Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "US Navy Fleet Problems - Taking the ships out for exercise (I-VII)" video.

  1.  @Ralph-yn3gr  the US' intent in calling the conference was to stop all new ship construction, because the US didn't want to spend anything. They probably could have gotten a waiver for one of the Lexingtons, by arguing parity with Hood, but the US didn't want to spend the money. I have read that the UK was inclined to allow a single ship displacement limit of 42-43,000, because of Hood, but the US insisted on the hard 35,000 limit. It actually would probably have been cheaper to complete a Lexington as designed, than to break up all the battlecruisers that were in process, and start over with a new design that was under the 35,000 limit. It was even cheaper to complete Colorado and West Virginia for 16" armed, "post Jutland" parity, because the ships were already in an advanced stage of construction. Bottom line: US took the cheapest possible route to having a 16" armed 3:2 ratio with Japan.
    1
  2. A question came up on a FB group a few days ago: why did Warspite retain most of it's casemate mounted 6" after it's rebuild, when the 4"/45 Mk XVI, a few of which were mounted in the rebuild, was capable of dual purpose use? Seems that the 6" were a waste of space and weight, which could be better used for more of the 4"/45.
    1