HMS Vanguard in Operation Corporate

sharlin

Banned
The Ostfriland was also roughly half the size and about 3 generations behind the Vanguard. And the big ass bombs that sunk her had a far larger warhead than the exocet of the late 70s and early 80's. And an exocet was not built to deal with armour plate :)
 
The thing is that capital ships are EXPENSIVE, especially to pay yearly salaries for. Getting both Invincibles AND Vanguard isn't a choice you get to make because of expense. It's one or the other.

Or you improve Britain's economy and do a better job of industrial and economic planning. Now, you have a point about such ships being expensive. But once built and operating, they aren't that expensive. Certainly less than a carrier, which will even in peacetime frequently lose aircraft to accidents and the like.

OK, I now think a BB would've been likely DISABLED instead of sunk - still made useless, though.

Aside from a tail shot causing flooding in the engine rooms or a modern torpedo under the keel, these things are hard to sink OR disable.

I've looked up WW2 aerial torpedos, and see they ranged from 1500-1800 lbs. But, I'm not seeing why Exocets would'nt've done plenty of superstructure and control damage, esecially since they had very high hit rates.

Exocets are designed to be sea-skimmers. The one that hit Sheffield went through the hull, as did the ones that hit Atlantic Conveyor. If an Exocet hits the hull of Vanguard, it would strike the armor belt and that would be it - an Exocet, with its 360-pound warhead, isn't gonna do much more than scratch the paint and maybe cause small fires. Against the Argentinians, she would have been nearly invincible. As CalBear pointed out, most modern anti-ship weapons are designed to deal with stuff much less armored than Iowa or Vanguard. There were dozens of cases during WWII of heavy bombs hitting battleships and not wrecking them, including both Iowa and New Jersey, which took bomb hits during WWII. The losses at Pearl Harbor were from AP bombs (and a lot of torpedoes - and the loss of Arizona was a very lucky shot), which the Argentinian Air Force didn't have.

I'm dubious a BB in active inventory would've prevented the Falklands, either. After all, the world knows they're OBSOLETE.

The world knows they cost a lot to maintain, and are less useful than an aircraft carrier. Obsolete, no. Too expensive for most countries for what they will be used for, yes. There isn't many ways to say "fuck you" like a 15" shell from Vanguard, or a 16" from an Iowa, and if you were serious about it, modern shell design with base-bleed and GPS guidance, like the US Army's Excalibur shells, could give a battleship greater range and much greater accuracy. Not likely, no. But technology could do wonderful things to a big gun blaster.
 
Last edited:
As I stated before, I'd take Ark Royal and Eagle still in service (or at least one of them) over having HMS Vanguard in 1982.

Or do you think HMS Vanguard would be more potent then the 30+ F4's and Bucc's Ark Royal could carry fully loaded?
 
The thing is that capital ships are EXPENSIVE, especially to pay yearly salaries for. Getting both Invincibles AND Vanguard isn't a choice you get to make because of expense. It's one or the other.

OK, I now think a BB would've been likely DISABLED instead of sunk - still made useless, though. I've looked up WW2 aerial torpedos, and see they ranged from 1500-1800 lbs. But, I'm not seeing why Exocets would'nt've done plenty of superstructure and control damage, esecially since they had very high hit rates. Though, Ostfreisland was sunk by three exocetish-sized bombs, remembering the added missile impact damage.

I'm dubious a BB in active inventory would've prevented the Falklands, either. After all, the world knows they're OBSOLETE.
Exocets have warheads designed to deal with unarmored vessels, not 12+(no time to luck up actual thickness) inches of steel. They will do superficial damage but nothing to really impact a 40,000 ton BB. Control systems are protected by Armor for just that reason.

Yes it is obsolete, but the fact that someone is willing to spend money to keep it in service suggests that they mean business. Also still not obsolete for shore bombardment

Mind you I am not the expert on this
 
This would require a much earlier PoD resulting in a completely different defence policy. If the British defence community and industry are willing and able to recomission Vangurd, chances are there'd be propers carriers on the cards too
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The thing is that capital ships are EXPENSIVE, especially to pay yearly salaries for. Getting both Invincibles AND Vanguard isn't a choice you get to make because of expense. It's one or the other.

OK, I now think a BB would've been likely DISABLED instead of sunk - still made useless, though. I've looked up WW2 aerial torpedos, and see they ranged from 1500-1800 lbs. But, I'm not seeing why Exocets would'nt've done plenty of superstructure and control damage, esecially since they had very high hit rates. Though, Ostfreisland was sunk by three exocetish-sized bombs, remembering the added missile impact damage.

I'm dubious a BB in active inventory would've prevented the Falklands, either. After all, the world knows they're OBSOLETE.

The difference between a torpedo and a ASM are fairly dramatic, even if they have the same size warhead. Beyond the obvious, namely that the torpedo hit below the waterline (or detonates under the keel). the underwater explosion tends to be magnified by having its shockwave mainly forced back against the hull by the water (which has very limited compressibility). This addtional shock can do more damage than the actual warhead. Capital ships do have specialized underwater defenses to reduce the effect of a torpedo hit (modern fast BB could often maintain speeds over 20 knots when hit by a torpedo, albeit on a temporary basis).

ASM, conversely, hit above the waterline. In the case of a BB or CVN this is a well armored or protected part of the hull, for a BB this is the strongest part of the armored belt as it was the main target for short range (under around 10,000 yards) gunfire or, in the case of "pop-up terminal maneuver" missiles against the heavily armored (against 2,200 pound AP tipped 14-18" shells) deck. No ASM in existence in 1979 was designed to penetrate more than a one or two inches of armor (and these were only found in the heavy Soviet "carrier killer" missiles) their damage being done with blast frangments and with secondary fire caused by any unburned solid rocket propellant present when the missile stuck home. This is a very effective weapon design against modern surface combatants of Frigate size or smaller, with the almost accidental secondary impact of high heat fire fed by solid rocket fuel proving to be quite lethal against the light alloys used in many parts of escort ships constructed in the late 60s and early 70s (the damage to HMS Sheffield actually resulted in the USN changing construction requirements for all non carrier surface ships to make all steel constrution for superstructure and decks an absolute). The weapon, however, is nearly worthless against the structure of a "obsolete" battleship (although the weapons can have serious impacts on sensors).

One can look at the situation for an ASM by comparing it to a load of buckshot. If you fire it at a asphalt shingle or a window it will tear it up or penetrate it. If you fire it at a concrete wall you will scratch the surface, but you won't compromise the wall in any useful way unless you have a LOT of shells and lots of time.
 
As I stated before, I'd take Ark Royal and Eagle still in service (or at least one of them) over having HMS Vanguard in 1982.

I agree. But then again, had Ark Royal or Eagle, with their full loadouts of Spey Phantoms and Bucks been available, that war probably would have never happened. The Argentinian Air Force would have been too scared at what the potential result would be and not having a prayer of sinking two angled-deck full carriers.

Or do you think HMS Vanguard would be more potent then the 30+ F4's and Bucc's Ark Royal could carry fully loaded?

Depends. For ground troop support within its firing radius, yes. For most other duties, no. That's the rub with a battleship in modern times.
 
Top