By way of simple example, then N strake (2d from the top):
at the bow OVERLAPS the strake above by 3-1/8"
at Frame 40, things reverse the O strake over overlaps the N strake by 5-1/8".
at Frame 48 a rabbet tapers from 0" to 5-1/8" and the joint shifts from overlap to rabbet.
at Frame 66 the rabbet tapers to 4-1/2"
at Frame 169 the rabbet tapers from 4-1/2" to 0" and the joint shift to an overlap.
at Frame 172 the strake above overlaps by 5-1/8"
at Frame 195 things reverse and the N strake overlaps by 3-1/8"
We know now that the most fastest, cheapest, and strongest method would be to weld the joint end to end.
Let's say I have a 1930's mindset that riveting provides some advantage. What do I think that advantage is? Clearly it is not strength or a lack of trust in welding or the lower strakes would not be welded end-to-end and the structural members would not be welded. At the same time, welding had only been in use in ship construction for about a decade at design time.
OK, so I want to rivet. So why do I make 7 joint transitions over the length of one strake seam? Each transition creates additional work. Plates have to be bent. Straps have to be placed over them, be shimmed, and riveted. Machining a taper into a rabbet takes more effort than continuing a rabbet to the end. Having different rabbeting widths takes more setup than having one.
And that is just one strake edge that runs pretty much parallel to the based line. The hull shape causes the strakes at the heels to have odd shapes when the have changing joints between them. Some of the joints are very odd. (A ship built today will have such oddly shaped strakes but it will have them welded flush without oddly shaped joints.)
I have to presume that this extra effort was the result of some mindset that existed at the time and was not product of engineers sniffing paint thinner.
I am trying to find sources that document what that mindset was.