WesWorld

Hello everyone,

My favorite British battleship is the also the last of them, the HMS Vanguard. She was a battleship fitted with reserved 15-inch guns from several other British battleships. Her top speed was 30 knots from a 130k SHP plant borrowed from the Lion class battleships, then on the drawing board.

My question is: Why couldn't Vanguard have been fitted with more powerful machinery to go faster? Specifically, the 160k SHP plant of the G3 battlecruisers.

I've estimated Vanguard's displacement when her speed is 30 kts and power output 130k SHP. I get a figure of 46,310 tons, a bit over her standard displacement.

With the power plant of the G3s (160k SHP), Vanguard, in my best estimation, could have made 32.79 kts (take it as 32.8 knots). To put this in context, this is a bit faster than Richelieu (32.6 kts @ 179k SHP) and even the Iowas (32.5 kts @ 212k SHP).

She would have a bit of a speed advantage over the French and American battleships with the higher engine power of the G3s, if she had been so fitted. Then again its all my own estimations, so I might be off a bit in either direction.

Tell me what you guys think of this.

Quoted

Originally posted by RMSCANADA
Hello everyone,

My favorite British battleship is the also the last of them, the HMS Vanguard. She was a battleship fitted with reserved 15-inch guns from several other British battleships. Her top speed was 30 knots from a 130k SHP plant borrowed from the Lion class battleships, then on the drawing board.

My question is: Why couldn't Vanguard have been fitted with more powerful machinery to go faster? Specifically, the 160k SHP plant of the G3 battlecruisers.

Probably because the plant actually used in the Vanguard was modern in the 1940s, unlike the plant from the G3s. Additionally, since the G3s were never laid down, it's not a given that there was actually an extant power plant around by 1940 (or in fact had ever been built at all). Conversely, since three of the Lions were actually laid down, the machinery plant actually existed (or could be manufactured relatively easily).

Good point Brockpaine

But would have that extra 2 or 3 knots brought anything more to the Vanguard other than saying that she was as fast (or possibly a bit faster than) the American Iowas?

Does high speed mean that you have a better chance of outrunning the enemy when your battleship is heavily damaged, reducing the effects of your ship being sunk?

Perhaps being well armored will always outweigh the "need for speed" factor. Perhaps that's why battlecruisers were built - to test this very idea of armor vs. speed.


Any thoughts?

Quoted

Originally posted by RMSCANADA
But would have that extra 2 or 3 knots brought anything more to the Vanguard other than saying that she was as fast (or possibly a bit faster than) the American Iowas?

Mm, nope.

Vanguard is already superior, at least in my opinion, to Iowa in every way except speed (marginal difference) and range. Both ships would have the same effective battle range in guns and Vanguard had American dirrectors for her weapons which made her both a potent surface unit and AA escort. Armour wise the Iowa's had thicker barbette armour but otherwise on paper was slightly lighter on armour than the Vanguard.

Personally if I wanted to make vanguard a better ship, I'd give her more range and build a sister ship for her. Clearly the peak of British battleship design even with the old 15" guns.

There's also the space requirements; An older and more powerful engine plant no doubt took up far more space than what Vanguard's. More space (and weight) for the bigger engines brings up costs in time and material, and likewise increases the need for armouring a larger space, etc, etc.

I think at the end of the day installing an old power plant would be pointless 10 years after the fact, unless your talking about a new powerplant with the same OUTPUT as an older machinery arangement and not the actual machinery itself.