It seemed to me that there was a bit of confusion over just what the treaty does and doesn't do so I decided to take a close look at it. Here's the source I'm using:MVictorP wrote:I agree pretty much. I don't get the question, thought. But I would risk saying; yes, the definitions were still there, if simply because all that flaoted at the time came from them.boredatwork wrote:Are you sure about that? AFAIK the allocations were dispensed with in 1936 (37?) when the 3 remaining signatories (France, US, Great Britain) began to rearm in earnest. Qualitative definitions (with escalator clauses to allow for increases to match non-signatories (Lion/Iowa)) remained in force until Sept 1939 when the last vestiges of the treaty were abrogatted by France and Britain as being no longer relavent. (arms control is counter productive once war begins) At this point the US, not being at war, put two sets of designs into production - the immediate post treaty generation (Baltimores, Clevelands, Essexes) - ships no longer limited by treaty rules but directly based upon treaty ships (Wichita, Brooklyn, Yorktown) to speed production while begining designs for a new series of much larger "unlimited ships" to retify the perceived faults inherent in the treaty restricted ships (Final Montana Design, New CA, New CL, New CLAA, Alaska Class, Midway Class, Fletcher Class).MVictorP wrote:There's two part in such a treaty, generally speaking. The first one is a definition, and the second one, allocation. In the WT treaty, new ship classification was adopted (and further specified in subsequent treaties), a "battleship holiday" was enforced, and ship tonnage allocations per type were attributed to the signataries.
By the time of war, allocation takes the back seat. but the definitions are still there, as in fact, it was those definnitions that shaped the existing fleets, and in turn these definitions were shaped by the economic necessities of the time. Even nations that didn't sign the WT were forced to deal with a maritiume environment that was shaped by it.
...
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pre-war/1922/nav_lim.html
For one thing it doesn't define "battleship" it defines "capital ship". The latter has to meet certain criteria but it certainly doesn't suggest that a ship that is bigger than 35,000 tons and/or carries bigger guns isn't a battleship.
As for cruisers here are the relevant clauses:
Note that it does in no way define cruisers. What it does do is for the purposes of the treaty define what is a capital ship and what is not.Article XI: No vessel of war exceeding 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) standard displacement, other than a capital ship or aircraft carrier, shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for, or within the jurisdiction of, any of the Contracting Powers. Vessels not specifically built as fighting ships nor taken in time of peace under government control for fighting purposes, which are employed on fleet duties or as troop transports or in some other way for the purpose of assisting in the prosecution of hostilities otherwise than as fighting ships, shall not be within the limitations of this Article.
Article XII: No vessel of war of any of the Contracting Powers, hereafter laid down, other than a capital ship, shall carry a gun with a calibre in excess of 8 inches (203 millimetres).
It's actually the London treaty of 1930 where the split in cruisers comes into being. See:
http://www.microworks.net/pacific/road_ ... treaty.htm
Note that the defintions are "For the prupose of this Part III". The implicaiton is that they are not general defintions but defintions specific to the terms and conditions of said treaty.For the purpose of this Part III the definition of the cruiser and destroyer categories shall be as follows:
Cruisers: Surface vessels of war, other than capital ships or aircraft carriers, the standard displacement of which exceeds 1,850 tons (1,880 metric tons), or with a gun above 5.1 inch (130 mm) calibre. The cruiser category is divided into two sub-categories, as follows:
(a) Cruisers carrying a gun above 6.1 inch (155 mm) calibre;
(b) Cruisers carrying a gun not above 6.1 inch (155 mm) calibre.
Destroyers: Surface vessels of war the standard displacement of which does not exceed 1,850 tons (1,880 metric tons), and with a gun not above 5.1 inch (130 mm) calibre.
Furthermore if we look at the 2nd London naval treaty (see: http://www.alternatewars.com/Interwar/S ... Treaty.htm ) we see that the large US light cruisers except for the specific exclusion would no longer meet the treat limits as the maximum tonnage of their classification drops to 8,000 tons.
The implications to me are clear the treaty doesn't define in general what a battleship, cruiser, heavy cruiser, aicraft carrier, etc are it simply defines what characteristics are acceptable for warships in several very broad catagories that have names such as: "Capital ships", "light surface forces", "aircraft carriers", "submarines", etc.