Just a little curious: how do you think Vanguard would have stood up against contemporary battleships? Particularly Bismarck and Tirpitz, but also French designs, such as Richelieu? I love Vanguard's lines, but she seems somewhat undergunned to me. She was supposedly modeled around the cancelled Lion class battleships, but those were going to have 9x16 inch guns, making them more on par with the Iowa class. I realize that war shortages forced the reuse of the old 15" British standard (thus leading to the nickname 'the battleship with her great aunt's teeth'), but, reasons aside, I wonder how should would have performed?

While her guns are a bit out of date nothing else was. I've read (on line so take it for what it's worth) that the British BBs were the only ones that carried jammers to take out opposing BBs fire control radars. If that's the case and given tha she'd have a very good radar suite she'd be up near the top in any battle that favored radar fire control. If you take crew quality into considration she rates even better compaired to the Germans as the British had a big pool of experianced high quality sailors. The German (and for that matter other axis) sailors may have been good material but they didn't get much sea time especially late in the war.

HMS Vanguard was not a contemporary of either Bismarck or Richelieu. Both those ships were mid-1930's designs, while Vanguard was designed in 1940, launched in 1944, but not commissioned until 1946. At a time when warship design was advancing rapidly due to actual war experience, five years represents an entire generation of evolution. Given that Vanguard received late war FC radar and directors, there would be little comparison with Bismarck's optical FC. The KM never trusted radar completely and did little to take advantage of it in any role. Further, Bismarck suffered from a number of design flaws which would have put her at a disadvantage relative to a modern BB like Vanguard.

Richelieu, however, compares well on paper to Vanguard in most areas, but again, her original FC was very probably inferior to Vanguard's. After Richelieu's refit in New York with up-to-date American FC equipment, Richelieu would have to be given a slight edge in FC, if only because of the USN's superior stable elements and FC computer. A match-up between Vanguard and Richelieu would be very close and the outcome would depend on which ship was more closely favored by the circumstances.....and by luck.


II don't think that is quite correct. Several American BB's and cruisers carried various types of radar jamming gear by war's end employed operational techniques to minimize enemy radar jamming effectiveness. In any case, radar jamming wouldn't be very effective against Bismarck's FC which did not rely on radar. Vanguard would still have a significant edge over Bismarck in almost every area, if only because Vanguard was a much later design than Bismarck.

"Although German radar development was very promising in its early stages it was quickly overtaken by allied technology. One major reason for this was that the German Navy, which was the most conservative of the three services, did not realize the full potential of active radar, leaving the Allies in a favorable position to force the pace of the microwave war. The German Navy had decided that radar transmissions would provide a source from which an enemy could obtain a 'fix' on a ship's position, in the same way that direction-finders could be used to obtain a 'fix' on the source of a radio transmission. Extensive use of radar was therefore discouraged, a decision reinforced by the German belief in the superiority of their optical equipment. It is significant that young officers were taught absolutely nothing about radar and had to learn from scratch about the complex microwave war while on active service, in conditions where any fault could be fatal. It was not until March 1945 that German Naval Command issued Tactical order No 10 entitled Instruction for use of radar aboard surface units.


Thus the story of German naval radar in surface units is one of 'too lates'. The other services, especially the Luftwaffe, the Flak (AA) troops and even coast defense artillery, employed radar skillfully and extensively, while the Navy was tardy in proving information and training in new technology.


Knowledge of high-frequency radio emissions was therefore limited and the quality of the radar aboard German ships depended substantially on the personnel interest of the responsible radio officer. Only a few of these were electronic experts, by virtue of being enthusiastic, and even fewer had good contacts in the electronic industry, thus reducing their chances of improving sets in service. It is not surprising therefore that, under the rough conditions aboard a ship, the sensitive electronic equipment soon deteriorated and became faulty. Many surface units did not have their radar equipment recalibrated during the long periods of their careers! Thus sets became so unreliable that the commander refused to use them - an easy decision, when asked to hold strict radar silence whenever possible."

Articles - German Naval Radar - Part 10, Conclusion and Bibliography

I wonder if ships like her should still roam the sea! Not as battleships but as reminders of the losses occured on each side by weapons such as her. I love what Admiral Lee said regarding the Battleship days ending:
" We may be seeing the rise and fall of the battleship era and the begining of the new carrier and fastship era but like we to our grandfathers, must remember that they came first and that they lead us to this point."

