Re-arming battleships

[MikeD]

A question for those of you who know more about floating things than I do - how feasible is it to change the main guns of a battleship?

By that I mean could you realistically take, for example, a KGV battleship, remove the 14'' guns from the turrets and put in 15/16/18'' guns in their place? Obviously that assumes the turret is physically big enough to take the new guns (which you'd assume would have longer recoil and weigh more).

Would the existing ammunition handling and loading systems be able to be cope with the change in calibre with some relatively minor changes (changing the cradles for the shells to the new size for example) or would it involve some major work?

[rickshaw]

Rearming anything is more difficult than the word sounds.   You not only have to change the weapon, you need to change the means of handling and storing the ammunition.   In otherwords, the hoists have to be changed, the handling systems at both ends of the hoists have to be changed and in the magazine, the means of storing the rounds and their charges (separately of course!) have to be changed to take into account the new ammunition.

While bigger guns often need bigger gun houses, to accept the increased recoil and the problems that the loading represent to the bigger guns.

[MikeD]

I know it's not just a case of lift out the original guns and bolt some bigger ones in the hole. I'm interested to know if it's a feasible thing to do though - whether it's something that could have realistically have been done with a battleship at some point.

[jcf]

Go the Navweaps site Brit gun page and compare the numbers:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_Main.htm

[kerick]

My intuition tells me this would not be a practical thing to do. However, weren't there some cruisers that had guns removed and replaced with missile systems when missiles were first being introduced to ships? Not much of a ship guy so this is just off the top of my head.

Well, a quick look on the internet reveals that six Cleveland class cruisers were converted to carry Talos missiles and renamed the Galveston class.
I guess its all in how bad you want it and how much money you want to spend!

[sandiego89]

May I suggest considering a turret swap? Instead of replacing individual guns and associated hoists etc, replace the whole turret.  Most turrets were multi deck sub assemblies that fit into circular tubs on the ship. This allowed the shell and powder storage, hoists etc all to be integrated under the guns- and why a calibre swap is so comlex. The turrets were held place with sheer weight- note how the Bismark turrets fell out when the ship capsized on its way to the bottom.

There are many pictures of battlships under constrution that show open the turret holes. 

Perhaps Removing the massive quad mounts from the King George would leave massive circular holes and you could slip in a tripple 16 inch turret from a South Dakota or an Iowa or similar larger calibre turret. 

[kerick]

Reading up on the KGV class a turret swap wouldn't be such a bad idea. These ships constantly had problems with their turrets jamming and guns becoming inoperable. The 14 inch quad turrets were huge and a triple 16 inch turret might work.

[MikeD]

Go the Navweaps site Brit gun page and compare the numbers:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_Main.htm

I used the KGV example I mentioned in my first post:

14'' (as fitted to KGV) - 15'' (Queen Elizabeth, Royal Sovereign, Glorious, Repulse and Vanguard)

Weight - 80,256Kg - 101,605Kg
Gun Length - 16.532m - 16.52m
Projectile Length - 156.5cm - 165.1cm (APC)/170.2cm (HE)

So a straight swap of the ten guns like for like would add ~210 tons of weight to the ship (which may not be all that much of an issue on a 42,000t vessel, but I'm not a naval architect) but the guns are virtually the same length (so no real issues with muzzle clearance or anything like that).

The projectiles are a little bit longer but would that be a big thing to deal with? Obviously the handling equipment etc to get the ammunition from the magazines to the guns would need to be adjusted/replaced to fit the larger diameter projectiles anyway but would there be enough clearances on the shafts from the mag to the turret to allow the larger projectiles through?

Having said all that, sandiego's suggestion of a turret swap may be more realistic than just replacing the guns.

[dadlamassu]

However, weren't there some cruisers that had guns removed and replaced with missile systems when missiles were first being introduced to ships? Not much of a ship guy so this is just off the top of my head.

Even before this the IJNS Mogami Class were upgunned from 15 x 6 inch guns to 10 x 8 inch guns.

[PR19_Kit]

What were they thinking of with that crazy '2 into 1' funnel? Had they been reading US hotrod magazine articles about exhaust system upgrades?

[rickshaw]

What were they thinking of with that crazy '2 into 1' funnel? Had they been reading US hotrod magazine articles about exhaust system upgrades?

More than likely they built it with separate funnels, realised how bad it was in the fighting tops and rebuilt it with a single connected funnel.  The RN on the otherhand would have just put up with the noxious gases from the exhaust...   

[Glenn Gilbertson]

What were they thinking of with that crazy '2 into 1' funnel? Had they been reading US hotrod magazine articles about exhaust system upgrades?

More than likely they built it with separate funnels, realised how bad it was in the fighting tops and rebuilt it with a single connected funnel.  The RN on the otherhand would have just put up with the noxious gases from the exhaust...   

The RN didn't always put up with it - as seen in the Queen Elizabeth Class battleships:


HMS Barham (middle picture) was still with trunked funnels when sunk in 1941.