Comments by "" (@RedXlV) on "The Drydock - Episode 160" video.

Sort of. The difference being that previously, "battlecruiser versions" of Royal Navy battleships ranged from the same size as their battlecruiser equivalent to about 4,000 tons heavier. Whereas Hood was a whopping 15,000 tons heavier than Queen Elizabeth. Lion was 18% heavier than her battleship counterpart Orion. Queen Mary was 16% heavier than King George V (and there's certainly jokes to be made there). Tiger was 14% heavier than Iron Duke. Renown was initially 1% lighter than Revenge, but became 14% heavier once the 6" belt armor was upgraded to 9" (ie the same protection as Lion, Queen Mary, and Tiger). Hood was 55% heavier than Queen Elizabeth. When you made the "battlecruiser version" of a battleship, normally you got the additional speed by having lighter armor and one less turret. In Hood's case, she instead got that extra speed via being enormous.
4
The best part was the RAF telling Parliament that Australia is 500 miles northwest of its actual location to insist that carriers weren't needed.
3
@gregorywright4918 Seems like it would be far easier to get that increased hangar height out of the Implacables, though. If you've got two 14 foot hangars one on top of the other, strip out the middle deck now it's a single 28 foot hangar. Victorious was a mistake, there's no way around it. Implacable and Indefatigable were much better candidates.
2
Not sure about that, but if you go later down the timeline one likely result of the Maltas being built and having a long service life would be that the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon as we know them wouldn't exist. The primary reason France dropped out of what would become the Eurofighter program was that they placed high priority on a carrier-based version, whereas none of the other partners had carriers and thus had zero interest in that. If the Maltas were around, Britain would be equally in need of a new carrier-based fighter. Thus, either France would remain in the program, or both Britain and France would leave and go for a joint Dassault/British Aerospace product. If it were the latter, given how central BAe was to the Typhoon's development I'm not sure whether the project could've survived at all with just Germany, Italy, and Spain. Either way, I'm guessing the end result would be something uglier than the Rafale but not as ugly as the Typhoon. :P
2
@WALTERBROADDUS It seems like Drach answered a different question from what was actually asked. The question wasn't about rebuilding the Hippers for 28cm guns. It was about whether (given how the Hippers were somewhat hilariously oversized for an armament of only 4x2 20.3cm) it would've been possible to design them from the keel up for 4x2 (or perhaps 2x4?) 28cm while still using the same size hull.
1
@gregorywright4918 On the other hand, we have Hans Zenker's 1928 proposal for a follow-up to the Deutschlands: a 19,000 ton battlecruiser with 4x2 30.5cm guns and the same 100mm belt armor as Admiral Graf Spee. This never went anywhere because 1928 was the same year that Zenker was replaced by Raeder as head of the Reichsmarine.
1
Stop Censoring Wait, Vikrant's lifts are too small for the Tejas? But the whole point of the Tejas is that it's tiny. 13 meters long and 8 meter wingspan. If the Tejas can't fit on Vikrant's lifts, what can fit on them?
1