Jump to content
CaptainKiwi_2016

HMS Vanguard should never have been completed.

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
173 posts

I know I'm going to get a ton of flak for this, but IMHO, HMS Vanguard should never have been completed. The design was completely obsolete especially with the emergence of aircraft carriers. She should have been broken up on the builders way. 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11
[-SYN-]
Members
22 posts
2,065 battles

Hindsight being 20\20 i think most would agree.  At the time though, Britain was extremely short of capital ships post WWII and needed to rebuild.  They weren't exactly in the position of the US who had more ships then they knew what to do with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[OKM]
Members
120 posts
2,051 battles

In that regard, few BB should have been completed after 1940. But even so, Vanguard and Jean Bart were completed. There is many reason for that: navy doctrine still though that a navy would need some large gun platform, and navy officer were still people who learned it from the battleship era. In retrospective, both Vanguard and Jean Bart should have not been build/ finish, and even the Iowa class was probably a waste of money. But nobody could predicted the future and even now some think modern Navy need big guns in case new technology got countered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,517
[RLGN]
Members
8,690 posts
17,952 battles
5 minutes ago, Y_Nagato said:

In that regard, few BB should have been completed after 1940. But even so, Vanguard and Jean Bart were completed. There is many reason for that: navy doctrine still though that a navy would need some large gun platform, and navy officer were still people who learned it from the battleship era. In retrospective, both Vanguard and Jean Bart should have not been build/ finish, and even the Iowa class was probably a waste of money. But nobody could predicted the future and even now some think modern Navy need big guns in case new technology got countered.

Harder to stop a railgun shot than a missle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[OKM]
Members
120 posts
2,051 battles
2 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Harder to stop a railgun shot than a missle?

There is the possibility of using a railgun, but even classic guns may have their advantage: they aren't affected by ''electronique warfare'' once in the air and may still be reliable and, well, cost effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,517
[RLGN]
Members
8,690 posts
17,952 battles
7 minutes ago, Y_Nagato said:

There is the possibility of using a railgun, but even classic guns may have their advantage: they aren't affected by ''electronique warfare'' once in the air and may still be reliable and, well, cost effective.

Well; I always like to say that the two battleships most likely to be reactivated, (cost aside,) are 'convieniently' museum ships at places where they wouldn't have to move far to have it done. (Norfolk, Pearl.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
311
[CVA16]
Members
2,468 posts
10,153 battles

The US did have the foresight to abort the Montana class and an Iowa.  Rationally, the former should never have been started as everyone knew by then that the time of the BB had passed. They weren't worthless, great AA escorts and shore bombarders but only rarely used in their primary roll of shooting other BBs. Not worth the costs. Decisions heavily lamented by future wargamers, but they weren't consulted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
563
[WOLFB]
Members
2,789 posts
5,374 battles

I am sure japan would have wished they didn’t build Yamato either they could have made more Carriers 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,182
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,471 posts
6,810 battles

If we look at Vanguard's design, you can see that the RN already predicted these developments with the design. The initially planned 406mm guns for the Lion class were abandoned, instead old guns were used and just upgraded a little. In terms of raw thickness the protection was less than that of the KGVs. What received more attention however was making her a stable and seaworthy ship, which was achieved without a doubt. On top of that they spent quite some effort on making her a somewhat solid AA platform, which if we compare her to the preceding ships also was a success.

