During WW I, the battlecruiser losses for the British were due to the German battlecruiser fire, not the battleships. Â And the losses were not attributed to the light armour, but flash in the magazines. Â The Germans discovered this problem previously and fixed it, which is why they didn’t suffer the same battlecruiser losses.
And there were a number of battlecruiser vs battleship battles. Â I agree that battlecruisers are vulnerable to plunging fire, but at long ranges. Â Medium to close range they are the equal to a battleship in fire power and side armour.
Scharnhorst vs Duke of York and Kirishima vs Washington and South Dakota are just 2 battles off the top of my head where there was a battlecruiser vs a battleship. Â Thin deck armour was not a factor in either battle. Â One was a lucky hit, and the other had the wrong type of shell was surprised and overwhelmed.
My point is that Hood was one of the world’s most powerful capital ships, and at the time, easily the most recognizable British ship. It’s loss was tragic, but that should not prejudice the ship against being chosen as a representative of the British capital ships over a lucky hit. How many other capital ships were lost due to lucky hits? Bismarck, just to name 1.
Hood was, after all flagship of the British Home Fleet.