Post-1914 Pre-Dreadnought and Armoured Cruiser Modernizations

[Brickmuppet]

I think that HMS Commonwealth and Zeelandia show about what could have been done. They were converted to gunnery training ships and given top of the line fire control optics and computers. That's at least as important as the weapons modifications. I saw a picture of HMS Commonwealth post-refit years ago in an old Antony Preston book. She looked quite unusual featuring a big tripod with a spotting top that reminiscent of the QEs or Rs, casemates replaced by 6" or 5.5"inch guns in her superstructure and most portholes blanked off.

I'm not sure how much armor could be quilted onto a pre dreadnought's armor deck though, they were small ships by later battleship standards.

 

[BlackBat242]

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.

Here is Rochester's post-WW1 service - much of it was in "troop transport" or similar roles - note that her Philippine service however was distinctly immobile.

After the Armistice, Rochester served as a transport bringing troops back home. In May 1919, she served as flagship of the destroyer squadron guarding the transatlantic flight of the Navy's NC seaplanes. In the early 1920's she operated along the east coast. Early in 1923, Rochester got underway for Guantanamo Bay to begin another period of service off the coasts of Central and South America.

In the summer of 1925, Rochester carried General Pershing and other members of his commission to Arica, Chile to arbitrate the Tacna-Arica dispute and remained there for the rest of the year. In September 1926 she helped bring peace to turbulent Nicaragua and from time to time returned there in the late 1920's.

After a quiet 1927, Rochester relieved Tulsa at Corinto, Nicaragua in 1928 as Expeditionary Forces directed efforts against bandits in the area. Disturbances boiled over in Haiti in 1929, and opposition to the government was strong; inasmuch as American lives were endangered, Rochester transported the 1st Marine Brigade to Port-au-Prince and Cap Haitien. In 1930, Rochester transported the 5-man commission sent to investigate the situation. In March, she returned to the area to embark marines and transported them to the United States. She aided Continental Oil tanker H. W. Bruce, damaged in a collision 24 May.

In 1931, an earthquake rocked Nicaragua. Rochester was the first relief ship to arrive on the scene and ferried refugees from the area. Bandits took advantage of the chaotic conditions and Rochester steamed to the area to counter their activities.

Rochester departed Balboa 25 February 1932 for service in the Pacific Fleet. She arrived Shanghai 27 April, to join the fleet in the Yangtze River in June and remained there until steaming to Cavite, to decommission 29 April 1933. She moored at the Olongapo Shipyard for the next 8 years. Her name was struck from the Navy Register 28 October 1938, and she was scuttled in December 1941 to prevent her capture by the Japanese.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

While the US did intend to grant the Philippines independence, it was in roughly 1950 or so. WW2 kinda blew that plan out of the water.

 

[EwenS]

While the US did intend to grant the Philippines independence, it was in roughly 1950 or so. WW2 kinda blew that plan out of the water.

1946 is the date most frequently quoted to me by those from the USA, based on the date of US legislation, as if it had been set in tablets of stone. This article however highlights how it was not nearly so straightforward, with US attitudes, as well as those of elements of Philippine society, changing over time. Lot of politics on all sides involved.

https://online.ucpress.edu/phr/article/91/2/220/123495/Philippine-Independence-in-U-S-HistoryA-Car-Not-a

 

[Scott Kenny]

1946 is the date most frequently quoted to me by those from the USA, based on the date of US legislation, as if it had been set in tablets of stone. This article however highlights how it was not nearly so straightforward, with US attitudes, as well as those of elements of Philippine society, changing over time. Lot of politics on all sides involved.

https://online.ucpress.edu/phr/article/91/2/220/123495/Philippine-Independence-in-U-S-HistoryA-Car-Not-a

Yep, lots of politics.

So a 40+yo pre-dread is highly unlikely to be in service. Maybe a 1930s cruiser, or even one of the WW2 production cruisers. But not a pre-dread.

