Modernise Vanguard and the KGV’s for the 1980s

[uk 75]

If you want a really alt alt option how about an RN with G3 battlecruisers and N3 battleships left over from WW2.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/what-if-no-treaty-of-washington-1922.33819/#post-532749

 

[kaiserd]

I’m almost certain Vanguard and the KGVs could sustain Exocet hits. Exocets are sea skimming missiles, and 14 inches of face hardened plate is almost certainly going to stop that.

The Argentinians (if i remember correctly) didn’t have bombs big enough to penetrate the decks (Vanguard could take a 10,000 lbs bomb and be fine, I can’t remember the figure for the KGVs off the top of my head but I assume it’s similar) so air attacks are essentially a non issue.

The main threat is from underwater, but Argentinas submarines were so rickety I doubt they’d have even gotten close.

Now as for Belgrano, she’d have been absolutely Kerb-stomped, along with her escorts. And seeing as ARA Venti Cinco de Mayo was recalled due to the threat of submarine attack (after Conks sank Belgrano). It’s a possibility she’d have stayed in the area longer, (because belgrano was lost to surface ships, not submarines) possibly allowing either Conquerer or Spartan to have a shot at her, which might have ended with the sinking of the Argie carrier (oh how they’d Seethe over that)

No WW2 era battleship (including Vanguard) could take 10,000 lbs bombs and “be fine”. Tirpitz was effectively reduced to a floating wreck by, but just not actually sunk, by equivalent and smaller bombs. German first generation anti-ship missiles sunk Roma and had almost sunk Warspite (a lot of luck involved in her survival).

Exocet missiles were not designed to kill vessels with battleship-levels of armour but a number of hits would still be very likely to have a significant impact on the combat effectiveness of the unlucky recipient.

In reality no battleship were actually ever as invulnerable as some wish to believe they were.

The layers and levels of fantasy required (magic money trees, completely illogical prioritisations, delusions of invulnerability) to try to desperately make any such scenarios remotely plausible or possible or make any sense speaks to their inherent unreality. An aspect not helped by the unfortunately childish top-trumps tone and content of some of the posts above.

Post-war it simply didn’t matter which US or UK class (or the long sunk Yamato, whose loss and how she was lost should perhaps give more cause for pause for thought) have the theoretically better armour or firepower.

Ultimately the Iowa class survived because the US could afford to keep them going and just about found them tasks that justified their retention (however with intermittent long periods of being held in reserve). Neither of the factors are true for the UK. The UK didn’t have the money and didn’t have the need and if it had more more money it had many higher priorities for that extra money. The UK should not have completed Vanguard and probably should not have kept her and the George V class in service as long as they did.

 

[uk 75]

I think it should be clear from the tone of this thread that it is not meant to be as serious as some other what-if threads.
It is a fun idea (a reverse if you like of the film "Final Countdown" where Nimitz goes back to WW2).
Noone has suggested that this is potential real world option, the scenario is pure thought palace setting.
The UK's last battleships (or even the never-built G3s) are a fascinating subject for this play.
If the idea offends, just look away...

 

[Dilandu]

here’s a half finished KGV with some modern weapons that came from my HMS Invincible Kit (there’s a sprue of weapons that aren’t needed for the kit. I have no idea why it’s in there but it is)

Also apologies for my painting. It isn’t the best.

Good job!

P.S. Hm, maybe the upper dual turret should be removed? It would reduce the main battery only 20%, but it would save a lot of upper weight, and, for example, Exocet battery could be installed in her place.

 

[Dilandu]

I’m almost certain Vanguard and the KGVs could sustain Exocet hits. Exocets are sea skimming missiles, and 14 inches of face hardened plate is almost certainly going to stop that.

What about the possibility of Argentinean to get some more capable missiles, at least ship-launched? Chinese Silkworms, for example? (USSR wasn't in good relation with Argentina, but China was willing to sell to anyone who may pay) Or Italian Otomat?

 

[uk 75]

The Torpedo is the main enemy of the battleship. Argentina had aircraft, ships and submarines able to launch torpedos at any British surface units approaching its coast rather than keeping out of range like Hermes and Invincible.

 

[BROF]

They were certainly as well built as the Iowa class, and almost as modern given the commissioned within a few years of each other.

Obsolete English DC electrics vs. USN's AC and static converters. This is a major reason why USN WWII ships were modernizable post-war, and theirs were not or only at enormous expenses. Took them until the 1950s to change from DC to AC in new-builts! (second batch of "Daring" destroyers). Also, many cast-iron castings such as turbo-machinery foundations, prone to cracking from underwater shocks, vs. HT steel. WWII material quality and workmanship was not so good, too (see respective assesments of "Ark Royal" and "Eagle" for further modernization in the 60s). And so on...

