Comments by "Frank DeMaris" (@kemarisite) on "The Drydock - Episode 141" video.

  1.  @baronungernthebloody553  warships could comfortably fight in the 15-20,000 yard range, although the average would be dragged down a bit by some actions like Cape Matapan and the Washington/Kirishima engagement. At Surigao Strait, the battle force commander ordered the line to open fire at 26,000 yards, but for target identification reasons they held fire until a little over 20,000 yards. At this kind of range, a smaller and lighter shell is worse because it has less inertia and loses velocity faster. As an example, the US had two general types of 16"/45 guns, those on the Colorados which used a 2,200 lb AP shell at a velocity of 2,500 fps, and those on the North Carolinas and South Dakotas which fired a 2,700 lb AP shell at about 2,300 fps. At 20,000 yards, both shells are traveling a little over 1,600 fps, but the extra mass gives the heavier shell an extra inch or so of armor penetration. The Nelsons in British service fired a 16" shell of just over 2,000 lb at about 2,600 fps at the muzzle, but at 20,000 yards it had also fallen to a velocity of about 1,600 fps. The German Scharnhorsts fired an 11" shell of just over 700 lb at 2,900 fps, but at 20,000 yards it had fallen to slightly under 1,600 fps. So at combat ranges these shells all tend toward the same velocity, regardless of size and weight, but as long as the shell and gun combo are still competitive in velocity at those combat ranges, the heavier shell will win (shell construction being equal).
    6
  2.  @caracal2455  remember that a lot of those ships, particularly the bigger ones (Iowas, Essex swarm) had been authorized by legislation in the late 30s, with Carl Vinson as a major force behind them. These included the Naval Act of 1938, the 3rd Vinson Act of 1940, and the Two-Ocean Navy Act of 1940. Also, it probably isn't really accurate to call it a "relatively small navy", as the treaty limits (which the Navy had built out to) put them in a tie with the UK for 1st. Yes there were battleships lost at Pearl Harbor, but only two permanent losses and several Pearl Harbor survivors were back in service just a few months later, such as guarding against a Japanese victory at Midway in June. Lighter forces were almost unaffected by Pearl Harbor and were available as escorts for the carriers and for cruiser/destroyer engagements in the Guadalcanal campaign. As for the question, it seems to me that almost everyone's infrastructure has fallen off so much that building such a replacement Navy would be unlikely outside of an existential war that offers enough time to rebuild infrastructure and settle on solid designs for that new infrastructure to churn out. Another 30 Years War, anyone (hopefully minus the religious elements)?
    4
  3.  @garycort7997  fortunately (?, YMMV), hypothermia is pretty quick in the North Atlantic and Arctic.
    2
  4.  @davidwright7193  the various armored cruisers had either 4 or 6 9.2" guns each with secondary batteries of either 7.5" or 6" guns. The biggest question for me is whether Goeben had central director firing, because I think we can guarantee all the cruiser guns would have been under local control. With central director firing, Goeben would have enjoyed a substantial advantage in accuracy at medium to longer ranges, and the cruisers don't have enough of a speed advantage to force a closer engagement.
    2
  5. The same sources provide a basis for comparison that makes it clear the Mark 5 shell is always likely to have less penetration (about 1" from the 45-caliber guns) than the Mark 8 shell.
    1