Was she worth the resources spent on building her? Probably not. Was she a huge mistake? I also don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
311
[CVA16]
Members
2,468 posts
10,153 battles
4 minutes ago, Lonewolfpj said:

I am sure japan would have wished they didn’t build Yamato either they could have made more Carriers 

But that was something that was only truly obvious in hindsight. In the 30's, aircraft were still somewhat weak and it was assumed the AA could keep them at bay. Look how poor most ships AA was going into the war. It wasn't until navies actually had to face air attacks that they realized their mistake. The US was actually ahead of things at the time, prioritizing AA over other things like torpedoes (once again a sore spot for future wargamers) and big secondary guns. Even US DDs got true DP guns long before anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
183 posts
5,373 battles

Ahh I think you are applying too much Hindsight to the situation. remember all the BB's the British lost during the war and England's financial situation after the war there WOULD be no new BBs or CV's . they had very little Idea what would be useful. If the US went home like after WW1 they knew they might face a sealion event but with the soviets insead of the Germans. they had Vanguard 90% done so the ministry said well you can have Vanguard or nothing. the Hood was gone the Nelson and Victoria class were well past their prime and worn out to boot. The RN took what it could get.

Edited by Cirdane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,185
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,913 posts
15,363 battles
3 hours ago, Sabot_100 said:

The US did have the foresight to abort the Montana class and an Iowa.  Rationally, the former should never have been started as everyone knew by then that the time of the BB had passed. They weren't worthless, great AA escorts and shore bombarders but only rarely used in their primary roll of shooting other BBs. Not worth the costs. Decisions heavily lamented by future wargamers, but they weren't consulted.

Iowa-class requirements started in 1938.  Things were finalized and Iowa & New Jersey were laid down in 1940.

 

You also have to remember, Carriers were still a new thing and their value was not made clear and apparent in the 1930s compared to what we know now in 2018 with decades of hindsight.  The Battleship was a proven ruler of the waves for every serious navy in the world, and it would take World War II to change that.

 

Until WWII, Carriers had an uphill battle for relevance because navies were dead set on Battleships.  Only the most well off of navies put serious time and resources into Carrier development.

 

As for USN BBs not getting many chances to fire at other BBs, blame the Axis, the British, and Halsey for that :Smile_trollface:  By the time Pearl Harbor happened and Germany declared war on the US in the aftermath, the Royal Navy had done a number on the Kriegsmarine's big ships already.  The IJN was very skittish about committing the Big Guns of the Fleet, sending only 2 very ancient Kongo-class to fight for Guadalcanal while everything else did nothing.  Only in 1944 when the US campaign into the Philippines were the Big Guns of the IJN come out to play, but by then it was way too late in the war.  Halsey had a chance to bring the entirety of Task Force 38, all the Big CVs and New Battleships of the USN, as well as their many escorts to crush Kurita's Center Force with, but Halsey was an idiot and went running north.  We will never get that big clash of IJN BBs with the new USN BBs.  The hilarious part is the last BB engagement in history is Surigao Strait... Between a bunch of ancient USN Standard BBs and just as ancient Fuso-class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
311
[CVA16]
Members
2,468 posts
10,153 battles
1 hour ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

The hilarious part is the last BB engagement in history is Surigao Strait... Between a bunch of ancient USN Standard BBs and just as ancient Fuso-class. 

Which mainly showed how OP radar (and code breaking) had become by 1944.

However,  the US did show the 1930's foresight that aircraft and CVs were going to be major players in any future war. Our new BBs all got the 5"/38 for secondaries while everyone else but the Brits wanted a mix of 6" anti ship and 4" or smaller AA. Many assumed that the 6" guns could still be used in the AA role (which WG conveniently allows). The Brits tried their compromise, the 5.25 which fired about the same weight shell as their old 5.5's  but apparently did not live up to expectations as an AA gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,399
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Alpha Tester
6,329 posts
10,406 battles
13 hours ago, Y_Nagato said:

There is the possibility of using a railgun, but even classic guns may have their advantage: they aren't affected by ''electronique warfare'' once in the air and may still be reliable and, well, cost effective.

problem with rail guns is the barrels are basically destroyed after 1-3 shots. in order for the USN field this type of weapon, they'd need to make it out of fiber optic thread/cable (which are just now being created and are crazy expensive) to even shoot 4+ projectiles. you also need a huge energy source to beable to activate it! This is why the USN/army has discontinued the research on the railgun last year.:fish_book:

 

In a creative writing assignment  back in highschool, I actually touched on this where 1 of the BBs in my story had railguns and its sister the old power bag system but with an autoloader system similar to the Des Moines. long story short, the rail guns not only broke but the nuclear power BB housing them had a huge electrical shortage and had to be towed back to harbor. the other ship with traditional powder bags not only had fewer problems, but only had to leave after running out of ammo and after data and crew debriefing, would be used as the base model for the eventual "Main class" (yes I named it after the state of main and made a bad pun as well!) that was to proceed it.

