Post-1914 Pre-Dreadnought and Armoured Cruiser Modernizations

[World B4]

I’m interested if anyone has ever taken a crack at depicting the proposed Tennessee & Pennsylvania class modernizations of the 1920s, or other attempts to bring relevance to pre and semi dreadnought warships in the age of super dreadnoughts, specifically attempts to achieve relevance as an ocean going combat vessel. SMS Budapest’s experimental 38cm mounting is an example of a more auxiliary fate, similar to a monitor or HMS Vindictive

 

[Dilandu]

I'm not sure much of them were even considered. By 1920s, even first-generation dreadnoughts were considered obsolete, and after Washington Treaty a new heavy cruiser was viewed as much more valuable than old pre-dreadnought.

 

[Tzoli]

The USN Considered modernizing her Armoured Cruisers, but me too don't know if any proposals were made for the old battleships.

 

[World B4]

I'm not sure much of them were even considered. By 1920s, even first-generation dreadnoughts were considered obsolete, and after Washington Treaty a new heavy cruiser was viewed as much more valuable than old pre-dreadnought.

Yeah, the complete lack of American wartime cruiser construction was the only reason the Tennessees modernization was considered. Most non-signatories were behind on modern ships so upgrading 1890s designs wasn’t on the table. The Greeks didn’t plan to meaningfully upgrade their pre dreds or armored cruiser to my knowledge, and I don’t recall the Germans planning to make their pre dreds better than the minor upgrades of their reactivation. Would love to be proven wrong about both but I haven’t seen such

 

[World B4]

During WW1, 2 Tennessees and 1 Pennsylvania were given a seaplane capability at the cost of losing their ability to use the aft turret. They could carry up to 4 aircraft, and the Huntington (the Pennsylvania) could carry an observation balloon. This ad hoc setup was removed after the war.
Typing this made me remember the Imperial German plan to turn the Roon into a proper aviation cruiser with a proper seaplane hangar replacing the aft armament and the 8”turrets and 6”casements replaced with 3 standard 6” cruiser guns mounts per side. I made this thread not looking for carrier conversion plans as I felt that’s a separate thing, but this design preserves some combat functionality and probably improves speed too

Shipbucket

 

[World B4]

The proposals for the Pennsylvanias and Tennessees in the 20s included new engines to aim for 25-27 knots, a modern bow for improved seakeeping, and replacing their turrets with the triple 8 inch gun turrets that were being developed for the first U.S. heavy cruisers. The hull forms were found to be unsuitable for the desired speeds, and since that was the core component of making these vessels relevant again the ideas were dropped.

 

[Dilandu]

During WW1, 2 Tennessees and 1 Pennsylvania were given a seaplane capability at the cost of losing their ability to use the aft turret. They could carry up to 4 aircraft, and the Huntington (the Pennsylvania) could carry an observation balloon. This ad hoc setup was removed after the war.
Typing this made me remember the Imperial German plan to turn the Roon into a proper aviation cruiser with a proper seaplane hangar replacing the aft armament and the 8”turrets and 6”casements replaced with 3 standard 6” cruiser guns mounts per side. I made this thread not looking for carrier conversion plans as I felt that’s a separate thing, but this design preserves some combat functionality and probably improves speed too

Well, if we are talking about early refits - there were several such proposals for Russian Imperial Navy.

* In 1906-1908, after losing most of modern battleships in Russo-Japanese War, there was a proposal to upgrade old barbetter ironclads of "Dvenadtsat Apostolov" and "Imperatritsa Ekaterina II" class. They were supposed to be reconstructed into pre-dreadnought battleships, armed with two dual turrets with long-barrel 12-inch/52 guns. The project was abandoned as far too costly.

* In 1915-1916, old battleships "Slava" and "Tsesarevich" of Baltic Fleet recieved turret modernization that increased max gun elevation up to 25 degrees - as far as I know, it's the only case of pre-dreadnoughts being refitted for more range.

* In 1915-1916, armored cruisers "Bayan" and "Admiral Makarov" of Baltic Fleet were upgraded with additional 8-inch gun installed on pedestal mount:

 

[World B4]

The Dvednestat Apostoslav was also considered for 10in guns iirc

Another older design would be the German plan to turn the Brandenburgs into standard pre dreds with a central battery of secondaries replacing the middle turret

I had no idea the Bayans got another 8”in in WW1, that’s cool to learn

 

[DWG]

During WW1, 2 Tennessees and 1 Pennsylvania were given a seaplane capability at the cost of losing their ability to use the aft turret. They could carry up to 4 aircraft, and the Huntington (the Pennsylvania) could carry an observation balloon.

