HMS Vanguard 1944-1960 - World Naval Ships Forums Archive (Page 5)

Naval History by Country :

ROYAL
NAVY

US
NAVY

GERMAN
NAVY

FRENCH
NAVY

*VIEW ALL OF OUR CURRENT ART SPECIAL OFFERS ON ONE PAGE HERE*
NAVAL ART	AVIATION ART	MILITARY ART	SPORT ART

ALWAYS GREAT OFFERS :

20% FURTHER PRICE REDUCTIONS ON HUNDREDS OF LIMITED EDITION ART PRINTS

BUY ONE GET ONE HALF PRICE ON THOUSANDS OF PAINTINGS AND PRINTS

FOR MORE OFFERS SIGN UP TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

HMS Vanguard 1944-1960 - World Naval Ships Forums Archive (Page 5)

HMS Vanguard 1944-1960 (Page 5)

Posts 201 to 250

[QUOTE=astraltrader;10019842]Thanks Keith and Don. Although I had not considered this before I think you are both correct in that Vanguard's appearance does indicate an American influence. This observation merely reminds me how much use and value the USN got out of her 4 Iowa's whilst the RN of course put her last ever Battleship to great use as a ..........Royal Yacht. :([/QUOTE] Can I play devils advocate? I agree with Don,I think she was the most beautiful of battleships,she had grace,speed and a trusted main armament.If she had been in the US Navy I'm sure that she would have been in reserve and called back to service.Unfortunately given the financial circumstances and manpower requirements the RN had to make tough decisions.If given the choice would you rather have say ,HMS Victorious with her modern air group or a battleship? I wish that she had been held in reserve,mothballed and brought back into commission when needed...But I think that the UK's finances where such that the admiralty were having to jump through hoops just to keep the carriers around at a time when the ASW was the big concern and the "atomic" sub was going to be the next big thing. I suppose that it may have been possible to have kept the great ship a little longer if say a couple of cruisers had gone instead,but what would you do with her? My understanding is that the Iowa's were brought back and modernised to fulfil Reagans idea of a 600 ship navy,also if you want to "show the flag" I doubt that any warship was better at doing it than a battleship. As for the RN? Well,I remember reading an excellent book that linked the power of the RN to the strength of the economy.HMS Vanguard (for me) would have to take deference to the carrier force or Polaris or the ASW fleet. I wish that she was still in Portsmouth (though not tied up outside the "Still and West"!) as a museum ship.I curse the fact that I was born before an age where I could see the majestic beauty of a dreadnought .But I can understand why the RN called it a day. I bow to the knowledge and experience of others,but hey thats my contribution,feel free to shoot me down,its the only way Ill learn! Regards Virtualf

[QUOTE=VirtualF;10019912]Can I play devils advocate? I agree with Don,I think she was the most beautiful of battleships,she had grace,speed and a trusted main armament.If she had been in the US Navy I'm sure that she would have been in reserve and called back to service.Unfortunately given the financial circumstances and manpower requirements the RN had to make tough decisions.If given the choice would you rather have say ,HMS Victorious with her modern air group or a battleship? I wish that she had been held in reserve,mothballed and brought back into commission when needed...But I think that the UK's finances where such that the admiralty were having to jump through hoops just to keep the carriers around at a time when the ASW was the big concern and the "atomic" sub was going to be the next big thing. I suppose that it may have been possible to have kept the great ship a little longer if say a couple of cruisers had gone instead,but what would you do with her? My understanding is that the Iowa's were brought back and modernised to fulfil Reagans idea of a 600 ship navy,also if you want to "show the flag" I doubt that any warship was better at doing it than a battleship. As for the RN? Well,I remember reading an excellent book that linked the power of the RN to the strength of the economy.HMS Vanguard (for me) would have to take deference to the carrier force or Polaris or the ASW fleet. I wish that she was still in Portsmouth (though not tied up outside the "Still and West"!) as a museum ship.I curse the fact that I was born before an age where I could see the majestic beauty of a dreadnought .But I can understand why the RN called it a day. I bow to the knowledge and experience of others,but hey thats my contribution,feel free to shoot me down,its the only way Ill learn! Regards Virtualf[/QUOTE] Well Ok, Let's play devils advocate. First let me say that as an American I have the greatest respect for England and the Royal Navy so please believe my crititsizm is not meant as a sign of disrespect. It so happens I believe that the Vanguard should never have been scrapped and to do so was a craven act. I have heard all the arguments from that the RN had to conserve funds to the no mission for such a ship in the atomic age. Well, governments either "pony up" the money or become 2nd rate powers. I feel it was imperative for Great Brittian as a maritime nation and bulwark of NATO to keep a strong fleet in being during the cold war. Frankly I would not only have kept Vanguard but also the KGV class (and several crusiers too!). I would have supported the rearming of the KGV's with the famous 15/42 so that all used the same main gun. While trying to support the empire with less and less secure assets I as an American feel it was imperative for the RN to have those ships which could "show the flag". Now I realize that in the so called Atomic Age (1950's) such ships were considered obsolete but then frankly by that reasoning ALL surface ships would be obsolete. An argument that becomes moot for any conflict short of Nucular war. I have also heard the argument that somehow the Vanguard was inferior because her main guns were ONLY 15/42's instead of the 16 in gun. Excuse me, but would YOU want to be on the recieving end of a 15/42 calling card? This argument reminds me of the American debate of the 16/45 in the North Carolina vs the 16/50 of the Iowa's. Well, it just so happens that the 16/45 of the North Carolina was designed to use the later "heavy" 2700 lb. shell of the Iowa's. Ask the Japanese survivors of the shelling on Iwo Jima or other islands in the pacific if they "noticed" the difference in the shells. HMS Vanguard was a beautiful, modern ship with quite an effective main armament, good speed and seakeeping abilities. To this day pictures of her demise infuriate me, for it signaled not just the end of an age but the final demise of the British Empire as a leading world power. A demise that started with the Labour Gov't of 1945 and the mass scrapping of the fleet. Sorry fella's it just the way I feel.