 

[Temeraire]

The Torpedo is the main enemy of the battleship. Argentina had aircraft, ships and submarines able to launch torpedos at any British surface units approaching its coast rather than keeping out of range like Hermes and Invincible.

Their subs didn’t work though

 

[Temeraire]

No WW2 era battleship (including Vanguard) could take 10,000 lbs bombs and “be fine”. Tirpitz was effectively reduced to a floating wreck by, but just not actually sunk, by equivalent and smaller bombs. German first generation anti-ship missiles sunk Roma and had almost sunk Warspite (a lot of luck involved in her survival).

Ok and?
Tirpitz and Bismarck were both terribly designed ships.
Warspite was a WW1 era battleship which didn’t have as much deck armour as modern vessels.
And I don’t know much about Roma, but seeing as she was Italian I’d guess she was bad as well.

Exocet missiles were not designed to kill vessels with battleship-levels of armour but a number of hits would still be very likely to have a significant impact on the combat effectiveness of the unlucky recipient.

They’d still absorb any Exocets that hit them on the belt, with minimal damage.

In reality no battleship were actually ever as invulnerable as some contributors appear to wish to believe they were.

No shit Sherlock

The layers and levels of fantasy required (magic money trees, completely illogical prioritisations, delusions of invulnerability) to try to desperately make any such scenarios remotely plausible or possible or make any sense speaks to their inherent unreality. An aspect not helped by the unfortunately childish top-trumps tone and content of some of the posts above.

You’re on an alternate history thread. That’s kind of expected.

Post-war it simply didn’t matter which US or UK class (or the long sunk Yamato, whose loss and how she was lost should perhaps give some contributors more cause for pause for thought) have the theoretically better armour or firepower.

I don’t care lmao

Ultimately the Iowa class survived because the US could afford to keep them going and just about found them tasks that justified their retention (however with intermittent long periods of being held in reserve). Neither of the factors are true for the UK. The UK didn’t have the money and didn’t have the need and if it had more more money it had many higher priorities for that extra money. The UK should not have completed Vanguard and probably should not have kept her and the George V class in service as long as they did.

If you were smart enough to read the first post I literally said money wasn’t a problem in this scenario.

this was meant to be a light hearted discussion about a possible scenario where the Royal Navy was able to retain and modernise their battleships.
It’s obvious that you have nothing but negativity to bring to the discussion so I suggest you leave, unless you have anything positive to contribute.

 

[Temeraire]

why not? but rather in the Alternative History section

My apologies, i thought I’d put this in the alternate history section

 

[Temeraire]

Good job!

P.S. Hm, maybe the upper dual turret should be removed? It would reduce the main battery only 20%, but it would save a lot of upper weight, and, for example, Exocet battery could be installed in her place.

I’ve installed a pair of Exocet launchers amidships since there’s lots of space there and the twin 14” has already been glued down and I don’t wanna risk damaging the model by removing it.

I’ll update when I’m done

 

[Dilandu]

The Torpedo is the main enemy of the battleship. Argentina had aircraft, ships and submarines able to launch torpedos at any British surface units approaching its coast rather than keeping out of range like Hermes and Invincible.

And I don’t know much about Roma, but seeing as she was Italian I’d guess she was bad as well.

Littorio-class were actually excellently armored. They have no weak spots at all. Just weren't designed to be hit by such heavy weapon (still, even after magazine explosion, Roma stayed afloat longer than any other battleship suffering the same)

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Also, many cast-iron castings such as turbo-machinery foundations, prone to cracking from underwater shocks.

The US also this problem. Nobody was prepared for underwater shock at the beginning of the Second World War, and the UK made significant attempts to take remedial action during the war, as discussed in A Century of Naval Construction.

WWII material quality and workmanship was not so good, too (see respective assesments of "Ark Royal" and "Eagle" for further modernization in the 60s).

Utterly irrelevant. KGVs were mostly built in peacetime, they will be of similar quality to the Town class cruisers, which were noted for their high build quality when their suitability for modernisation was discussed Post War.

 

[uk 75]

The alt history Argentines may be able to get the normally excellent W German subs to work and they have Neptunes capable of delivering torpedoes plus destroyers.

 

[Temeraire]

(see respective assesments of "Ark Royal" and "Eagle" for further modernization in the 60s). And so on...

