feasibility of keeping WW I battleships around for WW II.

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Regarding HMAS Australia and HMS New Zealand, the two inextricably tied as the concept of the Dominions having their own dreadnoughts was a common idea born in 1909 independently in each country, but for the same reasons, it even became an election issue in Australia, the original intent was that the "Gift Dreadnoughts" as they became known were to originally be First Class dreadnoughts more powerful than the Indefatigables, but cost came into the decision, at the time the Indefatigables were considered the most cost-effective capital ships of the period, not to mention Fisher's false assertions about the class's capabilities. Jellicoe at the time argued that they were too poorly protected and couldn't see what Fisher was hinting at, but that's another story for another time.

The crux of the matter was that the dreadnoughts gave both countries a semblance of security against the nervousness they felt over Germany's naval expansion; Australia got her own navy and New Zealand was still tied to the Royal Navy, but had a tangible defence asset in home waters (although the ship was nominally based in Britain), despite its weaknesses, although there was no enemy force in the Pacific region that had anywhere near the capability of defeating two battlecruisers of their size around the outbreak of the Great War - Japan was an ally, Japanese cruisers escorted the ANZAC fleet from home waters through the Indian Ocean. With the outbreak of war HMS New Zealand was part of Beattie's battlecruiser squadron at Rosyth.

The Falklands battle, where von Spee's squadron was defeated by British battlecruisers appeared to vindicate the decision and ease fears, the success obscured the disadvantages of these ships, but that kind of action was what they were bought by the dominions for, to be fair.

HMAS Australia's ship's bell in Canberra.

DSC_5342
 
Thanks to WNT and its successors, the late WWI ships with 15" guns/oil fired boiler and geared turbines were still relevant in WWII.

But HMAS Australia (1913) isn't one of those.

If in '21, national pride says Australia won't let the BC they have just paid for, to keep it relevant in mid 24s, you would need to do the following:

Pull the main guns so they can be reworked to handle 6crh rounds so the guns will have the range for expected conflicts in any upcoming action.
While the main guns are out, the elevation mechanism needs to be updated to allow 30° or more.
The barbettes need to be removed, partially to move to more modern A, B, X, Y configuration from the A, P, Q , Y one as built, partially because when constructed, the RN's shell wouldn't penetrate 1/2 caliber i.e. SMS Armoured Cruisers 21cm guns couldn't penetrate 4" of steel. It was very disconcerting to find out German shell could penetrate caliber and still explode high order in WWI. By end of war, it is assumed everyone's shells will penetrate caliber, so even if the BC is just being turned in a "Treaty" cruiser killer, the barbettes need to be thickened to 8"+.

As ship is being reworked to A, B, X, Y configuration, all the superstructure needs to be razed to be rebuilt modern which will have side effect of allowing modern fire control and proper arcs for AAA which is becoming a requirement. We also need a proper armoured deck against plunging fire.

With the super structure out of the way, all the coal fired boilers need to be pulled to make way for more powerful/less manpower intensive oil fired ones. And the direct drive paired turbines need to removed for vastly more compact/efficient geared ones - might get away with just 2 like the Italian rebuilds.

As we are installing geared turbines, driving the shaft at a slower, more efficient speed, we need to cur away and rebuild the aft hull for larger propellers.

On beams, we need to remove the thin belt (same issue as barbettes) and replace it with one thick enough to withstand modern cruisers.

While the belt is off, the hull needs to be remodeled to replace the coal bunkers with oil tanks and to incorporate a torpedo defense system. It will also need to increase beam as the extra armour is making ship heavier.

The loads on the keel have changed dramatically, so the keel needs to be removed and replaced with one designed for the new ship.

I think I have left the stem and the rudder untouched...

p.s. All RN BC up to and including HMS Tiger (1913) have the same issue.

The Courageous class and HMS Eagle all have oil fired boilers and geared turbines - that is why they were spared the scrappers.
 
As mentioned earlier, the Indefatigables were, by the end of the war, next to useless. Their disposal was the only thing that could have happened that made military sense after the war. They were the British version of what the Germans called "The five Minute Ships", as long as they were expected to last in a fleet engagement, but, as mentioned, their purpose in the hands of the dominions was to keep German expansion from the naval base at Tsingtao at bay. The German navy via Spee's squadron captured Samoa, a New Zealand dependency as well as the rather successful rampage (until it wasn't, when the ship was caught by HMAS Sydney in the Indian Ocean) the Emden went on at the outbreak of the war reminded the Pacific nations that there was definitely a need for naval strength in the region.
 
Here is what you are dealing with.



There was a major conflict between the size of the existing docks and the length of ship needed for the boilers and turbines.
Yes, oil fired boilers of the type available in even 1918 would have saved a lot of space.

From a practical or cost standard it was simply easier and cheaper to start over rather than disassemble such a ship to the point needed and start assembling things again.
Not to mention supporting the hull as major bits are taken away and added so the remaining hull structure doesn't bend/warp.

Moving the barbettes was a major undertaking, not only do you have to move whatever was in the way (boilers, auxiliary machinery rooms, propeller shafts, etc) you have to install new magazines and supports for the barbettes. One can see how far down the ammunition hoists went.

The "turrets" themselves need a bit of revamping. Not only do they need more elevation (which probably means the barbette floor needs to be lowered.) but the sighting arrangements need to be changed.

The 3 "scoops" on top of the gun house near the front are the sighing hoods. later ships had these placed on the sides to prevent the turret aimers from being concussed
when the super firing turret arrangement was adopted.

everything can be changed if enough time and money is spent but the vast sums needed to bring this ship into even the 1920s would have been better spent elsewhere.

