Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "HMS Hood & USS Iowa - Battlecruisers or Fast Battleships?" video.

@johnshepherd8687 as luck would have it, somehow, a side by side cross section drawing of QE and Hood found it's way into my files. I don't know how accurate it is. From the bottom up, QE's side armor was 13", a 6" strake. and a second 6" strake, ending at the main deck. Hood had a 12" strake, 7" strake, and a 5" strake, all angled. QE had a 1" main deck, 2" one deck below, then 1" two decks farther down. Hood had 2" on the main deck, 0.75 to 1" one deck below, 2" one deck farther down outboard, with a 1" vertical bulkhead, then 1.5" deck inboard. So, yes, assuming the drawing is accurate, and allowing for the greater effectiveness of sloped armor, Hood was pretty close to being as well protected as a QE.
2
@myrecreationalchannel7181 that concept, "armored against it's own guns" always amused me. Who shoots at themself? What matters is how it holds up against fire from it's likely opponents.
2
@stephenknowles1420 Yes, the classifications can get confused at the extremes. I have always heard the Alaskas referred to as cruisers. When the Dunkerque's were designed, the UK had been pressing for lowered tonnage and gun size limits in the treaty system, and was reportedly pleased that the French designed well below the treaty limits. Of course, then Italy laid down the Littorios, a treaty-max (plus some) design, and France realized it had made a mistake. When Alaska was designed, there were no limits, as the treaty system had collapsed, and no-one was building a capital ship with main guns smaller than 14". So at the time of her design, Alaska was too undersized, under armed, and under protected, to be any sort of capital ship.
2
@stephenknowles1420 my opinion is worth what you paid for it :) I have held that the Deutschlands were the last of the armored cruisers. Nothing is battleship grade, not the armor, not the armament, not the displacement, nor are they as fast as treaty cruisers or battle cruisers of the same vintage. Dunkerque is, by my measure, a battlecruiser: big guns, and a glass jaw, with it's 8.9" belt. Scharnhorst, with it's 13.8" belt, I view as a BB, if an under gunned one, because it can hold up fairly well to fire from a BB. Scharn certainly took a lot of punishment before it finally went down, while Dunkerque was disabled by only four hits from Hood, two of which penetrated it's main belt.
1
May as well throw my two cents in. Armament and speed are shifting targets as technology develops. The only possible, durable, definition is protection against capital ship size guns of the same era. The NCs may not be "protected against their own guns", as built, but they can stand up to a KGV fairly well. A ship that can withstand nothing more than heavy cruiser fire at reasonable combat ranges is not a battleship. On the strength of Hood's 12" belt, as skimpy as it is, she is a fast battleship, as she can take capital ship fire, if hit in the right place.
1
@Tepid24 according to Wiki, Dunkerque only had an 8.9" belt, vulnerable to anything larger than a heavy cruiser. Scharnhorst has a 13.8" belt, so a battleship, even though underarmed, because it can take fire from something like a KGV, to a point. I read that Scharnhorst took 13 hits from Duke of York, 12 from the cruisers and 11 torpedoes. Dunkerque was disabled by only 4 hits from Hood, two of which penetrated her main belt. In open ocean, Dunkerque would have been a goner. 1v1 with Hood.
1
@Tepid24 as you said, you are looking at the extremes, not the average BB "gun of the era", which would be the basis for the definition. Dunkerque and Scharnhorst were not of Renown's era, but 20 years newer too. It appears that Renown, in 1930s configuration, had a 9" belt. The guns of Dunkerque and Scharnhorst could easily punch through. Navweaps shows the French 13" penetrating 11.48" at over 30,000 and Scharn's 11" penetrating 11.47" at 20,000. On the other hand, Renown's 15" could penetrate Dunkerque's 8.9" at 30,000 yards, but would need to get within 15,000 to penetrate Scharnhorst. A KGV could punch through Renown or Dunkerque at 25,000, but, again would need to close to under 15,000 to penetrate the strongest part of Scharnhorst. fwiw, at North Cape, Duke of York opened fire at less than 12,000, By my measure, Renown and Dunkerque were both battlecruisers, because they are so vulnerable, while Scharnhorst is a BB, even though underarmed.
1
@Tepid24 I agree with everything you said. You highlighted the variables that intrude on theory. Variables are not predictable however, like the two hits that Gneisenau scored on Renown early on both being duds, while 25 years of experience with the 15"/42 produced reliable results.
1