Re Cadillac811's post, first of all I should say that on this forum "shooting someone down" is never an object of any post! Back when I was a newbie, and that wasn't long ago, everyone on the forum would engage in lively discussion, true, but never with the aim of shooting down another's opinion and always with a kind eye toward sharing knowledge and forging friendships. This is one of the most respectful and "adult" of forums in that respect, due in large part to the 'founding fathers" on the forum, who have guided us all. As to the retention of battleships et al, for Britain the bitter pill of post-war retrenchment was probably worse for the RN and the nation than the lot of may nations post war. Great Britain had, in essence, given up the treasures of empire to preserve itself and it's free and democratic government not once, but twice in the same century. This not only preserved the nation but much of the free world as well. The price was enormously heavy and the effects long-lasting. The dollars (oops! pounds!) were just not there any more and the choices were hard -- the navy had to stay modern and capable of dealing with the Soviet threat. Battleships could not do that, unfortunately. And in the United States, one must remember that those four Iowa's were in reserve far longer than they were active, and were lucky indeed to survive long enough to be revitalized in the 80s and even then their lifespan was short in active service and they were finally discarded. Six other modern battleships never made it that far and were quickly disposed of post war either to the scrap pile or as memorials, even though they had the excellent guns ideal for shore bombardment. Vanguard, sadly, was a victim of time, and hers was all too short.

I recall reading that even during her too brief active life only 2 of her 4 turrets were manned and operational (?). If I'm remembering correctly, that gave her the same armament as the Jean Bart which only had Turret II (4 15") manned and operational, but they both LOOKED impressive! DFO :D

[QUOTE=Don Boyer;10019927]Re Cadillac811's post, first of all I should say that on this forum "shooting someone down" is never an object of any post! Back when I was a newbie, and that wasn't long ago, everyone on the forum would engage in lively discussion, true, but never with the aim of shooting down another's opinion and always with a kind eye toward sharing knowledge and forging friendships. This is one of the most respectful and "adult" of forums in that respect, due in large part to the 'founding fathers" on the forum, who have guided us all. As to the retention of battleships et al, for Britain the bitter pill of post-war retrenchment was probably worse for the RN and the nation than the lot of may nations post war. Great Britain had, in essence, given up the treasures of empire to preserve itself and it's free and democratic government not once, but twice in the same century. This not only preserved the nation but much of the free world as well. The price was enormously heavy and the effects long-lasting. The dollars (oops! pounds!) were just not there any more and the choices were hard -- the navy had to stay modern and capable of dealing with the Soviet threat. Battleships could not do that, unfortunately. And in the United States, one must remember that those four Iowa's were in reserve far longer than they were active, and were lucky indeed to survive long enough to be revitalized in the 80s and even then their lifespan was short in active service and they were finally discarded. Six other modern battleships never made it that far and were quickly disposed of post war either to the scrap pile or as memorials, even though they had the excellent guns ideal for shore bombardment. Vanguard, sadly, was a victim of time, and hers was all too short.[/QUOTE] Dear Don, re your post #194. It was never my intention to shoot down any other members opinion. On the contrary I fully admit that Virtual F makes some very important points, it's just that I don't necessarly agree with all of them. Some yes, but not all. If my language was somewhat strident it was really directed at those in Government who expect good men and women to do more with less and sometimes all with nothing! We all have opinion's on all things. Wepons, type of ship, use , ect. I've never been happy with the US Navy's view in the 50's that the Battleship was passe'. After all, although times change, a well balanced fleet should have all types of ships to perform its missions. I just feel that this would have been a better world for everyone, America included if the Royal Navy had been stronger since 1945.

