Macej wrote: "Slight advatage. ???"
yes I confirm: VERY slight (28 vs 32 km accepting your figures ? How many hits do you expect from 30 km ?) if compared to Bismarck belt+slope IZ that was (as per your note) immune at any distance over 2 km distance (vs.24 km for Vanguard)......
To be fair designs had to be comparable to others of similar size and date.
Problem of Vanguard was that she grow up seriously during wartime modifications. As all allied battleships. So comparing her in 1946 configuration is not co fair (both ways) to Bismarck 1941*.
But there is another British design similar in size to Bismarck, newer than Bismarck, but still pre war. Lion 1939.
See graph and make conclusion
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5vybj53sqrnx5 ... 9.jpg?dl=0
For me it is much difference, not “slight”
Problem with “Bismarck” armour scheme was heavier than AoN. If expected enemy is so armed that it is impossible to build working AoN scheme, there is no other choice but go to something like Bismarck.
But if it is possible to make AoN working – You have graph.
you wrote: "after two hits at that range Bismarck was over.....PoW with inferior scheme after 7 hits stayed"
Are we speaking of the same battle ? All hits (on both sides) were totally irrelevant to judge of the armor scheme, as they happened outside the citadel or were under the belt..... No hit "tested" the armor scheme as designed at DS battle.
Deck of PoW was hit by shell. 8” only, but still
Effect of the bow hit was very bad for Bismarck but NO modern battleship was armored in the bow.…
But other battleships had nothing such important in bow. Possibly for reason of more space in citadel?
The only weakness demonstrated was the shallow belt allowing an underwater hit.
Yes, and it was test of armour scheme. If scheme is such that such hit is possible (and detonation after hit) it is test of armour scheme. Scheme is such that not covers important areas.
PoW hits were ONLY 3 from 15" and
Or 4, one hit is not so obvious, but
NO ONE tested her armor scheme as well (in addition only 1 exploded well before touching the deck, the other two did not explode at all,
you wrote: "What huge machinery spaces? See compartmentation of KGV/Vanguard. "
What is the volume of an engine room or boiler room in Vanguard ? A shell exploding in a power plant compartment can easily affect other similar compartments as no protection (even against splinters) is provided between them and the flat trajectory can traverse the ship.
You have to be exact on traverse to make it work.
And it is not so clear. Graph shows only armour penetration (perforation to be exact).
After armour there were some plates, and closer to critical velocity exit speed would be not so much.
And after all – try some very late pdfs. Those graphs show border line as short cut about perforation/non perforation.
Later I added some “unknown area” based on kinetic energy, with US finding that shell with 80% KE compared to limit will with 90% probability not penetrate, and shell with 120% KE compared to limit with 90% will penetrated. Border become very large….
you wrote: " British were clever in 1891 when invented Renown/Majectic armour scheme – Bismarck was nothing more than repeat of that scheme"
You seem to ignore Dave's explanation about Bismarck scheme that is NOT the same even if it looks similar to old schemes. The slope of Majestic (as well as the slope of Hood) had not much influence on their IZ, it was there mainly to stop splinters, while Bismarck scheme has a completely different function, acting as a dual layer scheme that increases enormously the IZ.
If something is the same – than is the same.
And British description of 1919 scheme is clear.
*Both ways as comparing radars of Vanguard with radars of Bismarck will make British ship much better – but all is result of time, not British superiority. Same about fire control or AA guns.
But those improvements make mass of Vanguard larger, so if compare very selected part of design, not all overall, she will look worse, as become larger and larger (compared to 1939 design for example) and less armoured.