Comments by "Frank DeMaris" (@kemarisite) on "The Drydock - Episode 043" video.

Agree, Hood, especially if it survives into 1945 and has received corresponding refits. Bigger guns, more armor, comparable speed. Shouldn't even be competitive. More interesting to match Renown to see if the smaller number of guns brings the Alaska up to somewhat competitive.
3
Are you referring to the way the armor tied into the anti-torpedo bulkheads and the armor's rigidity made the system less effective than that of the North Carolinas with the same arrangement of liquid and void spaces? This was modified over the course of the war and the leading of the void and fluid spaces changed to reduce the risk. Note that "less effective" simply means less effective, not "one hit and the whole thing goes up". Note also that North Carolina had its torpedo defense put to the test and survived, although the torpedo warhead was within the weight range the system had been designed for (700 lb) and the Long Lance had a warhead over 1,000 lb so it's hard to say how well the torpedo defense would have protected Washington if any of the cruiser and destroyer-launched torpedoes had connected on November 15 1942. The Svent Istvan mentioned below was built by a Hungarian yard with no previous experience building large warships, so it's probably not a good example for any side of this discussion.
2
@Alex-cw3rz thing is, "monumentally flawed and terrible" is either a deliberate exaggeration for emphasis or badly overstating the argument. Both North Carolina and South Dakota used four void spaces in the system, and if both were arranged as liquid-air-liquid-air, the the South Dakota system was weaker. However, the comparative weakness was discovered during testing in 1939, before any of the ships were completed, and the South Dakotas were modified to reinforce the system and use liquid in the outer two spaces rather than mixing them up. The result is that when the ships put to sea, the two classes had comparable systems. Note that the Iowa designers made the same decision, to tie the armor belt into the torpedo bulkhead, and then used the same solutions to compensate and make the system as strong as the North Carolinas was. The last two Iowas were still at a state where additional changes could be made that were estimated to give a system about 20% stronger. If the South Dakotas aren't competitive (I presume you mean against a KGV) because of the torpedo defense, then the Iowas have the same issue.
2
The Hawkins class carried 7.5" guns, and this was apparently rounded up to a nice, round 8" to define the cruiser/capital ship gun divide.
2
@Mree17 that's a more interesting question, as the Lexington's 16" main battery is far more dangerous to Hood than the Alaska's 12" guns, but the Lexington's armor is much, much worse (maximum of 7" belt at a modest incline). Both ships can easily penetrate the other's armor, but if they get close enough for secondary guns then the Lexington is a lot more vulnerable. I think the Hood would have a small advantage given equal crew quality.
2