Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "USS Tennessee - Guide 200" video.

The Tennessees and Colorados were the only WWI vintage BBs to never see a major modernization prior to 1941. There was consideration, but the pushback by the early 30s was a combination of tight depression era budgets, and consideration that putting millions into these obsolete ships, vs building new, was a waste.
3
@observationsfromthebunker9639 This is from the record of the US Senate, 1930: "Of the enormous total of $118,000,000, we have already spent or have been obligated to spend about $38,000,000, leaving $80,000,000 still to be appropriated if we are to modernize our battleship fleet, and then we do not obtain parity with Great Britain. According to the testimony, a new battleship would cost approximately $39,000,000. Hence we could match the Rodney and Nelson and make up our existing deficiency in battleship strength, which can not be done by modernization, by building two ships like the Rodney and Nelson with the money which it is proposed to spend for modernization." There you have it. Modernizing old BBs does not make them the equal of new-build. As we know, the Tennessees and Colorados never saw a rebuild, so were even farther off the pace compared to the Nagatos and modernized Kongos and Ises. Sure, a Tennessee or Colorado can hurt you, so you are better off sinking it into the mud of Pearl, but they are less of a threat than a KGV or North Carolina, because they are so obsolete. Of course, if I was in command in Japan, I would never have attacked Pearl in the first place. I would have taken the Philippines, preferably by infiltrating the Philippine government that was established in 1935, and rolled the dice that the US population would not support a war over the Philippines.
3
@tjb0502 The 1.1 used clips, but, unlike the Type 96, the 1.1 loading machine held two clips and, when one clip was empty, would automatically switch to feeding from the other clip while the empty was replaced.
3
@alexhunt7810 The Tennessees were the first USN BBs to have a multiple bulkhead TDS. The preceeding New Mexicos only had one internal torpedo bulkhead. When the New Mexicos were modernized in the early 30s, a second internal bulkhead was added, as well as bulges.
3
@M.M.83-U After WWI, France looked at the Caracciolo's 28kt speed capability, and did a study of what would be required to make a Normandie competitive. The cost to lengthen and reengine a Normandie was exorbitant, so the idea was dropped. It crossed my mind that the French could have claimed as war reparations the three incomplete Mackensen class battlecruisers that had been launched, which were designed for 28kts, tow them back to France and complete them with French equipment and armament. So, to answer your question, the French regarded the Caracciolo as more capable than a Normandie as they explored improving a Normandie to make it competitive. Another factor in the Caracciolo's favor was main armament. The Caracciolos used a 15"/40. The French BB gun of the era was only a 13.4".
2
@M.M.83-U The Normandies, Caracciolos and Mackensens all had obsolete armor and TDS systems by 1919 standards. I have seen drawings of a Caracciolo that show the last modification, in 1919, with 110mm of armor added to the weather deck. Those same drawings show most of the boilers arranged in compartments along the sides of the hull, separated by an additional bulkhead from the centerline compartments that contained another half dozen boilers and the turbines for the inboard shafts, so the side boiler rooms act like a TDS. I have seen a photo of Caracciolo dated December 1915 that shows the weather deck being installed. The interesting thing about the photo is most of the decking is not yet in place and I can see that there are no compartment bulkheads below the weather deck and I can see the turtleback armor deck. I interpret that photo as showing a temporary deck being put on to protect the hull from the weather in preparation for work on the ship being suspended. Seems that, with the turtleback being exposed like that, the reasonable thing would have been to add more armor to the turtleback, before completing the first deck and the permanent weather deck. Alltogether, considering the way the boiler rooms were arranged to mimic a TDS, the opportunity to reenforce the turtleback offered by where construction was when suspended in early 16, speed, and the 15" guns, I would much rather go into WWII in Caracciolo than a Normandie or Mackensen.
2
@M.M.83-U Reportedly, the RM did consider a carrier conversion, but I have not seen any drawings of that. Are the drawings you have seen speculative, or something actually considered by the RM? Given the RM's priorities in the early 20s, any cost for Caracciolo would have been "excessive". If they had not spent so much building ever more Destroyers in the early 20s, Caracciolo would have been more affordable. The RM's battle ship force was pretty farcical in the 20s. To get to Italy's tonnage quota, the retention list in the Washington treaty included four pre-dreadnoughts and the Da Vinci, which was a wreck they were trying to salvage. The RM really only had 5 serviceable dreadnoughts at the time of the treaty, but the RM didn't seem to care, being more focused on torpedo boats.
2
@kemarisite The 1.1 had several different ways it jammed. I read an account from one Gunner's Mate that there was one jam that could not be seen from either above or below the gun, but could only be checked for and cleared by feel. He became very popular on his ship because he was so good at clearing that particular jam. The 1.1 had an equalizer in it, so it was quite smooth to fire. The Type 96 may shake like a leaf, and need to stop for a reload every few seconds, but, it may have been more reliable than the 1.1. There is a color film of the battle of Midway that has three or four brief looks at a pair of 1.1 mounts firing. In the first couple of looks all four guns on the mount in the foreground are firing. In the last look, only the right side gun is still firing. So, in a total of less than ten seconds of when the camera was on that mount, three of the four guns failed under combat conditions. I think I would rather have the vibrating Type 96, if it was more reliable than the 1.1, and the 1.1 sets a low bar.
1
@kemarisite From what I have read, the Gunner's Mates eventually figured out how to make the 1.1 fairly reliable. There were probably a lot of unofficial field modifications being made. BuOrd has already been working on the 1.1 for several years, and couldn't get the thing to work right, but ordered it into production anyway. The 40mm Bofors was in production in 35. If BuOrd had invited a Bofors salesmen in for a demonstration right then, they could have gotten to work on the production licensing and vendors right away, and our guys would never have had to deal with the 1.1.
1
@kemarisite Oh yes, the 1.1 was an ergonomic nightmare. I can't help but wonder if one of the sources of jamming was the loaders not getting the clips in straight because they didn't have room to do their job. Another thing that drives me crazy about the 1.1 is the footrests for the guys doing the training and elevating: little tubular "U" shaped things to hook the heels of their shoes on. How the heck are they supposed to brace themselves on those little things? Yes, Chrysler, the prime US contractor for the Bofors, had to reverse engineer the gun to discover the dimensions with precision, so the hand fitting could be eliminated. Packard had to do the same thing with the Rolls Royce Merlin. The Oerlikon also had to be reverse engineered the same way. Consolidated built the B-24 with everything hand fitted. When Ford contracted to build B-24s, they also had to reverse engineer the plane so components mass produced at other Ford plants would go together at final assembly at Willow Run without hand fitting. Most of the "arsenal of democracy" rode on the precision mass production methods developed by the auto industry.
1