Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "The Drydock - Episode 112" video.

wrt the carrier only USN in the 30s, the first problem is that Wasp consumed the last of the US' treaty allotment for carriers. Once the treaty system collapsed, Congress authorized two new carriers in 38. Of those two, one was built to the existing Yorktown design, which was, by then somewhat outdated, while the second carrier, Essex, was delayed while the new design was drawn up. The North Carolinas could be laid down when they were, because of the expiration of the treaty battleship construction moratorium at the end of 36. There was no treaty mechanism that would allow more carriers to be laid down at that time. So, even if the US had not been laying down BBs in the late 30s, they would not have started the war with more carriers, due to the Navy's preference in 38 to wait for a new, more capable, design, rather than building obsolescent Yorktowns to infinity. The Navy ordered 11 Essexes in 1940, one year after Hornet was ordered, but the war was upon them before they were completed.
3
@themightynanto3158 more aggressive command of Bismark by Marschall? He probably would have pursued and finished off Prince of Wales. But. by then, the damage to Bismark had already been done, so he would have turned for France for repairs and the rest of the operation would have gone as it did.
2
@Jwatt898 from the drawings I see, X and Y turrets are separated like that to make space between the magazines for the turbines.
2
wrt the Normandie carrier conversions, seems someone would have pointed out their lack of speed to temper the enthusiasm for converting all of them to carriers. If someone had that moment of clarity, and France not having anything in the works that could show a decent turn of speed, they could have claimed the three incomplete Mackensen class battlecruisers as war reparations and towed them to France to be fitted with French machinery and converted to carriers.
2
wrt the Mers-el-Kebir full battle scenario: the Bretagnes were only armed with 13.4" guns. As well as being even slower than an R class, they would be hard pressed to penetrate to the vitals of a QE or R class, while the British 15/42s would have no problem cutting through their 10" belts. Given the RN's numerical superiority in light units, plus it's heavier guns, plus speed advantage, it sounds like a slaughter if the entire French squadron stood out to engage. Were I the French commander, out of respect for French human life, I think I would have the Bretanges stay in port and provide covering fire, while the Dunkerques and DDs run at high speed. Leaving Valiant and Resolution in their wake would even the odds, if the RN wanted to make a running fight of it, while the crews of the Bretagnes could swim to shore.
2
wrt Kirishima at Guadalcanal, one wonders why the IJN did not make more use of the Nagatos. The Kongos were constantly put in harm's way, and were harmed a lot. The Nagatos were not that slow, better armed and better protected. The battles of Guadalcanal would have probably gone differently if the IJN had brought Nagato and Mutsu.
1
@bkjeong4302 I would think speed not that important in restricted waters, like the Slot. The faster you get the ship going, the harder it is to turn. The Nagatos were only a couple kts slower than SD or Washington, and, with their better armor, a Nagato would probably not have been disabled by cruiser fire in round one, so the odds would have been more even in round two.
1
They could not have built anything bigger than Wasp in 36, as Wasp used the last of the USN's carrier tonnage allotment under the treaty.
1
@CTXSLPR who couldn't have gone full CV? The Japanese gave notice in late 34 that they would not participate in the treaty after the end of 36, so they could build all they wanted. Ark Royal used the last of the RN's carrier tonnage, except there was a clause in the treaty that carriers in service or building at the time of the treaty were "experimental" and not held to the treaty's 20 year replacement cycle. Hermes, Eagle and Argus all fit that criteria, so the RN could have refitted all three as sub tenders, for instance, and freed up enough tonnage for two more Ark Royals. If they measured the age of the Courageous class carriers from when they commissioned as "large light cruisers", rather than as carriers, they were all 20 years old by 37, so they could all have been replace by new build carriers as well. The Brits laid down four 23,000 ton Illustrious class carriers in 37, so they probably had one of these replacement scenarios in mind at the time. Only the USN had all it's tonnage quota tied up in relatively new carriers and was still trying to abide by the treaty, until 38.
1
One problem with claiming the Mackensens and completing them in any configuration, the Mackensens were 730 feet long. France did not have a drydock that big at that time. They had looked at lengthening and up-engining the Normandies to compete with the 28kt Caracciolos, but the cost of building a drydock big enough for the work put the cost of the project out of sight.
1