1408:
barring far-ranging rationalization. Thus the
Germans had very little modern experience upon which to base their designs, and the two ships---modern designs derived from the Great War Bayern-Class dreadnoughts---proved to be the only battleships built. While they proved extremely tough to sink, they had a number of vulnerabilities that might have been mitigated in later ships (their communications and fire control systems might fairly be called fragile). They were certainly superior to the 'R'-Class, and the Queen Elizabeths would have had trouble with the faster German ships, particularly Barham and Malaya. The KGVs were generally superior to the German ships, although their appalling rifle-fittings were certainly a disadvantage. Nelson and Rodney were not as strongly built, and were considerably slower, but as Rodney showed, they had the power to shatter the fighting capacity of the German ships. Vanguard was so long building because she absorbed the lessons of the War; she was thus far superior to the early-war designs like Bismarck and Tirpitz. The German ships were extremely vulnerable to hard-hitting American battleships of the North Carolina- and Modified North Carolina-Classes, and the Iowa-Class ships were superior in almost every respect (their armour weakness is somewhat compensated for by the absolutely superlative damage control of American fighting ships).
1710:
clear the fire rate for the 5.25's in
Vanguard must have been higher, given the higher degree of automation and lower manual handling. It appears in the Vanguard installation the turrets are larger, for faster loading and train and elevate automatically under radar Mk 37 275 control which should assist easier loading. Given that the Vanguard had a power rammed breach for 5.25 guns and that the shells seem to come pretty directly from the hoist onto the loading tray, its my view the only really manual action would be lifting the lighter cordite brass shell case behind the main shell, and therefore 18 rpm was realistic, if likely prone to some jamming . The similar improvements of the Brooklyn 6 inch loading in the Worcester of Mk 24 version of the Mk 23 and in the orginal 1944 Tiger armament suggest with the lighter 5.25s such refinement might have been reasonably successful, while in the Worchesters the achievable loading rate was only 10rpm rather than the 20 anticipated, the 80lb shells of the 5.25 would have been more managable and shorter than the 112lb of the US Brookly/Worchester or Belfast/ Tiger Mk 23/24 and therefore actually achieving 18rpm entirely possible, particularly by 1949 US low elevation 8 inch 250lb in the USS Newport News could be loaded at a relaible 12rpm with a modified Worchester system.
648:
630:
1400:
of battleship power, in respect of her capabilities relative to other battleships, is displacement. Here, too, the penultimate generation of battleships prove difficult to categorize easily. Vanguard displaced 51,420 Tons deep load (full war load of fuel, stores, and munitions) when she commissioned. At that time, the
American Iowa-Class battleships displaced 57,540 Tons Deep Load (more or less, being warships engaged in war operations, it is difficult to know their actual displacements until they went into the yards for refit post-war). Vanguard was a much tougher warship than the Iowas, but she was markedly slower, as well. The very heavy American 16-Inch APC shell could defeat Vanguard's armour protection at battle ranges, but the American battleship's own protection was vulnerable to the British 15-Inch APC shell (the Iowa's "light" protection proved inconsequential in the event).
1294:
France post war, and while it ran trials and by some accounts commissioned in 1952, the Jean Bart's final a/a armament of twin 100mm mounts with a fire rate 20rpm and twin 57mm with fire rate of 120rpm was not fitted until 1953-4 and the ship did not really enter service with its final gun and radar fit until 1955, serving for only two years. By the mid 1950s the light and medium a/a on the Jean Bart was far in advance of the
Vanguard or Iowa's and therefore I believe the French ship is better regarded as the last battleship and the the Vanguards old main armament derived from the the Glorious and Courageous also disqualifies it from serious consideration as the last battleship, as I doubt if the British WW1 15 inch was even the equal of the Deflinger.s 12 inch.
482:
1465:
ships did not justify the cost. Note it wasn't that
Britain couldn't afford eggs (I'm assuming you're talking about rationing), but that the battleship was no longer the queen of the seas, and it was considered better to put the money into carriers and their aircraft instead. The US certainly was not a "broken great power" and she ended construction of the ships on the slipways when Japan capitulated, and never went ahead with building the Montana's. Note the Vanguard remained in active service until the end of rationing.
