Military Review

"Standard" battleships of the USA, Germany and England. American "Pennsylvania". H. 3

114
So, in the last part of the cycle, we completed a description of the armament of battleships like “Pennsylvania - it's time to move on.


Reservation


Battleship "Pennsylvania" aerial view


It would seem that it is a pleasure to describe the armor protection system of American standard battleships, because, unlike their European counterparts, it should be much simpler and more understandable. It is all the more strange that, perhaps, the author of this article has the most questions regarding the booking of Pennsylvania type battleships: available information is very contradictory.

Usually the following explanation explains the story of the American battleship reservation system. The US admirals saw Japan as their main adversary, building a very powerful linear fleet, with which the US Navy was to meet in the tropical regions of the Pacific Ocean, which are characterized by excellent visibility.

From here the American naval thought drew some fairly obvious conclusions. The battles will take place at distances that have been considered enormous to this day, and the enemy ships will be bombarded with a hail of high-explosive shells in the same way as the Japanese Imperial fleet in Tsushima did not succeed: no fire control system can provide the required number of hits. If so, preference should be given to armor-piercing shells of heavy weapons, capable, with a successful hit, to cause decisive damage to an armored target. The Americans believed that the Japanese saw the situation in the same way as they did, and “Pacific Armageddon” would be reduced to a battle of battleships that showered each other with armor-piercing projectiles from a distance of 8-9 for miles, or maybe more. For protection in such a battle, the “all or nothing” booking scheme was best suited to protect the machines, boilers and main-caliber guns with the strongest armor possible. All the rest was worth not booking at all so that the ship would have a good chance to “pass through” the enemy shell without detonating it. Indeed, a relatively “tight” fuse of an armor-piercing projectile could not be bobbed if the latter, passing from side to side, did not meet an armored plate in his way, broke through only a few steel bulkheads.

Accordingly, in the perception of many, the armor protection of American battleships looks like such a rectangular box of powerful armor plates, covered on top with thick armored decking, and leaving the tip unarmored.


Alas, this is an erroneous scheme


But in reality this is not so: if only because the defense of the hull of the battleships of the type “Oklahoma” and “Pennsylvania” consisted not of one box, but of two. But first things first.

The basis of the protection of the Pennsylvania type of battleships was a very large length of the citadel. According to A.V. Mandel and V.V. The length of the main armor of the “Pennsylvania” was 125 m. 130,46-th tower. It is worth noting one important feature of American battleships: their creators considered it necessary to protect not only cars, boilers and powder cellars of main-caliber guns with a citadel (as we already know, Americans kept the main supply of projectiles in barbats and towers), but also underwater torpedo tubes. On battleships of the type “Oklahoma”, the project 24 of the traverse torpedo tubes was provided for, they were placed immediately in front of the barbat of the 4 tower of the main caliber and after the barbat of the 4 tower, adjoining them closely. That is why the “Oklahoma” citadel and “dropped in” behind the barbettes of these towers in the stern and bow. As for the Pennsylvania type of battleships, on these ships it was decided to abandon the stern pair of torpedo tubes, leaving only the bow, but did not shorten the citadel.

It must be said that the citadel of the American battleships was very long: given that the length of the “Pennsylvania” at the waterline was 182,9 m, the main armor belt defended 71,3% (68,3%, if relative to the length of the armor belt AV Mandel and VV Skoptsov were right) the length of the ship!

In addition to outstanding length, the armor belt of the “Pennsylvania” type battleships also had a considerable height: it consisted of a single row of armor plates with a height of 5 337 mm. The thickness from the top edge, and over the 3 359 mm downward was 343 mm, and over the following 1 978 mm evenly decreased from 343 to 203 mm. The armor plates were located "cut" to the ship's casing, so from the outside throughout all 5 337 mm, the battleship's armor looked monolithic and smooth. The upper edge of the armor plates was at the level of the second deck, and the lower one fell below the third.

In the normal displacement of the battleship, his armored belt towered above the water on 2 647 mm. Thus, from the constructive waterline down over the 712 mm, the armor belt kept the thickness of 343 mm, and then, over the length of 1, 978 mm gradually got thinner to 203 mm, and the board protected everything under water on 2 690 mm. In other words, the Americans positioned the armor belt so that it protects the board approximately 2,65 m above and below the waterline. It should be noted that there was a slight difference on the “Arizona”: Americans usually laid armor plates on a teak lining, and also arrived at “Pennsylvania”, but for the “Arizona” they used cement for the same purpose.

Unfortunately, the armor belt within the citadel is hardly the only part of the armor protection of the body of the battleships of the type "Pennsylvania", the description of which almost completely coincides in all sources. But about the rest of the discrepancies, and, very often, very significant.

Analyzing and comparing data from various sources on “Oklahoma” and “Pennsylvania” type battleships, the author of this article came to the conclusion that, most likely, the most accurate description of the battleship reservation system was given by V. Chausov in his monograph “Pearl Harbor Victims - Battleships "Oklahoma", "Nevada", "Arizona" and "Pennsylvania", especially since this book was written later than the others: for example, the work of A.V. Mandel and V.V. Skoptsova was published in 2004 g., V. Chausova - in 2012 g. Accordingly, in the future we will give a description of booking of battleships of the “Pennsylvania” type according to V. Chausov, and we will note discrepancies only in cases where the latter are of extremely essential nature.

Throughout the citadel’s armor belt, the main armored deck rested on its upper edge, as if covering the top of the hull with a cover from above. The main armored deck was at the level of (and was) the second deck of the battleship, but the data on its thickness vary considerably.

The canonical version is considered to be that it consisted of two layers of STS armor steel with a thickness of 38,1 mm each (76,2 mm in total), laid on the 12,7 mm substrate of ordinary shipbuilding steel. Formally, this makes it possible to consider the thickness of the main armored decks of battleships of the “Pennsylvania” type 88,9 mm, but still it should be understood that its actual armor resistance was still lower, since the “three-layer cake” contained the inclusion of regular, non-bronze steel, and two layers of 38,1 mm armor plates were not equivalent to monolithic armor.

However, according to V. Chausov, the main armored type of battleships of the Pennsylvania type was noticeably thinner, because each layer of STS steel had a thickness of not 38,1 mm, but only 31,1 mm, and the steel substrate was also thinner - not 12,7, but only 12,5 mm. Accordingly, the total thickness of the upper deck of the battleship was not 88,9 mm, but only 74,7 mm, moreover, everything we said above about its armor resistance, naturally, remains in force.

One deck was located below the main armored deck (in this case, it was approximately 2,3 m) and there was a third deck, which had bevels connected to the lower edge of the armor belt. Within the citadel, it had anti-fragmentation booking, but, again, the data on it diverge. According to the classic version, it consisted of 12,7 mm shipbuilding steel, on which in the horizontal part 25,4 mm armor plates were laid, and on the bevels - 38,1 mm. Thus, the total thickness of the anti-splinter deck in the horizontal part was 38,1 mm, and on the bevels - 50,8 mm. But, according to V. Chausov, its thickness was 37,4 mm in the horizontal part (24,9 mm STS and 12,5 mm shipbuilding steel) and 49,8 mm on bevels (37,3 mm STS and 12,5 mm shipbuilding steel).

Nose traverse consisted of three rows of armor plates. In height, it started from the second deck, that is, its upper edge was flush with the upper edges of the armor plates, but the lower edge fell about 2 meters below the armored belt. Thus, the total height of the nasal beam reached 7,1 - 7,3 m or so. The first and second tier were armor plates 330 mm thickness, the third - only 203 mm. Thus, to the waterline and, approximately, on 2,2 m below it, the beam has a thickness of 330 mm, and below - 203 mm.

But aft traverse was significantly shorter and reached only the third deck, having a little more than 2,3 m height. The fact is that, outside the citadel, the third deck of the battleship “lost” bevels and was strictly horizontal - well, so the traverse extended to it.

However, one should not think that there was some kind of “window” in the protection of the battleship. Not at all - directly to the "box" of the citadel in the stern of the ship adjoined the second "box", designed to ensure the protection of the steering of the ship.

It looked like this. From the main armored belt to the stern, another armored belt stretched for about 22 m. Its main differences from the citadel's armored belt were smaller, by about 2,3 m, height - while the upper edge of the citadel's armor plates was at the level of the 2-th deck, continuing into the stern of the armor-belts only to the horizontal section of the 3-s deck. Thus, this armored belt adjoining the citadel protruded just 0,31 meters above the waterline, but its lower edge was at the level of the citadel's armor plates.

The height of this armored belt was about 3 m, while for the first meter (to be exact 1 022 mm) its thickness was 330 mm, and then, at the same level where the “fracture” of the main 343 mm belt began, the thickness of the second armored belt gradually decreased from 330 mm to 203 mm. Thus, on the lower edge both of them, and the citadel's armor belt, and the second stern armor belt, had 203 mm, and, as we said, this edge was at the same level in both belts.

This armor belt, which covered the steering, was closed from the stern by another traverse, which consisted of absolutely the same slabs as the armor belt itself - they also had about 3 m height, also had about 330 mm thickness for about one meter, and then gradually thinned to 203 mm and located on the same level. On the upper edge of the 330-mm belts and the beam there was a third deck, which here (unlike the citadel) had no bevels. But she was very heavily armored: 112 mm armor steel STS on the 43,6 mm "substrate" of conventional shipbuilding steel gave a total of 155,6 mm protection.

It must be said that A.V. Mandel and V.V. Skoptsova claims that the third armor deck had bevels in the stern and was better protected than within the citadel, and the above horizontal protection was “added” to it additionally: but, apparently, this is an error that is not confirmed by any of the authors. This article of the protection schemes for battleships of the "Pennsylvania" type. Including those given by A.V. Mandel and V.V. Skoptsova.



In addition to the sides and decks, the hull of the Pennsylvania-type battleships had a very powerful chimney protection. On linear ships of this type there was one pipe and chimneys to it from the main armor to the deck of the forecastle, that is, for two interdeck spaces (over 4,5 m) were protected by an oval casing 330 mm thick. On the second ship of the series, “Arizona”, the casing design was replaced - it had a variable thickness from 229 mm in the center plane of the ship, where the casing was covered as much as possible by other hull structures and barbets of the main caliber towers, which made it unlikely to hit 305 mm closer to traverse and even 381 mm directly on the stretch parallel to the board of the ship. Below the main armored hull, between it and the splinter deck, chimneys on four sides were covered with armor plates 31,1 mm thick.

We have already described defense of artillery before, but we will repeat it so that a respected reader does not have to search for data on various articles. The towers of the main caliber had a very powerful defense. The thickness of the frontal plate was 457 mm, the side plates closer to the frontal plate - 254 mm, then - 229 mm, the feed plate - 229 mm. The roof was protected by 127 mm armor, the floor of the tower was 50,8 mm. The barbety had 330 mm along the entire length up to the main armored deck, and between it and the fragmentation, where the sides defended 343 mm armor - 114 mm, below the fragmentation barbety were not booked. Mine caliber armor did not have.

The conning tower had a base of STS armor steel with a thickness of 31,1 mm, on top of which 406 mm armor plates were installed, that is, the total thickness of the walls reached 437,1 mm. The roof of the conning tower was covered with two layers of body protection with a thickness of 102 mm each, that is, 204 mm of sheath thickness, and the floor is 76,2 mm. Interestingly, the "Pennsylvania", which was built as a flagship, the conning tower was a two-tier, and the "Arizona" - a single-tier.

A communication pipe with a diameter of one and a half meters went from the conning tower down to the main armored deck. The thickness of its armor was 406 mm, from the main one to the fragmentation deck - 152 mm.

A detailed comparison of the armor protection of the “Pennsylvania” type battleships with European battleships will be made later, but for now let us note two vulnerabilities of American ships: one obvious, and the second not.

The obvious vulnerability lies in the vicious idea of ​​storing projectiles in barbetas and turret battleships. Like it or not, but only the frontal plate of the tower had an ultimatum-powerful defense - 457 mm of armor really was almost impossible to master at reasonable combat distances. But the side walls of the towers with their 229-254 mm, and 330 mm of barbet did not provide such protection, and they could easily miss the enemy armor-piercing projectile, even in its entirety. It was fraught with the detonation of more than two hundred projectiles placed directly in the turret and on the 330 mm barbet's “shell layer”.

