Comments by "Vikki McDonough" (@vikkimcdonough6153) on "" video.

  1. 1. What warship in history had armor making up the greatest percentage of its empty displacement - both overall, and for each type of armor (e.g. iron, compound, homogenous nickel steel, Harvey, Krupp non-cemented, Krupp cemented)? 2. What would an Italian-style money-is-no-object rebuild of older American or British battleships (such as the Wyomings, New Yorks, or [in a world where 1st London extends the building holiday but doesn't mandate additional scrappage] Floridas or Iron Dukes) look like and what would be the capabilities of these rebuilds? 3. A battleship's main armor belt needs to extend a considerable distance below the waterline, both to protect against diving shells and to ensure that a shell can't sneak in under the bottom of the armor even if the ship's rolled a significant angle away from the attacker. A battleship's torpedo-defense system needs to extend some distance above the waterline to ensure that everything below the waterline is protected even if the ship's rolled a significant angle towards the attacker or sitting somewhat low in the water due to flooding. As a result, the two need to overlap for some distance. However, belt armor is a Bad Thing to have in the path of a torpedo detonation (as large rigid plates are very good at transmitting the shock of the explosion of a torpedo's relatively-humongous warhead to the battleship's primary hull structure), while a TDS has little utility against armor-piercing shellfire (as battleship shells are much too heavy to be stopped by the TDS's liquid layers and can easily punch straight through its thin plating and bulkheads). How did battleships handle the problem of overlapping their belt armor and TDS without compromizing the effectiveness of either?
    1