Questions on Royal Navy

[Kingfish]

[hijack my own thread] Assume HMS Vanguard survived into the 80's much like the Iowas - mothballed but operational - and Argentina decided to invade the Fauklands anyway.

How would she be employed, if at all?

How would Argentina respond?

What affect would she have on particular battles (Goose green, Wireless ridge, etc) and the campaign as a whole?[/hijack my own thread]

[JonS]

Given that the Flaklands was British territory, I'd imagine they'd have been a bit reluctant to use Vangard for much in the way of NGS, although on the ridges it might have been useful.

I would imnagine something more like a piquet and blockship. The exocets lit up the aluminium frigates and destroyers quite nicely, but I'd imagine they would have a bit more trouble with the heavy armour of a full-on BB. Also, the AA fitout would likely have been a bit problematic for the Argentine Air Force.

[ March 01, 2006, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[JonS]

Given that the Flaklands was British territory, I'd imagine they'd have been a bit reluctant to use Vangard for much in the way of NGS, although on the ridges it might have been useful.

I would imnagine something more like a piquet and blockship. The exocets lit up the aluminium frigates and destroyers quite nicely, but I'd imagine they would have a bit more trouble with the heavy armour of a full-on BB. Also, the AA fitout would likely have been a bit problematic for the Argentine Air Force.

[ March 01, 2006, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[The_Enigma]

Blowin the crap outter there fleet would have been another good use for him?

About the treaty: Was there anything stopping anyone who didnt join from making ships over the treaty limit?

Armed with guns and more armour then the treay allowed?

[The_Enigma]

Blowin the crap outter there fleet would have been another good use for him?

About the treaty: Was there anything stopping anyone who didnt join from making ships over the treaty limit?

Armed with guns and more armour then the treay allowed?

[JonS]

Originally posted by the_enigma:

About the treaty: Was there anything stopping anyone who didnt join from making ships over the treaty limit?

Armed with guns and more armour then the treay allowed?

Nope. Nothing at all. Oh, except for Germany, who had some special restrictions. But that's the way it goes with international treaties - do what you can, when you can.

Still, I think the chances of any of the nations not a signatory to the Washington Treaty developing a BB fleet to rival the US and/or the UK during the 1920s was vanishingly small. I mean ... can you seriously name any contenders? I doubt the signatories could either.

[JonS]

Originally posted by the_enigma:

About the treaty: Was there anything stopping anyone who didnt join from making ships over the treaty limit?

Armed with guns and more armour then the treay allowed?

Nope. Nothing at all. Oh, except for Germany, who had some special restrictions. But that's the way it goes with international treaties - do what you can, when you can.

Still, I think the chances of any of the nations not a signatory to the Washington Treaty developing a BB fleet to rival the US and/or the UK during the 1920s was vanishingly small. I mean ... can you seriously name any contenders? I doubt the signatories could either.

[Other Means]

Interesting question with the Exocet vs HMS Vanguard. Exactly how much damage would one do? I can't imagine much.

[Other Means]

Interesting question with the Exocet vs HMS Vanguard. Exactly how much damage would one do? I can't imagine much.

[The_Enigma]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by the_enigma:

About the treaty: Was there anything stopping anyone who didnt join from making ships over the treaty limit?

Armed with guns and more armour then the treay allowed?

Nope. Nothing at all. Oh, except for Germany, who had some special restrictions. But that's the way it goes with international treaties - do what you can, when you can.

Still, I think the chances of any of the nations not a signatory to the Washington Treaty developing a BB fleet to rival the US and/or the UK during the 1920s was vanishingly small. I mean ... can you seriously name any contenders? I doubt the signatories could either. </font>

[The_Enigma]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by the_enigma:

About the treaty: Was there anything stopping anyone who didnt join from making ships over the treaty limit?

Armed with guns and more armour then the treay allowed?

