HOME | DD

Published: 2008-06-06 04:03:37 +0000 UTC; Views: 6722; Favourites: 51; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
While working on the USS Alaska, the book I was using as a reference stated regarding the Iowa-class modernization, "The British may yet regret scrapping the last and greatest of their battleships, HMS Vanguard." And I thought, "Hey..."So here you go, a modernized HMS Vanguard.
This was a bit tougher than the Alaska, because the masts had to be changed, and the Vanguard had a much more comphrensive antiaircraft set (something like 68 40mm mounts). I removed all that, the seaplanes, and secondary batteries, in favor of modern 4.5-inch automatic single mounts and a whole lot of antimissile systems: Seawolf SAM batteries and Goalkeeper 30mm CIWS. Like the Iowas, it also mounts Harpoon and Tomahawk. And of course helicopters round out the modernization, and the 15-inch guns would be retained.
Unfortunately, the Vanguard, which entered service too late for WWII, was scrapped in the 1960s--the last in a centuries-old series of British battleships. One can dream, however...
Related content
Comments: 16
cruisemancaden [2021-10-23 19:18:34 +0000 UTC]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Pyeknu [2019-08-08 14:28:23 +0000 UTC]
Capital ships in the Commonwealth don't have a pendant superior number. HMS Vanguard would just be "23".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
GotterJager In reply to Pyeknu [2020-03-05 01:35:04 +0000 UTC]
The was changed in the 60s. Destroyers became D, cruisers became C (not the we had that many), carriers became R, it is likely therefore that battleships would become B.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Pyeknu In reply to GotterJager [2020-03-07 21:57:37 +0000 UTC]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Fujin777 [2014-03-20 04:53:38 +0000 UTC]
Waste of a good battleship, could've served in the Korea War and been around as long as the Iowa's.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
mr-wistan [2011-03-07 11:04:52 +0000 UTC]
Goalkeepers need through deck penetration for support machinery below. So there's no way you could sit one on top of a turret like that. Otherwise I like it!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
sentinel28a In reply to mr-wistan [2011-03-07 22:52:43 +0000 UTC]
Didn't know that, though that makes sense. Oh well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Orr8571 [2009-09-17 12:45:36 +0000 UTC]
very nice.
btw, the HMS Belfast is currently a floating museum on the river Thames, but could always be severely modernised. it'd make a change from all these carriers anyway...
of course the bonus of modernising a battleship is the anti-missile systems carried by modern warships do suprisingly little to 14" shells. low tech FTW!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
sentinel28a In reply to Wolfman-053 [2008-11-20 08:49:49 +0000 UTC]
Thanks. I need to do some more of these.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wolfman-053 In reply to sentinel28a [2008-11-20 16:16:06 +0000 UTC]
Have you tried carrier conversions?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
sentinel28a In reply to Wolfman-053 [2008-11-21 05:44:59 +0000 UTC]
Actual models or battleships to carriers?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wolfman-053 In reply to sentinel28a [2008-11-21 16:40:40 +0000 UTC]
The latter option. For example, in real life, the Japanese carrier KAGA, which was sunk at Midway, started out as a battleship.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
RogueBaron [2008-06-06 10:15:53 +0000 UTC]
Ohhh, sweetness....
I visited USS Wisconsin at Norfolk once and that thing blew my mind. Battleships became obsolete since WWII but I can't deny they were more handsome than aircraft carriers. Thank God the US keep the Iowa's around (Wisconsin's last sortie was in Gulf War, 1991). Currently I'm saving money to visit Missouri at Hawaii.
Now... will we see Bismarck, Hood, Yamato, or any of the Iowa's?
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
sentinel28a In reply to RogueBaron [2008-06-06 20:13:39 +0000 UTC]
Probably not. It's no challenge to modernize an Iowa (they're already modernized), and the Bismarck, Hood, and Yamato were sunk.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1