 

[Dilandu]

As far as I could find, the major technical objection against giving old pre-dreadnoughts and armored cruisers any significant refit was their inadequate anti-torpedo proection. They were totally not capable of dealing with 1920s torpedoes and mines - with their much heavier warheads. Improving the internal anti-torpedo defense was not possible due to limited hull size; installation of external bulges would drop the speed below practical. While deck armor, ghn angles, fire controls and AA defenses could be improved to reasonable degree, it was next thihg to impossible to make old pre-dreads sufficiently protected against underwater attacks. At least without far too costly rebuilds of hull and powerplant.

 

[Tzoli]

Bulges could help with anti torpedo but the speed penalty could only be negated by replacing the engineering section with steam turbines and that would be costly.

 

[Dilandu]

Bulges could help with anti torpedo but the speed penalty could only be negated by replacing the engineering section with steam turbines and that would be costly.

It may not even be possible, in 1920s. Look at the "Borodino"-class arrangement, for example:



The engineering space on it is quite limited. And before the era of geared drive turbines, the turbine powerplant was quite bulky, requiring a lot of space for both full speed, cruising and reversing turbine sets. Considering the amount of reconstruction required, I really doubt that it would worth the efforts at least till late 1920s (when powerplants became much more compact). And by late 1920s it would be hard to justify rebuilding a pre-dreadnought to such extent.

 

[Tzoli]

Don't forget the improvement in boiler technology especialy small tube boilers which would allow more space

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It may not even be possible, in 1920s. Look at the "Borodino"-class arrangement, for example:

View attachment 736386

The engineering space on it is quite limited. And before the era of geared drive turbines, the turbine powerplant was quite bulky, requiring a lot of space for both full speed, cruising and reversing turbine sets. Considering the amount of reconstruction required, I really doubt that it would worth the efforts at least till late 1920s (when powerplants became much more compact). And by late 1920s it would be hard to justify rebuilding a pre-dreadnought to such extent.

It's worse, because those old pre-dreadnoughts were designed in hull form for a top speed of 18 knots, sometimes less. This means even if you somehow shove way more horsepower into the hull, the length to beam ratio and hull form mean you get a very small increase in top speed, say 20 knots instead of 18. Hardly worth the effort again. Bulging such a ship to improve torpedo defense just exacerbates that problem.

 

[cattalonX]

Italians added four Twin 100mm AA guns to their armored cruisers

 

[cattalonX]

 

[BlackBat242]

1946 is the date most frequently quoted to me by those from the USA, based on the date of US legislation, as if it had been set in tablets of stone. This article however highlights how it was not nearly so straightforward, with US attitudes, as well as those of elements of Philippine society, changing over time. Lot of politics on all sides involved.

https://online.ucpress.edu/phr/article/91/2/220/123495/Philippine-Independence-in-U-S-HistoryA-Car-Not-a

Yep... and still, despite all of the factors and potential excuses available to the US to reneg on, or delay, Philippine independence - somehow the US never actually acted on ANY of them.


His "3 veto points" in the 1934 law, the "3 sets of orders" (1940, 1944, 1945)* allowing the President to nullify independence, all of the social and economic pressures he so lovingly cites in support of his position - NOT ONE was ever seriously considered for action.

In his own words "All of this was just talk".


* he calls preparation of orders for a potential circumstance "serious consideration of executing said orders". Like many posters on military discussion boards that declare the mere existence of "plans to invade Canada" and "plans for war with the UK" in the 1920s and 30s as "proof of US intentions to do so", he confuses preparations for a POSSIBLE circumstance as being "serious consideration of (and desire to) actually act on those "just in case" contingency plans".

Any military board worth the pay and rank will have plans for almost any conceivable conflict, so as to not be surprised by anything - to not do so would be dereliction of duty (hence the punishment of Kimmel & Short over the events of 7 Dec. 1941).

Similarly, the diplomatic corps must prepare for any potential diplomatic necessity - no matter how distasteful.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yep... and still, despite all of the factors and potential excuses available to the US to reneg on, or delay, Philippine independence - somehow the US never actually acted on ANY of them.


His "3 veto points" in the 1934 law, the "3 sets of orders" (1940, 1944, 1945)* allowing the President to nullify independence, all of the social and economic pressures he so lovingly cites in support of his position - NOT ONE was ever seriously considered for action.

In his own words "All of this was just talk".

Now, I can see the schedule slipping because X or Y has not been worked out yet. See how long it took the UK to complete BREXIT, for example. Say, not enough schools and hospitals built.