Eagle was actually in good condition

 

[BROF]

The US also this problem. Nobody was prepared for underwater shock at the beginning of the Second World War, and the UK made significant attempts to take remedial action during the war, as discussed in A Century of Naval Construction.



Utterly irrelevant. KGVs were mostly built in peacetime, they will be of similar quality to the Town class cruisers, which were noted for their high build quality when their suitability for modernisation was discussed Post War.

Vanguard build 1941-46.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The alt history Argentines may be able to get the normally excellent W German subs to work and they have Neptunes capable of delivering torpedoes plus destroyers.

Nobody has air dropped torpedoes capable of more than annoying a battleship in the 1980s.

You'd need to have those destroyers armed with 21" heavyweights, not 12.75" air droppers.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The alt history Argentines may be able to get the normally excellent W German subs to work and they have Neptunes capable of delivering torpedoes plus destroyers.

They also tried fitting Mk 13 torpedoes to their Pucara coin aircraft. Maybe they could fit them to their Canberras too.

Nobody has air dropped torpedoes capable of more than annoying a battleship in the 1980s.

You'd need to have those destroyers armed with 21" heavyweights, not 12.75" air droppers.

Could the aircraft get into a launching position in the first place? That is the KGV class & Vanguard would have had:

• Their radars and AIO modernised at least once between 1945 & 1982. Therefore, by the time of the Falklands they'd have Type 984 or Type 988 and ADA or the second-generation ADAWS.
• The 5.25in guns may have been replaced by 3in guns with MRS3 fire control.
• Though my choice would be to keep the 5.25in Mk II turrets on Vanguard, replace the 5.25in Mk Is on the KGVs with the faster firing Mk II mounting and modernise the fire control on both. That's because the heavier weight of shell may be better for surface actions and shore bombardment.
• In either case enemy aircraft would have to run the gauntlet of scores of VT fused shells aimed by modern fire control equipment.
• If Vanguard had kept her fifty-five 40mm but had their fire control modernised and the KGVs were rearmed with fifty-five 40mm with modern fire control, that would thicken the the wall of lead the aircraft would be forced to fly through.

The combined 5.25in (or 3in) and 40mm might might not shoot down many aircraft, but it's likely that other aircraft would have been driven off and that the aim of the crews of others would have been "put off" which would haver reduced the number of hits. Plus the battleships would have been fitted with modern anti-torpedo countermeasures.

Similarly, would any attacking destroyers have got into a launching position in the first place? That is with ten 14in guns or eight 15in guns with modern fire control telling them to go forth and multiply. It may have been worse for the attacking destroyers if the KGVs & Vanguards had kept their sixteen 5.25in guns. Yes they'd be scoring fewer hits due to the lower rate of fire, but the shells that did hit contained more explosive.

The ships would have had modern active anti-torpedo countermeasures too so they'd divert some of the torpedoes too.

Therefore, it depends upon whether the Argentines would have had enough aircraft, destroyers and torpedo-bombers to swamp the active and passive defences of the modernised KGVs and Vanguards. I think not because the OP says.

In a perfect world for the British armed forces how would you modernise HMS Vanguard and the King George V class to serve in the 1980s?

(Before anyone asks Yes CVA-01 through 04 are built in this timeline, so no yapping about building carriers instead, this is a perfect world for the RN, so the navy has enough.
also the Battleships are kept in reserve, aren’t scrapped from 1957 to 1960 and are all in good condition)

Therefore, five modernised battleships (Vanguard & 4 KGVs) were available in April 1982 so (depending upon how many were in being refitted) between two & four would have been sent. The more battleships in the task force the lower the probability of the Argentine forces swamping the defences.

Furthermore, they would have been part of a task force that included several CVA.01s operating modern AEW aircraft, fighters and strike aircraft. Therefore, it's unlikely that enough torpedo bombers and destroyers to swamp the battleships' defences would have got through, because a large number would have been shot down/sunk or driven off by the aircraft carriers.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The Torpedo is the main enemy of the battleship. Argentina had aircraft, ships and submarines able to launch torpedos at any British surface units approaching its coast rather than keeping out of range like Hermes and Invincible.

The submarine threat would have been reduced by being part of a task group that included modern destroyers and frigates with modern sonars and anti-submarine weapons. Please note that I wrote reduced, not eliminated. The Argentines could still get lucky and fire a golden BB, torpedo or Exocet.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Link to Post 15.

The Post (which I didn't see until after I make my suggestions) said.

Obviously the first paragraph in my previous post isn't really in the spirit of this thread, so I'm suggesting some limited late 1940s to late 1950s modernisations.