Are we talking about the Tennessees (BB-43, 44) and the Pennsylvanias (BB-38, 39), which are superdreadnoughts, not pre-dreadnoughts, or the Memphis/ex-Tennessees (ACR 10-13) and Pittsburghs/ex Pennsylvanias (ACR 4-9), which are armoured cruisers, not pre-dreadnoughts. There seems to be a disconnect between thread title and topic whichever you choose.

 

[Dilandu]

I had no idea the Bayans got another 8”in in WW1, that’s cool to learn

They were considered too lightly armed with their single-gun 8-inch turrets. The whole series, frankly, was ordered without serious consideration - initially as pre-planned replacement for anticipated losses in Russo-Japanese war, then to have at least some heavy units for decimated Baltic Fleet. The initial "Bayan" (French-build) wasn't considered very good even in 1905, and the only reason she was repeated in three more units was because she was the most modern cruiser which project was "on hands".

 

[World B4]

Are we talking about the Tennessees (BB-43, 44) and the Pennsylvanias (BB-38, 39), which are superdreadnoughts, not pre-dreadnoughts, or the Memphis/ex-Tennessees (ACR 10-13) and Pittsburghs/ex Pennsylvanias (ACR 4-9), which are armoured cruisers, not pre-dreadnoughts. There seems to be a disconnect between thread title and topic whichever you choose
the armored cruisers

 

[World B4]

The Imperial Russian stuff reminded me, they actually intended to send the Sinop into combat in WW1, after she’d been converted into a 8” armed training ship. She was fitted with mine bumpers to allow her to operate in the dangerous waters of the Bosporus, but never went.

 

[Dilandu]

The Imperial Russian stuff reminded me, they actually intended to send the Sinop into combat in WW1, after she’d been converted into a 8” armed training ship. She was fitted with mine bumpers to allow her to operate in the dangerous waters of the Bosporus, but never went.

Yep. There were a lot of planning and preparations for Bosphorus strike - including what essentially was the first ever dedicated amphibious landing ships, the "Elpidifors" self-propelled barges - but the failure of Dardanelles campaign caused Russian command to lean toward caution. And the hard fighting on the German-Austrian frontlines limited the number of troops that could be used for landing.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

One thing the US wasn't big on, and a major reason they didn't bother modernizing older ships after WW 1 was they didn't want to go to the trouble of swapping out VTE (Vertical Triple Expansion) engines for turbines (or turbo-electric) and converting ships running on coal to oil.

It was deemed cheaper and more effective to just build whole new ships and scrap or sell off the older ones.

 

[BlackBat242]

One thing the US wasn't big on, and a major reason they didn't bother modernizing older ships after WW 1 was they didn't want to go to the trouble of swapping out VTE (Vertical Triple Expansion) engines for turbines (or turbo-electric) and converting ships running on coal to oil.

It was deemed cheaper and more effective to just build whole new ships and scrap or sell off the older ones.

Part of that is VTE spaces are taller and shorter than turbine spaces - whether geared or direct-drive.
I've been in the engine rooms of both Texas ex-BB-35 and Lexington ex-AVT16, and the turbine rooms are definitely longer and have lower overheads.

Cutting out bulkheads and decks and installing new ones in different locations is always expensive and time-consuming - especially since you have to cut an access path to the outside in order to install the new engines (if not to remove the old ones).

 

[Hood]

Just tweaked the thread title to better reflect the contents of the thread since it includes armoured cruisers.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Part of that is VTE spaces are taller and shorter than turbine spaces - whether geared or direct-drive.
I've been in the engine rooms of both Texas ex-BB-35 and Lexington ex-AVT16, and the turbine rooms are definitely longer and have lower overheads.

Cutting out bulkheads and decks and installing new ones in different locations is always expensive and time-consuming - especially since you have to cut an access path to the outside in order to install the new engines (if not to remove the old ones).

Part of that is VTE spaces are taller and shorter than turbine spaces - whether geared or direct-drive.
I've been in the engine rooms of both Texas ex-BB-35 and Lexington ex-AVT16, and the turbine rooms are definitely longer and have lower overheads.