841:
820:
851:
190:
437:
498:
317:
694:
530:
732:
711:
466:
742:
514:
594:
385:
547:
399:
348:
1396:
Vanguard a "Fully
Armored Battlecruiser" is incorrect, and should be deleted. The original concept for a "fast, fully armoured Battle Cruiser" that ultimately led to Vanguard is a part of her development history, not of her design (the proposal was for a fast ship for the Eastern Fleet to counter the over-rated Kongo-Class battlecruisers)
1321:
over the
British 15-inch is profoundly ignorant. Just look at muzzle velocity, shell weight and crunch the numbers and you'll see that the 15-inch gun was vastly superior, especially at long range where the heavier shell better retained velocity. Why do you think that the Baden-class BBs were armed with 381 mm guns?--
1395:
HM Battleship
Vanguard was classed by the Royal Navy as a battleship, and all official records referring to her so name her; she was commissioned HM Battleship Vanguard, not HM Battlecruiser Vanguard. Unless an official, primary, documented source may be cited to the contrary, the declaration calling
962:
I visited HMS Vanguard for lunch - a measly helping of 'bangers and mash'; I remember it well as I was hoping for something much larger on a battleship - during my one year in the naval section of my school (KCS Wimbledon) Combined Cadet Force (CCF). That was during the 1959/60 school year. The entry
1697:
The fire rate attributed to the
Vanguards 5.25 of 10/12 rounds is just the standard intial estimate for the initial Dido cruiser intallations . In practice as the King George Battleship Knowledge (XXG) states actual sustainable performance of the gun was around 7.5 given the heavy 80lb weight of the
1641:
Actually not. British and
American armour thicknesses were specified in pounds (armour plate weighing 40.8 lbs per sq ft per 1 inch thickness), so a six-inch plate would be specified as 240-lb armour plate, disregarding the 0.8. This mean that that 6-inch plate was not exactly 6 inches in thickness,
1320:
You can certainly make the case that the Jean Bart was the last battleship, period, but she certainly wasn't the last one launched. Her pre-existing armament is irrelevant to any consideration whether or not she was the "last" or not, IMO. But your statement claiming superiority of the German 305 mm
1915:
This seems very improbable. The ship had a beam of 108 feet. This would be less near the stern. There is not enough beam to accommodate four shafts with 51 feet between the inboard and outboard shafts on each side. I would change the wording if I knew what to change it to. I can only guess that the
1709:
IN terms of the 5.25's in the Vanguard the standard google ref and ref for many WW2 RN 6 inch and 5.25 turrets states the Vanguards turrets were fully automatic with a fire rate of 18 rpm based on the Gazarke and Dullin (Janes 1980). The secondary ref questions this and suggest 9rpm. However it is
1464:
She was a "white elephant" because the air craft carrier had superseded the battleship as "THE capital ship", not because Britain was worn out by the war effort. Britain did not proceed with construction of the Lion class (despite some redesign) on the basis that the limited offensive power of the
1399:
Whether Vanguard was the biggest, largest, &c, battleship, or not, is not particularly important. There are many measures of power in naval warfare, and one of the oldest of them was rapidly becoming obsolete when Vanguard was laid down---the bore of a ship's main battery. A traditional measure
1117:
Well, as you've pointed out, the change shouldn't have been made without discussion; this is one of those "both ways are OK, and changing it causes fights" issues that are too common. I personally prefer the old banner template, because it briefly lists all the Wikiprojects which cover the article
1976:
I would think that the only relevant distance between two parallel shafts would be the shortest distance between any part of the shafts, especially when discussing an attempt to avoid a repeat of what happened to the POW. I think longitudinal distance would only matter if the entire length of one
1403:
The honourific of "Last Battleships" is also somewhat inaccurate. The American Iowa-Class battleships are by any true measure the "last" of the battleships, as they remained operational far, far longer than any contemporary, engaging in combat operations up to the end of the Gulf War. Kentucky and
1293:
My view is that the Jean Bart was the last battleship completed. By 1940 the Jean Bart was about 77% complete but it was seriously damaged while in refuge in Nth Africa and the the US Navy regarded it as too different to be completed to US patterns during WW2. Most of its final construction was in
1731:
Possibly quite true, but I'm not that fond of Garzke & Dulin for gunnery stuff. Especially since I'm not at all certain that the US and UK shared weapon mount tech after the end of the war. The RoF for the early 5"/54 is probably a better match than anything else as that weapon was fielded in
1221:
Would it be correct to state the the Vanguard was the last battleship ever built? In the world? It's hard to pin down, because of the gap between the hull being laid down in 1941, its launch in 1944, and its commission in 1946. Perhaps the article could say something to the effect that it was the
1407:
With regard to the German battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz, the comparison is a bit unfair to the German ships. The Germans had no serious blue-water naval plans until the middle of the 1930s, and there is a great deal of opinion that their famous 'Z' Plan was beyond their industrial capacity,
1095:
template without first discussing the change on that talk page. WikiProjectBanners is a similar nesting template with an alternate appearance, the use of which is dependent on editor preference. Once one Shell or the other has been established on a talk page, it should not be changed without
1411:
Had she gone into service in the grim year of 1941, Vanguard might have made a difference, even with the still-problematic 5.25-Inch DP mounts. By 1945, she was a White Elephant with no mission, the flagship of a broken Great Power that could not afford eggs and coffee, much less a big-gun
1596:
Minic Ships version made in Hong Kong between 1975 and 1980. The model is very durable, and remains popular with toy ship collectors to this day. A highly accurate metal miniature is currently produced in small numbers by the German manufacturer 'Albatros', to the international scale of
1626:"Sections of 150-millimetre (5.9 in) thick steel plate were recovered from the scrapping of Vanguard...". This looks to me like a botched approximated conversion from 6 inches to mm and back to exact inches... Britain didn't do metric, AFAIK the plate would have been 6 inches exactly.
