AHC: Pick a ship scrapped OTL as a Museum ship.
- Thread starter Curiousone
- Start date
I hate to be a poopieface, but it seems some posters are simply wanting to preserve their favorite important historical ships, without considering if this was even remotely feasible at the time.
To me HMS Dreadnought falls into this category. Until 1918, she was active in the Royal Navy. After that, she was placed in reserve along with many other obsolete battleships of her generation. Then along came the Washington Treaty, which mandated the scrapping of old (and new) ships to stay withing tonnage limitations. To my knowledge, the treaty made no allowaance for "museum ships", otherwise all powers would have found lots of ways to use this to circumvent its intent. It is simply impossible to imagine Britain keeping Dreadnought as a museum ship in this context.
This is why I considerd Goeben/Yavuz by far the best (and probably only) possibility among the first generation dreadoughts.
Warspite is a different situation. Since she also served in WW2, she(like USS Texas) served long enough to be perceived as "historic" when paid off. It is a shame that no organizations came forth to offer scrap value for her preservation. To me, its also rather odd that this did not help preserve one of the Jean Barts in france.
I have a general theory, however, that by 1945 Europeans (unlike Americans who suffered far less in both World Wars) basically lost any interest in preserving warships that reminded them of the war years, and by the time that any public sentiment to preserve them returned most or all WW2 generation ships were scrapped (or had been sold off to minor powers - none of which attached any historical value to them). Even Turkey (with Yavuz) apparently saw only scrap value in their priceless artifact. To expect Chilie or Argentina to value their old British and US ships when their naval value was lost, is unreasonable.
Only the US had both the ability and desire to relive WW2 years in the 1950's and 1960's, which explains the remarkable fact that almost all of the US 3rd generation battleships as well as a good smattering of carriers, cruisers, destroyers, and submarines ended up as monuments or museums.
To me HMS Dreadnought falls into this category. Until 1918, she was active in the Royal Navy. After that, she was placed in reserve along with many other obsolete battleships of her generation. Then along came the Washington Treaty, which mandated the scrapping of old (and new) ships to stay withing tonnage limitations. To my knowledge, the treaty made no allowaance for "museum ships", otherwise all powers would have found lots of ways to use this to circumvent its intent. It is simply impossible to imagine Britain keeping Dreadnought as a museum ship in this context.
This is why I considerd Goeben/Yavuz by far the best (and probably only) possibility among the first generation dreadoughts.
Warspite is a different situation. Since she also served in WW2, she(like USS Texas) served long enough to be perceived as "historic" when paid off. It is a shame that no organizations came forth to offer scrap value for her preservation. To me, its also rather odd that this did not help preserve one of the Jean Barts in france.
I have a general theory, however, that by 1945 Europeans (unlike Americans who suffered far less in both World Wars) basically lost any interest in preserving warships that reminded them of the war years, and by the time that any public sentiment to preserve them returned most or all WW2 generation ships were scrapped (or had been sold off to minor powers - none of which attached any historical value to them). Even Turkey (with Yavuz) apparently saw only scrap value in their priceless artifact. To expect Chilie or Argentina to value their old British and US ships when their naval value was lost, is unreasonable.
Only the US had both the ability and desire to relive WW2 years in the 1950's and 1960's, which explains the remarkable fact that almost all of the US 3rd generation battleships as well as a good smattering of carriers, cruisers, destroyers, and submarines ended up as monuments or museums.
Hello Zoomar,
To my knowledge, the treaty made no allowaance for "museum ships", otherwise all powers would have found lots of ways to use this to circumvent its intent. It is simply impossible to imagine Britain keeping Dreadnought as a museum ship in this context.
Actually, the Washington Naval Treaty made explicit provision for preserving the IJN's Mikasa as a museum ship.
I just don't have any sense that the Royal Navy felt compelled to do make the effort necessary to carve out an exception for Dreadnought as well. It was a historic design, but unlike Victory, it had helped win no great battles, and I presume that's why. Today, the priorities would be different (and resources available to convert it to museum status greater).
I have a general theory, however, that by 1945 Europeans (unlike Americans who suffered far less in both World Wars) basically lost any interest in preserving warships that reminded them of the war years, and by the time that any public sentiment to preserve them returned most or all WW2 generation ships were scrapped (or had been sold off to minor powers - none of which attached any historical value to them).
No doubt that was a factor - even for Britain with its glorious naval tradition.
But cost was a factor as well: these countries were digging out of the rubble of the war, and were under severe austerity. It would have been hard for governments of that period to justify government expenditures on preserving these ships as museums, or to find private investors with sufficient wherewithal to raise the funds otherwise.
There actually *was* an effort to preserve Warspite, but the Admiralty finally decided to scrap her instead. A real shame.
To my knowledge, the treaty made no allowaance for "museum ships", otherwise all powers would have found lots of ways to use this to circumvent its intent. It is simply impossible to imagine Britain keeping Dreadnought as a museum ship in this context.