 

Personally I think the USN's 16"/50 (guns used on the Iowa class) could still be a viable weapon for bombardment and even commerce raiding. I mean they worked well in the gulf war and with todays new gun making technology we could maybe make even better 16 inch guns for a new generation of nuclear powered BBs! (hell we could even drop the caliber down to 12 inches and they'ed still be very lethal!):cap_rambo: The Only things that could probably hurt a modern BB is torpedoes (which can be countered by a number of means) and a nuclear bomb/missile. Aircraft wouldn't pose as much of a threat given most airforce's planes have FBS weapons which can be intercepted by either counter missiles or CWIS. :fish_book: The only down side to having a modern BB though would be its production cost ( I estimate you could build 3-5 DDs for 1 BB) as well as maintenance costs/ resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,399
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Alpha Tester
6,329 posts
10,406 battles
14 hours ago, Sabot_100 said:

The US did have the foresight to abort the Montana class and an Iowa.  Rationally, the former should never have been started as everyone knew by then that the time of the BB had passed. They weren't worthless, great AA escorts and shore bombarders but only rarely used in their primary roll of shooting other BBs. Not worth the costs. Decisions heavily lamented by future wargamers, but they weren't consulted.

technically 2 Iowas! Illinois 21% completed and Kentucky 85% (whose bow was given to Wisconsin):fish_book:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
137
[55TH]
Beta Testers
628 posts
3,286 battles
21 hours ago, CaptainKiwi_2016 said:

I know I'm going to get a ton of flak for this, but IMHO, HMS Vanguard should never have been completed. The design was completely obsolete especially with the emergence of aircraft carriers. She should have been broken up on the builders way. 

Hindsight is often 20/20.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
833
[DRACS]
Members
3,635 posts

Large surface ships may yet make a comeback as large railgun style guns are being worked on, which will be much faster and much more precise than WW2 era guns while being much cheaper than running a carrier.

That being said, I still think carriers are stronger simply due to sheer strike range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
173 posts

Lots of people were salty over Vanguard been broken up for scrap despite the many calls to keep her as a museum. To be honest, Vanguard should never have gotten to that point. She should have been a paper ship. And I agree with the Jean Bart; she was finished in the early 50's if I am not mistaken, a bit of a waste if you ask me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
173 posts
3 minutes ago, KaptainKaybe said:

Large surface ships may yet make a comeback as large railgun style guns are being worked on, which will be much faster and much more precise than WW2 era guns while being much cheaper than running a carrier.

That being said, I still think carriers are stronger simply due to sheer strike range.

Railgun development has been discontinued I believe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
173 posts
8 hours ago, BladedPheonix said:

In a creative writing assignment  back in highschool, I actually touched on this where 1 of the BBs in my story had railguns and its sister the old power bag system but with an autoloader system similar to the Des Moines. 

Would auto loaders work on guns that size? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
182 posts
7,978 battles
21 hours ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Well; I always like to say that the two battleships most likely to be reactivated, (cost aside,) are 'convieniently' museum ships at places where they wouldn't have to move far to have it done. (Norfolk, Pearl.)

I could never see a true "re-activation," but possibly removal of the main battery for use in some other sort of installation. The cost of getting one of the Iowas into a drydock and hoisting out some 200,000 lb artillery pieces might be less expensive than commissioning the manufacture of new guns. Of course, the utility of a 16"/50 Mk7 in the 21st century is going to be questionable not only to the eggheads at the Surface  Warfare Center, but the bean counters in the Pentagon. 

