I second Ironmachine's criticism of you sloppy work. Do some research into you "facts" before posting them, preferably double check you data with two or more sources.
nebelwerferXXX wrote:Washington Treaty: 35,000-ton for battleships and 10,000-ton for heavy cruisers.
---45,000-ton battleship (USA)
---40,000-ton battleship (British)
---3 x 64,000-ton battleships (Japan)
This passage is utter garbage.
First, the USA NEVER produced a 45,000 ton (standard displacement) battleship while the 35,000 ton limit was still in force. In 1942, The USS North Carolina had a standard displacement of 36,600 tons, and the South Dakota class battleship USS Indiana has a standard displacement of 35,900 tons. Also, the HMS King George V had a standard displacement of 38,031 tons.
Second, Japan had withdrawn from the Treaty and thus was under no limitations what-so-ever. With Japan's withdrawl from the Treaty, the first "escalator clause", Article 4 came into play
This allowed battleships to carry guns of a maximum caliber of 16-inches.(2) No capital ship shall carry a gun with a calibre exceeding 14 in. (356 mm.); provided however that if any of the Parties to the Treaty for the Limitation of Naval Armament signed at Washington on 6 February 1922, should fail to enter into an agreement to conform to this provision prior to the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty, but in any case not later than 1 April 1937, the maximum calibre of gun carried by capital ships shall be 16 in. (406 mm.).
In 1938, the remaining nations invoked the second "escalator clause", Article 25
The discussions over this clause resulted in the maximum displacement being upped to 45,000 tons standard displacement.Article 25
(1) In the event of any vessel not in conformity with the limitations and restrictions as to standard displacement and armament prescribed by Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the present Treaty being authorised, constructed or acquired by a Power not a party to the present Treaty, each High Contracting Party reserves the right to depart if, and to the extent to which, he considers such departures necessary in order to meet the requirements of his national security;
(a) During the remaining period of the Treaty, from the limitations and restrictions of Articles 3, 4, 5, 6(1) and 7, and
(b) During the current year, from his Annual Programmes of construction and declarations of acquisition.
This right shall be exercised in accordance with the following provisions:
(2) Any High Contracting Party who considers it necessary that such right should be exercised, shall notify the other High Contracting Parties to that effect, stating precisely the nature and extent of the proposed departures and the reasons therefor.
(3) The High Contracting Parties shall thereupon consult together and endeavour to reach an agreement with a view to reducing to a minimum the extent of the departures which may be made.
(4) On the expiration of a period of three months from the date of the first of any notifications which may have been given under paragraph (2) above, each of the High Contracting Parties shall, subject to any agreement which may have been reached to the contrary, be entitled to depart during the remaining period of the present Treaty from the limitations and restrictions prescribed in Articles 3, 4, 5, 6(1) and 7 thereof.
(5) On the expiration of the period mentioned in the preceding paragraph, any High Contracting Party shall be at liberty, subject to any agreement which may have been reached during the consultations provided for in paragraph (3) above, and on informing all the other High Contracting Parties, to depart from his Annual Programmes of construction and declarations of acquisition and to alter the characteristics of any vessels building or which have already appeared in his Programmes or declarations.
(6) In such event, no delay in the acquisition, the laying of the keel, or the altering of any vessel shall be necessary by reason of any of the provisions of Part III of the present Treaty. The particulars mentioned in Article 12(b) shall, however, be communicated to all the other High Contracting Parties before the keels of any vessels are laid. In the case of acquisition, information relating to the vessel shall be given under the provisions of Article 14.
Had the Article 25 "escalator clause" not been invoked, the Bismarck class, the French Richelieu class, and Italian Vittorio Veneto class battleships would have fallen farther outside Treaty limits than any US or British battleship.
nebelwerferXXX wrote:The 1934 Program:
---fast MTB (Schnellboote) A diesel engine development contract had been given to private industry, and this produced the magnificent 20-cylinder Daimler-Benz V-form diesel.
What did you forget that Germany had started 4 Scnellboots in 1931, and another 7 in 1933(the last three had the Daimler-Benz 16 cylinder diesel instead of the 7 cylinder MAN diesel.
Also, why did you split this "1934 Program" in half?
nebelwerferXXX wrote:The 1937 'Z' Plan program:
---8 heavy cruisers
---17 light cruisers
---4 aircraft carriers
The Germans were only building 5 Heavy Cruisers(Admiral Hipper, Blucher, Prinz Eugen, Seydlitz, and Lutzow), care to name the missing three...
IIRC, the Germans were also planning on building more than 17 light cruisers, I think the number I recall most was 22. Also, you forgot to add the hundreds of destroyers and smaller escorts that were included in the Z-Plan.
IMHO, these "Programs" that you mention are fictitious and were never part of any overall Kriegsmarine plan.