As mentioned in other comments below, HMS Vanguard was designed to use supercharges. These guns were also capable of firing the same projectiles while using these supercharges which gave a maximum range of 37,870 yards (34,630 m) i.e. over 21 miles. Regarding saving a battleship as a museum ship, I would have preferred to save HMS Warspite as that had our best battleship history and HMS Vanguard never fired its guns in anger, not even in the Korean war as also mentioned below. Great review, thanks
Yes, Warspite would have been the better pick for a museum ship, but Vanguard had a much higher chance of surviving long enough, like the Iowa's, to be turned into one.
One thing to note about those guns is they are almost the exact same 15” B.L. Mk. I guns that the Queen Elizabeths, Renowns, Repulses, Hood and a few monitors had. The only difference being the ability to supercharge, or ram more powder in the breech. This gave the guns more range but also severely reduced the barrel quality. The ability was hardly even used during training exercises.
Sorry, but 37,870 yards is not 21 miles. Naval gun ranges are measured by comparison to nautical miles not statute miles. 37,870 yards is slightly over 18.5 nautical miles. A nautical mile is 2000 yards. Iowa class 16 inch guns had a range of over 40,000 yards or 20 nautical miles.
@@LongboardJesus For Vanguard they actually also improved the gun elevation in the turrets, so the guns had a longer range on her even without the super charges.
HMS was the most advanced and best built of its Age, that's why some say she should've been saved. She was around long after Warspite, but I agree that Warspite would've been amazing to keep as well. HMS Vanguard as Britain's honorary Warship to show the end of a Naval Era for Great Britain would've been just as great for historical significance.
As a five year old my father took me to see her aground outside the Still and West pub at The Point in Portsmouth Harbour. Gutted and sitting high in the water on her way to the breakers yard, she looked utterly enormous to my child's eyes.
I lived my whole life around Portsmouth harbour until 36. Its great for ship spotting obviously, but some of the old ones like the 82 look pretty sad 😔
My father took us on board HMS Vanguard as she was being stripped in Portsmouth Harbour. We had just been on board HMS Victory. My dad saw a hole in the fence next to the dock. So in we went. It was not long before we were spotted. The duty officer challenged us so My dad got out his WW2 RNVR documents that he carried all the time. So we were honored and taken to the forehead under the 15 inch turrets. Then we went up top to the bridge to gaze forward. It was the most amazing visit ever as a young boy and we were so proud of my dad, who served all the days of WW2. True story promise.
Vanguard’s 40mm AA gun system was pretty cool: There were 6 autoloading barrels per mount and each mount had its own local radar director. They were serious about AA after the disaster of Repulse and Prince of Wales, although the former dodged (or “combed”) about 12 aerial torpedoes, which was a magnificent display of ship handling.
Yeah I would say that the AA fit was better than the Iowa's thanks to the auto-loading, advanced stabilisation, and variety of directing options of those 6-barrel mounts.
Maybe Vanguard's 8 × twin 5.25" dual-purpose guns firing shells with proximity fuses were its true main AA. Proximity fuses were not available at the time when Repulse and Prince of Wales were sunk. Radar was also not as reliable at that early stage of WW2 but improved a lot by the time Vanguard was launched.
It is hard to deny the Iowa class 16" guns were some of the best and most powerful every built. Posters keep mentioning the 15" supercharge. By most accounts, the supercharge was developed for older 15" gun British warships that did not have their gun mount elevation increased during refit. The supercharge was intended to increase range on older ships as an emergency measure, not to increase firepower. It was very hard on the guns, and according to most sources, supercharging was not used on new/refitted ships like Renown, Vanguard, or the Queen Elizabeth's. Vanguard overall is one of the best battleships to be built, and one of the best looking. While the 15" was not the most powerful gun in service by WW II, it was rugged, reliable, and accurate. In other words, well proven and superbly battle worthy. Some have called it the finest heavy battleship gun built by the Royal Navy. It makes some claim to being one of the best of all time, despite not being the most powerful.
I believe that the 50 cal 16 inch fish was the third, arguably second best naval gun ever built. It’s possibly more powerful than the 40 cal 18 inch gun, but that’s debatable, and could very well only be less powerful than the 18.11 inch guns of the Yamato
The turret substructure of Vanguard's guns was strengthened specifically to cope with firing supercharges. Though the ship never used them in practice.
Fun fact one of the 15” guns from the legend herself, HMS Warspite, was put aboard Vanguard. Sadly when she was scrapped, they scrapped the gun and the rest of them too. I personally think at least one of Vanguard’s guns should have been on display in front of IWM, instead of HMS Resolution’s.
I know Vanguard didn't fight in WW2, but come on UK... you could have saved this ship. Last British battleship ever build, low mileage, no battle damage, etc.
It was Vanguard or the 3 Tiger class cruisers. The tigers had the advantage of being in more places at once, much more aa firepower and the politicians liked them.
Britain was bankrupt after 5yrs of war & there was no money to be had for preserving old battleships. Vanguard survived as long as she did by being made a NATO flagship & receiving contributions from other countries.
☹️ Yeah, The British govt chose not to preserve ANY capital ships, because WW2 left UK in very poor financial shape. 👍 But IMO they could've paid for it using the following 2 concurrent strategies: 👉1). Store the preferred ships in mothballs, while awaiting the govt's financial situation to improve. 👉2). Raise private funds, and offer special incentives for people who donate a certain amount(£250, £500 or £1,000+). ✳️The incentives could include: ✓ Donors' names engraved on a large memorial plaque. ✓ Have an overnight holiday celebration with food and festivities(donated by local restaurants), and allow the £250+ donors to spend the night on the ship.
Perhaps if Britain had not been under such economic duress, post-1945, the Royal Navy (and Captain Hindsight) could've maintained her (not mothballed) until such time as anti-air weapons had caught up with the jet age; imagine 1982 and a Seawolf-armed HMS Vanguard, rocking-up of East Falkland, for the shore-bombardment gig, "Eh, Amigo, escucho un tren expres, viniendo!
The Tiger class cruisers would arguably have been perfect for the falklands conflict, and only taken out of service a few years before. Automatic 6” and 3” guns would have been extremely useful in ‘bomb alley’ and NGFS
Great video, thanks for taking the time to produce. My dad served on HMS Repulse and was on board when it was sunk in December 1941. Battleships and battlecruisers were magnificent feats of engineering but emerging technology (such as guided missiles) made them obsolete in modern times.
The RN 15" shell had a 50% larger bursting charge than the USN 16" super heavy shell. IIRC the USN estimated less than 3% chance of hits on a non-manoeuvring battleship sized target at maximum range of the 16" 45.
If we're talking about Mark 7 16"/50 then its a different thing, both late war British and US GFCS could fire their main guns over horizon in all weather and time of day conditions. As far as I know Iowas still retain their analog GFCS for the main guns from WWII up until Desert Storm because of their effectiveness regarding computing target data though other types of war ships during Desert Storm uses computer and digital fire controls. Imo the Mark 38 fire control is the best GFCS for a battleship
I am sad that the UK didn't turn the Warspite and the Vanguard into museum ships. The UK might have been strapped for cash at the time, but you can mothball a ship for a long time, until you have the cash.
The US relies on the states or fundraiser if they really want to preserve or make the decommissioned ships as museum ships for their states or normal museum ships in their cities
Thank you for this video. I grew up in a home behind Portsmouth Harbour and saw Vanguard in the distance many times. We children cried our eyes out when she was sent for scrap, and many former sailors had an unexpected need for a handkerchief.
@@ramal5708 - Correct, I had migrated prior to that. I did see the big cruiser Newport News leave Portsmouth and marveled that she weighed about the same as HMS Dreadnought.
She came back to the Clyde and was broken up at Faslane which is now the nuclear sub base. At that time there was a breakers yard next to the R N base which then of course was diesel boats only. My Aunt had a caravan at Rosneath so from 1961 until we sold the van in 1963 I saw many of the Navy's comings and goings on the Loch as a kid. In fact it was the Navy that brought my late dad to Scotland as he was originally from Devonport. I well remember the Vanguard, to a kid of that age she seemed enormous,and there were many ships on the Clyde in those days. One of the most elegant ships I have ever seen. Fitting however sad that she came back to the Clyde, as she was built in John Brown's in Clydebank. The yard,birthplace of the Queens also, is now Clydebank college and a massive health centre. The young nurse who attended me on a recent visit did not know there had ever been a shipyard there. That and Singers up until the 1970s was Clydebank. The old man used to chat to the then Admiralty coppers guarding the former U S destroyer base at Rosneath. Rosneath mansion apparently used to partially plan the D Day landings. I also saw the Battlaxe brought in under tow,written off after a collision,and dreadnought,Britains first Nuclear Submarine.Vanguard was gone after two years however.
Her turrets were from Courageous and Glorious, the guns were from the stocks of 15 inch guns, some of which had been mounted in other ships, the Royal navy had extra gun barrels,so that guns could be taken out in refits and overhauled,being replaced by barrels from reserve stocks. These weapons were then overhauled and fitted to other ships as required.Also, Vanguard was intended to reinforce the far eastern fleet, originally, however , the need for escorts took priority for obvious reasons. The desire for a battleship with all the lessons of the second world war was the main reason she was continued and completed. Problem was, she was a ship without a war to fight in an era when the battleships time had passed.
Unless I am mistaken, the squared off stern was called the “transom” stern and actually added hydrodynamic “length” to ship at higher speeds. This effectively increased the length to width ratio (finesse?) and permitted higher speeds for less power. Conversely, at lower speeds the transom actually slowed the ship down
Great video, just to add a few points. The reason the Royal Navy steered away from armoured conning towers was because in practice it was found the crew would often use the secondary 'open' bridge in combat to gain better visibility. This is also reflected in the conning towers of the KGVs, Nelson/Rodney and the refits of Warspite, Queen Elizabeth, Valiant and Renown. It was just dead weight so the armour was cut back. As for her main battery, many place too emphasis on the fact the guns were of WW1 vintage and didn't cut it in WW2. The reality is with super charges (David K Brown's book Nelson to Vanguard states the work was carried out to fire at 30 degrees elevation with super charges but were never issued because the war was over) Vanguard had a theoretical range of over 35,000 yards, but as you point out the chances of hitting at that range is doubtful even for modern battleships like Vanguard or Iowa. The 15 inch shell was still capable of penetrating any armour of any ship at 'realistic' engagement ranges. Her fire control was second only to Iowa and she would of been a formidable oppenent to even the Yamato in poor visibility/weather and at night.
Spot on. those who have doubts about World War 1 ordanance should research D Day. Many of the guns employed by the Germans on The Atlantic Wall were in fact French or Skoda of world war 1 vintage. It the Germans with their technical expertise saw fit to use them,one need say no more. I met many men of several nations in the past who were at D Day. No one ever said the German coastal guns were lousy,or inaccurate. These men have the final word in my view. They faced them.
Quite fair and measured analysis that makes clear that Royal Navy battleships were based on a lot of battle and sea experience across the totality of two world wars, and it is far from clear cut that the Iowa’s were superior. Therefore issues such as crew training, experience and the nature of how any meeting took place would likely be the decisive factors. Thank God the RoyaL Navy since 1815 has not had to fight the US Navy and it’s incredible resources which would always be decisive and that USA and Uk remain the closest of friends and allies.
In theory, Vanguard’s gun’s aren’t as anemic as they first appear. According to British naval historian D.K. Brown, Vanguard was built to accept “supercharges” for its 15”/42 guns. These increased powder charges increased muzzle velocity by a couple hundred FPS, increasing the range and striking power to very close to more modern 15” guns. These were never actually issued to Vanguard because it was never in a war and the charges increased barrel wear, but they were issued to the Revenge class during WWII to make up for their 20 degree elevation. Again, these charges didn’t make the 15”/42 comparable to the 16”/50 or even 16”/45, but it did get them within spitting distance of the guns on Bismarck or Richelieu.
The BL 15”/42 also had a larger bursting charge then the Iowa’s 16”/50 so if one gets through it has a higher potential damage as well. The Vanguard also has better fire control redundancy than the Iowa which would be beneficial when shells start landing.
