Military Review

About the durability of German naval armor during the First World War

72

In previous articles (About the durability of Russian armor during the First World War и On the durability of Russian naval armor in the context of the tests of 1920) I, on the basis of an analysis of experimental firing in 1913 and 1920, came to the conclusion that the durability of cemented Russian armor installed on battleships of the "Sevastopol" type was characterized by a "K" coefficient equal to 2005.


Let me remind you briefly that this coefficient is one of the variables of de Marr's armor penetration formula. And in more detail about him described in previous articles.

But before starting a conversation about German armor, it is necessary to say a few words about this.

On criticism of the method for determining the resistance of Russian armor


As mentioned earlier, I am building this series of articles in the format of a dialogue with dear readers. And I always carefully study the comments to my articles. I should note that so far I have seen only one objection to my assessment of the resistance of Russian armor. And it consists in the following.

Often, the impact of a shell on the armor caused serious damage to the latter in a certain radius from the point of impact.

So, for example, as a result of one of the hits of a 356-mm projectile in 270 mm armor on tests in 1920

"The cemented layer bounced at a diameter of 74 * 86 cm."

Therefore, personally, I do not see anything surprising in the fact that two of our "suitcases" with a caliber of 305 mm, hitting 69 cm and a meter from the nearest hit points of previous shells, showed reduced armor resistance ("K" is less than or equal to 1862) ...

However, one of my readers said that "on diameters" is still not "in radius". Consequently, both 305-mm shells did not hit the damaged layer of armor. And, since the shells hit the armor plate in places where the observers did not notice the presence of damage, then in such places the armor had to show its inherent resistance, that is, "K" = 2005.

And since this did not happen, it means that the real strength of Russian armor - "K" is no more than 1862.

I cannot agree with this approach. And that's why.

When each projectile hit, the armor plate experienced a very strong physical impact. So, for example, when a 356-mm high-explosive projectile with explosives hit (exploded on the armor, knocking out the plug), the plate received changes in geometric dimensions: it bent, and the deflection arrow in the area of ​​the hole reached 4,5 inches, and the lower and upper edges of the armor plate rose by 5 and 12 mm, respectively. At the same time, the observers did not notice any damage around the impact site, but, despite this, the plate still bent.

Could such effects not affect the overall strength of the armor?

Can we say that outside of the visible damage by type

"A series of concentric cracks and gouges at diameters of about 50-60 cm"

did the armor fully retain its protective properties?

As for me - in no case is it possible.

Let's not forget that Krupp's armor, thanks to a special hardening (cementation) procedure, was, in fact, two-layer. The upper layer was made of more durable, but at the same time more fragile armor. And behind it was already a less durable, but more viscous layer of armor steel.

When hit, the armor could well delaminate ("the cemented layer bounced off at a diameter of 74 * 86 cm"). And it would be completely logical to assume that this layer received damage, microcracks. Also outside the radius of visible damage.

In other words, if damage to the armor is noticed within a radius of 30 cm from the hole made by the projectile, this does not mean that beyond these 30 cm the armor has remained unchanged. The physical impact of a projectile, even not loaded with explosives, could lead to partial delamination of the cemented layer, microcracks (etc.) inside the armor. And they, of course, reduced the strength of the slab by weakening it.

Of course, this attenuation certainly decreased with distance from the point of impact. But the fact that the armor to some extent (by about 7,1%) lost its protective properties at a distance of 70-100 cm from the place of the projectile hit - in my opinion, there is nothing surprising.

Under fire - traditional German quality


To my deep regret, there is relatively little data on the actual shelling of German armor plates.

And those that exist are extremely uninformative. Due to the fact that during these attacks, no one tried to determine the ultimate armor resistance of German armor.

As a matter of fact, there is information about two such attacks.

Information about one of them is given in the book by T. Evers "Military Shipbuilding".

About the durability of German naval armor during the First World War

In addition, there is also information about the shelling of the captured German battleship Baden by British 381-mm Greenboy shells.

A complete list of shots is given in the book of the respected S. Vinogradov "Superdreadnoughts of the Second Reich" Bayern "and" Baden ". But, unfortunately, it contains a number of inaccuracies.

Of course, you can remember the famous Battle of Jutland, in which German ships received many hits from 305-mm, 343-mm and 381-mm shells of the British. But, sadly enough, it is absolutely impossible to draw any conclusions on the basis of the combat damage of the German ships.

First, the British themselves admitted that the quality of their armor-piercing shells used at Dogger Bank and in the Battle of Jutland was very, very low. That is why they subsequently hastily created a new type of armor-piercing shells (the "Greenboy" program).

Thus, if in some situation the British shell did not penetrate the armor, this can be attributed to the quality of the shell itself. However, for the most part, British shells did not penetrate German armor due to premature rupture. Since their tubes were set for minimum deceleration. As a result, the description of German damage is replete with situations when, for example, 343-mm shells exploded when overcoming 230 mm of armor, which a normal armor-piercing shell of this caliber should have easily penetrated at that distance.

In addition, there is another aspect that makes it extremely difficult to assess the durability of armor by its damage in battle.

Usually the maximum that can be reliably known is the caliber of the projectile and the thickness of the armor it hit. Although errors are already possible here. Since historians can sometimes confuse the calibers of the shells.

More or less accurately, you can find out the distance from which the projectile was fired. But the angle at which the projectile hits the armor, as a rule, cannot be accurately determined. But this is an extremely significant amendment.

So, for example, the German 305-mm / 50 gun "Derflinger" at a distance of 80 cables could well penetrate 254 mm armor plate with "K" = 2 - but only if this armor plate was in an ideal position. So, the angle of deviation from the normal is determined only by the angle of incidence of the projectile (000 degrees).

