Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "HIRMS Sissoi Veliky - Guide 340" video.

A two part question about the two surviving Littorio class battleships: first part: the Wiki entry notes both had been significantly damaged prior to the Italian surrender. Was that damage repaired at any point? Second part: we have all heard about how President Roosevelt promised Stalin a significant part of the Italian fleet, and the Soviets were a bit put out when they were handed worn out US and UK castoffs instead. After the surrender, the Littorios sat at Malta, then at Alexandria, then in the Great Bitter Lake, until after the end of the war, then they were handed to the US and UK, then scrapped. What was the problem with handing those two battleships to the Soviets in 44? It is only two ships, arguably obsolete by 1944. If there was concern about post-war hostilities with the Soviets, US and UK naval air and sub forces were so large that, if the Soviets went off the reservation with the battleships, the ship's life expectancy would be measured in days. I don't see the point in reneging on FDR's promise.
2
@bkjeong4302 Vanguard was laid down in 41, the last two Iowas in 42. I would ascribe progress made in their construction to inertia. Work on the Montana program was suspended in 42 and cancelled in 43. No-one was laying down new battleships in early 44, when the Littorios would have been available for transfer to the Soviets, after a through analysis by US and UK technical teams.
1
@bkjeong4302 as I said, "inertia". People in the Navy department were probably saying "we have XXX dollars already sunk into these two battleships. should we finish them, so that money is not wasted?" In recent years, the inertia to be overcome in cancelling programs has not gotten any less. I remember a Senator from Bath Iron Works crying a river about "jobs", when the Zumwalt program was cut short. We saw Congress continue to appropriate money for more F-14s and C-17s long after the military said it didn't want any more.
1