Quoted Text
The naval historian H. Trevor Lenton estimates that despite the best attempts, none of these ships stayed within the treaty limits; Kent's full load displacement was 14,197 tons, indicating a standard displacement of around 10,600 tons. Lenton expresses doubts whether the Admiralty ever informed the Government of these excesses, as with war imminent, "there were more pressing demands on their time"
An interesting treaty side note is that in 1938 the US, UK and France signed a protocol amending the 1936 2nd London treaty that raised the treaty battleship displacement limit to 45,000 long tons. I suggest that after this event, and given the obvious over tonnage of the Japanese and Italian heavy cruisers already built, none of the three signing parties really cared much any further about adhering to the 10000 ton cruiser displacement limitation.
What can be said is the UK and the US, to their great credit, gave the 10,000 ton limit their best effort. For all classes, design standard displacement was less than 10,000 tons, although margins were razor thin. Illustrating this commitment is the cutting down in 1935-1936 of Cumberland and Suffolk by one deck aft to compensate for adding the hanger. I don't know enough about French CA displacement to make a comment.
(But those Myokos, Takaos, and Zaras make great models.)
Kip
