Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "L20ea class - Guide 206 (NB)" video.

So the Germans were interested in quad turrets? That explains why, when the Germans overran the Fives-Lille works, which was working on components for the Normandie class quad turrets, the turret parts found their way to Krupp.
23
@bkjeong4302 comparable in what way? Later boilers were more powerful and light. Later protection schemes were more appropriate to the threat environment. We saw what happened when Bismark landed a golden BB on Hood. We saw what happened to Kirishima when it squared off against Washington. We see, in the modernizations of WWI ships, what parts of them were inadequate by 1930s standards. I did a thought exercise a while back about the French claiming the Mackensens as war reparations and completing them, instead of trying to lengthen and upengining the Normandies. The result was, by 1930s standards, a ship with short ranged guns, inadequate torpedo protection , only a single 50mm torpedo bulkhead 6m inboard from the hull, and an obsolete armor scheme, with 3 decks of only 25-30mm each. The French were better off with the Dunkerques.
1
@bkjeong4302 I agree, the hit on Hood was a golden BB, but the vulnerability was there. The Brits rained shells on Bismark for how long, and never found a vulnerability like that? Yes, Kirishima was even older than Hood, but had been modernized. Washington didn't find a vulnerability on it like Hood's, so shot it to bits the slow way. As someone else said upthread, there were not that many WWII engagements of WWI vs WWII BBs that came to a clear conclusion, one of them sinking. Washington vs Nagato or Littorio vs Queen Elizabeth, one on one, would have been interesting, but never happened.
1