HMS Vanguard, effects on the Falklands?

[Magniac]

It also kept both the eight 15" guns

the advantages of having 15 and 4.5 inch gunfire support on tap would be massive

Vanguard, thanks to eight 15-inch main guns, does that very nicely indeed.

The range of Vangaurds 15" guns was 32,500 yards.

8 x 15 inch shells each weighing over a ton's worth of impact.

Okay, I'm a n00b when it comes to the nitty gritty of naval force requirement/departmental planning, but this thing about the impossibility of the UK government keeping a floating white elephant like Vanguard around had me thinking--if you want this actual firepower to last as long as possible, couldn't you scrap the ship but transfer its main armament to a modern, postwar monitor? Why bother keeping the entire battleship concept? And from what I can tell the last RN class of ships built with big guns that actually saw action were monitors.

I have to think it's easy to find a doctrinal reason for sticking Vanguard's turrets on a shallow draught vessel, a vessel that should weigh less than a light cruiser.

<snip>

Okay, good point about 15 inch being an inefficient and overpowered shell compared to aircraft munitions...

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?

Like most troops, be bloody terrified.

Yep, I would agree. Being rattled around by 15" shells would probably scare a madman.

...But without the pretence of even needing big guns to secure shipping lanes, I think having these turrets mounted in, say, a post-Korean War monitor design for coordination with landforces could definitely be justified (maybe the admiralty kicks up a stink about losing too many fleet air arm pilots in milk runs supporting the army during that war, maybe they just want something to blast Soviet tanks with on the Baltic coastline when WWIII breaks out.) These guns could still make it to the Falklands.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

if you want this actual firepower to last as long as possible, couldn't you scrap the ship but transfer its main armament to a modern, postwar monitor? Why bother keeping the entire battleship concept?

If you are trying to keep the gunfire support concept going than that's the obvious way to go, but really I think that the only way anything is being kept is to keep the existing ship(s) as is in a similar move to the American's with the Iowa's. There's also the fact that in the scenario we've been talking about (and it's almost the only one this applies to IMO) the full battleship probably does work better than a monitor, between the aerial threat, lack of appropriate escort and heavy seas associated with the Falklands.

I also had to laugh at the prospect of moving Vanguard's guns yet again.

 

[amphibulous]

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?

This is pure silliness.

- Iraqi troops surrendered to drones and small parties in humvees left right and centre; this was because most of them hated Saddam and thought the US would re-build Iraq effectively.

- Believe it or not, being near ANY explosive object going off is terrifying! The terror is pretty maximal even with an 80mm mortar, so trying to increase it is pointless. War nerds look at battleships and think "Huge! Terrifying!"... but compared to what modern systems like MLRS can do, they're not very effective, and the terror certainly won't increase.

- Again, people are ignoring the phenomenal manning cost. With reliefs, training cadre, extra support ships, etc, keeping a battleship in service is likely to on the order of cost 1000 sailors a year. When you add pensions etc, this is a phenomenally expensive way of getting one of the world's least versatile forms of fire support - you'll end up paying hundreds of millions for a weapon you use once in a blue moon, and isn't much use then.

- If you actually think more fire support is needed, then you have to compare Vanguard to the alternatives: 12 LRMS rockets fired from a landing craft would blanket an entire square kilometre - an a landing craft could probably hold 36. This is an awful lot cheaper than Vanguard, and although it might not frighten you now, I'm pretty sure you'd soil yourselves if you were anywhere near when it happened. You afford to deploy hundreds of these things for less than the cost of Vanguard, and you'd be able to use the ammunition in tracked MLRS launchers too. (But people don't do this, because there is no point - CAS and tracked MLRS are quite overwhelming enough.)

 

[BigWillyG]

This is pure silliness.

- Iraqi troops surrendered to drones and small parties in humvees left right and centre; this was because most of them hated Saddam and thought the US would re-build Iraq effectively.

- Believe it or not, being near ANY explosive object going off is terrifying! The terror is pretty maximal even with an 80mm mortar, so trying to increase it is pointless. War nerds look at battleships and think "Huge! Terrifying!"... but compared to what modern systems like MLRS can do, they're not very effective, and the terror certainly won't increase.

