Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Battleship Vanguard offered to Chile in 1959
164 views
Skip to first unread message
KDR
Oct 5, 2011, 3:28:14 AM10/5/11
to
Britain's last battleship HMS Vanguard was offered to Chile along with
three Jamaica class cruisers and six Battle class destroyers in 1959.
http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v05/d28
28. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in the United
Kingdom1
Washington, December 4, 1959—8:34 p.m.
4410. Department increasingly concerned seemingly indiscriminate offer
naval vessels by UK to LA countries in disregard economic drain and
danger armaments race, increasing tensions. We refer immediately to
Peru-Chile situation, also affecting Ecuador, Argentina, etc.
Therefore request you approach Foreign Office along following lines:
(1) We have recent reports following UK sales or offers: (a) cruiser
Newfoundland sold to Peru and cruiser Ceylon reportedly sold (Peruvian
Embassy informed us December 1 of latter purchase, one week after
conveying GOP’s categorical assurance there would be no purchase
second cruiser, although now reported may have been secretly purchased
same time as first); (b) battleship Vanguard, 3 Jamaica class cruisers
and 6 Battle class destroyers offered to Chile; (c) Peruvian report
cruiser Ceylon offered to Ecuador and possibly Chile which GOP gives
as excuse Peruvian purchase; (d) three Battle class destroyers offered
to Argentina.
(2) Dept appreciates sale British naval vessels matter between two
countries involved and understands problems concerning UK relations LA
countries. However, believe incumbent US and UK encourage restraint on
excessive military expenditures LA countries whose Governments have
severe problems exercising fiscal responsibility and whose military
often have considerable fiscal autonomy.
(3) LA economies can ill afford excessive military expenditures which
place strain on Governments’ finances and retard economic development.
(4) US providing credit and technical assistance for economic
development, budgetary support, exchange relief, etc., which difficult
justify in face of military expenditures in excess needs hemispheric
and national defense. British will appreciate that LA failure
concentrate resources on civilian economy increases demands for US
assistance and aggravates US balance of payments problem to which UK
has already responded.
(5) LA Communists and nationalist extremists incite demands for more
arms in order weaken economies and frustrate our endeavors.
(6) Excessive military expenditures often place responsible civilian
officials in delicate position. Our Embassy reports Peru Prime
Minister Beltran (British educated, friend of US–UK, who attempting
develop sound economic-financial-social program) so discouraged over
inability stop cruiser purchase that now thinking of resigning.
(7) Sales naval vessels give impetus disastrous arms race, increase
tensions between LA countries. Pressures already growing in Chile to
match first Peruvian cruiser, can be expected become irresistible when
second generally known. Chile-Peru relations may reach low point.
Ecuador uneasy.
(8) U.S. has been attempting stimulate LA initiative for arms
limitation. We were encouraged by recent public statement Chilean
President Alessandri favoring limitation, publicly endorsed by
Peruvian President Prado; US applauded in statement November 30.
Peruvian second cruiser purchase represents serious set-back this
effort.
(9) We oppose excessive military purchases regardless of country of
purchase, including US (e.g. our refusal make excessive aircraft sales
Peruvian Air Force).
(10) If British raise question US military assistance (including
prospective ship loan) LA countries, you should explain not
inconsistent since purpose this modest program is to relieve part of
economic-financial burden LA countries maintain minimum forces
necessary for hemispheric defense.
Embassy should make following specific requests UK Govt soonest:
(1) Present status second cruiser sale to Peru.
(2) If not too late and if can be done gracefully express hope UK can
avoid completion this sale. (Our Ambassador Lima making top level
attempts dissuade GOP from purchase, with little expectations
success.)
(3) In any case strongly urge UK consider future confidential
coordination with US before undertaking offer or sale major armaments
LA in order provide opportunity compare notes economic and military
situation prospective purchaser and determine advisability discourage
purchase. Report UK reactions.
Herter
1 Source: Department of State, Central Files, 720.5621/12–459.
Confidential. Drafted by Richard A. Poole and James D. Moffat, and
approved by Joseph A. Silberstein. Repeated to Lima, Santiago, Quito,
Bogotá, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, and Caracas.
three Jamaica class cruisers and six Battle class destroyers in 1959.
http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v05/d28
28. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in the United
Kingdom1
Washington, December 4, 1959—8:34 p.m.