Initially all ships should be brought up to the standards in this post, and briefly discussed on more detail in Norman Friedman's The British Battleship, but with some changes due to lack of availability of some equipment which cannot be developed in time.

In short 1945-50 improvements should consist of:

• Type 960 WA set.
• Type 293 TI set with GDS.2.
• Type 277Q Surface Warning Set.
• Type 972 or 974 as a back-up High-Definition Surface Warning Set.
• Mark 10 AFCT with Type 274 Fire Control Radar and Type 931/932 shell-splash spotting radars on both DCTs.
• Replacement of earlier HA directors with Mark VI or Mk 37 directors complete with Type 275 radars and Flyplane. No intention of fitting LRS-1 at all, I think the above deck swept area for the director and radar, combined with below-deck computer requirements precludes fitting it on anything other than new build construction.
• No MRS directors, unless they are the CRS1 derived MRS1 with the Type 262-derived Type 263 radar, which can make use of existing developments for CRBFD, and hopefully has an above deck computer. If this can be done, 4 of such directors, for controlling heavy HA armament at medium and close ranges.
• LA armament and large-calibre HA armament to be fitted with RPC replacement of Octuple Pom-Poms on superstructure with Sextuple Bofors Mk VI, controlled by CRBFDs, replacement of mountings atop turrets with STAAG, US quad Bofors mountings replaced by Mk V twins controlled by STD (simple tachometric director), with an additional pair of Mk V twins on the centerline of the cruciform structure atop the aft superstructure, also controlled by STD. A small number of Mk VII singles, or postwar electric-drive Mk 9 singles, fitted for, but not with in peacetime. Controlled by on-mount Mark 6 Gyro-gunsights
• Type 149 or 161 self-protection sonar set.
• Outfit UA3 ESM with Outfit YAF analyser.
• No changes to Vanguard, aside from fitting main armament with RPC, Type 149 or 161 and Outfit UA3.

Once this has been done, and to keep them more viable into the 1950s and beyond, I will be more adventurous and do the following:

1950-1965 improvements:

• Type 992 TI set with GDS.3.
• Type 960 WA set, with option for replacement with larger -960M or 960P antennas, or alternatively the Type 965 WAIR set.
• Replacement of all HA directors with MRS3 fitted with Type 903 radar. Ideally close to one-to-one ratio of mountings and directors, with directors and computers taking priority when competing with mountings and ammunition for space on the superstructure and below-deck volume.
• Replacement of 5.25-inch mountings one-to-one with 3"/70 N1 mountings. Controlled by MRS3.
• Replacement of Bofors L60 Mk VI sextuple mountings with Bofors L70 Mk12 sextuple mountings, ideally on a one-to-one basis, but directors take priority. Controlled by MRS3 and ideally no less than two mountings per side. If L70s delayed, replace with Sea Cat Launchers.
• Removal of STAAG twins without replacement. If possible Mk V twins replaced by L70 Mk 11 twin mountings, controlled by TOM (Tachymetric One Man director) or ideally MRS3, but MRS3 directors for the 3"/70 guns and sextuple Bofors take priority for deck space and below-deck volume.
• Single Mk VII or Mk9 mountings are replaced by single Mk10 L70 mountings, with on-mount Type 6 Gyro-gunsights cut for L70 Ballistics.
• Type 176 or 184 self-protection and torpedo warning sets.
• If possible Camrose rocket propelled anti-torpedo torpedoes, launched from 4 sets of triple tubes.
• If at all possible, on both KGVs and Vanguard, modify "B" turret, handling equipment and magazine for firing of nuclear 14" and 15" shells respectively.
• Outfit UA8, UA9, UA10 ESM with YAZ analyser, and Type 667S and 667X Cooky Jammers.
• Enclosed superstructure and rebuilt Action Information Centre, with the following:
  • "Project Cambria" Automatic Surface Plot, AKA Outfit JYA
  • Alternatively 48 or 32-track CDS with DPT/Link 1, and if possible 2-level Operations Room
• ABCD protected machinery spaces with remote control of main machinery, new cased boilers and forced draught blowers.
• Blast-resistant funnels.
• Helicopter landing spot on the quarterdeck.

After all that, straight into mothballs until you want to do any limited modernisation and reactivation in the 1980s.

I wouldn't want to do any missile-conversions, Sea Slug, Blue Envoy and NIGs all demand too much volume, and I don't want to make much in the way of significant internal alterations.

Interesting.

There's little that I could add to that. All I can think of is replacing the DC electrical systems with AC and modernising the accommodation to modern (that is 1950s or 1960s) standards which you might have thought went without saying.

