County-class armor provisions varied between batches and refits

One claim is that County-class treaty-era displacement left scope for later armor additions. A competing view cautions that the familiar claim of ships being fitted for armor without carrying it did not apply uniformly and that some ships never received the work. The reply argues that every batch allowed some method of adding protection, although the required modifications differed. In some cases, wider passages could provide space for internal armor. Actual completion depended on opportunities during refits and how long a cruiser could remain out of service. Provision for an alteration therefore has to be distinguished from proof that a particular ship received it.