4410. Department increasingly concerned seemingly indiscriminate offer
naval vessels by UK to LA countries in disregard economic drain and
danger armaments race, increasing tensions. We refer immediately to
Peru-Chile situation, also affecting Ecuador, Argentina, etc.
Therefore request you approach Foreign Office along following lines:
(1) We have recent reports following UK sales or offers: (a) cruiser
Newfoundland sold to Peru and cruiser Ceylon reportedly sold (Peruvian
Embassy informed us December 1 of latter purchase, one week after
conveying GOP’s categorical assurance there would be no purchase
second cruiser, although now reported may have been secretly purchased
same time as first); (b) battleship Vanguard, 3 Jamaica class cruisers
and 6 Battle class destroyers offered to Chile; (c) Peruvian report
cruiser Ceylon offered to Ecuador and possibly Chile which GOP gives
as excuse Peruvian purchase; (d) three Battle class destroyers offered
to Argentina.
(2) Dept appreciates sale British naval vessels matter between two
countries involved and understands problems concerning UK relations LA
countries. However, believe incumbent US and UK encourage restraint on
excessive military expenditures LA countries whose Governments have
severe problems exercising fiscal responsibility and whose military
often have considerable fiscal autonomy.
(3) LA economies can ill afford excessive military expenditures which
place strain on Governments’ finances and retard economic development.
(4) US providing credit and technical assistance for economic
development, budgetary support, exchange relief, etc., which difficult
justify in face of military expenditures in excess needs hemispheric
and national defense. British will appreciate that LA failure
concentrate resources on civilian economy increases demands for US
assistance and aggravates US balance of payments problem to which UK
has already responded.
(5) LA Communists and nationalist extremists incite demands for more
arms in order weaken economies and frustrate our endeavors.
(6) Excessive military expenditures often place responsible civilian
officials in delicate position. Our Embassy reports Peru Prime
Minister Beltran (British educated, friend of US–UK, who attempting
develop sound economic-financial-social program) so discouraged over
inability stop cruiser purchase that now thinking of resigning.
(7) Sales naval vessels give impetus disastrous arms race, increase
tensions between LA countries. Pressures already growing in Chile to
match first Peruvian cruiser, can be expected become irresistible when
second generally known. Chile-Peru relations may reach low point.
Ecuador uneasy.
(8) U.S. has been attempting stimulate LA initiative for arms
limitation. We were encouraged by recent public statement Chilean
President Alessandri favoring limitation, publicly endorsed by
Peruvian President Prado; US applauded in statement November 30.
Peruvian second cruiser purchase represents serious set-back this
effort.
(9) We oppose excessive military purchases regardless of country of
purchase, including US (e.g. our refusal make excessive aircraft sales
Peruvian Air Force).
(10) If British raise question US military assistance (including
prospective ship loan) LA countries, you should explain not
inconsistent since purpose this modest program is to relieve part of
economic-financial burden LA countries maintain minimum forces
necessary for hemispheric defense.
Embassy should make following specific requests UK Govt soonest:
(1) Present status second cruiser sale to Peru.
(2) If not too late and if can be done gracefully express hope UK can
avoid completion this sale. (Our Ambassador Lima making top level
attempts dissuade GOP from purchase, with little expectations
success.)
(3) In any case strongly urge UK consider future confidential
coordination with US before undertaking offer or sale major armaments
LA in order provide opportunity compare notes economic and military
situation prospective purchaser and determine advisability discourage
purchase. Report UK reactions.
Herter
1 Source: Department of State, Central Files, 720.5621/12–459.
Confidential. Drafted by Richard A. Poole and James D. Moffat, and
approved by Joseph A. Silberstein. Repeated to Lima, Santiago, Quito,
Bogotá, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, and Caracas.
Keith Willshaw
Oct 5, 2011, 3:55:02 AM10/5/11
to
KDR wrote:
> Britain's last battleship HMS Vanguard was offered to Chile along with
> three Jamaica class cruisers and six Battle class destroyers in 1959.
>
> http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v05/d28
>
> 28. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in the United
> Kingdom1
>
> Washington, December 4, 1959—8:34 p.m.
>
> 4410. Department increasingly concerned seemingly indiscriminate offer
> naval vessels by UK to LA countries in disregard economic drain and
> danger armaments race, increasing tensions. We refer immediately to
> Peru-Chile situation, also affecting Ecuador, Argentina, etc.