[QUOTE=cadillac811;10019923]Well Ok, Let's play devils advocate. First let me say that as an American I have the greatest respect for England and the Royal Navy so please believe my crititsizm is not meant as a sign of disrespect. It so happens I believe that the Vanguard should never have been scrapped and to do so was a craven act. I have heard all the arguments from that the RN had to conserve funds to the no mission for such a ship in the atomic age. Well, governments either "pony up" the money or become 2nd rate powers. I feel it was imperative for Great Brittian as a maritime nation and bulwark of NATO to keep a strong fleet in being during the cold war. Frankly I would not only have kept Vanguard but also the KGV class (and several crusiers too!). I would have supported the rearming of the KGV's with the famous 15/42 so that all used the same main gun. While trying to support the empire with less and less secure assets I as an American feel it was imperative for the RN to have those ships which could "show the flag". Now I realize that in the so called Atomic Age (1950's) such ships were considered obsolete but then frankly by that reasoning ALL surface ships would be obsolete. An argument that becomes moot for any conflict short of Nucular war. I have also heard the argument that somehow the Vanguard was inferior because her main guns were ONLY 15/42's instead of the 16 in gun. Excuse me, but would YOU want to be on the recieving end of a 15/42 calling card? This argument reminds me of the American debate of the 16/45 in the North Carolina vs the 16/50 of the Iowa's. Well, it just so happens that the 16/45 of the North Carolina was designed to use the later "heavy" 2700 lb. shell of the Iowa's. Ask the Japanese survivors of the shelling on Iwo Jima or other islands in the pacific if they "noticed" the difference in the shells. HMS Vanguard was a beautiful, modern ship with quite an effective main armament, good speed and seakeeping abilities. To this day pictures of her demise infuriate me, for it signaled not just the end of an age but the final demise of the British Empire as a leading world power. A demise that started with the Labour Gov't of 1945 and the mass scrapping of the fleet. Sorry fella's it just the way I feel.[/QUOTE] The UK was bankrupt in 1945,its industrial base was worn out,its railways were worn out,many of its cities were in ruins and a vast swathe of housing stock had been lost.This wasn't the UK of 1918,the effort of 6 years of warfare had took us up and beyond the limit.The empire would be dissolved,India would gain independence and our status as a first rate power would come to the end.Our time at the top had come to an end and remember it was the British people who voted for the Labour government as they wished for change,they did not want a repeat of the 20's where the long awaited "land fit for heroes" never appeared.This was the world that the RN had to adapt to in the immediate post war.Many warships were scrapped,many of them were old and worn out after 6 years of hard service,many were laid up. The choice the RN was simple,they had to use the money available to formulate a fleet that best suited its needs.The USN had no such problem,the US were super rich and a superpower,they could afford carriers,battleships,cruisers and a host of destroyers,they could afford a huge strategic bomber force and swarms of jet fighters.They could even afford to lay up a vast amount of ships for reactivation when needed.Britain simply could not afford to do this,as much as any Prime Minister would have liked to,there was always compromise and inter service rivalry between the services over limited funds.The funds were limited because the UK's economy was still struggling. My comments in regards to HMS Vanguard ,was not a slight on the battleship,but an observation that the RN had to make choices.The RN needed modern carriers,with modern aircraft. For flexibility and power projection I would rather have HMS Victorious "East of Suez" than HMS Vanguard.Nobody would want to be on the receiving end of a 15inch shell,but just how many coastal bombardments would HMS Vanguard be undertaking? In the cold war the RN's big fear was the Russian submarine force,hence the large number of ASW ships built and conversions undertaken,how is HMS Vanguard going to help there. Im sure that if the RN could afford the carriers,cruisers,escorts,missiles,guns and nuclear subs she wanted they may have kept the KGV's and Vanguard longer.The point is that they couldn't and had to make hard choices in response to acts of parliament from both of the political parties when in government to maintain the required levels of capability. The US where in a position where they could afford to pretty much everything they wanted (within reason) and could afford to run the magnificent Iowas. Britain couldn't.We won the battle for survival,but it came at a high cost as Don has pointed out. Regards VF

Cadillac Dude: Wan't my intent to suggest YOU shooting someone down, I was saying that sort of thing doesn't happen on this forum, just so you wouldn't feel that you might be on the receiving end! :) Of course "lively discussion" is the rule of the day! Regards,

[QUOTE=Don Boyer;10019700]I checked every Iowa class picture I have showing the turrets firing -- nine gun, three guns, six guns-- in no case could I see any evidence of an off side shock wave, mainly because the ship's wake on that side seems to mask anything else and unfortunately the shots at low ship speed were all taken from the firing side. Your photo must be unique![/QUOTE] Don, Apologies for delay in responding. I can admit to being somewhat convinced that the ship would not 'step out' or go off course as a consequence of a broadside shoot. However, if we revert to the scenario I posed and following on from earlier posts, might it be possible that the shock/stresses placed on the deck structures would be directed towards the mid line of the ship, also downwards and perhaps at the keel the ocean would absorb any impact? Or is it the case that the recoil of these weapons is so well dampened that there is no effect on the ship structure what-so-ever? I wonder? Little h