 

7 hours ago, BladedPheonix said:

technically 2 Iowas! Illinois 21% completed and Kentucky 85% (whose bow was given to Wisconsin):fish_book:  

The scrap value of those hulls was so low, I genuinely wonder if the Navy considered trying to sell them to Taiwan or something. 

 

13 minutes ago, CaptainKiwi_2016 said:

Would auto loaders work on guns that size? 

There's no engineering limitation, per se, but man, oh man, the horsepower you'd need to open and close the breech-block, even a sliding one, on a gun that size would be colossal. Same for the mechanisms needed to feed 2700lb shells.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
173 posts
4 minutes ago, rapier_ape said:

There's no engineering limitation, per se, but man, oh man, the horsepower you'd need to open and close the breech-block, even a sliding one, on a gun that size would be colossal. Same for the mechanisms needed to feed 2700lb shells.  

I can imagine....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,399
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Alpha Tester
6,329 posts
10,406 battles
14 minutes ago, rapier_ape said:

I could never see a true "re-activation," but possibly removal of the main battery for use in some other sort of installation. The cost of getting one of the Iowas into a drydock and hoisting out some 200,000 lb artillery pieces might be less expensive than commissioning the manufacture of new guns. Of course, the utility of a 16"/50 Mk7 in the 21st century is going to be questionable not only to the eggheads at the Surface  Warfare Center, but the bean counters in the Pentagon. 

 

The scrap value of those hulls was so low, I genuinely wonder if the Navy considered trying to sell them to Taiwan or something. 

 

There's no engineering limitation, per se, but man, oh man, the horsepower you'd need to open and close the breech-block, even a sliding one, on a gun that size would be colossal. Same for the mechanisms needed to feed 2700lb shells.  

 

Nah, if be more cost effective to build/design a new BB from the ground up. The Iowas did their job and now its time for someone else to pick up the reins. Personally If i was in charge of development, i'd only design the new BBs for pacific use. I'd also make it so they could carry drones and have good anti missile counters. their roles would mimic the Iowas being used for shore bombardment and fleet protection. (particularly the CVs) as said before, with todays gun making technics we could even lower the calibler to 12 inches and still get the same result while increasing ROF and ammo capacity.:fish_book:

 

I heard somewhere the British were interested in the buying Illinois hull, but the USN didn't really like the idea of Britan having all their secrets. There was also planes to convert Kentucky into a missile BB but they could never get the money because Washington was scared of intimidating the Russians :fish_book:

 

well in the paper, I made the autoloader feed, like a giant hand gun magazine that could be moved into place for the guns.The shells could be fired every 5 seconds and the clip had 10 rounds each! IDK if IRL this could even be possible but that's how I designed it. the ship also had a traditional lift system as well the loaded from the side and had 6 types of shells. AP, HE, HEI/liquid theremite , Smoke, Star shell,  and a modernized beehive shell AA shell inspired from the yamato.:Smile_playing:  I designed the BBs to be the perfect JOAT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,399
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Alpha Tester
6,329 posts
10,406 battles
57 minutes ago, CaptainKiwi_2016 said:

Would auto loaders work on guns that size? 

yes, but I don't think we have the current materials to make something like this durable. maybe in 50-100 years once fiber cables are mass produced we can?:fish_aqua:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
182 posts
7,978 battles
5 minutes ago, BladedPheonix said:

I heard somewhere the British were interested in the buying Illinois hull, but the USN didn't really like the idea of Britan having all their secrets. There was also planes to convert Kentucky into a missile BB but they could never get the money because Washington was scared of intimidating the Russians :fish_book:

Yeah, I read about the shape of the hulls still being classified into the 50s when I was trying to figure out how Revell's 1/535 scale Missouri, originally released in 1954, has such atrocious accuracy below the waterline.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×