Comments by "Doug JB" (@dougjb7848) on "Battlecruisers F2 & F3 (NB) - Guide 378" video.

3:10 On the drawing, the secondary guns go “twin-single-twin-single.” Not “single-twin-twin-single.” To paraphrase Clue: That’s two plus one plus two plus one, not one plus two plus two plus one.
134
Also for having too many vowels in their names.
32
It’s still an open debate on how the British 16” guns matched up against other navies’ 16”. Given that, if RN had accepted “only” 15” guns, might-could they have built two F3? We know the 15”/42 was a superb weapon …
3
@adrielcamilo2564 Versailles forbade replacing ships before they were 20 years old. Allowing Germany to keep only pre-dreadnought battleships meant they were able to s replace them almost immediately after the Treaty went into effect, which was not exactly what the Treaty architects intended!
2
@unemployed_history_major4795 The shortest citadel would be had by elevating the second turret over first, and third over the second. The first turret could be moved back under the barrels of second, and second under barrels of third. This was never built because having a turret as high in the ship as the third turret would have been would have caused significant stability problems.
1
@readingrailroadfan7683 You’re missing the point of measuring contests.
1
@Tundraviper41 Even if they were allowed to, they likely would not have retained Roma. Italy was busted-broke in the late 40s and refitting and maintaining a battleship would have been a huge distraction from rebuilding their country and dealing with the early Cold War.
1
@kommandantgalileo Not just the mountings. The /50 would have used larger powder charges, requiring complete rebuild of magazine and hoist / handling facilities.
1