of 100 of them...

 

[Admiral Beez]

Oh, thanks for the correction. For some reason whenever Drach mentions the Lions I guess I hear "triple fifteens"? Anyway, good catch.

Triples were the popular format for 16", with only five dreadnought battleships over two classes (3 x Colorado-class and 2 x Nagato-class) ever fielding twin 16". Only the Brits and USN completed any triple 16" battleships, but in addition to the cancelled Lions, the French Alsace-class (#2 design) and Soviet Sovetsky Soyuz-class were also to be triple 16" armed. Of course the Germans, in their forever quest to have the most inefficient application of displacement over capability planned four twin 16" for their H-class.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Triples were the popular format for 16", with only five dreadnought battleships over two classes (3 x Colorado-class and 2 x Nagato-class) ever fielding twin 16". Only the Brits and USN completed any triple 16" battleships, but in addition to the cancelled Lions, the French Alsace-class (#2 design) and Soviet Sovetsky Soyuz-class were also to be triple 16" armed. Of course the Germans, in their forever quest to have the most inefficient application of displacement over capability planned four twin 16" for their H-class.

Not to mention all the 14" Standards with triples USA built. It's a good way to get good numbers of guns aboard without ramping up the size too much.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Not to mention all the 14" Standards with triples USA built. It's a good way to get good numbers of guns aboard without ramping up the size too much.

Indeed. It's a wonder that the British took so long to go with triple mounts given the benefits. The Italians, Russians/Soviets and Austro-Hungarians had triple mounts for all their dreadnoughts. I like the look of the canceled Ersatz Monarch-class with its triple and twin 14", shown below.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Indeed. It's a wonder that the British took so long to go with triple mounts given the benefits. The Italians, Russians/Soviets and Austro-Hungarians had triple mounts for all their dreadnoughts. I like the look of the canceled Ersatz Monarch-class with its triple and twin 14", shown below.

View attachment 805284

I love the clipper-bowed American standards, but otherwise older battleships just look too square and chunky for me:

Even with the basketweavery, I love their symmetry and looking like they mean business.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I love the clipper-bowed American standards, but otherwise older battleships just look too square and chunky for me:

It's true. When it comes to the first 20 years of the dreadnought era, it's in balanced and beautiful lines where the battlecruiser reigned.

 

[Shortround6]

Chances of Italy getting ex-German dreadnoughts was about zero.
Italy was given 3 of the Radetzky class battleships and the Tegetthoff Dreadnought (the Prinz Eugen went to France), and number of smaller German and Austro-Hungarian ships.
Most of them were scrapped in the early 20s.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Had they had better luck, Spain's dreadnoughts could have lasted to serve in WW2.

España - Ran aground, 1923. Recovery failed, ship broke in half in 2024.
Alfonso XIII - Sunk by naval mine 1937
Jaime I - Wrecked by internal explosion 1937

Of course Spain remained neutral, so they'd only see service is sold to another power. But what of the South American dreadnoughts. In Jan 1943, Chile declared war on Germany and Italy - what possible action could the Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre (ex-HMS Canada) take in the Atlantic or Med? How about bombardment at D-Day.

If we can advance the DoW on Japan to 1943 instead of Jan 1945, let's have the Chilean battleship along with four Serrano-class destroyers sail for Pearl Harbour and then to join in the Pacific naval battles of 1943-44. I can just imagine the USN commanders shaking their heads and wondering where to deploy and how to supply this Chilean group. At least none of the Chilean group is coal-fired.