Comments by "" (@RedXlV) on "The Drydock - Episode 008" video.

  1. Because the USN skipped straight from 14" to 16". There had been consideration of 16" guns on US battleships as early as the Pennsylvania-class, and there was a serious push to build the New Mexico-class with 8 or even 10 16"/45s. It's only because of cost concerns that it took so long for the USN to go bigger than 14".
    2
  2. Regarding Jean Bart, would it have been remotely possible to adapt her turrets to American 16"/45 guns? Despite the higher caliber, the 16"/45 Mark 6 and 380mm/45 mle 1935 were very similar in weight. Or alternately, could Jean Bart have been taken to Britain and fitted for the 15"/42 guns that had been earmarked for HMS Vanguard?
    2
  3. Oh, and regarding QE vs Tennessee, didn't the Tennessee-class have better armor, thanks to the all-or-nothing system that Britain didn't adopt until the Nelson-class? Or would that be completely negated by how close they'd need to get in order to score damaging hits with their weaker and less accurate guns?
    2
  4. Actually, I was wondering about whether quad 16" would be possible. Despite being an inch larger in caliber, the guns were very similar in weight. The 16"/45 Mark 6 was only 3.1 tons heavier per barrel than the 380mm/45 mle 1935;. The question is whether they would've been too wide to fit. And whether the shell hoists could've been adapted handle a larger and heavier shell (though in terms of HE shells, the French 380mm was actually heavier than the American 16").
    1
  5. Oh, and regarding Scharnhorst, she was only slightly larger than Mackensen, although better-armored. I have to wonder, would simply updating the Mackensen design with 1930s technology and retaining the 4x2 350mm have been a better choice? That might have been a less protected ship, but the much heavier armament would've made her much more of a threat to capital ships. And she'd still be better-protected than Britain's Renown-class.
    1