Unobvious vulnerability. We did not mention the 127 mm roof of the towers of "Pennsylvania" and "Arizona", but it also could not protect the installation of the main caliber from an impact 381-mm projectile. The British themselves, installing a similar thickness of protection on the roofs of the towers "Hud", had some doubts about its sufficiency. And because they have made the appropriate tests of the latest "greenboy". Two 343-mm projectile 127 mm did not pierce the armor, but the 381-mm armor-piercing projectile “passed” the tower’s roof without any problems, leaving an even hole with edges bent inwards. According to the test results, it was decided that Admiral Beatty (with doubts of whom this история) was absolutely right, recommending to bring the thickness of the roof of the towers to 152 mm. Since orders had already been placed on the Hud tower, and they were in the process of manufacturing, it was decided not to change anything on them, but to provide the 152 mm with the roof of the tower of three production ships that were supposed to be built after him, but as you know, “Hood »Became the sole representative of the series.

But the fact is that the English towers for Hud, in contrast to the installations of the previous types, had an almost horizontal roof, it only had a slight inclination to the side walls. And if the British 381-mm projectile overcame it without problems ... it would have struck the main armored deck of the battleships of the type "Oklahoma" or "Pennsylvania" without any difficulties.

In other words, usually American battleships are perceived as ships with a very strongly protected citadel, which, among other things, had a great superiority over the battleships of other countries in horizontal defense. But in practice, the armor deck is at least 74,7 mm thick (to which, after Chausov, the author of this article is inclined), although the canonical 88,9 mm, and even non-uniform, and even the usual steel layer did not represent any serious protection against hitting heavy shells caliber 380-381 mm. And after its penetration, the enemy shell would be separated from the engine, boiler rooms, cellars with gunpowder supplies and torpedoes, just an inch armor on a half-inch steel backing, which was not enough even to protect against a shell splinter.

Anti-torpedo protection

It was quite peculiar and unlike the PTZ schemes used on the battleships of other countries. "Pennsylvania" and "Arizona" had a double bottom, reaching to the lower edge of the armor belt. Behind him were empty compartments throughout the citadel, which ended in a very powerful anti-torpedo bulkhead, consisting of two layers of STS armor steel for 37,35 mm each, that is, the total thickness of the bulkhead was 74,7 mm! This bonperesembly with its upper edge reached the bevel of the lower armored deck, and the lower - the second bottom. Behind it was still empty space, and, finally, the last, filtration bulkhead, 6,8 mm thick. According to the logic of the creators, the torpedo that hit the ship spent energy on breaking the outer skin and double bottom, then the gases freely expanded in empty space, significantly losing their penetrating ability, and the fragments and residual energy of the explosion were delayed by the main protection, which was represented by a thick armored bulkhead PTZ. If it turned out to be partially damaged and there was a leak, then its consequences should have been localized by the filtration partition.

Interestingly, the empty spaces of the PTZ, the total width of which was 3,58 m, should not have been filled with anything. The water and fuel storages were located directly on the second floor inside the space protected by the PTZ, and thus, in fact, the machines, boilers and cellars below protected not even a double, but a triple bottom, the “third echelon” of which was exactly the above compartments.

It should also be mentioned that the battleship was divided into 23 watertight compartments, with the watertight bulkheads reaching the armored deck, but it is not clear which one. Most likely, we are still talking about a fragmentation deck.

Power plant



It represented a big step forward compared to the battleships of the previous series. The Nevada-type battleships were twin-shaft, and the Americans managed to build a steam engine instead of turbines on the Oklahoma. On the ships of the type "Pennsylvania", finally, the final transition to the turbines occurred, in addition, both battleships of this type had a four-shaft power plant.

Nevertheless, the desire to put different power plants on ships of the same series was still maintained by the Americans. The boilers on the Pennsylvania and Arizona were identical: each battleship was equipped with 12 Babcock & Wilcox oil boilers, but at the same time, Curtis turbines were installed on Pennsylvania, and Parsons on Arizona. The latter included, in addition to a set of high-pressure turbines for rotating internal shafts and low-external ones, also cruising turbines, thanks to which it was supposed to achieve a fair gain in range. Alas, these hopes were not justified, since the effect turned out to be much lower than planned, and these turbines (Parsons) themselves turned out to be unsuccessful, and perhaps the most unsuccessful in the American navy, since the units turned out to be very capricious and unreliable.

According to the project, Pennsylvania-type battleships were supposed to develop an 21 node with the power of 31 500 hp mechanisms, which was supposed to ensure the speed of the 21 node (unfortunately, it is unclear whether this is a natural or forced thrust). On the tests of "Pennsylvania", contract power was not achieved, and it was only 29 366 hp, but the speed, nevertheless, was 21,05 knots. Subsequently, during the operation, both battleships easily reached the 31 500 HP, put on the 34 passport. and even surpassed them: so, the maximum recorded power of the power plant "Arizona" was 000 21 hp Of course, this was unlikely to greatly increase the travel speed over XNUMX knots. The contours of the Pennsylvania-type battleships were distinguished by high completeness, were apparently optimized for the speed indicated above, and therefore required a large increase in power for its growth.

A normal supply of oil was 1 547 T., full - 2 322 T. It was assumed that the full supply of the battleships could pass 8 000 miles 10-nodal speed. In reality, Pennsylvania could accept 2 305 t, and, based on calculations based on actual fuel consumption, the battleship was able to go 6 070 miles on 12 nodes (for some reason, the calculation for the speed of 10 nodes is not given). As for the "Arizona", when using cruising turbines on 10 nodes, it was able to go only 6 950 miles, and in general it can be said that the Pennsylvania battleships were somewhat under-range.

It is noteworthy that the Americans went the furthest along the path of "oiling" their fleet. The Germans continued to consider coal as the main fuel, the British - as a backup, but only in the United States refused it altogether. However, it should be understood the conditions in which this was done. The benefits of oil heating boilers understood everything. But Germany did not have oil deposits on its territory, and could not expect to replenish its reserves in the event of a war with England and the announcement of a blockade. England, although it could count on the delivery of oil by sea, still, like Germany, did not have oil fields in the metropolis and in the event of any force majeure risked immobilizing its fleet. And only the United States had enough deposits to absolutely not be afraid of the depletion of oil reserves - and therefore did not risk anything at all, transferring the fleet to oil heating.

This concludes the description of the Pennsylvania type of battleships. Ahead the most interesting is a comparison of the three “champions” we have chosen among the “standard” battleships of England, Germany and America.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
"Standard" battleships of the USA, Germany and England. Who is better? Introduction
"Standard" battleships of the USA, Germany and England. British "Rivengi"
"Standard" battleships of the USA, Germany and England. German Bayern
"Standard" battleships of the USA, Germany and England. German "Bayern" (h. 2)
"Standard" battleships of the USA, Germany and England. German "Bayern" (h. 3)
"Standard" battleships of the USA, Germany and England. American "Pennsylvania"
"Standard" battleships of the USA, Germany and England. American "Pennsylvania". H. 2
114 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. DimanC
    DimanC 10 February 2019 07: 18
    +1
    Interesting. We are waiting for comparison now :-)
  2. Jura 27
    Jura 27 10 February 2019 08: 34
    +1
    Obvious vulnerability - it is unlikely that the Americans were not fools: detonation of shells (especially armor-piercing ones) is hardly possible.
    And it still hurts the rumor about a double bottom, where there actually was a double side. The border in the middle of the cheekbone of the hull, - everything below is a double bottom and, accordingly, - everything above is a double side.
  3. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 10 February 2019 09: 09
    +6
    Article plus! yes good
    If the Americans relied on long-range combat, then, logically, as the author pointed out, the thickness of the horizontal protection should play a more significant role than the side armor. The question immediately arises - did the Americans conduct test firing to find out the armor resistance of horizontal armor plates for different combat distances? After all, if the Germans could explain their relatively thin horizontal line by the conditions of the North Sea, where vertical booking is more important at the alleged battle distances and their 50-60 mm, in theory, should be enough to protect against shrapnel and at low angles of incidence of enemy shells for the planned battle distances, their reocheting , then the American 76mm (rounded) look completely absurd for the supposed long-range combat. Therefore, the principle of "all or nothing" in this case generally looks conditional. Further, at long distances of battle, even if armor-piercing shells will not be cocked when penetrating unarmored sides, they will be at a large angle and well, there is a very high probability that hitting the bow into the deck, the projectile may well pass right through and exit in the area of ​​the waterline or close to it, which in case of excitement or high speed will lead to flooding of the bow compartments with all the consequences. Therefore, such protection is more suitable for relatively close combat options, and not long-range ones. Let's add PMA that is completely open to enemy fragments. Indeed, at long distances, the projectile will no longer pierce through the side and fly out from the other side, but will explode on horizontal armor, then steel bulkheads are completely insufficient to protect against the hail of fragments of steel bulkheads. And while it comes to repelling hypothetical destroyer attacks, the PMA can be completely disabled.
    The Americans created their "all or nothing" based only on their theoretical assumptions ... request But this is just my opinion, personal, according to the American battleship winked
    hi
    1. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 10 February 2019 21: 43
      -1
      Quote: Rurikovich
      If the Americans relied on long-distance combat, then, according to the logic of things, as the author pointed out, the thickness of the horizontal defense should play a more significant role than the side armor.

      The author just has a mess in the description. Of course, no one ever plans armor-piercing shells for maximum distances. Either the Americans have a headache or the author has mixed something up.
      1. Andrey Shmelev
        Andrey Shmelev 10 February 2019 23: 36
        +1
        Of course, no one ever plans armor-piercing shells for maximum distances. [Quote] [/ quote]

        Why? The Americans were planning. And British projects, for example, G-3.
        1. Saxahorse
          Saxahorse 10 February 2019 23: 41
          0
          However, the British put in their cellars what no one called semi-armor-piercing.
          1. Andrey Shmelev
            Andrey Shmelev 11 February 2019 00: 06
            0
            Not completely agree, in 1916 they had
            APC Mark Ia (4crh) - 1,920 lbs. (871 kg)
            CPC 4crh - 1,920 lbs. (871 kg)
            HE 4crh - 1,920 lbs. (871 kg)
            And they bet on CPC 4crh - 1,920 lbs. (871 kg)

            And after Jutland rushed to develop
            APC Mark IIIa (4crh - Greenboy) - 1,910 lbs. (866.4 kg)
            on which they relied in 1918
  4. Huumi
    Huumi 10 February 2019 09: 13
    +1
    Thank you so much for the article!
  5. looker-on
    looker-on 10 February 2019 10: 20
    +3
    Gorgeous article! As well as always from Andrey. I like American ships. It's amazing how ships can reflect the basic features of a nation.
  6. Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 10 February 2019 10: 29
    0
    Good afternoon! Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful article, but I have questions:

    If you open Vinogradov (a monograph about Bayern)
    APC shell shell 16D did not penetrate the roof of the third tower at an angle of 79 degrees (shooting 1 shot 5)
    SAPC shell shellit 16ND tore the roof of the second tower at an angle of 79 degrees (shooting 1 shot 6)
    (Vinogradov often has very specific translations, if there are objections / clarifications I will find on another computer "ADM" in the evening and I can write a copy of the original document from a scan) + calculations for "Okun" are also possible, if necessary.

    The Naval Vipons site provides the following information:
    Two primary striking velocities were used, 1,550 fps (472 mps) simulating a range of 15,500 yards (14,170 m) and 1,380 fps (421 mps) simulating a range of 21,800 yards (19,930 m) .... Five rounds of APC were fired at 1,550 fps (472 mps) at the 10 cm (3.9 in) turret roof armor, with four of these failing to penetrate.

    The question is: where does the confidence in the weakness and vulnerability of the decks and the roof of the tower come from?
    From a distance of 75-80 cables, the armor of the tower's roof, if offhand, is guaranteed to hold the Greenboy.
    When calculating the vulnerability of decks, it is necessary to take into account the absence of a wind shield and APC shell armor-piercing cap, I am personally sure that with this layout there will be a rebound.

    If you climb at a distance of 100-120 cables, then the question is: where does confidence in hits come from?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      10 February 2019 11: 14
      +2
      Quote: Andrey Shmelev
      APC shell shell 16D did not penetrate the roof of the third tower at an angle of 79 degrees (shooting 1 shot 5)

      To begin with, the angle of 79 degrees is the angle of incidence of 11 degrees, and on the 75 cable of an 381-mm projectile, the angle of incidence is 13,6 degrees. 11 hail is about 60-65 range cables. The second is the thickness of the Bayern roof - 100 mm, and it is unclear what armor it was made of, cemented or not.
      Quote: Andrey Shmelev
      The question is: where does the confidence in the weakness and vulnerability of the decks and the roof of the tower come from?

