Last use for SL SD captured

Castenea wrote:Even with SL tech, changing a grazer mount would likely be akin to reguning a MBT. Not something to be done without a lot of forethought and requiring major depot level maintenance facilities. For a naval perspective, how many battleships built after 1906 had their main batteries changed?

Thanks to the naval treaties restriction on new construction a fair number had their main battery turrets modified for greater elevation (longer range) - but changes to the actual guns were much rarer. (I'm ignoring ships which just had turrets completely removed as part of conversion to training ships, carriers, or any other reason - and also ignoring 1-for-1 barrel replacements due to damage)

Italy rebored the main guns on some of her battleships from 305 mm (12 in) to 320 millimeters (12.6 in). And of course Germany had planned to (but never actually did) replace the triple 11-inch turrets on the Scharnhorst-class battleships with dual 15-inch turrets (reducing them from 9 guns to 6). But as far as I know those were the only upgrades made, or seriously planned, for dreadnaught battleship main guns.

Though IIRC Japan put longer caliber guns (same shell size) on some of her heavy cruisers.

Jonathan_S wrote:Thanks to the naval treaties restriction on new construction a fair number had their main battery turrets modified for greater elevation (longer range) - but changes to the actual guns were much rarer. (I'm ignoring ships which just had turrets completely removed as part of conversion to training ships, carriers, or any other reason - and also ignoring 1-for-1 barrel replacements due to damage)

Italy rebored the main guns on some of her battleships from 305 mm (12 in) to 320 millimeters (12.6 in). And of course Germany had planned to (but never actually did) replace the triple 11-inch turrets on the Scharnhorst-class battleships with dual 15-inch turrets (reducing them from 9 guns to 6). But as far as I know those were the only upgrades made, or seriously planned, for dreadnaught battleship main guns.

Though IIRC Japan put longer caliber guns (same shell size) on some of her heavy cruisers.

I knew of the proposed but never done changes on the Scharnhorst, I believe that one British BB had one if it's turrets removed and a series of guns tested on it during WWI. I also remember reading that after USS Iowa suffered an explosion inside B turret, it was never repaired. Thus if history is any indication, major changes to the layout of SLN ships are unlikely to be done.

Castenea wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:Thanks to the naval treaties restriction on new construction a fair number had their main battery turrets modified for greater elevation (longer range) - but changes to the actual guns were much rarer. (I'm ignoring ships which just had turrets completely removed as part of conversion to training ships, carriers, or any other reason - and also ignoring 1-for-1 barrel replacements due to damage)

Italy rebored the main guns on some of her battleships from 305 mm (12 in) to 320 millimeters (12.6 in). And of course Germany had planned to (but never actually did) replace the triple 11-inch turrets on the Scharnhorst-class battleships with dual 15-inch turrets (reducing them from 9 guns to 6). But as far as I know those were the only upgrades made, or seriously planned, for dreadnaught battleship main guns.

Though IIRC Japan put longer caliber guns (same shell size) on some of her heavy cruisers.

I knew of the proposed but never done changes on the Scharnhorst, I believe that one British BB had one if it's turrets removed and a series of guns tested on it during WWI. I also remember reading that after USS Iowa suffered an explosion inside B turret, it was never repaired. Thus if history is any indication, major changes to the layout of SLN ships are unlikely to be done.

And some of Italy's BBs had their center turret removed as part of their inter war reconstruction. IIRC that made room for larger engineering spaces - allowing more SHP. Combined with the longer bow sections added it increased their speed by a fair amount.

But that's deletion of part of the main armament - not putting in turrets with larger guns.


Though the US did design their North Carolina-class battleships to be able to carry either turrets with quad 14" or triple 16". But the treaty escalator clause was activated before construction finished. I don't know if any of the 14" turrets were even started - certainly it was the 16" triples that were installed.
But the US, uniquely among the WWII powers, had the spare turret and gun manufacturing capability that in theory, if the escalator clause hadn't been invoked, they could have done that turret swap anyway once the treaty became void at the outbreak of WWII.

Castenea wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:Thanks to the naval treaties restriction on new construction a fair number had their main battery turrets modified for greater elevation (longer range) - but changes to the actual guns were much rarer. (I'm ignoring ships which just had turrets completely removed as part of conversion to training ships, carriers, or any other reason - and also ignoring 1-for-1 barrel replacements due to damage)

Italy rebored the main guns on some of her battleships from 305 mm (12 in) to 320 millimeters (12.6 in). And of course Germany had planned to (but never actually did) replace the triple 11-inch turrets on the Scharnhorst-class battleships with dual 15-inch turrets (reducing them from 9 guns to 6). But as far as I know those were the only upgrades made, or seriously planned, for dreadnaught battleship main guns.

Though IIRC Japan put longer caliber guns (same shell size) on some of her heavy cruisers.

I knew of the proposed but never done changes on the Scharnhorst, I believe that one British BB had one if it's turrets removed and a series of guns tested on it during WWI. I also remember reading that after USS Iowa suffered an explosion inside B turret, it was never repaired. Thus if history is any indication, major changes to the layout of SLN ships are unlikely to be done.

Actually USS Iowa was fully repaired. The ship you might be thinking of was USS Newport News which also suffered an explosion in turret 2, but was never properly repaired. IIRC the gun barrel and handling equipment was removed and the turret opening plated over.

saber964 wrote:
Actually USS Iowa was fully repaired. The ship you might be thinking of was USS Newport News which also suffered an explosion in turret 2, but was never properly repaired. IIRC the gun barrel and handling equipment was removed and the turret opening plated over.

At the time, there were reports that the Navy was recovering (presumably) common parts from Alabama.

