Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "RN Francesco Caracciolo - Guide 381" video.

The Regia Marina built a lot of destroyers in the 20s. Somewhere in my notes, I have some rough calculations of how many destroyers they would need to forego to put together enough money to complete Caracciolo. At the time of the Washington Treaty, renovation of da Vinci was still under active consideration. The Treaty treated da Vinci as an active unit of the fleet, rather than as a hulk, raised from the bottom of Taranto harbor. The Washington treaty allows for replacement of ships lost due to accident. Italy could argue that the da Vinci should be replaceable, as it had blown up. Seems that, if Italy had wanted a battleship, means could have been found to complete Caracciolo.
16
@anantr99 some years ago, I came across a newspaper article that mentioned Dreadnought had been sold for scrap, and noted the price. Scrap value of a ship is a tiny portion of construction costs. The Elenas and the hulk of da Vinci would probably not bring anywhere near enough money to complete Caracciolo. The only realistic way to fund the battleship would be to forego building a large portion of the 1920s destroyer program. Applying the accidental loss provision of the treaty, retroactively, to 1916, would be controversial, but so would counting a hulk as an active battleship. The US and UK were allowed to build new "post Jutland" battleships by the treaty. I can't imagine Italy being denied, if they really wanted to complete Caracciolo.
7
@Moredread25 iirc, the rail guns were not captured by the Austrians. After the war they were put in storage in La Spezia, and not used again.
4
@liladoodle I have thought about what the USN could have used besides a collier. Washington was not available until after the Washington treaty. the same time as the Lexingtons were available.. After the war, the UK was looking to dispose of some largish hulls, particularly the surviving Invincibles, which were offered to Chile. The US was given SS Vaterland as war reparations, while Vaterland's two sisters were given to the UK, one going to Cunard and the other to White Star. I could imagine the US offering a swap of Vaterland for one of the Invincibles, or Agincourt, both of which have the advantage of being fast enough to keep up with the battle fleet, and being a bit longer than Langley. The US didn't want to spend much on carriers though. Congress appropriated more money for zeppelins than they did for Langley. Before Lexington and Saratoga became available, the USN was considering converting another collier to a carrier.
4
@hgh425 at the time of the Washington Treaty, the hulk of the da Vinci had been raised from Taranto harbor and was actively being considered for renovation. The treaty treats da Vinci as an active unit of the fleet. There could be a lot of hair splitting in interpretation of treaty provisions by France and Italy. The treaty allows for new construction to replace ships lost by accident. da Vinci blew up. Exercising the accidental loss clause, retroactively, would be controversial, but then counting a hulk as an active battleship is also questionable.
3
@liladoodle the UK was trying to sell surplus ships. The two surviving Invincibles were offered to Chile, in place of trying to reconvert Eagle back into a battleship. Agincourt was offered to Brazil. The timeline would be very tight. Agincourt was placed in reserve, while the government was trying to sell her, in March of 19. Jupiter's conversion to a carrier was authorized July 11, 19. Of course, all it would take is someone with enough influence to say "what use is a carrier that is too slow to keep up with the battle fleet?" There was a consensus, post WWI, that 12" guns were obsolete. It would be a stretch, but someone could argue that Wyoming could be converted to a carrier, the Wyomings being the largest of the 12" armed battleships, and redundant when the 1916 building program was completed.
3
@godofprocurement the main guns were 15" (381mm)/40 caliber.
2
@SkywalkerWroc yes, Caracciolo was a pre-war design. Torpedo protection was almost nil, so bulges would need to be added. One of the several photos I found of her showed the hull being closed up when work was suspended. It appears that what was at the main deck level was a wooden, temporary deck, held up by wooden temporary framing. I can see what may be the main armor deck below where the wooden temporary decking has not yet been installed. So the work to bring Caracciolo up to reasonable 1920s spec would be reenforcing the deck armor, before closing up the hull, install oil fired boilers and geared turbines, in place of the coal burners originally specified, and adding the torpedo bulges. Many of the boiler rooms were arranged along the sides of the hull, much as the boiler rooms in the Lexingtons were arranged to act as a secondary torpedo protection. It would be interesting to see if boiler technology had advanced enough to free all of those side boiler rooms, so they could be replaced by a Pugliese system.
1