@@stevenmcgee9588 You are correct about the larger bursting charge, although I'm not sure it would have been enough to make a huge difference. The Mark 8 16" shell had a 40.9 lb charge, whereas the shells for the 15"/42 had a 48.5 lb charge. I'm not sure whether Vanguard had better fire control redundancy, although I think it's safe to say that both were pretty good in this department.
Some armour from the Vanguard was used in the British Steel River Don Works apprentice shop as the floor, I was an apprentice in the early 70s don't think I ever damaged it.
@@GG-ir1hw Sheffield River Don works, through gate no 2 on Brightside Lane go through the north Planer Shop, the Appentice shop is now the site of Mike Brewe Motors
@@GG-ir1hw British Steel Sheffield, go through no 1 gate on Brightside Lane, past the canteen, through the North Planer shop. The Apprentice Workshop was where Mike Brewer Motors is now,
The only British built battleship to end up as a museum piece is the "Mikasa" in Japan. At least one of the "King George V" should have been saved and moored on the Thames. What were these people thinking. Eight of the US battleships were retained as museum pieces.
Well normal civillians could fundraise and buy the warships before they were scrapped or when they're decommissioned just like what they did with Texas and North Carolina. It only take just few people to pool money together to purchase retired battleships before they were scrapped
@@ramal5708 We owed all our money to the Yanks for winning the war for them because they turned up two and a half years to late. Next big war I bet they will be a year to early.
The other thing the RN found with Conning Towers, was that the senior offices tended not to use the conning tower even if there was one. You can see in the design of the Nelson class how the Conning Tower was a small almost afterthought.
That and there was some research that if an armoured conning tower was hit by a shell it might survive intact but the occupants would be turned to jelly by the pressure waves created of essentially being inside a bell when struck.
The armoured conning tower on Bismarck was penetrated numerous times and even an 8in cruiser shell made its way inside through a damaged door. I think an eyewitness survivor moved through the conning tower late in the action and everyone inside was dead.
@@urseliusurgel4365 In some literature lightly armored conning tower is treated as a fault (arguing that on PoW's bridge almost entire staff was killed by shot from Bismark) but in reality armored conning tower also would turn out deadly for occupant. Anti splinter armor was enough as direct hit would always kill occupants.
My Ex GF's grandad was on a RN Destroyer during that exercise and storm and told me about it about 10 years ago before he died. He said that alot of the smaller ships had to go back alongside or to shelter where possible, but he remembered seeing Vanguard at sea before his ship 'escaped'. He said that as everyone else slowed or ran, Vanguard sped up and ploughed into it with no dramas at all...except the damage that most ships suffer during heavy seas! I was on a few RN Destroyers and in heavy seas it was normal if we lost all of our upper deck fittings and stantions and all that jazz and things were bent. I know of a storm that bent a 4.5 inche gun barrel and another than moved the turret in it's housing. The worst was our QD ladder was completely buckled when we came through the Bay of Biscay! That was a nasty nasty storm and when a Ship goes over 30 degress plus, it gets scary as every time it does, it feels like you aren't coming back up. I did think that with the more modern warships, that Radars and things were supposed to fall off at 45 degrees plus, so if IOWA was going over to 50, then that must have felt horrendous and been really scary on board. You don't know how scary heavy seas are until you have been in a few!!! Great Video. All of your videos like this are superb. You are a guy that really knows his stuff. Just take more than one torch with you haha.
Due to its Atlantic Bow, Scharnhorst could actually have outrun all its enemies in the heavy weather up there at The Battle of North Cape. She was trapped in close though.
Great series, thank you. I am glad you quote "on paper" as the realities of battle mostly disregard statistics; who would have thought that two 6" cruisers and and 8" cruiser could have forced an 11" panzerschiff into running way?
Well 3 to 1 odds doesn't exactly promote staying and slugging it out. As I recall one of those cruisers sustained considerable damage during the engagement.
@@patrickgriffitt6551 Hi, my point was about 'statistics'. On paper Langsdorf should have kept well out of range and hammered Exeter (8"), Achilles and Ajax (6") with his 11" guns. As the old saying goes, 'no plan withstands first contact with the enemy'.
Dear old Vanguard... I was near the end of my apprenticeship as a shipfitter (fitter and turner) in HM Dockyard, Portsmouth when they paid her off. I went on board as they were stripping her of anything useful and went to the engineers' workshop where I found some 1/4" and 3/8" HSS cobalt tool bits. I grabbed them as a souvenir and they are now in my shed where I sometimes take one to grind a new tool. She didn't want to leave Pompey Harbour and swung towards the Still and West pub as she neared the Round Tower. Thank you for the information/comparison and the video footage of Vanguard. Unfortunately the UK was still paying for WWI and with the added debt of WWII she had to go.🇦🇺
According to Oscar Parkes “British Battleships” Iowa was Rolling 26° each way while Vanguard rolled 15° each way. One thing to remember is Vanguard was displacement limited and was carrying very little ammunition for her guns.
@@darrinslack1269 it would depend on the seas. Hood would roll massively in quartering seas. One crewman recalled being able to walk on the walls. Probably an exaggeration, but if i remember correcting it was north of 20° each way. While regarded as wet, the Iowa’s were not considered poor seaboats. We also have to consider the USN BB was actually battle ready but Vanguard tonnage was so restricted she could either carry ammo or fuel, not both. Aft turrets were rendered inoperable or preserved for the conversion to royal yacht and never returned to service according to NavWeaps. As the flag of reserve fleet she often gave up fire control directors to ships in active service that had breakdowns. She was taken in hand for weight reduction and to have 6 mains and half secondary armament put back to full operation and be able to carry ammo for them and fuel, but decommissioned instead.
@@darrinslack1269 I've always thought that the Iowas were/are too narrow in the beam. In the Arctic or North Atlantic they would have struggled in an engagement with a Yamato or Bismarck which were massive in the beam and therefore much steadier gun platforms. Perhaps the American ships were better suited for the calmer waters of the Pacific. I'm not saying the Pacific can't be rough, but generally speaking the Artic and North Atlantic are ALWAYS rough.
Fun FACT: in the movie, 'Sink the Bismark', the British capital ship gun loading scenes were taken from practice exercises in a 15" turret of HMS Vanguard.
Interesting point, HMS vanguard costed 11.5 million pounds, USS Iowa where around 100 million each. With the exchange rate being around 2.3 ish at the time the British could have build almost 4 vanguard per Iowa..... impressive!
A battleship as a yacht?! Now, that's what I call one heck of a yacht! Good video Ryan. Did you ever do a video on when the Iowa served as transport for President Roosevelt to the Tehran Conference in 1943?
Wonderful talk as usual, I really like this series. I should point out that the Iowa's use high-pressure boilers which give more power but are more complicated and hard to repair. The British used standard boilers which were simple and easy to repair if battle damaged, it was a deliberate choice.
Two things I'd like to see. I'm not sure if the fully complete 1950s/60s Jean Bart was done during thr Richelieu video but that would be interesting. In a non comparison video I think it would be fun to talk about the last battle cruiser ever in service (unless you count the Kirovs) the Yavuz
You can tell Ryan just walked in from chipping paint somewhere, sat in a chair and did all this with no prep, no script, no prompts, etc. Gotta give the guy some credit here, and maybe at least a comb!
He's balding, which accounts for the flyaway locks. Soon he will have a landing strip, later a calm bare sea. Male pattern balding is one of the most exclusively masculine of all possible differences between male and female, yet rather than being looked upon with pride, women disdain it and and men fight against it for too long, a la Ruddy Guliani of New York. Ryan should have no problem vis a vis most women, though, as on first impressions they may not notice his vanishing dead cells - as long as they meet standing up.
I was a little surprised at the omission of any discussion of Vanguards radar, gun direction or command spaces/capabilities (beyond the bare statements about the 40mm and 5.25 inch batteries.) I would been interested to learn about Vanguards capacities in these areas.
Drachinifiel goes into it in some detail. In summary - Vanguard had excellent gunnery, with significant redundancy of radar and directors down to the 40mm AA guns.
A cutaway picture, a full colour center piece included in the English Eagle magazine, more a paper really, designed to be bought and read by young lads allover the British Commonwealth included HMS Vanguard. I collected each centre piece from the Eagle and thumb tacked these onto my bedroom walls.
I wish my dad could have seen this video. The Vanguard was his first and only ship. He left school as early as possible in 1944 to join the Royal Navy and served as a radar man on her maiden voyage, the tour of South Africa with the Royal family, etc. I thought I saw him lying on the deck, sunning himself with his fellow matelots, but on closer inspection the guy looks too old. My dad would have only been a teenager.
The design was originally designed to use new 16in guns in a 3 gun layout with 3 turrets, but war pressures and delays resulted in those not being made, so the ship design was revised to take spare 15in guns/mounts/turrets instead.
New to the channel but have watched several of your videos. Keep up the good work. I've never been on an Iowa but I have been on board the USS North Carolina BB55 several times as I'm from North Carolina. That being said I would like to see possibly a North Carolina Iowa comparison, and possibly a comparison with the South Dakota class. I have heard and I think I may have also read it somewhere that the navy discovered that the armor layout of the North Carolina class was actually better from a protection standpoint than the Iowa's. Don't know how true that is but I think it would be neat to see a comparison between the two. Again keep up the good work.
There’s an interesting newsreel of Exercise Mainbrace where Vanguard is seen operating in tandem with USS Wisconsin.The 15” gun turrets of the Courageous-class were modified and modernized to fit the standards for Vanguard. She was launched by Queen Elizabeth II.
One thing that has been left out is the surface fire control systems. The KGVs had the AFCT 9. Vanguard had the AFCT 10. In fact she was the only ship with that fire control system. The Iowas like the North Carolinas and South Dakotas had the Mk 38. Vanguard like the American ships had the M37 fire control system for the secondary battery. The KHVs had the HACS. The Mk 37 was clearly superior to the HACS. The Mk 38 and the AFCT 9 were comparable. The AFCT 10 was superior to either against a manoeuvering target. The Iowa would have had superior firepower against a fleeing target or in shore bombardment. But in a broadside action with both ships free to manoeuver the Vangard could if properly handled have scored considerably more hits, possibly enough to make up for the greater damage of the hits from the American gun.
One thing that very rarely gets addressed when comparing the USN fast BB to any other battleship is the USN sparing no expense in their construction. Armor grade STS (special treatment steel) was used lavishly in these ships in places and areas where all other countries, especially the UK, would use cheaper and easier to work with construction grade steel. When the Admiralty toured the Washington BB56 they took note of how now expense was spared and the high quality fittings throughout the ship in comparison to the KGV class. This kind of detail could mean the difference between victory or defeat in the heat of a battle. As a reference KGV cost ~£7,400,000 or $30,000,000. Vanguard $47,000,000. The North Carolina cost about $70,000,000. Iowa $100,000,000.
Thats partly as the US STS or grade B steel (Otherwise known as homogenous steel) was quite good whereas their cemented steel was inferior to Britains and Germanys which had a very shallow depth of tempering, using better quality steel in the rest of the ship countered some of the deficency in their main armour steel (and for the obvious reason that face hardened steel functioned best with a minimum 3.5 to 4 inch thickness whereas homogenous steel functioned best at 2 inches or below), general grade construction steel in the US was also quite poor as seen in the cracking and spontaneous disassembly of liberty ships when encountering colder Atlantic water. The British grade D or High Tensile Steel was considered the best in the world and was used by Germany and Japan as well, this form of steel would go on to become the grade used for commercial ship construction after the war. Britain would use a different armour grade of cemented steel for flat surfaces than general unhardened armour whereas the US would just use standard STS just in greater thickness. (There was a whole thing on how the hardness of US shells led them into a vicious dead end circle of creating harder and harder armour to defeat harder and harder shells which didnt reflect the real world softer shell steel their opponents were actually using which would compress rather than shatter when faced with such hard armour facing). There is a great website breaking down the different steels used and their various qualities: www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.php
@@drittal Yes I am sorry it could read ambigious, the point was that British and German had a shallow temper (15-30% face/transition) whereas the US had much higher (40-20% face/transition) which made it inferior. "The thick face added to the scaling effect, though not nearly as much as the face of MNC had, making thick U.S. World War II Class "A" armor somewhat inferior to German KC n/A or British CA, but also working in reverse so that U.S. World War II Class "A" armor 7" (17.78cm) or less in thickness was the best face-hardened armor used by anyone ever. The replacement of Class "A" armor by Class "B" armor in the heaviest grades that were used in World War II battleship turret face plates demonstrates that the U.S. Navy was aware of the relative inferiority of its thick-faced Class "A" armor in such heavy grades against high-quality projectiles"
@@watcherzero5256 I’m not sure if I agree with Okun on the point of the class B turret faces. 1) above 13” there is diminishing return for cemented armor. 2) class A is more prone to spall, even on non penetrating hits. See the damage to Dunkerque turret from a glancing blow off the top, which had cemented horizontal armor. The hit did not penetrate but put that side of the turret out of action with casualties 3) if the USN knew this with the NC class they had more than enough time to rectify their Class A armor for possibly the up-armored SD class and for sure the IA class.