1521:
It could be argued that the Vanguard was a better design than the Bismark. It was to be the damage to the triple propellor arrangement that finally doomed the Bismark. The Vanguard with a quadruple screw arrangement could possible have been steered in a way that the Bismark couldn't.
1698:
shell which had to carried on to the tray. In the Mediterranean Battles of Site the other relevant Wikipeida, K George class Battleships and the QF 5.25 inch guns states/ suggests a 10rpm fire rate in the first two minutes of engagement.
1546:(in Portsmouth habrour in 1960, shortly before she was decommissioned, through the kindness of one of her crew of whom I was a friend, in spite of my youth at that time), I can confirm that she was extremely popular with her personnel.
505:
366:
489:
362:
647:
629:
1977:
shaft is completely forward or aft of the nearest other shaft. if moving one shaft a few feet forward or aft while still remaining largely alongside the next shaft really would help prevent the problem, this should be explained.
560:
1702:
The 5.25 turret installations from the start in the KGV class were more automated, (see Knowledge (XXG) Commons pic of KGV 5.25 mount 1943) with the last Anson would have incorporated the faster transverse of the later
1142:
I've decided I'm going to change it back because it shows which projects have assessed the page. If you disagree, please bring up your objections here on the talk page before unilaterally reverting the change. Thanks,
1562:
With her rudder blocked in a 15° position, Vanguard would have kept running in circles just the same way as Bismarck had. There was no way escaping this, the number of propeller shafts doesn't make a difference here.
603:
268:
473:
358:
1404:
Illinois were still building when Vanguard commissioned, and as has been pointed out, Jean Bart completed after Vanguard. What can be said is that Vanguard was the last battleship commissioned into the Royal Navy.
153:
2012:
Could there have been any serious discussion about sending Vanguard to offer gunfire support in the Korean War? I can’t help but think such a move would have met the approval of the British public, even post WW2.
1601:
I'm not sure we'd normally include this sort of information in an article so I've moved it here for now. Bearing in mind that Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia we'd need to decide: is information about models
287:
204:
2041:
555:
378:
521:
370:
2121:
1361:
as there was enough spare yard capacity at the time for one large ship and it was decided to build a new battleship incorporating all the lessons learned through then-current battle experience to-date.
1662:
Was any work ever done on this ship to upgrade its defenses to cope with jet attacks, rockets/missiles of that era, it terms of armament? Any information along these lines would benefit the article.
2056:
537:
374:
2014:
1472:
608:
1564:
1610:
for the information given and we should avoid phrases like "very durable" and "remains popular" unless demonstrably true (and then they should be directly attributed to a source). Best,
2096:
2086:
2091:
2061:
411:
2081:
2046:
907:
147:
963:
now quotes 7 Jun 1960 as the decommission date which fits as that would have been in the lead up to O Level exams so we would have visited before then. AWDE, 7 Jan 2013
1806:
1802:
1788:
2156:
897:
2076:
79:
2161:
1706:
The Gunnery book reference (22), specifically excludes coverage of the different battleship mountings and is only directly relevant to cruiser instalaltions
873:
802:
2071:
2066:
1542:
Certainly the cafeteria type messing was extremely popular with the crew. As probably one of the few contributors to this article who ever went aboard the
664:
2051:
2151:
2141:
2106:
792:
44:
406:
353:
85:
2146:
2101:
2036:
1518:
The Vanguard was the first RN ship to use modern cafeteria type messing and the idea became popular with the crew after a few teething problems.