Castenea wrote:Even with SL tech, changing a grazer mount would likely be akin to reguning a MBT. Not something to be done without a lot of forethought and requiring major depot level maintenance facilities. For a naval perspective, how many battleships built after 1906 had their main batteries changed?

Quite a few, most were built with 12-15 degree elevations and the turrets were rebuilt to allow 30-45 degrees (depending on the ships), the Italians had only 12" armed ship at the end of WWII and instead of building brand new ships with larger guns (as everyone else had) they just rebuilt the ones they had, including engines superstructure and turrets - they bored out the guns to 32cm (12.6"). when you go down to cruiser level ,the Japanese built the Mogami class with 5 triple 155mm turrets due to limits on their "heavy" cruiser allowance, so they built these as "large light" cruisers. as soon as the public eye was off of them (<1year) they were rebuilt with 5 twin 20cm turrets for an extra 4 heavy cruisers. 8 of the surplus 155mm turrets were reused on the Yamato class, with 1/2 of those later being removed, those on Yamato herself were replaced with 127mm twin DM mounts. when the Mogami herself was badly damaged at Midway, the Japanese cleared off her aft turrets and replaced them with an aircraft handling deck. then there's all those WWII cruisers (Cleveland and Chicago classes) that received a widely varying degree of rebuild and replacements into CGs - such as removal of 6-8" turrets and replacing them with Mk4-10 or 11 Missile launchers. The Chicago removed all her 8" turrets and replaced them with launchers on each end + a Mk-11 on each side of a completely replaced bridge structure, in-place of her Mk38 5"/38s. Most US, British and French battleships were rebuilt during the interwar period with completely new super structures and secondary turrets (though they generally retained their main armament, these were often rebuilt for better elevations - as mentioned) most replacing their masts, FC and secondary weapons. this continued throughout WWII, especially to the oldest ones like the Texas and the worst damaged from PH, like the Tennessees. Then there's the Wyoming and Mississippi, the Wyoming had all her Armor removed along with 3 of her 6 main turrets, her main mast replaced with a stump mast and a small tripod added aft. she also had her starboard side completely rebuilt to carry 2 Mk30 single and 1 Mk 38 twin 5"/38 turrets. latter her remaining 3 main turrets were replaced with additional Mk38s. After WWII The New Mexico class Battleship Mississippi became a Training ship/test platform (AG-128) with all but her aft most turret removed and replaced with various weapons, including a twin 6"/47 Mark 16 DP Turret (like those on the Worchester class) added in-place of the forward turret. she later replaced her remaining 14" triple turret with a Terrier missile launcher.

Castenea wrote: I also remember reading that after USS Iowa suffered an explosion inside B turret, it was never repaired. Thus if history is any indication, major changes to the layout of SLN ships are unlikely to be done.

That was because "Carrier" Admirals (who have always hated guns) used it as an excuse to permanently strike the ship (1 less battleship threatening the purse strings of their air-plane freighters) it was planed to remove the aft turrets for VLS, and VTOL hangers, with the plan being pushed for, to use the aft turret to replace the damaged one, but again, the Carrier Admirals killed the project. They couldn't have a ship out there that could carry fighters and Volkswagen lobbing artillery.

Jonathan_S wrote:And some of Italy's BBs had their center turret removed as part of their inter war reconstruction...

Actually they all did (the ones retained) as did the French battleship Lorraine in 1924, which had her central turret replaced with aircraft facilities, her 4 remaining turrets upgraded for increased elevation and her Boilers replaced (very common - the U.S.S. Texas was originally Coal fired with VTE engines)

MAD-4A wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:And some of Italy's BBs had their center turret removed as part of their inter war reconstruction...

Actually they all did (the ones retained) as did the French battleship Lorraine in 1924, which had her central turret replaced with aircraft facilities, her 4 remaining turrets upgraded for increased elevation and her Boilers replaced (very common - the U.S.S. Texas was originally Coal fired with VTE engines)

Thanks. I was going from memory and didn't want to go double-check if 100% of the Italian BB's had a turret removed.


Of course basically all that interwar heavy reconstruction was an artifact of artificial restrictions of the naval treaty period. (Maybe not increasing turret elevation, but the major rebuilds). It would have been more cost effective - had the treaties allowed - to do minor refreshes on the old BBs and build new BBs powered, armed, and armored exactly how you wanted.

So it's not a great model for how likely Honorverse navies are to do major, gut the ship, rebuilds. Manticore did some during the ceasefire (converting a few Gryphons to Mk23 tubes) but I'm partly convinced that was done because that's all the High Ridge government would authorize -- and, like in the treaty period, a reconstruction you're allowed to do is better than new construction you aren't.

Fox2! wrote:
Actually USS Iowa was fully repaired. The ship you might be thinking of was USS Newport News which also suffered an explosion in turret 2, but was never properly repaired. IIRC the gun barrel and handling equipment was removed and the turret opening plated over.

To my knowledge the Newport News #2 turret was entirely immobilized after removal of the center gun. #1 and #3 turrets retained their black "skirting" for the gun barrels while she remained in service but the #2 Turret rifles were "sealed in" with the same kind of plating that you see in photos on the turret faces of mothballed heavy warships.

The ship herself was retained after decommissioning as a ready source of spare parts if the decision was made to return Des Moines and Salem to service. At some point the Philly shipyard had to open her engineering spaces through the side of the ship. The hull was never repaired afterward, only "cofferdam" plating sealed her back up.

At the time, there were reports that the Navy was recovering (presumably) common parts from Alabama.

That was more likely done in the 1982-84 refit period for all four Iowas. Wisconsin especially needed parts for her #2 turret because of a fire a couple of decades before that was never repaired.