- Again, people are ignoring the phenomenal manning cost. With reliefs, training cadre, extra support ships, etc, keeping a battleship in service is likely to on the order of cost 1000 sailors a year. When you add pensions etc, this is a phenomenally expensive way of getting one of the world's least versatile forms of fire support - you'll end up paying hundreds of millions for a weapon you use once in a blue moon, and isn't much use then.

- If you actually think more fire support is needed, then you have to compare Vanguard to the alternatives: 12 LRMS rockets fired from a landing craft would blanket an entire square kilometre - an a landing craft could probably hold 36. This is an awful lot cheaper than Vanguard, and although it might not frighten you now, I'm pretty sure you'd soil yourselves if you were anywhere near when it happened. You afford to deploy hundreds of these things for less than the cost of Vanguard, and you'd be able to use the ammunition in tracked MLRS launchers too. (But people don't do this, because there is no point - CAS and tracked MLRS are quite overwhelming enough.)

The Brits don't have modern MRLS in '82. Even in the US it's only just going from development to service. The only ways to get that level of rocket firepower in a ship is to cobble together something with aircraft rockets or to use any WWII/Korea era rockets they have in storage and those will be as old and expensive to bring back as Vanguard, with the added possibility of being dangerously unstable because of years of poor storage.
The whole thread is basically hand waving the how of the RN having her and just assuming she is in service like the New Jersey's in the same time period and looking at what she could do.

 

[sharlin]

The Guards Van

Completed too late for the conflict she was built for the HMS Vanguard suddenly became a financial burden on a country who’s coffers were nearly dry after World War Two. Completing her trials and seeing extensive service from 1947 onwards the Vanguard acted as a mixture of Royal Yacht, Squadron Flagship and training ship whilst every other Battleship that had served in the Royal Navy went to the breakers yard, some went peacefully, others like the Warspite refused to go without a struggle whilst the Vanguard soon became the sole battleship in the Royal Navy.
In 1956 the Suez Crisis erupted in Egypt and the Anglo-French force that sailed to the region included the two remaining battleships in active service in Europe, the French Jean Bart and the Vanguard, both ships firing their guns in anger in support of troops ashore.

The effect on morale of the troops under fire and those witnessing it could not be underestimated and stories of the support of the navy was heavily reported on in the press and this upsurge in popularity as well as the military effects of naval gunfire support helped save the Vanguard for behind the scenes she was already deemed obsolete and worth only being decommissioned and scrapped.

A leaked memo from the Admiralty about the Vanguard being decommissioned met a supprising amount of public and political anger. A public petition headed by no less a person than Sir Winston Churchill as well as pleas in the House of Commons to save the ship forced the Admiralty to back down from their decision to scrap the ship.

Benifiting from a minor refit in 1959 the Vanguard was used to show the flag across the world, sailing to Australia, New Zealand, Tokyo, San Francisco, New York and various ports in Europe.
Her long cruises were interspersed with long periods as an alongside training ship for recruits in Portsmouth next to the HMS Excellent training establishment as well as periods of refitting. The longest of which was from 1963 – 1965 which saw a considerable alteration to the Vanguard with her 5.25 inch turrets being removed and them being replaced with the lighter Mark 6 mounting for dual 4.5 inch guns that were in service with the Frigates and Destroyers of the fleet. Changes to the armament also included the fitting of four Sea Cat launchers, two port, two starboard in the positions formerly occupied by sextuple 40mm mounts. The radars were refitted and modernised and her machinery recived a minor overhaul.

Although expensive it was seen as necessary. The Soviet fleet still contained a large number of cruisers whilst they were all but extinct in NATO and it was felt that the Sverdlov class presented a real and present danger to NATO’s supply lines in the event of a war. Also experience from the Korean war as well as the new war in Vietnam again showed the effect and utility of naval gunfire support from heavy weapons beyond destroyer calibre weapons. But still the cost of running the Vanguard was formidable and in 1966 the Healy paper once more put her at risk along with much of the surface fleet as well as hacking the RAF and Army.

