Talk:General Discussion/@comment-5256985-20140819131103/@comment-25139231-20140822140155

i am sorry maybe i didn't express myself too well, i was not comparing the two armor but just using the bismark as an example to say that some technological solution greatly increase the performance of the ship in that case the armor, for comparison with other cruiser you can clearly see a lacking AA sistem only the mogami had fewer guns (that became even more lacking without radar and other newer AA equipment) also you are talking about the armament saying that it was good because there are many guns but you are not talking about their accuracy their fire rate their aiming sistem and the amno type that they used wich are very important things to know about weapons, for the armor i must say that yes it was thicker of most of other CA but if we talk about armor we must talk about enemy weapon armor penetration, in short  you can have all the armor you want but if enemy weapon get trough it it's only wasted material (and only a difference of 5mm is not that much more armor), i have to say though that englis cruiser in the mediterranean used the 152 as for main cannon forcing them to get close under enemy fire to be able to shot and even closer to be effective (here your 50 mm are usefull), but I also have to say that their lacking of radar and nightfighting training and equipment allow english to surprise attack them with battleship and at a range of 3.6 to 2.6 Km with the 381 mm (talking about battle of "capo matapan" and you can crearly imagine the captain of the english battleship screaming "where is your armor now!!!" from the bridge).

For the armament we have (taken from the hystorical naval almanac of the italian navy)

8  203/53 mm two fo each of the four turret 16 100/47 mm two per turret 6  40/49 mm 8   13,2 mm. 2 seaplanes

no torpedo as they were developed to fight the enemy at rang with canon