But the US fully expected to turn the Philippines loose as their own nation, and had ever since we pried them loose from Spain in 1898.

 

[Hardrada55]

View attachment 736397View attachment 736398

Is that Varyag?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

View attachment 736397View attachment 736398

The placement of the guns at the extremes of the ship come as a result of Russia's analysis of Tsushima. One of the things they found was that guns at the extreme ends of the ship were unlikely to be taken out by enemy fire. Of course, placing heavy guns so close to the bow and stern came with issues of their own, like wetness in a seaway, lack of room for a magazine near the gun, etc.

 

[JoeCalPo]

Now, I can see the schedule slipping because X or Y has not been worked out yet. See how long it took the UK to complete BREXIT, for example. Say, not enough schools and hospitals built.

But the US fully expected to turn the Philippines loose as their own nation, and had ever since we pried them loose from Spain in 1898.

Allow me to clarify my original idea - the US deciding to give the Philippines independence much earlier, whilst ensuring they maintain basing rights for naval, army, and eventually air forces. Giving the fledgling government considerable financial and military backing as well, as a bulwark against Japan, while also demonstrating politically to other countries how to free their colonial empires.
It was also an excuse to build a Connecticut class model I'd bought by mistake when I was intending to buy a Virginia.

I'm uncertain if this is a realistic scenario, especially given the active rebellion against the US.

 

[ptdockyard]

It was also an excuse to build a Connecticut class model I'd bought by mistake when I was intending to buy a Virginia.

Ehhh.... don't wait for an excuse. Just build it

 

[JoeCalPo]

Ehhh.... don't wait for an excuse. Just build it

I did already. I give you the PNS Luzon, hero of the Battle of Hinatuan Passage:

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I did this one a while back for some discussion or another. HMAS Australia modernized. One stack is gone with new, and fewer, boilers. New turbines. 4 twin 4" Mk XIX mounts, 3 eight barrel 2 pdr pom poms, 4 quad .50 Vickers MG's. A catapult is added. The bridge and foretop are modernized to include a fire control director for the main battery and spotting tops on a tripod mast. Deck armor would be improved while the side armor remained largely unaltered.

She might have gotten bulges but may not have based on what speed was now achievable. I figured it at about 28 knots on about 60,000 shp total, up from the previous say, 24-ish. With oil firing and more capacity, range would have been about double the original figure.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I did already. I give you the PNS Luzon, hero of the Battle of Hinatuan Passage:

View attachment 737603

If I were guessing at a US refit without regard to cost for a Connecticut, I'd think they'd do it a bit differently than what's shown. The 5"/38 twins are fine. All the hull 7" are gone. 4 x quad 40mm are set between the turrets amidships, two on each side. The Mk 38 directors are about right. No quad 40mm's on the main turrets. Too heavy and would make the turrets unbalanced. The later cage mast forward is retained while the aft one is removed. The remaining cage mast is cut down to about half height and gets a single deck spotting top similar to the ones on battleships at Pearl Harbor along with now removed fire controls those ships had at that time.
The deck house aft is made more substantial and two twin 40mm mounts are on top covering the rear arc of the ship. A tripod mast is added aft to allow for radar and such. The foretop gets a Mk 3 radar. About 16 to 20 20mm singles are placed in various locations--but none at the bow as shown (far too wet and exposed to weather).

Right aft, is a crane and catapult. One or two Curtiss SOC are provided. Half the anchors and chain forward are removed leaving one per side. Both main turrets get a rangefinder added.

The ship gets bulges faired up to the main deck adding about 4 feet to the beam. The two forward stacks are combined into one and shorter, while the aft stack is gone. Oil and new boilers are fitted while the VTE engines are given somewhat more HP. With mechanical ventilation, and better blowers for the boilers, all those tall air scoops are gone.
The space taken up by the boilers that were removed is now used for auxiliary machinery like generators and distilling plants for freshwater.

An alternative would be to leave the 8" turrets in place, add a director fore and aft for these on the new bridge and aft deckhouse structure, and add 3 or 4 5" / 25 AA guns between them amidships per side with a Mk 33 FC director on each side. This gives a bit more firepower as a battleship while leaving the heavy AA the same. The 40 mm quads go outboard between the main turrets and 8" turrets, one per quadrant.