Instead of fighting independently the three services formed a united front against the cuts decrying them in Parliament and public as too harsh and too radical, warning it would cripple the armed forces for decades to come.

The axe still fell and fell hard. All the current aircraft carriers were to be retired by the 1980s whilst three new through deck cruisers were planned to be the centrepiece of ASW hunting groups, the RAF lost the TSR-1 whilst the Army lost several regiments, there was also no plan to build new carriers.

Yet one oddity to survive was the Vanguard. The Army and Navy managed to argue successfully for the need for heavy gunfire support for troops ashore and that saved the ‘guards van’ all be it barely, the UK’s economic woes would mean that the ship would be decommissioned by 1985.

In 1975 the Vanguard took part in a major NATO exercise in the Meditteranian where she was ‘sunk’ by attacking US aircraft, although her escorting County class destroyer managed to infiltrate the US fleet by fooling the US warships into beliving she was an Indian merchant vessel (lights and all) getting into missile range of the US carrier before announcing her weapons being launched.
In 1980 the Vanguard was taken in for what was assumed to be her last refit. The 33 year old battleship had sailed tens of thousands of miles and was a common fixture in ports across the world, her white painted profile well known and easily recognisable but the money to keep her active simply was not there. Her crew and Captain knew that the old girl would be decommissioned in 1983 and be cut up for scrap by 1985 ending a legacy of battleship service in the Royal Navy stretching back centuries.

In December 1981 the Vanguard was officially laid up in Portsmouth pending a decision on her final fate along with the gun cruisers Tiger and Blake as well as the other ships of the reserve fleet.
Maintained by a reserve crew the Vanguard was still at Portsmouth when news of the Invasion of the Falkland islands reached the UK. A stunned British Govermnent demanded that the islands be retaken despite concerns that there was not the ability to do so. Whilst the Marines set about begging, borrowing and stealing what they could from other regiments and supply depots the Navy looked at what was available to sail and what simply could sail.

In what amounted to a logistic miracle the Marines, their supplies and equipment were found homes on ships some saved from the breakers yards, others loaned from the merchant marine as well as the few landing ships available. Older ships were reactivated and eyes fell upon the Vanguard sitting off HMS Excellent. Investigations found that the ship was sound and in operational condition, her maintenance crews having taken good care of her. When Major General Moore and Brigadier Thompson heard the ship was in essence operational they demanded she be made ready to sail. Although gathering her crew took a few days longer than planned the Vanguard left two days after the main fleet centered on the hold HMS Hermes and the brand new HMS Invincible racing to catch up with the taskforce.

 

[amphibulous]

The Brits don't have modern MRLS in '82. could do.

..That's why I added "But even now people don't do this - CAS and tracked MLRS are quite overwhelming enough." The somewhat Byzantine point being that we don't bother with the thing that a 10o times more cost effective than a BB, because even it is redundant.

Another people don't get is that those big battleship guns look great, but that the shells are a lot less effective than the same mass of ordinance from CAS (or later MLRS.) Rocket warheads and bombs can have much thinner skins and take less shock, so there is room for more and better filling - sub-munition stuff these days.

And you get all this without the insane manning requirements of a BB and in a form you can actually use against targets other than seaside resorts!

 

[sharlin]

You're ignoring the fact that harriers back then were rubbish CAS aircraft and the UK did NOT have anything resembling a MLRS. The Harrier was at best an interceptor, it was not designed back then for bomb hauling and dumping with any degree of accuracy as it could barely take off when fully loaded.

Yes a BB's HE shell is not as good as a bomb, but when there's not much in way of air power to call upon and a BB was available i'd take the 15 inchers all the time.

 

[BigWillyG]

You're ignoring the fact that harriers back then were rubbish CAS aircraft and the UK did NOT have anything resembling a MLRS. The Harrier was at best an interceptor, it was not designed back then for bomb hauling and dumping with any degree of accuracy as it could barely take off when fully loaded.

Yes a BB's HE shell is not as good as a bomb, but when there's not much in way of air power to call upon and a BB was available i'd take the 15 inchers all the time.

