The Ship Model Forum

I have Friedman's design series book on Cruisers. I'll read over it this weekend on the subject of the armored cruisers.

[i]Schleswig-Holstein[/i] was the flagship of the [i]Reichsmarine[/i]. Funding was limited by Germany's difficult financial situation, brought about by French vindictiveness. Which lead to Hitler.

[quote="GMG4RWF"][quote="Cliffy B"]It would have involved a complete engineering overhaul, loss of a stack or 2, and new turrets/guns. Work would have been done in the 1920's I think.[/quote] If you want them to keep up with the carriers you would have too, though most of the ACs could probably get away with weapons upgrades if they are to provide fire-support and escort for the landing operation, landing ships are slower anyway and the coal fire boilers would free up demand on oil supplies (which could have been a major plus patrolling the Channel against Sea-Lion with Cardiff coal readily available). That was the whole difference in the QE & R class BBs, The QEs were to be oil-fired @23kts while the Rs were originally meant to be coal-fired @21kts in-case oil supplies were cut off by the U-boats but they were re-engineered before completion to oil as the U-boat threat was dealt with, but even then I think your right that the funnels would have been trunked to fewer funnels breaking up deck space.[/quote]


OK, Page 60 of Friedman's US Cruiser book shows a cutaway of a proposed reconstruction of the [i]USS Seattle (ACR-11)[/i] circa 1929.

[quote]"All guns were to have been removed from her gun deck; the original plans shows either 4 6" guns or a pair of triple torpedo tubes amidships (with 4 6" guns at the ends in either case) on the main deck above. She would have carried 4 5"/25 AA guns on her superstructure deck, with a pair of open 6" guns at the forward end. Note the new oil-burning boilers, installation of which would have made space for torpedo protection bulkheads."[/quote]

It shows 3 boiler rooms serving the after trio of stacks, IE the forward stack was to be removed. It also shows a centerline deck catapult on the stern like on early BBs and a tripod foremast.

All the reconstructions were cancelled for fear of upsetting new cruiser construction during the "treaty years" I'll call them. They were also viewed as of little tactical value due to their low speeds and inability to increase said speeds very easily/cheaply due to their underwater lines.

[quote="DavidP"]GMG4RWF, germany was experiencing hyper inflation from june, 1921 to jan, 1924 so wouldn't have much money to do such an extensive refit on the Schleswig-Holstein...[/quote]That's a specific economic situation caused by the allies (Brittan and France) being ungracious winners and lying about Germany causing the war (it was Serbia's fault & if anyone owes anyone for that it's Serbia who now owes Germany - {off soapbox} anyway) has nothing to do with Naval engineering, that's an economic issue and the "what-if's" are about "they found the capacity somehow". (also meant Denmark - late night - point still valid).

[quote="Cliffy B"]It would have involved a complete engineering overhaul, loss of a stack or 2, and new turrets/guns. Work would have been done in the 1920's I think.[/quote] If you want them to keep up with the carriers you would have too, though most of the ACs could probably get away with weapons upgrades if they are to provide fire-support and escort for the landing operation, landing ships are slower anyway and the coal fire boilers would free up demand on oil supplies (which could have been a major plus patrolling the Channel against Sea-Lion with Cardiff coal readily available). That was the whole difference in the QE & R class BBs, The QEs were to be oil-fired @23kts while the Rs were originally meant to be coal-fired @21kts in-case oil supplies were cut off by the U-boats but they were re-engineered before completion to oil as the U-boat threat was dealt with, but even then I think your right that the funnels would have been trunked to fewer funnels breaking up deck space.

[quote="Seasick"]many of the predreadnoughts and armored cruisers were obsolete and/or worn out by age after WW1...[/quote]as far as "worn-out", I would agree with some of them but others (like Lord Nelson) were less than 20 years old. As far as "obsolete", no such thing, PDs took on DNs at Moon sound & got in what they took, as with your example:[quote="Seasick"]...the predreadnoughts ...German navy...Schleswig-Holstein pictured above is an example. She was modernized as much as possible. Her 17cm guns were replaced by 15cm guns. And the superstructure expanded.[/quote] yes they modified her with some newer guns and the structure was enlarged, but no attempt was made to upgrade her engines or modify the structure to handle DP turrets as in the Italian Navy's DNs. still despite the lack luster upgrades she still served with distinction in Holland as a fire support platform & with little other Naval support and in what could be considered very hostile waters/air-space. Of-course the opposite is true of the Norwegian ACs at Narvik, but then they were Norwegian after all, though something can be said of them being "obsolete" not due to their weapons or layout but to their lack of watertight compartmentalization (there is "obsolete" engineering & tech after-all - like "old iron-sides"). still a full Italian style upgrade on a PD or AC is intriguing. I have worked on a few modern PDs myself (drawings not models due to lack of parts), a 12" battery for shore bombardment with SAMs & point def. to protect against counter attack in addition to the armor - a cheap alternative to recommissioned Iowas for Marine support.

If I remember correctly there's a drawing of a rebuilt ACR in Friedman's US Cruiser book. It would have involved a complete engineering overhaul, loss of a stack or 2, and new turrets/guns. Work would have been done in the 1920's I think.

Its difficult, many of the predreadnoughts and armored cruisers were obsolete and/or worn out by age after WW1. A good example of what would happen to the predreadnoughts and armored cruisers was the German navy.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Bundesarchiv_DVM_10_Bild-23-63-47%2C_Linienschiff_%22Schleswig-Holstein%22.jpg/300px-Bundesarchiv_DVM_10_Bild-23-63-47%2C_Linienschiff_%22Schleswig-Holstein%22.jpg[/img]

Schleswig-Holstein pictured above is an example. She was modernized as much as possible. Her 17cm guns were replaced by 15cm guns. And the superstructure expanded.

For Armored cruisers I would expect that as many guns as possible would be replaced with a single caliber weapon.

After WWI most Pre-Dreadnoughts and Armored Cruisers, as well as most of the older DNs, were scrapped. However some countries couldn't afford to. Italy for instance did complete upgrades on there dreadnoughts, boring their guns out to 12.6" and even replacing their engines and adding bulges. What if the other countries didn't go on a scraping spree but instead mothballed their old ships. later bringing them out of mothballs during (or after) WWII.
an example would be: HMS Leviathan, she receives new Anti-TT bulges, all small caliber Anti-TB guns removed, all 6" sponson removed and replaced with open sponson, 8 4.5" or 5.25" twin turrets added on-top of open sponsons. old 9.4" single turrets replaced with modern 8" turrets.
What other mods might be done?