      From the tests of the thickness of the armor of the towers, about which Kofman wrote in the monograph "Death of the Lord of the Seas. Battle cruiser" Hood ""
      1. Andrey Shmelev
        Andrey Shmelev 10 February 2019 11: 30
        0
        13,6 degrees angle of incidence for APC Mark Ia (4crh) - 1,920 lbs. (871 kg) according to Naval Vipons
        For APC Mark IIIa (4crh - Greenboy) - 1,910 lbs. (866.4 kg) angle of incidence must still be seen
        Ok, I'm looking for "ADM" on another computer

        Kofman about the experiments with the "pontoon" and the roof is not a very source for me, to put it mildly, since he does not indicate the brand of the projectile and the exact data for shooting
        "ADM" about Hood's trials was also in the scan, I'll try to find and issue
      2. Andrey Shmelev
        Andrey Shmelev 10 February 2019 12: 51
        0
        Below is a scan of the piece "ADM"



        25500 yards, trajectory angle of 30-32 degrees, it’s clear that under such conditions any armor will be insufficient
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          10 February 2019 12: 53
          0
          And here are the tests of Hood's decks? :))))
          1. Andrey Shmelev
            Andrey Shmelev 10 February 2019 12: 56
            0
            while I'm looking for ADM about Bavaria, maybe share a scan about the towers (I’m still looking for them too), otherwise Kofman, IMHO, is a very liquid source

            And here are the tests of Hood's decks? :))))

            laughing and take weak armor penetration from there?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              10 February 2019 13: 10
              0
              Quote: Andrey Shmelev
              while I'm looking for ADM about Bavaria, maybe share a scan about the towers (I’m still looking for them too), otherwise Kofman, IMHO, is a very liquid source

              I would know where to look - I would find :))))
              Quote: Andrey Shmelev
              and take weak armor penetration from there?

              How? :)) You yourself write that 25 500 yards
              1. Andrey Shmelev
                Andrey Shmelev 10 February 2019 13: 50
                0
                ok, I'll take what is from different distances, try to count through conversion factors

                there’s a scan about the towers, I can’t find recourse
      3. Andrey Shmelev
        Andrey Shmelev 10 February 2019 13: 37
        0
        As promised, and even better: I had already thrown this thing into the word and processed it (quality allowed):

        General Remarks on the Trial.

        The gun used for the trial was 15 in. BL Mark I, being the left gun in turret of HMS “Terror.”
        The charges were adjusted to give a SF of 1,550 fs corresponding to an angle of descent of 13¾ deg.
        Range corresponding 15 500


        APPENDIX II.
        96.Detailed Result of each Round. - Details of damage, embodying results of examination after “Baden” was salved.
        Round 1. (Fig. 53 shows a profile of “Baden” with location of the rounds.)
        Target: - Roof plate of “B” turret. Shell: - CPC Fuze: - 15 ND Filling: - Powder. SV: - 1,550. Delay: - On impact. Nature of burst: - Thick cloud of white smoke. Point of impact: - 20 ft. 10 in. to rear of turret and 20 ft. 4 in. to proper left of center line of turret. Angle of impact: - Inclination of flat roof plate to horizontal: - 11 deg. Inclination of plate: - 9 deg. 20 min. from normal. Angle between eave plate and flat roof plate: - 22 deg. Angle of descent: - ½ deg. Compounded angle of impact: - 75¾ deg. From normal.
        A hole 6 ft. 9 in. long and 1 ft. 11 in. wide in the center, tapering to 1 ft. 4 in. at front and 9 in. at rear end, was punched in the 4 in. roof plate. The roof plate inside the turret was flaked off for 8 in. The heads of four bolts at inner edge of sloping plate were sheared off, and the remaining bolts were slightly drawn, the inner edge of the plate abreast of the center of the hole being lifted 2 in. The roof plate detached and driven into the turret was broken into three parts as follows: - Piece 6 in. by 28 in. was jammed between the bed of left chain rammer and loading wagon, the latter being distorted and put out of action. The rammer head was undamaged, but prevented from being used until the piece of plate was removed. Piece 66 in. by 26 in. fell down gun well into the working chamber causing very slight damage. Piece 42 in. by 20 in. picked up in rear part of gun-house, having caused no damage and apparently having struck the back of the turret. The left gun was put out of action by a heavy strike being made ont eh top of the open breech block.

        Round 2.
        Target: - Roof plate of “X” turret. Shell: - 15 in. CPC Nature of burst: - EO Filling: - 60/40 shellite. Fuze: - 15 ND Delay: - 20 ft. SV: - 1,550. Point of impact: - 22 ft. from rear of turret and 5 ft. 2 in. to proper right of center line of turret. Angle of impact from normal: - Vertical, 78 deg. 30 min .; horizontal, 14 deg. Resultant, 78 deg. 50 min. from normal.
        At the point of impact the 4 in. roof plate was bulged 6 ft. long to a depth of 7 in., and cracked through the center of the bulge for a length of 4 ft. 3 in. Several strikes to the roof plate were caused by fragments of shell 3 ft. from the rear of the turret as far as the rear edge of the turret. Six bolts securing the rangefinder hood to the roof were sheared, the remaining bolts lifted, and the butt strap was cracked through. The side of hood was cracked. Half of the rangefinder casing was blown off on to the upper deck. Considerable forward effect was made and the shell broke up well. Inside the turret the air trunk between the guns was burst and partly carried away. Several voicepipes and electric circuits were severed and driven down between the guns. The bolts securing the rear cross girder were sheared from the center line to the right slope, and the girder was driven down 2 ft. and fractured in several places. The bolts securing the girder to the right side of the turret were also sheared. The fore and aft girder was hanging by a few bolts at the fore end near main trunk, the remaining bolts being sheared and the girder driven down 16 in. at the rear end. A small girder carrying voicepipes, etc., was broken away from the brackets attached to the roof and driven down on to the right loading lever, on of the latter being badly bent. The right gun was put temporarily out of action by this. A Carley float secured to the right side of the turret was set on fire.

        Round 5.
        Target: - Roof plate of “X” turret. Shell: - 15 in. APC Fuze: - 16 D. Filling: - 70/30 shellite. SV: - 1,550. Delay: - 15 ft. Nature of burst: - VE Point of impact: - Flat roof plate at join of front plate and 6 in. from join of left slope. Angle of impact from normal: - Vertical, 79 deg .; horizontal, 10 deg. 50 mion. Resultant from normal, 79 deg. 10 min.
        The 4 in. roof plate was bulged 2½ in. for a length of 3 ft. 4 in. width 7 in., opening up seam between it and eave plate by 1 in. The front plate at point of impact was flaked off in a segment 9 in. by 3 in., and several circular surface cracks were made up to 4 ft. from impact. Seven large strikes about 5 in. diameter were made on the front of the range-finder hood, the angle iron securing the hood to the roof plate being broken away for 3 ft. 9 in., And all except nine of the securing bolts were sheared. The rangefinder casing and supporting stand were blown on to the upper deck.

        Round 6.
        Target: - Roof plate of “B“ turret. Shell: - 15 in. CPC Fuze: - 16 ND Filling: - 70/30 shellite. SV: - 1,550. Delay: - On impact. Nature of burst: - PD Point of impact: - Roof plate 25 ft. 9 in. from rear of turret and 2 ft. to proper right of center line of turret. Angle of impact from normal: - Vertical, 79 deg .; horizontal, 6 deg. 50 min. Resultant from deck, 79 deg.
        The roof plate was bulged for 8 ft. in length and 1 in. deep, and a through crack 2 in wide was made for 7 ft. 10 in. Twenty-one bolts round the bulge were sheared. Inside the turret all bolts securing the cross girder to the roof were sheared from the right side of the turret to the left fore and aft girder, and cross girder being driven down 2 ft. 7 in. All the bolts securing the right fore and aft girder were sheared and the girder was driven down between the breech of the gun and the rails of the loading wagon. This would have taken a considerable time to clear in action. Voicepipe, air trunks, electric circuits, etc., were broken away and littered about the gun-house.

        Round 13 (Repeat of Serial No. 5.).
        Target: - Roof plate of “X” turret. Shell: - 15 in. APC Fuze: - 16 D. Filling: - 70/30 shellite. SV: - 1,550. Delay: - 15 ft. Nature of burst: - EO Point of impact: - Left center roof plate 24 ft. from rear edge of turret. Angle of impact from normal: - Vertical, 78 deg .; horizontal, 13 deg. 50 min. Resultant from normal, 78 deg. 20 min.
        The shell made a bulge 6 ft. long by 7 ft. wide and 4 in. deep, and a through crack 3 ft. 10 in. long through the center of the bulge. The rangefinder hood was broken up and was blown overboard, with the exception of about a quarter of it which remained in place. Inside the turret the rivets securing the left longitudinal girder to the roof were sheared, and the girder was driven about 2 ft. on top of the left loading wagon, putting this out of action.

        Conclusions:
        1. I think that the roof of the Baden tower was not strictly parallel to the horizon.
        2. Nawal Vipons is completely right:

        Two primary striking velocities were used, 1,550 fps (472 mps) simulating a range of 15,500 yards (14,170 m) and 1,380 fps (421 mps) simulating a range of 21,800 yards (19,930 m) .... Five rounds of APC were fired at 1,550 fps (472 mps) at the 10 cm (3.9 in) turret roof armor, with four of these failing to penetrate.

        3. At a distance of 80 cables, 127-mm are guaranteed to hold the Greenboy, although I can also count
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          10 February 2019 14: 00
          +1
          Honestly, I do not see anything adding to the above.
          Quote: Andrey Shmelev
          .Vangue that the roof of the tower "Baden" was not strictly parallel to the horizon.

          In fact - it was, but it does not matter, since the deviation from the normal of the plate, and not from the horizon, is indicated :))))
          1. Andrey Shmelev
            Andrey Shmelev 10 February 2019 14: 24
            0
            Honestly, I do not see anything adding to the above.


            There is no complementary. There is a little disproving. repeat
            "Greenboy" will definitely not take a 127-mm tower roof slab from 80 cables.

            A couple of clarifications to the previous comment:

            The angle of the trajectory is not completely clear:
            Firstly, the error: The Ship was heeled to 11 deg. towards the firing ship, this angle varying about 2 deg. either way due to the roll; also the ship grounded at low water, which reduced the heel about 1 deg. during that period.
            Secondly, it is somehow very strange to take speed for one distance and an angle for another. I was looking for an explanation, I did not find any documentary ones, although there are many versions.
            But, IMHO 2 degrees will not fundamentally affect the armor penetration of "ARS".

            Very good conclusion on the effectiveness of shells:
            It is noticeable that the damage caused to the roof plates by shell with fuzes which functioned on impact (1 and 6) exceeded that of shell fuzed with delay fuze (5-13).
            These results show that the angle of impact is too small for any of the shell used to effect penetration by means of its velocity, but that the slightly more favorable angle of impact of round coupled with the non-delay fuze functioning on impact caused a hole to be made in the 4 in. roof plate.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              10 February 2019 15: 01
              +1
              Quote: Andrey Shmelev
              There is no complementary. There is a little disproving.

              Where? :)))) Here everything is the same - the angle of incidence of the projectile within 11 degrees. Well this is not 75 cable, but less
              Quote: Andrei Shmelev
              Secondly, it’s somehow very strange to take speed for one distance and an angle for another

              Nothing strange, the battleship was tilted aboard during firing, and the distance between the ships was less than 500 m. Here even the height of the axes of the guns already played a role :)))) In general, the British achieved 13,5 grad for vertical plates, but not for horizontal
              You understand, the projectile falls down in a parabola, and even the relative height "gun - tower armor" plays a big role. For a real battle there is little difference, but when the ships are 450 m ...
              Quote: Andrey Shmelev
              But, IMHO 2 degrees will not fundamentally affect the armor penetration of "ARS".

              By itself. But this is not about armor penetration, but about a rebound - for him a couple of degrees at such angles is already very critical
              Quote: Andrey Shmelev
              Very good conclusion on the effectiveness of shells

              In which it is said that a slightly more favorable angle of influence (obviously - greater than the 11 degree) allowed to break through the 102-mm plate? :)))))))
              1. Andrey Shmelev
                Andrey Shmelev 10 February 2019 15: 50
                0
                Very good conclusion on the effectiveness of shells:

                It is noticeable that the damage caused to the roof plates by shell with fuzes which functioned on impact (1 and 6) exceeded that of shell fuzed with delay fuze (5-13).

                That is, in these specific conditions, classic APCs in punching proved to be worse than CPC, since they had delay fuze.

                These results show that the angle of impact is too small for any of the shell used to effect penetration by means of its velocity, but that the slightly more Favorite angle of impact of round coupled with the non-delay fuze functioning on impact caused a hole to be made in the 4 in. roof plate.

                That is, the classic APC with 75 cable - past the checkout, but CPC with the non-delay fuze some more and they will break through.

                I can’t find ADM about Hood towers, probably in the old hut, I’ll say as a keepsake that the British soon after WWII adopted the standard to test horizontal protection from 25000 yards and were sadly surprised that the Greenboy could penetrate 127 mm.

