Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "The Drydock - Episode 224" video.

  1.  @brendonbewersdorf986  the Kiis were never laid down. The treaty only allowed for conversion of existing ships that exceeded treaty limits. The other two Amagis, Atago and Takao, were broken up in April, 1924. The earthquake that wrecked Amagi was in September, 23, so, theoretically, Atago or Takao could have been completed as a carrier, as they were still in existence when Amagi was wrecked. Kaga's construction, being much farther along, probably cost a lot less to covert than completing Atago or Takao.
    2
  2.  @brendonbewersdorf986  The Kii is little more than an up-armored Amagi. All the information I can find show virtually the same hull dimensions, except the Kii's draft is a bit deeper, thanks to the additional armor, and the armament is the same. I have a theory that the Kii was not a distinct class, but a proposal to uparmor the Amagis on the slipway as I rarely see a Navy build two classes that are so similar, rather than making evolutionary improvements with each class.
    2
  3. Ranger had been built several years earlier, so the USN would have had her, regardless what happened years later. On the question of Wasp, if she had been delayed, then, yes, she could have been redesigned as a 23,000 ton "improved Yorktown", with the deck edge elevator. Then, when Congress authorized money for two new carriers, instead of building Hornet to the then somewhat obsolete Yorktown design, and Essex held up waiting for a new design, Hornet and Essex could both be built to the new "improved Yorktown" design the navy already had in hand , and both would be in commission on December 7th.
    2
  4.  @ph89787  As I read Second London, while the total fleet wide tonnage limits were gone, the treaty only appears to allow for replacements for existing ships, and the treaty still limited the pace at which ships could be replaced. Wasp was the replacement for Langley, and limited by the fleet tonnage limits of Washington. If Congress would be willing to fund another 20,000 ton carrier, they probably could have been persuaded to go 23,000 tons, which was the limit imposed by Second London. Going to 23,000 might allow the Navy to address the one real vulnerability in the Yorktown design: the boiler and engine rooms were not staggered. When the haggis started to hit the fan and Congress authorized two more carriers, iirc, the language of the legislation allowed for 40,000 tons of carriers, but the Navy built a 20,000 ton Yorktown, and a 27,000 ton Essex. The Navy certainly could have made a case to Congress, if they had a 23,000 ton "improved Yorktown" design in hand, that, Congress funding anything else would delay construction, so Congress should authorize 46,000 tons of carriers.
    1
  5.  @ph89787  Congress abandoned undersized carriers after Ranger. The Yorktowns were limited to 20,000 as that was all the displacement the Navy had to work with, until Langley was reclassified. I have little doubt FDR could have won approval for a 23,000 ton Wasp, if the displacement had been available, and won approval for 46,000 tons of carriers in 38, if a new 23,000 ton design had been available for immediate construction. The major pivot point in USN carriers, to my eye, is when they sank an overlarge part of the displacement quota, and money, into the Lexingtons. You may have heard Drac's reply, a couple weeks ago, to my question about the huge cost overruns on those ships. The bottom line, at that time, the Navy had no idea what it was doing, when it was building the Lexingtons. We were lucky they turned out as well as they did. For the tonnage those two ships soaked up, we could have built three Yorktowns, with enough left over to build Wasp as another full sized 20,000 ton carrier.
    1