We are a bit off topic here, so taking some posts into new topis will be welcome, I think, but I add repeat here.
... If muzzle velocity is that stated on Navweapons, then the 16"/L45 MkII had the slowest m.v. of the ships enumerated - so it is impossible to have more penetrating power , at least in vertical armor attacks. IN horizontal armor - yes.
Muzzle velocity and kinetic energy on impact is not most important value. It is important, but shell construction is as important as energy ( possibly even more – as HE shells could have higher energy, and clearly inferior penetrating power ).
Two different shells with the same kinetic energy and angle of impact can have very different penetrating power. To avoid any confusion – compare penetrating power of US super heavy shells from 1941 and 1945 design. Identical mass, ballistic and wast difference in penetrating power.
So if we add shell composition into picture we will see ( results from face Hard with standard ballistic for eah navy – I will be back to that ballistic )
Lion – penetration ( British armour plate ):
10 000 yards belt: 24.0”, deck 1,6”
20 000 yards belt: 17.6”, deck 3.3”
30 000 yards belt: 13.4”, deck 5,6”
10 000 yards belt: 22.6”, deck 1,3”
20 000 yards belt: 16.5”, deck 2.6”
30 000 yards belt: 12.1”, deck 4,0”
10 000 yards belt: 22.4”, deck 1,7”
20 000 yards belt: 16.7”, deck 3.5”
30 000 yards belt: 13.0”, deck 5,3”
So we can see. Belt penetration best Lion in all ranges. Deck on pair with Iowa. Slight less in short ranges, slight more in long.
H39 – in belt similar to Iowa, in shorter range slight better than Iowa, in longer slight worse. In deck worse in any range.
With ballistic for each navy.
Different propellant temperatures and different air resistance taken to ballistic tables.
In short – Americans used most worm propellant and less resistive air, so performance of they guns are overestimated to rest.
Germans used coolest propellant and the same ( more or less ) atmosfere as British.
Correction of MV with temperature is different in different navies ( due to different propellants ), but You can see tendency.
With the same initial parameters British and German guns will have flatter trajectory, with obvious consequences in penetration.
Middle of power secondary guns against surface targets
No, Lion had 16 x 133mm guns, versus Iowa 20x127mm guns and H-39 12x150mm guns and 16x105mm guns.
Iowa had poorest against surface secondary guns. Weakest shells and shortest range.
H39 had best with 12x15 cm guns. 10.5 cm You can easy dismiss against surface target in any practical engagement.
So I put H39 as best, Iowa as worst ( in case of secondary guns against surface targets )
Strognest light AA guns ( Iowa was designed with 12x28 only, we compare design or final configuration? )
... When Lion was (still) in design-phse, in 1943, Iowa was already in operations... Lion was stretched for many years on design...
Lion design was completed in late 1938 with 48x40 mm guns.
Design of Iowa that time was not even started. Actually Lion ( and H39 ) are closer to South Dakota in time of design.
The same speed as rest ( or slower than Iowa – depends which version we take
... Most sources give 28kts for Lion, 32kts for Iowa and 30kts for H-39.
What sources, what design of Lion and what condition. And when Iowa reach 32 knots? In "Nowaki incident"?
Design 1938/39. 30 knots with no forcing of boilers, continous sea speed with “normal” condition.
H39 – 30 knots max ( what about keeping max speed on Diesels? )
Iowa was designed with 32,5 knots max trial speed. What about designed continous sea speed?
Lion had the same armor citadel as KGV had...
Had stronger belt over machinery, barbettes and turrets.
It is at least dubious to say it was "best", in comparison with H-39 (80+120mm armored decks, 300+150mm+45mm vertical protection) and Iowa (total >200mm of armored decks, but in more layers, and vertical armor 37+310mm declined at 19*).
We counting all decks?
Lion from contract plans. Unfortunally my copy is poor quality so I don’t really know if weather deck was 60, 63 or 68 lbs. Say 60 ( thickenss from primary sources )
So we have:
38 mm + 150 mm + 12 mm + 13 mm + 38 mm = ~250 mm ( stronger in every aspect than Iowa )
38 + 125 + 12 + 13 = 188 mm ( worse than Iowa in backing of armour deck )
Iowa ( from primary sources )
38 + 120 + 32 + 13 = 203
H39 ( from G&D, as I don’t have primary soruce, in Breyer thickness is similar )
80 + ?? + 120 = 200 + something, say 220
50 + ?? + 100 = 150 + something, say 170
So in short sum of decks
H 39: 220
Practically Iowa had no such a thing as “machinery” as 5” magazines were above machienry spaces OVER last 13 mm deck so magazines of 5” shells/propellant were protected by only
38 + 120 + 32 = 190
If we add backing, so Iowa 310 + 22 backing. 19 degree.
Lion Magazines 380+20 backing inclined between 5 and 15 degrees. Depends on hull shape.
Machinery 350+20 backing vertical
H39: 300 external ( what backing? ) + slope 150 magazines, 120 machinery.
Armored percentage of citadel ?
Why not. Don’t forget armour height ( and thickness in that height ), and extension of armour forward and aft.
Also, the armored elements above the deck (turrets, con towers) were the least well protected in Lion.
Actually turrets last well were on H39. Lion had better protection of turrets than KGV. Clearly Iowa had best protected turrets.
In case of conning tower – yes. Lion had weakest protection of that position.
Exactly. Reserve power capacities is key when main power is ... lost.
When main power is lost, only diesel generator matters, as main power is lost, so no steam for generators.
H39 – clearly superior as is whole diesel powered
Iowa – 2 x 250 KW = 500 KW.
Lion – depends which version. First – 2x350 KW. Than 0 ( all turbogenerators only ) than 4x350 KW, so between 0 and 1400 KW
If I am not mistaken, the bomb penetrated the upper deck and burst on the main deck, no(?), which if I am again not mistaken is well above the waterline, so any purported 'hull holes' from that explosion would have had negligible effect (if they exist that is), until very, very, very, repeat very late in the game.
You right Bomb did not penetrate deck armour, so with no flooding condition will not generate any water ingress. But in very late part of action, when whole armour belt was submerged it added something to sinking.