                I once thought for myself, I got it (from memory) that Greenboy breaks these very 127-mm blasts with a blast of armor much more than from 120 cables. I am ready to admit a good probability of the Gribonboy breaking a 127-mm STS slab from 120 cables without an armored explosion, but closer = no, no. Well, or shoot CPC without slowing down.

                I would be grateful for the alternative versions.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  11 February 2019 15: 50
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                  That is, the classic APCs with 75 cables are past the checkout, but CPC with the non-delay fuze will break through a bit more.

                  I understood your idea, I agree (I am not strong in English, therefore I incorrectly translated the passage quoted by you) but still - 11 grad is not 75 kbt :)))
                  Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                  I once thought myself, I got it (from memory) that Greenboy breaks these 127-mm blasts with a blast in the armor with much more than 120 cables.

                  Honestly, the calculation of horizontal armor is generally such a thing ... The same de Marr is good in vertical armor, but not in horizontal. Better focus on actual shooting results
                  1. Andrey Shmelev
                    Andrey Shmelev 11 February 2019 21: 04
                    0
                    A colleague, I completely agree with you about practical shooting (and combat shooting is an interesting thing), first of all, since any serious calculation methodology is based on the empirical results of specific shooting

                    As soon as the calculation technique tries to break away from them, a lot of questions immediately begin, for example, for me in case of a contradiction, the relative de Marr coefficients are much more trustworthy than the absolute coefficients of Okune.

                    (came to Russia - they filled up with work, so I’ll be a little late with the comments and underdeveloped by their volume, then I apologize immediately)

                    Offhand I’ll say that in the discussions on armor penetration I have limitations:

                    1. Not everything can be counted. For example, there is no calculation method: 381-mm "Greenboy" with 80 cables versus 250-mm upper belt "Baden" with a jacket + bulkhead + coal of the upper pit + deck + armored deck with a jacket (no method is designed to take into account the damage of the projectile qualitatively when breaking through such a number of obstacles). Here I will simply write that in my life I will not believe in defeat by an explosion, and I will stop there.

                    2. It is not for nothing that the "de Marr dependence" has been transformed into a dozen different formulas (conversion factors are a tricky thing).
                    Therefore, I am not ready to assert that "due to the absolute coefficient of armor quality of 0,95" at the 127-mm roof of the Hood tower 381-mm Greenboy "due to the absolute quality coefficient of the projectile 1,020" begins to penetrate with a probability of a gap of 90 % certainly, starting from 136 cable wassat . (IMHO, not so much Nathan Okun himself goes too far, as his followers)
                    I carefully write that the generally accepted calculation methods, in my opinion, exclude the penetration of the 381-mm "Greenboy" of the 127-mm roof of the "Hood" tower from a distance of less than 120 cables with an armored explosion. Which agrees very well with all the authoritative information available, right down to Beatty's opinion that 25000mm is needed for quality protection from 152 yards (Greenboy is not capable of breaking a slab of this thickness under these conditions, even without penetration).

                    Thanks for the interesting series of articles. It is a pity that "Fuso" is not in it. But I feel that soon we will all "shoot" from one battleship to another and it will be cool.

                    Yours faithfully, hi
                2. anzar
                  anzar 11 February 2019 23: 37
                  0
                  ...but CPC with the non-delay fuze some more and will be ...
                  ... well, or shoot CPC without slowing down

                  What kind of shell is this? half-armor without delay / slowdown?!? If he eats such (in your opinion), how do they differ (in effect) from "pure" landmines? Less explosives?))))
                  1. Andrey Shmelev
                    Andrey Shmelev 12 February 2019 08: 14
                    0
                    I report:

                    a good fuse allows you to effectively control the slowdown, so a half-armor-piercing (just like a landmine with a bottom fuse and armor) can be set to a delay of, for example, 0,01 seconds or an instant gap (then it's 0,001 seconds), which the British had fun

                    how do they differ (in effect) from "pure" land mines


                    When I wrote in comments to previous posts that each country has its own classification and you need to use a type rating plate: where is the fuse, what type is it, etc. - I was not lifted request recourse

                    I took the British directly by ADM, how to translate it into Russian and what are the criteria - I’ll try, there will be time, write an article (I still have no time)
                    1. anzar
                      anzar 12 February 2019 11: 04
                      0
                      a good fuse allows you to effectively control the slowdown ...

                      Of course, but it makes no sense to fire a firearm with instant fuses (with the exception of some special cases, for example no landmines))) And based on the English. the name of the common projectile (comm. i.e. universal) probably it eats.
                      Still, they were created to break through. thin armor. With the "all or nothing" system, there is no sense in them - only by decks ...
                      But the quote refers to the CDS with adult. WITHOUT slowdown, which surprised. However, they could not adjust the delay time, but screw in different fuses ...
                      1. Andrey Shmelev
                        Andrey Shmelev 12 February 2019 19: 11
                        0
                        However, they could not adjust the delay time, but screw in different fuses ...


                        lol

                        above for each shot indicated
                        1. Types of fuses
                        2. delay time
                        maybe please read?

                        "Chukchi is not a reader, Chukchi is a writer" (c) stop negative
                      2. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 12 February 2019 22: 21
                        0
                        Quote: anzar
                        Of course, but it makes no sense to fire a firearm with instant fuses (with the exception of some special cases, such as the absence of land mines))) And based on the English. the name of the common projectile (comm. i.e. universal) probably it eats.
                        Still, they were created to break through. thin armor. With the "all or nothing" system, there is no sense in them - only by decks ...

                        You yourself answered your own question :) Yes, the meaning of semi-armor-piercing in shooting on decks. :)) They just appeared in response to the question - how to shoot at maximum distances. It’s better to overcome CPC and spaced decks better than a landmine and can get a lot of things from an auxiliary reservation directly.
    2. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 10 February 2019 11: 36
      +3
      Quote: Andrey Shmelev
      The question is: where does the confidence in the weakness and vulnerability of the decks and the roof of the tower come from?
      From a distance of 75-80 cables, the armor of the tower's roof, if offhand, is guaranteed to hold the Greenboy.

      Andrei hi At the beginning of the Jutland battle, when the distance was about 75-77 kab. the third tower of the "Lion" was hit by a shell from the "Lyuttsov", with the penetration of 82-108mm of the armor of the tower's roof. We quote Puzyrevsky
      At 16 hours from a distance of 77 cab. The Lion received the most serious hit in the third tower, turned along the left beam (Figs. 3 and 5). The shell pierced the armor plate of the tower roof, penetrated the gun compartment and exploded under the left gun. The entire personnel of the department, led by the commander of the tower, was disabled. From the burst of a shell in the tower, a fire started

      This despite the fact that "Luttsov" fired ... high-explosive shells !!!! Let's quote Pashen, the senior artillery officer of "Lyuttsov"
      Until now, I scold myself for not firing armor-piercing shells in the first hour, but only high-explosive shells. I acted in this way according to general rules, backed up at the last moment by advice from an authoritative source. (The Japanese also fired at Russian ships in the Tsushima battle.) If we had fired armor-piercing shells, "Lion" and Admiral Beatty, in all likelihood, would not have survived the battle. One of our high-explosive shells hit the roof of the tower at an acute angle and did not crash, but, having pierced it, exploded. "

      That is, almost the entire "run to the south" "Lyuttsov" fired high-explosive shells (Puzyrevsky mistakenly indicates armor-piercing), which in fact almost disabled the "Lion"
      The senior artilleryman "Lützow" preferred not to change the type of shells and fired high-explosive shells all the time, intending to switch to armor-piercing shells after they were used up. The high-explosive shells set the Lion on fire so violently that he was forced to withdraw from the battle for a while.

      If a high-explosive (!) 305mm projectile from a distance of 75 cab. pierced an average of 102mm armor of the turret roof, the question is - will the 127mm roof of the American battleship be pierced by a 356mm armor-piercing shell (and at the time of commissioning, all Japanese battleships and battlecruisers with 356mm guns were armed only with armor-piercing shells) from the same distance? Not to mention the 381-mm Greenboy what wink
      1. Andrey Shmelev
        Andrey Shmelev 10 February 2019 12: 30
        0
        If a high-explosive (!) 305mm shell from a distance of 75 cab. pierced an average of 102mm turret roof armor


        Colleague, I do not agree here:

        firstly, a 305mm shell from a distance of 75 cab. hit the roof which
        in this place, it had a thickness of 3,25 inches, that is 82,5 mm and was at an unfavorable angle (bevel)

        secondly, the place where the projectile hit is the periscope area, I tried to find a detailed PHOTO (not a picture) of the torn roof, I could not, if you find it, I would be grateful to see, but for now I have the basic version that the roof was weakened in this place

        thirdly, we look at the "Berkalov diagrams" (Goncharov, p. 151) under these conditions, the armor penetration of a 305-mm land mine may well be above such a 305 mm armor-piercing and ensure the defeat of the armor 82,5 mm thick
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 10 February 2019 16: 21
          +1
          Quote: Andrey Shmelev
          secondly, the place where the projectile hit is the periscope area, I tried to find a detailed PHOTO (not a picture) of the torn roof, I could not, if you find it, I would be grateful to see, but for now I have the basic version that the roof was weakened in this place

          What weakened?
          Here is a photo of the "Q" tower of "Lion" after Jutland

          To be more precise, the projectile hit near the junction of the 83 mm top plate and the frontal 229 mm turret armor in the upper right corner of the left port of the 343 mm gun.
          But so that there would be fewer questions about the penetration of this or that type of shells, here is a photo of the broken roof of the same tower "Q" only of the battle cruiser "Tiger", where a 280-mm armor-piercing projectile with the "Moltke" in the same Jutland battle with the same distance easily pierced the same 83mm turret roof between the gunner's periscope caps

          Right photo hi
          1. Andrey Shmelev
            Andrey Shmelev 10 February 2019 16: 50
            0
            Colleague, the dispute was about whether the classic APC "Greenboy" armor-piercing would pierce the 127-mm turret roof, the shooting at the "Baden" was considered, Berkalov was remembered, they counted a little, like no closer than 120 cables

            You write to me that high-explosives are breaking through. I do not argue, since shooting at Baden, Berkalov, showed that, for example, CPC without slowing down or land mines without slowing down (by no slowing down we mean about 0,001 seconds) penetrate the roofs of towers at small corners better than classic APC without slowing down.

            We look at Puzyrevsky:

            Lyon:



            Tiger:



            In the case of Tiger, we are talking only about penetration into the fragments of armor, and not a shell.

            As far as I remember the British standards for the strength of armor, armor is considered equal to face value if the nearest hole has at least 3 projectile calibers. Both times this rule is not observed, I just wrote about the caps next to it. Even if we discard this rule, it is not surprising that a 305 mm land mine pierced 82,5 mm of armor, while a 305 mm APC could not.

            I will quote a piece of my comment from an adjacent branch:

            Very good conclusion on the effectiveness of shells:

            It is noticeable that the damage caused to the roof plates by shell with fuzes which functioned on impact (1 and 6) exceeded that of shell fuzed with delay fuze (5-13).

            That is, in these specific conditions, classic APCs in punching proved to be worse than CPC, since they had delay fuze.

            These results show that the angle of impact is too small for any of the shell used to effect penetration by means of its velocity, but that the slightly more favorable angle of impact of round coupled with the non-delay fuze functioning on impact caused a hole to be made in the 4 in. roof plate.

            That is, the classic APCs with 75 cables are past the checkout, but CPC with the non-delay fuze will break through a bit more.


            hi
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 10 February 2019 18: 23
              +1
              Quote: Andrey Shmelev
              In the case of Tiger, we are talking only about penetration into the fragments of armor, and not a shell.

              And this suggests that the shell did not pierce the armor? I brought you a photo, not a drawing from Puzyrevsky, and as a result of this "non-penetration" the tower turned out to be of limited combat capability (that is, in fact, there was little sense from it).
              In your results of firing at Baden (and five shells hit the roof of the second and third towers in total), out of five shells, the armor was "torn" in 4 cases, in one the shell exploded too far after being hit and caused only armor deflection. One exploded directly on the armor causing a hole of 2 square meters.
              And now about what Puzyrevsky does not have. The two aft towers of the Derflinger were knocked out of action by 15 "Rivenge" shells. And if the third tower was destroyed by a direct hit into the 260mm armor of the barbet with its penetration, then the fourth tower was disabled
              The tenth projectile (381 mm) from "Revenge" hit the aft tower "D" near the junction between the inclined and flat parts of the roof, pierced the roof and exploded with relatively little force 1,2 m from the right charge lift. In the right fighting compartment of the tower, a total of 7 main and 13 additional charges burned down. The 25 mm bulkhead installed in the fighting compartment between the right and left guns was not pierced, and the two main and one additional charges in the left fighting compartment did not catch fire. From the crew of the tower in the amount of 75 people, only one survived.

              hitting the roof armor at the junction of a 110mm inclined slab and an 80mm horizontal slab. As you can see, it pierced a conventional semi-armor-piercing projectile with a charge of gunpowder (most likely), and not a much more powerful Greenboy. Despite the fact that the distance at this point in time was from 63kab with a decrease to 43kab. Note that on the "Hindenburg" the armor of the sloping upper front of the turret was reinforced to 150mm instead of 110mm on the "Derflinger".
              So my personal opinion is that, summing up the data on the shooting of Baden, the results of Jutland, I personally am more than sure that the 127mm roof armor of the Pennsylvania towers is completely penetrable not only by Greenboys. And given the fact that the Japanese in the 20s already had "Nagato", there was a very high probability that 127mm shells would become opponents at the long distances assumed by the Americans for 410mm turret roof armor smile hi
              1. Andrey Shmelev
                Andrey Shmelev 10 February 2019 19: 14
                +1
                In the case of Tiger, we are talking only about penetration into the fragments of armor, not the shell. And this suggests that the shell did not penetrate the armor?


