Comments by "Jim Taylor" (@jimtaylor294) on "HMS Vanguard - Guide 132 (Extended Look)" video.
-
8
-
6
-
5
-
^ The US didn't "bail out" the UK. We'd entered into a material aid agreement during WWII, and simply game to an agreement postwar as to how to pay for it, not a great deal when considering that everyone else's material aid was waved in light of the by then obviously approaching Cold War, but a deal none the less.
The UK retained a defence budget of more than 11% of GDP post-1945, and would until 1957, where for political reasons it began to shrink toward the 2% typical today.
With that timeframe in mind; everyone of note still had Capital Ships in the postwar period, even the hapless French. Standing navies were already 2nd fiddle to the new Atomic weaponry, and the means to deliver them, but that was not clear in 1942/43 nor 1945.
The RN did in the late-'40's what everyone else did; take stock of their assets, retire the outdated ones, and keep the most modern. This was the same as after WWI, and as the KGV's & Vanguard were the only modern Capital Ships in the fleet capable of topping 25 knots only they were kept. Until 1949 the plan was to restart the Lion class (with modifications), though changed government priorities meant this didn't happen.
Only when it became clear that the USSR was unable to build new Capital Ships, and their cruisers downgraded in threat perception, did the politicians have their excuse to cut the fleet further.
There was no reason not to preserve Vanguard, as unlike with Warspite (a ship that actively was considered for preservation in 1946) the ship was in prime condition and the apitomy of several centuries of Royal Navy engineering, so much so she'd always topped the USN's lowa class ships in gunnery competitions.
Same thing with HMS Ark Royal (R09) in 1978*, and HMS Illustrious in the 2010's. The means and public support was there, but the politicians just didn't give a shit.
*A decision everyone would regret in 1982, as operating Phantoms & Buccaneers down in the S-Atlantic was no longer possible.
(not until after the conflict was won & the islands given a fighter squadron anyway, only then did Phantom FGR's get down there)
5
-
^ In other words; you're willing to accept a demonstrable tribalist falsehood (and a cliched one at that), over fact. #Noted
From the middle ages until 1945 a Standing Navy was the ultimate symbol of national power, prestige and engineering ability, and though not always called such, there was always a form of Battleship therewithin.
(the very word 'Battleship' means '[foremost] ship of the line', shorthand for 'line of battle ship')
The Carrier never supplanted the Battleship, rather simply surrvived* the postwar political shift, that would see strategic and tactical nuclear arms take a lions share of the budget, that would once have been for navies.
Indeed it was Navies snatching some of the nuclear pie back from airforces in the form of SSBN's, that helped them remain politically favoured.
*Let's be real, without the postwar inmovations of the British (Angled Deck, Optical Landing Sight, Steam Catapult, Skijump, etc), Carriers would have died off, as the ever increasing size, speed & weight of aircraft postwar was pushing the WWII stock of Carriers into near irrelevance, compared to landbased airforces.
4
-
2
-
2
-
^
""I do think the advent of guided munitions was what really put the nail in the coffin for the battleship""
A demonstrably false notion, as no allied Capital Ship was ever sunk by such a weapon, and no [non-nuclear] example of such a weapon was ever used postwar to successfully sink an armoured warship, of any kind
.
In practice Guided Munitions ended up being a tool used By postwar Battleships, and other vessels of similar size and purpose. This was a logical choice as a smaller vessel [such as a Destroyer] had neither the operational range nor the hull capacity for such large weapons, nor their complex firing and guidance systems.
(as Drach' tries at length to point out; sensors & computers [+ the operators] take up a lot of space and tonnage on ships)
""I mean, if you look at it this way, a battleship is only a show of power for a nation heavily reliant on overseas trade.""
Hardly. Every major nation in the world engaged in global trade, and thus had a stake therein, requiring a Navy to police their share of it. Within that structure Capital Ships were just one of various assets, all to be used in combination to maintain peace, and achieve victory in war.
""I mean the British’s supposed most potent weapon had a range of about 30 miles from the coast...yeah.""
That statement makes no sense whatsoever. "most potent" also means nothing without context.
