HMS Vanguard, effects on the Falklands?

Just because the Vanguard was around would not mean that the falklands was off the table, baring in mind that the Junta used the invasion as a distraction for their people, one they needed, and the UK was not the prime fighting force it was, hadn't been for a long time, we wasn't nicknamed the sick man of europe for nothing.

The RN could have had half a dozen Nimitz class supercarriers with air groups and Argentina would still have invaded. They believed that we wouldn't react militarily to the invasion.

Of course if we are taking HMS Vanguard how about thinking about the effects of the use of the current one? :D
 
How would the RN man Guard's Van in '82? Indeed the effects might be that she is the only ship they'd have. :p

As she'd probably largely be a show piece and ceremonial flagship rarely leaving Portsmouth reservists would do They would work up to acceptable levels on the trip south. It's not like she would have to engage Bismark so rate of fire from the big guns is less vital. What would be exercised hard is the anti aircraft systems.
 
Realistically, even if it still existed in mothballs, could "Vanguard" have been readied for service in the Falklands in time to see action?

I haven't read all the posts, but I think having WW2-era battleship on hand in the expeditionary fleet could have the following effects - none of which would have changed the outcome much.

1. Pilots being pilots, the Vanguard would be a major target for Argentine air attacks that might otherwise be directed at targets guided missiles and dumb bombs can actually sink. Vanguard could absorb many more Exocet hits and bomb hits, and even if its fighting capacity were signifiucantly diminished, these attacks would have cost the Argentines even more aircraft with less to show for it.

2. If not significantly damaged (which I suspect is likely), the ship might have value in shore bombardment.

3. It's major value would be propagandistic. Ressurrecting a RN battleship one last time would show Britian was really, really serious about retaking the islands. Is it remotely possible this could lead to a un-negotiated Argentine abandonment of the Islands?
 
Are there any other roles 'Vanguard' could have fulfilled at the Falklands after the landings, How far inland could her range reach? Would Stanley have been sown up even faster.

One another note, what about 'Belfast'? Could she or any like her have been a better choice?
 
The range of Vangaurds 15" guns was 32,500 yards. A 15 minute shoot would have destroyed Port Stanley's single runway. No Argentine troop concentration closer than 30,000 yards to the shore would have survived unless they were on a reverse slope.
 

sharlin

Banned
Belfast by that point was a museium and has been pritty much made so without a LOT of money spent she can't be used, her engines are deactivated, her propellers removed. As lovely as it would be she's basically decomissioned and to get her ready to sail would cost millions and probably take several years. At the Trafalgar centenary I really wanted her to be towed down to Portsmouth to be there for the celebrations.

And her guns can reach in excess 36000 yards which is probably more than the Falkland islands is wide, with a helicopter spotting fall of shot the Vanguard would have a significant impact ashore. 8 x 15 inch shells each weighing over a ton's worth of impact.
 
Belfast by that point was a museium and has been pritty much made so without a LOT of money spent she can't be used, her engines are deactivated, her propellers removed. As lovely as it would be she's basically decomissioned and to get her ready to sail would cost millions and probably take several years. At the Trafalgar centenary I really wanted her to be towed down to Portsmouth to be there for the celebrations.

And her guns can reach in excess 36000 yards which is probably more than the Falkland islands is wide, with a helicopter spotting fall of shot the Vanguard would have a significant impact ashore. 8 x 15 inch shells each weighing over a ton's worth of impact.


The 15 inch HE shell weighs 891Kg with a bursting charge of a mere 100Kg - 11%
ROF is 2 RPM (200 Kg HE per minute per gun times 8 = 1600Kg per minute )
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.htm
Though actual sustained ROF is more on the order of 1 a minute.
Most of your "ton" of impact is therefore just iron. (the AP shell only had 20Kg of burster). OK for poking holes in obsolete armoured warships, not so hot for moving earth.

The 4.5 inch gun delivers a 20.6 Kg shell with a 3 Kg burster - 15% HE
ROF is 20-26 RPM (assume 20 so 60 Kg/Min/Gun Times 2 for the majority of ships is 120Kg per minute - or 240Kg/min for a County with both twin 4.5 inch turrets still fitted)
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_45-55_mk8.htm

A 1000lb GP bomb is 454 Kg, and almost 100% is explosive burster. So 1 aircraft bomb is worth a salvo of 3-4x15 inch shells. A Harrier usually carried 2-4, a Bucaneer or Phantom at least double that.