 

[JoeCalPo]

My rebuild was essentially "What's in the spares box that the US would use for a partial rebuild?" It's meant to look like an old ship regunned. A proper rebuild would be a fun project for future me, take that model apart and rebuild it again. USS Luzon, flagship of the US Asiatic Fleet. _After_ I finish the five+ models in progress on my hobby table plus build the last two of my USS New Jerseys and the two aircraft for the Millville air base display.

I like the updated Australia, and wonder what her presence in the Pacific would have done. Possibly she joins up with PoW and Repulse and shares their fate, or stays near Australia to defend against air attacks and invasion, supports Aussie troops in New Guinea, or joins in the ship-to-ship battles of 1942.

 

[1Big Rich]

View attachment 737606
I did this one a while back for some discussion or another. HMAS Australia modernized. One stack is gone with new, and fewer, boilers. New turbines. 4 twin 4" Mk XIX mounts, 3 eight barrel 2 pdr pom poms, 4 quad .50 Vickers MG's. A catapult is added. The bridge and foretop are modernized to include a fire control director for the main battery and spotting tops on a tripod mast. Deck armor would be improved while the side armor remained largely unaltered.

She might have gotten bulges but may not have based on what speed was now achievable. I figured it at about 28 knots on about 60,000 shp total, up from the previous say, 24-ish. With oil firing and more capacity, range would have been about double the original figure.

Well done!
Thanks for sharing!

Not to drag us off-topic, but we had a discussion of keeping Neptune (the battleship) around for World War II over on the BC forums' Own Design board

All the World's Battlecruisers-Battleship Neptune in World War II

In this thread, specifically on page 3 I posted a response to thecroft47's challenge to rebuild some of the "more challenging" dreadnought battleships

www.tapatalk.com

Regards,

 

[Dilandu]

A catapult is added.

Wouldn't be more practical to put catapult on the roof of a turret?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Wouldn't be more practical to put catapult on the roof of a turret?

You could, but I put rangefinders on the A and Y (fore and aft) turrets to improve the fire controls. The problem with Q and P turrets is that you don't have a good position for a crane where the catapult where I put it has the boat cranes available for use.

 

[Nicknick]

It may not even be possible, in 1920s. Look at the "Borodino"-class arrangement, for example:

View attachment 736386

The engineering space on it is quite limited. And before the era of geared drive turbines, the turbine powerplant was quite bulky, requiring a lot of space for both full speed, cruising and reversing turbine sets. Considering the amount of reconstruction required, I really doubt that it would worth the efforts at least till late 1920s (when powerplants became much more compact). And by late 1920s it would be hard to justify rebuilding a pre-dreadnought to such extent.

Not to forgett, that steam turbines offer their full potential only with higher steam temperatures/pressures which are only archievable with water tube boilers. Replacing steam engines with turbines alone will not give a large benefit. Also note, that part load efficiency of turbines is very low, this can be partially avoided by using smaller cruise turbines, but still, they work best only at one given speed/load.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Not to forgett, that steam turbines offer their full potential only with higher steam temperatures/pressures which are only archievable with water tube boilers. Replacing steam engines with turbines alone will not give a large benefit. Also note, that part load efficiency of turbines is very low, this can be partially avoided by using smaller cruise turbines, but still, they work best only at one given speed/load.

Replacing boilers is always the best choice. When the US upgraded older battleships and such running on coal to oil, they changed out the boilers but didn't change the engines. With fewer boilers delivering the necessary steam and oil firing, they gained a considerable weight savings that could go into things like bulging the ship, deck armor, and the like.

Weight was always the elephant in the room with pre-WW 2 ships. If you could gain a big weight savings somewhere you could redirect that into upgrades to parts of the ship that needed them the most.

 

[Dilandu]

You could, but I put rangefinders on the A and Y (fore and aft) turrets to improve the fire controls. The problem with Q and P turrets is that you don't have a good position for a crane where the catapult where I put it has the boat cranes available for use.

Hm, maybe move an aft mast forward then? Like I done on "Independencia"?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Hm, maybe move an aft mast forward then? Like I done on "Independencia"?