[QUOTE=harry.gibbon;10020081]Don, Apologies for delay in responding. I can admit to being somewhat convinced that the ship would not 'step out' or go off course as a consequence of a broadside shoot. However, if we revert to the scenario I posed and following on from earlier posts, might it be possible that the shock/stresses placed on the deck structures would be directed towards the mid line of the ship, also downwards and perhaps at the keel the ocean would absorb any impact? Or is it the case that the recoil of these weapons is so well dampened that there is no effect on the ship structure what-so-ever? I wonder? Little h[/QUOTE] Got me on that one! I do remember hearing a story from an officer who did his midshipman's cruise aboard Iowa -- he had a cabin near Turret Two, and when it fired, it would shear rivets upon occasion! Of course those would have been the small aluminum divider rivets, not ship's structural ones -- still that would probably wake you right up! Regards,

[QUOTE=VirtualF;10020025]The UK was bankrupt in 1945,its industrial base was worn out,its railways were worn out,many of its cities were in ruins and a vast swathe of housing stock had been lost.This wasn't the UK of 1918,the effort of 6 years of warfare had took us up and beyond the limit.The empire would be dissolved,India would gain independence and our status as a first rate power would come to the end.Our time at the top had come to an end and remember it was the British people who voted for the Labour government as they wished for change,they did not want a repeat of the 20's where the long awaited "land fit for heroes" never appeared.This was the world that the RN had to adapt to in the immediate post war.Many warships were scrapped,many of them were old and worn out after 6 years of hard service,many were laid up. The choice the RN was simple,they had to use the money available to formulate a fleet that best suited its needs.The USN had no such problem,the US were super rich and a superpower,they could afford carriers,battleships,cruisers and a host of destroyers,they could afford a huge strategic bomber force and swarms of jet fighters.They could even afford to lay up a vast amount of ships for reactivation when needed.Britain simply could not afford to do this,as much as any Prime Minister would have liked to,there was always compromise and inter service rivalry between the services over limited funds.The funds were limited because the UK's economy was still struggling. My comments in regards to HMS Vanguard ,was not a slight on the battleship,but an observation that the RN had to make choices.The RN needed modern carriers,with modern aircraft. For flexibility and power projection I would rather have HMS Victorious "East of Suez" than HMS Vanguard.Nobody would want to be on the receiving end of a 15inch shell,but just how many coastal bombardments would HMS Vanguard be undertaking? In the cold war the RN's big fear was the Russian submarine force,hence the large number of ASW ships built and conversions undertaken,how is HMS Vanguard going to help there. Im sure that if the RN could afford the carriers,cruisers,escorts,missiles,guns and nuclear subs she wanted they may have kept the KGV's and Vanguard longer.The point is that they couldn't and had to make hard choices in response to acts of parliament from both of the political parties when in government to maintain the required levels of capability. The US where in a position where they could afford to pretty much everything they wanted (within reason) and could afford to run the magnificent Iowas. Britain couldn't.We won the battle for survival,but it came at a high cost as Don has pointed out. Regards VF[/QUOTE] Dear VF, You are of course absolutley right in your argument, but in my heart as an amature historian I will always be heartsick that Great Britian was so financially devestated by 1945. Such brave people deserved better.

[QUOTE=Don Boyer;10020073]Cadillac Dude: Wan't my intent to suggest YOU shooting someone down, I was saying that sort of thing doesn't happen on this forum, just so you wouldn't feel that you might be on the receiving end! :) Of course "lively discussion" is the rule of the day! Regards,[/QUOTE] Dear Admiral, No problem. It will always be a pleasure and learning experience to take direction from someone with your years of service. Your view is based on an "inside" knowledge that can't be taught. It has to be experienced. My knowledge is based from afar. Although it wasn't for lack of trying. I tried to enlist during my younger days but was 4F. (Lucky for the Navy huh?) All the best, Cadillac811

