This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 08:26, November 22, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
that all 3 powers were constructing vessels that broke the London agreement by 1938.
The KGV class of British battleships were definitely within the treaty and the the follow on Aircraft carriers from the Ark Royal went through restrictions since the heavy amoured decks meant comprimises were made elsewhere ( lower decks hieghts , only 3 screws instead of 4)
As for the US breaking the agreement, I though the last aircraft carrier built during this time was "pint sized' to keep within the total carrier tonnage permitted.
222.153.1.9721:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Steve C[reply]
Steve,
The sentence to which you refer probably should be reworded as it is somewhat misleading. All five nations did NOT violate the treaty. The Italian Littorio class exceeded treaty limits and as such could be classified as a violation. Likewise, the Bismarck class could be classified as a violation of the Anglo-German Naval Treaty (which was tied in to the naval limitations regime). Both exceeded the treaty's 35,000 ton limit by a considerable margin. OTOH, while Japan's Yamato class obviously exceeded the treaty's limits, it did not violate the treaty as Japan had withdrawn from the agreement. However, the critical point is that from the moment these ships were laid down, all other parties to the treaty were fully within their rights to invoke the treaty's "escalator clause". Thus, for example, the French Richelieu class, which was originally designed at 35,000 tons, but was partially redesigned to a greater displacement, cannot be characterized as a treaty violation as its upgrade was entirely permissable under the treaty's escalator clause. Likewise, the US North Carolina class was originally designed to 35,000 tons with a 14 inch gun main battery. It was redesigned for a 16 inch main battery and ultimately came in somewhat over 35,000 tons. Again, this was permissable under the escalator clause. I suspect that the KGV class was too far along to accommodate any significant modification, and thus it came in pretty close to the limits set by the treaty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.242.143 (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.svg)