864:
825:
1062:
768:
2116:
1588:
to many scales, but one of the most widely distributed was the mass-produced metal 1:1200 (one inch to 100 feet) scale version introduced by
415:
2131:
30:
2136:
2111:
1448:
1301:
1259:
668:
2018:
1865:
1717:
1476:
1369:
1239:
99:
1784:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
1568:
1499:
1415:
1118:
while remaining compact. The new template is even smaller, but honestly, the old one is only about the size of the (IMHO useless)
755:
716:
104:
20:
2126:
1592:
ships in 1960, the year of her decommissioning. This was produced in the UK between 1960 and 1965, and again in a more detailed
1353:
1075:
on 14 December without explanation in disregard to the documentation relating to these two templates which states the following:
1774:
74:
1982:
1921:
1078:
1045:
1022:
328:
168:
1182:
You're correct. Someone removed the words "in anger" a couple of months ago; they may not have known what the phrase meant.
672:
655:
635:
199:
135:
65:
1849:
1089:
1069:
1032:
1912:"The space between the inboard and outboard propeller shafts was increased from 33.5 to 51.5 feet (10.2 to 15.7 m)"
929:
I used the launch date instead of commission date as per the standard, but doesn't this ship have a pennant number?
1978:
1917:
1056:
249:
1258:
Jean Bart had trials in 1949 but final AA guns were not fitted until 1952. Vanguard was not the last completed.
109:
1348:
129:
1805:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1248:
1227:
1051:
to this talk page on 7 December because this page was tagged by three wikiprojects. My addition was changed by
316:
189:
481:
334:
209:
1305:
1222:
last ever battleship to be commissioned, and then explain exactly what commissioning means in this context. -
1997:
1936:
1840:
1766:
1737:
1682:
1667:
1647:
1452:
1326:
1278:
1263:
410:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
125:
1713:
1503:
1495:
1468:
1444:
1419:
1365:
1297:
1287:
I've reverted you because you're wrong. Jean Bart launched 1940, Vanguard 1944. Why do you think otherwise?
1100:
So, my question is, which one should be used? I have left the change intact so-far to avoid a revert-war. -
1945:
The changed wording still looks wrong. Is it the distance between propellers or shaft exits from the hull?
1869:
1721:
1551:
1373:
1201:
55:
1964:
1950:
1824:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1812:
1052:
872:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
856:
767:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1765:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
175:
70:
1864:
Was scrapping the only option? Was there any interest in purchasing her from India, Argentina, etc.?
1243:
postdates it (although its history is odd; it was laid down before the war and completed after it). -
1187:
1133:
1008:
1526:
213:
1631:
1530:
1244:
1223:
1172:
1122:
161:
1351:
and turret was a very successful design which is why the four spare turrets kept in store for the
1993:
1932:
1733:
1678:
1663:
1643:
1322:
1274:
1809:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1825:
1898:
1758:
1547:
1434:
764:
51:
24:
1890:
1775:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110724042028/http://www.rna-10-area.net/files/VanguardOct07.pdf
141:
1960:
1946:
1273:
I'm going to adjust the article to state it was the last British battleship to be launched.
1150:
1107:
840:
819:
1832:
1183:
1129:
1004:
930:
747:
1607:
1791:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1627:
1611:
1168:
945:
869:
497:
1959:
I cannot adjust the wording without access to the sources which are not in my library.
1831:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1798:
1603:
436:
2030:
1778:
1438:
959:
the 'fact box' says 1959, the main text says 1954. Anyone know which it actually it?
663:-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please
991:. Our article had existed at this location for nearly a year at that point, and at
1894:
1423:
992:
693:
1525:
If battleships can be mothballed it seems unlikely that their ammunition could be.
1237:
Although having said that, a quick glance at the internet suggest that the French
1902:
1887:
1430:
1429:
Yeh, that must have been it - too broke to be able to afford to get involved in
1145:
1102:
529:
731:
710:
513:
1797:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1589:
846:
737:
1606:?; and if it is, would it be better in its own article? Additionally we need
1205:
593:
465:
2022:
2001:
1986:
1968:
1954:
1940:
1925:
1873:
1854:
1741:
1725:
1686:
1671:
1651:
1635:
1616:
1572:
1555:
1534:
1507:
1480:
1456:
1377:
1330:
1309:
1282:
1267:
1252:
1231:
1208:
1191:
1176:
1154:
1137:
1111:
1012:
948:
1992:
Would that the sources explained the RN's reasoning as well as you wish.--
671:. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
996:
984:
760:
1916:
51.5 feet quoted would be the distance between the two outboard shafts.
546:
1085:"Please do not implement this template on talk pages already using the
1593:
398:
347:
384:
1000:
988:
660:
310:
15:
1200:
Wouldn't this depend on defintions somewhat? For example did
592:
545:
528:
512:
496:
480:
464:
1860:
were there any bids from a foreign country to purchase her?