Nope. Nothing at all. Oh, except for Germany, who had some special restrictions. But that's the way it goes with international treaties - do what you can, when you can.

Still, I think the chances of any of the nations not a signatory to the Washington Treaty developing a BB fleet to rival the US and/or the UK during the 1920s was vanishingly small. I mean ... can you seriously name any contenders? I doubt the signatories could either. </font>

[JonS]

Originally posted by the_enigma:

What i meant was, if one of the countires who had signed ... built a ship well over the treaty limits ... what would happen?

The way I see it, the treaty was basically a gentlemans agreement saying "if you behave like this, we'll behave like this". There were clear advantages for each of the signatories in maintaining that agreement, not the least being that they wouldn't have to fund a naval arms race similar to that before WWI. BBs were massively expensive tools of diplomacy, so expensive that other methods were seen as more desirable.

If some nation decided to breach that agreement the treaty would collapse, and the naval arms race would be on again. It would be up to individual nations to work out whether that was to their advantage before breaching the treaty. Essentially, could they build more ships faster than the other partys to the former treaty, and could they afford them. If not, then they would be better off maintaining the treaty.

or one which didnt

Who cares? They are outside the treaty, so the treaty would be unaffected, though I suppose the signatories might agree to slightly different limits to take the new circumstances into account.

But really, this goes back to my earlier point - can you name I mean ... can you seriously imagine any of the nations that were not a signatory to the Washington Treaty developing a BB fleet to rival the US and/or the UK during the 1920s? Aside from being massively expensive, BBs were also massively complex. The skills and infrastructure required to build one didn't just spring fully formed out of the ground. Even just building the large guns required a massive amount of infrastructure, experience and expertise.

Even if Bolivia or Liberia suddenly managed to somehow build a single uber-BB, how destabilising is that anyway? Answer: not at all, since there is no chance they would be able to build and maintain a fleet substantial enough to be worthwhile.

[JonS]

Originally posted by the_enigma:

What i meant was, if one of the countires who had signed ... built a ship well over the treaty limits ... what would happen?

The way I see it, the treaty was basically a gentlemans agreement saying "if you behave like this, we'll behave like this". There were clear advantages for each of the signatories in maintaining that agreement, not the least being that they wouldn't have to fund a naval arms race similar to that before WWI. BBs were massively expensive tools of diplomacy, so expensive that other methods were seen as more desirable.

If some nation decided to breach that agreement the treaty would collapse, and the naval arms race would be on again. It would be up to individual nations to work out whether that was to their advantage before breaching the treaty. Essentially, could they build more ships faster than the other partys to the former treaty, and could they afford them. If not, then they would be better off maintaining the treaty.

or one which didnt

Who cares? They are outside the treaty, so the treaty would be unaffected, though I suppose the signatories might agree to slightly different limits to take the new circumstances into account.

But really, this goes back to my earlier point - can you name I mean ... can you seriously imagine any of the nations that were not a signatory to the Washington Treaty developing a BB fleet to rival the US and/or the UK during the 1920s? Aside from being massively expensive, BBs were also massively complex. The skills and infrastructure required to build one didn't just spring fully formed out of the ground. Even just building the large guns required a massive amount of infrastructure, experience and expertise.

Even if Bolivia or Liberia suddenly managed to somehow build a single uber-BB, how destabilising is that anyway? Answer: not at all, since there is no chance they would be able to build and maintain a fleet substantial enough to be worthwhile.

[JasonC]

There is more than that involved, though. France could certainly build serious battleships, as could Italy. They were not initial signatories, but soon decided it was a good idea to join. Why? Because the UK and US were sitting at the same table deciding the balance of naval power in the world. If they weren't at that table, guess who the power of those giants would be aimed at?

[JasonC]

There is more than that involved, though. France could certainly build serious battleships, as could Italy. They were not initial signatories, but soon decided it was a good idea to join. Why? Because the UK and US were sitting at the same table deciding the balance of naval power in the world. If they weren't at that table, guess who the power of those giants would be aimed at?