> Therefore request you approach Foreign Office along following lines:
>
> (1) We have recent reports following UK sales or offers: (a) cruiser
> Newfoundland sold to Peru and cruiser Ceylon reportedly sold (Peruvian
> Embassy informed us December 1 of latter purchase, one week after
> conveying GOP’s categorical assurance there would be no purchase
> second cruiser, although now reported may have been secretly purchased
> same time as first); (b) battleship Vanguard, 3 Jamaica class cruisers
> and 6 Battle class destroyers offered to Chile; (c) Peruvian report
> cruiser Ceylon offered to Ecuador and possibly Chile which GOP gives
> as excuse Peruvian purchase; (d) three Battle class destroyers offered
> to Argentina.
>
<snip>
> Britain's last battleship HMS Vanguard was offered to Chile along with
> three Jamaica class cruisers and six Battle class destroyers in 1959.
>
> http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v05/d28
>
> 28. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in the United
> Kingdom1
>
> Washington, December 4, 1959—8:34 p.m.
>
> 4410. Department increasingly concerned seemingly indiscriminate offer
> naval vessels by UK to LA countries in disregard economic drain and
> danger armaments race, increasing tensions. We refer immediately to
> Peru-Chile situation, also affecting Ecuador, Argentina, etc.
> Therefore request you approach Foreign Office along following lines:
>
> (1) We have recent reports following UK sales or offers: (a) cruiser
> Newfoundland sold to Peru and cruiser Ceylon reportedly sold (Peruvian
> Embassy informed us December 1 of latter purchase, one week after
> conveying GOP’s categorical assurance there would be no purchase
> second cruiser, although now reported may have been secretly purchased
> same time as first); (b) battleship Vanguard, 3 Jamaica class cruisers
> and 6 Battle class destroyers offered to Chile; (c) Peruvian report
> cruiser Ceylon offered to Ecuador and possibly Chile which GOP gives
> as excuse Peruvian purchase; (d) three Battle class destroyers offered
> to Argentina.
>
Considering the scale of American arms sales to South American
countries during this period a certain amount of hypocrisy is clearly
present. It was the US that sold the cruisers Phoenix and Boise
to the Argentine navy as well as a numner of Fletcher, Gearing
and Sumner class destroyers and 4 submarines as well as a bunch
of A-4 Skyhawks
When it comes to the Chilean Navy they were quite happy to
supply a couple of Brooklyn Class cruisers as well as Fletcher
and Sumner class DD's
Keith
KDR
Oct 5, 2011, 4:27:02 AM10/5/11
to
Anyway, what if the sale of the Vanguard to Chile had gone ahead?
William Black
Oct 5, 2011, 4:55:53 AM10/5/11
to
"Dear Sir, please stop poaching our private market for selling our
overpriced arms."
--
William Black
Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...
dott.Piergiorgio
Oct 5, 2011, 8:19:40 AM10/5/11
to
Il 05/10/2011 10:27, KDR ha scritto:
>> Considering the scale of American arms sales to South American
>> countries during this period a certain amount of hypocrisy is clearly
>> present. It was the US that sold the cruisers Phoenix and Boise
>> to the Argentine navy as well as a numner of Fletcher, Gearing
>> and Sumner class destroyers and 4 submarines as well as a bunch
>> of A-4 Skyhawks
>>
>> When it comes to the Chilean Navy they were quite happy to
>> supply a couple of Brooklyn Class cruisers as well as Fletcher
>> and Sumner class DD's
>>
>> Keith
>
> Of course they were just trying to get rid of competition.
>
> Anyway, what if the sale of the Vanguard to Chile had gone ahead?
well, I must point that the Brooklyns was ceded very wisely, two for
>> Considering the scale of American arms sales to South American
>> countries during this period a certain amount of hypocrisy is clearly
>> present. It was the US that sold the cruisers Phoenix and Boise
>> to the Argentine navy as well as a numner of Fletcher, Gearing
>> and Sumner class destroyers and 4 submarines as well as a bunch
>> of A-4 Skyhawks
>>
>> When it comes to the Chilean Navy they were quite happy to
>> supply a couple of Brooklyn Class cruisers as well as Fletcher
>> and Sumner class DD's
>>
>> Keith
>
> Of course they were just trying to get rid of competition.