Naval guns are precisely that - low trajectory weapons, rather than howitzers. So they have crest clearance and dead zone problems. Especially in a hilly spot like the Falklands.

Aircraft bombs do not have such dead zone problems - and can be delivered out to the range of the plane. Which can be rather far - "Black Buck" missions for example;).

LGB had also just arrived in the historical conflict (used around Port Stanley in the final stages on artillery positions).

There is no point in keeping a 45Kt dinosaur that requires 2000 men to operate hanging about after WW2. Better to invest in a modern carrier hull instead, and the escorts for same. Carrier air does bulk HE delivery far, far better than the dinosaur and from a greater stand-off range. Aircraft carriers can replenish fuel and bombs at sea and under way. Battleships have to return to a port to refill magazines. With LGB or the plane's CCIP HUD sights on target, they deliver it far more accurately as well.

The frigates and Counties can give any close support "mopping up" that needs to be done after the bombing campaign. And they can fire closer to own forces, the "danger close" distance for 15 inch fire is 2000 yards. Danger close for 4.5 inch is 750 yards, 600m for regular field guns.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/6-30/f630_5.htm para 4-6b

Battleships were turned into razorblades or museum exhibits after WW2 for good reason. Trying to hold onto them past their sell-by date is about as logical as calling for a return of the trireme and ramming tactics:eek:.
 
Just because the Vanguard was around would not mean that the falklands was off the table, baring in mind that the Junta used the invasion as a distraction for their people, one they needed, and the UK was not the prime fighting force it was, hadn't been for a long time, we wasn't nicknamed the sick man of europe for nothing.

I didn't mean that Vanguard would prevent the war, but that any (sensible) version of the RN able to afford to keep it and keep it crewed will be dramatically more powerful than OTL, likel enough to push Argentina toward the Chilean option.
 
The 15 inch HE shell weighs 891Kg with a bursting charge of a mere 100Kg - 11%
ROF is 2 RPM (200 Kg HE per minute per gun times 8 = 1600Kg per minute )
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.htm
Though actual sustained ROF is more on the order of 1 a minute.
Most of your "ton" of impact is therefore just iron. (the AP shell only had 20Kg of burster). OK for poking holes in obsolete armoured warships, not so hot for moving earth.

The 4.5 inch gun delivers a 20.6 Kg shell with a 3 Kg burster - 15% HE
ROF is 20-26 RPM (assume 20 so 60 Kg/Min/Gun Times 2 for the majority of ships is 120Kg per minute - or 240Kg/min for a County with both twin 4.5 inch turrets still fitted)
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_45-55_mk8.htm

A 1000lb GP bomb is 454 Kg, and almost 100% is explosive burster. So 1 aircraft bomb is worth a salvo of 3-4x15 inch shells. A Harrier usually carried 2-4, a Bucaneer or Phantom at least double that.

Naval guns are precisely that - low trajectory weapons, rather than howitzers. So they have crest clearance and dead zone problems. Especially in a hilly spot like the Falklands.

Aircraft bombs do not have such dead zone problems - and can be delivered out to the range of the plane. Which can be rather far - "Black Buck" missions for example;).

LGB had also just arrived in the historical conflict (used around Port Stanley in the final stages on artillery positions).

There is no point in keeping a 45Kt dinosaur that requires 2000 men to operate hanging about after WW2. Better to invest in a modern carrier hull instead, and the escorts for same. Carrier air does bulk HE delivery far, far better than the dinosaur and from a greater stand-off range. Aircraft carriers can replenish fuel and bombs at sea and under way. Battleships have to return to a port to refill magazines. With LGB or the plane's CCIP HUD sights on target, they deliver it far more accurately as well.

The frigates and Counties can give any close support "mopping up" that needs to be done after the bombing campaign. And they can fire closer to own forces, the "danger close" distance for 15 inch fire is 2000 yards. Danger close for 4.5 inch is 750 yards, 600m for regular field guns.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/6-30/f630_5.htm para 4-6b

Battleships were turned into razorblades or museum exhibits after WW2 for good reason. Trying to hold onto them past their sell-by date is about as logical as calling for a return of the trireme and ramming tactics:eek:.

