Post-1914 Pre-Dreadnought and Armoured Cruiser Modernizations

[Dilandu]

Well, in terms of hitting power, the 4 10" are significantly more powerful than any 8" gun. The US 8"/55 fires a 260 lbs. shell while the 10"/40 fires a 510 lbs. one that could probably have been increased to 560 lbs. with a better "super heavy" round design as the US did with other large caliber guns.

Yes, but the long-range hit probability is practically nonexistent with just four guns and relatively slow reload. Pauses between salvos would be long enough to make straddling very tedious process. And even if target was sucsessfully straddled, 2-4 gun salvoes simply aren't very efficient in terms of saturating the dispercion area.

To put it simply - yes, IF "Tennessee" managed to hit the target, it would be quite a hit. But it most likely would not be able to do it - at least not before target would hit "Tennessee" several times first (and quite likely wreck her fire control)

The Tennessee class also has significantly more armor than any US heavy cruiser up to the New Orleans class.

Their armored deck was only 38 mm thick; "Pensacola" actually have more armor over her magazines.

I'd have to see what could be proposed for secondary armament on these ships. If some of the 6" battery were retained and could be given better elevation the combination of 10" and 6" guns could be very effective as both can fire even at 15 degrees elevation to about 20,000 yards.

I see the big drawback being you have to practically build a new ship to modernize these cruisers.

If I recall correctly, the real proposal of 1922 was to get rid of 10-inch turrets and put triple 8-inch turrets in their place.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I think that 4-6 6 inch guns were expected to be retained, hence my "hail of fire" comment above. These ships MIGHT have been useful at times in the WW2 that actually transpired, but I think the Navy's rejection of the proposal still made sense, as did looking at the idea in the first place.

They would have also had to get 8 5"/25 AA guns like other 1930's cruisers got. And it's possible that the 6" could be replaced by 5"/51's giving them a rapid fire secondary battery.

 

[Tzoli]

Friedman did mention the replacement of the main turrets by the new 8"/55 guns but does not state if twin or triple would be chosen.
As for the guns, BuOrd expected it could increase the old (or new, it is not clear) 8" maximal elevation to 30°and the 10" to 40°!

 

[Dilandu]

Friedman did mention the replacement of the main turrets by the new 8"/55 guns but does not state if twin or triple would be chosen.
As for the guns, BuOrd expected it could increase the old (or new, it is not clear) 8" maximal elevation to 30°and the 10" to 40°!

Ah, thank you! I could not recall where exactly I read about proposed main gun replacement.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I think the US did miss where such cruisers would have been useful, actually highly useful. That is, in commerce protection. Rebuilt but only capable of say 24 - 26 knots, they could have been used in escort duties, given sonar and some ASW capability to include a catapult and aircraft. As a convoy leader in command of the ASW screen, they would have the capacity for the Commodore and staff along with capacity to take on any surface raider that might appear. This would free up other ships for use elsewhere that are more capable.

These, with the Omaha's could have comprised most or all of the Atlantic Fleet's cruiser capacity freeing up newer cruisers for Pacific service. A rebuilt Tennessee would have been more than enough to take on a German surface raider and could have been useful in ASW operations with CVE. As fire support ships, they would do just fine.

 

[Archibald]

It's fascinating to read about the moment in history when Armored Cruisers (ACR) met their "successors" - CA & CL, heavy and light cruisers.

 

[Dilandu]

It's fascinating to read about the moment in history when Armored Cruiser (ACR) met their "successors" - CA & CL, heavy and light cruisers.

Don't forget, that "light cruiser" in WW1 era actually meant "light ARMORED cruiser"; they have belts)

 

[Tzoli]

Unprotecred cruisers: No armour at all
Protected and scout cruisers: Deck and slope armour only
Light/heavy/armoured cruisers: deck and belt armour

 

[Dilandu]

Unprotecred cruisers: No armour at all
Protected and scout cruisers: Deck and slope armour only
Light/heavy/armoured cruisers: deck and belt armour

Exactly)

P.S. Though I should note, that 1920-1930s cruisers with box armor scheme were also classified as "protected" at least by some cotemporary sources.

 

[Phoenix_jz]

Technically on the latter it's really just light [armored] cruisers versus armored cruisers - heavy cruisers are light cruisers themselves.