One of my favorite quotes.

Damned expensive reminders!

Vanguard was quite a nice design. Her broadside was 10% heavier than Bismarck's, so I don't see her as too weakly armed.
She had RPC for turret training, though not for elevation. Richelieu and Bismarck also had partial RPC, but neither system worked very well.
Vanguard had quite a lot of her hull within her armor. Protection for the main battery was not so great, but certainly better than Bismarck's.
Her major weakness may have been her modest range. And I'm still not happy with her torpedo defenses.

Well that seems to be a re - accuring theme in Allied ship construction. For example British carriers had little to no torpedo defence! Also look at there anti - bomb defences such as HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse.

And as for the comment "Damned expensive reminders" nothing is too expensive when it comes to holding our past well into the future. Look at what the city of Fall River, Massecheusets did to the USS Massecheusets. They have her as a memorial. That is an honor for a ship that has served its time in battle now it can serve its time as a keep sake!

Ark Royal famously sank after a single torpedo hit. She did have a torpedo defense system, but its limitations were not the fatal flaw for her. There were indeed limitations; the system wasn't terribly deep, and it extended upward only to around the bottom edge of the belt. But she should have survived her torpedo hit. The problem was an oversight in watertightness around the uptakes, in conjuction with insufficient damage control assets.
The RN seems to have made fundamental errors is their testing of underwater protection. From memory, they grossly miscalculated the proper scaling for their caisson tests and never noticed until cooperation with the Americans brought the problem to light. I believe the KGV class had a TDS only 13 feet deep. KGV's American counterpart, North Carolina, had a system 18.5 feet deep. Vanguard had 15 feet.
Deck protection in the KGVs was not bad, and PoW didn't show especial vulnerability to bombs. Repulse was never well armored, but that's a given.

Yeah, well the USS Massachusetts isn't "...still roam[ing] the sea! Not as battleships but as reminders of the losses occured on each side by weapons such as her." And it's not tax dollars that support her. It's one thing to establish a museum ship that's non-operational and supported by public (voluntary) donations, quite another to fund operation of an expensive beast like a battleship just out of nostalgia.

Well yes I guess I should have thought of that one but still maybe having one still out there would be incredible for sombody like me to see. I have heard stories from my Grand - Father who served in the RN on corvettes and he said that " Nothing is a more awsome and aw - inspiring sight than a battleship on the waves" He loved the so I just wanted to see what he loved in them!

Sorry I forgot that Massachusetts was publicly funded and not taxe funded! Should have remembered!

__________________
Kyle Plumadore
"If you say to me; "Your mother wears army boots and boxer shorts" I will casually respond; "She does not wear army boots"!

Well, I can understand that, but you have to remember battleships weren't just beautiful and awe-inspiring, they were bloody expensive to maintain and run. Unless you're a billionaire, you can probably forget about ever seeing them in their natural environment again.

My father served as a naval aviator flying SBD's off carriers in the Pacific during WW II. He got to see battleships from time to time, and loved to see them at sea. He even bombed a few during his time. He once told me they made the biggest, most beautiful, targets he ever saw; he loved them, too.

I know I guess as an 18yrs old I dont look at the financial aspect sorry!
But regardless it would be pretty cool to see one! My Grand - Father told me about how much he loved seeing the Iowa class BB. After the war he was made First Lieutenant on HMCS Ontario (one of Canada's only 2 cruisers) and during a tour to a US Port he saw I believe New Jersey is the one he saw. well I must salute you Americans you sure can build good looking, hard hitting, heavy fighting ships! We canucks could sure take some lessons.

__________________
Kyle Plumadore
"If you say to me; "Your mother wears army boots and boxer shorts" I will casually respond; "She does not wear army boots"!

i own a lovely picture in black and white titled;H.M.S Vanguard in devonport drydock.what a lovely ship.

__________________
"I must have been keen on her,I took her to see INDIA...AT THE OVAL.". thankyou all,4th wilts.

LOL! Wait until you've paid a few tax bills, remembering the financial aspects of naval vessels will become second nature!

