Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "Battle of Samar - What if TF34 was there?" video.

Nicely done. I have fun rewriting ship building decisions and the naval treaties, but lack the facility to construct alternate battles in anything approaching this level of detail and plausibility.
2
@bluemarlin8138 Knowing ship course, if the wind direction indicator showed any divergence from dead ahead, that would indicate a crosswind. Adjust course so the wind direction indicator is exactly aligned with the ship, and you are heading into the wind. Some early carriers had a small steam jet on the forward flight deck. Steer the ship so the steam jet is trailing directly back another the ship's centerline, and you're heading into the wind. Calculating true wind speed and direction for the airdale's navigation requires math. Indicated wind speed and direction according to the ship's instruments will be a geometric sum of actual wind and ship generated wind. Eons ago, I could do vector analysis to solve for an unknown direction and amplitude, but also forgot how to do that eons ago.
2
@RedXlV somewhere, recently, I floated my WNT idea of using throw weight as the standard to equalize BB power, rather than displacement. An objection came up of that exact nature: the IJN simply decks over one barbette, to keep the ship in the 8-16" gun limit, and, when the balloon goes up, the fifth turret and guns magically appear from a warehouse and are installed. I conceded that is a possibility, but, at least, it's harder to do than simply lie about the displacement. If you would like to do the math, Navweaps has the weights for the guns, turrets, shells, powder charges and number of rounds carried per gun, so see if it all adds up to the 5,000+ tons you would need to carve off a Tosa to get under the displacement limit.
2
@alexjohnston706 the extra tonnage would not have done anything for Japan. The Tosas and Amagis were well over the 35,000 ton limit, so could not have been completed to backfill the fleet. The next oldest ship that could have been retained would be Settsu, which, with it's 12" guns was quite obsolete by 22. The IJN's replacement schedule in the treaty did not start until the early 30s, then First London extended the halt on construction through 36, and, by then, Japan had dropped out of the treaty.
1
@UNSCForwardontodawn my first thought wrt KGV and Repulse in the Denmark Strait is that KGV, being the more powerful ship, would lead. Bismark's kill shot on Hood, assuming they used reduced charge to punch through Hood's deck, would ricochet off KGV's thicker deck armor. The question would be could Repulse avoid receiving a kill shot? I don't play a gunnery officer on TV, but I'm thinking if KGV was closer, and being more heavily armed, Bismark would direct it's fire at KGV and leave Repulse pretty much for Prinz Eugen to handle. There's a chance that KGV could inflict mission kill damage on Bismark, and the rest of the scenario plays out as it historically did, and Repulse not go up like a Roman candle.
1
@toddwebb7521 the IJN seemed to get a lot more use out of the Kongos, while most of the other BBs stayed in port. iirc Nagato and both Ises survived the war, while the Kongos went extinct. Losing a Kongo earlier than the historical timeline would probably crimp other IJN ops more than having Mutsu at Samar would help.
1