WRT the general topic of using armored cruisers in more modern naval combat;

The key issue, as raised earlier in the thread, is that their protection against torpedo impacts is grossly inadequate, even against WWI-era torpedoes. They lack any real TDS, and subdivision is generally quite poor and ineffective - ostensibly watertight bulkheads in this period were much more prone to failing from less shock than you would see in the bulkheads of interwar ships. More modern torpedoes developed in the interwar era (and 21" torpedoes becoming very common) made pretty much every design from pre-dreadnought era a (very manpower dense) death trap if any threat from torpedoes or mines existed.

The most effective use case for these ships was generally as harbor defense vessels or barracks ships - though several were very successfully deployed as remote-controlled target ships.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Crew Losses on H.M.S. ABOUKIR, CRESSY and HOGUE

I would be very interested to know if anybody has information which might shed light on the variation in crew losses suffered by H.M.S. ABOUKIR, CRESSY and HOGUE when they were torpedoed and sunk by U 9 on 22 September 1914. Casualties were appalling in all three ships, but for some reason those ...

www.greatwarforum.org

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news/2017/march/23/170323-great-war-wrecks-to-be-protected

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Technically on the latter it's really just light [armored] cruisers versus armored cruisers - heavy cruisers are light cruisers themselves.

WRT the general topic of using armored cruisers in more modern naval combat;

The key issue, as raised earlier in the thread, is that their protection against torpedo impacts is grossly inadequate, even against WWI-era torpedoes. They lack any real TDS, and subdivision is generally quite poor and ineffective - ostensibly watertight bulkheads in this period were much more prone to failing from less shock than you would see in the bulkheads of interwar ships. More modern torpedoes developed in the interwar era (and 21" torpedoes becoming very common) made pretty much every design from pre-dreadnought era a (very manpower dense) death trap if any threat from torpedoes or mines existed.

The most effective use case for these ships was generally as harbor defense vessels or barracks ships - though several were very successfully deployed as remote-controlled target ships.

That was correctable in a major reconstruction where the ships are changed from coal to oil firing. The smaller boilers (higher pressure) and less room needed for operating them meant you could install more watertight bulkheads.

Next, sealing all the existing bulkheads up to the damage control deck (2nd or 3rd in US practice) and instituting "up and over" for movement fore and aft along with converting the existing coal bunkers to oil would have given these ships torpedo protection equal to newer cruisers. The US practice from about 1930 through at least 1945 was to carry the double bottom up the sides of the ship to cover the main spaces and possibly some of the magazines. Coal to oil would have allowed the same in armored cruisers.
The old coal fired ships had to have hatches that the stokers could access the coal from bunkers and move it to the boilers along with space for removing ash from the boilers as necessary. Having supposedly, but rarely, watertight hatches low in the ship almost guaranteed that any flooding would be progressive and sink the ship. Oil firing removes most of that threat.

Next, you could up the amount of pumping available on the ship as you would have extra machinery space left over from modernizing the machinery. With a better firemain, more pumping capacity, and better watertight bulkheads, the ships would be at least competitive with more modern cruisers in torpedo protection.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That was correctable in a major reconstruction where the ships are changed from coal to oil firing. The smaller boilers (higher pressure) and less room needed for operating them meant you could install more watertight bulkheads.

Next, sealing all the existing bulkheads up to the damage control deck (2nd or 3rd in US practice) and instituting "up and over" for movement fore and aft along with converting the existing coal bunkers to oil would have given these ships torpedo protection equal to newer cruisers. The US practice from about 1930 through at least 1945 was to carry the double bottom up the sides of the ship to cover the main spaces and possibly some of the magazines. Coal to oil would have allowed the same in armored cruisers.
The old coal fired ships had to have hatches that the stokers could access the coal from bunkers and move it to the boilers along with space for removing ash from the boilers as necessary. Having supposedly, but rarely, watertight hatches low in the ship almost guaranteed that any flooding would be progressive and sink the ship. Oil firing removes most of that threat.

Next, you could up the amount of pumping available on the ship as you would have extra machinery space left over from modernizing the machinery. With a better firemain, more pumping capacity, and better watertight bulkheads, the ships would be at least competitive with more modern cruisers in torpedo protection.

At the cost of a very expensive conversion.

It'd definitely be cheaper to build new, considering that we're talking all new guns, new engines and boilers, new firecontrol to use the guns... That's all the expensive parts of a ship!

 

[T. A. Gardner]

At the cost of a very expensive conversion.

It'd definitely be cheaper to build new, considering that we're talking all new guns, new engines and boilers, new firecontrol to use the guns... That's all the expensive parts of a ship!

That's what I said to begin with. Rebuilding these ships was likely to run close to 75 to 85% the cost of a new ship, so why bother?