Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "The Drydock - Episode 213 (Part 1)" video.

On the question of relining large guns, as Drac said they used an oven to heat the outside of the tube. At the same time, they would run cool water through the bore, to increase the temperature differential to loosen the liner. After a few years, the USN figured out that if the OD of the liner and the ID of the tube were made with a slight taper, it would facilitate liner removal. If the liner refuses to budge, it has to be bored out. Each cut of the boring tool would take 3-4 days, so boring out a stuck liner would take a matter of weeks.
17
On the question of the KGVs being built as Lions, the treaty would not have allowed it, in the same time frame. The treaty required the parties to negotiate a displacement escalator, when it was determined that a non-signatory to the treaty was building a larger ship. The US and UK did not finish those negotiations until mid 1938. so, at the very least, KGV and PoW would have been laid down a year and a half later. Being laid down in the second half of 38, neither would have been in service when Bismark attempted it's breakout. I looked up where all the other RN capital ships were on the day of the battle in Denmark Strait. If the KGVs were not yet in service, the RN would probably have kept the Nelsons close to the UK. How would they be deployed to catch Bismark? How would Denmark Strait play out with both Nelsons, or Nelson plus Hood? If the Admiralty had decided to leverage existing material on hand, to speed construction, there were actually 8 twin 15" turrets in hand: the four from Courageous and Glorious, and the four that were on the Erebus and Roberts class monitors. Laying down only two Vanguards in late 38. rather than 5 KGVs would put less of a load on industrial capacity, so might result in a faster build. but I would not bet the farm on both being in commission by May 41. If they did make it into commission by late 41, then scratch one of only two modern battleships with Force Z. A Vanguard may not have had the same vulnerability that PoW had, but the Japanese would probably have kept beating on it until it sank.
15
@theatagamer90 yes, you are correct, outside and inside diameter. As for the Seahawks, I live in metro Detroit, so am used to the Lions living down to the lowest expectations.
4
@kemarisite I have read that, due to the low angle only, nature of the 4"/50, some Clemsons had two torpedo mounts removed and replaced with 3"/50s to improve AA armament. I have also read that some Clemsons had all their 4"/50s removed and replaced with 3"/50s as the 3" could act as a dual purpose weapon.
1
@kemarisite as an exercise, I ran a scenario where the USN developed the 4"/50, instead of going to 5" for battleship secondaries. A twin 4" mount was developed during WWI. The mount was very light and, from the numbers I see, did not weigh any more than a single 5"/51. The guns were set very close together, so I wonder about dispersion, though information I see does not say they suffered that problem. Range was similar to the casemate mounted 5". The 5'/51 has better armor penetration, but BB secondaries are for plinking torpedo boats and DDs, which are not armored, so does the armor penetration superiority of the 5" really matter? The dual mounted 4" still had a screw breech, so no rate of fire advantage over the 5", but, with twice as many guns, the throw weight of the 4" battery is greater. So, everywhere you see a main deck mounted casemate 5" on a USN BB, imagine a twin 4" instead. Then, when aircraft become a thing, design a 4" DP mount, like the British DP Mk 19, fit a sliding breech to double the rate of fire, and maybe clip the gun down to 45 calibers in length to reduce inertia. A twin 4/45 DP mount would weigh less that the combination of 5"/51 and 5"/25 that the US BBs had in the 30s, with twice as many guns that could be used in either mode, in those same main deck locations. That would also leave the 01 deck above the twin 4" mounts open for light AA to be installed. But no, the USN went 5" The 51 cal version was too heavy to retrofit Clemsons. They probably decided the 25 cal was too short ranged to be a DP gun. If they had developed the 4" instead?
1
On the question of using battleships as convoy escort, that was done in the Pacific to a degree. According to the Wiki entries, New Mexico and Mississippi were escorting a convoy to Fiji from Dec 42 to March 43. The Wiki entries also say that Colorado and Maryland sailed from Pearl on November 8, 42 and patrolled in the vicinity of Fiji until the following September. I dug out my DVD of "The Gallant Hours" last week, which is set during the Guadalcanal campaign. Callaghan's convoy sailed from Noumea. Scott's convoy sailed from Espiritu Santo. Fiji is not that far away. Steaming time from Hawaii to Fiji at a Colorado's economical cruse speed of 10kts is 15 days. A Colorado's range at economical cruise is some 9000 miles. It's 3100 miles from Hawaii to Fiji. If Colorado and Maryland had been dispatched to Fiji on the same day that Pennsylvania steamed from Hawaii back to Mare Island for modernization, October 4, they would have been at Fiji, with plenty of fuel in their tanks, to join Scott's convoy. and make the battle on November 13th much more interesting.
1
@gregorywright4918 yes, the tanker shortage is usually the first objection to that scenario, but apparently the two BBs were dispatched to Fiji in early November, so the tanker shortage must not have been so acute as to prohibit their forward basing. Espiritu Santo is a bit closer to Fiji, about 750 miles. It wouldn't matter which convoy the BBs traveled with as they were both going to the same place, at freighter speed. I would presume the BBs could get underway faster than the convoy could be loaded and get underway. Is the information available regarding when the convoy from Espiritu Santo received it's orders? The convoy from Noumea set sail November 8. The convoy from Espiritu Santo set sail November 9. If the convoy from Noumea required a day to load and organize, that would put the date of receipt of orders on the 7th. If we assume the two BBs could get under way faster than the convoy, the time difference between when they could get moving, and when the convoy left Espiritu Santo narrows considerably.
1