What if Vanguard was armed with the turrets from the Nelson/Rodney duo. Could she have supported 4 triple 16" turrets? I know she was obselete on
commissioning but would it be feasible?
0 Kudo
HMS Vanguard what if...
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Sink them All |
HMS Vanguard what if... |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 15 (27-Sep-2007 03:38:15) |
|
||
|
dunmunro1 |
|||
|
Posts: 1169 (27-Sep-2007 06:35:25) |
Certainly Vanguard could have supported 9 x 16", which would have been a better fit with a modern BB.
|
||
|
dmilford |
|||
|
Posts: 1908 (27-Sep-2007 09:38:10) |
Were there any opponents for which 8 x 15inch would have been inadequate but 9 x (British) 16 inch would have been good enough?
Your Text Signature ...
|
||
|
dunmunro1 |
|||
|
Posts: 1170 (27-Sep-2007 10:09:29) |
A 3 turret arrangement would have saved enough weight to have given Vanguard more speed, or more armour, or some combination of both.
|
||
|
Getz |
|||
|
Posts: 262 (27-Sep-2007 10:25:36) |
But there were no spare 16" triple mounts kicking about waiting to be used up, so...
|
||
|
Throd |
|||
|
Posts: 382 (28-Sep-2007 00:51:08) |
Even if they decided to scrap the NelRods early I don't think that they could have fitted four 3 x 16" to the Vanguard without grossly increasing
it's size. According to the data on this site the four 2 x 15" on Vanguard weighed 3400 tons, whereas four 3 x 16" would have weighed 5900 tons,
and that is only the revolving weight. Add in barbettes and ammo and you are talking about a very big increase in weight.
Alternativelyy given the relative shell weights and rate of fire of the 15" and 16" they would probably be better off with 8 x 15" instead of 9 x 16". |
||
|
dunmunro1 |
|||
|
Posts: 1171 (28-Sep-2007 01:53:45) |
What would you rather have:
The historical Vanguard or, A 9 x 16" Vanguard with 180K SHP and 32+ knots at deep displacement, with the same armour? A 9 x 16" Vanguard with 150K SHP and 31+ knots at deep displacement, with more armour? Rodney was placed in reserve in Dec 1944, but it was quite apparent before then, that she was worn out. |
||
|
Throd |
|||
|
Posts: 383 (28-Sep-2007 02:10:10) |
Was a 32+ knot Vanguard of that much more use? Apparently they frequently damaged the existing one because the flared bow encouraged the crew to overspeed in
heavy weather. Would a 9 x 16" Vanguard be much more heavily armoured without increasing weight-apart from the main turrets of course? The fitting of the
alternate guns would increase it's displacement by at least 2,000 tons and that had to come from somewhere. If the RoF is taken as 2 per min vs 1.5 per min
as is usually accepted then the as built Vanguard delivered more weight over a given time period.
|
||
|
P3D |
|||
|
Posts: 523 (28-Sep-2007 02:13:50) |
Why not build the Lion design, but with Rodney's turrets?
Or... ask the US a few of their old (or new) 16"/50s lying around. |
||
|
NewGolconda |
|||
|
Posts: 2724 (28-Sep-2007 02:32:55) Commonwealth Moderator |
"Apparently they frequently damaged the existing one because the flared bow encouraged the crew to overspeed in heavy weather. "
Source? I think a Vanguard re using the 16in/45 triple would be a better ship, and would probably include another inch of belt armour over the historic vessel, as well as avoiding the need to rebuild the 15in mountings, a not inconsiderable undertaking.
In perfect hindsight the Rodney mountings would be available after 1943.
Of course in perfect hindsight it would have been far better to cancel the ship completely, and a Dido, and build two additional fleet carriers.
Of course in hindsight, the only way the FAA could field competitive air groups was to beg the planes from the US.
Of course the only way the RN could support task forces of fast carriers at any distance from base was to beg for logistic support from the US. They even asked to build fast tankers and support ships in 1942, but had insufficient capacity after merchant ship builds, escorts, amphibious craft etc.
Of course Britain was bankrupt after 1940, so they only way they could even survive at all was US credit.
Perhaps in hindsight they should have just cancelled everything, and produced MG convertibles for sale in California.
Last Edited By: NewGolconda
28-Sep-2007 02:42:20.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Throd |
|||
|
Posts: 385 (28-Sep-2007 16:50:51) |
I don't remember where I read about the overspeeding of Vanguard, perhaps someone else knows, but I definitely read it somewhere. On reflection I agree about the extra armour on a same speed Vanguard - I underestimated the savings of a shorter citadel. Comes of posting after 1 am. The only use I can see for a 32+ knot Vanguard is helping the USN escort their fast carrier fleet in the Pacific. Then however we have the problem of what
sort of Vanguard we can build in time to be of use. I am sure the actual Vanguard could be of use but if we built it too early then it might merely end up as
an 8 x15" KGV and our colonial allies would complain, with some justification, that its inadequate AA meant it was another ship that needed protecting.
|
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
