Inclined side armor

Inclined side armor for fast ships has always seemed like a sensible and effective measure. The primary argument against inclined side armor is that it compromises the anti-torpedo measures. The best anti-torpedo protection is to use the system used for the American battleships like the West Virginia. There are a series of longitudinal voids and bulkheads, with an armored bulkhead at some distance from the side. Beyond that might be another bulkhead, in case the armored bulkhead has been breached. I had a design for a fast battlecruiser that included inclined side armor. The displacement was to be 25,000 tons, the armament would be 8-12in/45 and 12-4in/50 QF guns. The side armor would be 4in, but inclined outward. I would have divided the hold into thirds, longitudinally. The A/T bulkhead would be 1-1/2in, and with 2in on the "slopes". That connected with a 2in deck. The 2in deck was 3 feet above the waterline. The 4in belt was two decks high, but was 18 feet wide, due to the inclination. The upper deck, on top of the belt was to be 3in. The originally planned speed was to be 32 knots, but I kept hoping for higher. Almost immediately, I hoped for 33 knots. The power was designed to be 120,000 SHP, but an overload of 144,000 SHP was wished for. Since the dimensions were length = 800ft, beam = 85ft, and draft = 25.6ft, I can believe that a good speed would have been possible. I see that my revised armament replaced the 4in guns with 8-6in/50. My original weight breakdown was: hull: 11,250 tons machinery: 8,580 tons armament: 955 tons miscellaneous: 2000 tons (8% for aux. mach., etc.) protection: 2,215 tons. I can see from the original sketch that the armor decks would be VERY short in length. The "citidal" would be 425 ft long in an 800ft long ship.