Talk:Iowa/@comment-1915363-20160228033500/@comment-21356142-20160228081156

A far more likely reason for the stats is that the Yamato were far, far more heavily protected then the Iowa. Not only is the Yamato's armour a good third thicker then the Iowa's, and had a much smaller citadel, the Iowa's armoured belt was internal, meaning damage to the armour was not only costly and difficult to repair, but damage to the belt would cause localised flooding even with small calibre shells due to how the belt was designed. The decapping layer of the Iowa's armour scheme was far too thin to be effective, a feature that would have greatly increased her survivability. In addition the enlonging of the South Dakota's armour scheme to fit the Iowa's length gave her a very long and unprotected profile, in-line with the All-or-nothing armour scheme. The extensive use of STS plating in the interior areas would help protect the vulnerable extremities of the ship however would also very likely fuse any large calibre shells that would have otherwise overpenetrated.

The Iowa's high AA is likely due to her being equipped with twenty of the excellent 5/38 dual purpose guns and 40mm bofors. Although this was certainly not unique in the USN. In terms of historical performance the USS Missouri had an embaressing moment in 3 seperate cases within a week where she let single kamikazes fly through her AA barrage. One crashing into her, and another nearly hitting the USS Intepid

Fortunately Kancolle seems to weigh deck armour heavier then belt armour in their considerations so Bismarck and Veneto Vittorio class ships get to have fun in the 90s armour tier alongside Kongous.