Talk:HMS Vanguard (23)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... British military history task force Maritime warfare task force World War II task force

	HMS Vanguard (23) is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Scotland To-do: edit  Template:Scotland opentask

I used the launch date instead of commission date as per the standard, but doesn't this ship have a pennant number? Stan 15:40, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vanguard's pennant number was 23 (from British and Empire Warships of the Second World War, H T Lenton). Emoscopes ^Talk 00:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] decomission date

the 'fact box' says 1959, the main text says 1954. Anyone know which it actually it?

Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Do not use them as a discussion forum.

What about if the british had had one of this boats in the Falklands War in order to bomb the Argentinian continental air bases? Could it make it?

There are a lot of "ifs" involved there. Are we assuming that Vanguard was mothballed from 1954 until 1982 and then brought into service as quickly as possible, or are we assuming she was the flagship of the fleet the entire time, and by 1982 she is covered in missiles and radars? Or somewhere in between? And what do you mean by "could it make it"? TomTheHand 03:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

He's probably talking about something similar to the use of the American Iowa class in places like Lebanon and Iraq. In those cases it was only possible because of the American air superiority: they could do as they pleased. Seeing as the Argentines were successfully attacking British ships during the Falklands war, there is no way they'd have put the Vanguard in that sort of danger, and if they had, she'd most likely have been sunk.--OzoneO 23:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The refitting which the Iowa-class received were long, expensive and very complete. Seeing as Thatcher had been about to consign the RN to submarine patrol duty I doubt that under any circumstances she would have paid for such a refit, even accepting that she'd have been preserved for 25 years. It would have been nice, but the RN's continual axeing would have made it a low priority. -Harlsbottom 14:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the parent's question requires a lot of assumptions. If we assumed that after Vanguard decommissioned she was mothballed for forty years instead of scrapped, then she wouldn't be of much use without years of work and enormous amounts of money. The Falklands War was fought with what the RN had, not with what they could have had given a couple of years of preparation.

In another example, if Vanguard had never been decommissioned and had remained in continuous service (God only knows what she'd be doing), she'd be worn out by 1982.

In yet another scenario, if Vanguard had been mothballed until 1978 and then for some reason it were decided to refit and recommission her, the RN would probably be worse off in 1982 because there would be less money for things like aircraft carriers and air defence destroyers. It would have been quite dangerous to risk Vanguard close enough in to perform shore bombardment, though she would have held up quite well to an Exocet or two. I just noticed, though, that the parent mentioned bombarding Argentine continental air bases. This probably would have been suicide, and a strike on the Argentine mainland probably would have escalated the conflict to a new level.

Of course, assuming the RN has an infinite budget, Vanguard definitely would have turned the tide of the Falklands War with her laser turrets, nuclear missiles, and hordes of killer robot drones. TomTheHand 15:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

On the assumption that she could have been maintained up until 1982 without significantly denting RN capability in other areas (and that's a huge assumption) and further assuming some effort had been expending in keeping her Radar and AA up to date, the Vanguard could potentially have been a decisive weapon int he Falklands conflict. She would probably have proved a much sturdier target than the Frigates and Aircraft Carriers, and would have made any attempt by the Argentine Navy to contest the waters around the Falklands Islands near suicidal (can you imagine the General Belgrano going up against the Vanguard?) and her guns would have been able to shell pretty much any strategic point on the island (if you remember the huge lengths that were take to disable the Airfield at Stanley, without much sucess. A BB could have achieved much more for much less money and effort). However, as has already been pointed out, this assumes that the Vanguard made it as far as the 1980's in fighting shape. Much as I think it was a crying shame that she wasn't preserved, I seriously doubt that the Vanguard could have lasted that long in the RN of the Cold war. 84.92.80.169 14:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)