feasibility of keeping WW I battleships around for WW II.

I would class Tennessee as a ww1 ship.
Is Hood a ww1 ship?

What is a ww1 ship and what would be a cut off?

I obviously don't see Nelson but I could see Mutsu as a ww1 ship.

For the US, everything up to and including the Colorado class is a WW1 ship. All these were designed in that period. Everything up to the Maryland had been laid down by mid 1917. Only Maryland's 3 sisters were not laid until 1919/20, and the Washington Treaty allowed 2 of them to be completed.

Hood is also a WW1 ship. Designed in WW1 and modified as a result of lessons learned at Jutland. Laid down Sept 1916.

Same with the Japanese Nagato and Mutsu. Designed in WW1, laid down 1917/18.

The cut off has to be ships whose design was completed in WW1. After that Washington Treaty 1922 intervenes to cancel all designs on the drawing board or early stages of construction as at Nov 1921. The Nelrods then become the first post WW1 design to be started post Treaty and then only because they were specifically permitted by the Treaty.

The four classes of Battleships I posted above, were ones who were in service and participated in WWI either with Atlantic escort duties or joined with the Royal Navy at Scapa Flow.

Of those listed, only two did not survive WWII, but were directly involved with the U.S. entry into WWII.

There likes the problem.

We have West Virginia battleship and Bellerophon battleship.

So 12 inch v 16 inch.

So Colorado class...yeah I see it.
Bellerophon class not so much.

Nassau with it's 11 inch guns and triple expansion engine wasn't fit for WW1!!!!! Never mind WW2!!!!!

The Basket said:

There likes the problem.

We have West Virginia battleship and Bellerophon battleship.

So 12 inch v 16 inch.

So Colorado class...yeah I see it.
Bellerophon class not so much.

Nassau with it's 11 inch guns and triple expansion engine wasn't fit for WW1!!!!! Never mind WW2!!!!!

Click to expand...

New York, Texas and Oklahoma also had triple expansion engines.

The Basket said:

There likes the problem.

We have West Virginia battleship and Bellerophon battleship.

So 12 inch v 16 inch.

So Colorado class...yeah I see it.
Bellerophon class not so much.

Nassau with it's 11 inch guns and triple expansion engine wasn't fit for WW1!!!!! Never mind WW2!!!!!

Click to expand...

And that is part of the problem, in 10-11 years you went from the Nassau to the Tennessee.

Twelve 11in guns but only eight could fire on the broadside to twelve 14in guns, all of which could fire on the Broadside. Shell weight more than doubled.
The Americans had adopted an all or nothing armor system.
EVERYBODIES boilers and engines got a lot better in the same 10-11 years. Most of the new ships went to oil fuel. Which reduced the boiler room crews by several hundred, which changed the space needed for the crew and changed food storage and other aspects.
'Newer' WW I dreadnoughts were much more effective than older ones, even if only 4-5 years different.
Tennessee was built with 30 degree elevation to main guns. This was an advantage and also a bit of a disadvantage. The more "modern" features a ship had, the lower down on the priority list it was for an extensive refit and not just getting some boiler repairs and a few AA guns.

If you look at HMS Hercules or HMS Neptune then the RN just got about 10 years out of them. Staggering how these expensive ships didn't last.

It's all relative. The South American battleships were not going to find themselves on the receiving end of any enemy vessels except other South American battleships, which is why they were bought in the first place, like two tyrannosaurus' going at it head-to-head. The US upgraded its battleships because, 1) it could afford to and 2) it wanted to keep them in service to maintain a given size of fleet, which, let's face it, only the US could have done at any rate because of the cost and the logistics in keeping that size of fleet in service and running during WW2. Britain kept what it could following the treaties and to keep a number of ships following the reduction in size of its navy during peacetime until newer types entered service. The USA will always be the exception in these sorts of comparisons because it had resources galore to be able to do so. Japan and Britain certainly could not compete in numerical terms.

Speaking of relative, this is a painting of what the Uruguayan navy sent to harass the Admiral Graf Spee when it entered Uruguayan waters. This is the pre-Great War protected cruiser Uruguay, built in Germany and the most powerful warship in Uruguayan possession. At one time during the fighting between the Achilles and the Graf Spee it sailed between the two vessels, even Achilles' six inch guns would have made a heck of a mess of it.

River Plate 12

A toddler throwing a tennis ball would make a mess of the Uruguay.

Although it is adorable. I just want to take it home and hug it.

The British empire....in my view....could have matched any American naval expansion in the 1920s.

Regardless of cost.

nuuumannn said:

The USA will always be the exception in these sorts of comparisons because it had resources galore to be able to do so.

Click to expand...

While we did have the resources to do anything any other navy could do after a time, the fact is that Congress wasn't happy releasing the funding -- 1) the Depression lowered incoming tax revenues and 2) a good part of our body politic, including a large swath of Congress, was isolationist, which would of course affect the force charged with power projection (the USN) more than the Army.

The Basket said:

Although it is adorable. I just want to take it home and hug it.

Click to expand...

Here's a model you can hug...

River Plate 13

And its bell you can ring while you are doing so...

River Plate 14

Here's a bit of info on the Uruguay from a Uruguayan military site:

"Built in Stettin Germany by Vulcan in 1910 to Uruguayan specifications. It was incorporated in August of that year. This ship provided services for more than 40 years, requiring throughout all of them the fulfillment of the most varied and important activities, being the pride of the Country and the Navy.
Displacement 1400 tons; machines of 5,700 IHP; 25 knots; Carbon capacity 210 tons = 3,000 miles at 12 knots. Armament: Two 4.7" rapid-fire guns; four 12-pound TR, six machine guns and two 18" torpedo tubes, scrapped in 1953."

