SMS Tiger

[Desertfox]

Except for the fact that the ships that have seen battle have NOT been the most heavily armored...

[miketr]

In the Balkan War the battleships had 11", 11.8", 12" and 13" mainbelts.  What do you view as being heavily armored?

Michael

[The Rock Doctor]

Friedrich der Grosse and Antares went down due to gunfire, so that's two I can think of.

[Desertfox]

The Swiss ships (which I'm more familiar with) saw quite a bit of combat and most of them were not heavily armored.

FG was grossly overmatched, and I think she also took a torpedo. Antares was a heavy cruiser with a 7" belt and she ran into the entire Dutch battleline.Armor was irrelevant in the loss of either of the two ships. Constitution (9" belt) has collected quite a bit of hits in two wars (20+ <12" in 1stPW) (13 12" in 2ndPW). Strangely it was the ships with the heaviest armor who came closest to blowing up (Dutch BB, 14"+ armor), (Scharnhorts, 11.8" armor).

EDIT: I just thought of something, its ironic that the Germans who came closest to having one of their ships blow up are the ones going the less armor, more speed route. While the Swiss, whose armor worked just fine are going the less speed, more armor route!

[Korpen]

The Swiss ships (which I'm more familiar with) saw quite a bit of combat and most of them were not heavily armored.

FG was grossly overmatched, and I think she also took a torpedo. Antares was a heavy cruiser with a 7" belt and she ran into the entire Dutch battleline.Armor was irrelevant in the loss of either of the two ships. Constitution (9" belt) has collected quite a bit of hits in two wars (20+ <12" in 1stPW) (13 12" in 2ndPW). Strangely it was the ships with the heaviest armor who came closest to blowing up (Dutch BB, 14"+ armor), (Scharnhorts, 11.8" armor).

EDIT: I just thought of something, its ironic that the Germans who came closest to having one of their ships blow up are the ones going the less armor, more speed route. While the Swiss, whose armor worked just fine are going the less speed, more armor route!

The only Dutch ship that was ever in any risk of blowing up was Flandern, and she was far from the most heavily armoured. But that is beside the point.
I think you analysis I lacking one important point, what were the swiss ships shot at with?
For most of the war the Netherlands had only six 30cm guns at sea, and they were not of the most modern type. Most of the guns carried by Dutch ships were 21 (old) or 24cm guns, and they were not using caped shells. This allowed swiss medium armour to function quite well.
Compare that to five years later and six 30cm guns have become 24 in addition to 22 35cm guns...
What is "heavy" armour will always be relative what for of firepower ships carry, if 24cm guns is standard then 20cm armour would be quite heavy.

The Netherlands is not so much reducing armour as increasing firepower... :)

[Desertfox]

Constitution and Alliance (both 9" armor) faced Scharnhorts (12" guns) and P.D. (13" guns), both of them having modern guns.

[The Rock Doctor]

Korpen:  as an addendum, the DKB was also using 24 cm guns on the battleships it lost in fleet actions.

Foxy, your argument is somewhat circular.  Both sides in 1PW, and the Swiss side in 2PW, was heavily skewed towards mass torpedo attack; it is no surprise, then, that torpedoes were partly or wholly responsible for the loss of many of the ships those navies sunk.

Paderborn-Delbruck had 13"/35 caliber guns:  not at all modern.

Scharnhorst did not sink C&A, but she did decisively defeat them, despite being outgunned and outmassed by the two of them.  Had there been a second comparable ship alongside Scharnhorst, I think both Swiss ships would have been sunk.

Just as new capital ships account for increased torpedo lethality with better stability reserves, torpedo bulkheads and (for the most part) heavier secondary batteries, they must also account for the much heavier, longer-ranged, and more accurate capital ship batteries through heavier armor protection and better escorts.