Actually, the Washington Naval Treaty made explicit provision for preserving the IJN's Mikasa as a museum ship.
I just don't have any sense that the Royal Navy felt compelled to do make the effort necessary to carve out an exception for Dreadnought as well. It was a historic design, but unlike Victory, it had helped win no great battles, and I presume that's why. Today, the priorities would be different (and resources available to convert it to museum status greater).
I have a general theory, however, that by 1945 Europeans (unlike Americans who suffered far less in both World Wars) basically lost any interest in preserving warships that reminded them of the war years, and by the time that any public sentiment to preserve them returned most or all WW2 generation ships were scrapped (or had been sold off to minor powers - none of which attached any historical value to them).
No doubt that was a factor - even for Britain with its glorious naval tradition.
But cost was a factor as well: these countries were digging out of the rubble of the war, and were under severe austerity. It would have been hard for governments of that period to justify government expenditures on preserving these ships as museums, or to find private investors with sufficient wherewithal to raise the funds otherwise.
There actually *was* an effort to preserve Warspite, but the Admiralty finally decided to scrap her instead. A real shame.
Last edited:
Oops about Mikasa. But wasn't she already a deactivated monument when the Treaty was signed?
Really too bad about Warspite, though.
I've also considered the preservaton of captured enemy ships as monuments to victory more likely that keeping your own. For instance, had the German Fleet not scuttled itself in 1919, I could imagine France, Italy, and Even Britain retaining one as a war victory monument. Or, after WW2, the US could conceivably have kept Prinz Eugen instead of using her in the Bikini A-bomb tests, or even possibly towing one of the damaged Japanese carriers like Junyo or Hosho back to Hawaii or California as a trophy and later war monument
I was under the impression that the Allies had treaty limits to prevent taking former Axis war units permanently?* "You can study them, but you can't keep them and must sink them", which is why Prinz Eugan, Nagato, Graf Zeppelin, I-400 all ended up 'sunk as targets'.
*Mostly to prevent the communists from acquiring a fleet, it seems.
The Soviets got Graf Zeppelin, only to see her sunk in the Baltic while being towed to Leningrad.
Yes - Any ships surrendered at the end of the war had to be disposed of. The U-505 is still around (In Chicago) because she was it was captured during the war not taken as a war prize. Adm Gallery documents that in his book about capturing it (and the effort to later keep it and move it to Chicago)
Perhaps aside from those WW2 veterans, normally focussed on,. why not look at the ships of a longer past? The moist principle ship of the line was a 74 gun vessel in the late 17th century up to Nelson's time. A typical 74 gunned battleship would be a great asset in a museum, as there only are very few sailing warships preserved, none of them a 3rd rate ship of the line with 74 guns. (Only ine ship of the line, HMS Victory, with 104 guns and several frigates with officially 44 guns, or less have been preserved, leaving a large gab in between.)
I would love to see HMS Vanguard and HMS Warsprite.
As well if HMCS Niobe was not so damaged I would love to have her a museum.
As well if HMCS Niobe was not so damaged I would love to have her a museum.
Nick P
Donor
Just to make your mind boggle a bit... There might be a U-boat in a museum in Chicago but that at least has a shoreline.
Holbrook in Australia is 160 miles (250 km) from the ocean and has an O-Class submarine in the centre of town.
http://holbrook.nsw.au/AboutHolbrook/Attractions/HMASOtway/tabid/416/Default.aspx
I've been inside HMS Ocelot at Chatham Historic Dockyard and it is cramped inside, but they were superb quiet boats capable of long missions.
At the same site is the last RN destroyer from WW2 HMS Cavalier (1944), and HMS Gannet (1878) which survived 55 years of cadet use.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if HMS Temeraire had survived the scrapyard and the ages to be the star of a museum? It might butterfly away Turner's great painting but the historic value of a survivor of the Battle of Trafalgar is immense.
Holbrook in Australia is 160 miles (250 km) from the ocean and has an O-Class submarine in the centre of town.
http://holbrook.nsw.au/AboutHolbrook/Attractions/HMASOtway/tabid/416/Default.aspx
I've been inside HMS Ocelot at Chatham Historic Dockyard and it is cramped inside, but they were superb quiet boats capable of long missions.
At the same site is the last RN destroyer from WW2 HMS Cavalier (1944), and HMS Gannet (1878) which survived 55 years of cadet use.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if HMS Temeraire had survived the scrapyard and the ages to be the star of a museum? It might butterfly away Turner's great painting but the historic value of a survivor of the Battle of Trafalgar is immense.
David S Poepoe
Banned
Turner's picture could still be painted, the picture shows the hulk of the Temeraire being towed by a steam tug. The breaking up of the hull is not shown.
Turner might still be able to create that painting, but it would be robbed of much of its emotional power, knowing that Temeraire was merely being preserved for posterity, rather than being hauled off to a breaker's yard.