[QUOTE=oldsalt;10006949]A great ship, she should have been saved, what an attraction she would be. I joined her at Portland for the purpose of obtaining an Auxiliary Watchkeepers Certificate. From Portland we went to Devonport & then (can't remember the sequence) to W. Scotland, Ballachulish, Loch Linnhe, Largs & then across to Bangor N.I. She was still a modern ship at that time, 1950, her accomodation & victualling superior , as I was to find out when I joined Wrangler before she was converted.[/QUOTE] Keith I remember that cruise very well, more out of boredom than anything else. It was out of boredom that four of us went ashore in Ballachulish, we walked for miles along a road without finding any civilisation only a monumnet to a "Stewart" I think who was murdered there. Then we found a tiny pub which only sold rough scrumpy from the barrel. I was still spitting out the pips a fortnight later. Went back there about five years ago and there are a lot more houses around now and also a visitors centre. But they are all sixty odd years too late, they missed the awesome sight of Vanguard anchored at Ballachulish. I remember what an impressive sight she was when we viewed her from ashore against the high rising ground at the back of her, I can still see her now. Ray H

[QUOTE=cadillac811;10020140]Dear Admiral, No problem. It will always be a pleasure and learning experience to take direction from someone with your years of service. Your view is based on an "inside" knowledge that can't be taught. It has to be experienced. My knowledge is based from afar. Although it wasn't for lack of trying. I tried to enlist during my younger days but was 4F. (Lucky for the Navy huh?) All the best, Cadillac811[/QUOTE] Thanks, Cadillac -- but Admiral rank here on the forum is an honorary related to the number of posts. Probably as well I was never an Admiral, or some of our brethern oveseas would be living in smoking ruins, if at all...my background is really 50 years of historical study and my naval career was six years in the USN and 17 years as a military brat! :) The lads here with decades in the Andrew are the true salts on this forum! Regards,

[QUOTE=Choppy Sea;10020176]Keith I remember that cruise very well, more out of boredom than anything else. It was out of boredom that four of us went ashore in Ballachulish, we walked for miles along a road without finding any civilisation only a monumnet to a "Stewart" I think who was murdered there. Then we found a tiny pub which only sold rough scrumpy from the barrel. I was still spitting out the pips a fortnight later. Went back there about five years ago and there are a lot more houses around now and also a visitors centre. But they are all sixty odd years too late, they missed the awesome sight of Vanguard anchored at Ballachulish. I remember what an impressive sight she was when we viewed her from ashore against the high rising ground at the back of her, I can still see her now. Ray H[/QUOTE] I forgot to mention that in 50 we were guard ship for the Royal Regatta at Cowes on the Isle of Wight. I'm sure I posted in a thread a picture of RMS Queen Mary passing us in the solent.

[QUOTE=oldsalt;10020279]I forgot to mention that in 50 we were guard ship for the Royal Regatta at Cowes on the Isle of Wight. I'm sure I posted in a thread a picture of RMS Queen Mary passing us in the solent.[/QUOTE] I have it in the back of my mind that the only highlight of this cruise was Torquay, cant remember if it was first or last port of call. Have you any recollections. I do remember the regatta at Cowes and also the Queen Mary passing us in the Solent, her guardrails were lined with passengers, no one had any doubts after that which was the bigger ship. Would really like to see that photo. Ray H

Just for you Ray.
Attachments :

[QUOTE=oldsalt;10020469]Just for you Ray.[/QUOTE] Thanks a million Keith, I have never seen this photo before. Ray H

[QUOTE=Choppy Sea;10020475]Thanks a million Keith, I have never seen this photo before. Ray H[/QUOTE] Photo is dated 1 August 1950 in Cowes Roads with QE outward bound from Southampton for Cherbourg & NY whilst VANGUARD was Cowes Guardship. Steve

You are right Steve Queen Mary had three funnels.

[QUOTE=oldsalt;10020555]You are right Steve Queen Mary had three funnels.[/QUOTE] Keith. it did cross my mind about the three funnels but didnt sink in. Might have something to do with age maybe. Ray H

what was the actual purpose of the vanguard? It seems to have been to go on cruises and be 'guardship' for royal regattas-why would a regatta be needed to 'guarded'-against what exactly? Vanguard was a handsome ship, but she was a mixture of pre world war 1 and 1930s technology.

[QUOTE=chris westwood;10020775]what was the actual purpose of the vanguard? It seems to have been to go on cruises and be 'guardship' for royal regattas-why would a regatta be needed to 'guarded'-against what exactly? Vanguard was a handsome ship, but she was a mixture of pre world war 1 and 1930s technology.[/QUOTE] Vanguard was a training ship for new entries who completed thier first three months sea training on board. One of her purposes that is. All fleets, when we had them went on cruises twice a year which was known as "showing the flag". Perhaps a guard ship in this instance could be described as a place of entertainment for nobility. I certainly dont agree with you about 1930s technology. Ray H.

[QUOTE=Choppy Sea;10020786]Vanguard was a training ship for new entries who completed thier first three months sea training on board. One of her purposes that is. All fleets, when we had them went on cruises twice a year which was known as "showing the flag". Perhaps a guard ship in this instance could be described as a place of entertainment for nobility. I certainly dont agree with you about 1930s technology. Ray H.[/QUOTE] apart from her homogeneous tertiary AA armament Vanguard was a mixture of pre first world war(15 inch main armament) and 1930s technology. To use a massive, expensive to run asset, in the way you say was outrageous: although it is difficult to see what other use such a white elephant could be used for. Presumably entertaining the 'nobility' wasn't done at the taspayers' expense. I seem to remember this was a period of austerity for the rest of the population.

