Hi Thorsten, hi Marc,I do thank you both so much
for the information !
To my surprise, they confirm the data in M.J.Whitley's very good book (see scheme below, unfortunately very partial from the Italian version), that I had not trusted (regarding these figures at least) until now.....
and they totally contradict some "sacred" texts like Koop-Schmolke and Garzke-Dulin (among the others... e.g. Bredemeier, etc.). Groner too (even if I cannot read him) seems to give quite different figures.Main belt
is described by all authors I have seen (except Whitley) as 350 mm KC (indeed surprisingly thick) and only Garze-Dulin say it was 320 mm KC in the text, while including sections at various frames with thickness = 350 KC, therefore I guessed they just made a mistake in the text. Only Whitley underlines that it was 320 mm instead of 350 mm.....
Could you please tell me what is the primary source for the 320 mm thickness ?Slopes
: here both Garzke-Dulin and Koop-Schmolke say 110 mm slopes at turret "A" and "B" (105 mm at turret "C" for Koop_Schmolke).
Wasn't the slope augmented fore (possibly to compensate the increased inclination of the slope due to the narrow bow) ? Armored deck
: for the deck over machinery, almost no doubt 80 mm Wh, in the central part, but for the horizontal side part before the slope authors are divided between 80mm and 95mm. Only Whitley says 105 mm (equal to the slope, that is quite surprising as the slope presents a worse inclination to an incoming shell....)
Could you please give me some more info about the source to be used (and how I could possibly get it) ?
Finally, only Whitley is correct about the longitudinal bulkhead
protecting machinery (40mm) and the (surprisingly thin) upper "belt"
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)