View attachment 737853

I guess you could, but I see little advantage to that. It is less accessible on top of the turret, and you are limited in choices on how it operates. On deck, a maintenance shop for the plane(s) could be put right next to it and there is less risk in the case of a gasoline fire.

It also looks like there's 7 twin 4" AA mounts added. That's about 100 to 200 tons added weight at a minimum to the ship. I don't see any added directors for them, so are they to fire in local only?

 

[World B4]

Let's escape our own AUs please. From Japan:
The Yakumo, Izumo, and Iwate armored cruisers did get 127mm guns as replacements for their 203mms, and the Aso (formerly the og Bayan) got her singles replaced with 152s and a high mine capacity (420 lmao), but these are (mostly) auxiliary conversions that take the teeth and coolness factor out. The interesting armored cruiser to me is the Tokiwa. She also became a minelayer in the early 20s, but she initially only lost 1 main turret, with the other eventually being removed on the eve of WW2. So she could still bring heavy guns to the party for a while, which could have been useful in offensive minelaying. Pretty sure middle right depicts her in this configuration.

https://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/ship.php?ShipID=571

 

[ptdockyard]

I did one too in 1/1200. The USS Seattle ala 1942 as a convoy escort. Based to a degree on the drawing in Friedman's book on US Cruiser design history. Four twin 6" were added along with 6-5"/25, some light AA and catapult aft. Triple torpedo tubes are on the side under the 5"AA.

I also make a version with twin 5"/38 in place of the 6".

 

[Brickmuppet]

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

The U.S. Armored Cruisers were allowed by the Washington Treaty, whereas the pre-dreadnaughts were not. The surviving Big 10 (big 8?) had the potential to be uprated to 26-28 knots, were well armored (very much so by treaty cruiser standards) and being over 10,000 tons, they had space and moment for new equipment and 3 of them had 10 inch guns which no newer cruiser could legally match. Thus, contemplating a modernization of them was not an unreasonable notion on the face of it.

 

[Dilandu]

The U.S. Armored Cruisers were allowed by the Washington Treaty, whereas the pre-dreadnaughts were not. The surviving Big 10 (big 8?) had the potential to be uprated to 26-28 knots, were well armored (very much so by treaty cruiser standards) and being over 10,000 tons, they had space and moment for new equipment and 3 of them had 10 inch guns which no newer cruiser could legally match. Thus, contemplating a modernization of them was not an unreasonable notion on the face of it.

Theoretically yes, but on practice... the comparative analysis demonstrated, that "Tennessee"-class cruiser, even modernized, would not be a match for second-generation heavy cruiser. The 10-inch gun have a low rate of fire, and inadequate armored deck penetration. In long-distance duel, heavy cruiser with 8-10 8-inch guns would outperform "Tennesse" with four 10-inch guns too significantly.

Of course, the analysis was biased toward heavy cruisers (the USN didn't want Congress to got the notion "we could just modernize old cruisers instead of building new ones!"), but in matters of artillery and gunnery it was pretty reasonable.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The U.S. Armored Cruisers were allowed by the Washington Treaty, whereas the pre-dreadnaughts were not. The surviving Big 10 (big 8?) had the potential to be uprated to 26-28 knots, were well armored (very much so by treaty cruiser standards) and being over 10,000 tons, they had space and moment for new equipment and 3 of them had 10 inch guns which no newer cruiser could legally match. Thus, contemplating a modernization of them was not an unreasonable notion on the face of it.

It is in terms of the time and cost it would incur. The Big 10 cruisers were coal powered and used VTE engines. All of that would require replacing. The entire secondary battery of casemate weapons would have to be replaced as well. To make the 10" worthwhile you'd have to find a way to increase their elevation from the current 15 degrees to like 20 to 25 to make plunging fire possible.
By the time you got done with everything on one you'd have something like 75 to 85% new ship on an old hull. Better to just build new ships than remuddle something that's already 20-ish years old and obsolescent to obsolete.

 

[Dilandu]

To make the 10" worthwhile you'd have to find a way to increase their elevation from the current 15 degrees to like 20 to 25 to make plunging fire possible.

