>>64178355 (OP)
For me is this Frog ship. >>64178374
Itals were "treaty" only in name.
The reality they were cheating fucks and so were their Cruisers!
>>64180938
Ever noticed that County Classes pre-WW2 ran very high on the waterline and then during WW2 after they got a refit they seemed to fit perfectly on the waterline? >>64178439
Anyway posting the Wichita as she is technically a treaty Cruiser.
>>64180991
Germans had no treaty cruisers because they weren't let into the Washington Naval Treaty.
The treaty of Versailles set an upper limit of 10,000t for displacement, same as the limit for cruisers under the Washington treaty, but no limit on the cannon size.
>>64181111
This would be the only answer unless willing to extend to not necessary Treaty Cruisers but ships that conformed to treaty limits i.e. the Dutch Cruisers?
>>64181194 >hybrid of a County and a Zara
She is _technically_ based on a County design, just with a modified machinery layout (and sacrificing the attractive triple funnel layout) and a slightly narrower beam
>>64181392 >By the time of the London subclass they were pretty much sorted out
I don't think I'll ever change my opinion that providing them with super elevating 8" turrets for anti aircraft engagements was a poor design choice
>>64178355 (OP)
They are more "treaty adjacent" than real treaty cruisers, but I really like the Veinticinco de Mayo class. They are pretty unique too, as I believe they are the only modern "heavy cruisers" ever used by a South American navy
>>64181392 >De Ruyter wasn't anywhere near a Town class
That's true but there were some considerations when designing the De Ruyter to give her 8inch guns instead which I think would have been interesting to see.
>>64182404
Good for visibility against attacking aircraft and submarines.
The RN played with closed bridges on and quickly reverted to open bridges. Following complaints probably.
They only built enclosed bridges after radar took over
>>64182475
I'm always amazed how long open bridges remained a thing. It makes sense when the primary concerns were (sub)surface threats, but once you have to worry about planes strafing or bombing? No thanks.
>>64182567
Trying to spot planes from closed bridges turned out to be more deadly, simple as
Protection didn't really matter because aircraft bombs and cannon can pierce the bridge anyway, the main benefit of enclosing the bridge is protection from weather
If you can't see it you can't shoot it
York-class because it's one of those funny designs that results when a country tries to follow its treaty obligation and ends up with tiny smol cruiser
>>64181096 >The German Government favour, in the matter of limitation of naval armaments, that system which divides naval vessels into categories, fixing the maximum tonnage and/or armament for vessels in each category, and allocates the tonnage to be allowed to each Power by categories of vessels.
Sounds to me like Germany agreed to the WNT/LNT system of limits.
>>64182621
York had nothing to do with the Treaty, it was about getting more minimum ships for trade protection
and they were pretty good designs for the purpose
>>64182718
That's the 1935 treaty perfidious Albion used to stop Nazi Germany from building more cruisers and subs and focus on memes like battleships and aircraft carriers that never came to fruition before the war started and made all treaties void and meaningless.
The democratic German government that ordered the Deutschland class had hoped the major powers would let them into the treaty system and revise those parts of the Versailles treaty.