Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "The Drydock - Episode 075" video.

  1. American AA guns on Yamato. imho, would not have made a difference, due to the number of USN aircraft used in the attacks. The Japanese Type 89s on Yamato and Type 98s that were probably mounted on most of the escorts don't give up that much to the 5/38. The Type 96 topped the Oerlikon in both projectile weight and range, but had a much lower rate of fire. The only gap in the Japanese AA capability was a midsize autocannon. Building the Italian Model 1938 37mm under license, while not as good as the Bofors, would have filled that gap. But none of this would matter due to the weight of the USN attack. RAF Wing Commander Pat Gibbs DSO DFC & Bar worked out the principles of successful air attack against ships. during the war. The RAF didn't have dive bombers, so relied on torpedo bombers. Against a single ship, like Bismark, torpedo bombers did well enough. Against escorted ships, where the torpedo bombers had to fly over a destroyer screen, the aircraft were torn to shreds by AA fire. The tactics refined by Gibbs while commanding a Beaufort squadron on Malta were, first, use an overwhelming force to saturate the defenses, and second, bring along aircraft, in his case Beaufighters, to strafe the ships to suppress AA fire. Accounts of the attack on the Yamato show the pilots were following Gibbs' book.
    5
  2.  @AdamMGTF  the pro-air faction in the USN had been sketching out what they considered to be the "ideal" carrier, without having any operating knowledge of carriers. The conversions fit their "ideal" perfectly, so they pushed for it. The maximum carrier tonnage allowed for carriers in the treaty was 27,000. An extra clause had to be inserted to allow for two conversions. There is considerable debate whether the USN lied and the ship's displacement actually exceeded even the additional tonnage the extra clause allowed. Japan used the same clause to build Akagi and Kaga. Without any direct operating experience, it is a wonder the Lexington design came out as well as it did, rather than looking like the original configuration of Kaga.
    3
  3. So many questions about converting BBs and BCs to carriers. The Lexingtons had speed and length, but were also terribly inefficient as carriers. I have been banging on for a bit about what a mistake the Lexingtons were, especially as the treaty tonnage limits were known when work on the conversion started. For the same tonnage as the two Lexingtons, the USN could have built three Yorktowns, with enough tonnage left over to make the Wasp another Yorktown. The result would have been more operational flexibility and survivability due to having more hulls, and more aircraft embarked.
    2