Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "The Drydock - Episode 106" video.

My two cents worth, from an English perspective, the Canadians were helping convoy supplies to England, while the UK had temporarily abandoned the Pacific, so the RCN was more important. The RAN was working the same Pacific area as the USN.
4
I made that same observation on a navy FB group a few days ago. The advent of V/STOL aircraft have made carriers affordable for far more navies.
3
Yes, I can see the usefulness of that approach. The objective of the magnetic torpedo pistols was to detonate a torp set to run under a ship, rather than hit on the side. A ship running over a depth charge would have the same effect as a torp with a magnetic pistol.
3
wrt future proofing BBs. The Brits leveraged the Washington treaty to future proof their fleet. Of the ships retained by the RN, all except Tiger mounted 15" guns. The USN Tennessee, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Nevada and New York classes only had 14" and the Wyomings and Floridas only mounted 12". And, because of the replacement schedule in the treaty, it would be 1941 before the US could replace the last of it's 14" gunned ships. Additionally, the Brits wangled a fleet far above it's quota, while the USN was nearly dead on. The quota was 525,000 tons each for the RN and USN. With the Nelsons, the RN ended up with 558,950 tons, while the USN only had 525,850. If the USN had completed Washington, instead of using it for target practice, the USN would have had 558.450 tons, the parity with the RN the USN was supposed to have, but no, couldn't do that. Wow did the US get rogered. Supposed to have parity with the RN, but, in reality, USN tonnage down a complete BB compared to the RN and locked into smaller guns for 20 years. The Japanese were pretty ill used too. Their quota was 315,000 tons, but their retention list totaled only 301,320. To maintain the 5:5:3 ratio to the RN, the IJN should have been allowed an additional 20,370 tons. for a total of 335,370, not enough for Tosa, which exceeded the 35,000/ship tonnage limit, but enough for another Nagato. Future proofing via lawyers.
2
Watching the several documentaries on investigation of Titanic's wreck, I saw several sections of hull plating being recovered. In some, the plates had empty rivet holes, indicating the rivets failed first. In others, the plates had long tears in them, indicating the rivets held and the plates failed. As an irresistible force will eventually break something, seems that the strength of the plates and strength of the rivets were pretty close, neither being a particular weak point.
2
That has been the objective of torps with magnetic pistols since the 1930s.
1
iirc, some of the 6 inch secondaries were swapped out for more AA. The issue with using a heavier gun for AA is rate of fire, or lack thereof. A 5/38 can fire at a pretty decent rate until crew fatigue sets in, but a Bofors can fire a lot faster. If you are the biggest ship in the group, rate of fire matters more than range, because the attacking aircraft are going to be coming at you.
1
@robertsewell7729 the two DDs that were in the drydock with Pennsylvania on Dec 7? Off the top of my head, the hulls were so badly wrecked that the machinery was recovered and new hulls built around the salvaged machinery, then commissioned using the wrecked ships names and numbers.
1