Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "The Drydock - Episode 113" video.

The Washington Treaty left the French navy with some pretty obsolete BBs. The MN, perceiving that 21kts was no longer sufficient for a battleship, considered lengthening and up-engining the Normanies to attain a more competitive speed, but the cost was excessive. Was any consideration given by France, to claiming the three launched, but unfinished Mackensen class battlecruisers as war reparations, towing them back to France and completing them, with French guns and machinery, for the MN?
3
@IO-hh2fz actually, the RN did have two more of that model of twin 15" turret, and several spare 15"/42 guns available. Those other two turrets were installed in the Roberts class monitors in 1940. The more interesting scenario is if, in 1937, as a backup should issues arise with the quad turrets on the KGVs, build two of the KGV hulls as faster battleships, with 3 of the 15" turrets each. The escalator clause that allowed larger than 14" guns was tripped in April of 37. Anson and Howe were not ordered until April of 37 and laid down in June and July of 37, so, if they had the contingency plan of using the existing 15" turrets and guns, they could have implemented it on those two ships.
2
@toddwebb7521 yes, the French 13.4 would make a good replacement for the 13.8" the Mackensens were designed for. The French BB secondary gun of choice was a 138mm, also a good substitute for the 149mm the Mackensens were designed for. The Mackensens still had a somewhat pre-war armor and torpedo defense design, but that could be upgraded. The fly is that the Germans had already figured out that the 13.8 was inadequate, cut the Mackensen class short and redesigned the last three to take a 15" gun. France didn't have a 15" gun, but had plenty of 13.4s available that had been built for the Normandies. A Mackensen with French 13.4s would not look that formidable when the Brits had a 15" in service and the USN and IJN were installing 16" guns. On the other hand, a 28kt Mackensen with 13.4s would be an improvement over 21kt Bretagnes with the same guns or 21kt Courbets with 12" guns. Even better, complete two of the Mackensens as battlecruisers/fast battleships and complete the third as a carrier, instead of Bearn.
2
@toddwebb7521 it's a tough call. The Dunkerque's high velocity guns had more range and, probably, penetration than the old 13.4, and the Dunkerques had a more modern armor and torpedo protection scheme, so, in some ways, they were better protected. If the MN had the Mackensens, the Washtington treaty probably would not have given them the two construction licenses they used to build the Dunkerques, so, when they laid down Richelieu in late 35, they would have been in violation of the treaty anyway. The idea of getting ships already half built, for free, and being able to use guns already in inventory on them, is appealing from a cost savings standpoint. But, a dozen years later, they would be sort of obsolete compared to the Dunkerques.
2
@janwitts2688 They couldn't build more Admirals, because the 35,000 treaty tonnage limit was still in effect. That is the problem with trying to mount four 15/42 turrets. Vanguard was well over 40,000 tons too. From what I have read, the KGVs acted like they were overloaded as it was, tending to bury their bow, for instance. Installing three of the Nelson class triple 16", already designed so only need to build, would add another 500 tons over the 10-14" setup. Going to the three twin 15/42s would reduce displacement by 1900 tons. While the KGVs would need to be reinforced, and probably some armor sacrificed, to take the weight of the 16" turrets, nothing would need to be reinforced for the switch to two 15/42s. The individual 15" guns weigh more than the 14", but the twin 14" turret is 145 tons heavier than the 15/42 turret, more than making up for the 32 ton heavier each guns. The twin 15/42 turret weighs about half what the quad turrets weigh. To this non-engineer, sounds like adjusting the size of the barbettes for the diameter of the 15/42 turret would be the largest part of the modification needed.
1
@notshapedforsportivetricks2912 it may be a matter of the facilities they had to do the construction and maintenance. Dock 4, in the Brest Arsenal is only 656 feet long. Docks 8 and 9, which were built during WWI are 820 feet, but it seems they don't like having 8 or 9 occupied by a years long build. Dunkerque and Richeleau both exceeded Dock 4's length, so they built the main hull in Dock 4, then floated them over to 8 or 9 to have the bow built on, and, in Richeleau's case, add on the stern as well. Prior to construction of the Normandie dock, the longest drydock in St Nazaire was 758'. Longest in Lorient was 669'. Longest in Marseille was 698'. The Lyons were 638' overall. If the Lyons had a longer foc'sle, they rapidly start losing options for a drydock for repair. At 638' the Lyons were already too long for any of the drydocks in Toulon.
1