AH Challange: Battleship vs Battleship combat post 1946

If you want sea-based heavy artillery simply for shore bombardment, and only in areas immediately adjacent to one's own country at that, wouldn't a monitor or two be a better investment? You can mount battleship calibre guns on a far smaller and cheaper hull.

It most probably would if you were building them, but if you could get a second hand battleship or two cheap..

Also, if you were using them as super-monitors you could probably reduce the crews significantly - after all, you arent going on any world cruises, are you...
 
I WANT the Battle of the Beagle Channel OK! I just want to see Armstrong-Whitworth with British steel and ten 14" guns go against the Fore River Shipyard's steel and twelve 12" guns. It was never going to happen with the manufacturing nations but I would just like to see how they shaped up to each other.
 

MrP

Banned
I WANT the Battle of the Beagle Channel OK! I just want to see Armstrong-Whitworth with British steel and ten 14" guns go against the Fore River Shipyard's steel and twelve 12" guns. It was never going to happen with the manufacturing nations but I would just like to see how they shaped up to each other.

Grey Wolf has the necessary models to fight the action. :cool:
 

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
I WANT the Battle of the Beagle Channel OK! I just want to see Armstrong-Whitworth with British steel and ten 14" guns go against the Fore River Shipyard's steel and twelve 12" guns. It was never going to happen with the manufacturing nations but I would just like to see how they shaped up to each other.

I quite agree with the esteemed forum member. This is something that a fair number of BBvBB observers would be interested to speculate about. And since such an encounter is not entirely ASB and could perhaps have happened OTL, it would have certainly been interesting to see how the designs would have fared against one another.

And Grey Wolf does have the models. I've seen 'em. Time to arrange a miniature rumble!


Sargon
 
Seconds Away!

Almirante

bblatorre1958.jpg


Rivadavia

755px-Rivadavia_Battleship_LOC_14781u.jpg
 
Gents,

I'm for a Beagle Channel clash too. Any of the board's real navalists want to predict the outcome of such a battle?

Chile has the ex-HMS Canada with ten 14-inch guns in five turrets. She actually served in a war and fought in a battle, but that may have added to her "mileage". She's also operated and maintained by Chile, a nation with an actually successful naval history.

Argentina has a built-for-export US design with twelve 12-inch guns in six turrets two of which are wing turrets. She also receive a major engineering refit in the 1920s. She may be slightly "newer" than her Chilean opponent, but she'll be operated and maintained by Argentina.

Maintenance will also be a huge issue here, believe me. As a tech rep who has traveled extensively the "developing" and "undeveloped" portions of our world, I have a healthy concern for non-Western maintenance abilities and this concern has saved me on more than one occasion.


Bill
 
Chile has the ex-HMS Canada with ten 14-inch guns in five turrets. She actually served in a war and fought in a battle, but that may have added to her "mileage". She's also operated and maintained by Chile, a nation with an actually successful naval history.

Bill

I think you are being generous here. The Almirante Latorre may be a war veteran, but that was with an experienced British crew.

However, I'll back the Chileans in that their broadside is heavier and the Argentinians probably won't get more than a 10 gun broadside realistically.
 
I think you are being generous here.


David,

I was referring to Chile's performance in the War of the Pacific among other things. She proved herself quite capable then, even capturing Peru's Huascar. There was also naval actions during Chile's short civil war. Her naval service has a history to proud of, Argentina has nothing similar in her history.

The Almirante Latorre may be a war veteran, but that was with an experienced British crew.

As for HMS Canada/Latorre, I was referring to that fact the vessel herself was a proven war design. There will be modifications to Canada's pre-war design derived from wartime operations. That can't be said for US built-for-export battleship that Argentina will be operating.


Bill
 
David,

I was referring to Chile's performance in the War of the Pacific among other things. She proved herself quite capable then, even capturing Peru's Huascar. There was also naval actions during Chile's short civil war. Her naval service has a history to proud of, Argentina has nothing similar in her history.