1769:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1492:
It has a small glitch. 30 knots is not equal to 60 km/h.
2042:
Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
1128:, and I don't see the saved space being a big advantage.
868:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
2122:
Successful requests for military history A-Class review
1931:
Good catch. The change was longitudinal, not lateral.--
1762:
1437:. Lucky we managed to save our pennies in time for the
980:
280:
261:
242:
160:
2057:
FA-Class Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I) articles
759:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1801:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
942:
British and Empire Warships of the Second World War
575:
447:
174:
1779:http://www.rna-10-area.net/files/VanguardOct07.pdf
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1787:This message was posted before February 2018.
2097:European military history task force articles
1167:i assume they were fired, just not in anger--
8:
2087:British military history task force articles
1677:All changes to her armament are mentioned.--
424:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history
212:. Even so, if you can update or improve it,
208:as one of the best articles produced by the
202:; it (or a previous version of it) has been
2092:FA-Class European military history articles
2062:Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I) articles
2082:FA-Class British military history articles
2047:FA-Class Operation Majestic Titan articles
1757:I have just modified one external link on
1466:
1442:
1363:
882:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United Kingdom
814:
705:
624:
572:
444:
342:
221:
184:
1893:. Is anything further known of him/her?
404:This article is within the scope of the
314:
1642:but rather 2% less, so around 149 mm.--
816:
707:
626:
344:
2157:Low-importance United Kingdom articles
2015:2001:569:BB57:2800:1073:CE6D:34D6:3034
1473:2001:8003:8137:F300:61F0:157:DD32:7CB4
414:. To use this banner, please see the
427:Template:WikiProject Military history
7:
2077:Maritime warfare task force articles
1565:2001:4DD6:5AB8:0:8103:AD54:5BB0:4420
862:This article is within the scope of
777:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Scotland
753:This article is within the scope of
653:This article is within the scope of
506:European military history task force
2162:WikiProject United Kingdom articles
1622:Incorrect inch-mm-inch conversion ?
1433:, especially after the cost of the
885:Template:WikiProject United Kingdom
490:British military history task force
333:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
2072:FA-Class maritime warfare articles
2067:FA-Class military history articles
1584:Many models have been made of HMS
14:
2052:Operation Majestic Titan articles
2037:Knowledge (XXG) featured articles
1761:. Please take a moment to review
681:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Ships
50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
2152:FA-Class United Kingdom articles
2142:Low-importance Scotland articles
2107:World War II task force articles
1658:modernization during the Fifties
849:
839:
818:
740:
730:
709:
692:
646:
628:
435:
397:
383:
346:
315:
188:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1079:Template:WikiProjectBannerShell
902:This article has been rated as
797:This article has been rated as
2147:All WikiProject Scotland pages
2102:FA-Class World War II articles
1855:13:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
1693:Issues on fire rate of QF 5.25
1617:13:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1003:. You can see its evolution.
971:It seems far more likely that
1:
1687:17:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
1672:13:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
1508:17:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
1283:14:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
1155:03:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
1138:02:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
1112:00:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
876:and see a list of open tasks.
780:Template:WikiProject Scotland
771:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
2117:Cold War task force articles
2023:05:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
1636:12:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
1556:13:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
1424:07:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
1268:00:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
1192:17:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
1177:16:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
1013:15:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
940:pennant number was 23 (from
407:Military history WikiProject
2132:All WikiProject Ships pages
1742:07:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
1726:03:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