>
> Anyway, what if the sale of the Vanguard to Chile had gone ahead?
each of the ABC countries, keeping the balance of the very delicate ABC
Naval balance (an issue since late XIXth century); the sale of Vanguard
will have caused a major ruckus, and Argies and Brazilians Admiral will
have insisted for one of the Colorados (still mothballed in 1959-60)
instead of the offered Brooklyns, and the headache for the CNO and the
hell for the Naval attaches involved is easily imaginable...
I suspect that France (the lone other B* holder in the timeframe, aside
the Turkish Yayuz/Goeben) will NOT have joined the fray, because I
suspect they have already precise (and hidden) deals on disposal (If one
look up where ends scrapped the Riechelieu and Jean Bart will be rather
surprised, knowing their rationale and role in the Marine Nationale....)
but this must perhaps be inserted in the general Atlantic climate, being
squarely between the 1958 US-UK MDA and 1962 Polaris sales agreement ?
Heck, I can even image that between White House and Pentagon some doubts
surfaces on the ham having actually reason in name-calling "perfidous"
the English.... ;)
Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
Message has been deleted
Keith Willshaw
Oct 5, 2011, 1:24:49 PM10/5/11
to
they they couldnt afford to put to sea.
I suspect that what happened is they got a list of the ships
slated for disposal.
Keith
Peter Skelton
Oct 5, 2011, 3:22:16 PM10/5/11
to
'59. Here's a bit of Wikki:
Almirante Latorre was active until 1951, when an accident in the ship's
engine room killed three crewmen. Moored at Talcahuano, the battleship
became a storage facility for fuel oil.[32] She was decommissioned in
October 1958, and was sold to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in February
1959 for $881,110 to be broken up for scrap.[9][10] On 29 May 1959, to
the salutes of the assembled Chilean fleet, the old dreadnought was
taken under tow by the tug Cambrian Salvos,[10][32] and reached
Yokohama, Japan, at the end of August,[18][32][50][N 8] though the
scrapping process did not begin immediately on arrival.[18] A
substantial amount of parts from Almirante Latorre were used in the
restoration of the Mikasa.
--
Peter
Keith Willshaw
Oct 5, 2011, 4:32:27 PM10/5/11
to
If they wanted a ship of that size with its running costs one of the
Colossus or Majestic Light Fleet carriers would have been
more useful and of course both Brazil and Argentina acquired
examples in the late 1950's
Keith
Peter Skelton
Oct 5, 2011, 4:45:43 PM10/5/11
to
to get things right.)
> If they wanted a ship of that size with its running costs one of the
> Colossus or Majestic Light Fleet carriers would have been
> more useful and of course both Brazil and Argentina acquired
> examples in the late 1950's
>
--
Peter
nik Simpson
Oct 5, 2011, 5:33:34 PM10/5/11
to
HMS Canada), so they'd have had a battleship crew available, and it's
quite plausible that they might have shopped around to see if anybody
wanted a to sell them a slightly used battleship ;-)
--
Nik Simpson
Keith Willshaw
Oct 5, 2011, 6:10:55 PM10/5/11
to
Peter Skelton wrote:
>>
> 1500 x 2 is more than 2000 (I wish you'd make some sort of feeble
> effort to get things right.)
>
Almirante La Torre was a Canada Class Dreadnought which as built
>>
> 1500 x 2 is more than 2000 (I wish you'd make some sort of feeble
> effort to get things right.)
>
had a normal complement of around 1100 men. By the 1950's
the 6" secondary armament was not normally manned and
her actual complement was less than 1,000
Incidentally a little common courtesy wouldn't hurt.
Keith
Peter Skelton
Oct 5, 2011, 7:25:32 PM10/5/11
to
thing, I suspect they know what they're talking about.
Truthfulness is a useful component of courtesy.
--
Peter
David E. Powell
Oct 5, 2011, 10:08:28 PM10/5/11
to
gang" staff to run the machinery.
Defnitely enough to form the core of a crew for HMS Vanguard.
Trying to imagine an updated Vanguard around 1982 prepping up to
counter the Argentine situation at the time.
One of the sad thing about no overseas sales of post-WW2 Brit BBs is,
had they been overseas for about 30-40 years after the war, they may
have been able to get returned for preservation as museums after their
new nations retired them. Or, preserved in their new host nations as
national museums.
DEP
Keith Willshaw
Oct 6, 2011, 3:39:56 AM10/6/11
to
I'd be interested in seeing the source of that information.
> Truthfulness is a useful component of courtesy.
Indeed it is, I may be in error but I do not tell lies.
