Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "All-big-gun battleship designs - Guide 188" video.

I'm trying to imagine what it would be like to have Jackie, as a young officer, as a messmate, on a long, boring cruise. I think I would enjoy it.
38
@angelomaset1441 my first guess would be the KM would look a lot like the Italian RM, except with smaller quotas under the naval treaties: a couple of WWI BBs, probably the two Bayerns that were completed, cruisers, DDs, probably no Deutschland class, as the 11" guns exceeded the treaty limits for cruisers, but with the Scharnhorsts built a few years sooner, but with 15" guns developed from the Krupp 38 cm SK L/45 used on the Bayerns. The 11" would not have been available, as the Deutschlands not being built means the 11" is never developed. Then you get into speculation: would the Germans have radically updated the Bayerns the way the Italians updated their old BBs, or just press ahead with the Bismarks as soon as the naval treaties collapsed.
2
Some articles about the Washington treaty don't have it quite right as they say carriers in existence or building at the time of the treaty don't count toward the treaty limit. Chapter 1, article 8 of the treaty says carriers in service or building as of November 12 of 21 are "experimental" and are not subject to the replacement schedule laid out in Chapter 2, but it does not say anything about their tonnage not counting. The USN converted Langley to a seaplane tender to free up the tonnage for Wasp. With Ark Royal, the RN was at it's 135,000 ton limit. The Illustrious class was ordered in early 37, after Japanese withdrawal from the treaty became effective at the end of 36. It occurs that the RN had the option, in the early 30s, of reducing Argus, Eagle and Hermes to seaplane tenders, as Langley was, freeing up enough tonnage to build two more Ark Royals. Did the RN give that option consideration?
1
@bkjeong4302 I think we covered this before. While the landings already happened, equipment and supplies continue to be unloaded and taken ashore for days after the landing. Samar was on the 25th. The landings were on the 20th, so there should have been plenty yet to be unloaded, and no doubt, piles of supplies and equipment staged near the beach. If I was Kurita, I would not have engaged Taffy 3. I'd ring up flank speed and blow past them, because only the 3 US DDs were fast enough to keep up with the IJN BBs, and they would be occupied by the smaller IJN units. If Oldendorf's old BBs move to intercept, refuse to engage and blow past them too. Shoot up everything in sight at the beachhead, then exit via Suirgao Straight, assuming there is room to maneuver past the wreckage from the night before, or play it safe and go around Mindanao.
1
@6763100 wartime tug operations provided plenty of fodder for Jan de Hartog. I read his novel "The Captain" in the 60s and saw the film version of "Stella" as "The Key" several years ago.
1
@bkjeong4302 Not forgetting about the other Taffies at all. Refusing to engage them. The bulk of the US air cover had been decoyed to the north, as intended. Kurita's objective was shooting up the beachhead. He should have gotten on with it, instead of putzing around with Taffy 3. Some accounts say Kurita thought the US carriers were fleet carriers, a juicier target than CVEs. If that had been the case, they would have been Essexes, which were faster than any of his BBs, so chasing them would have been futile. The USN did a heck of a diversion job on Kurita, as he apparently had the memory of a gnat, and forgot what his mission was.
1
@bkjeong4302 defend against the attacking aircraft, while continuing at flank speed to the beachhead to execute the primary mission. One interesting question, would the DDs escorting the CVEs continue to attack Kurita's force, following it toward the beachhead, or stay with the CVEs they are assigned to protect?
1