RN disposes of battleships in 1947

[zen]

All through the 50's, testing and refinement and manufacturing of nuclear devices continued.
So both doctrines had validity, but the quick war wasn't actually possible with what existed at the time. Frankly that was science fiction until much later.

It's very much as that became more possible that the argument to divest the state of vast armies and navies grew in strength.

 

[Dilandu]

All through the 50's, testing and refinement and manufacturing of nuclear devices continued.
So both doctrines had validity, but the quick war wasn't actually possible with what existed at the time. Frankly that was science fiction until much later.

It's very much as that became more possible that the argument to divest the state of vast armies and navies grew in strength.

Well, with the advent of fusion bombs and long-range missiles the whole concept of "indecisive nuclear war" became moot. With the amount of destruction that megaton bombs and ballistic missiles could wreak in mere hours, there were only two possible outcomes:

* One side would achieve enough advantage to completely disable the opponent during nuclear exchange - i.e. quick victory.

* Both sides would be completely disabled by the nuclear exchange - i.e.no victory.

Prolonged post-exchange phase was viewed as totally impossible. Either one side would win, or both sides would lose. Therefore the traditional views at naval superiority as logistical and economic factor were rendered obsolete. The war was not supposed to be waged long enough for them to work.

 

[pathology_doc]

The war was not supposed to be waged long enough for them to work.

The major shooting war that the US expected and equipped itself to fight in the 1960s wasn't the war it actually ended up fighting.

The big assumption is that the Third World War goes strategic-nuclear very quickly, but what if cooler heads prevail and it doesn't go nuclear at all?

 

[Dilandu]

The big assumption is that the Third World War goes strategic-nuclear very quickly, but what if cooler heads prevail and it doesn't go nuclear at all?

If the cooler heads prevailed, the war would not start)

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Keeping the KGVs and Vanguards for as long as they were made sense at the time.

However, Vanguard had a peacetime crew of 1,600 according to Critchley in British Warships since 1945 and according to Grove in From Vanguard to Trident the 4 KGVs had substantial nucleus crews when they were in reserve in the first half of the 1950s.

Therefore, there is an argument that it might have been better to complete Hercules and/or Powerful in the late 1940s and used the personnel released from discarding the battleships in the late 1940s to man them.