Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "USS Wasp - Guide 150" video.

  1. Better yet: doomed when the Lexingtons were converted, as they used so much of the US' tonnage quota that the Navy was forced into a lot of compromises. The USN had intended to use the rest of the tonnage to build 5 the size of the Ranger. Once they had Ranger built, they realized that wasn't a good idea, so built the 2 Yorktowns. Decent carriers, but that only left enough tonnage for another under sized, under powered, under protected ship. Yes, three torpedo hits would do a lot of damage, but Hornet took 3 aerial torpedo hits, 3 bomb hits, and 2 Kamikaze Vals, then a spread of US torpedoes, 400 5" gun hits, and 4 Long Lances from Japanese destroyers before sinking. Now there is a tough ship!
    7
  2.  @whispofwords2590  I commented on the general carrier history post that the Lexingtons were horribly inefficient as carriers. The Navy compounded the mistake by building them after the tonnage limits of the Washington Treaty were known. The Yorktowns had hanger decks 200' longer than the Lexingtons, on a third less displacement. The two Lexingtons could have been replaced by two Yorktowns, with enough tonnage left over to build another Yorktown, and still have enough tonnage available to build the Wasp as another 20,000 ton carrier. Additionally, the Navy was in a dilemma designing the Yorktowns because every ton added for capability or surviveability took a ton away from the Wasp, edging the Wasp closer to uselessness. Without the Lexingtons hogging tonnage quota, the Navy would have been able to design in more capability and surviveability into Yorktown, Enterprise, Wasp and, ultimately, Hornet, because Hornet was built to the best available design, even though the Navy knew of the compromises made in the Yorktown design.
    4