@@drittal "class A is more prone to spall, even on non penetrating hits. See the damage to Dunkerque turret from a glancing blow off the top, which had cemented horizontal armour. The hit did not penetrate but put that side of the turret out of action with casualties" Naval designers knew that cemented armour was more vulnerable to high obliquity hits from shells, and would use homogenous armour instead of cemented for horizontal armour. Only the French used cemented armour on their turret roofs since cemented works better against bombs. For low obliquity cemented is better.
HMS Vanguard is my second favorite Battleship right after Iowa. And I believe that Vanguard is actually heavier than Bismarck and only lighter than Tirpitz by less than 500 tonnes. I am actually surprised by her sea-keeping ability. Had she been finished prior to 1943, she would have been the queen of the Atlantic Ocean. Great video!
Great comparison, wished they had updated her by removing the aft turrets and giving her missiles, considering the size of a Sea Slug, this would have made sense. Now complete fantasy, a Falklands conflict with Ark Royal with Buccaneers and Vanguard, Blake and Tiger, facing off the Belegano.
Belgrano was originally an American light cruiser. Despite some occasional modernisations, it would’ve been outmatched by pretty much every warship in the Royal Navy in any sort of surface engagement.
An amazing video as always, but I would note that Vanguard was larger than Bismarck at standard displacement. I’m pretty sure that battleships are not measured at deep load, and by going by that, Vanguard was about 4000 tonnes heavier.
Always had the opinion that Vanguard was somewhat of a "budget battleship." Glad to see it still seemed to perform very well with what it had to work with - with sensible and smart design choices.
H M S Hood, was known as 'Britains Big Bullsh - - - - -ing B - - - - - - Built in Brown's' to the men of the Pre War Navy, so had they faith in her capability.
One of these guns holds the record for a hit on a moving target at sea. 26400 yards. That is the maximum practical range of the rangefinder due to the curvature of the earth. Radar is needed for longer ranges.
During the 1970s I worked with an engineering supervisor who had been the Gunnery Officer - 'Guns' - on HMS Vanguard He said that one day in 1957 or 58 we got a signal which read - 'Go to sea and don't come back with any 15 inch ammunition'. So we went out into the North Atlantic, well away from any shipping lanes, and fired it all off Yes, it's a shame that we couldn't have preserved a big gun ship Some of the best known, like Warspite were just so old and worn out that it would have been difficult & expensive, but a better choice could have been Vanguard or the best of the KG V class
I’m going to disagree on the remark about the 15” guns not holding up compared to “modern contemporaries”. The Yamatos’ guns, while powerful, weren’t particularly accurate, as they weren’t even rifled. And it’s a bit of an insult to say that 15” Mark I is inferior to the 16”/45s of the interwar. The 15” Mark I is certainly just as good as the Colorado-class” 16” guns. Here’s a comparison between the 15" Mk I and the 16” Mark 7 : Both guns fired at 2 rounds/min. The 15" Mark I's HE Shells are more even with the Iowas' in terms of HE Shell weight, though the Iowas' AP shells are 40% heavier. But that's not counting their Target shells and their post-Korean War shells. The Bursting Charge for the 15" Mark I's APC shells are slightly superior to the Iowas' guns', but the Iowas' are superior for the HC bursting charge. The 15" Mark I's bursting charge was 22 kg (48.5-pound) Shellite or 27.4 kg (60.5-pound) Lyddite, depending on the shell for APC, while the HE Mark VIIIb was 59 kg (130-pound) TNT or TNT/RDX. The Iowas' guns' bursting charge was only 18.55 kg (40.9-pounds) for AP, but the HC was 69.67 kg (153.6-pounds). The Iowas' guns' propellant charge is superior. The propellant-charge of the 15" Mark I was 196 kg (432-pound) SC 280 with standard charges (being 222.2 kg (490-pound) SC 300 with SuperCharges), whereas the 16" Mark 7 had 299.4 kg (660-pound) at Full Charge during WWII and 138.3 kg (305-pound) at reduced charge during and after WWII, while the post-war Full Charge was 297.1 kg (655-pounds). The 15" Mark I's working pressure is higher. The working pressure for the 15" Mark I was 20 tons/in² (23 tons/in² with SuperCharges) vs. the 18.5 tons/in² of the Iowas' guns. Both guns were about even in muzzle-velocity. The Iowas' guns had a muzzle-velocity of 762 m/s (2,500 ft/s) for new guns, while avrg. guns had 739 m/s (2,425 ft/s). the 15" Mark I's is 749 m/s (2,458 ft/s) with Standard charges, while going to 804 m/s (2,638 ft/s) with supercharges. And prior to postwar innovations with the powder charges rather than gun construction, the 16" Mk 7 actually had a shorter barrel life by about 40 rounds.
DK Brown a royal navy designer who was active at the time indicated not only that Vanguard fitted for supercharges but that with the superior metallurgy of British armour approximately 10% better than US armour he would have given the Vanguard even odds against an Iowa and a fair chance against Yamato. In addition the bursting charge of the 15/42 AP or even the 14/45 AP was greater than that of even the 16/50 super heavy. In addition the 15/42 is widely regarded as the most accurate capital ship gun of all time
In a ship to ship duel, the IOWAs had innumerable advantages over YAMATOs. Superior speed--the IOWA could shape the battle at will. Far better fire control. Higher rate of fire. Better damage control. And the Mark 7 16" naval rifle firing the super heavy shell had very close to the same striking power as the YAMATO's 18 inch guns. The IOWA was a far superior ship technologically.
@@iowa61 First this is about HMS Vanguard not the Yamato class. Vanguard had equivalent fire control to the Iowas and probably better RADAR,had shells which though smaller had a bigger bursting charge than even the US 16"super heavy fired from the supremely accurate 15"/42,thicker armour which being British post 1930's armour was better than US plate so it's 14" belt was equivalent to about 16" of US armour and she was a far superior sea boat being able to use all her main guns in any weather a battle could be fought unlike an Iowa where the forward barbette was unusable in any kind of sea which in the Atlantic would have rendered the Iowa class 6 gun ships and unlikely to make more than 28 kts. Finally the fight between HMS Shah and Huascar showed that even a fast lightly armoured ship,the Iowas have a 12"belt could not defeat a slower but better armoured ship if gun range was equal as it would be between Iowa and HMS Vanguard at about 25,000 yards and in a storm which is a pretty normal condition in the Atlantic when Iowa could only make around 28kts and is limited to 6 guns a 30Kt Vanguard has all the advantages
This was the last ship my grandfather served aboard, he was in the Cameron highlanders during ww1 in the trenches and at the out break of ww2 he joined the Royal Navy and served onboard a minesweeper not sure about the name though as my grandfather passed away in the 1970s so I never had the pleasure of knowing him but I do know my grandmother not got him home until the 1950s when he finally said goodbye to his military service for good, he served all over the world and contracted malaria during his time in the navy whilst serving in Asia somewhere, I think it might have been Malaysia but not sure, I would have loved to have heard about his military days
Hey Ryan, remember that Iowa was still a treaty battleship and the limits of the escalator clause allowing 45,000t and 16” weapons. The 15”/42 was claimed by the USN in documents to be the most accurate gun if WWII. According to Oscar Parkes “British Battleships” Iowa was Rolling 26° each way while Vanguard rolled 15° each way. Despite being the last battleship constructed she relied heavily on rivets due to the need for welding to construct antisubmarine vessels. As such welding was limited to non strength members with her entire hull girder, armament foundations, and side protection systems being riveted. Her draft was limited to 35’ after calculations showed hull stresses would be higher than designed. Additional top weight necessitated strengthening upper decks to support it, however no strengthening was done to the keel/bottom. This moves the neutral axis of hogging and sagging higher up, over stressing the bottom hull plates. Even with the restriction she suffered opened hull plates during trials. Her dry bow that she wasn’t designed for made this situation worse, adding more stress in rough weather and being so dry she was often driven too hard in rough seas. These restrictions meant she could either carry ammo or fuel, never a full load of both. In the 1955 refit she was due to have enough weight savings employed to allow fuel fuel, ammo for 6 main guns and half her secondary but she was placed in reserve instead and eventually scrapped. British cemented armor is estimated to be 10-20% more effective than USN class A against battleship calibre shells. The 5.25” greenhouses on Vanguard were larger and had double the elevation and train rates compared to the mounts on KGV/Dido.
As a generality by this one document, probably true, but in effect the most accurate naval guns in the main gun caliber at sea at the time were the 16"/45 caliber on the Colorado class.
Funny thing about HMS Vanguard If HMS Hood hadn't sunk at Denmark Strait, Vanguard's stuff would have gone to Hood but Vanguard might have ended up as an Aircraft Carrier
Do you have anymore information about the Iowa's bows being replaced with vanguard styled bows? I've never heard anything about it before, and it's quite fascinating.
While Vanguard may have TECHNICALLY had a thicker belt at 14 inches but Iowa's was an internal angled belt that gave her the equivalent protection of 17.3 inches.
The fact that with the click of a button I get to tune in to a thoroughly educational video the likes of this & other Battleship New Jersey productions is what makes UA-cam great.
HMS Vanguard VS USS Iowa (Part two) Sea Worthiness specifics. - Vanguard was designed after many lessons was learned from the British's greater wealth of navel combat experience. These lessons especially from the King George class made it very resilient with its armour layout, fuel choice, auxiliary command systems, automation & how it's propellers were configured but also how the bow shear/flare was designed for rougher Atlantic weather. It also had a second massive break water. In operation Mariner where war games were conducted with the Vanguard and Iowa class. It was apparently reported by eye witnesses at the time Vanguards turrets remained fully functional and could maintain a speed of 26 knots with only a 12 degree roll when a storm hit but the Iowa had a 26+ degree roll and had to reduce speed and was consistently suffering from impaired use or complete loss of functionality of its forward turret due to flooding & huge roll. Resulting in it loosing a 3rd of its main armament & therefore reducing it to 6 guns while the Vanguard still had 8 guns available. Add this to the fact Vanguard could turn in 940 yards & Iowa needed 1006 yards then I believe this gives Vanguard the advantage in conditions that aren't perfectly calm which is common. It simply had better reliability and maneuverability. The British sacrificed a little speed for battle reliability and Americans vice Versa simple as that. My conclusion. - I believe both ships are awesome & beautiful with significant advantages & disadvantages over eachother & once these factors are realistically assessed they are both highly capable of defeating eachother & it would more than likely come down to their Captains/Crews training & experience (It's another subject but I believe the Americans although fast learners unfortunately wasn't in the same league as the British in regards to training and experience as they were already engaged in WW2 for 2 years before America even joined the war and had the most powerful and experienced navy for generations up until that point (An Island race that conquered 22% of the world and were involved in the biggest sea battles like Jutland, they know about ships and training), even now the SBS & SAS run rings around the seals & delta. But assuming in a perfect world that the Captain's/Crews decisions & performance are perfect then in calm conditions I give it 50/50 but as conditions get tougher the Vanguard gains more advantage in the real world. If I had to be stationed on a ship during this battle I would choose the Vanguard personally as paper battles & reality are far different & the Vanguard is a far more balanced war machine built for war not to have the best numbers on paper. I often hear during Iowa VS Yamato debates a strong case for the Iowa closing the distance with its superior speed to get within range where it's superior targeting/fire control system (Vanguards was equally as good) can punch critical holes into the Yamato until it's defeated while the Yamato is missing shot after shot but in reality the Iowa makes a big target & it will be hit and I believe it won't take many 18.1 inch 3219lb armour piercing shells or 2998lb high explosive Yamato shells which had 33kg bursting charge's compared to Iowa's 18kg (FYI neither shell was as heavy as HMS furious 18 inch shells) to critically damage the Iowa before it can critically damage the Yamato. Therefore giving the Yamato the advantage. Now the reason I've briefly touched on this is because I believe there's more of a chance of the Iowa defeating the Yamato (35% chance max although some say with pure mathematics only 12%) then defeating the Vanguard in anything less than calm seas. Styles make fights and the rougher the sea the tougher the Vanguard become. HMS Vanguard for me. P.S: She had one of Warspites guns and therefore the spirit to break free in defiance on her way to the breakers and the Queen used Red wine to launch her. Ferocity and Class.