1579:Models (moved from article)
1331:01:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
1310:02:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
659:, a project to improve all
474:Maritime warfare task force
2178:
2137:FA-Class Scotland articles
2112:FA-Class Cold War articles
1908:unlikely spacing of shafts
1903:12:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
1874:14:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
1818:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1754:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1652:21:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
1573:22:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
1481:04:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
908:project's importance scale
865:WikiProject United Kingdom
803:project's importance scale
684:Template:WikiProject Ships
288:Featured article candidate
269:WikiProject A-class review
949:00:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
933:15:40, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
901:
834:
796:
725:
641:
600:
571:
553:
536:
520:
504:
488:
472:
443:
430:military history articles
392:
341:
301:
224:
220:
210:Knowledge (XXG) community
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1535:11:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
1457:10:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
1378:08:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
1253:20:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
1232:19:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
1209:14:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
1163:"never to fire her guns"
556:Operation Majestic Titan
379:Operation Majestic Titan
2127:FA-Class Ships articles
2002:20:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
1987:18:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
1969:18:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
1955:17:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
1941:17:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
1926:16:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
1750:External links modified
1357:were used to build the
888:United Kingdom articles
765:Scotland-related topics
667:, or contribute to the
576:Additional information:
522:World War II task force
448:Associated task forces:
1599:
1202:HMS Dreadnought (1875)
1046:WikiProjectBannerShell
1023:WikiProjectBannerShell
979:. Their text matches
597:
550:
533:
517:
501:
485:
469:
323:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
1979:Tupelo the typo fixer
1918:Tupelo the typo fixer
1582:
1390:
857:United Kingdom portal
596:
549:
532:
516:
500:
484:
468:
327:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
100:Neutral point of view
1799:regular verification
756:WikiProject Scotland
250:Good article nominee
105:No original research
1878:
1789:After February 2018
540:(c. 1945 – c. 1989)
538:Cold War task force
2008:HMS Vanguard, 1950
1843:InternetArchiveBot
1794:InternetArchiveBot
1090:WikiProjectBanners
1070:WikiProjectBanners
1033:WikiProjectBanners
669:project discussion
598:
551:
534:
518:
502:
486:
470:
412:list of open tasks
329:content assessment
225:Article milestones
86:dispute resolution
47:
1819:
1759:HMS Vanguard (23)
1716:comment added by
1498:comment added by
1483:
1471:comment added by
1459:
1447:comment added by
1435:Malayan Emergency
1380:
1368:comment added by
1300:comment added by
925:HMS Vanguard (23)
922:
921:
918:
917:
914:
913:
813:
812:
809:
808:
783:Scotland articles
704:
703:
700:
699:
673:full instructions
656:WikiProject Ships
623:
622:
619:
618:
615:
614:
567:
566:
416:full instructions
309:
308:
297:
296:
196:HMS Vanguard (23)
183:
182:
66:Assume good faith
43:
25:HMS Vanguard (23)
2169:
1853:
1844:
1817:
1816:
1795:
1728:
1614:
1608:reliable sources
1514:points to ponder
1510:
1391:Vanguard's Place
1354:Queen Elizabeths
1312:
1204:ever see action?
1127:
1121:
1094:
1088:
1074:
1068:
1053:The Giant Puffin
1050:
1044:
1037:
1031:
1027:
1021:
955:decomission date
890:
889:
886:
883:
880:
859:
854:
853:
852:
843:
836:
835:
830:
822:
815:
785:
784:
781:
778:
775:
750:
745:
744:
743:
734:
727:
726:
721:
713:
706:
696:
689:
688:
685:
682:
679:
665:join the project
650:
643:
642:
632:
625:
583:
573:
455:
445:
439:
432:
431:
428:
425:
422:
421:Military history
401:
394:
393:
388:
387:
386:
381:
354:Military history
350:
343:
326:
320:
319:
311:
304:Featured article
302:Current status:
283:
264:
262:December 1, 2011
245:
222:
200:featured article
192:
185:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
2177:
2176:
2172:
2171:
2170:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2027:
2026:
2010:
1910:
1881:
1862:
1847:
1842:
1810:
1803:have permission
1793:
1767:this simple FaQ
1752:
1711:
1695:
1660:
1624:
1612:
1581:
1516:
1493:
1490:
1393:
1349:British 15" gun
1295:
1219:
1165:
1153:
1125:
1119:
1110:
1092:
1086:
1072:
1066:
1048:
1042:
1039:
1035:
1029:
1025:
1019:
975:copied it from
969:
957:
944:, H T Lenton).