You can't shoot down the shells though and Vanguard provides fire support which doesn't take away from the air defenses of the landing force the way using Harriers for CAS did.
 
I didn't mean that Vanguard would prevent the war, but that any (sensible) version of the RN able to afford to keep it and keep it crewed will be dramatically more powerful than OTL, likel enough to push Argentina toward the Chilean option.

The problem there is that the Argentines would know that any attacks on Chilean territory would get an immediate response. They did not know that Britain would respond to them taking the Falklands.
 
You can't shoot down the shells though and Vanguard provides fire support which doesn't take away from the air defenses of the landing force the way using Harriers for CAS did.

And he's not quite right about the 1000-pound bombs either, as USN 1000-lb bombs have about 440 lbs of explosive filler.
 
And he's not quite right about the 1000-pound bombs either, as USN 1000-lb bombs have about 440 lbs of explosive filler.


A bit more in the stubby British MC casing - up to 525 pounds, if filled with Torpex. http://64.78.11.86/uxofiles/mulvaney/techdatasheets/Bomb,MedCapacity,British,1000lbs,MkI&MkII.pdf

(Torpex being an especially powerful explosive originally designed for torpedo warheads. 50% more powerful than TNT by mass. Probably a rare and exotic filler, than?)

So - still at least 2x15 inch shells worth of HE, capable of being delivered using a lead-computing HUD sight on visible targets or be laser guided.

One Buccaneer load of 4 thousand pounders is therefore worth one Vanguard salvo - and is more accurately delivered, within a tactical radius of 500nm or so rather than 15-ish.

I'll take another fleet carrier with some Phantoms for air superiority, Gannets for AEW and anti-sub and Buccaneers for moving mud rather than man and maintain an obsolete battleship.
 
On the amount of explosives:

1) It is a very impressive website with more information than anybody can consume. Thanks, that one goes to favourites.

I did find something on the shells:

Wiki:

"The percentage of shell weight taken up by its explosive fill increased steadily throughout the 20th Century. Less than 10% was usual in the first few decades, by World War II leading designs were around 15%. However, British researchers in that war identified 25% as being the optimal design for anti-personnel purposes"

Now, I don't know if naval artillery shells also had a similar development insofar as the demand for 15" guns was not a lot.

If we do assume so, the burst would be doubled (more or less = 222 kg).

I think the limiting factor could be the need for re-lining after some 335 shots.

so, maybe the equation is:

8 guns * 335 shots * 200 kg burst = 536 tons of explosives on target.

Even half of that is a bit impressive.

If we should assume a harrier can carry 6 500 lb bombs (typical load-out) and assume these are comparable to the Mk82 the filling weight is 87 kg.

OK, so 1 harrier can carry a total of 6 *87 kg = 522 kg.

so, 536,000 kg / 522 kg = 1,027 Harrier sorties. THAT is a lot of flying.

Now, these are dumb bombs and the accuracy is not like GPS bombs, more comparable to naval artillery I should think.

I don't know if I got all this science right or not, but it really comes down to placing some 200kg of explosives on target vs 87 kg from a 500 lb aerial bomb. More "heads-down" than "heads-up".

Accuracy and aiming at hardened targets would be good for Vanguard, but if it is hitting a trench, maybe more bombs would be a better idea.

The factor to look at might also be: what should Vanguard fire at? It would not be good to just flatten Port Stanley and killing all the British there, would it?

So, were there targets which otherwise could not be reached? Heavy guns around Port Stanley sealed it anyway and could by and large be both protected and do the job.

A BB in open sea in 1980's might be pretty vulnerable, but Vanguard sitting in Bomb Alley would (as mentioned) offer only a slight window for the Argentine pilots. That in itself would be good protection.

30 degrees elevation should be good enough to hit anything.

RN did do some gun fire support, rather successfully I believe. So the idea of using Vanguard might not be too far-fetched (if she was around, that is).

Maybe the better idea is to rent some nice G5's from South Africa. With base-bleed these could fire out to some 60 km with an impressive accuracy. But that is a different equation!

Ivan
 
^ The other thing to keep in mind is that once the Harriers have dropped the bombs, they gotta go back to the carrier to re-arm and refuel. Vanguard can just keep on pounding away at two rounds a minute per gun until she ran out of ammunition. That's sixteen shots a minute on a particular point, which is a lot of gunfire to be under, especially with the 880 kg rounds here.
 
