Comments by "Frank DeMaris" (@kemarisite) on "HMS Lion (1910) - Guide 149" video.

@estoyaqui5386 you seem to be using a curious definition of the word "work". You acknowledge that Rodney scored a torpedo hit, but argue that it didn't "work", why? It certainly wasn't a dud. Is it because the torpedo didn't make a big difference in the charnel house that Bismark had!d already become? By that standard, the last few score 14" and 16" hits did not "work" either, as Bismark was already utterly ruined and slowly sinking, with gun hits merely rearranging the wreckage and blasting the bodies into smaller kibbles.
13
@MrDagenham was she really? The most significant difference I've seen is additional deck armor over the magazines and engine spaces. Between the two classes, the QEs were the focus of modernization efforts, and even then Barham and Malaya lagged significantly behind in terms of modernization. I'd expect Royal Oak to spend much of the war on convoy escort and (later) shore bombardment duty. Maybe it frees up Malaya for a big refit. Wow, I see the navweaps forum has an extensive discussion on R-class modernization. https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/revenge-class-reconstruction-options-t26387-s10.html?sid=c2099b13ed75bc95858bb2e6c78cdce0
2
@mtumeumrani376 it's a natural result of the desire for greater speed. For the same shaft horsepower, displacement, and beam, a longer ship will have a greater length-to-beam ratio and therefore flow through the water more easily. Consider that HMS Repulse was about 750 ft long, Queen Elizabeth was 644 ft long, and Emerald (a cruiser completed in 1918) was 570 ft long, while the C-class cruisers were about 450 ft long and quite a bit slower than the Emeralds. Destroyers were generally another 100 ft shorter than the C-class (about 300-350 ft). So in a way it's fast cruisers like the Emerald that are unusual, being almost as long as battleships that displace four times as much in order to realize a 30-40% increase in speed.
2
@toddwebb7521 it's probably not really comparable to put the 15"/42 and 16"/45 of the Nelson's against the 16"/45 and 16"/50 of the US fast battleships with superheavy shells. The 16"/45 Mark 1s on the Colarados are a fair comparison. It may come down to a curb-stomp of US fast battleships and Alaskas vs the KGVs and battlecruisers, and another curb-stomp of the slower British units over the US standard battleships. Then it's a question of whether the US fast battleships have enough ammunition left to tackle the slower British units. Overall, I think the British numbers are going to be the decisive factor.
2
@hugmynutus pretty sure those "subscriptions" would be more a matter of donating cash that is promised to go toward the warship, or possibly like bond sales. Either way, it describes something where the ship is paid for outside of the normal government appropriations process.
1
@toddwebb7521 he said "every". I was interpreting that to mean every dreadnought type battleship and battlecruiser on both sides. There's a lot of arguing around the edges that would need to be done to nail it down (HMS Lion? Alaskas?) along with decisions about refits to older ships. To a substantial extent it may come down to the fast battleships on both sides, in which case 12 North Carolinas-South Dakotas-Iowas-Alaskas on one side heavily outweighs 6 KGVs and Lion on the other.
1
@toddwebb7521 in terms of fuel, perhaps. He's likely to run into a squadron or two of battlecruisers, and almost certain to run into the cruisers and destroyers of Harwich Force and Dover Patrol. Tyrwhitt and Bacon are not letting Spee get home undamaged.
1
@toddwebb7521 the Alaskas were not well armored, so yes even the 12" of the Invincibles would have been a threat, if you want to put up a bunch of targets that have just enough armor to ensure the 16" AP shells function correctly.
1