Flogging Agincourt

[Wiggy]

In one of my games, I decided to build an Agincourt-like turret farm for the fun of it.


Original design: 14 x 12in, 20 x 6in, 9in belt, 2.5in deck, TPS 2. Some light AA fitted.

It’s getting on a bit now, so I thought about scrapping it, but I also considered modernizing it – and with so many turrets available for removal, there’s a very flexible weight budget to play with. Think of the possibilities! 

Consequently, I present a docket filled with possible rebuilds for the one-off HMS Agincourt, rationalised as part of a Brazilian bid to buy her back. The Brits are desperate to sell her off before a treaty makes her worthless scrap, and so they are inclined to make the refit as expensive as they think the Brazilians will pay. Some designs are more serious than others.

---

Dear Mr. Beatty,


A few years we ordered a dreadnought from you, called the Rio de Janeiro. Yes yes, I know that the Turks bought it off us, then you took it, and then there was this whole war thing, but now that it’s over we’d very much like it back please. The way we see it, if the Turks paid for it, but they lost the war, and if you Brits seized it off them illegally, then neither of you two really deserve to keep it now do you? That makes us the rightful owners. By the way, the design is a bit outdated, so would you mind modernising it while you’re at it? Send us a few rebuild plans and we’ll pick one.


Thanks,

The President of Brazil

---

Dear Mr. President,


We are most interested in your offer to acquire HMS Agincourt. We are happy to oblige in a modernisation program on the condition that your government funds it – enclosed with this letter is a catalogue of fully costed rebuild plans, from a variety of designers, for you to choose from. Do please indicate your preference promptly so that work can start soon.


Regards,

Beatty’s secretary

---

Summary of Rebuild Schemes for HMS Agincourt


Scheme A1 - Basic refit

Conversion to oil firing for 23 knots. Secondary director fitted, with casemated 6in guns retained due to detrimental blast effects on deck mounts. Modest AA suite featuring 18 x 3in single DP guns, 12 x 40mm, 12 x 20mm, 2 AA directors, all mounted in the superstructure.

Cost: 1,682,000 for 12 months


Scheme A2 - Remove one turret

Removed turret Thursday, replaced with extra boilers. Oil firing for 27 knots, the maximum hull speed. Secondaries and AA same as in Scheme A1, with a pair of seaplanes on catapults overlooking the hull break.

Cost: 2,450,000 for 21 months


Scheme A3 - Remove two turrets

Removed turrets Wednesday, Thursday, replaced with extra boilers and seaplane hangar. Oil firing for 27 knots. Same AA as before, with eight deck torpedo tubes fitted. Additional inch of deck armour plated over vitals.

Cost: 2,690,000 for 21 months


Scheme A4 - Up-gunned option

Replace all turrets with single 16in guns for a 7-gun broadside. Modest AA as in the other ‘A’ schemes. Oil firing for 25 knots. The midships turrets need to elevate at staggered angles to swing their barrels past each other.

Cost: 4,446,000 for 14 months


Scheme B1 - Slow AA escort

Engines and main battery untouched. Full AA overhaul taking advantage of hull length, featuring 24 x 5in DP, 16 x 3in DP, 20 x 40mm, 20 x 20mm, 4 AA directors. AA battery less effective than it could be due to blast from midships turrets. Heavy AA shells included free of charge. Single catapult overlooking Tuesday turret.

Cost: 1,912,000 for 4 months


Scheme B2 - Fast AA escort

Turrets Wednesday, Thursday, Friday removed. Conversion to oil firing for 27 knots, trunked forward funnel, extended range. AA as in Scheme B1. Additional deck armour.

Cost: 2,708,000 for 22 months


Scheme B3 - Special escort

As B2, with three leftover 8in triple turrets in vacant barbettes.

Cost: 2,964,000 for 24 months


Scheme B4 - Heavy AA escort

As B3 with additional 5in AA turrets instead, some of them centreline superfiring, for a total of 38 DP barrels (this is what 5”/38 really means). Vacant barbette spaces used as AA ammo stores.

Cost: 2,973,000 for 22 months


Scheme C1 - Carrier conversion

All guns removed and replaced by full-length unarmoured flight deck. 12 x 5in DP, 16 x 40mm, 16 x 20mm, 4 AA directors. Aircraft lifts positioned above vacant barbette spaces, with second hangar deck over the cut-down quarterdeck aft. Air group of 72, oil firing for 27 knots. Torpedo blisters an optional addition, bringing speed down to 25 knots for more AA or a few more planes.


Cost: 2,654,000 for 21 months


Scheme C2 - Flight-deck battleship


Flight deck built between retained superfiring pairs fore and aft, with catapults flanking on a lower flying-off deck. The flight deck tapers to allow all guns full arcs (although pilots may not like that). Oil firing for 25 knots, air group of 24. 20 x 5in DP, 20 x 40mm, 20 x 20mm, 4 AA directors.


