Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "The Battle of Samar (Alternate History) - Bring on the Battleships!" video.

  1. Samar comes to mind as the argument against battle cruisers. The idea of a BC seems to be that, if outmatched, it can run away. Some times, running is not an option, as at Samar, where the beachhead had to be defended regardless of cost. Consider if the US had successfully argued at the 1922 Washington conference that, as both the RN and IJN had 4 battle cruisers, the US was entitled to have 4 battle cruisers as well, and 4 of the Lexingtons had been completed per the 1919 plan. Due to their high speed, the Lexingtons would have been escorting carriers, rather than sitting at Pearl on December 7th, so the Lexingtons would not have received the major rebuilds received by Dec 7 survivors, but, rather would have received the half-hearted update that Colorado, which also missed the Pearl attack, received. While the Lexingtons would have the speed to steam with TF38, they would have been short of secondary and AAA firepower, to say nothing of armor, so Halsey detaches the Lexingtons to escort Taffy 3, rather than drag them into the anticipated scrap with the northern force. So, the center force is met by 4 capital ships with glass jaws.
    1