Exactly. Anything which could have provided ground support would have been better than what they had IOTL. The Tiger's and their 6inch guns would have done a similar job well being more realistic than Vanguard staying in service since they tried to get the Tigers ready for the Falklands IOTL.

 

[yulzari]

If Vanguard is kept it would be as a fire support vessel not a battleship. Regular practice and age would use up existing stocks of ammunition over the years so one could imagine that the replacement would be HE heavy as they would not have to penetrate thick armour.

Also one could question the need for all 4x15" turrets and any 5" turrets.

One could see her modified to carry helicopters aft and retain the front 2 turrets (doubling supplies of spare barrels/liners etc.) whilst the 5" are replaced with radar 40mm and auto 4.5" mountings or Green Mace/Red Sea, together with anti aircraft missiles.

In concert with HMS Fearless she would be able to launch. sustain, support and cover a small amphibious landing anywhere in the world. With auto small guns and half the heavy guns her ships crew would be far smaller. leaving room for improved conditions and a much larger Royal Marine complement.

The crewing is the limitation. This is a one off vessel and merits a one off solution for a Reserve crew where many of the skills are non transferrable to other naval vessels.

With a Reserve crew (with a RN cadre) the costs of accomodation, welfare, training establishments and pensions etc. are much reduced and there is little competition for RN staff. I am actually beginning to be convinced it would have been worthwhile. With base bleed etc one could see the 4.5"s reaching out to 30km and the 15" 40km. It sends a powerful message to intimidate or protect a littoral area of interest.

In the 21st century she would have come towards the end of her life and the replacement could be equipped with 6.1" guns in common with the army and a range extended from 30km out to well beyond 60km with ERA ammuntion with modern precision of fire and anti missile defence. In fact we have come a full circle as one might as well put it on a modern destroyer which are cruisers in all but name and call them cruisers.

 

[sharlin]

Whilst pulling out two turrets and altering the stern makes a lot of sense, thats major major work and very expensive work too. Money the UK does not have.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

The Guards Van

...
Although expensive it was seen as necessary. The Soviet fleet still contained a large number of cruisers whilst they were all but extinct in NATO and it was felt that the Sverdlov class presented a real and present danger to NATO’s supply lines in the event of a war.

I think you just killed the Blackburn Buccaneer in your timeline.

See here:

In the early 1950s, the Russian Navy introduced the Sverdlov class cruiser into service. Light cruisers by Second World War standard, they were fast, effectively armed and numerous. Like the German "pocket battleships" during the Second World War, they presented a serious threat to the merchant fleets in the Atlantic, but they were in far greater numbers and up to 25% faster. To counter this threat, the Royal Navy decided not to use a new ship class of its own, but instead a new specialised strike aircraft employing conventional or nuclear weapons. Operating from its fleet carriers and attacking at high speed and low level, it would offer a solution to the Sverdlov problem.
A detailed specification was issued in June 1952 as Naval Staff Requirement NA.39, calling for a two-seat aircraft with folding wings, capable of flying at Mach 0.85 at 200 ft (61 m) above sea-level, having a combat range of over 400 nmi (740 km; 460 mi), and carrying a nuclear weapon internally. Based on the requirement, the Ministry of Supply issued specification M.148T in August 1952, and the first responses were returned in February 1953.[1]
Blackburn's design by Barry P. Laight, Project B-103, won the tender in July 1955.[2

 

[sharlin]

Not quite a BB can't be everywhere after all.

 

[Andy42]

If you are trying to keep the gunfire support concept going than that's the obvious way to go, but really I think that the only way anything is being kept is to keep the existing ship(s) as is in a similar move to the American's with the Iowa's. There's also the fact that in the scenario we've been talking about (and it's almost the only one this applies to IMO) the full battleship probably does work better than a monitor, between the aerial threat, lack of appropriate escort and heavy seas associated with the Falklands.

I also had to laugh at the prospect of moving Vanguard's guns yet again.

If you are convinced of the use of gunfire for some hypothetical landing support then simply scrap the Guards Van. It is a horribly expensive thing, even if laid up in mothballs.