Cost: 2,984,000 for 14 months



Scheme C3 - Three-quarter carrier

Oil firing for 24 knots, air group of 52. Same AA suite as C2, but hopefully a bit easier to land on. Only aft pair of turrets retained.


Cost: 2,293,000 for 12 months



Scheme C4 - Helicarrier

Oil firing for 24 knots with torpedo blisters giving more stability in rough sea landings. Capacity for eight helicopters (“whats a helicopter?”). Thursday turret is a deck above landing area, so has a good field of fire. 16 x 5in DP, 20 x 40mm, 18 x 20mm, 3 AA directors.

Cost: 2,881,000 for 18 months


Scheme D1 - Armoured oiler

Oil firing for 22 knots. Ship gutted and oil facilities fitted for use as fleet tanker.

Cost: 1,899,000 for 10 months


Scheme D2 - Repair ship

Aft half gutted and replaced with graving dock, cranes and other mobile base facilities.

Cost: 2,330,000 for 11 months



Scheme D3 - Amphibious assault ship

Forward guns retained for shore bombardment. Aft deck cleared for loading of tanks, infantry, Higgins boats etc.

Cost: 2,105,000 for 9 months



(Other rebuilds considered but not fleshed out included cramming torpedo tubes all over the ship and a heavier Gotland-style seaplane carrier.)

[pastur]

C1 yields the most effective warship but I would bet the Brazilians would go for A2, which yields a considerable amount of speed for not much investment

[cormallen]

Historically the RN wanted to turn her into a "Mobile Base", retaining some of the big guns. Sort of a massive Fleet Tender? The Washington treaty and money problems binned that idea though. Maybe an IG "capacity 5" mobile boost to area basing? Part of the evolution of a true Fleet Train...

[aeson]

My opinion:

First, a review of the ship as it exists, under the assumption that this rebuild is being contemplated in the early 1930s or perhaps the late 1920s:

- 9" belt and 2.5" deck armor is likely inadequate for engaging modern battleships and battlecruisers (though it may in practice not be significantly worse than the armor protection on the battlecruisers) and turret armor is unlikely to be significantly better given the sheer number of turrets on the ship. I would therefore say that this ship's armor protection is only adequate against cruisers or other lighter opponents.

- 12" guns are very much on the light side for 1930s capital ships, so even with 14 of them I would be inclined to call this ship's armament inadequate for engaging other battleships. The armament may however be marginally adequate for engaging battlecruisers as the computer tends not to armor them very well and would be more than adequate against cruisers.

- 22 knots is slow, but if there are other "slow" ships remaining in the battle line that may not be much of a problem. Still, even "slow" modern battleships are likely around 25 knots while "fast" modern battleships are more likely pushing 27 or 28 knots and modern battlecruisers have likely exceeded 30 knots.

- The secondary battery of 20 casemated 6" guns should do well against surface targets but leaves the ship lacking in the heavy AAA department.

- Torpedo protection 2 is probably adequate but nonetheless somewhat concerning given that the ship is only capable of 22 knots.

Overall, then, I would consider this vessel to be a poor candidate for a battleship reconstruction as it has inadequate armor, an inadequate main armament, and at best minimally-adequate speed; a poor-to-marginal candidate for a battlecruiser conversion as it has inadequate armor (even if its armor isn't significantly worse in practice than the armor on the computer's battlecruisers, it still isn't well protected against the weapons it's likely to face in an engagement with a modern battlecruiser), an at best minimally-adequate main armament, and inadequate speed; an adequate but not especially strong candidate for a cruiser hunter-killer / "large cruiser" conversion as its armor would be adequate and its main armament would be more than adequate in that role but its speed is woefully inadequate; and an adequate-to-good candidate for carrier conversion as the weak armor protection isn't especially problematic for a carrier and the removal of the large main battery will leave room for a reasonably large air group.

Second, let's consider the customer's likely desires:

Historically, Brazil's navy was mostly concerned with other South American navies - primarily those of Chile and Argentina. These three powers had five dreadnought battleships between them:

- Brazil's Minas Geraes and Sao Paolo, ~21,000 tons, ~21 knots, 6x2x12" (ABHIXY) + 22x4.7", 9" B / 2(?)" D / 12" T.

- Argentina's Rivadavia and Moreno, ~30,000 tons, ~22-23 knots, 6x2x12" (ABGJXY, theoretically capable of cross-deck fire) + 12x6" + 16x4", 12" B / 2" D / 12" T.

- Chile's Almirante Latorre, ~31,000 tons, ~22-23 knots, 5x2x14" (ABQXY) + 16x6", 9" B / 4" D / 10" T.

This being a hypothetical scenario with navies similar to but not quite the same as their historical counterparts, Chile may also have Eagle, most likely either as a battleship similar to Almirante Latorre (if it either wasn't converted during the war or was reconverted after the war) or as a carrier similar to the historical Eagle. I am going to presume that all of these ships are in good working order; I will also assume that none of these powers have acquired any other dreadnought-type capital ships, and that the ability of aircraft carriers to defeat battleships at sea remains hypothetical.

