The Lion class's 16-inch-gun difficulties are treated as real but overstated. Fourteen-inch weapons were already available, yet changing armament or seeking American ordnance help would force an immediate decision to resume construction. By then, wartime experience had made the pre-war, treaty-influenced design look less attractive as the basis of a post-war fleet. Naval leaders wanted a better ship incorporating new operational lessons rather than simply restarting the old design. The explanation therefore combines technical risk, institutional delay, and expanding requirements instead of reducing the cancellation to one defective gun programme.
Notable Point · 3:09:48-3:11:47
Were 16-inch guns the real reason the Lion class stayed unfinished?
Gun-development problems existed, but their scale became a convenient explanation for postponing ships whose treaty-era design no longer matched wartime ambitions.