927:
887:
884:
881:
878:
877:
855:
850:
848:
828:
782:
779:
776:
773:
772:
748:Scotland portal
746:
741:
739:
719:
686:
683:
680:
677:
676:
581:
453:
429:
426:
423:
420:
419:
382:
356:
324:
279:
260:
241:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
2175:
2173:
2165:
2164:
2159:
2154:
2149:
2144:
2139:
2134:
2129:
2124:
2119:
2114:
2109:
2104:
2099:
2094:
2089:
2084:
2079:
2074:
2069:
2064:
2059:
2054:
2049:
2044:
2039:
2029:
2028:
2009:
2006:
2005:
2004:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1957:
1909:
1906:
1880:
1877:
1861:
1858:
1837:
1836:
1829:
1782:
1781:
1773:Added archive
1751:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1707:
1704:
1694:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1659:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1623:
1620:
1580:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1515:
1512:
1489:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1461:
1460:
1392:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1256:
1255:
1245:Ashley Pomeroy
1224:Ashley Pomeroy
1218:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1195:
1194:
1164:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1149:
1106:
1098:
1097:
1076:
1041:After I added
1038:
1016:
968:
965:
956:
953:
952:
951:
926:
923:
920:
919:
916:
915:
912:
911:
904:Low-importance
900:
894:
893:
891:
879:United Kingdom
874:the discussion
870:United Kingdom
861:
860:
844:
832:
831:
829:Low‑importance
826:United Kingdom
823:
811:
810:
807:
806:
799:Low-importance
795:
789:
788:
786:
769:the discussion
752:
751:
735:
723:
722:
720:Low‑importance
714:
702:
701:
698:
697:
690:
687:Ships articles
651:
639:
638:
633:
621:
620:
617:
616:
613:
612:
609:A-Class review
599:
589:
588:
586:
584:
578:
577:
569:
568:
565:
564:
552:
542:
541:
535:
525:
524:
519:
509:
508:
503:
493:
492:
487:
477:
476:
471:
461:
460:
458:
456:
450:
449:
441:
440:
433:
402:
390:
389:
351:
339:
338:
332:
321:
307:
306:
299:
298:
295:
294:
291:
284:
281:April 14, 2012
276:
275:
272:
265:
257:
256:
253:
246:
243:August 2, 2011
238:
237:
234:
231:
227:
226:
218:
217:
193:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2174:
2163:
2160:
2158:
2155:
2153:
2150:
2148:
2145:
2143:
2140:
2138:
2135:
2133:
2130:
2128:
2125:
2123:
2120:
2118:
2115:
2113:
2110:
2108:
2105:
2103:
2100:
2098:
2095:
2093:
2090:
2088:
2085:
2083:
2080:
2078:
2075:
2073:
2070:
2068:
2065:
2063:
2060:
2058:
2055:
2053:
2050:
2048:
2045:
2043:
2040:
2038:
2035:
2034:
2032:
2025:
2024:
2020:
2016:
2007:
2003:
1999:
1995:
1994:Sturmvogel 66
1991:
1990:
1989:
1988:
1984:
1980:
1970:
1966:
1962:
1958:
1956:
1952:
1948:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1933:Sturmvogel 66
1930:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1923:
1919:
1913:
1907:
1905:
1904:
1900:
1896:
1892:
1889:
1885:
1876:
1875:
1871:
1867:
1859:
1857:
1856:
1851:
1846:
1845:
1834:
1830:
1827:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1814:
1808:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1790:
1785:
1780:
1776:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1755:
1749:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1734:Sturmvogel 66
1730:
1729:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1708:
1705:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1679:Sturmvogel 66
1676:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1664:HammerFilmFan
1657:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1644:Sturmvogel 66
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1621:
1619:
1618:
1615:
1609:
1605:
1598:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1523:
1519:
1513:
1511:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1487:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1463:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1449:95.149.173.74
1446:
1440:
1439:Falklands War
1436:
1432:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1412:battleship.
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1360:
1356:
1355:
1350:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1323:Sturmvogel 66
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1302:60.234.54.134
1299:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1275:HammerFilmFan
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1260:24.177.99.126
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1241:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1216:
1210:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1162:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1147:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1124:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1104:
1091:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1080:
1071:
1064:
1061:
1058:
1054:
1047:
1034:
1024:
1017:
1015:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
986:
982:
981:this revision
978:
974:
966:
964:
960:
954:
950:
947:
943:
939:
936:
935:
934:
932:
924:
909:
905:
899:
896:
895:
892:
875:
871:
867:
866:
858:
847:
845:
842:
838:
837:
833:
827:
824:
821:
817:
804:
800:
794:
791:
790:
787:
770:
766:
762:
758:
757:
749:
738:
736:
733:
729:
728:
724:
718:
715:
712:
708:
695:
691:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
657:
652:
649:
645:
644:
640:
637:
634:
631:
627:
610:
606:
605:
601:This article
595:
591:
590:
587:
585:
580:
579:
574:
570:
562:
558:
557:
548:
544:
543:
539:
531:
527:
526:
523:
515:
511:
510:
507:
499:
495:
494:
491:
483:
479:
478:
475:
467:
463:
462:
459:
457:
452:
451:
446:
442:
438:
434:
417:
413:
409:
408:
403:
400:
396:
395:
391:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
355:
352:
349:
345:
340:
336:
330:
322:
318:
313:
312:
305:
300:
292:
290:
289:
285:
282:
278:
277:
273:
271:
270:
266:
263:
259:
258:
254:
252:
251:
247:
244:
240:
239:
235:
232:
229:
228:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
206:
201:
197:
194:
191:
187:
186:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
2011:
1975:
1914:
1911:
1883:
1882:
1866:50.111.22.47
1863:
1841:
1838:
1813:source check
1792:
1786:
1783:
1756:
1753:
1718:121.72.0.169
1712:— Preceding
1696:
1661:
1625:
1600:
1590:Triang Minic
1585:
1583:
1548:Rif Winfield
1543:
1524:
1520:
1517:
1491:
1467:— Preceding
1443:— Preceding
1414:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1370:95.148.8.163
1364:— Preceding
1358:
1352:
1296:— Preceding
1292:
1257:
1238:
1220:
1166:
1144:
1101:
1099:
1096:discussion."