Look up the use of shipboard missiles between WWII & the 1990's; there isn't much in the way of instances, nor success. In the Falklands the British and Argentines both had shipboard Exocet missiles, yet neither made a serious effort to use them, nor did the British consider having them a counter to a WWII Light Cruiser with 6" guns (otherwise the fleet commander wouldn't have had to go to such lengths to get a Nuclear Attack Sub' to eliminate said Cruiser).
Incidentally: That Cruiser had a gun range of just 15 miles, yet that was deemed more of a threat than the taskforce's missile armed ships could cope with.
Heck; the most visual use of shipboard missiles [with a theoretical anti-ship capability] in the war, was in an ad-hoc shore bombardment, intended to both rid the ships of obsolete weaponry, and inspire the troops as the [Sea Slug] missiles were militarily unfit to do much damage to anything, but looked rather impressive when launched.
One decent Cruiser or Battleship; could have shortened said conflict for the British considerably, pounding the enemy with un-returnable ordinance, from an armoured warship they lacked* any counter thereto.
*contrary to what some may think; most ASM's aren't even designed to penetrate armour, and indeed missiles are ill suited for armour penetration full stop. For why see what a A/P shell from a [relatively small caliber] gun does to a concrete block, vs a fighter plane crashing into one at high speed.
2
-
^ "now as for guided munitions"
Worded like a 2nd comment; a typing mistake or has YT deleted something?.
"not sinking any capital ships, that’s just wrong."
No it isn't; for I stated "no Allied [and Modern ] Capital Ships", which is demonstrably True. Roma* was an Italian vessel, and Warspite was neither modern nor sunk.
Indeed: the allied nations only lost one modern Battleship in the entire war, whilst Germany & Japan lost all of theirs. whilst Italy lost one and surrendered two.
Kindly read a statement before replying. Saves everyone time.
*Furthermore; Roma was mid-voyage to being surrendered to the British. She had barely enough fuel and thus was steaming at reduced speed. She also had no Radar Direction for the AA Armament [which was also inferior to allied standards] and had only a partial crew compliment. All of those and more are factors in her being lost to a weapon that had failed [thrice] to sink a vastly older warship.
""The fritz x (guided bomb) sunk many ships""
sank*, and no. The weapon is considered an operational failure, as only small warships and merchantmen were lost thereto. Even the Kaiten and Kamikaze achieved more in WWII.
""proving to Britain and in fact the world, that battleships at this point were nothing more than expensive toys""
As nonsensical a statement as it is demonstrably false. The British retained a Battleship force long after WWII, alongwith the French. Defence cuts and shortage of threat countries with counterparts [the USSR gad no modern Capital Ships nor the means to build them until the 1970's] put paid to them; not Glide Bombs, which saw no postwar use with any country.
Indeed: The USN had Capital Ships in their inventory, right into the late 00's. The last one wouldn't be de-registered until 2011.
2
-
@GARDENER42 I'm not "wrong", for I researched the term rather more thoroughly than those whom write dictionaries, or make tv documentaries.
The term "Capital Ship" is inherently linked to the Line of Battle, over the centuries, and always was. Carriers don't operate as part of one, and thus do not count. Same with SSBN's, which only have names in common with past Capital Ships, and the role of 'most potent weapon in the navy'.
(in potency of directed firepower, SSBN's vastly outclass Carriers, and always will)
The fact that a Carrier's main weapon isn't even a part of the ship itself, doubly disqualifies it.
They'll always be carrier tribalists in navies whom like to talk up their asset as being the "capital ship", but that's no more true now, than when Admiral Yamamoto claimed it in the 1930's.
1
-
1
-
^ Ah, rattling off tired distortionist cliches that've been debunked ad nausium, yet remain popular with tribalists as a lazy narrative, how predictable XD.
Refer to my prior statements for why, as I don't do repetition.
I will add though; that Torpedo Bombers were outlasted on the USN's books by the Iowa class, by nearly half a century.
Why? ... because TB's are an actual case of obsolecence*, whilst the Battleship is not.
*TB's after all had hit an impassable wall of physics, where the drop speed of the 'fish' couldn't be raised higher, and flying so low & slow in visual range of a modern warship's AAA & FCS [even in 1943] was suicidal.
(the allies losing only 1 modern Battleship in the entire war being case in point, with even that solitary loss being due to mitigating factors; including faulty FCS & construction defects)
This is why only Submarines use torpedoes against ships today, with only anti-sub torpedoes featuring on anything else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1