Given these conditions, I believe that the Brazilian Navy would be most interested in a dreadnought-type capital ship, with a slight possibility that they might be interested in a carrier or carrier hybrid if Chile received Eagle and kept it as an aircraft carrier - they're going to want to redress the perceived shortcomings of their battleships when compared to those of Argentina and Chile, and they're probably not going to want to gamble on the largely-unknown capability of the airplane when they could instead have a proven weapon in the form of the battleship. This to me rules out C1 - in my opinion the best of the proposed reconstructions, insofar as in-game utility goes - and probably also the hybrid proposals as these make for worse battleships than the A- and B-series reconstructions (even though C2 and C4 have as many heavy guns as B2, B3, and B4 do, they're slower and have more significant aviation facilities, which are likely to prove to be liabilities in a gunnery engagement).

As to which of the dreadnought-type reconstructions would be pursued:

- I don't see why you'd replace 12" twin turrets with 8" triple turrets; 8" triples aren't really suitable for use against either aircraft or light surface vessels and probably won't particularly out-perform 12" twins with modern fire control systems against middleweight or heavier surface vessels, and a ship like Agincourt has more than enough turrets to make splitting the fire of the main battery between two (or perhaps even three or four) targets feasible if its fire control systems are set up for it. As such, I don't think that the B3 proposal would be pursued.

- A4 seems a bit unlikely to me. 16" guns would be nice, but Brazil already has 12" guns in service and has had financial difficulties in the recent past, so securing supplies of an entirely-new type of ammunition as well as spare gun barrels seems like it might be a hard sell. On top of that, I don't think that the 25-knot speed is particularly desirable as Brazil's two older battleships cannot keep up (unless they too have been rebuilt for a similar speed), Agincourt probably cannot defeat both Rivadavia and Moreno by itself, and a two-knot advantage isn't much if you're looking to decline an engagement with a superior opponent.

- A1 and B1 are fairly similar overall, but B1 is cheaper and at 23 knots A1 isn't fast enough to disengage from the Argentinian or Chilean battleships. Thus, unless the older Brazilian ships have been rebuilt for higher speeds or unless Agincourt really needs to have its machinery replaced, I think B1 would be preferred over A1.

- Since a large part of the purpose of acquiring Agincourt would be to counter the Chilean and Argentinian battleships, I don't believe that reducing the main battery to 4x2x12" would be considered acceptable, as this would at the very least appear to leave Agincourt's armament inferior to that of its likely opponents. Therefore, I do not believe that the B2, B3, or B4 proposals would be adopted.

- A2 is better armed than A3, and aviation facilities are also something of a liability in a gunfight. As such, I feel that A2 would be preferred over A3, especially since A3 is the more expensive option.

This, then, leaves the choice between B1 and A2. I suspect that B1 would be the proposal adopted, primarily due to cost - though B1 having an extra pair of 12" guns as compared to A2 doesn't hurt. If you could get past the price tag, however, I believe that A2 would be the better option.

I will add that, while it makes sense in the game, I consider the HAA armaments on your proposals to be historically suspect. 3" guns may have more or less fallen out of favor as HAA guns by the end of the 1920s, but 16 or 18 of them would still have been a fairly substantial HAA battery in the 1930s by historical standards - especially early in the 1930s, when eight ~4" or ~5" guns was still a pretty significant DP or HAA battery. Furthermore, unless it's the tail end of WWII and you're implementing the plans to replace 40mm with 3" as the new "medium" AA gun, I don't think you'd see large 5" DP batteries supplemented by only slightly smaller 3" AA batteries; more reasonably, you might see an eight- to twelve-gun SP (possibly nominally DP, as on Richelieu and Yamato) secondary battery supplemented by an eight- to sixteen-gun mostly-HAA battery.

[prophetinreverse]

A most entertaining discussion. I think that C1 is best as she’ll never be an especially good battleship again (if she ever was one - I mean 12 inch guns and 9 inch armor belts were fairly close to obsolescence at launch), but national pride will prevent any but the A or B options, and I think A2 was the best of them.

The D options had me howling with laughter though. Definitely inspired and well thought out - any hypothetical Brazilian government can see the long-term logistical appeal of it… and how quickly the navy/rioters/revolutionaries would find a suitable lightpole to hang then from.

[hamjo]

Yes, option C1. Gives you something useful and combat worthy

[prophetinreverse]

Actually now that I’m looking at it in the morning with fresh eyes, I’m starting to think that A3 would be better than A2 if you just got rid of those torpedo tubes, that should bring down the price to the same as A2, and trading one more turret for more seaplanes (and in the future - helicopters) and another inch of deck armor seems like a good trade.

[cvl]

I'm a fan of the flight deck battleship, if only because it's an interesting hybrid class. We never saw them historically, as I recall, but it would have been interesting to see a world where carriers on some occassions closed distance and engaged with big guns.