I’m going to revise what I said earlier about relative deck thickness, somehow I got either bad values or reversed them–I’m still scratching my head as to how I did that. I don’t believe the Bayern was at a disadvantage with respect to deck thickness, and depending on precise locations of armor/magazines it might have had an advantage.
I could dig into this further, but based on what I’ve read, particularly postwar evaluation of the Bayern by the British, I would select the Bayern as the best of the lot. There are several reasons for my choice:
1. The slightly thicker armor on the Bayern for the main belt and turret faces, and what looks like a better overall scheme to my eye.
2. German propellant was less volatile and less prone to explosive deflagration that would destroy the ship, rather than just a turret in the event of a magazine hit.
3. The German rangefinder seems to have been better suited for the North Atlantic, a difference in the optical design. It might not have been as sophisticated in some ways, but it could produce a solution more readily–the right tool for the time and place.
4. German boats proved more durable to battle damage, even the more lightly armoured battlecruisers that were terribly damaged at Jutland made it home with help.
5. The Brits had design/handling issues with the magazines of their secondary armament that was causing breaches to the main magazines.
6. The German 15" guns had 23 second cycle time in British tests, vs. 36 seconds for the UK’s 15".
I won’t swear that all of these points are correct or that I haven’t made further errors, but I think there is enough weight of evidence that even if I’m wrong on 1 or 2 of the points it won’t change the outcome.
