What about deck slope, bulkhead slope? Incorporating modern ship concepts to BB design?

[Dannavy85]

How about at some point incorporating modern ideas like bulkhead sloping and deck slope into battleship designs like what a battleship would look and behave like if it were designed after the Zumwalt or the Metcaff strike ship designs?

[coalminer]

I assume you are referring to the DDG1000 class of ships? Those are sloped for radar signature purposes and not armouring purposes. A BB with a sloping scheme similar to these would suffer from reduced internal volumes and effective armour values due to the angle of incidence from plunging fire. Modern BBs (1940s~) would have encountered far more longer range plunging fire than horizontal shells which would come in at an angle and strike almost perpendicular to the plate if it were sloped like this.

Only good use of such inward slope/tumblehome designs for the purpose of increasing armour effectiveness would be early war/predreads where fights were at extremely close ranges and near horizontal impact angles (think CSS Virginia) to deflect oncoming shells.

As for sloping internal schemes, these are subject to great debate depending on sloping belt vs deck coverage (and the usual arguments for/against a turtleback armour scheme) and would be alot more complex affecting not only simply armour penetration chances and effectiveness against incoming fire but also influencing damaged stability, armoured raft and effects of the shell post penetration (e.g. reports of yamato's torpedo bulge causing the torpedo bulkhead and belt to puncture the holding bulkhead behind) or compromises to belt armouring schemes in favour of torpedo defense, reduced weight, etc.

However neither features are in game of advanced armour design or difference in citadel schemes besides being simply modifiers.