A bit of data about its role in the River Plate action:

"On December 13, 1939, while making an instructional trip with students of the Naval School, the torpedo boat cruiser "Uruguay" witnesses the combat between the battleship Graff Spee and the cruisers of the British community Ajax, Exeter and Achilles (Battle of the Río de la Plata).
Its Commander Captain Fernando Fuentes, based on these observations, and that part of the combat was taking place in Uruguayan jurisdictional waters, he set out to intercept the belligerents so at 7:00 p.d. while the Graf Spee was 12 miles from Punta del Este, and the Ajax 18 miles south of José Ignacio sounded the alarm again in the Graf Spee, this time it was the Uruguayan war cruiser "Uruguay" that left at the crossing of the Graf Spee to prevent it from sailing between the Island of Lobos and the coast, in addition to being located between the Graf Spee and the British cruisers so that they did not enter the Uruguayan coast in a very reckless action almost suicidal since any of the ships exceeded in firepower the old Cruiser of national flag, this action that later the German captain Langsdorff himself would declare his admiration for Captain Fuentes of the cruiser Uruguay that despite seeing the conflict and the power of the ships involved, he bravely stood in the way to protect Uruguayan rights in a determined act of exercise of national sovereignty.--


The "Uruguay" remained vigilant until seeing that the Graf Spee entered the Bay of Montevideo and in addition, double surveillance was ordered to search for possible castaways. She later moored near Flores Island and departed at dawn the next day heading east again to check that the ships left in the area were out of jurisdictional waters. Days later when the German battleship left the door to face its destination again the Cruiser Uruguay was waiting for it to escort it out of jurisdictional waters act that was not necessary since the German captain would order to fly his own ship when all his crew was evacuated."

From here: Los cruceros de la Armada Nacional

Uruguay was a war cruiser?

On what planet?

It was a torpedo boat at best. My garden shed would make a better cruiser.

What heroic nonsense.

If USA didn't want to build a navy that's fine by me. The British Empire with our Japanese ally will rule the world. First thing I would do with all this power is go to Uruguay and sink that bloody gunboat.

You cannot ignore the effects of the inter war treaties starting in 1922. Washington Treaty meant a limited number of named capital ships, no new construction and scrapping of what was on the slips or planned (except for the Nelrods and the two Colorados and the permitted carrier conversions. Everyone wanted peace and was prepared to make sacrifices to avoid another arms race that was already beginning and would have bankrupted many.

The US began modernisation of its older capital ships in the 1920s because they were technically behind those of Britain. So they reused some of the boilers and machinery from the cancelled capital ships to modernise the oldest and make them oil fired. And they increased the elevation of the guns to match those of Hood at 30 degrees.

Then the 1930 London Treaty extended the moratorium on new construction and forced a further round of scrappings / conversions to secondary roles leaving the US and Britain with 15 capital ships and the Japanese with 9. No new construction possible until 1 Jan 1937, except for the French and Italians who have special provisions.

Modernisations/reconstructions were not seen as a replacement for new vessels at least by the RN. They were simply a way of ensuring fleet strengths could be maintained until such times as new construction could begin again. The general tendency (there are exceptions) was to start with the oldest and then work through the fleet to the newest. Except WW2 came a bit earlier than everyone was planning for, so not everything underwent that process.

The Treaties themselves are worth reading but can be confusing at times.

I was going to call you out on this but my brain was working.
Japan had 9 ships because Hiei wink wink was non operational wink wink.

One could argue the naval treaties allowed peace in the 1920s but it set up war in the 40s.

Had Britain and USA built it's naval fleets to the max then the Japanese and Germans and Italians would have been so far behind that it would be folly to even dare match the RN.

N3 battleship and her successors would have scourged the seas clean.

And with Japan as our ally then no problems in the East. As long as they don't touch our stuff.

Yes, treaties and limits tend to be troublesome over time as someone will generally try to 'fudge' around the details.

It seems that only the US and Britain really made serious attempts to stick to the provisions of the naval treaty/s as there were
voters and media to consider.

Britain did try to scrupulously adhere to treaty restrictions but they did come up with some creativity as to tonnage terms, which everyone signed off on.

The Basket said:

I was going to call you out on this but my brain was working.
Japan had 9 ships because Hiei wink wink was non operational wink wink.

Click to expand...

The Japanese did comply with the terms of the 1930 Treaty with HIEI's disarmament. It was only after Japan did not sign up to the 1936 London Treaty that she was reconstructed to the same standards as her sisters between 1937 and 1941.

The 1930 Treaty also saw Britain convert Iron Duke to a partially disarmed gunnery training ship and the USN did the same with Wyoming BB-32. Both countries chose not to further reconstruct them although various proposals did float about for them.

WARSPITER said:

Yes, treaties and limits tend to be troublesome over time as someone will generally try to 'fudge' around the details.

It seems that only the US and Britain really made serious attempts to stick to the provisions of the naval treaty/s as there were
voters and media to consider.

Click to expand...

Well even the US and Britain disagreed over some of the terms for example over increasing the elevation of main armament guns. The RN finally accepted the USN view in the 1930s when presented with a fait accompli. And the USN stretched things over the declared weights of the Lexington class carriers.

USS Utah (BB-31) was also a victim of the London Treaty.