Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "The Drydock - Episode 242" video.

  1.  @johnfisher9692  I wish I could remember which of the books I read, when looking in to the armament decisions on the KGVs, but one of the books had about two pages of the Admiralty's own technical analysis of several different design proposals. The conclusion was that an armament of 9-15" would give the best balance between speed, protection, and firepower. The analysis continued that the only circumstance where they should go with 14" is if required by a treaty. This was before Second London made exactly that change in specification. All this was going on before the treaty, because the British battleship building capability had atrophied to the point that the decisions had to be made and the guns and turrets ordered in late 35, not after Second London had been negotiated. Had they gone with the 9-15" armament, they would have probably had the same weight issue they did with the 14" armament when the armor scheme was revised, so the KGVs would have ended up with an 8-15" layout. One of the talking points in favor of 14" was more guns could be carried, increasing the probability of a hit. One book I read said that the reduction from 12 to 10 14", due to the armor change, largely defeated the reason for going to 14" in the first place.
    1
  2.  @johnshepherd9676  that was "Operation Creek". A book was written about the op some years ago "Boarding Party, the last action of the Calcutta Light Horse", by James Leasor. The situation was delicate as Goa was not part of British ruled India at the time. Goa was a Portuguese colony, and Portugal was neutral/leaning British.
    1