                Yes, sir: wink good

                I quote the shooting in Baden:
                Attack on roofs of turrets (4 in. Thick). - (a) Summary of rounds.
                1 CPC B roof Holed.
                2 CPC X roof Failed to penetrate
                5 APC Failed to penetrate
                6 SAPC Failed to penetrate
                13 * APC Failed to penetrate
                The British considered penetration only the penetration of a significant part of the shell for armor (in this regard, they reasoned correctly) bully

                Colleague, once again:

                127mm roof armor of "Pennsylvania" towers is completely penetrable not only by "Greenboys"
                - wrong)

                need to:

                127mm roof armor of Pennsylvania towers is fully penetrable CPC with the non-delay fuze and NOT with the non-delay fuze
                127mm PA turret roof armor not penetrable by "Greenboy", since "Greenboy" is APC, and at sharp corners the penetration of the roof of the APC tower with the delay fuze lower than CPC with the non-delay fuze

                on "Derflinger" - I'll try to figure it out separately, but a 381-mm semi-armor-piercing one is quite capable of penetrating a 110-mm roof located at an angle of 15 degrees

                The trick is this:
                CPC with the non-delay fuze perfectly pierce the roofs of the towers, pierce the barbets and the belt well, but almost never commit fatal armored destruction
                ARS with the delay fuze perfectly penetrate the armor of the side, towers, barbets and are very inclined to commit fatal armored destruction
                So here you have to make a choice than to shoot)

                hi
                1. Rurikovich
                  Rurikovich 10 February 2019 19: 45
                  +2
                  Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                  The British considered penetration only the penetration of a significant part of the shell for armor (in this regard, they reasoned correctly)

                  Colleague, if as a result of breaking through the armor (it doesn’t matter whether the shell penetrated there or not) the tower is out of order, is it important for the British to know what to consider breaking through the armor? wink lol If the Moltke shell did not penetrate the Tiger's turret armor, why was it unable to function normally? Could it be from the hole 1,4x1m through which the explosion products penetrated into the tower bully Or didn’t the shell pierce the armor ?? laughing
                  And yes, my advice to you is that not all British sit here, so for a normal dialogue try to give your reasons in a Russian translation yes
                  Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                  27mm roof armor of Pennsylvania towers is fully penetrable CPC with the non-delay fuze and NOT with the non-delay fuze
                  127mm roof armor of Pennsylvania towers is not penetrable by Greenboys, since Greenboy is APC, and at sharp angles the penetration of APC tower roof with the delay fuze is lower than CPC with the non-delay fuze

                  How does most members of the forum. Or, giving your screenshots, translate yourself, then your arguments will become clearer wink
                  I personally do not comme il faut to recall my English skills and get a dictionary from the shelf hi
                  1. Andrey Shmelev
                    Andrey Shmelev 10 February 2019 20: 30
                    0
                    Colleague, I apologize, I will try to Russify speech as much as possible (sources like quotes from ADM are unrealistic, the rest will be)

                    If the tower turns out to be out of order, is it important for the British to say what to consider breaking through armor?


                    Yes, it is extremely important.

                    A rangefinder may be broken, one of the guns may temporarily fail, if 500 kg of armor fragments have flown in, part of the calculation will die (sadly, but not fatally)
                    Or maybe there’s a big drum with fenders detonation (for starters), if a shell flew in and detonated inside

                    Therefore, the British counted:
                    1 and 2 CPC without deceleration (one shot, one not)
                    5 and 13 ARS "Greenboys" with deceleration - did not break through
                    6 SAPC without slowdown - not broken
                    but on the basis of the reserved activity, they came to the conclusions, see below:

                    try to give your reasons in russian translation


                    There is!:
                    Conclusions in Russian:

                    "It is noteworthy that when firing at the roofs of gun turrets, the effect of shells with an instant fuse (shots 1 and 6) exceeded the slowing effect of shells with a fuse (shots 5 and 13)."

                    "The results showed that the angle of the trajectory is too small for any type of projectile that uses only impact energy to penetrate the armor of the roof of the gun turret, at the same time, a slight increase in the angle of the trajectory would already allow hitting the 102-mm armor plate of the turret roof with a combined impact action and the explosion of shells with a fuse installed without slowing down. "

                    Not perfectly verbatim, but very understandable.

                    hi
                    1. Rurikovich
                      Rurikovich 10 February 2019 20: 49
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                      Not perfectly verbatim, but very understandable.

                      Finally good
                      Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                      Yes, it is extremely important.

                      A rangefinder may be broken, one of the guns may temporarily fail, if 500 kg of armor fragments have flown in, part of the calculation will die (sadly, but not fatally)

                      Husbands about what we are discussing
                      At 15 hours, a 55-mm projectile from Moltke, fired from a distance of 280 m (room 12300), struck the front armor plate of the Q turret at the edge of the middle armor cap, and, without piercing the armor, exploded into 66mm front roof slope. The roof was destroyed on an area of ​​83x1 m. An explosion knocked down this cap, shell fragments broke the turret commander's armored cap, rangefinder and periscope, causing a lot of destruction.

                      In the tower itself, three were killed and five wounded. The lifting cages of both guns jammed. Both chargers were damaged, of which the right remained defective the whole battle. The right gun remained motionless in the middle position.

                      The left gun was able to be put into operation after repairing the rail pin that set the fire door to the cellar in motion. The control device drive turned out to be intact, and the left gun was aimed using the control device, but they had to shoot at the sound, listening to the firing of the front turrets. The tower was not completely incapacitated and continued to fire, although less intensely. In battle, the "Q" turret fired only 32 shells compared to 109 of the "B" turret.

                      roughly speaking, the sense of such a tower was like that of a goat of milk. Although, as we found out, the shell just did not penetrate the tower. Those where he penetrated lie in the depths of the North Sea ... repeat smile
                      That's it, we finish arguing. What comes to the test may be fundamentally different from what can happen in a real battle. The three British exploding from the shells hit the towers of the dreadnought cruiser, as well as the investigations and inspections of the surviving ships on both sides speak for themselves ... Yours faithfully, hi
                      1. Andrey Shmelev
                        Andrey Shmelev 10 February 2019 21: 11
                        0
                        roughly speaking, the sense of such a tower was like that of a goat of milk. Although, as we found out, the shell just did not penetrate the tower. Those where he penetrated lie in the depths of the North Sea ... feel smile

                        So here I am about this: drinks
                        if the APC flies in with an armored detonation, and there are shells in the barbet (at the "Pennsylvania", for example) or the same cordite in the tower half a ton fellow

                        In boxing, this is called the "puncher chance".

                        Yours faithfully, hi
                    2. 27091965
                      27091965 11 February 2019 10: 11
                      +1
                      Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                      "The results showed that the angle of the trajectory is too small for any type of projectile that uses only impact energy to penetrate the armor of the roof of the gun turret, at the same time, a slight increase in the angle of the trajectory would already allow hitting the 102-mm armor plate of the turret roof with a combined impact action and the explosion of shells with a fuse installed without slowing down. "


                      The interesting thing about this is that it took the British eight years to come to this. The Americans changed the rules for testing shells and armor plates in 1913. In 1916, at a hearing on the armament of future battleships, it was concluded that at distances of more than 15 thousand meters 16 inch guns would be most effective.
                  2. Andrey Shmelev
                    Andrey Shmelev 10 February 2019 20: 44
                    0
                    And to be more clear, one of the "Berkalov diagrams":



                    I consider the armor penetration figures to be very overestimated due to the poor quality of Russian armor and improper firing (but the topic of errors in interpreting the results of firing at the Chesme requires writing a serious monograph, I will merge with it for now, I apologize, I am not ready to issue it yet). no less, it is quite possible to use some visualization of the effectiveness of land mines and semi-armor-piercing
                2. Rurikovich
                  Rurikovich 10 February 2019 20: 02
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                  I quote the shooting in Baden:
                  Attack on roofs of turrets (4 in. Thick). - (a) Summary of rounds.
                  1 CPC B roof Holed.
                  2 CPC X roof Failed to penetrate
                  5 APC Failed to penetrate
                  6 SAPC Failed to penetrate
                  13 * APC Failed to penetrate

                  But you can write like this:
                  The results of the first shooting at Baden (hitting the roof of the towers):

                  1. High explosive (type of charge gunpowder) - the roof of the second tower is 100mm - a gap when hit, a hole in the roof of the tower is 2,02x0,58m.
                  2. High explosive (shellit 60/40) - the roof of the third tower is 100mm - a gap of 6 meters from the point of penetration, the armor is concave by 18 cm and torn.
                  5. Armor-piercing (shellit 70/30) - there is a gap of 4,6 m from the point of impact, the armor is concave by 70 cm.
                  6. Half-armor-piercing (shellit 70/30) - the roof of the second tower 100mm - gap when hit, the armor is concave 5 cm and torn.
                  13. Armor-piercing (shellit 70/30) - the roof of the third tower 100mm - a gap of 4,5m. behind the point of impact, the roof is concave by 10cm. and torn.
                  After all, can this be so? wink hi
                  1. Andrey Shmelev
                    Andrey Shmelev 10 February 2019 21: 06
                    0
                    good Then already this:

                    1. High explosive (type of charge gunpowder) - the roof of the second tower is 100mm - a gap when hit, a hole in the roof of the tower is 2,02x0,58m.
                    The tower was seriously damaged. One of the guns failed.

                    2. High explosive (shellit 60/40) - the roof of the third tower is 100mm - a gap of 6 meters from the point of penetration, the armor is concave by 18 cm and torn.
                    The tower was slightly damaged.

                    5. Armor-piercing (shellit 70/30) - there is a gap of 4,6 m from the point of impact, the armor is concave by 70 cm.
                    The tower was slightly damaged.

                    6. Half-armor-piercing (shellit 70/30) - the roof of the second tower 100mm - gap when hit, the armor is concave 5 cm and torn.
                    The tower failed for a considerable time.

                    13. Armor-piercing (shellit 70/30) - the roof of the third tower 100mm - a gap of 4,5m. behind the point of impact, the roof is concave by 10cm. and torn.
                    The tower was slightly damaged.

                    Conclusions: armor-piercing shells do not incapacitate a bathhouse; semi-armor-piercing shells have a good chance of incapacitating a tower.

                    wink hi
                  2. Saxahorse
                    Saxahorse 10 February 2019 22: 06
                    0
                    I don’t understand what you’re arguing about at all. I would like to remind you that even a high-explosive British 15 "projectile weighs 871 kg. Such a projectile will break through a 100-127 mm armor type at any angle. Well, I would like to remind you about the British HESH ammunition, armor-piercing high-explosive in other words. explosives can also break through a considerable thickness of armor.
                    1. Andrey Shmelev
                      Andrey Shmelev 10 February 2019 23: 34
                      0
                      Those. a sufficient supply of explosives, also of considerable thickness, can break through armor. [quote] [/ quote]

                      belay



                      This is by the way WWII laughing data on a purely high explosive penetration, without an impact component)
                      1. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 10 February 2019 23: 38
                        0
                        The penetration limit for 305 mm is only 30 mm?

                        "I do not believe!" (c) Stanislavsky laughing
                      2. Andrey Shmelev
                        Andrey Shmelev 11 February 2019 00: 01
                        0
                        data on a purely high explosive penetration (Germans) - he himself is a little shocked)

                        Russian high-explosive diagram (Berkalov) is a little higher (IMHO, the data is too high), but you can already build a constructive discussion (here shock + high-explosive action)
                      3. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 11 February 2019 00: 04
                        0
                        I do not see a full description of this plate, but obvious nonsense. Where was the kinetic energy of a half-ton shell disposed of? 330 m \ s by the way. Gravity Compensators? Elven magic? laughing
                      4. Andrey Shmelev
                        Andrey Shmelev 11 February 2019 00: 13
                        0
                        I'm telling you
                        data on purely high explosive penetration (Germans)

                        those. gap near the deck (not touching)
                        for where it concerns, see Berkalov above (diagram 14)
                      5. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 11 February 2019 00: 19
                        0
                        I would suggest that this is a table of simply undermining the number of explosives equivalent to the charge of the projectile. Then it seems that a blast of 30-50 kg of explosives really breaks through the armor of 30-40 mm.