As for HMS Canada/Latorre, I was referring to that fact the vessel herself was a proven war design. There will be modifications to Canada's pre-war design derived from wartime operations. That can't be said for US built-for-export battleship that Argentina will be operating.

Bill

I wasn't referring to Chile at all, but strictly the Latorre. I'm very aware of Chile's naval history. I am suggesting that you were close to stretching the argument that she is a 'proven war design'. I've probably got the same naval and battleship books that you do. At the back of my mind is the observation that HMS Canada fought as part of a battleline and never as an individual unit as we are suggesting with the Beagle Channel scenario.
 
At the back of my mind is the observation that HMS Canada fought as part of a battleline and never as an individual unit as we are suggesting with the Beagle Channel scenario.


David,

It's because she actually fought in a battleline as part of a great naval power that I'm interested. She was operated as part of the Grand Fleet, upgrades were surely made to her over the course of the war.

So, what changes made to her design during the war? Did include fire control? Shell handling? Any other things? If so, how did those changes improve her nature over her original design? Did Chile keep those changes? Would those changes help her crew's chances in a battle in the Beagle Channel?

In the hands of a Chilean crew, and after decades of Chilean maintenance, I'm certainly not suggesting she's in the same fighting form that she exhibited at Scapa Flow. However, I am suggesting that she was materially better when sold to Chile than her Argentine opponent was when she was sold to Argentina because of those wartime upgrades.

Compare her career to that of the Argentine battleship. Rivadavia was built for export, so presumable without the latest and greatest technology US yards saved for USN warships and US were somewhat behind the curve compared to others. She's never served in war, never been part of a fleet learning lessons during a war, and never received upgrades as a result of those lessons. Her only major refit swapped out coal-fired boilers for oil-fired ones. What's does she look like when compared to her original design? She certainly can't have been modified as much as her potential opponent.

So which battleship started from a better position? I'd say Latorre. And which battleship will be in a better material condition at the time of the clash? Again, I'd say Latorre. Even if maintenance abilities of the two nations are they same, and I think Chile's will be better, and even if the crews of each nation are the same, and I think Chile's will be better again, Latorre would be the better ship because of her time serving with the Grand Fleet.

That's what I'm trying, and failing, to point out.


Bill
 
I know this has been pointed out before, but I think its an interesting idea, about the Rivadavia class ships and HMS Vanguard going at it in the Falklands. It's implausible, I know, but I love the idea.

Let's assume that the Argentines decide they do want to keep the big tank. (Let's say for the sake or argument that Peron happens to like the big BBs. Its just for the sake of argument.) They stay on as the Argentine Navy's mega-gun fleet until they are retired in the late 1950s. But instead of being scrapped, both become museums or are put into reserve. Peron's return in the early 1970s sees the upgrade of Moreno and Rivadavia be a priority for the Argentine shipbuilding industry. As such, they get new boilers and engines (Argentina has always been fairly good at heavy industry tasks) and the same systems as the General Belgrano and its sister, Nueve de Julio.

They both are finished in time to fight in the Falklands. The Brits know that and don't like it much, and as such they decide that the best way to stop a battleship is........another battleship.

Hence, HMS Vanguard, which in this TL is not scrapped but instead becomes a museum as originally hoped, is hurriedly called up by the RN and gets a double-time refit before she goes out to the Falklands to hunt down her Argentine counterparts......
 
The Brits know that and don't like it much, and as such they decide that the best way to stop a battleship is........another battleship.


TheMann,

The best way stop a battleship is the same way they stopped the Belgrano; with a SSN.

The idea that the RN could recommission a museum ship and train a crew to operate her out of date systems quickly enough to sail with the task force is borderline ASB.

When the USN decided to reactivate the Iowa-class in the early 80s, they had to bring back retired gunners' mates, some of whom were in their 70s, pay them civilian rates, and allow for months to train new turret and magazine crews. The engineering departments required nearly the same amount of time to be trained on the ships' WW2 era "retro-tech".


Bill
 
Top