Honestly if we're talking about the real world value of Vanguard, or any BBG as compared to a fleet carrier I don't think too many people would seriously argue for the battleship. That said, in terms of the Falklands I think you'd well and truly have to do something crazy to get a scenario in which Vanguard is available and some form of fleet carrier isn't; that is, of course, not nearly as true if the upgraded Tiger class ships are availabnle, but that almost happened OTL (and would certainly be in play if a second task force had to be launched).
 
Honestly if we're talking about the real world value of Vanguard, or any BBG as compared to a fleet carrier I don't think too many people would seriously argue for the battleship. That said, in terms of the Falklands I think you'd well and truly have to do something crazy to get a scenario in which Vanguard is available and some form of fleet carrier isn't; that is, of course, not nearly as true if the upgraded Tiger class ships are availabnle, but that almost happened OTL (and would certainly be in play if a second task force had to be launched).

I don't disagree that between a fleet carrier or a battleship I would take the carrier, but the point being argued here is that if Vanguard had been available to go help the Royal Marines take the Falklands back in April 1982, what would be the end result? That fact is pretty obvious, I would think - 800 15-inch rounds to toss at Argentine positions on one ammo load, which even if one doesn't consider the effect on Argentine morale would sure as hell inflict casualties.

As far as getting it there, I'd be inclined to go for the British-French union scenario during WWII. This brings the French Navy into the fight, preferably by them running from Toulon (shooting their way past the Italians if need be) to their new ports of call in England and Scotland, or perhaps if they aren't certain of safety going to Malta or even South Africa. This gives the RN a rather bigger set of units to use, and the French ships help the RN finish off the Italian Navy in 1943 and help with the battle against the U-boats in 1944 and 1945, followed by them being deployed in big numbers to the Pacific in 1945, starting with most of them being involved in shelling the crap out of Okinawa in April 1945. French army and air force units spend the war fighting right with the British, and after the war the idea of the Union staying together is very real. By the time George VI dies in 1952, the union is good and solid, and the idea of the two nations joined as one catches the wave of modernization in Europe.

Into this, Vanguard is the second to last battleship of the RN (The HMS Jean Bart, completed in 1949, is the last). The French ships all keep their names in the formally-unified nation but gain the British prefixes. The better economy of the 1950s unified state allows the battleships to be kept for a while, but all are retired from active service by 1958, and the older classes are all scrapped in the 1950s (with the exception of Warspite, King George V and Strasbourg, which all become museums in Liverpool, Portsmouth and Marseilles, respectively), leaving just the Jean Bart, Richelieu and Vanguard in the reserve fleet, where they remain. Despite the battleships helping with the fight in Algeria, Southeast Asia and Suez, they are widely seen as old and antiquated, though useful in certain situations - which is why they are not sent off to be cut up.

The change happens in Vietnam. Called back for service is USS New Jersey, and her turns on the Vietnam firing line are stellar, pounding the hell out of North Vietnamese positions. It is a surprise to the British and French, who in the midst of potential problems in their handful of overseas states suddenly are paying rather more attention to the three remaining battleships. Having been hurriedly completed and having a major flaw in only having a forward-firing ability, the Richelieus are dismissed from consideration and attention turns to Vanguard. Through the 1970s, the plans for the battleship kick around a number of times, but after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and the problems that come from that, the Royal Navy gathers its guts and calls Vanguard back to the colors in 1976, sending her to the shipyard where she had been built in Scotland for a major overhaul, but the yard's bankruptcy in 1977 in the middle of the refit sees the Vanguard do most of its refit at Chantiers de L'Atlantique in Saint-Nazaire, France. The rebuild is extensive - the 5.25" guns are replaced by modern 4.5" units in new double turrets, Four Sea Wolf missile systems, along with eight radar-directed 40mm Bofors guns, are fitted for anti-aircraft duties, while sixteen Exocet anti-ship missiles are also fitted in four launchers. Massive upgrades to electronics and amenities are also fitted, and the crew needed for the battleship falls from 1,975 to 1,260, and these sailors have much better amenities. Fitted and equipped as such, Vanguard raises the White Ensign again on June 16, 1980, 40 years to the day after the Union began, in Saint-Nazaire.

