Comments by "Vikki McDonough" (@vikkimcdonough6153) on "T2 Tankers - Guide 421" video.

  1. 1. Which of the Ises' rear turrets couldn't be upgraded to 43-degree elevation due to a lack of available space for deepening their gun wells - was it just Y turret (as most sources seem to indicate) or both X and Y turrets (as Navweaps claims)? Why didn't the Ises' P and Q turrets (which're at about the same height as their X and Y turrets) run into the same issues as X and Y turrets? And why didn't the Fusōs' rear turrets, which're, again, at about the same height as those on the Ises, have any issues with upgrading them to 43-degree elevation? 2. How fast could a Richelieu-style Hood (with two quad turrets superfiring forward rather than two superfiring pairs of twin turrets) have gotten with the extra machinery space freed up by consolidating the entire main battery forward? 3. In the 1930s and 1940s, the U.S. placed a great deal of emphasis on battleship-deck-armor penetration via plunging fire at very-long-to-extreme ranges. How did apparently no one realize that this was unworkable in practice due to the ranges involved (beyond 25-30kyd) resulting in shell flighttimes so long that (as you've pointed out multiple times on this channel) the ship being targeted can just dodge (and, as you've also pointed out, even if the target sails obligingly in a straight line, WWII-era battleship guns simply aren't inherently accurate enough to land a battleship-killing number of hits on a battleship-sized target at these extreme ranges before the battleship they're on runs out of shells), and that realistically all they were doing by using things like the 16" Mk. 8 Super Heavy shells was compromizing U.S. battleships' ability to punch through belt armor at realistic battle ranges?
    1