What-If modernized KGVs - Useful or Deathtraps?

[Cliffy B]

As the title says, useful or deathtraps, thoughts? I'm talking from a purely academic stand point, free of monetary issues, and politics. I'm talking about an 1980's era modernization/re-activation akin to the BB-61s.

I know from reading Duiln and Garzke that these ships had some inherent flaws that make me think they would have been ill suited for further service in the jet/missile age. Their riveted construction and poor torpedo protection system mainly along with paper thin conning towers. They said that fixing some of their deficiencies ranged from overly expensive to near impossible to have completed during war time and post war only some were were addressed. Would better fixes/fixes period had been possible if they had waited until later and/or waited for technology to evolve?

Am I close, right, wrong? Ideas? Any and all help is appreciated as always.

I look forward to discussing this with you guys.

-Mike

[Timmy C]

Torpedo protection, however good or flawed, was meant only to protect against contemporary torpedoes that strike the hullsides - I doubt there is very much difference between a good and bad TDS when facing a modern torpedo exploding under the ship's keel.

[Seasick]

I read a topic like this in another forum a while back. Every torpedo defense system designed before 1940 was obsolete by 1943. The Kreigsmarine, Royal Navy, and USN were all working on under keel torpedoes during the war. The older designs rely on the keel to hold a considerable amount of the ships dead weight while post war designs distribute more to the strength deck, and other design mechanisms. The KGV would be useful in the 1950s as a fire support asset. The 14 inch round would be just as capable as the 16" on the Iowas at the ranges fired at in the war.