Post-1914 Pre-Dreadnought and Armoured Cruiser Modernizations

World B4

World B4

my bad y'all
Joined
25 June 2017
Messages
447
Reaction score
364
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
The USN Considered modernizing her Armoured Cruisers, but me too don't know if any proposals were made for the old battleships.
 
Dilandu said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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
 
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.
 
World B4 said:
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
Click to expand...
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:

1719341527143.png
 
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
 
Last edited:
World B4 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
World B4 said:
I had no idea the Bayans got another 8”in in WW1, that’s cool to learn
Click to expand...
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".
 
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
 
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. Iirc the Rostislav was going to be next, but the operation was called off
 
Last edited:
World B4 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
Last edited:
Just tweaked the thread title to better reflect the contents of the thread since it includes armoured cruisers.
 
BlackBat242 said:
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).
Click to expand...
BlackBat242 said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
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.
Click to expand...
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)
 
Dilandu said:
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)
Click to expand...
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.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
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.
Click to expand...
Coal also increases boiler maintenance, even compared to the crap that is Bunker C.
 
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.
 
DWG said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
DWG said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
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.
Click to expand...
USSR tried in 1980s, to circumvent bottleneck in gas turbine production. The results were... mixed at best.
 
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 4 and 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?
 
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
BlackBat242 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
BlackBat242 said:
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.
Click to expand...
That and carried a broomstick to find those pesky steam leaks...
 
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.
 
DWG said:
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.
Click to expand...
Some of it is relevant.

Mostly in terms of the learning curves involved with working around the new pressures.
 
DWG said:
The wonderfully named 'Manliness' ;)
Click to expand...
Her sister ships were named Äran (honour), Tapperheten (courage), and Wasa (from the Swedish royal house of the 1500s & 1600s, Vasa - which means vase).

They were preceded by Dristigheten (hardihood).

Preceding her was the Oden class (Oden, Niord, Thor) - Nordic gods, and before them were the Svea class (Svea, Göta, and Thule) - geographical names.

Then there was the Swedish armoured cruiser Fylgia (follower) - also the term for a guardian spirit (usually appearing as a human female, but sometimes as an animal).
 
BlackBat242 said:
Her sister ships were named Äran (honour), Tapperheten (courage), and Wasa (from the Swedish royal house of the 1500s & 1600s, Vasa - which means vase).

They were preceded by Dristigheten (hardihood).

Preceding her was the Oden class (Oden, Niord, Thor) - Nordic gods, and before them were the Svea class (Svea, Göta, and Thule) - geographical names.

Then there was the Swedish armoured cruiser Fylgia (follower) - also the term for a guardian spirit (usually appearing as a human female, but sometimes as an animal).
Click to expand...
The most important warships of the interwar Finnish navy were mostly named after figures in the Finnic national epic Kalevala (not only Finnish, as the mythology is shared by nearly all the Finnic people and was the best preserved amongst the Karelians, Veps and Izhorans). Our coast defence ships were Väinämöinen (the legendary sage of Kalevala) and Ilmarinen (the magic blacksmith of Kalevala), the seagoing submarines were Vetehinen, Vesihiisi and Ikuturso (sea monsters, the last whereof is sent by Louhi, the matron of Pohjola, to sink Väinämöinen, Ilmarinen and other Kalevalaians' boat after they have stolen the magic mill Sampo which creates salt, rye and gold and was crafted by Ilmarinen as dowry for Louhi) and one of the minelayers was Louhi, the aforementioned matron of Pohjola. So, I would say that the Nordic countries have occasionally been very imaginative when naming warships.
 
Topi said:
The most important warships of the interwar Finnish navy were mostly named after figures in the Finnic national epic Kalevala (not only Finnish, as the mythology is shared by nearly all the Finnic people and was the best preserved amongst the Karelians, Veps and Izhorans). Our coast defence ships were Väinämöinen (the legendary sage of Kalevala) and Ilmarinen (the magic blacksmith of Kalevala), the seagoing submarines were Vetehinen, Vesihiisi and Ikuturso (sea monsters, the last whereof is sent by Louhi, the matron of Pohjola, to sink Väinämöinen, Ilmarinen and other Kalevalaians' boat after they have stolen the magic mill Sampo which creates salt, rye and gold and was crafted by Ilmarinen as dowry for Louhi) and one of the minelayers was Louhi, the aforementioned matron of Pohjola. So, I would say that the Nordic countries have occasionally been very imaginative when naming warships.
Click to expand...
Still nothing like the reaching and searching for names the RN has done.
 
Topi said:
Our coast defence ships were Väinämöinen (the legendary sage of Kalevala) and Ilmarinen (the magic blacksmith of Kalevala), the seagoing submarines were Vetehinen, Vesihiisi and Ikuturso (sea monsters, the last whereof is sent by Louhi, the matron of Pohjola, to sink Väinämöinen, Ilmarinen and other Kalevalaians' boat
Click to expand...
If I was the captain of the Väinämöinen or Ilmarinen, I'd keep a sharp eye on Finnish submarines.
 
Reading an article online about post-war work, there was a mention of the pre-dreadnoughts serving as troop transports. The detail turned out to be an overstatement, as many warships carried home troops after WW1.
It did get me thinking of converting some of the later pre-dreadnoughts into Marine transports. The Virginias or the Connecticuts might have served in such a role, perhaps if their many tertiary guns were removed and their spaces converted to troop quarters.

The Connecticuts might also have served as capital ships for smaller navies. I even posited if the US granted the Philippines countryhood a pair of them could have been the flagships. ACR Rochester (ex-New York, ex-Saratoga) did serve in the Philippines. I've wondered if she might have served as a defensive gunship or anti-aircraft platform even if she couldn't have sailed out of harbor.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom