- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 5,744
- Reaction score
- 5,643
If you want a really alt alt option how about an RN with G3 battlecruisers and N3 battleships left over from WW2.
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)
Good job!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.
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?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.
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...They were certainly as well built as the Iowa class, and almost as modern given the commissioned within a few years of each other.
Their subs didn’t work thoughThe 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.
Ok and?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).
They’d still absorb any Exocets that hit them on the belt, with minimal damage.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.
No shit SherlockIn reality no battleship were actually ever as invulnerable as some contributors appear to wish to believe they were.
You’re on an alternate history thread. That’s kind of expected.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.
I don’t care lmaoPost-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.
If you were smart enough to read the first post I literally said money wasn’t a problem in this scenario.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.
My apologies, i thought I’d put this in the alternate history sectionwhy not? but rather in the Alternative History section
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.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.
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.
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)And I don’t know much about Roma, but seeing as she was Italian I’d guess she was bad as well.
Also, many cast-iron castings such as turbo-machinery foundations, prone to cracking from underwater shocks.
WWII material quality and workmanship was not so good, too (see respective assesments of "Ark Royal" and "Eagle" for further modernization in the 60s).
Eagle was actually in good condition(see respective assesments of "Ark Royal" and "Eagle" for further modernization in the 60s). And so on...
Vanguard build 1941-46.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.
Nobody has air dropped torpedoes capable of more than annoying a battleship in the 1980s.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.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.
Could the aircraft get into a launching position in the first place? That is the KGV class & Vanguard would have had: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.
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.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)
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.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 Post (which I didn't see until after I make my suggestions) said.Link to Post 15.
Interesting.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:
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:
- 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.
1950-1965 improvements:
After all that, straight into mothballs until you want to do any limited modernisation and reactivation in the 1980s.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.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 & res