Comments by "" (@RedXlV) on "The Drydock - Episode 208 (Part 2)" video.

  1.  @egoalter1276  Fuel is specifically exempted from standard displacement, and since no mention is made in the treaty text of aviation fuel, that presumably means all fuel on a ship, whether for the ship itself or for its aircraft. At any rate, a few hundred tons isn't exactly a trivial amount. Nobody wanted to waste the limited tonnage they had allocated to them, they wanted to get the most ship they could within the treaty limits.
    2
  2. 00:53:30 The WNT treated the entire British Empire as a single nation, though. Hence HMAS Australia having to be disposed of to meet the treaty limits on capital ship tonnage. Anything built for the Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Australian Navy, etc fell under Britain's tonnage limits. That question seems to have been more about the treaty restricting Britain's building of warships for customers outside the empire. Like the battleships built for Brazil, Chile, Japan before they established the industry to build their own, the Ottoman Empire, etc. Which of course would've been a loophole in its own right that neither the US nor Japan was going to allow (since neither of them had anywhere near as much of an industry in building warships for export). Everybody remembered how when WW1 broke out, the Chilean and Ottoman battleships were promptly taken into the Royal Navy. So if the treaty limits hadn't included ships for export, that would've allowed Britain the possibility of building G3 battlecruisers, N3 battleships, or other blatantly treaty-busting warships for sale to friendly nations like Greece, Chile, etc (with British banks giving loans since those nations blatantly couldn't actually afford to pay upfront for such large ships)...and then at the last minute abrogating the treaty and "buying them back" from the ostensible customers.
    1