But keep the tiger class - all 3 - and don't convert them to helicopter cruisers. Modernise sensors and add seacat, but retain the second automatic 6 inch turret. Keep them in maintained reserve parked up a creek and every now ans then maybe use the RNR to crew one for a short cruise. There is no need to waste expenses running them as regular fleet vessels - in ready reserve is fine since any hypothetical invasion will have a few months planning time to reactivate the dinosaur vessels.

The 3 Tiggers have about the same crewing requirement as the one Guards Van, but provide you with 3 hulls which means that if there are mechanical problems then one or 2 hulls will still be available. Several hulls can be dispatched to different places, if needed. If one hits a moored mine while inshore giving NGFS then so what? - you have some spares, unlike the singleton battleship. 2x2 fully automatic 6 inch should do the trick, times 3 hulls - if you believe in naval gunfire support over air bombing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_class_cruiser

 

[yulzari]

I have to say I go with the keeping a Tiger class cruiser as the cheaper option with the others as a source of spares but the thread is on keeping the Vanguard.

MBRLs are great area weapons but do not have the range or accuracy of guns. Missiles are horrendously expensive, especially if practiced regularly.

The Tiger replacement would, as I said above, be common to the latest oversize destroyers but with 21st century guns, not WW1 developments, and commonality with the army big guns and auto loaders. I did look at the last of the big AA auto guns but I doubt the hull could cope with several rounds per second even fired forwards not to the beam.

To put it in context, one of these in the Thames estuary could hit most of the SE of England and frighten the French, Belgians and Dutch to boot.

Ammunition supply on board is finite, so duration of cover must be seen as important as rate of fire. If one 6.1" shell does not solve your problem ten will not be ten times better. Better, but not ten times as much. Multiple batteries of guns were to maximise firepower in the short time before the enemy battleship hit yours. Shore fire support needs to be available for hours, not just minutes.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

Not quite a BB can't be everywhere after all.

AH rule no. 1: the resources/expenses spent on something different, need to come from somewhere.

 

[Simon]

But keep the tiger class - all 3 - and don't convert them to helicopter cruisers. Modernise sensors and add seacat, but retain the second automatic 6 inch turret. Keep them in maintained reserve parked up a creek and every now ans then maybe use the RNR to crew one for a short cruise. There is no need to waste expenses running them as regular fleet vessels - in ready reserve is fine since any hypothetical invasion will have a few months planning time to reactivate the dinosaur vessels.

The problem is that even in the Ready Reserve they're still going to eat up cash the Navy doesn't have and draw manpower that they were chronically short of. Rather than three Tiger-class how about a couple or just one of the Town-class like say HMS Belfast since she was the only surviving Edinburgh? Only commissioned in 1939 and they had an anti-air refit in the early 50s, with her and Royalist apparently having an expanded one towards the end of decade. Here's a thread from the warships1 forums with a little bit about it. You just need to find a reason for the Navy to keep her, although this is getting away from the original HMS Vanguard somewhat.

 

[Magniac]

There's also the fact that in the scenario we've been talking about (and it's almost the only one this applies to IMO) the full battleship probably does work better than a monitor, between the aerial threat, lack of appropriate escort and heavy seas associated with the Falklands.

From what I can ascertain a post-'50s monitor should have the same defensive capabilities as a modernised light-ish cruiser; no Iowa, to be sure, but hardly a sitting duck. And the fact it has a much small compliment than Vanguard is always a plus.

As for the rolling seas of the South Atlantic, that's a problem; maybe a new postwar monitor isn't such a shallow draught design, or it's some kind of Barnes Wallis-engineered super-vessel that's built specifically to handle all blue water conditions and still be able to get in close to shore.

I also had to laugh at the prospect of moving Vanguard's guns yet again.

Serious question; apart from the desire to get as much value out of these guns, what's the RN's stockpile of 15inch ordnance like?

Is it possible that one of the rationales for building a single monitor is that, regardless of the prospect it'll be laid up in port for half the time, it still has something like a quarter century's worth of shells to fire off in regular peacetime service?