But thanks for the complement on American naval ships. I believe beautiful is as beautiful does when it comes to ships. Even the dumpy-looking old flattops had a certain majesty about them, and they got the job done.

If you ever get out to Honolulu, you would be able to see, and go aboard, the Missouri as she is berthed at Pearl Harbor, not far from the Arizona memorial. I've been there, and she is beautiful even when she is stationary.

Attached is a picture of all four Iowas on the only occasion they were all together.

Attached Images

All_Four_Iowas.jpg (72.1 KB, 26 views)

Thanks wonderful pic!

I will understand your taxe reference because I HAVE to pay income taxe this year. So hopfully my young way of looking at expences will go right the hell out of my mind! LOL!

Well I will try to make it to Honolulu somtime but no guaranties!

Well talk to y'all later! EH!

__________________
Kyle Plumadore
"If you say to me; "Your mother wears army boots and boxer shorts" I will casually respond; "She does not wear army boots"!

The US has several BB scattered around the country as museum ships. Probably a lot closer than Hawaii for you but not offering the other amenities.

If any body could get me more info on that fact I would much appreciate it! Canada never had Battleships so I cant see one up north

__________________
Kyle Plumadore
"If you say to me; "Your mother wears army boots and boxer shorts" I will casually respond; "She does not wear army boots"!

Check out this list. No CVs but just about all the others.
Surviving "All Gun" Warships

the closest one to your location may be the USS Massachusetts located at Fall River MA

__________________
"Don't one of you fire until you see the whites of their eyes! Powder is scarce and must not be wasted. Fire low! You are all marksmen and could kill a squirrel at a hundred yards. Reserve your fire and the enemy will all be destroyed! - Israel Putnam, at the Battle of Bunker Hill, 1775
"War is a conflict of great interests which is settled by bloodshed, and only in that is it different from others." - Karl von Clausewitz

Didn't see this one

H. M. C. S. S a c k v i l l e

This one was there

HMCS HAIDA - Intro

__________________
Remembrance Day Canada
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le6jXwD3h-o

Highway of Heros
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1R8qLAmkLU

I believe the Vanguard would have been equal to the German BBs, but the British experience of firing large caliber weapons from moving vessels would give them the advantage over the French.

US naval vessels of the period were better equipped jammer wise. Cruisers and larger all carried a range of various radar and electronics jamming equipment along with an extensive ESM suite. In the British case this was hit and miss depending on the ship and its location.
While the Vanguard was an improvement on the KGV she still had some of that class' weaknesses, particularly the torpedo defense system.
Aganist the Bismarck or Tirpitz Vanguard would have faired pretty well even with the outdated main battery she carried. Against the French Richelieu class this would have been a tougher call, particularly after being refitted in the US as they were.

Are you certain about that?

Yes. Most US ships, including destroyers, destroyer escorts, and submarines had both ESM and in some cases ECM suites aboard by late 1944. These include:

ESM:
AS-56/SPR-1
AS-57/SPR-1
SPR-2
SPR-3
SPR-4
DAQ
DBM
DBU
AS-45/APR-6
BLR-1

ECM
SPT-1
SPT-2
SPT-3
SPT-4
SPT-5
SPT-6
SPT-7
TDY
SLT-1
SPQ-1

Typically, a larger US ship would have several of the ECM sets aboard to cover a range of frequencies expected to be encountered. The antennas are typically on one or both masts and relatively small.
In addition, one or more jammers (TDY was prefered) would be installed. These were usually deck edge or on small outriggers near the deck clear of the side of the ship to allow better performance. Some might be mast mounted with dual antennas pointing one to each side.
The exact suite would vary depending on where the ship was deployed and the expected opposition. For instance, the jammers in Europe would be chosen to jam German radar and also to jam guided weapons transmissions. In the Pacific the jammers were chosen to cover Japanese radar frequencies.
ESM sets were more common and widespread than jammers. Usually only larger ships or those specifically in high risk areas for things like German guided bomb attacks got jammers.
Most submarines also had an ESM suite to extend their detection range and allow them adequite time to submerge or, analyze signals to determine if they had been detected and if not, avoid detection.

What about the British equipment?