                        But if we are talking specifically about the shell, then the Germans themselves indicated - the minimum armor to hold even at maximum distances is half the caliber of the shell.
  • kvs207
    kvs207 10 February 2019 10: 29
    0
    Quote: looker-on
    I like American ships

    The lattice masts, in my opinion, are a perversion, as subsequent practice has shown.
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 10 February 2019 11: 05
    0
    And I also have a question about the thickness of the armor deck (scan from Norman Friedman "American battleships .."):



    Colleagues, who and how translates "120 #" in the drawing?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      10 February 2019 11: 18
      +1
      Alas, American popular literature often gives incorrect TTXs of ships (remember the memorable Iowa with its 457 (or 406-mm? I don’t remember already) armored belt. By the way, the thicknesses roughly correspond to what Pennsylvania had after modernization
      1. Andrey Shmelev
        Andrey Shmelev 10 February 2019 11: 58
        0
        then I’ll say my version:

        1.The drawing is absolutely reliable, since the author directly states that "from cotract plans, 1913"

        2. The value "120 #" is a pound system of measure of armor, similar to the British, so the booking is something like this: 50 # / 40 = 1,25 inches STS + 50 # / 40 = 1,25 inches STS + 20 # / 40 = 0,5 inches MS = 31,75 mm STS + 31,75 mm STS + 12,7 mm MS = 63,5 mm armor on 12,7 mm backing = total 76,2 mm steel, which fully corresponds to the table specifications given in the same work earlier

        I would be grateful for any other version
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          10 February 2019 12: 24
          0
          Quote: Andrey Shmelev
          The value "120 #" is a pound system of measure of armor, similar to the British, so the booking is something like this: 50 # / 40 = 1,25 inches STS + 50 # / 40 = 1,25 inches STS + 20 # / 40 = 0,5, 31,75 in MS = 31,75 mm STS + 12,7 mm STS + 63,5 mm MS = 12,7 mm armor on 76,2 mm backing = total XNUMX mm steel

          Then what is the argument at all?
          1. Andrey Shmelev
            Andrey Shmelev 10 February 2019 12: 36
            0
            this is not a dispute, this is an attempt to "finally and irrevocably" come to a final conclusion and eliminate the discrepancies in the sources

            It was:
            The version considered to be canonical is that it consisted of two layers of STS armor steel with a thickness of 38,1 mm each (total - 76,2 mm) laid on a 12,7 mm substrate of ordinary shipbuilding steel. Formally, this allows us to consider the thickness of the main armored deck of Pennsylvania-type battleships as 88,9 mm


            We all rejected it together. That's great drinks
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              10 February 2019 12: 54
              +1
              Quote: Andrey Shmelev
              We all rejected it together. That's great

              OK, I understood and accepted
        2. anzar
          anzar 12 February 2019 01: 02
          +1
          2. The value "120 #" is the pound system of armor gauge ...

          Your version is good, but where does 120 # eat in your drawing? I see only 12 # - the deck above the upper armored. And what does it mean? (Teak deck in pounds?)))
          1. Andrey Shmelev
            Andrey Shmelev 12 February 2019 19: 06
            0
            My version is excellent, I explain

            One deck has
            Value "120 #" - This is a pound system of armor measures similar to the British one, so booking is approximately the following: 50 # / 40 = 1,25 inches STS + 50 # / 40 = 1,25 inches STS + 20 # / 40 = 0,5 inches MS = 31,75 31,75 mm STS + 12,7 mm STS + 63,5 mm MS = 12,7 mm armor on a 76,2 mm lining = a total of XNUMX mm steel, which fully complies with the table specifications given in the same work earlier
            value "120 #" not indicated in the drawing, since it is the sum of the three indicated values ​​50 # / 40 = 1,25 inches STS + 50 # / 40 = 1,25 inches STS + 20 # / 40 = 0,5 inches MS = 31,75 mm STS + 31,75 mm STS + 12,7 mm MS = 63,5 mm armor

            The deck above matters "12 #" = 7,62 mm steel

            laughing
  • Lamatinets
    Lamatinets 10 February 2019 11: 11
    +1
    As always, take off my hat !!! hi
  • Beregovic_1
    Beregovic_1 10 February 2019 11: 57
    +1
    Thank you, I read it with pleasure! It would be interesting to compare with the unfinished Russian Ishmaels, but .... Firstly, they were not completed, and secondly, they would be correct to compare with battle cruisers or with 25-knot British. And thirdly, the comparison result is understandable in principle ..... Thanks to the author for the work!
  • Lozovik
    Lozovik 10 February 2019 12: 04
    +2
    But in practice, the armored deck is at least 74,7 mm thick (to which, after Chausov, the author of this article inclines)

    You are right, 20-pound NS and 50-foot STS were stacked on 50-foot MS steel slabs, totaling 120 pounds, that is, the deck was 3 inches thick before the upgrade.

    This armored belt, covering the steering, was closed from the stern by another beam, which consisted of exactly the same plates as the armored belt itself — they also had about 3 m of height, also had about 330 mm of thickness over about one meter, and then gradually thinned to 203 mm and were located on the same level.

    It can be clarified that the slabs repeated the contours of the hull and were installed at a significant angle, and the stern beam consisted of one single slab.

    Scheme of Nevada, there should be no significant differences.

    https://yadi.sk/i/MPHvqWl0KDvSaw
  • sds127
    sds127 10 February 2019 14: 01
    +1
    as always, informative, readable, interesting. thanks
  • arturpraetor
    arturpraetor 10 February 2019 14: 30
    +3
    Actually, which is to be expected. No matter how much you call "all or nothing" the best protection for a superdreadnought (as some often do), and American dreadnoughts are the best, under the given conditions it still turns out not so hot - the decks are thin, there are many questions with the storage of BC, and so on. And as a result, both European ships and American ships have enough vulnerabilities.
    For the article, of course, a fierce plus, we will wait for a comparison.
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 10 February 2019 16: 31
      0
      Quote: arturpraetor
      For the article, of course, a fierce plus, we will wait for a comparison.

      I agree that it is a comparison (albeit virtual) that can provide answers to some questions smile
  • NF68
    NF68 10 February 2019 17: 36
    0
    Interesting article.
  • Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 10 February 2019 22: 32
    -4
    Until recently, I did not want to comment on this cycle. I'm not interested in battleships, let alone American ones. But here are the trees and sticks! I wrote to Andrey a hundred times - if you want to write something smart, sit down and think! But again, "analytics" is on the run, you can't call it otherwise ..

    US admirals saw Japan as their main adversary, building a very powerful linear fleet, which the American Navy was to meet in the tropical Pacific


    Complete nonsense. The main opponent of the United States has always been Britain. And the break of the Anglo-Japanese alliance in the 20s was a huge victory for American diplomacy! (The result of this was the destruction of the British Empire).

    American naval thought made some fairly obvious conclusions. The battles will take place at distances that until now have been considered huge, and it will not work to bombard the enemy ships with a barrage of high-explosive shells similar to what the Japanese Imperial fleet in Tsushima did: no fire control system can provide the required number of hits. If so, preference should be given to armor-piercing shells of heavy guns capable, if successful, of causing decisive damage to an armored target.


    In general, some kind of nonsense. One hundred years ago it was already guessed that at long distances an armor-piercing projectile was useless and they invented a high-explosive or at least semi-armor-piercing shell to defeat the enemy .. Here either the Americans or the author have some problems with elementary logic ..

    .. according to V. Chausov, the main armored deck of Pennsylvania-type battleships was significantly thinner, because each layer of STS steel had a thickness of not 38,1 mm, but only 31,1 mm, and the steel substrate was also thinner - not 12,7, 12,5, but only 88,9 mm. Accordingly, the total thickness of the upper deck of the battleship was not 74,7 mm, but only XNUMX mm, and all that we said above about its armor resistance, of course, remains valid ..


    Did the author himself realize that he had spun about decks and reservations? So what is Pennsylvania 1st deck? What is the second? Which is the top? What is armored? What the hell is this mess !? The author clearly overdid it with his Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V. Primitive copying from the source completely confused the presentation. For such pieces of porridge with garbage in the text you need to put a HUGE thick minus.

    It is a pity, but the article did not work out.
    1. Andrey Shmelev
      Andrey Shmelev 10 February 2019 23: 30
      +1
      The main opponent of the United States has always been Britain. And the break of the Anglo-Japanese alliance in the 20s was a huge victory for American diplomacy! (The result of this was the destruction of the British Empire).


      I’ll support it here. Although all the talk to the public was exclusively about protecting the Philippines from Japanese aggression. For Britain, a break with Japan and a refusal to support Japanese exclusive interests in China = suicide of the empire. drinks But, if not for the betrayal of British interests by the British elite, then: "Fuso" and "Royal Sovereign" are allies against "Pennsylvania".

      One hundred years ago it was already guessed that at long distances an armor-piercing projectile was useless and an explosive or at least semi-armor-piercing shell was invented to defeat the enemy ..


      I won’t support it. In 1900, it would never have occurred to anyone to shoot from 120 cables, from which the armor-piercing one does fatal damage, breaking through the citadel deck. But in 1920 it was already the mainstream, although how to get from such a distance was still not at all clear.
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 10 February 2019 23: 35
        -1
        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
        In 1900, it would never occur to anyone to shoot from 120 cables, from which armor-piercing inflicts fatal damage

        Armor-piercing is almost a blank. He does no fatal damage to anyone. Especially battleships. Through a round hole and nothing more.
        1. Andrey Shmelev
          Andrey Shmelev 10 February 2019 23: 53
          0
          I beg your pardon, but what about Mighty Hood?
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 11 February 2019 00: 02
            0
            This is called - "Golden Bullet", this is not expected. A drunken sailor could have fallen in a powder magazine.
            1. Andrey Shmelev
              Andrey Shmelev 11 February 2019 00: 11
              0
              then the British battle cruisers at Jutland, two APCs for sure crashed ("Invincible" and "Indefatigable")
              1. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 11 February 2019 00: 15
                0
                But two times this is no longer an accident, but a system. And they wrote a lot about it, and the reasons were named and corrected. But there were no 120 cable there.

                I would add that there is no armor for 15 ". It pierces everything one way or another. But for smaller calibers the rule is unambiguous. Fighting with armor-piercing at maximum distances is usually useless.
                1. Andrey Shmelev
                  Andrey Shmelev 11 February 2019 00: 23
                  0
                  And what other examples of the destruction of battleships by artillery in a normal battle?

                  Queen Mary - according to the description of the APC, but the Germans write that at the beginning of the battle they shot high-explosive bombs = not clear
                  Luttsov - a bunch of CPC, he was simply sickened out + bad luck + unsuccessful design of the torpedo compartment
                  Bismarck = invulnerable stronghold, he was all picked up from above by the same APC, and there they opened kingstones + torpedoes

                  Still have ideas?

                  But there were no 120 cable there.


                  Here, yes, there is such a thing. From a distance of 120 cables there are not very many, to put it mildly, facts of getting one battleship into another)

                  American standards at this distance are generally a song, the next series had even worse things with accuracy compared to double dispersion against British standards)
                  1. Saxahorse
                    Saxahorse 11 February 2019 00: 25
                    -1
                    About that and speech. If you were betting on the maximum distance, you hardly expected armor-piercing ones. And vice versa.
                    1. Andrey Shmelev
                      Andrey Shmelev 11 February 2019 00: 32
                      +1
                      I have a different version about Americans:
                      - bet on the maximum distance
                      - counted on armor-piercing, to break through the deck
                      - unexpectedly got enormous problems with accuracy, so they wouldn’t hit anyone from long distances (only by accident)
                      - they would fight like everyone else on 80 cable ones (hello to barbets with shells inside)
                      -we would count on the defeat of the enemy’s cellars through the upper armored belt (we will analyze in the comments to the following articles)
                      -Americans and British on 80 cable would shoot classic APC, Germans almost certainly also
                      1. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 11 February 2019 22: 16
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                        I have a different version about Americans:
                        - bet on the maximum distance
                        - counted on armor-piercing, to break through the deck
                        - unexpectedly got enormous problems with accuracy, so they wouldn’t hit anyone from long distances (only by accident)
                        - they would fight like everyone else on 80 cable (

                        It seems to me that you, as the author of this article, do not understand that the effectiveness of armor-piercing shells quickly decreases with distance. Cumulatives have not yet been invented. No speed - no penetration. At long distances, the armor penetration of these same armor-piercing shells is no better (or even worse) than conventional or high-explosive shells. Bet on armor-piercing based on maximum distances is complete nonsense.