[QUOTE=chris westwood;10020789]apart from her homogeneous tertiary AA armament Vanguard was a mixture of pre first world war(15 inch main armament) and 1930s technology. To use a massive, expensive to run asset, in the way you say was outrageous: although it is difficult to see what other use such a white elephant could be used for. Presumably entertaining the 'nobility' wasn't done at the taspayers' expense. I seem to remember this was a period of austerity for the rest of the population.[/QUOTE] Agree,fabulous looking warship,but at a time when money was short I can understand why she was decommissioned.I do feel that it was a crying shame that she wasn't preserved as a museum.At least we have HMS Belfast and hopefully at some point HMS Caroline.

[QUOTE=VirtualF;10020852]Agree,fabulous looking warship,but at a time when money was short I can understand why she was decommissioned.I do feel that it was a crying shame that she wasn't preserved as a museum.At least we have HMS Belfast and hopefully at some point HMS Caroline.[/QUOTE] I reckon the Caroline is an undervalued gem. The only military use the vanguard would have had was fire support, assuming her ancient main armament wasn't worn out. Yet she didn't take part in Korea-Belfast did, nor the Suez debacle.

[QUOTE=chris westwood;10020891]I reckon the Caroline is an undervalued gem. The only military use the vanguard would have had was fire support, assuming her ancient main armament wasn't worn out. Yet she didn't take part in Korea-Belfast did, nor the Suez debacle.[/QUOTE] Chris thats what Vanguard was built for, firepower, too late. What would you have done with a battleship still almost brand new at the time I was recalling.Or was she worn out as you suggest even though her main armament had only been fired once. Lets not forget that she also carried four twin turrets each side which I believe were 6. something. Would you have scrapped her on the stocks or what else would you have suggested. Ray H

[QUOTE=Choppy Sea;10020941]Chris thats what Vanguard was built for, firepower, too late. What would you have done with a battleship still almost brand new at the time I was recalling.Or was she worn out as you suggest even though her main armament had only been fired once. Lets not forget that she also carried four twin turrets each side which I believe were 6. something. Would you have scrapped her on the stocks or what else would you have suggested. Ray H[/QUOTE] but she was never used for it when opoortunities were there. She was an expensive anomaly and should have been cancelled, or scrapped before she entered service. I was referring to her main armament as being worn out. It dated from before world war one. Her secondary 5,25 inch dp armament wasn't the best design to start with, and was obsolete when she was launched. these weapons dated fromthe 1930s. The uses that posters have said that she was put to were outrageous.

[QUOTE=chris westwood;10020952]but she was never used for it when opoortunities were there. She was an expensive anomaly and should have been cancelled, or scrapped before she entered service. I was referring to her main armament as being worn out. It dated from before world war one. Her secondary 5,25 inch dp armament wasn't the best design to start with, and was obsolete when she was launched. these weapons dated fromthe 1930s. The uses that posters have said that she was put to were outrageous.[/QUOTE] Chris, carriers were used at Korea because they were more efficient than battleships and bombardment at Suez simply wasnt required, land based aircraft from Malta had already done thier work. Vanguards gunnery control was modern when she went into service, I understand that the main armament was manufactured for a first world war ship and never used and therefore were fitted on Vanguard. This does not mean that they came from a scrapyard and were worn out. Had she come into service before she did I have a feeling that surface raiders might very well have found out that they were not. As long as there was ammunition to fit it was the control system that counted everything depended on this. Speak to any matelot and he will tell you about outrageous things that he and his ship had to do. There is an old RN saying "bullshit baffles brains" the RN was very very good at it. Ray H

The training of men in seamanship, on a ship and not in a classroom would not be in the outrageous categary. She did this for a good many years or so I believe, Ray H

[QUOTE=chris westwood;10020775]what was the actual purpose of the vanguard? Vanguard was a handsome ship, but she was a mixture of pre world war 1 and 1930s technology.[/QUOTE] The twin 15" gun mountings fitted to Vanguard and others before her are regarded by many naval experts to be one of the most reliable, effecient and effective gun mountings ever to go to sea. By the time they had been fitted to Vanguard (from Glorious and Courageous), they had been further improved. And, her four twin turret arrangement is regarded as the optimum layout for good gunnery control. Her secondary armament of 5.25" mountings were of a different Mark# than those of KGV and Dido and were altogether faster mountings. It can also be argued that Vanguard was the best protected warship ever and had seakeeping qualities that were second to none. That Vanguard was a waste of time, money and resources should not be regarded as a negative reflection of her design attributes. She was arguably the last Royal Navy warship that could stand toe to toe with any of her foreign counterparts. Monty

While I would not argue that Vanguard was indeed a waste of time, money and resources the fact is as she was built and completed, it was a criminal waste that she was not made good use of. As the last and potentially the best of a long line of battleships the bare minimum use for her should have been at least 30-40 years of flying the flag for Britain during years when that was still of great importance plus combining many other useful roles not least of which would have been for training. Over the past half a century the navy in particular has a history of failing to make good use of the ships she possessed. Premature scrapping and/or selling off cheaply many fine ships has continued right up to and including this century. I accept much of the blame for this lies with our politicians but not by any means all of it....