@@CRAZYHORSE19682003 I'll just keep waiting for you to make a detailed case on what you base that comment on in reality. I'm sure your not commenting randomly and emotionally afterall.
Have you read the naval institute press book on the vanguard ? It explains why the American battle ships had better range because is double reduction gears for the props in US ship of WW2. It also stated US 17” inch armor was equal to British 16 “ inch , British Armor was a thought to be a little better. The US armor was was harden 50% of its thickness to counter a new nose cap shell the had super penetration do you know any thing on this ?
My father served on Vanguard's first commission, including the Royal Tour of South Africa. And my sister-in-law's grandfather was Commander (ie Executive Officer) for a time in the late 1950's.
From Fraser, husband of Leslie My paternal grandfather served on the battleship Dreadnought in the 1st World War. When I was quite young, (8 or 9) we had a school trip to Portsmouth and on a trip round Portsmouth Harbour, I remember seeing Vanguard. We also went round Victory, Nelson's flagship at the Battle of Trafalgar. Of course in those days, we had a big navy !!
15:38 I love that ship photo, seems to feature the then Royal Family including the late HM Queen Elizabeth the II with the crew of HMS Vanguard. Wonderful memory
Another great vid. Just wondering if it was 108 ft wide, same as the Iowas, because of the width of the Panama Canal at that time, which I think was 110 ft wide. I can't find out for sure what width Suez was, but logically it must have been at least 110 ft and most likely the 200ft-ish recorded for 1956. It kind of assumes that the UK would keep a rosy enough relationship with the Americans that they'd be able to use it, even in wartime.
The guns were beefed up to fire supercharges which meant they could fire alot further plus a higher velocity, however the supercharges would ruin the guns alot quicker so they decided to only use during war time, as she never seen a naval war then she never fired them. Vangaurd was very good in rough seas due to her bow, she was better than the iowa's at high speed through rough waters. I think alot of people see the Iowa's as the best battleships ever built but most will have the later changes in mind which modernised them right upto to the 90's, im sure the Iowa's and Vangaurd were alot closer when these 2 class of ships were actually designed and built in the mid to late 40's, one thing is for sure though and both were great looking ships.
My Dad took my two big brothers to look at the old girl at Faslane, we moved into the area soon after as my pop was a newly trained MOD Plod and the base was expanding for Polaris.
Great video Ryan! But Queen Elizabeth ll didn't christen her. Princess Elizabeth did😉 I didn't know that till your footage here. How lovely they both look!
Good morning , I do believe the French battleship Jon Bart was not finished by 1950’s. The Repluse was the best ship in the fleet when it came to gun duals. She was able to stratal faster then every other big gun ship. If she was given the upgraded as the Renown prior to the sacrifice in Singapore.she would have had the anti-aircraft guns, she survives and even saved PoWales. It was also known that if she survived the torpedo attack, the Japanese didn’t have any more torpedos and she would have returned to Singapore along with the damaged PoW where battle damage would be repaired enough to join the US fleet in Hawaii. This was thrown around in the Admiralty at the time as fleet in the south was cruising to their sacrifice. There is a web sight called to “Armoured Carriers”. On this sight you will hear the recorded voices of the survivors of the “British Fleet”. I believe you will find this enjoyable as the voices of the fleet come alive. Forever in His service
I have a book about British Battleships and it says that had Vanguard been finished earlier enough they were going to offer it to the Royal Australian Navy to fight in the Pacific but Australia didn’t have to people to man it.
Doubtful. Vanguard would have served in the British Pacific Fleet if WW2 had continued long enough. The British had a large force in the Pacific in 1945, itself more powerful than the Kido Butai of 1942, operating alongside the US Navy. The combined armada was likely the largest in naval history, even bigger than the Grand Fleet of 1918.
Vanguard was a great gun platform and had much better seakeeping qualities than the Iowa class and was a very dry ship, the front Sheer & flare made her great at speed....and in heavy seas and storms. Iowa's were very wet forward with their narrow dolphin nose bow, and thus not great in heavy storms. I must also disagree with you, saying the 15" guns no good.....The 15" were a tried and tested very successful and accurate weapon...hence why upgraded and used on the Van. Upgraded to fire the 1,938-pound shell to 33,550 yards, and with her supercharges ranging to 37,870 yards. This was more than adequate for ship to ship combat....as aircraft were being used more and more in the longer range battles.
Great video. At 17:00 you see Vanguard moving down the Clyde and passing SS Queen Elizabeth, which is being repainted from her wartime troop-ship grey to Cunard's house colours, in anticipation of her starting passenger liner service. At the time, Queen Elizabeth was the largest ship in the world. Both ships were built at the same yard - John Brown's Clydebank yard, back up the river. Regarding the 15" gun on the Vanguard - I'm sure the US Navy did a report on the efficacy of all the main armaments of battleships, and the 15" came out favourably compared to other weapons. It was something I saw referred to, but I can't find the actual report anywhere on the web.
#399 HMS Vanguard would have served better as a large Attack Aircraft Carrier, probably lasting up to the 1980's. Its size fitting between the USS Essex and USS Midway(?). She was a beautifully designed battleship, good looking, and very well balanced. Battleships will always be "Lords of The Sea". Technology will continue to change surface combatants. The USS Ford class of Aircraft of Attack Carriers will probably be the last Giants. Drone Aircraft and Missiles, can be used on a smaller platform at sea. Lets see if I am correct(?)
One thing I've always wondered is: Were the "big guns" on battleships originally intended for shore bombardment, or for ship-to-ship combat? Or were they intended for both? Which were they used more for? I know that depends on the battle and the setting.
Great video about a very special ship. It ended up more as a super-size taxi for the British Royal family, doing the rounds (no pun) after WW2 visiting South Africa, Australia etc showing the flag to the then Empire & Dominions. I'm sure on paper it would have done what it was designed to do, but it looked dated, obsolete? Probably not comparing apples, with apples etc but for example the Bismarck, the Yamamoto to name 2 (enemy) ships just have sleeker profiles, not forgetting the Missouri (non enemy) No matter how big these ships were, their enormous guns, thickness of armour etc, a lucky hit, one torpedo, a salvo from the other side, they break up and sink, in double quick time, with disastrous consequences. (RIP for all those crewmen.) I wonder how the Vanguard would have fared in battle? Years ago 'Cher' made a video, on board the the 'Big Mo (?)' I sometimes wish I could 'un-see' it, but it looked like the officers & ratings on Missouri had a lot of fun, oogling 'Ms Cher.'
The longest moving battleship on battleship hit was HMS Warspite against Italy’s Guilio Cesare in July 1940 at 26,000 yards, that’s over 14 miles. I doubt we will ever see naval battles like that again.
It's a shame that the British never saved the HMS Vanguard, it's so wonderful that all for Iowa's in the class were saved and are still with us..😊
The greatest shame is the scrapping of Warspite, just glad she made it difficult to do!
@@xxparan01axx11 Classic Warspite....defiant to the last
@@loganmarriott514 one of the things I'd love to do if I came into an obscene amount of money would to make a replica and donate it lol
@@xxparan01axx11 replicas are never the same though...
@@loganmarriott514 better than nothing though!
As mentioned in other comments below, HMS Vanguard was designed to use supercharges. These guns were also capable of firing the same projectiles while using these supercharges which gave a maximum range of 37,870 yards (34,630 m) i.e. over 21 miles. Regarding saving a battleship as a museum ship, I would have preferred to save HMS Warspite as that had our best battleship history and HMS Vanguard never fired its guns in anger, not even in the Korean war as also mentioned below. Great review, thanks
Yes, Warspite would have been the better pick for a museum ship, but Vanguard had a much higher chance of surviving long enough, like the Iowa's, to be turned into one.
One thing to note about those guns is they are almost the exact same 15” B.L. Mk. I guns that the Queen Elizabeths, Renowns, Repulses, Hood and a few monitors had. The only difference being the ability to supercharge, or ram more powder in the breech. This gave the guns more range but also severely reduced the barrel quality. The ability was hardly even used during training exercises.
Sorry, but 37,870 yards is not 21 miles. Naval gun ranges are measured by comparison to nautical miles not statute miles. 37,870 yards is slightly over 18.5 nautical miles. A nautical mile is 2000 yards. Iowa class 16 inch guns had a range of over 40,000 yards or 20 nautical miles.
@@LongboardJesus For Vanguard they actually also improved the gun elevation in the turrets, so the guns had a longer range on her even without the super charges.
HMS was the most advanced and best built of its Age, that's why some say she should've been saved. She was around long after Warspite, but I agree that Warspite would've been amazing to keep as well.
HMS Vanguard as Britain's honorary Warship to show the end of a Naval Era for Great Britain would've been just as great for historical significance.
As a five year old my father took me to see her aground outside the Still and West pub at The Point in Portsmouth Harbour. Gutted and sitting high in the water on her way to the breakers yard, she looked utterly enormous to my child's eyes.
Probably still pretty big to an adult as well I first saw an aircraft carrier as an adult and couldn't believe how big it was
Man, what a sight... must've been great, seeing such a Warship around right before it was erased from this world. A tragic beauty...
I lived my whole life around Portsmouth harbour until 36. Its great for ship spotting obviously, but some of the old ones like the 82 look pretty sad 😔
My father took us on board HMS Vanguard as she was being stripped in Portsmouth Harbour. We had just been on board HMS Victory. My dad saw a hole in the fence next to the dock. So in we went. It was not long before we were spotted. The duty officer challenged us so My dad got out his WW2 RNVR documents that he carried all the time. So we were honored and taken to the forehead under the 15 inch turrets. Then we went up top to the bridge to gaze forward. It was the most amazing visit ever as a young boy and we were so proud of my dad, who served all the days of WW2. True story promise.
Vanguard’s 40mm AA gun system was pretty cool: There were 6 autoloading barrels per mount and each mount had its own local radar director. They were serious about AA after the disaster of Repulse and Prince of Wales, although the former dodged (or “combed”) about 12 aerial torpedoes, which was a magnificent display of ship handling.
Yeah I would say that the AA fit was better than the Iowa's thanks to the auto-loading, advanced stabilisation, and variety of directing options of those 6-barrel mounts.
Maybe Vanguard's 8 × twin 5.25" dual-purpose guns firing shells with proximity fuses were its true main AA. Proximity fuses were not available at the time when Repulse and Prince of Wales were sunk. Radar was also not as reliable at that early stage of WW2 but improved a lot by the time Vanguard was launched.
It always brings a smile to my face when I hear of a warship breaking loose on the way to the scrappers. As if to say, not without a fight mate!
As to range , the British had not developed at-sea refueling
And to attempt an escape to a pub, not once, but twice.
@@phil4483 Always looking for a fight and finding one. Taking out the tugs taking her to the scrappers, you can't make this stuff up.
It is hard to deny the Iowa class 16" guns were some of the best and most powerful every built.
