Comments on: On American Armour

By: ramp4ge

ramp4ge — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:41:33 +0000

Iowa’s protection was far from “mediocre”. It wasn’t designed to be protected against it’s own armament. It was designed to be protected against the 16″/45 Mk6. It’s actual effective armor layout (Which was very similar to the South Dakota) was one of the best in the world. Especially over vitals. Remember, Iowa had a ‘modified’ All-Or-Nothing armor scheme. Protection was prioritized over vitals. Like the turret faces. And the turret faces are just ridiculous.

1v1 Yamato, Iowa never would’ve even gotten hit. It had the speed advantage, it had the effective range advantage. Iowa would’ve dictated the fight up one side and down the other. Yamato would’ve been helpless. Then you factor in Yamato’s inferior armor quality and the fact that the 2,700lb Superheavy AP was just as good as Yamato’s 18.1″ AP and, well…

Montana corrected nothing. Montana was simply designed to be able to be protected against it’s own armament. And it probably would’ve failed at this. Because the 16″/50 Mk7 with Superheavy AP is awesome.

By: Thor_Hammerschlag

Thor_Hammerschlag — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 08:45:56 +0000

Do You have a source?

By: wan2tri

wan2tri — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 07:39:47 +0000

I agree. Look at how the Yamato easily dismantled mere destroyers and destroyer escorts which doesn’t have any meaningful armor at all. Oh wait.

They had to switch to explosive rounds because the armor is too thin to trigger detonation in the AP shells, they just made holes along the side of the DDs and DEs (and in some cases even comes out through the other side LOL). And as far as can be confirmed it was the cruisers and torpedoes from the destroyers that eventually sunk the “tin cans”, rather than the biggest battleship afloat.

By: themightyvoice

themightyvoice — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 02:01:48 +0000

lul dai assmad that no one cares about his weak ass weeb shit.

By: meangeanssn756

meangeanssn756 — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 00:53:05 +0000

The Iowa class had very mediocre armor layout. They had to reduce the weight so that it could keep up with the carriers. I know a fellow that has made a life long study of the Iowa class. It is his belief that if it 1 v 1 a Yamato it would have suffered badly. The Montana class was designed to correct this.

By: EnsignExpendable

EnsignExpendable — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 18:54:53 +0000

And how would you analyze this information, pray tell?

By: ramp4ge

ramp4ge — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 18:54:34 +0000

It’s often believed that it wasn’t the steel plates that cracked/shattered, but the rivets. The iceburg overstressed the rivets and caused them to sheer, which opened up seams in the steel plates.

By: EnsignExpendable

EnsignExpendable — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 18:54:12 +0000

2 pdr shells had abysmal build quality. Against 37 and 45 mm guns, German armour fared very poorly. As for 6 pounders, they didn’t have any problems with thin armour, surface hardened or not.

By: ramp4ge

ramp4ge — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 18:50:46 +0000

Also, remember that welding on that large a scale was also very, very new. Liberty Ships were some of the largest all-welded objects ever produced up until that time. Especially using the techniques that were used to speed up the production.

The solution was very American. Gigantic steel belts to hold it all together.

By: ramp4ge

ramp4ge — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 18:49:19 +0000

The armor in the belt and turret faces of the Iowa-class ships is generally considered by metallurgists to be some of the highest quality steel ever produced by mankind, ever.

US naval steel has always been of very good quality. And armor layouts, from the Nevada-class onward, were generally superior to anything else in the world. The US’s modified “All-or-nothing” concept worked well.