The armor deck of 6" is basically what I was saying, the difference is the Class A armor for the deck is 4.75" and that is sandwhiched atop of 1.25" STS which comes to a total of 6".
The only thing that I dont agree with is on Janes specs on the Texas, I have copies of orignal documents from the construction and so far no verification on if the last minute changes were done or not. Texas had last minute changes calling for an additional 1" of armor everywheres upon her launch where her orignal design called for 12" belt armor in the orignal plans pre construction.
In the end it doesnt really matter cause its all speculation since finding the real specifications would require altering the warship to get the specs.
Its not that I think battleships were underbuilt. Its that I think the Iowa class was built just as good as all the other battleships. Theres some people I come across that act like the Iowa was a superbattleship that nothing could hurt her and nothing could sink her. With this recently located 1939 shell penetration chart for the Texas and her 14inch/45cal main guns, they could easily punch through Iowa`s 6" deck at maximum range. Like wise at mid range the same 14inch shells could punch through Iowa`s 12.1" belt armor at 26,000 yards.
I know Iowa had bigger guns and was a larger warship with a faster speed. But with that weight and speed comes a drawback. She consumed oil at twice the rate more efficient battleships did meaning her weight was mostly reserves for fuel oil cause she had to carry twice as much to meet the Navy`s combat radius. When you look at it like this, Iowa`s engines made 3 times the power Texas`s engines did, Iowa carried 2 times the fuel oil as Texas did, but Iowa couldnt travel the same distance on a full tank of fuel oil as Texas could at the most economical speed.
Iowa consumed 160 lbs per mile of oil at her most economical speed, Texas consumed just 90 lbs per mile of oil at her most economical speed. The speed difference for the two ships was just 3 knots. Texas`s most economical speed was 12 knots where Iowa`s was 15 knots.
So in closing I am not saying battleships in all are bad designs or underbuilt. I am just saying Iowa in my opinion is underbuilt based off the hype she gets from all these internet sources. Everywheres on the internet I see Iowa vs Yamato vs Bismarck and every one of those the speculation puts Iowa on top even though the Yamato would be a pain to sink considering she had hundreds of sealable compartments. From basic calculations it would take more ammunition than the Iowa carried of 16inch/50cal shells to sink Yamato.
When you look at it, Iowa has for the most part the same composition and the same thickness armor that battleships from 50 years earlier had. The only difference is the belt armor was angled to provide higher deflection rate making it act like thicker armor. Her deck armor was 4.75" backed by a 1.25" STS layer. Well a single 1939 spec 14inch/45cal AP shell would punch through Iowa`s 6" overall thickness deck at 36,000 yards easily. For such a new warship that is hyped up to be the end all of battleships the absololute most powerful and strongest armored one but yet a 14inch shell from 36,000 yards would tear through Iowa`s deck like paper. The 14inch shell at 36,000 hards could punch through 8" thick deck armor. So Iowa was new and shiney and clean but compromises were made in her armor to keep up speed which in my opinion makes her no different than battleships built at the turn of the century to when she was built in the 1940`s.
Besides all that the Battle Report, where would one find the five volumes for that book?
The other question I have is would the local library have tape reel copies of shipboard news papers? I know the name of most of the news papers printed aboard ship but a online search didnt bring up anything else and I would like to find all I can. The ones I currently have ranges from 1920 to 1936, and while their interesting, I am looking more for the ones printed during the 1940`s and if possible during the 1910`s.