1059:
1040:
1018:Switch from
993:HMS Vanguard
976:
972:
970:
961:
958:
941:
937:
928:
903:
863:
798:
754:
654:
602:
554:
405:
371:World War II
335:WikiProjects
303:
286:
267:
248:
214:please do so
203:
195:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1961:SovalValtos
1947:SovalValtos
1500:86.58.19.24
1494:—Preceding
1416:68.93.26.41
148:free images
31:not a forum
2031:Categories
1888:ship's cat
1879:Ship's cat
1850:Report bug
1184:TomTheHand
1130:TomTheHand
1123:talkheader
1005:TomTheHand
938:Vanguard's
604:has passed
205:identified
1833:this tool
1826:this tool
1628:Rcbutcher
1613:EyeSerene
1527:AT Kunene
1240:Jean Bart
1169:Mongreilf
946:Emoscopes
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1884:Vanguard
1839:Cheers.—
1714:unsigned
1586:Vanguard
1544:Vanguard
1496:unsigned
1469:unsigned
1445:unsigned
1441:in 1982.
1366:unsigned
1359:Vanguard
1298:unsigned
1063:contribs
997:April 30
985:March 17
774:Scotland
761:Scotland
717:Scotland
375:Cold War
367:European
359:Maritime
325:FA-class
293:Promoted
274:Approved
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1895:Mjroots
1891:in 1947
1763:my edit
1703:Dido's.
1604:notable
1597:1:1250.
1431:Vietnam
995:before
967:Copyvio
906:on the
801:on the
561:Phase I
363:British
233:Process
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
1886:had s
1732:'45.--
1594:Hornby
331:scale.
255:Listed
236:Result
126:Google
1488:Speed
1077:From
1065:) to
983:from
678:Ships
636:Ships
198:is a
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
2019:talk
1998:talk
1983:talk
1965:talk
1951:talk
1937:talk
1922:talk
1899:talk
1870:talk
1738:talk
1722:talk
1683:talk
1668:talk
1648:talk
1632:talk
1569:talk
1552:talk
1531:talk
1504:talk
1477:talk
1453:talk
1420:talk
1374:talk
1347:The
1327:talk
1306:talk
1279:talk
1264:talk
1249:talk
1228:talk
1217:Last
1206:Geni
1188:talk
1173:talk
1134:talk
1057:talk
1009:talk
1001:2004
989:2005
973:they
931:Stan
763:and
661:Ship
230:Date
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1807:RfC
1777:to
1151:004
1146:MBK
1108:004
1103:MBK
1028:to
898:Low
793:Low
607:an
176:TWL
2033::
2021:)
2000:)
1985:)
1967:)
1953:)
1939:)
1924:)
1901:)
1872:)
1820:.
1815:}}
1811:{{
1740:)
1724:)
1685:)
1670:)
1650:)
1634:)
1571:)
1554:)
1533:)
1506:)
1479:)
1455:)
1422:)
1376:)
1329:)
1308:)
1281:)
1266:)
1251:)
1230:)
1190:)
1175:)
1136:)
1126:}}
1120:{{
1093:}}
1087:{{
1081::
1073:}}
1067:{{
1049:}}
1043:{{
1036:}}
1030:{{
1026:}}
1020:{{
1011:)
999:,
987:,
977:us
582:/
454:/
377:/
373:/
369:/
365:/
361:/
357::
156:)
54:;
2017:(
1996:(
1981:(
1963:(
1949:(
1935:(
1920:(
1897:(
1868:(
1852:)
1848:(
1835:.
1828:.
1736:(
1720:(
1681:(
1666:(
1646:(
1630:(
1567:(
1550:(
1529:(
1502:(
1475:(
1451:(
1418:(
1372:(
1325:(
1304:(
1277:(
1262:(
1247:(
1226:(
1186:(
1171:(
1143:-
1132:(
1060:·
1055:(
1007:(
910:.
805:.
675:.
611:.
563:)
559:(
418:.
337::
216:.
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
