A few errors there Ballastanksian!
I would agree that the later RN battleships were pretty good designs. They were very heavily armoured, significantly more so than the later US ships but the KGV class carried a lighter main armament to compensate. Prince of Wales was unlucky in that the torpedo hit on her prop shaft distorted it and opened up much of the after part of the ship to the sea. She still took a lot of further punishment before she went down though.
Vanguard may have had an older main armament but the 15 inch mounting, first installed in the Queen Elizabeth class, was a superb weapon and probably better than the later 16 inch in Rodney and Nelson and the 14 inch on the KGVs. The shells were a lot less than one ton though, 1,900lb as against 2240lb.
Bismarck was never the wonder ship that many people have claimed. She was based upon the WW1 Baden design. Her belt armour was around 12 inches compared with nearly 15 inches on the KGV class and had significant design weaknesses which included a wasteful three tier armament, vital communications running above the main armour deck which were vulnerable to incoming fire while the stern, like many other German warships of the period, incorporated a structural discontinuity which tended to make it break off as occurred when she sank. In the final action HMS Rodney, a much earlier and superior design, rapidly took her apart. Her saving grace was her size and compartmentation which made her difficult to sink even after she had been demolished as a fighting unit. It has been said that Bismarck was nowhere near as superior to Hood as has been suggested. Both ships were vulnerable to plunging fire but Bismarck was lucky.
The Nelsons did have their six inch secondary armament in turrets, albeit not armoured.
The dual purpose guns on the refitted battleships and carriers were 4.5 inch, not 4.7.
The Bofors guns were certainly better than the Pompoms but I don't think they were generally available when the latter were fitted.
Cheers,
Colin