Posters keep mentioning the 15" supercharge. By most accounts, the supercharge was developed for older 15" gun British warships that did not have their gun mount elevation increased during refit. The supercharge was intended to increase range on older ships as an emergency measure, not to increase firepower. It was very hard on the guns, and according to most sources, supercharging was not used on new/refitted ships like Renown, Vanguard, or the Queen Elizabeth's.
Vanguard overall is one of the best battleships to be built, and one of the best looking. While the 15" was not the most powerful gun in service by WW II, it was rugged, reliable, and accurate. In other words, well proven and superbly battle worthy. Some have called it the finest heavy battleship gun built by the Royal Navy. It makes some claim to being one of the best of all time, despite not being the most powerful.
I believe that the 50 cal 16 inch fish was the third, arguably second best naval gun ever built. It’s possibly more powerful than the 40 cal 18 inch gun, but that’s debatable, and could very well only be less powerful than the 18.11 inch guns of the Yamato
The turret substructure of Vanguard's guns was strengthened specifically to cope with firing supercharges. Though the ship never used them in practice.
Great video! If nothing else HMS Vanguard was with a doubt one of the most beautiful battleships ever made.
Not gonna lie, her design was sexy sleak.
I like to think of her as a successor to Hood. Very similar lines
I dunno. With those turrets, she always reminds me of a classical Greek statue. Amazing physique but lacking size in a certain area.
Roma takes the cake but I love the Vanguards elevated barbets.
@@evo5dave Brilliant.
Fun fact one of the 15” guns from the legend herself, HMS Warspite, was put aboard Vanguard. Sadly when she was scrapped, they scrapped the gun and the rest of them too. I personally think at least one of Vanguard’s guns should have been on display in front of IWM, instead of HMS Resolution’s.
I know Vanguard didn't fight in WW2, but come on UK... you could have saved this ship. Last British battleship ever build, low mileage, no battle damage, etc.
One owner Battleship, low mileage. NO LOW BALLERS!!! I know what I got
If there was one we should have saved it was HMS Warspite. :'(
If any battleships should have been saved, it was H.M.S. Warspite, precisely because of the history and consequent battle damage..
It was Vanguard or the 3 Tiger class cruisers. The tigers had the advantage of being in more places at once, much more aa firepower and the politicians liked them.
Britain was bankrupt after 5yrs of war & there was no money to be had for preserving old battleships. Vanguard survived as long as she did by being made a NATO flagship & receiving contributions from other countries.
Some have said when Vanguard broke free, it was an act of defiance to escape her fate. Rather sad really
Warspite never made it to the breakers yard.
@@michaeltruett817 Indeed, those pictures of her grounded at Prussia Cove are amazing.
It’s extremely sad and disgusting that they scrapped our history
Come on Ryan, you know the only battleship that could take an Iowa is Warspite!
I concur, I can only speculate but there is some force of nature that would hand victory to Warspite.
@@abrahamedelstein4806 That force of nature is God himself
only cos Warspite learned god mode cheat ;) So sad she is not here as a museum ship.
Yeah, Warspite would sail circles round an Iowa....
Warspite had the best type of armour, plot armour!
Thanks for this. It's a sin my country never had the for sight to preserve this beautiful ship as you guys have done!
She should have been preserved. A tragedy.
☹️ Yeah, The British govt chose not to preserve ANY capital ships, because WW2 left UK in very poor financial shape.
👍 But IMO they could've paid for it using the following 2 concurrent strategies:
👉1). Store the preferred ships in mothballs, while awaiting the govt's financial situation to improve.
👉2). Raise private funds, and offer special incentives for people who donate a certain amount(£250, £500 or £1,000+).
✳️The incentives could include:
✓ Donors' names engraved on a large memorial plaque.
✓ Have an overnight holiday celebration with food and festivities(donated by local restaurants), and allow the £250+ donors to spend the night on the ship.
Would have LOVED to see HMS Warspite and HMS Vanguard if they had only been preserved. Vanguard also made a break for freedom!
Why should our ruling class save these ships for the nation, when most of them dislike the uk with a vengence,
No point saving a ship that never did anything. Save Warspite and Rodney before this would make sense?
Iowas are pretty. The prettiest of all battleships. Vanguard was handsome. The most handsome of all battleships.
chin-chin
You must have never laid eyes upon the Scharnhorst klasse.
@@F-4E-58-MC Scharnhorst was more of a pretty ship due to her tiny slender feminine 11" girly guns :)
@@doccyclopz They really do make her a bit... Top heavy... 🤣 Well, not historically, but you get the point :)
Not as good as the mighty Warspite though
"...if they were in the right place..."
Halsey throws a hissy-fit.
Lee throws his ships into position.
Perhaps if Britain had not been under such economic duress, post-1945, the Royal Navy (and Captain Hindsight) could've maintained her (not mothballed) until such time as anti-air weapons had caught up with the jet age; imagine 1982 and a Seawolf-armed HMS Vanguard, rocking-up of East Falkland, for the shore-bombardment gig, "Eh, Amigo, escucho un tren expres, viniendo!
It would have scared the crap out of the argies. 👍
The Tiger class cruisers would arguably have been perfect for the falklands conflict, and only taken out of service a few years before. Automatic 6” and 3” guns would have been extremely useful in ‘bomb alley’ and NGFS
Great video, thanks for taking the time to produce. My dad served on HMS Repulse and was on board when it was sunk in December 1941. Battleships and battlecruisers were magnificent feats of engineering but emerging technology (such as guided missiles) made them obsolete in modern times.
The RN 15" shell had a 50% larger bursting charge than the USN 16" super heavy shell.
IIRC the USN estimated less than 3% chance of hits on a non-manoeuvring battleship sized target at maximum range of the 16" 45.
Thats right Vanguard fired the 15inch supercharge round not the 15" common.
If we're talking about Mark 7 16"/50 then its a different thing, both late war British and US GFCS could fire their main guns over horizon in all weather and time of day conditions. As far as I know Iowas still retain their analog GFCS for the main guns from WWII up until Desert Storm because of their effectiveness regarding computing target data though other types of war ships during Desert Storm uses computer and digital fire controls. Imo the Mark 38 fire control is the best GFCS for a battleship
The Iowa could fire nuclear round, Vanguard couldn't, no cap
3% is one hit out of every 3 salvoes. That's not too bad at 20 miles.
@@ramal5708 Neither ship ever did. Your point is irrelevant.
I am sad that the UK didn't turn the Warspite and the Vanguard into museum ships.
The UK might have been strapped for cash at the time, but you can mothball a ship for a long time, until you have the cash.
Politicians were just as short sighted back then as they are today, unfortunately.
Still require a lot of maintenance and money when they are moth balled.
The US relies on the states or fundraiser if they really want to preserve or make the decommissioned ships as museum ships for their states or normal museum ships in their cities
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money" - Margaret Thatcher.
Sadly this stupidity in the uk continues with hms illustrious being recently sent for scrap despite efforts to stop it.
Thank you for this video. I grew up in a home behind Portsmouth Harbour and saw Vanguard in the distance many times. We children cried our eyes out when she was sent for scrap, and many former sailors had an unexpected need for a handkerchief.
You probably haven't seen the Iowa enters the Portsmouth harbor in 1989 while few sailing boats were around her
@@ramal5708 - Correct, I had migrated prior to that. I did see the big cruiser Newport News leave Portsmouth and marveled that she weighed about the same as HMS Dreadnought.
She came back to the Clyde and was broken up at Faslane which is now the nuclear sub base. At that time there was a breakers yard next to the R N base which then of course was diesel boats only. My Aunt had a caravan at Rosneath so from 1961 until we sold the van in 1963 I saw many of the Navy's comings and goings on the Loch as a kid. In fact it was the Navy that brought my late dad to Scotland as he was originally from Devonport. I well remember the Vanguard, to a kid of that age she seemed enormous,and there were many ships on the Clyde in those days. One of the most elegant ships I have ever seen. Fitting however sad that she came back to the Clyde, as she was built in John Brown's in Clydebank. The yard,birthplace of the Queens also, is now Clydebank college and a massive health centre. The young nurse who attended me on a recent visit did not know there had ever been a shipyard there. That and Singers up until the 1970s was Clydebank. The old man used to chat to the then Admiralty coppers guarding the former U S destroyer base at Rosneath. Rosneath mansion apparently used to partially plan the D Day landings. I also saw the Battlaxe brought in under tow,written off after a collision,and dreadnought,Britains first Nuclear Submarine.Vanguard was gone after two years however.
Her turrets were from Courageous and Glorious, the guns were from the stocks of 15 inch guns, some of which had been mounted in other ships, the Royal navy had extra gun barrels,so that guns could be taken out in refits and overhauled,being replaced by barrels from reserve stocks. These weapons were then overhauled and fitted to other ships as required.Also, Vanguard was intended to reinforce the far eastern fleet, originally, however , the need for escorts took priority for obvious reasons. The desire for a battleship with all the lessons of the second world war was the main reason she was continued and completed. Problem was, she was a ship without a war to fight in an era when the battleships time had passed.
Those guns are better than the Iowas 16" right?
@@ramal5708 Did you watch the video? Those guns couldn’t even come close to an Iowa’s guns.
@@Iwillfigureoutanamelater what does that mean? Is Iowa gun worse?
@@ramal5708 No. The Iowa had much better guns than the Vanguard. Iowa shot bigger diameter, heavier shells much farther than the Vanguard.
Unless I am mistaken, the squared off stern was called the “transom” stern and actually added hydrodynamic “length” to ship at higher speeds. This effectively increased the length to width ratio (finesse?) and permitted higher speeds for less power. Conversely, at lower speeds the transom actually slowed the ship down
Great video, just to add a few points. The reason the Royal Navy steered away from armoured conning towers was because in practice it was found the crew would often use the secondary 'open' bridge in combat to gain better visibility. This is also reflected in the conning towers of the KGVs, Nelson/Rodney and the refits of Warspite, Queen Elizabeth, Valiant and Renown. It was just dead weight so the armour was cut back. As for her main battery, many place too emphasis on the fact the guns were of WW1 vintage and didn't cut it in WW2. The reality is with super charges (David K Brown's book Nelson to Vanguard states the work was carried out to fire at 30 degrees elevation with super charges but were never issued because the war was over) Vanguard had a theoretical range of over 35,000 yards, but as you point out the chances of hitting at that range is doubtful even for modern battleships like Vanguard or Iowa. The 15 inch shell was still capable of penetrating any armour of any ship at 'realistic' engagement ranges. Her fire control was second only to Iowa and she would of been a formidable oppenent to even the Yamato in poor visibility/weather and at night.
Spot on. those who have doubts about World War 1 ordanance should research D Day. Many of the guns employed by the Germans on The Atlantic Wall were in fact French or Skoda of world war 1 vintage. It the Germans with their technical expertise saw fit to use them,one need say no more. I met many men of several nations in the past who were at D Day. No one ever said the German coastal guns were lousy,or inaccurate. These men have the final word in my view. They faced them.
Quite fair and measured analysis that makes clear that Royal Navy battleships were based on a lot of battle and sea experience across the totality of two world wars, and it is far from clear cut that the Iowa’s were superior. Therefore issues such as crew training, experience and the nature of how any meeting took place would likely be the decisive factors. Thank God the RoyaL Navy since 1815 has not had to fight the US Navy and it’s incredible resources which would always be decisive and that USA and Uk remain the closest of friends and allies.
In theory, Vanguard’s gun’s aren’t as anemic as they first appear. According to British naval historian D.K. Brown, Vanguard was built to accept “supercharges” for its 15”/42 guns. These increased powder charges increased muzzle velocity by a couple hundred FPS, increasing the range and striking power to very close to more modern 15” guns. These were never actually issued to Vanguard because it was never in a war and the charges increased barrel wear, but they were issued to the Revenge class during WWII to make up for their 20 degree elevation. Again, these charges didn’t make the 15”/42 comparable to the 16”/50 or even 16”/45, but it did get them within spitting distance of the guns on Bismarck or Richelieu.
The BL 15”/42 also had a larger bursting charge then the Iowa’s 16”/50 so if one gets through it has a higher potential damage as well. The Vanguard also has better fire control redundancy than the Iowa which would be beneficial when shells start landing.
