Talk:HMS Vanguard (23)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMS Vanguard (23) article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

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)

Contents

[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 only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.

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)


There is a article similar to the scenerio descibed above in the HMS Vanguard webpage, to which there is a link at at the bottom to the article on HMS Vanguard in wikipedia.

[edit] Superior german industrial product

How is this ship compared to the Bismarck or Tirpitz? Equal opponent or just cannonfodder? 82.131.210.162 14:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

See above; this isn't a discussion forum in which to indulge in idle speculation, is is the article's Wikipedia:Talk page, a place to discuss how to improve the contents of the article. Emoscopes Talk 15:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the Vanguard was considerably superior to the Bismark or Tirpitz, being about as fast, equivalently armed, considerably better protected and equipped with much superior Radar and Fire Control equipment. In fact, she probably stood a decent chance against any battleship in service short of a Yamato... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.128.105 (talk) 12:48, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

It seems far more likely that they copied it from us. Their text matches this revision from March 17, 2005. Our article had existed at this location for nearly a year at that point, and at HMS Vanguard before April 30, 2004. You can see its evolution. TomTheHand (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Switch from {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} to {{WikiProjectBanners}}

After I added {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} to this talk page on 7 December because this page was tagged by three wikiprojects. My addition was changed by The Giant Puffin (talk · contribs) to {{WikiProjectBanners}} on 14 December without explanation in disregard to the documentation relating to these two templates which states the following:
From Template:WikiProjectBannerShell:

"Please do not implement this template on talk pages already using the {{WikiProjectBanners}} template without first discussing the change on that talk page. WikiProjectBanners is a similar nesting template with an alternate appearance, the use of which is dependent on editor preference. Once one Shell or the other has been established on a talk page, it should not be changed without discussion."

So, my question is, which one should be used? I have left the change intact so-far to avoid a revert-war. -MBK004 00:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you've pointed out, the change shouldn't have been made without discussion; this is one of those "both ways are OK, and changing it causes fights" issues that are too common. I personally prefer the old banner template, because it briefly lists all the Wikiprojects which cover the article while remaining compact. The new template is even smaller, but honestly, the old one is only about the size of the (IMHO useless) {{talkheader}}, and I don't see the saved space being a big advantage. TomTheHand (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I've decided I'm going to change it back because it shows which projects have assessed the page. If you disagree, please bring up your objections here on the talk page before unilaterally reverting the change. Thanks, -MBK004 03:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "never to fire her guns"

i assume they were fired, just not in anger--Mongreilf (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You're correct. Someone removed the words "in anger" a couple of months ago; they may not have known what the phrase meant. TomTheHand (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't this depend on defintions somewhat? For example did HMS Dreadnought (1875) ever see action?Geni 14:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)