Having more protected length does not mean being better protected if the thickness is insufficient. There is an interesting quote from Nathan Okun. If you haven`t read his article you should do it.
Why are NC and SoDak excluded?
"... Since then, I have learned more about various armors and
projectiles, as can be seen in the latest versions of my programs at
http://www.warships1.com or
http://www.combinedfleet.com. These results have forced me to downgrade BISMARCK's armor significantly -- the belt plus sloped deck at the waterline turns out to be much less protective than I originally thought since I now have the re-evaluated the effectiveness of German WWII naval Wh homogeneous armor and have discovered that the brittleness of this material (as indicated by a Percent Elongation before it snaps in two in tests of
only 18-20% (18% is the Krupp spec) compared to the better homogenous British NCA and U.S. STS/Class "B" armors at 25% or more) makes it significantly inferior against large-size projectiles, though against projectile 8" (203mm) and less, there is no penalty, to my knowledge. This
is reflected in the German Navy's "G.Kdos. 100" armor penetration tables developed by Krupp in 1940, not just by my own evaluations, which confirm them."
"... As I said above, I have learned more and some of
the things I said are no longer correct, but in almost all cases this makes BISMARCK worse and worse as a warship by WWII standards -- I rate it as a battle-cruiser, not a true battleship, by the criteria of having ranges where it would be at least partially invulnerable to enemy fire being the mark of a battleship and very little of BISMARCK can resist any enemy battleship fire of any WWII warship at any range. Use the German G.Kdos. 100 penetration tables and try to find ranges where anything but that narrow waterline area is immune to its own guns (to say nothing of foreign guns); you will not find any areas of the ship that are protected at any useful range, much at no range zone whatsoever. Turrets, barbettes, upper hull, conning towers, whatever; all the armor on BISMARCK is essentially useless at any range against any enemy if they get direct hits on those parts of the ship.
Thus, aside from some details, the results of that article still stand.
Nathan Okun"
Do not be so reliant on individual sources. Although Nathan's work is highly accurate, I have found some glaring contradiction in his conclusions. Either contradicting himself or 'the official' records he so often quotes from. This statement above is completely refuted by his own programs!
For instance below is early attempt to gather information on the little known 53cm/52 gerat 36 cannon in which he included a simulated 2,200 kg ap shell
it contradicts some of the above quote. The Wh is based on the premise that the backing material of Kcna is equivalent to Wh ( source one of Nathan's essays) note there are some errors in gun data but that does not effect the point I am making.I am using Nathan's latest penetration program.
Armor penetration (mm)
main belt deck
elev (degs)range (m) Striking Velocity (m/s) Angle of Fall T in F Wh / Kcna class A Wh / Kcna Class A
2 -----------4572 --- -----758-----------------------2.2-----------5.7-------- 863.6 / 990------1092.2 -- --
4 ------------9144---------700-----------------------4.72---------12.00-------787.4 / 876.3----965.2 -- --
5------------1371----------641-----------------------5.0----------18.80 -------685.8 / 762------ 863.6 -- --
8-----------18288----------586-----------------------8.4----------26.30-------609.6 / 685.8----762 -- --
11----------22860---------534----------------------12.54---------34.50-------533.4 / 584.2----609.6 -- --
14----------27432---------484----------------------17.58---------43.40-------431.8 / 508-------533.4 -- --
19----------32004---------437----------------------23.55---------53.40------355.6 / 406.4------457.2 -- --
22----------36576---------394----------------------34.44---------64.40------254.0 / 304.8------355.5--------154.0 / 154.0 ---101.6
27----------41148---------352----------------------38.00---------76.60------254.0 / 177.8------254---------- 152.4 / 177.8----190.5
35----------47500---------309----------------------58.4-----------96.00-----101.6 / 101.6------127
shell weight 4850lb 2200kg
M.V. =820 m/s
The figures represent Max armour PENETRATION of viable shell; complete penetration ; Not the minimum resistance figure .
Although class B is not simulated, other statements indicate that Class b armour failed when used as side armour as it cracked due to been too brittle. According to ANY source, brittle armour was, and still is, considered inferior in performance.I have unfortunately seen a certain bias against German ships when been compared to others by this author. The Statement above ignores established industry standards used in multiple naval shipyards across the globe. The 'standard armor used in comparison test was Kc armour made by Krupp.
The comparison stats 100mm Kcna = 80mm Wh = 60mm Ww. check out the stats on this site if you like.
I hate ship class comparisons that exist because they uniformly fail to 'standardize' each class of ships armour before any comparison is carried out.Nor do they
consider 'when' the ship was designed. For any comparisons between the Bismarck and Iowa is pointless as the Bismarck was not designed with the Iowa in mind. North Carolina comparison would be closer when done with the h39 class.
At to the last passage it just proves that a rocket scientist should stick playing with what he knows, rocketss; He knows absolute jack about armoured warship design. Experts; ex=has been; spert= drip under pressure, god saves from them!