@@stevenmcgee9588 You are correct about the larger bursting charge, although I'm not sure it would have been enough to make a huge difference. The Mark 8 16" shell had a 40.9 lb charge, whereas the shells for the 15"/42 had a 48.5 lb charge. I'm not sure whether Vanguard had better fire control redundancy, although I think it's safe to say that both were pretty good in this department.
@@stevenmcgee9588 Yup its a thing the Royal navy is famous for massive bursting charges they reckon even the 14" were as powerful as 16" heavy shells
Some armour from the Vanguard was used in the British Steel River Don Works apprentice shop as the floor, I was an apprentice in the early 70s don't think I ever damaged it.
Which factory was it in?
@@GG-ir1hw Sheffield River Don works, through gate no 2 on Brightside Lane go through the north Planer Shop, the Appentice shop is now the site of Mike Brewe Motors
@@GG-ir1hw British Steel Sheffield, go through no 1 gate on Brightside Lane, past the canteen, through the North Planer shop. The Apprentice Workshop was where Mike Brewer Motors is now,
The only British built battleship to end up as a museum piece is the "Mikasa" in Japan. At least one of the "King George V" should have been saved and moored on the Thames. What were these people thinking. Eight of the US battleships were retained as museum pieces.
well we had half of London to rebuilt at the time so paying to keep a obsolete warship was not on the top of anyones list
Well normal civillians could fundraise and buy the warships before they were scrapped or when they're decommissioned just like what they did with Texas and North Carolina. It only take just few people to pool money together to purchase retired battleships before they were scrapped
The US is a MUCH richer country that the UK.
@@ramal5708 We owed all our money to the Yanks for winning the war for them because they turned up two and a half years to late. Next big war I bet they will be a year to early.
No British battleship would be able to fit in the Thames without dredging.
Went aboard HMS Vanguard during her last Navy Day, before she was decommissioned.
The other thing the RN found with Conning Towers, was that the senior offices tended not to use the conning tower even if there was one. You can see in the design of the Nelson class how the Conning Tower was a small almost afterthought.
That and there was some research that if an armoured conning tower was hit by a shell it might survive intact but the occupants would be turned to jelly by the pressure waves created of essentially being inside a bell when struck.
The armoured conning tower on Bismarck was penetrated numerous times and even an 8in cruiser shell made its way inside through a damaged door. I think an eyewitness survivor moved through the conning tower late in the action and everyone inside was dead.
@@urseliusurgel4365 In some literature lightly armored conning tower is treated as a fault (arguing that on PoW's bridge almost entire staff was killed by shot from Bismark) but in reality armored conning tower also would turn out deadly for occupant. Anti splinter armor was enough as direct hit would always kill occupants.
My Ex GF's grandad was on a RN Destroyer during that exercise and storm and told me about it about 10 years ago before he died. He said that alot of the smaller ships had to go back alongside or to shelter where possible, but he remembered seeing Vanguard at sea before his ship 'escaped'. He said that as everyone else slowed or ran, Vanguard sped up and ploughed into it with no dramas at all...except the damage that most ships suffer during heavy seas! I was on a few RN Destroyers and in heavy seas it was normal if we lost all of our upper deck fittings and stantions and all that jazz and things were bent. I know of a storm that bent a 4.5 inche gun barrel and another than moved the turret in it's housing. The worst was our QD ladder was completely buckled when we came through the Bay of Biscay! That was a nasty nasty storm and when a Ship goes over 30 degress plus, it gets scary as every time it does, it feels like you aren't coming back up. I did think that with the more modern warships, that Radars and things were supposed to fall off at 45 degrees plus, so if IOWA was going over to 50, then that must have felt horrendous and been really scary on board. You don't know how scary heavy seas are until you have been in a few!!! Great Video. All of your videos like this are superb. You are a guy that really knows his stuff. Just take more than one torch with you haha.
Due to its Atlantic Bow, Scharnhorst could actually have outrun all its enemies in the heavy weather up there at The Battle of North Cape. She was trapped in close though.
@@PalleRasmussen Superior tactics in the dark by British and Norwegian sailors.
HMS Vanguard, the battleship armed with 'her Great-Aunt's teeth'.
Great series, thank you. I am glad you quote "on paper" as the realities of battle mostly disregard statistics; who would have thought that two 6" cruisers and and 8" cruiser could have forced an 11" panzerschiff into running way?
Well 3 to 1 odds doesn't exactly promote staying and slugging it out. As I recall one of those cruisers sustained considerable damage during the engagement.
@@patrickgriffitt6551 Hi, my point was about 'statistics'. On paper Langsdorf should have kept well out of range and hammered Exeter (8"), Achilles and Ajax (6") with his 11" guns. As the old saying goes, 'no plan withstands first contact with the enemy'.
Vanguard was my Uncle Martin's last ship. His first ship Was Ajax. He was at the River Plate.
My dad's last battleship having served on Duke of York till the wars end then served on Amythest in the Korean war.
Dear old Vanguard... I was near the end of my apprenticeship as a shipfitter (fitter and turner) in HM Dockyard, Portsmouth when they paid her off. I went on board as they were stripping her of anything useful and went to the engineers' workshop where I found some 1/4" and 3/8" HSS cobalt tool bits. I grabbed them as a souvenir and they are now in my shed where I sometimes take one to grind a new tool. She didn't want to leave Pompey Harbour and swung towards the Still and West pub as she neared the Round Tower. Thank you for the information/comparison and the video footage of Vanguard. Unfortunately the UK was still paying for WWI and with the added debt of WWII she had to go.🇦🇺
Oh my, an Iowa rolling 50 degrees, that's scary
I’d hate to be in the rangefinder n top of the forward superstructure in that weather. You’re being thrown many feet sideways
According to Oscar Parkes “British Battleships” Iowa was Rolling 26° each way while Vanguard rolled 15° each way. One thing to remember is Vanguard was displacement limited and was carrying very little ammunition for her guns.
@@drittal so basically in heavy sea battle the iowas were sitting ducks
@@darrinslack1269 it would depend on the seas. Hood would roll massively in quartering seas. One crewman recalled being able to walk on the walls. Probably an exaggeration, but if i remember correcting it was north of 20° each way. While regarded as wet, the Iowa’s were not considered poor seaboats. We also have to consider the USN BB was actually battle ready but Vanguard tonnage was so restricted she could either carry ammo or fuel, not both. Aft turrets were rendered inoperable or preserved for the conversion to royal yacht and never returned to service according to NavWeaps. As the flag of reserve fleet she often gave up fire control directors to ships in active service that had breakdowns. She was taken in hand for weight reduction and to have 6 mains and half secondary armament put back to full operation and be able to carry ammo for them and fuel, but decommissioned instead.
@@darrinslack1269 I've always thought that the Iowas were/are too narrow in the beam. In the Arctic or North Atlantic they would have struggled in an engagement with a Yamato or Bismarck which were massive in the beam and therefore much steadier gun platforms. Perhaps the American ships were better suited for the calmer waters of the Pacific. I'm not saying the Pacific can't be rough, but generally speaking the Artic and North Atlantic are ALWAYS rough.
Fun FACT: in the movie, 'Sink the Bismark', the British capital ship gun loading scenes were taken from practice exercises in a 15" turret of HMS Vanguard.
Interesting point, HMS vanguard costed 11.5 million pounds, USS Iowa where around 100 million each. With the exchange rate being around 2.3 ish at the time the British could have build almost 4 vanguard per Iowa..... impressive!
A battleship as a yacht?! Now, that's what I call one heck of a yacht!
Good video Ryan. Did you ever do a video on when the Iowa served as transport for President Roosevelt to the Tehran Conference in 1943?
There are few people who served in WW2 and who sailed on HMS Vanguard and are still alive.
One of them is HM Queen Elizabeth II.
Wonderful talk as usual, I really like this series. I should point out that the Iowa's use high-pressure boilers which give more power but are more complicated and hard to repair. The British used standard boilers which were simple and easy to repair if battle damaged, it was a deliberate choice.
Two things I'd like to see. I'm not sure if the fully complete 1950s/60s Jean Bart was done during thr Richelieu video but that would be interesting. In a non comparison video I think it would be fun to talk about the last battle cruiser ever in service (unless you count the Kirovs) the Yavuz
You can tell Ryan just walked in from chipping paint somewhere, sat in a chair and did all this with no prep, no script, no prompts, etc. Gotta give the guy some credit here, and maybe at least a comb!
He's balding, which accounts for the flyaway locks. Soon he will have a landing strip, later a calm bare sea. Male pattern balding is one of the most exclusively masculine of all possible differences between male and female, yet rather than being looked upon with pride, women disdain it and and men fight against it for too long, a la Ruddy Guliani of New York. Ryan should have no problem vis a vis most women, though, as on first impressions they may not notice his vanishing dead cells - as long as they meet standing up.
I was a little surprised at the omission of any discussion of Vanguards radar, gun direction or command spaces/capabilities (beyond the bare statements about the 40mm and 5.25 inch batteries.) I would been interested to learn about Vanguards capacities in these areas.
Drachinifiel goes into it in some detail. In summary - Vanguard had excellent gunnery, with significant redundancy of radar and directors down to the 40mm AA guns.
The Iowas are beautiful ships, but the Vanguard is a beauty too. Other than the Warspite, the Vanguard is the battleship I wish England had kept.
Iowas, Vanguard, Littorios, North Carolinas, all beautiful battleships. South Dakotas and KGV, not so much.
A cutaway picture, a full colour center piece included in the English Eagle magazine, more a paper really, designed to be bought and read by young lads allover the British Commonwealth included HMS Vanguard.
I collected each centre piece from the Eagle and thumb tacked these onto my bedroom walls.
I wish my dad could have seen this video. The Vanguard was his first and only ship. He left school as early as possible in 1944 to join the Royal Navy and served as a radar man on her maiden voyage, the tour of South Africa with the Royal family, etc. I thought I saw him lying on the deck, sunning himself with his fellow matelots, but on closer inspection the guy looks too old. My dad would have only been a teenager.
The design was originally designed to use new 16in guns in a 3 gun layout with 3 turrets, but war pressures and delays resulted in those not being made, so the ship design was revised to take spare 15in guns/mounts/turrets instead.
New to the channel but have watched several of your videos. Keep up the good work. I've never been on an Iowa but I have been on board the USS North Carolina BB55 several times as I'm from North Carolina. That being said I would like to see possibly a North Carolina Iowa comparison, and possibly a comparison with the South Dakota class. I have heard and I think I may have also read it somewhere that the navy discovered that the armor layout of the North Carolina class was actually better from a protection standpoint than the Iowa's. Don't know how true that is but I think it would be neat to see a comparison between the two. Again keep up the good work.
Check this out: ua-cam.com/video/i_hcXuGIKuU/v-deo.html
@@BattleshipNewJersey Cool I had not seen those on your channel. I will definitely check them out thanks again.
If you're into the comparisons, we have a whole Playlist devoted to them, so we recommend that too!
There’s an interesting newsreel of Exercise Mainbrace where Vanguard is seen operating in tandem with USS Wisconsin.The 15” gun turrets of the Courageous-class were modified and modernized to fit the standards for Vanguard.
She was launched by Queen Elizabeth II.
One thing that has been left out is the surface fire control systems. The KGVs had the AFCT 9. Vanguard had the AFCT 10. In fact she was the only ship with that fire control system. The Iowas like the North Carolinas and South Dakotas had the Mk 38. Vanguard like the American ships had the M37 fire control system for the secondary battery. The KHVs had the HACS.
The Mk 37 was clearly superior to the HACS.
The Mk 38 and the AFCT 9 were comparable. The AFCT 10 was superior to either against a manoeuvering target.
The Iowa would have had superior firepower against a fleeing target or in shore bombardment. But in a broadside action with both ships free to manoeuver the Vangard could if properly handled have scored considerably more hits, possibly enough to make up for the greater damage of the hits from the American gun.
And in a bar room brawl afterwards the RN matelotes would have beat shit out of the yanks. Just kidding, good job we’re mates!
