Comments by "" (@RedXlV) on "USS North Carolina - The USN's first fast battleship" video.

  1. Or just disassembling the torpedo and reassembling it after it's in the room.
    2
  2. You mention that the 1.1-inch AA gun was actually pretty decent, it's just that the "Chicago Piano" mounting for them was a problem. Would it have been remotely feasible to mount those guns on single or twin pintle mounts along the same lines as the 20mm Oerlikon?
    1
  3.  @F-Man  There actually was a successor fast battleship design drawn up, one of the alternate concepts for Montana called "BB-65 Scheme 8" (this being before Illinois and Kentucky were ordered, so it had been presumed there would only be 4 Iowas). It was meant to maintain the 33 knot speed of Iowa while still adding a 4th turret. This design wasn't chosen because its size (and therefore cost) was considered simply absurd. 70,000 tons standard displacement, (7,000 tons heavier than the finalized Montana) and 1,050 feet long at the waterline. This is size that wouldn't be reached in an actually-built warship until USS Enterprise (CVN-65) in 1961. And the propulsion was equally insane. 320,000 shaft horsepower would've the highest output of any ship in history until USS Gerald R. Ford in 2017. That's why the ship would've had to be so long, to fit so much machinery. And since late 1930s technology couldn't produce a shaft capable of handling 80,000 horsepower. BB-65-8 would've needed six shafts. And while the belt armor wouldn't be as thick as the 16.1 inch chosen for the finalized Montana, 15.3 inches is still nothing to sneeze at, and a massive improvement over the 12.1 inch belt on Iowa, 12.2 inch on South Dakota, and 12 inch on North Carolina. All of this illustrates what an insane ship is required to improve on Iowa's firepower and protection without sacrificing any speed.
    1