Though the actual ship wouldn't have been available, this gives you a good idea of the kind of ship we're talking about when it comes to pre-dreadnoughts.
At least four pre-dreadnoughts saw service and combat in WWII. Two were American and two were German. The two American ships were the two ships of the
Mississippi-class, but they served in the Hellenic Navy from 1914. By 1941 the one was disarmed and serving as a barracks ship and the other was serving as a coastal battery. Both were sunk by Stukas on April 23rd.
Likewise, the German ships were used in auxiliary roles in WWII, such as training and dormitory ships. They were also used in the flak ship and coastal bombardment roles, the
Schleswig Holstein actually firing the opening shots of WWII against Poland.
So, there's a few advantages and a few disadvantages.
Disadvantages- Coal-fired machinery
- Short range armament
- Slow top speed
- Low freeboard
- Poor underwater protection
- Low rate-of-fire
- Poor fire-control
- No anti-aircraft armament
Advantages- Compact layout
- Heavy firepower
- Heavy armor
- Proven design
Obviously, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, but many of the disadvantages could be lessened or eliminated altogether. The problem is that the more serious disadvantages would also be more expensive to rectify. In any sort of mobile role, you'd almost have to convert or replace the machinery. Even so, you would probably never even get more than 20 kts with any pre-dreadnought battleship.
Fire control and anti-aircraft armament would be the quickest and least expensive to update. They are the least effective, however. Anti-aircraft armament would be essential, but even so, the low speed of the ships and improvised nature of their armament means it would only be moderately effective against an air attack.
Likewise, in ship-to-ship combat, the relatively poor range, rate-of-fire, and accuracy of the main firepower would have proven devastating flaws. That's why they were rendered obsolete in the first place. In WWII, battlecruisers and battleships would have defeated and pre-dreadnought ship every time. That having been said, I was blown away by the armor the pre-dreadnoughts had--about 8 inches in most cases, double that of most heavy cruisers in WWII. I honestly think that most WWII cruisers would have had a tough time with even 40 year old pre-dreadnoughts in actual combat. I really did not expect to find that their armor was that thick.
Anyway, I think that the best way to use ships like that in between the wars would be as training vessels. That still best the question, though, would they still have been useful in WWII? Yes, I think so.
Convoy escorts? No, I really don't think so. They didn't handle well in the open seas, nor would they have been much of a defence against submarines, battleships, battlecruisers, or aircraft. That having been said, I think they'd have been more than a match for any light cruiser or auxiliary cruisers. Put another way, I don't think most pre-dreadnoughts would have suffered the same fate as
HMAS Sydney against the
Kormoran. They were just WAY too well-armored.
Their vulnerability to air attack, however, meant that they would really need beach themselves to maintain any level of survivability in an environment without air cover. In that sense, they'd be used in coast defence. You saw this sort of thing with the
Schleswig-Holstein and the
Marat where they were sunk in shallow water but continued to fight on.
I have to say, I'd LOVE to see shipbucket-type image of a modernized pre-dreadnought, though.
Cheers,
Logan