Comments by "HaJo Os." (@hajoos.8360) on "The Development of the North Carolina class - The Nelson that never was" video.

  1. Iowa-class battleships were a failed investment at all, a lot of money for nothing, often happens still today in the industrial military complex. The Iowa-class were useless as battleships, only used to transport US presidents & as batteries without the chance to receive unfriendly fire. The Panama-canal limit of a 33 meter beam & the monstrous propulsion enforced the reponsable engineers to prolongate the long straight mid-section of the ships, which implies a worse artillery-platform during a battle led at full speed & made the hull very vulnerable against incoming fire. Compare Bismarck's hull. Only a short part of the mid-section reaches a beam of 36 meters, a much better shape to stabilise the hull during action & delivers much better streamlines. That's the reason the US navy never exposed the Iowas to unfriendly fire. The Iowas are crap, armed pesidental yachts. All the new US battleships had that wide mid-aft section. USS Washington was critized for her seakeeping qualities when she served with the Home Fleet. And Iowa could not keep up with HMS Vanguard during heavy weather in post war NATO exercise "Mariner" in 1953. Vanguard's rounded hull looks very German, with a length of 248 meters & a beam of 33, a ratio better than Hoods with 262 & 32. But Hood was still better than the Iowas with 270 & 33. In comparison the Scharnhorsts relatively good 235 & 30, but they received always sea-damages & were wet as Hood. Bismarck tops all with 250 & 36. PoW & Repulse sunk already after a ridiculous pounding. Scharnhorst took more poundings than the Yamatos before she sunk. The shape of the hull is a decisive factor. This diminishes the theory of the British torpedo sinking of Bismarck to 0. 4 torpedo-hits were, of course, not enough to sink Bismarck, when Scharnhorst sunk just after the 14th ship-to-ship-torpedo-hit.
    2