 One suggestion from C & R was to make the belt armor a load @-@ bearing member by connecting plates end to end . This was found inordinately difficult to be practical and , while it would have added girder strength where most badly needed , was considered too radical a proposition to be truly safe . Another idea , subsequently adopted , was to design the forecastle to break abaft the turrets . The challenge then became to continue the longitudinal strength contributed by the armored deck past this point to the end of the stern . This became a difficult design problem , especially with the need to save weight wherever possible and the fact that light structural members combined with heavy armament weight had become a source of grief for the British . One proposed solution was to use a combination of three decks — a strength deck at the top of the hull , a protective deck which would rest atop the belt armor , 10 feet ( 3 @.@ 0 m ) above the waterline , and a splinter deck below that , just above the waterline . A third idea , also adopted , was to continue the longitudinal bulkhead between the protective and splinter decks down to the bottom of the ship to add strength . The severity of the strength and weight challenges necessitated a larger displacement of 33 @,@ 000 tons and a hull of 850 feet ( 260 m ) instead of 800 feet ( 240 m ) to give enough internal volume to accommodate all the needed machinery . Even so , the size of the power plant meant pushing the main turrets further toward the ends of the ships , which increased hull stress . This was why the idea was adopted to place half the boilers above the armored deck . 