Even then, their combat value would be highly dubious. They could fire 2-3 rounds per minute at most; and considering that loading at max angle would most likely be impossible, the actual rate of fire would be 2 rouns per minute. It's not enought for efficiently bracketing the target, and not enough to produce a statistically significant amount of hit at long distances. A 8-inch heavy cruiser with 8-10 guns would most likely straddle "Tennesse" first and put enough hits to disable her before she would be able to land a single hit of her own.

 

[Owens Z]

I don't read Japanese and am not sure that the following is true. But I heard thirdhand that the Imperial Japanese Navy, having re-rated in 1912 their four big, shiny armored cruisers of the Tsukuba and Ibuki classes (each with four 12" guns) as "battlecruisers" (for prestige, to fill the new Royal Navy category before the Kongos were built), rued that re-rating just ten years later, when the Washington Naval Treaty classed all battlecruisers as capital ships and allowed only a strict limit to survive. The three surviving ships (Tsukuba exploded at anchor in 1917) had to be disarmed and go to the scrappers, although they had plenty of life left in their hulls. If the admirals had controlled themselves and simply kept the original 'armored cruiser' tag, then the ships could have had much longer, very useful lives, as per the point of this thread. As you have heard, some of the even older armored cruisers were kept in the IJN till the end of World War 2, albeit in secondary roles. Old or not, I would not have wanted to face an Ibuki one-on-one in a New Orleans-class heavy cruiser.

 

[Phoenix_jz]

I don't know if they would have survived the cut even if they retained their classification as 1st Class Cruisers - I suspect if anything it was their 12" main batteries that were key to doing them in, given that other 10"-armed armored cruisers survived the WNT. The San Giorgio-class armored cruisers, for example, had 10" main batteries and were actually classified as 1st Class Battleships until 1923, when the Regia Marina redid its classification system. They were not even mentioned under the WNT.

In contrast, the three surviving large Japanese armored cruisers/battlecruisers - Ikoma, Ibuki, and Kurama - are all named and mandated for scrapping under the WNT in the same breath as the remaining Japanese pre-dreadnought battleships, and the incomplete Tosa and Amagi-class ships on the construction slips.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Even then, their combat value would be highly dubious. They could fire 2-3 rounds per minute at most; and considering that loading at max angle would most likely be impossible, the actual rate of fire would be 2 rouns per minute. It's not enought for efficiently bracketing the target, and not enough to produce a statistically significant amount of hit at long distances. A 8-inch heavy cruiser with 8-10 guns would most likely straddle "Tennesse" first and put enough hits to disable her before she would be able to land a single hit of her own.

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.

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

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.

 

[Brickmuppet]

It is in terms of the time and cost it would incur. The Big 10 cruisers were coal powered and used VTE engines. All of that would require replacing. The entire secondary battery of casemate weapons would have to be replaced as well. To make the 10" worthwhile you'd have to find a way to increase their elevation from the current 15 degrees to like 20 to 25 to make plunging fire possible.
By the time you got done with everything on one you'd have something like 75 to 85% new ship on an old hull. Better to just build new ships than remuddle something that's already 20-ish years old and obsolescent to obsolete.

Yes. However my post was in reply to Tzoli apparently wondering why no similar designs for Pre-Dreadnoughts were contemplated. The studies showed that, such a program would be of marginal utility. But given thinking of the time, examining the prospect of modernizing the Big 10 survivors was not itself ludicrous. The studies showed that cruisers of diffident speed, well armored for short range gunfights but vulnerable to the long range fires the US was contemplating and with hulls that were already 20 years old were not a good investment for a Navy, particularly one facing a parsimonious Congress. I'm not sure that the 10 inch gun's inadequacies were a factor, as Friedman seems to indicate that the main armament in both classes was expected to be replaced with the compact triple 8" 55s of the Treaty Cruisers in any event.

Given the realities of the night-time cruiser knife fights around the Solomon Islands (where short range hail of fire and vertical armor might have been useful) it is interesting to contemplate how these modernizations might have fared. But such engagements even when they occurred, were a very niche case, not seen as important to the U.S.N in the '20s and as others have pointed out almost certainly don't outweigh the concept's other shortcomings.

 

[Brickmuppet]

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 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.