There's little that I can dispute with that either.

• Why didn't you fit the Type 984 radar?
• Why didn't ships refitted between 1960 & 1965 have ADA instead of CDS?
• I've suggested keeping the 5.25in Mk II mountings on Vanguard and replacing the 5.25in Mk Is on the KGVs with Mk IIs as they'd be more effective for surface actions and shore bombardment.
• A compromise might be to replace the 5.25in one-for-one with the twin 4.5in Mk VI or even the Mk VII proposed for the Malta class. They had higher rates of fire than the 5.25in and fired heavier shells than the 3in.

I wouldn't want to do any missile conversions either. The point of keeping them is to keep as many guns as possible and as this is effectively a money no object timeline there's plenty of money to build new missile ships which would be better designs in any case.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

There's little that I can dispute with that either.

• Why didn't you fit the Type 984 radar?

Initially I wanted to a very austere AIO set up, the likes of the Automatic Surface Plot or minimal CDS and DPT (honesty I'd prefer something similar to the CDS system intended for the Type 41 and 61 frigates, rather than Hermes or Victorious) to maintain basic situational awareness for self-defence against air threats, and to put the ship into a good position for a surface engagement. I would probably want some kind of more advanced Admiral's surface plot, using Outfit JYA or CDS technology. The two level operations room, if fitted, would not be for fighter control like on the Carriers or proposed Cruisers, but for a kind of slower moving strategic plot for use as a flagship. In this case, it's akin to the layout in 1930's warships, where the Captain on his bridge had window in the floor to look at the plot below, but in a fully protected CBRN environment, and with the strategic and tactical plots running side by side (or with the tactical plot on the upper level, with officers there being able to look down onto the strategic plot).

Type 984 will need a lot of volume atop the superstructure, probably requiring the removal of the forward DCT and HA director(s). It also forces the ship into a fighter direction role, which requires more extensive facilities and a YE radio beacon. Given this is in a "Britain with a money cheat" world, there should be enough Carriers, Cruisers, FADEs or Cruiser Destroyers to perform this role.

• Why didn't ships refitted between 1960 & 1965 have ADA instead of CDS?

ADAWS 1 isn't a thing until the Batch II Counties commissioning from 1966 onwards, so it is outside of the period in question, and given the austere radar fit, a bit redundant. I know there were intentions to fit it less capable version of ADA to the Leander-class, and for it to perform all the Fire Control calculations that were formally done by specialised Fire Control Tables/Clocks/Boxes etc, but given the sheer number of mountings on a battleship, I'd thought it would be beyond the capabilities of a computer at the time. I'm not opposed to it, and certainly considered it, for any late 1960s or early 70s modernisation I would probably fit it.

I would envision ships with CDS keeping into the 1980s, perhaps the earlier modernisations with JYA might later receive ADA.

• I've suggested keeping the 5.25in Mk II mountings on Vanguard and replacing the 5.25in Mk Is on the KGVs with Mk IIs as they'd be more effective for surface actions and shore bombardment.
• 
  A compromise might be to replace the 5.25in one-for-one with the twin 4.5in Mk VI or even the Mk VII proposed for the Malta class. They had higher rates of fire than the 5.25in and fired heavier shells than the 3in.

Depends if it is still in production when you want to make the modernisation. Fitting the Mk 1 mountings should bring them up to almost standards of those of Vanguard.

I was thinking more of AAW performance. The 5" MCDP mountings are too heavy, require too much volume above and below decks, especially considering swept arcs, and are optimised for long range AA fire, up to 12,000 yards, harassing fire out to 20,000 , when the ideal is ranges for anti-aircraft Gunnery are within 6000 yards. The 3"/70 is probably the best performing anti-aircraft gun for this role, hence it's selection. 5.25" is obviously considerably superior in the LA role,.but we also have the 14"or 15" guns for that.

 

[uk 75]

This is the fictional Russian battleship that is available in model form in 1/1250 scale and inspired my Vanguard conversion.
Post in thread 'Western Artists' Concepts of Soviet warships during the Cold War' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...arships-during-the-cold-war.31321/post-639575

 

[Dilandu]

Nobody has air dropped torpedoes capable of more than annoying a battleship in the 1980s.

Actually USSR have RAT-52 till 1983. Granted, they weren't deployed since 1970s, but there were still some Tu-16T torpedo bombers in service - albeit refitted into search & rescue planes.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Actually USSR have RAT-52 till 1983. Granted, they weren't deployed since 1970s, but there were still some Tu-16T torpedo bombers in service - albeit refitted into search & res

I stand (somewhat) corrected, then!