Turbo-electric also eliminated vulnerable steam lines and offered much quicker reverse power. Reduction gearing was already well established by this point. I bring up turbo electric not because it uses turbines, but for the discontinuity between the liberation of energy from fuel and the application of motive force to the environment. There's an intermediate (here an electric motor) between the two steps. Had diesels been mature enough in 1918, they would've been a good pick, though heavier. Prinzregent Luitpold had some diesels (I guess it would be what, CODAS?). Large warship sole-diesel drive weren't introduced until the Panzerschiffe, and it's instructive that the Germans did not think the state of the art advanced enough to make Scharnhorst and Bismarck motorships, instead going with higher performance steam.
"Regarding that first one, as well as your last quote of me in this block, I think I misstated my point. Yes, overall the additional surface facings of turrets, superstructure, greebles, etc. are minimal on the overall surface area of the ship, and that surface area is much more closely related to the volume and general geometry of the ship. My point here is that handling those greebles, whether the shield is somewhat Star Trek-esque in that it's a standoff bubble around the ship at some arbitrary distance or more directly on the surface, they do add additional area, and more importantly, additional geometry. I can only assume that shields will act similarly to armor, and not at all be happy about corners or sharp angles. (Upon a mental consultation, shields are probably effectively surface hugging, given the distance at which we saw Rebel fighters skim Intimidator and Persecutor in Rogue One, and the range at which the Millenium Falcon evaded the Avenger by skimming her bridge in the Hoth asteriod belt and the Executor by flying down her beam trench at Cloud City.) My point here isn't that necessarily Executor's armor or shields are actually stronger than Wrath's, but that the latter has the more complex geometry that will create more weak points that can be targeted than Executor (excepting that cityscape some moron slapped down her dorsal area). In particular, Wrath's weapon mounts mark areas where the armor has to be compromised, in order for power to reach those weapons. Now, I can only expect she mounts heavy turret armor and barbettes like naval battleships before her, but well aimed fire still poses a sizable threat to those points. I do see how that point got lost in translation between my head and the keyboard though."
For guns, weapons fire proceeds through rapidly flickered on-and-off shield windows - I don't think turrets protrude from the shielding. The relative efficacy of armor seems to be quite low also compared to shields.
I don't think shields work like that around corners. Even if they do, I doubt those corners would be targetable when ships are manuevering at range. It goes down to how shields work in SW, which is poorly defined. My personal thinking is that shields are slightly stand off from the hull, and projected in panels that can be angled for deflection, and occasionally might open some gaps for fighters to exploit. So I don't think there is a...fractal calculation in surface area for shields, as in things like rivets get their total area summed for shields. Even things like deckhouses etc. probably aren't; I don't think every corner is important, otherwise ships would never have major surface protrusions and just be perfect geometrical solids - why even risk such a fundamental element of warship capability as survival under fire? Also, if we are measuring on a total surface area basis (all greebles and such), Executor is much much higher area.
And while we're at surface area, here's a very simplified example. The box on the left and the box on the right have exactly the same volume. The box on the left however has over 2x the surface area as the one on the right. So if we assume that shielding directly depends on power (assuming same number of generators and such), and that reactor size is dependent on internal volume, that means that the flatter box has half the shielding (in terms of power/area) than the box on the right. Same volume, dramatically different surface (and shielding) area. If those boxes were the size of star dreadnoughts, then a heavy turbolaser turret is the size of the small red box on the surface of the box to the left. Do you see it? The difference in surface area between the two big hull shapes is about...15 THOUSAND turrets. It's not a coincidence that I'm choosing a long, wide, thin, flat shape compared to a shorter compact shape - it is similar in principle to the hull form differences of Executor vs Wrath.
My scaling curves from existing size comparisons suggest that hypermatter reactors are more efficient (in terms of power/volume) as they get bigger volume wise. So an identical volume high surface area shape is also less able to mount very high volume reactors, compounding its survivability issues.
Let's get back to Executor/Wrath for a moment. I think Executor is prettier, but I absolutely do expect Wrath to win. It's just not a hill I'm willing to die on, since I don't know exactly what Executor can do. But I do estimate Wrath is producing about twice the power of Executor, on a hull form that should be more efficient for shielding by about 2x. This depends on what you think Executor is packing reactor wise. I don't expect the difference in power to diverge too much from 2x, but Wrath will have a substantial (if not necessarily overwhelming) advantage in power, and thus firepower, and thus shielding, compounded by hull form advantages. In real life terms I think Executor is a battlecruiser - lethal vs everything smaller because of its speed and firepower, but not so good vs its own size ship, in this case because there really aren't any in the same size group until stuff like Wrath and Sovereign/Eclipse come around.
Modern ships seem to be moving towards distributed lethality, with things like CEC and mass Kalibr shooters showing up in different places. But in the real world, no ship can take a hit from the best wweapons available (say a tactical nuke). SW however I think drives ships bigger vs equivalent firepower in a swarm of small ships. Why? Shields. If a ship isn't killed outright, then all it has suffered is shield depletion, and after cooling it is usable again. In a big ship vs a swarm fight, with the same aggregate firepower on each side, the big ship might kill a proportion of the swarm with each exchange of fire (for Executor or Wrath vs ISDs we're talking maybe 200-400:1 for a single ship exchange, so gross overkill per volley). At a reasonable but not 100% hit rate, the dreadnought is never driven past its dissipation rate or shield surge capacity, but a small ship in the swarm gets overwhelmed and destroyed. It breaks Lanchester's relationship quite badly, because one side never loses shooters. So ships get bigger so that they can provide the overmatch in this type of situation.
Also, if you like Bellator, you might want to see my latest renders: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/oeOxm