Naval Historywith Dr. Alex

Q&A · 21:52-25:39

Why propose a 40,000-ton treaty limit?

A more equitable Washington treaty would match the roughly 40,000-ton battleships that naval planners already considered viable.

Battleship DesignBattleshipsHMS NelsonHMS RodneyNaval ArmourNaval Arms ControlNaval ProcurementNelson Class BattleshipsShip SpeedStandard DisplacementWashington Naval Treaty
Watch at this timeFull video guide
Question

Would a higher Washington Naval Treaty displacement limit have been fairer?

Short answer

Roughly 40,000 tons would allow viable all-round battleships instead of designs distorted by an unrealistically low limit.

Notes

The 35,000-ton limit forced designers into severe compromises in speed, armour, or other essentials. In this interpretation, expecting crews to fight ships that could not balance the main qualities was a failure of the treaty settlement. Nelson and Rodney show one response by sacrificing speed, but every navy could not sensibly adopt the same design choice. A limit near 40,000 tons reflected the scale of contemporary proposals and allowed more viable all-round battleships. The higher figure supplies both a technical and political basis for a fairer agreement.