The battleship's first deployment is a round-the-world cruise, visiting numerous ports around the world, focusing first of all on the French overseas territories. Battery testing in Tahiti in January 1981 confirm the new fire control system for the ship works and works well, and for much of the first half of 1981 Vanguard rotates around the Pacific, based out of Hong Kong and visiting (among others) Tokyo, Manila, Sydney, Melbourne, Auckland, Fiji, Lima, Vancouver, Pearl Harbor, San Francisco and Los Angeles. She returns to the United Kingdom in August 1981, and has a good refit in England in the winter of 1981.

Upon the invasion of the Falklands in April 1982, Vanguard has been out of refit for mere weeks and was out on NATO exercises, complete with three Anglo-French fleet carriers, and on the order of the UK's government, all are organized into a single force to go get the Falklands back and set off to take the islands back. Vanguard, on account of its excellent flag facilities, is the ship on which the commander of the Task Force raises his flag, though the commanders move to HMS Hermes when the battle happens. The Royal Marines and French Marine Force are sent to take the islands back first, and the line is crossed when HMS Rubis torpedoes cruiser ARA General Belgrano on May 2 in the South Atlantic, and two days later HMS Norfolk is struck by an Argentine Exocet missile and badly damaged, eventually sinking as a result. The day after that, the first Black Buck missions go off using Airbus A300 tankers and Handley-Page Victor bombers, doing critical damage to the airfield at Stanley and destroying several Argentine aircraft on the ground.

When the landings of the UK forces began on May 22, Vanguard was there to soften up the defenses. That night she fired her first shots in anger since Suez on the Argentines, doing a fair amount of damage to the Argentine defenses. The Argentine air force attacked Vanguard and cruisers Tiger, Blake and Colbert repeatedly, but while Blake took one glancing blow, Vanguard had a 1000-pound Argentine bomb detonate against her stern, destroying her Sea King helicopter and starting a substantial fire that was nonetheless put out quickly. Vanguard's AA defenses, however, claimed four definite Argentine kills and two probables, as well as providing copious amounts of gunfire support. The battleship and cruisers withdraw to re-arm on May 26, but are right back at it the next night. Colbert drops two Canberra bombers attempting to attack British forces on May 29, and Tiger and Colbert are hero ships on June 1, with the Bluff Cove air attacks being done with just the two cruisers and frigate Jean de Vienne being all between the British landing ships and the attackers, and the ships did well. Blake took a nasty hit amidships and Jean de Vienne died defending the ships, but the forces managed to land despite damage to RFA Sir Galahad and RFA Sir Tristam. Blake's damage saw her withdraw, but she made it back home. Vanguard was sent after this to directly shell the Argentine defensive line around Stanley, but the price of this was two Exocets fired at her, neither of which hit. Vanguard's gunfire landed a surprise when her gunfire wounded the Argentine commander in the islands on June 12, two days before the war was over.

Vanguard arrived back home on July 10, virtually out of 15" ammunition and having been damaged twice, but having without any doubt at all proven her utility in the modern Royal Navy. She was to have an active 1980s....
 
I was just thinking with all the debates on how effective her gunfire would be compared to Harrier based CAS just on the issue of technical aspects. What about the psychological impact on the Argentine soldiers? Things I've read mention the Argentine troops having issues with the shellfire from 4.5in or 105mm guns IOTL and Iraqi troops surrendered to drones after being shelled by the New Jersey's guns in Desert Storm. How would the Argentine troops have handled the psychological impact of salvos of 15in shells?
 
I was just thinking with all the debates on how effective her gunfire would be compared to Harrier based CAS just on the issue of technical aspects. What about the psychological impact on the Argentine soldiers? Things I've read mention the Argentine troops having issues with the shellfire from 4.5in or 105mm guns IOTL and Iraqi troops surrendered to drones after being shelled by the New Jersey's guns in Desert Storm. How would the Argentine troops have handled the psychological impact of salvos of 15in shells?

Like most troops, be bloody terrified.

Yep, I would agree. Being rattled around by 15" shells would probably scare a madman. Hence my comments about the morale of their forces. Just knowing that a heavily-armored 45,000-ton battleship is coming to get your ass is probably scary enough before it opens up on you.
 
Top