Keith
Eugene Griessel
Oct 6, 2011, 6:26:16 AM10/6/11
to
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 08:39:56 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
<keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> The Chilean navy gives her 1950 complement as 1500. As they owned the
>> thing, I suspect they know what they're talking about.
>>
>
>I'd be interested in seeing the source of that information.
Me too. I have 4 references here, including a 1954 Janes, and none
<keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> The Chilean navy gives her 1950 complement as 1500. As they owned the
>> thing, I suspect they know what they're talking about.
>>
>
>I'd be interested in seeing the source of that information.
ever give Latorre's compliment as more than 1176.
Eugene L Griessel
If the universe has any purpose more important than topping a woman you
love and making a baby with her hearty help, I've never heard of it.
Peter Skelton
Oct 6, 2011, 7:13:56 AM10/6/11
to
On 06/10/2011 3:39 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
> Peter Skelton wrote:
>> On 05/10/2011 6:10 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>> Peter Skelton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> 1500 x 2 is more than 2000 (I wish you'd make some sort of feeble
>>>> effort to get things right.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Almirante La Torre was a Canada Class Dreadnought which as built
>>> had a normal complement of around 1100 men. By the 1950's
>>> the 6" secondary armament was not normally manned and
>>> her actual complement was less than 1,000
>>>
>>> Incidentally a little common courtesy wouldn't hurt.
>>>
>> The Chilean navy gives her 1950 complement as 1500. As they owned the
>> thing, I suspect they know what they're talking about.
>>
>
> I'd be interested in seeing the source of that information.
>
Then go onto the Chilean Navy website and find it. It's not as if I
> Peter Skelton wrote:
>> On 05/10/2011 6:10 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>> Peter Skelton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> 1500 x 2 is more than 2000 (I wish you'd make some sort of feeble
>>>> effort to get things right.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Almirante La Torre was a Canada Class Dreadnought which as built
>>> had a normal complement of around 1100 men. By the 1950's
>>> the 6" secondary armament was not normally manned and
>>> her actual complement was less than 1,000
>>>
>>> Incidentally a little common courtesy wouldn't hurt.
>>>
>> The Chilean navy gives her 1950 complement as 1500. As they owned the
>> thing, I suspect they know what they're talking about.
>>
>
> I'd be interested in seeing the source of that information.
>
didn't tell you where it came from.
>> Truthfulness is a useful component of courtesy.
>
> Indeed it is, I may be in error but I do not tell lies.
>
place where what you say may be correct and what your obviously
incorrect interpretation of what the other person said may not. You
equate things grossly incorrectly in an attempt to make yourself look
good. Here, for example, you're tried to equate honesty with not telling
lies.
--
Peter
Peter Skelton
Oct 6, 2011, 7:24:57 AM10/6/11
to
On 06/10/2011 6:26 AM, Eugene Griessel wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 08:39:56 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> The Chilean navy gives her 1950 complement as 1500. As they owned the
>>> thing, I suspect they know what they're talking about.
>>>
>>
>> I'd be interested in seeing the source of that information.
>
> Me too. I have 4 references here, including a 1954 Janes, and none
> ever give Latorre's compliment as more than 1176.
>
1167 was HMS CAnada's complement in WWI. It hasn't much relevance, in
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 08:39:56 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> The Chilean navy gives her 1950 complement as 1500. As they owned the
>>> thing, I suspect they know what they're talking about.
>>>
>>
>> I'd be interested in seeing the source of that information.
>
> Me too. I have 4 references here, including a 1954 Janes, and none
> ever give Latorre's compliment as more than 1176.
>
WWI she still had stokers (stokers don't count IIRC but I didn't look
that up), didn't have her AA armament, radar, CIC, or admiral's staff.
Her actual complement at the time of the accident that ended her career
was under 900, her wartime complement at that time was 'approximately
1500'. (That probably includes crews for the removed 20 mm.)
--
Peter
Eugene Griessel
Oct 6, 2011, 7:37:01 AM10/6/11
to
Eugene L Griessel
No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously.
Peter Skelton
Oct 6, 2011, 7:48:16 AM10/6/11
to
That and the crews for the 4", 6" staff, etc. etc. She was nothing like
ready for real use. (The difference war - peace on American and British
old BB's was i the 5-700 range - Eugene knows this, he's just pulling my
chain.)
