Dilandu wrote:lyonheart wrote:Hi Dilandu,
Yup, that's what RFC posted long ago; the KH VII's are armored cruisers circa 1890-95, not 1907 dreadnoughts.
Well, actually there aren't direct analogue in real navy. And in 1890th their construction would be somewhat obsolete. Many armored cruisers of 1890 have a full waterline armoured belt, not citadel - simply to be able to mantain speed if they were hit. But for Earth armoured cruiser, their speed was a matter of survival, not some luxurity.
So, actually the "King Haarald"'s may be some sort of fast battleships (or "vanguard" battleships): their speed is less actual for them than the ability to windstand fire and stay oceanworthy.
That was, actually, the main difference between British and french conceptions of 1880-1890. The Royal Navy wanted for their battleship to stay afloat even with unarmoured ends are shattered, but any damage in the ends near waterline would greatly reduce speed. So, they make a citadel armour scheme. The french navy wanted for their battleship to be able to mantain full speed even it their unarmoured sides are shattered; so, they stay with full waterline belt. IMHO, for the Mediterranian Sea and Channel - were the french navy would be supposed to engage the enemy - the full armoured belt on the waterline would work better than the british citadel.
P.S. An important question: of what material KH's armored belt is made? Only iron, iron-steel compound, of some sort of Creusot steel?
That's been answered a time or dozen. In fact, it was part of my response to one of your criticisms of the design. They use "Howsmynized steel," which is basically Harvey nickel steel, with Krupp Cemented being held in reserve for after someone else "steals" the Howsymn process.