Shipbucket

If you want a cheap refit to make then into AAA destroyers, why go through the trouble of tearing out machinery? Why not skip that step and leave it there? They can do static AAA duty with the ability to make 30 knots just as well as they can if you strip them to 10 knots- but leaving the boilers in place would be cheaper.

More ammunition storage in the voids left by the removed machinery?

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

Removing equipment was done to the Wickes class destroyers, so removing equipment from Clemsons makes sense.

_________________
"It is better to type nothing and be assumed an ass, than to type something and remove all doubt." - Me

It may provide more storage room for ammo- but is it really necessary?
Is it really cost effective (as this is a borderline conversion anyway)?
The cost of cutting the ship open and stripping out capability is probably greater than simply leaving the capability in and allowing for the fact that you will be able to carry far more of the smaller caliber ammo to begin with.

Quite a few Allied ships were lost in the Mediterranean theatre after they ran out of AA ammunition. Pulling out half of the boilers and motors was quite common with the Flush Deckers. It not only freed up a lot of internal space but it also cut the crew. They could still make a respectable 24 odd knots with only two stacks.

The biggest problem with this idea is stability. AA gun fire before stabilised turrets was upset on smaller ships by their high frequency roll. Perhaps a solution is to put bulges on the beams to reduce roll.

What about going the other route, and putting craploads of torpedos on them for ASuW? Perhaps some of these conversions could be sent to the NEI. That at least seems to play to the design's strengths, being something like their original role.

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

An interesting idea... just replace every available gun with torpedo launchers and use them as super-sized PT boats. Wonder how many torps could be squeezed on there... 20? 24?

I think that has a chance. I doubt it would be completely useful, but more as a deterrent in say, the British Channel? Get one or two ex-USN vessels, put on two or four forward-firing torpedoes, keep the for and one aft 4"/50, put 3 20mm cannons, and replace everything else with swivel torpedo mounts.

_________________
Worklist:
Puerto Oeste - AU - WWI-WWII

So you'd put a vessel with essentially no air defences in one of the areas where the likelihood of actually getting attacked by enemy aircraft is highest?

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Right, forgot about that part...So I guess it can be nothing more than a deterrent against surface raiders in a convoy.

_________________
Worklist:
Puerto Oeste - AU - WWI-WWII