                        Do not be lazy and look at "Armor Penetration" for these very American AP 14 "\ 45 Pennsylvania, for example. You will immediately notice that as an armor-piercing, ie punching its caliber, AP only works up to 45 kb. Then the penetration quickly drops to 80 kbl. is actually equal to a land mine, and by 100 kb or more it becomes less than half the caliber, that is, even worse than the Common (CPC).
                      2. anzar
                        anzar 12 February 2019 01: 35
                        +1
                        The version of Shmelev’s colleague is much better than your colleague.
                        And by 100 kbl and more, it becomes already less than half the caliber, i.e. even worse than Common (CPC)

                        And why did you decide that 100kab. ATP also breaks half a caliber, how does it get closer? Kinetics do not affect them?
                        But still looked at the numbers:
                        18,800 yards (17,190 m) 14 "(356 mm) ---
                        23,400 yards (21,400 m) 12 "(305 mm) ---
                        And where is that "half caliber" for the 14 "AP Mark 8? (14")
                        which is like armor-piercing, those. punching your caliberAR only works up to 45 kbl ...

                        Here is a new classification of shells! Passerby urgently on the podium))) laughing
                      3. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 12 February 2019 22: 01
                        0
                        Quote: anzar
                        And where is that "half caliber" for the 14 "AP Mark 8? (14")

                        Well, for example :))))

                        "Armor Penetration with AP Mark 8"
                        6,000 yards (5,490 m) - 17.2 "(437 mm)
                        9,000 yards (8,230 m) - 14.4 "(366 mm)
                        16,000 yards (14,630 m) - 8.9 "(226 mm)
                        20,000 yards (18,290 m) - 6.7 "(170 mm)
                        "This data is from BuOrd table" Elements of US Naval Guns "of 17 May 1918 as published in" US Naval Weapons "and is for face-hardened (Harvey) plates."

                        And I would ask, why do you think that at 100-120 kb the armor-piercing blank should pierce better than the same exactly mine-weighted?
                      4. anzar
                        anzar 12 February 2019 22: 54
                        0
                        Well, for example :))))

                        You look at the data on the first guns (1; 2; 3; 5), and I, after rearmament (8; 9; 10; 12) ... this makes the difference.
                        And I would ask, why do you think that at 100-120 kb the armor-piercing blank should pierce better than the same exactly mine-weighted?

                        Because of the greater "strength")). When the projectile does not penetrate the armor, it is destroyed (due to overloads); when the thickness of the armor is close to the boundary, the armor-piercing still passes, and the land mine is already destroyed. That is, according to your table for 20000 yards of hypotheses. a land mine will not penetrate 170mm (although it is already thin)) but in my opinion, at 23 yards 400mm - and even more so!
                        Since the amers do not have landmines, do you have data on other 14 "guns that support your opinion?
                      5. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 13 February 2019 23: 29
                        0
                        Quote: anzar
                        Because of the greater "strength")). When the projectile does not penetrate the armor, it is destroyed (due to overloads); when the thickness of the armor is close to the boundary, the armor-piercing still passes, and the land mine is already destroyed.

                        Strength steers at small and medium distances. And if it comes to half the caliber at long distances, only the remnants of kinetic energy are already working there. And there it doesn’t matter whether the shell is destroyed or not, it will break through the armor with the aggregate mass of debris. For long range, the greater strength of armor-piercing does not matter. Well, it should be noted that the gun is not a howitzer, the projectile is quite strong, even a high-explosive one.

                        As for the other 14 ", I will not tell right away. I came across other calibers, but rarely, tables for APCs are usually not brought to such ranges. For good reason, you need to look for tables for semi-armor-piercing. It is believed that only CPC will be used in such cases.
                2. Andrey Shmelev
                  Andrey Shmelev 12 February 2019 08: 12
                  +1
                  It seems to me that you, as the author of this article, do not understand that the effectiveness of armor-piercing shells quickly decreases with distance.


                  falls against vertical armor, but increases against horizontal)

                  that's why the dispute was whether 75 cables were far enough for the Greenboy to pierce the 127-mm roof of the Hood tower, they found out: to effectively defeat the 127-mm roof of the Hood tower, it is necessary to retreat at least 120 cables for the most modest estimates (to obtain a reservation gap)

                  The "invulnerability zone" has a lower range limit (the projectile no longer penetrates the main armor belt), for example, 80 cables, as well as the upper one (the projectile does not yet penetrate the deck of the citadel), for example 120 cables
                3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  12 February 2019 14: 13
                  +3
                  Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                  found out: for effective destruction of the 127-mm roof of the "Huda" tower, it is necessary to retreat at least 120 cable cables according to the most conservative estimates (to obtain a gap in the armor)

                  We found out that on 120 cable deck armor breaks through, and that when falling on a German LC tower at an 11 angle, which corresponds approximately to the distance of 65 cables, 100 mm armor holds an armor-piercing shell. The conclusion voiced by you in no way follows from this :)))))
                4. Andrey Shmelev
                  Andrey Shmelev 12 February 2019 18: 22
                  0
                  colleague, tactfully note that I wrote that

                  2. It is not for nothing that the "de Marr dependence" has been transformed into a dozen different formulas (conversion factors are a tricky thing).
                  Therefore, I am not ready to assert that "due to the absolute coefficient of armor quality of 0,95" at the 127-mm roof of the Hood tower, 381-mm Greenboy "due to the absolute quality coefficient of the projectile 1,020" begins to penetrate with a probability of a gap of 90 % certainly, starting from 136 cable wassat. (IMHO, it's not so much Nathan Okun himself who goes too far, but his followers)
                  I carefully write that generally accepted calculation methods, in my opinion, exclude breaking through the 381-mm "Greenboy" 127-mm roof of the "Huda" tower from a distance of less than 120 cables with an explosion behind the armor. Which agrees very well with all the authoritative information available, right down to Beatty's opinion that 25000mm is needed for quality protection from 152 yards (Greenboy is not capable of breaking a slab of this thickness under these conditions, even without penetration).


                  Therefore, I will tactfully ask:
                  And with which, in your opinion, minimal distance 381-mm "Greenboy" will pierce the 127-mm roof of the tower with the probability of an armored explosion of more than 50 percent?
                  The answer is "I can't know!" will also suit tongue
                5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  12 February 2019 18: 41
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                  colleague, tactfully note that I wrote that

                  They wrote who argues :)))
                  Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                  I carefully write that the generally accepted calculation methods, in my opinion, exclude the penetration of the 381-mm "Greenboy" of the 127-mm roof of the "Huda" tower from a distance of less than 120 cables with an armored explosion

                  But you can already talk about this, since everything is very unclear with the techniques here. There are many formulas for armor penetration in general, de Marr is perhaps the most common, but here is its option for calculating horizontal armor penetration ... Well, cosine alpha will not work here :)))))))
                  By the way, what do you think the generally accepted calculation methods will say about the three-inch deck of American battleships?
                  Quote: Andrey Shmelev
                  And from what, in your opinion, is the minimum distance of 381-mm "Greenboy" to break through the 127-mm roof of the tower with the probability of an armored explosion of more than 50 percent?
                  The answer is "I can't know!" will also suit

                  For now I will say - "I cannot know", but a little later I will try to give a more accurate one :)))))) hi
                6. Andrey Shmelev
                  Andrey Shmelev 12 February 2019 19: 23
                  0
                  ok, we'll shoot "standard into standard" pretty soon
          2. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 12 February 2019 22: 10
            0
            Quote: Andrey Shmelev
            falls against vertical armor, but increases against horizontal)

            But we are not talking about a vertical or horizontal barrier, but about comparing armor-piercing and high-explosive shells. And I reminded you that at large distances the difference in penetration between them disappears, along with a drop in speed. But there remains a difference in the number of explosives inside.

            And let me remind you again of two simple rules of thumb :)

            1. The minimum penetration of vertical armor by a shell is approximately equal to half the caliber of this shell.
            2. If the thickness of the horizontal armor is less than 1/3 of the caliber of the projectile, no rebound occurs and the armor still breaks regardless of the angle of the meeting.
          3. Andrey Shmelev
            Andrey Shmelev 13 February 2019 08: 05
            +1
            And let me remind you again of two simple rules of thumb :)

            1. The minimum penetration of vertical armor by a shell is approximately equal to half the caliber of this shell.


            that is, it turns out that APC, punching from half the caliber of vertical armor, always pierces it more than NOT, piercing to half caliber vertical armor
            (APC gives rebounds)

            If the thickness of the horizontal armor is less than 1/3 of the caliber of the projectile, no rebound occurs and the armor still breaks regardless of the angle of the meeting


            Baden's 100 mm is only 26% (by no means one third) of the 381-mm Greenboy, according to the results of firing two hits on the roofs of APC towers we have two ricochets with a break in the armor at the impact site (but the shell burst somewhere far outside from the place of such a tear)

            Is not it?
          4. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 13 February 2019 22: 58
            0
            Quote: Andrey Shmelev
            always pierces it more than NOT, piercing to half a caliber

            How could you read my "before"? I kind of wrote in Russian that a shell that is at least half the caliber thickness of the armor either pierces or breaks through. Let's not juggle.

            Quote: Andrey Shmelev
            of the two hits in the roofs of the APC towers, we have two ricochet with a gap of armor in the place of impact (but the gap of the projectile is somewhere far

            And this is considered a penetration, just as, for example, a penetration is considered a hole through both sides with an APC gap far into the sea.
          5. Andrey Shmelev
            Andrey Shmelev 14 February 2019 07: 41
            0
            I kind of wrote in Russian that at least half a caliber thick the shell either pierces or breaks through.


            For comparison, in the comments above, the penetration diagram of 305 mm HE shells with overestimated results stop

            And this is considered a break


            for the British it is "Failed ..." yes
          6. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 14 February 2019 23: 06
            0
            Quote: Andrey Shmelev
            For comparison, in the comments above, the penetration diagram of 305 mm HE shells with overestimated results

            Are you all about your 30-40 mm? laughing

            Alas, this is not a penetration, but a breakout when a high-explosive charge of a shell is laid on deck. So to speak, an assessment of the pre-exposure effect. I reminded you of this.

            Quote: Andrey Shmelev
            for the British it is "Failed ..."

            Debris of armor will do things no less than fragments of the shell itself. The British are acting up :)
          7. Andrey Shmelev
            Andrey Shmelev 15 February 2019 18: 08
            +1
            Are you all about your 30-40 mm?


            I'm not talking about "K-dock", but about:



            read carefully))))
            these 15-18 cm not mine, but Berkalova


            Fragments of armor will do things no less than fragments of the shell itself


            much, much less)))) above, for each case, all damage inside the towers of "Baden" is described in detail

            hi
          8. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 15 February 2019 22: 37
            0
            Quote: Andrey Shmelev
            read carefully))))
            these 15-18 cm are not mine, but Berkalova

            Are you kidding or don't understand anything at all? We are talking about the minimum thickness of penetration of armor and you show me the area of ​​the gap in response? fool


            Quote: Andrey Shmelev
            above for each case, all damage inside the towers of "Baden" is described in detail

            Another joke? Did someone firmly guarantee that the shell that broke through the armor would bounce out? With the same success, the projectile could slide inward or (in the case of CPC or HE) to explode right in the breach.

            Communicating with you is more and more like a transfusion from empty to empty. Let's finish.
          9. Andrey Shmelev
            Andrey Shmelev 15 February 2019 23: 14
            0
            We are talking about the minimum thickness of penetration of armor and you show me the area of ​​the gap in response?


            we are talking about the MAXIMUM thickness of the armor pierced by HE and it is no more than the MINIMUM thickness of the armor pierced by APC

            breach area 1 square foot = this is armor penetration tongue
            Is it difficult to convert to data on armor penetration?

            "Have you read Tukhachevsky?" (c) - ugh, that is, you saw Berkalov's diagram? am


            With the same success, the projectile could slide in.


            why then did the CPC not slip? laughing

            With the same success, the projectile could ... explode right in the gap.


            why then did the CPC not explode? laughing

            stop it looks like "I'm the same ass as ...." (c) the compilers of this very ADM.


            One "but", about the gap NOT in the gap is a brilliant idea. One thing is not comme il faut, Rurikovich and I have already written almost forty comments on this topic in this thread))) Can you tell me who asked us, nafik we did it?