[QUOTE=Choppy Sea;10020993]Chris, carriers were used at Korea because they were more efficient than battleships and bombardment at Suez simply wasnt required, land based aircraft from Malta had already done thier work. Vanguards gunnery control was modern when she went into service, I understand that the main armament was manufactured for a first world war ship and never used and therefore were fitted on Vanguard. This does not mean that they came from a scrapyard and were worn out. Had she come into service before she did I have a feeling that surface raiders might very well have found out that they were not. As long as there was ammunition to fit it was the control system that counted everything depended on this. Speak to any matelot and he will tell you about outrageous things that he and his ship had to do. There is an old RN saying "bullshit baffles brains" the RN was very very good at it. Ray H[/QUOTE] belfast was used in a fire support role as were us capital ships in Korea. I take your point regarding the good as new nature vanguard's main armament. These weapons were designed in 1912. Vanguard didn't come into service earlier becsuse her construction was a low priority, and surface raiders or the threat of them had minimised to during the early part of her construction.

[QUOTE=Choppy Sea;10020994]The training of men in seamanship, on a ship and not in a classroom would not be in the outrageous categary. She did this for a good many years or so I believe, Ray H[/QUOTE] the training of men in seamanship in a huge battleship with its attendant cost, and disproportionate use of experienced manpower was IMHO outrageous: but not, to be fair, as outrageous as her being used to entertain the 'nobility' at regattas.

[QUOTE=BCRenown;10021037]The twin 15" gun mountings fitted to Vanguard and others before her are regarded by many naval experts to be one of the most reliable, effecient and effective gun mountings ever to go to sea. By the time they had been fitted to Vanguard (from Glorious and Courageous), they had been further improved. And, her four twin turret arrangement is regarded as the optimum layout for good gunnery control. Her secondary armament of 5.25" mountings were of a different Mark# than those of KGV and Dido and were altogether faster mountings. It can also be argued that Vanguard was the best protected warship ever and had seakeeping qualities that were second to none. That Vanguard was a waste of time, money and resources should not be regarded as a negative reflection of her design attributes. She was arguably the last Royal Navy warship that could stand toe to toe with any of her foreign counterparts. Monty[/QUOTE] agreed but she didn't have any foreign couterparts except the Americans. Her ancient main armament notwithstanding, she was, as you say the ultimate in British battleship design.

[QUOTE=BCRenown;10021037]The twin 15" gun mountings fitted to Vanguard and others before her are regarded by many naval experts to be one of the most reliable, effecient and effective gun mountings ever to go to sea. By the time they had been fitted to Vanguard (from Glorious and Courageous), they had been further improved. And, her four twin turret arrangement is regarded as the optimum layout for good gunnery control. Her secondary armament of 5.25" mountings were of a different Mark# than those of KGV and Dido and were altogether faster mountings. It can also be argued that Vanguard was the best protected warship ever and had seakeeping qualities that were second to none. That Vanguard was a waste of time, money and resources should not be regarded as a negative reflection of her design attributes. She was arguably the last Royal Navy warship that could stand toe to toe with any of her foreign counterparts. Monty[/QUOTE] Agreed,she had a much better secondary armament than the KGV's and the Dido's... However,what they be used against? I wouldn't feel confident about using them against jet aircraft,so you would have to have a carrier in the group to provide protection.Other ships? Well yes,I'm sure that they would do the job,but if you have got a carrier in the group why would you need to? I can see that she could do a great job in providing shore bombardment,but how often would that opportunity arise? Then you have the issue around spares.How many 15 inch barrels were left by the mid 50's? Im sure that some would have been left over,but an awful lot were simply cut up when the Q.E's and Revenge class were scrapped,Id imagine that spares for the mountings themselves were not saved when those ships ware cut up.You then have to keep a core of men trained to actually use the things. It could end up being very expensive and seeing that just 6 years after her demise even the carrier force was for the chop with Dennis Healeys 1966 defence act impractical. She was a great ship which was unfortunately built too late,with her original perceived role becoming obsolete. Could they have re-armed her with 4.5's instead of her 5.25's,Seacat instead of Bofors?Even Seaslug replacing say, "X" and "Y" turrets?Quite possibly,but how cost effective would have been? The Counties carried all three of those system's. I love battleships,they are the reason I spend a fortune on naval books! But I just can't see what HMS Vanguard's role could have been given the circumstances at the time. regards Vf

