| Displacement | Weight of armour | Weight of deck protection | Total | Length of ship | Beam | ||
| Battleships— | Tons | Tons | Tons | Feet | Feet | ||
| Monarch | British | 22,500 | 4,560 | 2,010 | 6,570 | 545 | 88½ |
| Kaiser | German | 24,410 | 5,430 | 3,130 | 8,560 | 564 | 95 |
| Battle Cruisers— | |||||||
| Queen Mary | British | 27,000 | 3,900 | 2,300 | 6,200 | 660 | 89 |
| Seydlitz | German | 24,610 | 5,200 | 2,400 | 7,600 | 656 | 93½ |
Note.—Similar comparisons between other ships of the same date would show similar results.
3. All German Dreadnoughts were provided with side armour to the upper deck;, whilst nine of the earliest British Dreadnoughts were provided with armour protection to the main deck only, thus rendering them far more open to artillery attack. The “Orion” class of battleship and the “Lion” class of battle cruiser, designed during my service at the Admiralty as Controller, were the first of our Dreadnoughts armoured to the upper deck.
4. The main belt and upper belt armour of the German ships was in nearly all cases thicker than in their British contemporaries, whilst the protection at the bow and stern was in all cases considerably greater in the German ships.
5. The deck protection in the German ships was usually greater than in the British vessels and the watertight subdivision more complete.
6. The German ships carried a greater number of submerged torpedo tubes than the British vessels.
BATTLE CRUISERS
1. The earlier German battle cruisers were of greater displacement than their British contemporaries.
2. The German ships carried a greater weight of armour than their British contemporaries.
3. Five out of our nine battle cruisers were without protection above the main deck, the whole of the German vessels being provided with protection to the upper deck.