Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "HMS Resolution - Guide 190" video.

@mitchwatson6787 iirc, the USN was headed in the direction of nothing but BBs and DDs 100 years ago. BBs are expensive and slow. DDs don't have much endurance at high speed. iirc, the change in doctrine came after WWI, when the USN saw how handy cruisers were to the RN. which gave birth to the Omaha class cruisers, the first light cruisers laid down by the USN since the Chesters in 1905. Of course, we are headed back there now, with CVNs replacing the BBs, and DDs with various armament schemes., and nothing else in the way of deep water surface combatants.
2
@johnfisher9692 my suspicion is the Italians rebuilt the old ships, because they didn't have the industrial capacity to build more new ones, like the UK did. The UK laid down all 5 KGVs within 6 months of the end of the treaty BB construction moratorium. The two Italian yards in Trieste and Genoa may have been the only two that could build a BB in the 30s as they built all 4 Littorios, 2 at a time, while the RN was building 5 KGVs and 4 Illustrious class carriers of the same length, all at the same time.
1
@johnfisher9692 The Washington Treaty caused the cancellation of a lot of construction in 22, with construction of replacements to start in 31. The first London treaty extended the moratorium until the end of 36. If the London treaty had allowed construction to resume in 31, it might have acted as a "make work" program, but governments were not really all in on the Keynesian "pump priming" deficit spending thing yet.
1
@johnshepherd8687 everything has gotten larger. The Essex class carriers were at the limit of the Washington and First London treaties at 27,000 tons. The Ford clocks in at 100,000 tons.
1