One thing that very rarely gets addressed when comparing the USN fast BB to any other battleship is the USN sparing no expense in their construction. Armor grade STS (special treatment steel) was used lavishly in these ships in places and areas where all other countries, especially the UK, would use cheaper and easier to work with construction grade steel. When the Admiralty toured the Washington BB56 they took note of how now expense was spared and the high quality fittings throughout the ship in comparison to the KGV class. This kind of detail could mean the difference between victory or defeat in the heat of a battle.
As a reference KGV cost ~£7,400,000 or $30,000,000. Vanguard $47,000,000. The North Carolina cost about $70,000,000. Iowa $100,000,000.
Thats partly as the US STS or grade B steel (Otherwise known as homogenous steel) was quite good whereas their cemented steel was inferior to Britains and Germanys which had a very shallow depth of tempering, using better quality steel in the rest of the ship countered some of the deficency in their main armour steel (and for the obvious reason that face hardened steel functioned best with a minimum 3.5 to 4 inch thickness whereas homogenous steel functioned best at 2 inches or below), general grade construction steel in the US was also quite poor as seen in the cracking and spontaneous disassembly of liberty ships when encountering colder Atlantic water. The British grade D or High Tensile Steel was considered the best in the world and was used by Germany and Japan as well, this form of steel would go on to become the grade used for commercial ship construction after the war. Britain would use a different armour grade of cemented steel for flat surfaces than general unhardened armour whereas the US would just use standard STS just in greater thickness. (There was a whole thing on how the hardness of US shells led them into a vicious dead end circle of creating harder and harder armour to defeat harder and harder shells which didnt reflect the real world softer shell steel their opponents were actually using which would compress rather than shatter when faced with such hard armour facing). There is a great website breaking down the different steels used and their various qualities: www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.php
@@watcherzero5256 us cemented armor, class A, had a very THICK face and thin backing relative to the British cemented armor.
@@drittal Yes I am sorry it could read ambigious, the point was that British and German had a shallow temper (15-30% face/transition) whereas the US had much higher (40-20% face/transition) which made it inferior.
"The thick face added to the scaling effect, though not nearly as much as the face of MNC had, making thick U.S. World War II Class "A" armor somewhat inferior to German KC n/A or British CA, but also working in reverse so that U.S. World War II Class "A" armor 7" (17.78cm) or less in thickness was the best face-hardened armor used by anyone ever. The replacement of Class "A" armor by Class "B" armor in the heaviest grades that were used in World War II battleship turret face plates demonstrates that the U.S. Navy was aware of the relative inferiority of its thick-faced Class "A" armor in such heavy grades against high-quality projectiles"
@@watcherzero5256 I’m not sure if I agree with Okun on the point of the class B turret faces.
1) above 13” there is diminishing return for cemented armor.
2) class A is more prone to spall, even on non penetrating hits. See the damage to Dunkerque turret from a glancing blow off the top, which had cemented horizontal armor. The hit did not penetrate but put that side of the turret out of action with casualties
3) if the USN knew this with the NC class they had more than enough time to rectify their Class A armor for possibly the up-armored SD class and for sure the IA class.
@@drittal "class A is more prone to spall, even on non penetrating hits. See the damage to Dunkerque turret from a glancing blow off the top, which had cemented horizontal armour. The hit did not penetrate but put that side of the turret out of action with casualties" Naval designers knew that cemented armour was more vulnerable to high obliquity hits from shells, and would use homogenous armour instead of cemented for horizontal armour. Only the French used cemented armour on their turret roofs since cemented works better against bombs. For low obliquity cemented is better.
HMS Vanguard is my second favorite Battleship right after Iowa. And I believe that Vanguard is actually heavier than Bismarck and only lighter than Tirpitz by less than 500 tonnes. I am actually surprised by her sea-keeping ability. Had she been finished prior to 1943, she would have been the queen of the Atlantic Ocean. Great video!
Great comparison, wished they had updated her by removing the aft turrets and giving her missiles, considering the size of a Sea Slug, this would have made sense. Now complete fantasy, a Falklands conflict with Ark Royal with Buccaneers and Vanguard, Blake and Tiger, facing off the Belegano.
Belgrano was originally an American light cruiser. Despite some occasional modernisations, it would’ve been outmatched by pretty much every warship in the Royal Navy in any sort of surface engagement.
@@Cailus3542 Maybe, but could imagine the panic of the Argies if a Task Force which included these three major ships started to approach the mainland?
An amazing video as always, but I would note that Vanguard was larger than Bismarck at standard displacement.
I’m pretty sure that battleships are not measured at deep load, and by going by that, Vanguard was about 4000 tonnes heavier.
Always had the opinion that Vanguard was somewhat of a "budget battleship." Glad to see it still seemed to perform very well with what it had to work with - with sensible and smart design choices.
H M S Hood, was known as 'Britains Big Bullsh - - - - -ing B - - - - - - Built in Brown's' to the men of the Pre War Navy, so had they faith in her capability.
Biting the bullet, Vanguard was a mistake. Extra fleet carriers would have perhaps been a better investment..
One of these guns holds the record for a hit on a moving target at sea. 26400 yards. That is the maximum practical range of the rangefinder due to the curvature of the earth. Radar is needed for longer ranges.
During the 1970s I worked with an engineering supervisor who had been the Gunnery Officer - 'Guns' - on HMS Vanguard
He said that one day in 1957 or 58 we got a signal which read - 'Go to sea and don't come back with any 15 inch ammunition'.
So we went out into the North Atlantic, well away from any shipping lanes, and fired it all off
Yes, it's a shame that we couldn't have preserved a big gun ship
Some of the best known, like Warspite were just so old and worn out that it would have been difficult & expensive, but a better choice could have been Vanguard or the best of the KG V class
I’m going to disagree on the remark about the 15” guns not holding up compared to “modern contemporaries”. The Yamatos’ guns, while powerful, weren’t particularly accurate, as they weren’t even rifled. And it’s a bit of an insult to say that 15” Mark I is inferior to the 16”/45s of the interwar. The 15” Mark I is certainly just as good as the Colorado-class” 16” guns.
Here’s a comparison between the 15" Mk I and the 16” Mark 7 :
Both guns fired at 2 rounds/min.
The 15" Mark I's HE Shells are more even with the Iowas' in terms of HE Shell weight, though the Iowas' AP shells are 40% heavier. But that's not counting their Target shells and their post-Korean War shells.
The Bursting Charge for the 15" Mark I's APC shells are slightly superior to the Iowas' guns', but the Iowas' are superior for the HC bursting charge. The 15" Mark I's bursting charge was 22 kg (48.5-pound) Shellite or 27.4 kg (60.5-pound) Lyddite, depending on the shell for APC, while the HE Mark VIIIb was 59 kg (130-pound) TNT or TNT/RDX. The Iowas' guns' bursting charge was only 18.55 kg (40.9-pounds) for AP, but the HC was 69.67 kg (153.6-pounds).
The Iowas' guns' propellant charge is superior. The propellant-charge of the 15" Mark I was 196 kg (432-pound) SC 280 with standard charges (being 222.2 kg (490-pound) SC 300 with SuperCharges), whereas the 16" Mark 7 had 299.4 kg (660-pound) at Full Charge during WWII and 138.3 kg (305-pound) at reduced charge during and after WWII, while the post-war Full Charge was 297.1 kg (655-pounds).
The 15" Mark I's working pressure is higher. The working pressure for the 15" Mark I was 20 tons/in² (23 tons/in² with SuperCharges) vs. the 18.5 tons/in² of the Iowas' guns.
Both guns were about even in muzzle-velocity. The Iowas' guns had a muzzle-velocity of 762 m/s (2,500 ft/s) for new guns, while avrg. guns had 739 m/s (2,425 ft/s). the 15" Mark I's is 749 m/s (2,458 ft/s) with Standard charges, while going to 804 m/s (2,638 ft/s) with supercharges.
And prior to postwar innovations with the powder charges rather than gun construction, the 16" Mk 7 actually had a shorter barrel life by about 40 rounds.
Yamato's guns weren't rifled? Source? I don't think anyone has made a smoothbore naval gun post 19th century.
Good lord, a 50 degree roll must have been absolutely terrifying!
DK Brown a royal navy designer who was active at the time indicated not only that Vanguard fitted for supercharges but that with the superior metallurgy of British armour approximately 10% better than US armour he would have given the Vanguard even odds against an Iowa and a fair chance against Yamato. In addition the bursting charge of the 15/42 AP or even the 14/45 AP was greater than that of even the 16/50 super heavy. In addition the 15/42 is widely regarded as the most accurate capital ship gun of all time
In a ship to ship duel, the IOWAs had innumerable advantages over YAMATOs. Superior speed--the IOWA could shape the battle at will. Far better fire control. Higher rate of fire. Better damage control. And the Mark 7 16" naval rifle firing the super heavy shell had very close to the same striking power as the YAMATO's 18 inch guns. The IOWA was a far superior ship technologically.
@@iowa61 First this is about HMS Vanguard not the Yamato class. Vanguard had equivalent fire control to the Iowas and probably better RADAR,had shells which though smaller had a bigger bursting charge than even the US 16"super heavy fired from the supremely accurate 15"/42,thicker armour which being British post 1930's armour was better than US plate so it's 14" belt was equivalent to about 16" of US armour and she was a far superior sea boat being able to use all her main guns in any weather a battle could be fought unlike an Iowa where the forward barbette was unusable in any kind of sea which in the Atlantic would have rendered the Iowa class 6 gun ships and unlikely to make more than 28 kts. Finally the fight between HMS Shah and Huascar showed that even a fast lightly armoured ship,the Iowas have a 12"belt could not defeat a slower but better armoured ship if gun range was equal as it would be between Iowa and HMS Vanguard at about 25,000 yards and in a storm which is a pretty normal condition in the Atlantic when Iowa could only make around 28kts and is limited to 6 guns a 30Kt Vanguard has all the advantages
My uncle served on HMS Vanguard, including the Royal Tour in 1947. Shame they scrapped it, would have loved to have seen her up close.
This was the last ship my grandfather served aboard, he was in the Cameron highlanders during ww1 in the trenches and at the out break of ww2 he joined the Royal Navy and served onboard a minesweeper not sure about the name though as my grandfather passed away in the 1970s so I never had the pleasure of knowing him but I do know my grandmother not got him home until the 1950s when he finally said goodbye to his military service for good, he served all over the world and contracted malaria during his time in the navy whilst serving in Asia somewhere, I think it might have been Malaysia but not sure, I would have loved to have heard about his military days
Hey Ryan, remember that Iowa was still a treaty battleship and the limits of the escalator clause allowing 45,000t and 16” weapons.
The 15”/42 was claimed by the USN in documents to be the most accurate gun if WWII.
According to Oscar Parkes “British Battleships” Iowa was Rolling 26° each way while Vanguard rolled 15° each way.
Despite being the last battleship constructed she relied heavily on rivets due to the need for welding to construct antisubmarine vessels. As such welding was limited to non strength members with her entire hull girder, armament foundations, and side protection systems being riveted.
Her draft was limited to 35’ after calculations showed hull stresses would be higher than designed. Additional top weight necessitated strengthening upper decks to support it, however no strengthening was done to the keel/bottom. This moves the neutral axis of hogging and sagging higher up, over stressing the bottom hull plates. Even with the restriction she suffered opened hull plates during trials. Her dry bow that she wasn’t designed for made this situation worse, adding more stress in rough weather and being so dry she was often driven too hard in rough seas. These restrictions meant she could either carry ammo or fuel, never a full load of both. In the 1955 refit she was due to have enough weight savings employed to allow fuel fuel, ammo for 6 main guns and half her secondary but she was placed in reserve instead and eventually scrapped.
British cemented armor is estimated to be 10-20% more effective than USN class A against battleship calibre shells.
The 5.25” greenhouses on Vanguard were larger and had double the elevation and train rates compared to the mounts on KGV/Dido.
So for sure a compromised design, structurally weak. Still a good ship but.
As a generality by this one document, probably true, but in effect the most accurate naval guns in the main gun caliber at sea at the time were the 16"/45 caliber on the Colorado class.