[dieseltaylor]

JonS

Nah, sounds apocryphal to me. AFAIK, the Rodney and the Nelson were the only ships that had their main batterys all forward of the bridge, and that was because of the Washington Treaty. And even then the C turret was mounted lower than the B turret, meaning that all three turrets can only be bought to bear broadside, which is the way it had been since well before Nelson's (the Admiral, not the ship) time.

I am not sure if you are implying that the guns could only fire broadsides? I had assumed that ships could fire forward without knowing it for a fact : ).perhaps blast effects are a possible reason.

Anyway with the C turret I had thought that you would yaw ,fire, and then straighten up until the turret was loaded again. This would of course also allow for blast effects to be shed away from the main superstructure.

[dieseltaylor]

JonS

Nah, sounds apocryphal to me. AFAIK, the Rodney and the Nelson were the only ships that had their main batterys all forward of the bridge, and that was because of the Washington Treaty. And even then the C turret was mounted lower than the B turret, meaning that all three turrets can only be bought to bear broadside, which is the way it had been since well before Nelson's (the Admiral, not the ship) time.

I am not sure if you are implying that the guns could only fire broadsides? I had assumed that ships could fire forward without knowing it for a fact : ).perhaps blast effects are a possible reason.

Anyway with the C turret I had thought that you would yaw ,fire, and then straighten up until the turret was loaded again. This would of course also allow for blast effects to be shed away from the main superstructure.

[Michael Emrys]

IIRC, there was another problem with the Rodney's, which was that prolonged firing of the main batteries caused the deck to buckle from the recoil. Evidently this was a design flaw that was never corrected.

BTW, the reason for grouping the main battery turrets all forward was to shorten the length of the armored belt and thus save weight, an important consideration under the Treaty.

The arcs of fire for the turrets were:

A=298°

B=330°

C=250°

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

IIRC, there was another problem with the Rodney's, which was that prolonged firing of the main batteries caused the deck to buckle from the recoil. Evidently this was a design flaw that was never corrected.

BTW, the reason for grouping the main battery turrets all forward was to shorten the length of the armored belt and thus save weight, an important consideration under the Treaty.

The arcs of fire for the turrets were:

A=298°

B=330°

C=250°

Michael

[JonS]

Michael, the 'Washington Treaty' link in my post above goes to a Nelson-class page which discusses the problems encountered with the particular layout of this class.

[JonS]

Michael, the 'Washington Treaty' link in my post above goes to a Nelson-class page which discusses the problems encountered with the particular layout of this class.

[The_Enigma]

Originally posted by JonS:

.... [/QB]

Well the soviets could of i supose... (they did manage to build a redicuoulsy sized tank force before the war didnt they .... 25000 tanks i read somewhere)

But as you said, say they did build a fleet of uber BB's it wouldnt really affect the countries which signed the treaty.

hypotetically, would such a creation just throw the treaty out the window and restart the arms race (think you did say that)?

[The_Enigma]

Originally posted by JonS:

.... [/QB]

Well the soviets could of i supose... (they did manage to build a redicuoulsy sized tank force before the war didnt they .... 25000 tanks i read somewhere)

But as you said, say they did build a fleet of uber BB's it wouldnt really affect the countries which signed the treaty.

hypotetically, would such a creation just throw the treaty out the window and restart the arms race (think you did say that)?

[Guest Mike]

The Sov's had a class of 16" gunned ships under construction at the start of WW2 - http://www.combinedfleet.com/fura****a/soviet_f.htm - note that only the 1st paragraph of hte commentary is historical - the remainder is "what if"

[Guest Mike]

The Sov's had a class of 16" gunned ships under construction at the start of WW2 - http://www.combinedfleet.com/fura****a/soviet_f.htm - note that only the 1st paragraph of hte commentary is historical - the remainder is "what if"