Search results

At the time of the WNT the British had the Hawkins-class cruisers - which were pretty much the prototype treaty heavy cruiser - with 7x7.5" guns and a 6 gun broadside on a 9,800 ton hull with a 30kt-ish flank speed. EDIT: when Germany built the Deutschlands they didn't have naval rifles in that...

ToV more than WNT. They didn't even comply with the 10,000 ton displacement limit the ToV specified and the ToV did not limit gun calibre.

The Alaskas were the last battlecruisers - even though they were never classified as battlecruisers - and too expensive to keep. All the expense and crew of a battleship without the ability to fight one on even terms. I could see the US keeping some of the older fast battleships instead.

The UK and Japan would have put their super versions in the water because they were already in the works and feasible for the slipways they had available. France and Italy. Nope. France didn't have the slipways and Italy didn't have the industry or the money. The only other countries capable...

Give it time. They will.

The USN didn't want the battleships he told the USN to propose. They were too expensive for the "used chewing gum wrapper and two bottle cap" budgets Congress was willing to approve after WWI. They would have been a liability instead of an asset. Tillman was upset that battleships kept getting...