I kind of miss these long format videos their packed full of knowledge
Funny thing about HMS Vanguard
If HMS Hood hadn't sunk at Denmark Strait, Vanguard's stuff would have gone to Hood but Vanguard might have ended up as an Aircraft Carrier
TBH, the name Vanguard sounds more like for a Carrier than for a Battleship.
Do you have anymore information about the Iowa's bows being replaced with vanguard styled bows? I've never heard anything about it before, and it's quite fascinating.
"**if they were in the right place**". Epic.
It truly is a shame that no British battle cruisers or battleships were ever saved from the scrap yard.
H.M.S Belfast survives as a museum ship on the river Thames in Central London.... She opened the naval bombardment on D day 6th June 1944
If battleships were still relevant in 1945, Vanguard would have had 16" guns.
One thing not mentioned is the Vanguard had a real world much faster and more reliable shell loading system.
What I like about this guy is he looks like the kind of guy you’d see as a crew member of a large cargo ship. He just looks like a sea man.
While Vanguard may have TECHNICALLY had a thicker belt at 14 inches but Iowa's was an internal angled belt that gave her the equivalent protection of 17.3 inches.
Fantastic!. Its a great looking ship.
The fact that with the click of a button I get to tune in to a thoroughly educational video the likes of this & other Battleship New Jersey productions is what makes UA-cam great.
I believe the color film of the vanguard next to the house is when she broke free on the way to the scrappers.
HMS Vanguard VS USS Iowa
(Part two)
Sea Worthiness specifics.
- Vanguard was designed after many lessons was learned from the British's greater wealth of navel combat experience. These lessons especially from the King George class made it very resilient with its armour layout, fuel choice, auxiliary command systems, automation & how it's propellers were configured but also how the bow shear/flare was designed for rougher Atlantic weather. It also had a second massive break water. In operation Mariner where war games were conducted with the Vanguard and Iowa class. It was apparently reported by eye witnesses at the time Vanguards turrets remained fully functional and could maintain a speed of 26 knots with only a 12 degree roll when a storm hit but the Iowa had a 26+ degree roll and had to reduce speed and was consistently suffering from impaired use or complete loss of functionality of its forward turret due to flooding & huge roll. Resulting in it loosing a 3rd of its main armament & therefore reducing it to 6 guns while the Vanguard still had 8 guns available. Add this to the fact Vanguard could turn in 940 yards & Iowa needed 1006 yards then I believe this gives Vanguard the advantage in conditions that aren't perfectly calm which is common. It simply had better reliability and maneuverability.
The British sacrificed a little speed for battle reliability and Americans vice Versa simple as that.
My conclusion.
- I believe both ships are awesome & beautiful with significant advantages & disadvantages over eachother & once these factors are realistically assessed they are both highly capable of defeating eachother & it would more than likely come down to their Captains/Crews training & experience (It's another subject but I believe the Americans although fast learners unfortunately wasn't in the same league as the British in regards to training and experience as they were already engaged in WW2 for 2 years before America even joined the war and had the most powerful and experienced navy for generations up until that point (An Island race that conquered 22% of the world and were involved in the biggest sea battles like Jutland, they know about ships and training), even now the SBS & SAS run rings around the seals & delta.
But assuming in a perfect world that the Captain's/Crews decisions & performance are perfect then in calm conditions I give it 50/50 but as conditions get tougher the Vanguard gains more advantage in the real world. If I had to be stationed on a ship during this battle I would choose the Vanguard personally as paper battles & reality are far different & the Vanguard is a far more balanced war machine built for war not to have the best numbers on paper.
I often hear during Iowa VS Yamato debates a strong case for the Iowa closing the distance with its superior speed to get within range where it's superior targeting/fire control system (Vanguards was equally as good) can punch critical holes into the Yamato until it's defeated while the Yamato is missing shot after shot but in reality the Iowa makes a big target & it will be hit and I believe it won't take many 18.1 inch 3219lb armour piercing shells or 2998lb high explosive Yamato shells which had 33kg bursting charge's compared to Iowa's 18kg (FYI neither shell was as heavy as HMS furious 18 inch shells) to critically damage the Iowa before it can critically damage the Yamato. Therefore giving the Yamato the advantage. Now the reason I've briefly touched on this is because I believe there's more of a chance of the Iowa defeating the Yamato (35% chance max although some say with pure mathematics only 12%) then defeating the Vanguard in anything less than calm seas. Styles make fights and the rougher the sea the tougher the Vanguard become.
HMS Vanguard for me.
P.S: She had one of Warspites guns and therefore the spirit to break free in defiance on her way to the breakers and the Queen used Red wine to launch her. Ferocity and Class.
LOL Vanguard would have gotten mopped up by any of the North Carolina, South Dakoda or Iowa Class ships.
@@CRAZYHORSE19682003 I'll just keep waiting for you to make a detailed case on what you base that comment on in reality. I'm sure your not commenting randomly and emotionally afterall.
Have you read the naval institute press book on the vanguard ?
It explains why the American battle ships had better range because is double reduction gears for the props in US ship of WW2.
It also stated US 17” inch armor was equal to British 16 “ inch ,
British Armor was a thought to be a little better.
The US armor was was harden 50% of its thickness to counter a new nose cap shell the had super penetration do you know any thing on this ?
the same 15-inch guns that in the Warspite scored the longest hit from a moving ship to another moving ship?
My father served on HMS Vanguard and took part on the exercise mentioned here Ex Mariner in 1953
My father served on Vanguard's first commission, including the Royal Tour of South Africa. And my sister-in-law's grandfather was Commander (ie Executive Officer) for a time in the late 1950's.
@@simongleaden2864 My father was a signaller
From Fraser, husband of Leslie
My paternal grandfather served on the battleship Dreadnought in the 1st World War. When I was quite young, (8 or 9) we had a school trip to Portsmouth and on a trip round Portsmouth Harbour, I remember seeing Vanguard. We also went round Victory, Nelson's flagship at the Battle of Trafalgar. Of course in those days, we had a big navy !!
I love how unique vanguard’s hull is amongst battleships, the flat back looks so aggressive… it almost makes me think of a scaled up modern cruiser
I love these comparison videos. Great job guys!
15:38 I love that ship photo, seems to feature the then Royal Family including the late HM Queen Elizabeth the II with the crew of HMS Vanguard. Wonderful memory
Another great vid. Just wondering if it was 108 ft wide, same as the Iowas, because of the width of the Panama Canal at that time, which I think was 110 ft wide. I can't find out for sure what width Suez was, but logically it must have been at least 110 ft and most likely the 200ft-ish recorded for 1956. It kind of assumes that the UK would keep a rosy enough relationship with the Americans that they'd be able to use it, even in wartime.
The guns were beefed up to fire supercharges which meant they could fire alot further plus a higher velocity, however the supercharges would ruin the guns alot quicker so they decided to only use during war time, as she never seen a naval war then she never fired them. Vangaurd was very good in rough seas due to her bow, she was better than the iowa's at high speed through rough waters. I think alot of people see the Iowa's as the best battleships ever built but most will have the later changes in mind which modernised them right upto to the 90's, im sure the Iowa's and Vangaurd were alot closer when these 2 class of ships were actually designed and built in the mid to late 40's, one thing is for sure though and both were great looking ships.
My Dad took my two big brothers to look at the old girl at Faslane, we moved into the area soon after as my pop was a newly trained MOD Plod and the base was expanding for Polaris.
My father served on the Vanguard in '52/3, his favourite ship he was always proud to say. It still shocks me to watch the video of it being cut up :(
Great video Ryan! But Queen Elizabeth ll didn't christen her. Princess Elizabeth did😉 I didn't know that till your footage here. How lovely they both look!
Good morning ,
I do believe the French battleship Jon Bart was not finished by 1950’s. The Repluse was the best ship in the fleet when it came to gun duals. She was able to stratal faster then every other big gun ship. If she was given the upgraded as the Renown prior to the sacrifice in Singapore.she would have had the anti-aircraft guns, she survives and even saved PoWales. It was also known that if she survived the torpedo attack, the Japanese didn’t have any more torpedos and she would have returned to Singapore along with the damaged PoW where battle damage would be repaired enough to join the US fleet in Hawaii. This was thrown around in the Admiralty at the time as fleet in the south was cruising to their sacrifice. There is a web sight called to “Armoured Carriers”. On this sight you will hear the recorded voices of the survivors of the “British Fleet”. I believe you will find this enjoyable as the voices of the fleet come alive.
Forever in His service
I have a book about British Battleships and it says that had Vanguard been finished earlier enough they were going to offer it to the Royal Australian Navy to fight in the Pacific but Australia didn’t have to people to man it.
Doubtful. Vanguard would have served in the British Pacific Fleet if WW2 had continued long enough. The British had a large force in the Pacific in 1945, itself more powerful than the Kido Butai of 1942, operating alongside the US Navy. The combined armada was likely the largest in naval history, even bigger than the Grand Fleet of 1918.
Vanguard was a great gun platform and had much better seakeeping qualities than the Iowa class and was a very dry ship, the front Sheer & flare made her great at speed....and in heavy seas and storms. Iowa's were very wet forward with their narrow dolphin nose bow, and thus
not great in heavy storms. I must also disagree with you, saying the 15" guns no good.....The 15" were a tried and tested very successful and accurate weapon...hence why upgraded and used on the Van. Upgraded to fire the 1,938-pound shell to 33,550 yards, and with her supercharges ranging to 37,870 yards. This was more than adequate for ship to ship combat....as aircraft were being used more and more in the longer range battles.
Great video. At 17:00 you see Vanguard moving down the Clyde and passing SS Queen Elizabeth, which is being repainted from her wartime troop-ship grey to Cunard's house colours, in anticipation of her starting passenger liner service. At the time, Queen Elizabeth was the largest ship in the world. Both ships were built at the same yard - John Brown's Clydebank yard, back up the river.
Regarding the 15" gun on the Vanguard - I'm sure the US Navy did a report on the efficacy of all the main armaments of battleships, and the 15" came out favourably compared to other weapons. It was something I saw referred to, but I can't find the actual report anywhere on the web.
#399 HMS Vanguard would have served better as a large Attack Aircraft Carrier, probably lasting up to the 1980's. Its size fitting between the USS Essex and USS Midway(?). She was a beautifully designed battleship, good looking, and very well balanced. Battleships will always be "Lords of The Sea". Technology will continue to change surface combatants. The USS Ford class of Aircraft of Attack Carriers will probably be the last Giants. Drone Aircraft and Missiles, can be used on a smaller platform at sea. Lets see if I am correct(?)
One thing I've always wondered is: Were the "big guns" on battleships originally intended for shore bombardment, or for ship-to-ship combat? Or were they intended for both? Which were they used more for? I know that depends on the battle and the setting.
Great footage of her refusing to leave Portsmouth on the way to the breakers.
Great video about a very special ship.
It ended up more as a super-size taxi for the British Royal family, doing the rounds (no pun) after WW2 visiting South Africa, Australia etc showing the flag to the then Empire & Dominions.
I'm sure on paper it would have done what it was designed to do, but it looked dated, obsolete?
Probably not comparing apples, with apples etc but for example the Bismarck, the Yamamoto to name 2 (enemy) ships just have sleeker profiles, not forgetting the Missouri (non enemy)
No matter how big these ships were, their enormous guns, thickness of armour etc, a lucky hit, one torpedo, a salvo from the other side, they break up and sink, in double quick time, with disastrous consequences. (RIP for all those crewmen.)
I wonder how the Vanguard would have fared in battle?
Years ago 'Cher' made a video, on board the the 'Big Mo (?)'
I sometimes wish I could 'un-see' it, but it looked like the officers & ratings on Missouri had a lot of fun, oogling 'Ms Cher.'
My yacht is 1950's vintage Grumman Sport Canoe with a 4hp Johnson outboard. Imagine having a battleship. Be hard to fish from probably.
Not if you drop depth-charges over the stern 😉
Vanguard - "The prize fighter with granny's teeth".
An what do we learn? That ship - limitations only help the cheater
Sounds like the vanguard didn't want to get scraped and tried to flee
The longest moving battleship on battleship hit was HMS Warspite against Italy’s Guilio Cesare in July 1940 at 26,000 yards, that’s over 14 miles. I doubt we will ever see naval battles like that again.