Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "USS Colorado - Guide 242" video.

  1. The Colorado class has provided hours of entertainment speculating on alternate treatments of the class. Drac didn't really note it, but the Colorados were a 1916 design. Maryland was laid down only days after the US entered WWI, but the other three were delayed until after the war, being laid down in 1919-20. This delay had the result of three of the class still building at the time of the WNT. West Virginia and Colorado were completed, in exchange for the two Delawares being scrapped/demilitarized, while Washington was used for target practice. One alternate scenario: the USN takes the same path as the Admiralty in cancelling outright the Colorados, for the same reasons the Admiralty cancelled their 1914 BB program. The same decision would also result in Tennessee never being laid down, and possibly California, on which little progress had been made, being cut up on the slipway to clear it for higher priority ships. Where would that leave the USN in 1922? None of the Tennessees or Colorados ever completed, and all the postwar South Dakotas and Lexingtons exceed treaty limits. Another avenue of inquiry is how could the Washington have been saved? It appears that the money spent modernizing the Floridas in the 1920s, equaled or exceeded the money it would have cost to complete Washington. So the US completes Washington, and scraps the two Floridas. If the UK complains, give them a license to build a third Nelson, but, as the RN is still well over it's tonnage limit, building another Nelson would require two Iron Dukes be scrapped. Similarly, if the Japanese demanded to be allowed to build another Nagato, they would have to scrap a Fuso or Kongo to make the tonnage available, so, net, they would gain little for all the money spent.
    8
  2.  @kingswagii1607  the ships that were designed from the outset for TE drive had a layout intended to take advantage of the drivetrain. The boiler rooms were located along the sides of the hull, to act as a secondary torpedo defense system, with the turbine/generator sets inboard, along the centerline. There was only room at the inboard end of the prop shafts for the motors. To rebuild the ships to take 1930s vintage geared turbines would require a complete rearrangement of the boiler and engine rooms so that all four turbines could be installed in line with the prop shafts. Secondly, the WNT only allowed defensive improvements in ships: armor, torpedo protection and AA armament. Drac has mentioned that, if the QEs had been built with small tube boilers, they could have made 28kts. Several of the QEs were modernized in the late 30s, including new boilers, but still only made low 20s speeds, so I would assume that the Admiralty's interpretation of the treaty was it was illegal to significantly increase their speed. Italy was granted more leeway in improving their ships as they were so obsolete to begin with, and Japan dropped out of the treaty system, so was no longer constrained.
    4
  3. As another reply noted, the Colorados, and Nagatos, were 1916 designs. The Nelsons were an entirely postwar design, incorporating the lessons learned from the war, and a qualitative leap ahead of the 1916 ships.
    3
  4. I just addressed that scenario in a separate post. The IJN did not have enough headroom under it's treaty tonnage limit to build another Nagato, without scrapping a Fuso or Kongo to make the tonnage available. The net gain in ship firepower, for all the money spent building a third Nagato, would be poor value for money. as the throw weight of a Fuso's 12-14" guns is very close to that of a Nagato's 8-16" guns. The RN was well over it's tonnage limit, so, to build a third Nelson, they would need to scrap two Iron Dukes. As the Dukes went to the breakers in the early 30s, that would be a net gain for the RN by 1940. Similarly, the US was just about dead on it's treaty limit, so completing Washington would require scrapping the two Floridas, but the two Floridas were scrapped/demilitarized in the early 30s, so that is also a net gain for the US by 1941. One big difference, the third Nelson and Nagato would need to be built from the keel up, at considerable additional expense. I tried to find what the USN spent modernizing the Floridas (conversion to oil, with new boilers, added deck armor and torpedo bulges) vs what it would have cost to complete Washington. Turns out it would have been about a wash: Washington could have been completed for the money spent on the Floridas only a few years before they were disposed of.
    2
  5.  @flakstruk-8481  sorry, misread your OP. There wasn't much point in removing the secondaries on pre-dreads. Pre-dreads had heavy secondaries because the rate of fire of the main guns was so slow, so removing a 6" to 8" secondary battery would remove most of the firepower of the ship.
    2
  6. I assume you are thinking remove existing guns of limited use, to clear space and top weight to be used for more useful armament. That was done. Repulse had one of her problematic triple 4" mounts removed, and replaced with an octuple Vickers PomPom. As they were rebuilt, USN standards had their 5"/51s removed and replaced with dual purpose 5"/38s. Earlier USN dreadnoughts had hull casemate mounted secondaries removed as the mounts shipped so much water they were unworkable in many sea conditions.
    1