Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "Kongo Replacements (1931) - Guide 380" video.

  1.  @Captain_Seafort the Washington treaty specified when each capital ship could be replaced. The Kongos were older. The Washignton treaty specified Kongo could be replaced in 34, Hiei and Haruna in 35, and Kirishima in 36. Fuso and Yamashiro could be replaced in 37 and 38 respectively. The Ises could be replaced in 39 and 40. The Japanese were planning replacements in the order the treaty specified. First London pushed replacements out 1936. Second London defined a capital ship as overage and replaceable at 26 years of age. That revision would make the QEs the first to be replaced, as they were older than the Revenges, with the exception of Malaya, which commissioned the same day as Revenge, Feb 1, 1916. Under the terms of the treaty, the Revenges could not have been replaced until 42. When the long lead items for the KGVs were ordered in 1936, that was the treaty replacement schedule. QE would age out in December 1940. KGV commissioned in October 1940. Warspite would age out in March 41. Prince of Wales commissioned in January 41. Barham would age out in October 41. Duke of York commissioned in August 41. Valiant would age out in January 42. Anson commissioned in April 42. Malaya would age out in February 42. Howe commissioned in June 42. This begs the question "if that was the case, why did they spend so much rebuilding some of the QEs in 37?" I would suspect a mid-course correction by the Admiralty, to extend the life of the QEs, and replace the Revenges instead. The outbreak of the war cancelled the retirement of any ships, and probably accelerated work on the KGVs. It would have been interesting to see, if the treaty stayed in effect, and war had not broken out until 43, if the commissioning of all of the KGVs was slow-walked until 42, when the Revenges would age out.
    1