I will repeat again, do not be confused by the completion date, this is a 33ft stretch job of a design that was first laid down in 1906. In no way, shape or form was the Australia a contemporary of the best design practice of 1911-13. Preliminary design work was being done on the Renown in 1914 and the Hood was laid down just a bit over 3 years after the Australia was completed. Granted it took around 3 years for the British so build a large warship but the pace of design and development was very rapid.
 
Quite a few of the pre-WW2 battleships were not worth keeping (USS Arkansas, anyone), although something like HMAS Australia may have been useful to be something with guns big enough to deter one of the Graf Spees sibliyngs and near-siblings, but would still be too manpower and resource intensive for the RAN to justify.
Given the structure and volume required below decks for heavy gun turrets, I suspect converting HMAS Australia from its HG arrangement to all-centerline would be impractical without replacing the entire hull between A and Y with new construction.
 
Last edited:
Refitting the Australia is simply an issue of money. A British Shipyard would have no bother with that.

Problems thou.

Washington Naval Treaty would have seen Australia as a big gun capital ship. So if Australia was kept then maybe something else had to go. The British Empire####salute#### was seen as a one and Oz was not seen as an individual country. So there's that.

Minimum threat is a Kongo and there is no way Australia can be rebuilt to match a Kongo. Not ever. So it's a total none starter and even trying to rebuild her is total nonsense. Especially when Tiger is available.

Deutschland class is certainly an interesting matchup but Australia was in her watery grave well before a Deutschland hit the water so that's not a consideration.

Odd but against Kormoran then Australia should wipe the floor with her. Saving 645 lives. Even in ww1 config. Perhaps that would be a good incentive to keep her around.
 
I don't know how anyone could claim they were cost effective. Cost yes, 1.5 vs 2 million for a Lion. Effective no. 5,100 lb broadside vs 10,000, less accurate, shorter range. Much less well armored, worse underwater protection, 2 knots slower.
Interesting fact. New Zealand was the worst shooting British ship at Jutland. Supposedly 4 hits out of 420 shells fired.
 
I would have thought that the 13.5in WW1 Battlecruisers would find a role in WW2. They would certainly need oil fired engines, increased elevation and significant upgrades to their deck armour and AA capabilities.
However to try and pitch them against a capital ship would be an error. Their role would have been to support the Carriers and hunt down any surface raiders. Most navies had few capital ships but had a decent number of cruisers and these would have been at significant risk against a modified Battle Cruiser.

The types of changes were done in other ships or could fairly easily be done as I think most of them had fuel and coal in their engines, and I think the Kongo class still had this arrangement throughout WW2. The Kongo would have had the advantage over a modified Cat style BC but I don't think it would have been a forgone conclusion as they weren't that fast and their armour wasn't that thick. A 13.5 could probably penetrate the Kongo without much difficulty as of course the 14in could penetrate the Cat type BC.

With hindsight scrapping the R Class in the 1930's and keeping the Cat might well have been a better bet but at the time the 'big gun' proponents had a bigger sway over developments.
 
Was Tiger converted fully to fuel oil?
Dunno.
Tiger and her 13.5 inch guns would have been a logistics pain. Only one in the fleet with that gun.
Although she would have been perfect for a Deutschland chaser.

An option with the R-Class is to Vanguard them. When that was desirable or feasible is open question
 
From what I can find, Tiger wasn't fully converted to fuel oil; so her top speed was compromised to ~24kn if you couldn't find coal and strokers (and that assumes the coal boilers didn't have issues with being unused for 15+ years). Worse she, she would burn through her fuel oil bunkers, they being only 1/2 the total fuel storage, in less than a week - direct drive turbines partial fuel economy being atrocious.

The scary part of Tiger (or Australia) is that instead of meeting one of the Deutschlands, they run into the twins (G & S) who use their speed, armour, newer fire control to pick the RN BC apart. Not a sure thing, but its a lot of Bismarck vs Hood.

Kongos big advantage is their geared turbines probably makes them >2X as efficient to operate versus the older RN BCs. The "R's" would have been on the block if the KGV class had managed to be completed before the war.

If one doesn't change HMAS to all center line armament, you have magazine right against hull. Komoran blowing a RAN BC out of water with single torpedo would be even more embarassing and costly than historic.
 
The idea was that all the surviving 13.5in BC's would have been kept and modified with oil fuel, instead of keeping the R class which were too slow for anything much apart from shore bombardment and escorting convoys knowing that they wouldn't be able to catch anything that ran away. The 13.5in BC's would be far more useful.

HMAS Australia was a much weaker ship, poorly armed, poorly protected, slow and very unsuitable for modification.
 
The gun club wouldn't go for that. The RN, USN and IJN all wanted to fight a proper Jutland. A 15 inch is what you want when your battle fleet is slugging it out with the enemy battle fleet. Note that the Rs were no slower than the USN standard battleships. The Japanese seemed to value speed more than the other 2, but obviously for them firepower was the most important feature in a battleship, culminating in the Yamatos.
 
Kongo was a very good British battle cruiser.
All 13.5 inch ships were rid so not sure on that. Tiger was turned into a training ship which is why she was never modernized.
Lesson from Jutland is thin armour and small guns don't count. And Australia had both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Some observations on WW II small arms, and bit on artillery.
2 3
Replies
42
Views
3K
BarnOwlLover
C
looking for information on some servicemen.
Replies
0
Views
213
coffman
C
Z
Best tank engines of WWII
15 16 17
Replies
335
Views
22K
Reluctant Poster
R
Favorite "obscure" theater or World War II to research?
Replies
9
Views
1K
EwenS
E
I
Help needed with the translation of my WWII Japanese Going To War Banner
Replies
8
Views
1K
ironmannf
I
Menu
Log in
Register