BTW, Landshark, have considered doing your own research instead of starting eight or ten threads asking others to do your research for you?
I am doing my own research, however as many people here have a deeper and wider knowledge of the technical aspects of these things and sources on them I thought I'd ask here as well. If however this offends you in some way Phil you can always use your ignore button and thereby cease to worry about me or my threads.
Perhaps there is reduced budget for gunnery design, as funds are instead diverted towards overall ship design and project management. A decision would be made to develop a triple 15" from the existing twin, rather than upscaling and starting fresh with triple 16". A possible side-effect is that the reduced weight of a triple 15", versus the triple 16", may negate the urge to use delicate stuff and light-weight materials in the gun/turret design. This could improve turret reliability.
Politically, this might be a tough sell if the Japanese and Americans are building 16" ships.
Alternately, more work done prior to WNT-equivalent means the turret is (mostly) fully realized with sturdy parts and materials when any WNT provisions do come into effect. Rather than spend the time/money to redesign it to be lighter in weight, with reduced reliability, the powers-that-be deem it easier to achieve any required weight savings on warships through other areas (speed, protection, secondary battery...)
Steve, you have been making this claim for some time. I have been posting citations that rebut this claim. Do you any have any support for this claim? I have seen nothing to support it in any published works.The main problems with the gun on the Nelson's came from efforts to cut its weight to meet the agreed tonnage targets so they would have very likely to recur in any treaty limited situation.
I also can feel free to comment on what I see as an annoying trend.
I am just surprised given the number of threads you started to find that you are actually doing your own research. I do not recall seeing so many threads done requesting research on a prior occasion. It is an interesting strategy to attempt to preempt criticism of a timeline.
I just received my copy of Norman Friedman's new book Naval Weapons of World War One. It is quite a tome of information. It was interesting to read that after the Russian Civil War the British had one of the former-Imperial Russian Black Sea dreadnought Volia in their possession and the thru some missteps never got around to testing out and examining the triple turrets.
Landshark, you have made 'After 1900' very RN and naval centric. Not saying this is a bad thing...
Is the answer to the OP as simple as "More Funding"or "More Training"? All the issues in the RN, during this period, are systemic ones going much deeper then training. I have to ask, how much better can the gunnery be?