Missing sixteen-inch studies expose gaps in the design record

The available drawings point toward forward sixteen-inch main armament, aircraft-handling facilities aft, and more than one possible distribution of the six-inch secondary battery. Even the anti-aircraft fit is uncertain because surviving illustrations show four-inch singles while the surrounding discussion refers to twin 4.7-inch weapons. No accompanying table preserves displacement, machinery power, speed, or protection, so rough scaling cannot support firm data. Admiralty comparison tables can survive in standard archival forms, but unbuilt designs never generated the more detailed and systematically organized yard drawings produced for construction. The result is a reconstruction problem in which missing tables and drawings limit what can safely be said. This moment shows where a naval historian must separate visible design features from inference.