            My colleague, no offense, I have a small request, let's proceed from the fact that I am a little familiar with textbooks) therefore, if it seems to you that I do not have a request:
            1.see my other comments in this thread
            2. write what exactly is wrong with them in me, I will try to express myself more precisely

            Yours faithfully, hi
          10. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 15 February 2019 23: 45
            0
            Quote: Andrey Shmelev
            "Have you read Tukhachevsky?" (c) - ugh, that is, you saw Berkalov's diagram?

            And you saw in this diagram that the area of ​​a hole of 305 mm of a high-explosive shell in it starting from 178 mm of armor thickness is beginning to count? And yes, the thinner the armor, the larger the gap. wassat
          11. Andrey Shmelev
            Andrey Shmelev 16 February 2019 00: 02
            0
            Colleague,

            no offense, I have a small request, let's proceed from the fact that I am a little familiar with textbooks) therefore, if it seems to you that I do not have a request:
            1.see my other comments in this thread


            namely, to this diagram I already wrote:

            I believe armor penetration figures are very high due to the low quality of Russian armor and incorrect conduct of firing (but the topic of errors in the interpretation of the results of firing at "Chesme" requires writing a serious monograph, I will merge with it for now, I apologize, I am not ready to issue it yet), nevertheless, how to use some visualization of the effectiveness of landmines and semi-armor-piercing can


            Clarification of the "K coefficient" and transformation of the function will give the value of the maximum armor penetration, approximately equal to the German, that is, about 0,45 caliber)
          12. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 16 February 2019 00: 34
            0
            No offense so no offense. I think a hundred times already wrote in these comments that the minimum breakdown for any projectile is 0.5 caliber. You have confirmed this with your charts. By the word minimal I mean the thickness of the armor that a shell will always pierce, be it at least high explosive, at least armor-piercing, at least rubber. Pure kinetic energy.

            From the many tables and graphs given, it can be seen that from a certain distance the breakdown of an armor-piercing projectile is not higher than the breakdown of a high explosive shell in its 0.5 caliber. This is the basis for the statement that landmines are more effective at long distances. With the same breakdown (0.5 caliber), their explosive charge is much stronger.

            And this is not a drop of discovery, everyone has been well aware of this since the 19th century.
          13. Andrey Shmelev
            Andrey Shmelev 16 February 2019 10: 44
            0
            Thanks for the constructive dialogue in which we are both right, I think:

            For normal PMV conditions:
            maximum penetration NOT 0,5 gauge side armor
            minimal penetration of 0,5 caliber APC side armor

            That is, penetration of the APC side armor is always NOT anymore (except for very sharp heading angles)
            although the penetration of NOT horizontal armor is usually greater than that of APC.

            drinks
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 11 February 2019 08: 56
    +2
    Quote: Andrey Shmelev
    Queen Mary - according to the description of the APC, but the Germans write that at the beginning of the battle they shot high-explosive bombs = not clear

    Queen Mary drowned Derflinger with Seidlitz. Von Haase does not focus on the fact that he fired high-explosive shells, because of the consumption of main battery shells during the Battle of Jutland
    During the battle "Derflinger" fired 385 305-mm shells (53% of ammunition), of which 298 armor-piercing and 87 high-explosive shells with a bottom fuse,

    suggests that high-explosive were used exclusively for zeroing and from the moment of covering von Haase switched to armor-piercing. Because "Queen Mary" was most likely sunk by armor-piercing shells
    But Pashen makes a reservation that he used only high-explosive shells at the beginning of the battle (I wrote about this above). Analyzing the consumption of shells of the GK "Lyuttsova"
    In total, in the Battle of Jutland, "Lützow" fired 380 305-mm shells (52,7% of ammunition), of which 200 were high-explosive with a bottom fuse, and the rest were armor-piercing

    it can be concluded that before meeting with the main British forces, Pashen used only high-explosive shells and switched to armor-piercing shells most likely only with the advent of Evan-Thomas battleships hi
    1. Andrey Shmelev
      Andrey Shmelev 11 February 2019 11: 00
      +2
      In principle, I agree, a colleague, why he wrote that, most likely he was sunk by armor-piercing hi
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 11 February 2019 21: 27
        +2
        Now, if the "Lion" exploded during the "run to the south", then one could safely say that it was sunk by land mines wink yes
      2. Andrey Shmelev
        Andrey Shmelev 11 February 2019 21: 37
        +1
        Yes, I completely agree. But here I would start to argue on the topic that with proper storage of gunpowder (cartridges, metal containers), a more thoughtful design of the barbet ... In general, this is not a merit of a landmine, but a defect wink
      3. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 11 February 2019 22: 19
        0
        If we recall that at 80 kb and further the armor penetration of a land mine, a half-armor-piercing and an armor-piercing projectile becomes the same, then why not. :)
      4. Andrey Shmelev
        Andrey Shmelev 12 February 2019 18: 57
        0
        If you recall that at 80 kbl and further the armor penetration of a land mine, a half-armor-piercing and an armor-piercing shell becomes the same
        belay

        Two primary striking velocities were used, 1,550 fps (472 mps) simulating a range of 15,500 yards (14,170 m) and 1,380 fps (421 mps) simulating a range of 21,800 yards (19,930 m). Tests at 1,550 fps (472 mps) with 4crh "Greenboy" APC showed that these projectiles could penetrate turret face armor of 35 cm (13.8 in) when struck at an angle of 18.5 degrees and penetrate barbette armor of 35 cm (13.8 in) when struck at an angle of 11 degrees, but that this same armor thickness on the conning tower successfully defeated an APC striking at an angle of 30 degrees.

        (this is about the results of the shelling of "Baden" 15 "" Greenboys ")
      5. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 12 February 2019 22: 43
        +1
        So I want to ask. III ??

        Those. what did you want to say? What is the heavier projectile higher end speed and distance of destruction is also greater? Well it is. And this is true for CPC or HE too.

        By the way, it’s more correct to call it testing, since the distance was simulated by the selection of speed.
      6. Andrey Shmelev
        Andrey Shmelev 12 February 2019 22: 47
        0
        I wanted to say that with 80 cables 15 "APC will break more than twice as much vertical armor than 15 "HE yes
      7. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 12 February 2019 23: 12
        0
        And the British 18 "for the same 80 kbl penetrates 457 mm. Just the definition of" long distance "for such guns is moved somewhere to the 200-meter cable. And 80 kbl for 18" is not a distance.
  • anzar
    anzar 12 February 2019 00: 20
    0
    +++ dear Andrei, but there are always questions for a good article)))

    ... no fire control system can provide the required number of hits. If so, preference should be given to armor-piercing shells of heavy guns capable, if successful, of causing decisive damage to an armored target. The Americans believed that the Japanese see the situation exactly the same ..
    .
    This is logical and I am sure that they THEN thought so and therefore accepted this principle "all or nothing". The writings of colleagues what shells (CPC; NOT) from what distance what pierce or not pierce - this afterglow.
    Everything else should not have been booked at all so that the ship had a good chance of "passing through" an enemy shell without causing its detonation. Indeed, a relatively “tight” armor-piercing projectile fuse might not have been blown up if the latter, having passed from side to side, did not meet armored plates on its way ...

    But I disagree with this (in terms of "not calling")), do not be like Shmelev's colleague, who, when (where) the projectile explodes, deduces from its type))) "Tightness" (actuation force) fuse and delay time- UTB different things! (to Russian tubes, and the RPE does not apply to other times)))
    Those. the fuse of a good ARS (armor piercing) will also work from the casing, but the explosion delay will be the same as set. Since the time for penetrating thick armor is longer (and they will be installed this way), then the explosion during the "firmware" of the tip will be (depending on the width) near the opposite field. sides (inside / outside; above or below water.
    But this does not mean that THEN the logic for "all or nothing" is flawed - since they decided that there will be no landmines, then a thin "anti-explosive" booking is superfluous - the APC will break through it and many compartments will cope better. And the fact that it is possible to break it and sovr. land mine (due to the increased caliber) - then it will be.
    1. Andrey Shmelev
      Andrey Shmelev 12 February 2019 18: 49
      0
      colleague, I tactfully note that

      do not be compared to Shmelev’s colleague, who when (where) the projectile explodes deduces from the type of its invasion)))


      to put it mildly, I didn’t say this, I wrote that a number of shells explode on the surface of the armor, regardless of the sensitivity of the fuse and its slowdown due to the instability of the explosive
      and gave proofs

      it is unfortunate that you do not want to understand basic things

      Those. the fuse of a good ARS (armor piercing) will work from the skin,


      it’s not good or bad, but what sensitivity does it have (how tight): it can be set up so that it doesn’t work from a 20 mm skin and fly intact until you meet an armored deck or a barbette, for example, but cocking it into a superstructure 3 thick mm may not happen

      it is unfortunate that you do not want to understand basic things

      Threat. I will be grateful if, before discussing my stupidity, you will sometimes read my comments

      Then hi
      1. anzar
        anzar 12 February 2019 21: 58
        +1
        Threat. I will be grateful if, before discussing my stupidity, ...

        It was a joke, do not be angry .. drinks You have a lot of knowledge, but expressiveness is high ... And since in every joke ... in this case, your persistent desire to consider the shells and their device / fillings from the first article)) This is the place wink
        I wrote that a number of shells explode on the surface of the armor regardless of the fuse sensitivity and its deceleration due to instability of explosives

        The discussion there started from the opposite - fragments (including from the surface of the water) and their effect on unbooked. PMK ... You are not in the topic there spread a real flood about chimosis, phlegmatizers, etc. (although I must admit, apologized for UTB)). Here it is ...
        The instability of melinitis to overloads is well known, but this does not mean that the problem has not been satisfactorily solved (to some extent). Such armor-piercing shells were adopted by France (the technological leader of the late 19th century), which would not have happened if such shells exploded "through one" anywhere)) Moreover, fr. armor-piercing had only mellitic filling (probably due to the small volume) Their shortcomings were more likely in terms of (co) storage (properties) ...
        The fact that the UK and Japan failed to solve the problems with TNP in armor-piercing (and Russia everywhere) is satisfactory is not a reason to absolutize them.
        hi
        1. Andrey Shmelev
          Andrey Shmelev 12 February 2019 22: 14
          0
          Ok colleague drinks

          Their shortcomings were rather in terms of (co) storage (properties) ...

          Yes, by the way, a wonderful remark, here + 100500.

          Picric acid itself is very resistant to shock (the problem is maintaining properties).

          There is a point of view (expressed, for example, in Packingham's reports) that the unusual result of Tsushima was due to the fact that in May 1905, the Japanese loaded a new modification of high-explosive shells with a slowdown, and it was the explosions behind the skin that decided the fate of the Russian battleships. I read on the forums that this is heresy, however, this point of view is also reflected in British literature.

          If you know that Tsushima will be in April-May 1905 and prepare shells, for example, in February, then picric acid steers unrealistic. But to accumulate stock and store them = not so much. Many years ago, somewhere in the forums I read that the Japanese equipped all 305 mm shells shortly before the battle. Perhaps this will explain everything.

          This is a strong argument in your favor.

          drinks

          I apologize for the excessive expressiveness)
          Yours faithfully, hi
          1. anzar
            anzar 12 February 2019 22: 23
            0
            But to accumulate stock and store them = not so much.

            A few months is unlikely, I think more, but yes, it was probably repulsed by the British, as their fleet is big and around the world))
            1. Andrey Shmelev
              Andrey Shmelev 13 February 2019 07: 35
              +1
              But, let's be fair, the technologies of the WWI already allowed us to talk about reliable shells with picric acid, however, by that time there was TNT, glorious for its excellent reliability and picric acid had become not so relevant

              I remember a case, four cars with TNT went off the rails - and no one even hysterically)
  • anzar
    anzar 12 February 2019 00: 47
    0
    In this way, to the waterline and approximately 2,2 m below it traverse had a thickness of 330 mm, and lower - 203 mm.

    Well, it always surprised me. (inertia of the designers’s thinking?) In case of a longitudinal hit, the projectile, breaking through the skin of the nose, say, and falling, as it finds out that it has already crossed the (water inside) waterline and should slow down (without water)))) And here there is no armored deck.
    Obvious the vulnerability lies in the vicious idea of ​​storing shells in barbets ...
    ... the armored deck at least 74,7 mm thick ... at least the canonical 88,9 mm, and even heterogeneous ... did not constitute any serious protection against the impact of heavy shells with a caliber of 380-381 mm. And after its penetration, an enemy shell would separate from the engine rooms, boiler rooms, cellars with powder supplies and torpedoes, just an inch armor on a half-inch steel substrate, which was not even enough to protect against a fragment that exploded in the inter-deck space of the projectile.

    And where is the "obviousness" and especially the viciousness?))) To make the roof of the tower thicker is easier than the deck at least above the cellars (but there are more of them). Similarly, for a round barbet, one cannot come up with "cunning" trajectories as in other cases.