Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "USS Sangamon - Guide 279" video.

Being so desperate for flight decks, one wonders why they did not convert the really obsolete battleships, the Wyomings, New Yorks, Nevada and Pennsylvania, into carriers.
1
@WALTERBROADDUS compared to an Essex or Yorktown, yes a converted New York would be terrible. Compared to a converted freighter, they are a bit faster, bigger, and a lot better protected. Then there is the opportunity cost. Losing an obsolete battleship that isn't useful for anything but shore bombardment, vs losing a fleet oiler.
1
@WALTERBROADDUS lets compare the New Yorks to the Sangamons. Length S: 553'oa, NY 573'oa. Beam, S: 75'. NY: 95'. Speed: S: 18kts, NY 21kts. The New Yorks can accommodate a flight deck both longer and wider than a Sangamon, and have a higher speed, so they can handle any aircraft a Sangamon can, with safer flight operation. Greater beam means a wider hangar with room for more aircraft. The Wyomings and New Yorks are flush decked, so clear off the superstructure to the main deck, then build the hangar directly on the deck, with the barbetts providing a variety of places to house the elevator machinery. Magazines are already in place, so install bomb elevators in a couple of the barbetts to get the payloads to the deck. Keep the casemate mounted 5"51s to take on any commerce raiders that might have ambitions of attacking the convoy. If I could convince C&R this was a good idea, might even propose the USN buy the Rivadavias from Argentine, if the hulls were still sound, as they are even longer, wider and a bit faster than the New Yorks. They would probably need a complete refit of electrical and mechanical system, and more work to build the hangar as they have a step down quarterdeck, like the Pennsylvania and Nevada, but they would not require a builder's slipway.
1