Comments by "Frank DeMaris" (@kemarisite) on "The Drydock - Episode 101" video.

USS Saint Paul (CA-73) suffered an explosion in the left gun of main battery turret #1, caused by an attempt to ram a projectile into a gun that was already loaded because the gun captain mistakenly thought the gun had fired. 21 April, 1952.
7
Tom Sanders Bismark and Tirpitz vs Littorio and Vittorio Veneto, Roma wasn't commissioned until June 1942 and never really had fuel for anything except the trip to Malta when she got sunk. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau vs Conte di Cavoyr, Gulio Cesare, Andrea Doria, and Caio Dulio. Three heavy cruisers and three panzerschiff (although the Germans never had all six of these in service at once) vs seven heavy cruisers. Six light cruisers vs ten for the Italians, although all of those light cruisers are lightly built and/or lightly armored except the last two Italian ones. And then by the time the Italians joined the war the Germans had lost a number of these ships invading Norway (and had not commissioned Bismark yet), so they never had all of them available at the same time, unlike the Italian fleet in being.
5
@calvingreene90 probably nothing good for the B-17 or its reputation. Early torpedo bomber doctrine called for a launch at 110 knots and 50-100 feet, and I dont know how many pilots would want to take a big, slow B-17 that low and that close to enemy light AA (500-1000 yards). By late in the war, the Mark 13 could be dropped at up to 400 knots in a shallow dive and from 5,000 feet, which can translate into a launching distance out around 2,000 yards. Of course, if the Mark 13 and doctrine were properly developed in the 30s so that kind of launch was possible from 1941, then yes the B-17 could have been used as a torpedo bomber, just as the B-26 was, and probably would have been a lot more effective in the anti-shipping role than it was with bombs from 15,000 feet. But in that case, the TBDs would have been far more effective and survivable at Coral Sea and Midway too.
4
They also found that their High Altitude Control System (HACS) was designed including some assumptions that turned out not to be the case when the war happened. In particular, HACS assumed the target was a level bomber at constant course, speed, and altitude, so it was completely inadequate against a target that is rapidly changing altitude, such as a dive bomber.
4
If he delays Drydock 102 until January he's going to have a mutiny on his hands.
4
Certainly that was the "official US Navy conclusion", but there is a lot of disagreement about it especially considering the time frame and allegation of homosexuality.
3
@Metal_Auditor the Japanese definitely did launch some torpedoes at South Dakota, but they were also hitting her so much that she turned off to try to avoid the engagement, which obviously spoils the firing solution for torpedoes that have already been launched. Furthermore, SoDak was out around 10,000+ yards for this part of the engagement, while Washington snuck in a bit closer before opening fire at around 8,500 yards. The 3"/50 was selected for development to replace the 40 mm Bofors in large part because it was just big enough to take a proximity fuse. The AA VT Mark 31 was in service during the war. For the 40 mm Bofors, some projectiles used a contact fuse that included a self-sestructive time component as well, but this time component burned out in the range of 3,000-5,000 yards (shorter for British, longer for US) as a safety measure to avoid having live rounds hit friendly ships or come down on friendly heads.
2
@stephaniewilson3955 that was a month earlier at Coral Sea, circling to enter the landing pattern on the US carriers on May 7th.
2
@Metal_Auditor the mount that was intended to replace the 40 mm Bofors was the twin Mark 27 and 33, with a single mount Mark 34 available. The gun used in these mountings was the 3"/50 Mark 22 gun, the latest iteration of the 3"/50 Marks 10, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21. These guns all used the same ammunition and had access to the Mark 31 AA VT shell. I do not have any information off hand about how common the VT shell was in WW2.
1