1913 Qing China Feasibility Study for pre-Arcadia Battleship

[Eugenius]

What do y'all think of the following refurbishment of Hong Wei Lei (ex-Petropavlovsk)?

1. Remove 6" twin turrets, since they have an extremely slow firing rate (2-3 rounds per minute as opposed to five rounds per minute in casemates), replace each with a single 6" gun behind a light shield.

2. Increase main battery elevation to 35 degrees (accomplished in one Russian pre-dreadnought class in our world).

3. Modify main battery turrets for all- or at least more-elevation loading to improve rate of fire, rather than having to load at a fixed elevation. 

4. Cut down excess superstructure and replace military masts with pole masts...this was done to Tri Sviatitelia in our world.

5. Remove c. 1800 tons of old, 1896 machinery giving 16.9 knots and replace with equal weight of 1909 machinery giving 20.5-21 knots (depending on how much superstructure weight can be considered "cut").

Is this worth it, for (not counting gun modifications on main battery...don't quite know what the cost for that would be) a cost of 1.8 BP and $4.65?

[Tanthalas]

ill go with the standard answer of proly not (least thats the answer I always get when I ask aobut rebuilds)

[The Rock Doctor]

My usual views is that pre-dreads are hopelessly obsolete and in need of deletion ASAP.  In your case - they might still be useful against the Southerners (if the civil war resumes), but I'd not bother with the new engines.

[Borys]

the ship is useful as it is for coastal and big river operations.
Or break her up and reuse everything for monitors.
Borys

[Korpen]

I think it might be worth it, with the exception of the engine change. Old pre-dreads can be usefull in secondary roles (as borys pointed out), but it is not really worth throwing too much resources on them. Engine change is horribly expensive, and would not really give the ship that much more capability against its most likely opponent, south china.

[maddox]

1)The twin 6" turrets, remove and scrap. Those are outside the rules too - a relic from Olekit/N-verse II.

2) Done in a lot of BB's after WWI , but pretty useless and taking a full rebuild of the turrets for such an old vessel.

3) Same as 2, it's almost cheaper and faster designing a new turret and making sure it fits on the old barbette.

4) No problem.

5) Waste of money and resources. Better to be used in new construction.

[Jefgte]

Laid down in 1896, they are too old for investments.
Use them for coastal protection.

With $ & BP, build new ships


Jef  ;)

[Eugenius]

There pretty much seems to be a consensus that putting in new engines is a no-go.

There's a consensus of one that getting rid of the slow turrets is a good idea.  ;)

There does, however, seem to be a disagreement about increasing the elevation and loading angles of the main battery.  What sort of rule would this fall under: is this a refurbishment or a reconstruction?

[The Rock Doctor]

I would call it a refurbishment.

[Eugenius]

What sort of costs would I be looking at with respect to increasing the elevation of the main battery and giving it an all-around loading system?  Does this mean I need to replace the entire turret in terms of BP, or what?

I could use some help... :-\

[Guinness]

Someone more knowledgeable will likely correct me, but:

Increasing elevation is likely a matter of opening up the turret openings a bit, and making relatively minor changes to the elevation machinery and possibly the working floor of the turret. Not that big a deal.

All around loading though, to me, almost certainly means that is a new turret design.

Maybe it's acceptable to just spend research budget $$ on a new turret design, say such and such Mark II, and be done with it? I don't think the cost in materials (in $ or BP) in either case is going to be very high.

[Eugenius]

Oh dear, I mean all-elevation loading, not all-around...of course it's all-around!

[Guinness]

Well, you could have meant all-around. There were mounts that only loaded on the centerline at times, especially in the late nineteenth century. For what it's worth though, I assumed you meant all-elevation too (though I wasn't clear on that either).

[maddox]

Someone more knowledgeable will likely correct me, but:

Increasing elevation is likely a matter of opening up the turret openings a bit, and making relatively minor changes to the elevation machinery and possibly the working floor of the turret. Not that big a deal.

All around loading though, to me, almost certainly means that is a new turret design.

Maybe it's acceptable to just spend research budget $$ on a new turret design, say such and such Mark II, and be done with it? I don't think the cost in materials (in $ or BP) in either case is going to be very high.

Changing elevation on the turrets ain't that easy.  Making deeper gunwells in the turret cuts in the other parts, like the barbette.
Avoiding the deeper gunwells means changing the trunnion placement, and that plays havoc with balance and control.

But it can be done, and as Rocky says, it's a refurbisment.

[Eugenius]

I'll admit a lack of knowledge: what sort of cost in BP and $ would I be looking at to get an increase in gun elevation and an all-elevation loading system?