There were still men serving in the RN in the late 60's & early 70's who knew how to operate the 15" guns. I recall talking to a Lt Cdr in the early 70's who told me that when the USN decided to re-activate NEW JERSEY for gunfire duties off Vietnam, there was no one still serving in the USN who knew how to operate the big 16" guns & turrets that she carried and so the RN sent over a group of men (Officers & Senior Rates) who could still remember how VANGUARD's guns & turrets operated and they helped to re-train the USN personnel in this. They even assisted in her gunnery trials firing the 16" guns on the gunnery range off Puerto Rico (I think) in 1968 before she went to Vietnam. Subsequently, I assume that these retrained USN gunners were available when the other 3 Iowa class ships were re-activated by Reagan in the 80's. Steve

Hi all. Hope you don't mind me posting this link. Its jaw droppingly brilliant.Ive seen many a picture of Vanguards demise on these boards,her final gesture of trying have a pint in the "Still and West" and many pictures of her being broken up. Ive never seen film of it though... Absolutely brilliant (but very sad) [url]http://battleshiphmsvanguard.homestead.com/DeathofaBattleship.html[/url]

Thanks VF I will give it a good watch over the weekend. :)

Pleasure Terry. I don't have any photographs (mores the pity) so I try and contribute by posting links that I have come across in my quest to expand my knowledge (wife not happy as means buying another bookshelf!) I will admit to being worried that I may have posted it in the wrong section,Royal Navy or photo gallery! Have to say I really enjoyed the film.Ive scoured British Pathe and seen many great films of HMS Vanguard,but nothing in colour.For some reason being in colour seemed to convey her size more (completely illogical I know!). Regards Matt

Hi Matt Thanks for posting that link. I never served on her but saw her a few times when I used to go to Pompey on holiday. Almost wish I hadn't watched it now, always sad to see a ship go like that. Mitch Hinde

One of the saddest films I have ever seen, my old home being treated in such a manner. One of my lasting memories, early 1950 coming up the fo'csle gangway & seeing that enormous deck overshadowed by the great guns.

[QUOTE=oldsalt;10049093]One of the saddest films I have ever seen, my old home being treated in such a manner. One of my lasting memories, early 1950 coming up the fo'csle gangway & seeing that enormous deck overshadowed by the great guns.[/QUOTE] I feel the same Kieth,like watching your old house been knocked down. Alan

I feel terrible now for finding it!

[QUOTE=VirtualF;10049103]I feel terrible now for finding it![/QUOTE] I think you should buy us ex Vanguards a large tot,Matt. Alan

Would a "virtual" tot suffice!? One thing which did me chuckle was the game of cricket underneath "A"turret.Did you see the batsman bat break off !

A very melancholy film. So sad to see a ship die. Steve

[QUOTE=astraltrader;10049870]Thanks SR - some good albeit sad pictures most of which I had not seen before. :)[/QUOTE] Terry, Most of the pics were taken from Neil McCart's book "HMS Vanguard 1944-1960 - Britains Last Battleship". Steve

One of the sadest films I have seen in a long time. What the devil were our British cousins thinking. Only 3 years before the KG V's had gone the same way. Not even to be left in mothballs. Imagine her at the Falklands providing gunfire support. Imagine her today as a museum. All for razor blades and refrigerators. Sad. Cadillac811 p.s. They should have put a case of Guiness on the bow when she went aground at the pub.

Guinness... yuck, should be a case of warm brown bitter.

Can anyone remember the signing off tune at lights-out at the end of record requests. Went something like:- Dream when you're feeling blue Dream that's the thing to do Dreams never are as bad as they seem So dream, dream, dream. I will always remember that tune. Ray H

Previous Posts

More Posts

Everything we obtain for this site is shown on the site, we do not have any more photos, crew lists or further information on any of the ships.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE. ALL IMAGES DISPLAYED ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW, AND ARE OWNED BY CRANSTON FINE ARTS OR THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS. NO REPRODUCTION OR COPYING ALLOWED ON OTHER WEBSITES, BOOKS OR ARTICLES WITHOUT PRIOR AGREEMENT.

Contact Details
Shipping Info
Terms and Conditions
Cookie Policy
Privacy Policy

Sign Up To Our Newsletter!

Stay up to date with all our latest offers, deals and events as well as new releases and exclusive subscriber content!

This website is owned by Cranston Fine Arts. Torwood House, Torwoodhill Road, Rhu, Helensburgh, Scotland, G848LE

Contact: Tel: (+44) (0) 1436 820269. Email: cranstonorders -at- outlook.com

Return to Home Page