Cutting out bulkheads and decks and installing new ones in different locations is always expensive and time-consuming - especially since you have to cut an access path to the outside in order to install the new engines (if not to remove the old ones).

Not to mention that the turrets and magazines were spaced for the VTE engines. Then there's conversion from coal to oil. You have to get rid of the coal bunkers and access hatches, install tanks, piping, and pumps for the oil, etc. By the time you're done making the turbines, new boilers, and all the associated tanks and machinery fit in the existing hull, it's easier to just build a complete new ship.

Turbines require reduction gears (you can do it without one, but the design gets crazy) while VTE are normally direct drive. Then there's turbo-electric, something the USN liked in the 1920's. These were even more complex where the turbines drove generators and the electric motors were in a separate compartment to drive the shaft. Complex, expensive, and heavy.

 

[Dilandu]

Not to mention that the turrets and magazines were spaced for the VTE engines. Then there's conversion from coal to oil. You have to get rid of the coal bunkers and access hatches, install tanks, piping, and pumps for the oil, etc. By the time you're done making the turbines, new boilers, and all the associated tanks and machinery fit in the existing hull, it's easier to just build a complete new ship.

Well, the absolute majority of navies still made the switch from coal to oil (Japanese probably regretted this during WW2 - if they stuck with coal at least for heavy units, they would have less problems moving their fleet around)

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Well, the absolute majority of navies still made the switch from coal to oil (Japanese probably regretted this during WW2 - if they stuck with coal at least for heavy units, they would have less problems moving their fleet around)

Coal is a major problem compared to oil. Coal has less energy to volume. Re-coaling is almost impossible underway and takes forever to do. It's messy and requires more internal space for the stokers, along with hatches and such to move the coal from bunkers to boilers. On the whole, it's a major decrease in protection and efficiency compared to oil.

 

[1635yankee]

Coal is a major problem compared to oil. Coal has less energy to volume. Re-coaling is almost impossible underway and takes forever to do. It's messy and requires more internal space for the stokers, along with hatches and such to move the coal from bunkers to boilers. On the whole, it's a major decrease in protection and efficiency compared to oil.

Coal also increases boiler maintenance, even compared to the crap that is Bunker C.

 

[DWG]

While the engine room shape change from VTE to turbine is a good point, there was also a ongoing reduction in the overall length needed for engine room + boiler room, due to improvements in boiler technology. There's a fascinating mention in Friedman's British Battleships that reworking the engines in Renown/Repulse with Hood style small tube boilers would have freed up enough space to fit a fourth turret in place of the after boiler room, and with space left over, and that was in 1918, pre Admiralty Three Drum Boilers (1927), or the even better US, Japanese and French designs.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

While the engine room shape change from VTE to turbine is a good point, there was also a ongoing reduction in the overall length needed for engine room + boiler room, due to improvements in boiler technology. There's a fascinating mention in Friedman's British Battleships that reworking the engines in Renown/Repulse with Hood style small tube boilers would have freed up enough space to fit a fourth turret in place of the after boiler room, and with space left over, and that was in 1918, pre Admiralty Three Drum Boilers (1927), or the even better US, Japanese and French designs.

The big size reduction comes from upping the operating pressure of your steam plant. The limitation is the tradeoff between reliability and how high you push the steam pressure.

 

[DWG]

The big size reduction comes from upping the operating pressure of your steam plant. The limitation is the tradeoff between reliability and how high you push the steam pressure.

Hood's small tube boilers were only 235psi, Admiralty 3 Drum boilers were 300psi, the boilers for the original South Dakotas (BB-49) were 285psi, by the North Carolinas in the mid-30s they were up to 575psi, the Sural boilers in the Richelieus ran at 384psi. I think the Japanese Kampon series were up around the 400-450psi mark, but difficult to get figures distinguishing between different generations. The only navy that seems to have had major reliability issues with high pressure steam by WWII are the Germans.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Hood's small tube boilers were only 235psi, Admiralty 3 Drum boilers were 300psi, the boilers for the original South Dakotas (BB-49) were 285psi, by the North Carolinas in the mid-30s they were up to 575psi, the Sural boilers in the Richelieus ran at 384psi. I think the Japanese Kampon series were up around the 400-450psi mark, but difficult to get figures distinguishing between different generations. The only navy that seems to have had major reliability issues with high pressure steam by WWII are the Germans.

Everybody had problems with high pressure steam running at like 1000 to 1500 psi. The US tried that in the 50's and 60's only to have the same problems the Germans did.