--
Peter
Keith Willshaw
Oct 6, 2011, 1:42:19 PM10/6/11
to
Peter Skelton wrote:
> On 06/10/2011 3:39 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> Peter Skelton wrote:
>>> On 05/10/2011 6:10 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>>> Peter Skelton wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> 1500 x 2 is more than 2000 (I wish you'd make some sort of feeble
>>>>> effort to get things right.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Almirante La Torre was a Canada Class Dreadnought which as built
>>>> had a normal complement of around 1100 men. By the 1950's
>>>> the 6" secondary armament was not normally manned and
>>>> her actual complement was less than 1,000
>>>>
>>>> Incidentally a little common courtesy wouldn't hurt.
>>>>
>>> The Chilean navy gives her 1950 complement as 1500. As they owned
>>> the thing, I suspect they know what they're talking about.
>>>
>>
>> I'd be interested in seeing the source of that information.
>>
>
> Then go onto the Chilean Navy website and find it. It's not as if I
> didn't tell you where it came from.
>
I had a look at it and didnt see that perhaps you'd care
> On 06/10/2011 3:39 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> Peter Skelton wrote:
>>> On 05/10/2011 6:10 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>>> Peter Skelton wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> 1500 x 2 is more than 2000 (I wish you'd make some sort of feeble
>>>>> effort to get things right.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Almirante La Torre was a Canada Class Dreadnought which as built
>>>> had a normal complement of around 1100 men. By the 1950's
>>>> the 6" secondary armament was not normally manned and
>>>> her actual complement was less than 1,000
>>>>
>>>> Incidentally a little common courtesy wouldn't hurt.
>>>>
>>> The Chilean navy gives her 1950 complement as 1500. As they owned
>>> the thing, I suspect they know what they're talking about.
>>>
>>
>> I'd be interested in seeing the source of that information.
>>
>
> Then go onto the Chilean Navy website and find it. It's not as if I
> didn't tell you where it came from.
>
to post the link.
Keith
Eugene Griessel
Oct 6, 2011, 2:06:07 PM10/6/11
to
http://www.armada.cl/prontus_armada/site/artic/20090708/pags/20090708214720.html
but it said nada about crew sizes.
Eugene L Griessel
Culture - an excellent excuse to stop thinking.
Keith Willshaw
Oct 6, 2011, 2:15:15 PM10/6/11
to
tonnage of the destroyers they were authorized to purchase.
Keith
Eugene Griessel
Oct 6, 2011, 2:41:28 PM10/6/11
to
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 19:15:15 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
Figuring out gun crews needed at maximum gun configuration and sailing
crews I guess this vessel, as a coal fired ship, in fighting/wartime
conditions, would need around a 1000 men minimum - with about 400 to
450 of these for the gunnery department. A large reduction of that
figure would come about by not manning the 6 inchers. You'd probably
also save on about 50-60 by convertring to oil.
1500 was not even the wartime crew size on the KGV's and they were
bigger, had more guns and more complexity.
That isn't to say you couldn't have as many crew as the ship would
carry before sinking, the extras just would not be necessary.
Eugene L Griessel
Adroitness, concupiscence, and perspicacity are the epitome of
savoir-faire. -- Spam
crews I guess this vessel, as a coal fired ship, in fighting/wartime
conditions, would need around a 1000 men minimum - with about 400 to
450 of these for the gunnery department. A large reduction of that
figure would come about by not manning the 6 inchers. You'd probably
also save on about 50-60 by convertring to oil.
1500 was not even the wartime crew size on the KGV's and they were
bigger, had more guns and more complexity.
That isn't to say you couldn't have as many crew as the ship would
carry before sinking, the extras just would not be necessary.
Eugene L Griessel
Adroitness, concupiscence, and perspicacity are the epitome of
savoir-faire. -- Spam
David E. Powell
Oct 6, 2011, 10:36:16 PM10/6/11
to
I'm trying to imagine Vanguard modified in the 1970s or 1980s with
some missile launchers a la the Iowas and am having thoughts that are
dangerously close to impure.
some missile launchers a la the Iowas and am having thoughts that are
dangerously close to impure.
Peter Skelton
Oct 6, 2011, 10:38:41 PM10/6/11
to
absurd, BTW their war complement was about 1900 by Jane's or 1600+ from
Wiki) KGV's were about 5000 t smaller than Canada (23000 vs 28000) with
a much smaller crew 1167 vs 782 (Conways)
--
Peter
0 new messages