Interwar ship steam systems usually ran around 300 to 350 psi. The US got their systems up to a nominal 600 psi in the years immediately before WW 2.

This did make a big difference. The higher the pressure, the more compact the machinery, and the lower the overall system weight would be. In treaty ships that were weight limited, saving a few hundred tons on machinery meant more weight into armor, guns, or other systems. If you look at that overall, the Japanese were getting cruisers weighing around 15,000 tons that matched US ones weighing around 10,000.

 

[Dilandu]

Everybody had problems with high pressure steam running at like 1000 to 1500 psi. The US tried that in the 50's and 60's only to have the same problems the Germans did.

USSR tried in 1980s, to circumvent bottleneck in gas turbine production. The results were... mixed at best.

 

[World B4]

Filippov project of rebuilding of "Andrey Pervozvanniy" armour vessel from steam machines to diesel engines - range 26 000 miles.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/some-imperial-russian-warships.37014/

Seems interesting to use them as incredibly long range cruising vessels, considering that whenever they tried to go fast they would take on water

 

[World B4]

Browsing wikipedia, according to a book named after the subject ship by Vladimir Arbuzov, the Dvednestat Apostoslav was going to be armed with smaller caliber guns and used as a guard ship in 1909, but it never happened

Also, I was fascinated to learn that the armored cruisers Rossiya and Gromoboi were also given 2 extra 8 inch guns in WW1, combined with how the Bayans got an extra main gun too it's a bit mind boggling to me that it hadn't happened before, if it was evidently possible. Like maybe at some point in their careers where such an upgrade would have been well, relevant, seems like the bar they maybe could have aimed for?

 

[BlackBat242]

Everybody had problems with high pressure steam running at like 1000 to 1500 psi. The US tried that in the 50's and 60's only to have the same problems the Germans did.

At first the USN had some problems... particularly with the first ships with the 1,200 psi boilers, the 4-ship Mitscher class DLs* - but by the mid 1960s the USN's 1,200 psi plants in the Forrest Sherman, Farragut, Adams, Leahy, & Belknap classes of DD/DDGs; the Garcia, Brooke, & Knox classes of FF/FFGs; and all of the conventionally-powered supercarriers (except Forrestal**) were operating just fine - as long as the boiler techs on duty kept a close eye on the plant and all planned maintenance was done promptly and correctly.


* they were laid down in 1949 (3) & 1950 (1), and had significant issues - in the early 1960s the first two had their boilers replaced. The last two were decommissioned in 1969, while the first two were converted to DDG in the late 1960s and served until 1978.

** she still had the 600 psi boilers, the rest of her class had the 1,200 psis.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

At first the USN had some problems... particularly with the first ships with the 1,200 psi boilers, the 4-ship Mitscher class DLs* - but by the mid 1960s the USN's 1,200 psi plants in the Forrest Sherman, Farragut, Adams, Leahy, & Belknap classes of DD/DDGs; the Garcia, Brooke, & Knox classes of FF/FFGs; and all of the conventionally-powered supercarriers (except Forrestal**) were operating just fine - as long as the boiler techs on duty kept a close eye on the plant and all planned maintenance was done promptly and correctly.

They had significant enough problems with those ships to the point that the steam version of DDG FY67 was designed with 600 psi machinery. Gas Turbines proved to be a superior option, although neither version of DDG FY67 was built.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

At first the USN had some problems... particularly with the first ships with the 1,200 psi boilers, the 4-ship Mitscher class DLs* - but by the mid 1960s the USN's 1,200 psi plants in the Forrest Sherman, Farragut, Adams, Leahy, & Belknap classes of DD/DDGs; the Garcia, Brooke, & Knox classes of FF/FFGs; and all of the conventionally-powered supercarriers (except Forrestal**) were operating just fine - as long as the boiler techs on duty kept a close eye on the plant and all planned maintenance was done promptly and correctly.


* they were laid down in 1949 (3) & 1950 (1), and had significant issues - in the early 1960s the first two had their boilers replaced. The last two were decommissioned in 1969, while the first two were converted to DDG in the late 1960s and served until 1978.

** she still had the 600 psi boilers, the rest of her class had the 1,200 psis.

That and carried a broomstick to find those pesky steam leaks...

 

[DWG]

Problems with 1000psi steam in the 1950s are not relevant to use of 3-600psi steam in the 20s and 30s and its applicability to post-Washington refits.