However, if the fired ship is at an angle to the Derflinger so that the deviation from the normal when hitting the armor is 30 degrees, then the projectile will be able to overcome only 216 mm.

At the same time, the difference in the position of the ships is sometimes extremely significant - for example, in the battle at Dogger Bank, when the British battle cruisers were catching up with the German ones, being in a parallel wake column, far behind the German formation. Here German shells hit the British armor belts at a very acute angle.

So it should come as no surprise that even a relatively weak 229 mm armor

"Admiral Fischer's cats"

such hits could well withstand.

The shelling of "Baden"


The British monitor "Terror" fired at the German battleship.

The purpose of the tests was to check the quality of the British shells. And the parameters of the shelling were selected in such a way as to correspond to the distance of effective fire combat, by which the British after the First World War understood 75-80 cables.

Accordingly, the charge of the "Terror" guns was selected in such a way that the speed of the projectile on the armor was 472 m / s. The British believed that this corresponds to a distance of 77,5 cables.

This was the correct methodology for testing the effectiveness of British shells. Because according to the results of these tests, the British saw in practice the results of shelling with armor-piercing, semi-armor-piercing and high-explosive 381-mm shells of various parts of the German heavy ship at a typical battle distance for that time.

But for determining the quality of German armor, these tests, alas, are of little use. The thing is that the British armor-piercing projectile with a deviation from the normal 18 deg. had to overcome as much as 364 mm of armor plate, the armor of which, with a thickness of less than 300 mm, would have "K" = 2000.

Accordingly, only 350 mm German vertical armor had any chance of holding the British shells. And everything that had a smaller thickness made its way a priori.
In total, during the shelling on February 2, 1921, 350 shots were fired at the vertical 4 mm armor of the battleship "Baden", mixed with firing at other parts of the ship.

Below I will indicate the serial number of the shot.

I will note that the calculations of "K" were made by me with an adjustment for an unequal increase in the durability of the armor with an increase in the thickness of the armor plate over 300 mm.

Shot number 9. Armor-piercing projectile, hitting the barbet of the 3rd tower at an angle of 11 degrees. The fuse went off when the projectile passed about 2/3 of the armor plate. If we assume that the British projectile was unable in this case to overcome the 350 mm obstacle, this would indicate that the "K" of German armor is 2107 or higher. But the problem is that the fuse could be triggered prematurely, which is why, in fact, the armor plate was able to reflect the blow.

Shot number 10. A high-explosive projectile, hit the barbet of the second tower at an angle of 12 degrees, exploded on impact. There is nothing surprising in this. It is impossible to expect such powerful protection from a high-explosive projectile. So this shot cannot help in any way in determining the quality of German armor.

Shot number 14. An armor-piercing projectile hit the 350 mm frontal armor plate of the 2nd tower at an angle of 18 degrees, pierced it and exploded inside. As you can see, the conditions were worse than shot No. 9. But the armor was still broken. According to this shot, the "K" of German armor was 2041 or lower.

Shot number 15. An armor-piercing projectile, hit the 350 mm armor of the conning tower at an angle of 30 degrees. The armor was not pierced, there was only a pothole. There is nothing surprising in this - with such a deviation from the normal, the projectile had no chance to overcome such protection. The shot indicates only that "K" in this case turned out to be equal to 1860 or higher.

In general, it can be stated that the shelling of "Baden" gave too little statistical data.

We have two cases where the British shells met the German armor in conditions close to the maximum armor penetration: we are talking, of course, about shots No. 9 and No. 14. In the first case, "K" turned out to be equal to or higher than 2107, in the second - equal or lower 2041. The data obviously contradict each other. So I can only state the existence of two versions.

If at shot No. 9 the projectile fuse worked normally, then the durability of German armor should be determined somewhere in the range from 2041 to 2107;

If at shot No. 9 the projectile fuse was triggered prematurely, then the "K" of the armor of the battleship "Baden" is 2041 or lower.

Let us now analyze the data given by T. Evers.

Trial firing of the German fleet


There is almost nothing at all for analysis.

Honestly, I do not understand at all why the Germans were shooting at 200-300 mm armor at a speed of 580 to 700 m / s at the time of impact.

It is possible, of course, that the German sailors were interested in the angles of the ricochet - at the same 200 mm, the shot was fired with a deviation from the normal 30 degrees. But even in this case, one could safely count on the breakdown of the 388 mm thick armor plate ...

In fact, from the entire table given by T. Evers, only firing at 450 mm armor plate is of interest, into which a projectile weighing 734 kg hit with zero deviation from the normal. That is, exactly under 90 degrees. to the surface of the plate at a speed of 551 m / s. At the same time, the shell not only pierced the armor, but also flew 2530 m into the field.

Taking into account the decrease in the resistance of the armor with an increase in its thickness, the armor plate actually exposed to 450 mm shelling will correspond to the calculated one, 401 mm thick.

Thus, if the German armor had been penetrated by 734 kg by a projectile at the limit of its capabilities, it would have shown "K" = 2075. But in fact, the projectile "flew" as much as 2,5 km behind the armor, we see that the projectile is still far has not exhausted his capabilities. And that the real K was well below 2075.

I can only conclude that under the most positive assumptions for German armor, its "K" was 2041 or lower.

In other words, the German Krupp cemented ship armor was as much as 1,8% stronger than its Russian counterpart, which had a "K" coefficient (according to our earlier calculations) equal to 2005. But taking into account not too extensive statistics, one should rather talk about the fact that Russian and German armor had approximately equal resistance to shells.

There is one more important aspect.

Comparing the protective properties of the armor, we compare the Russian pre-war armor with the armor of the last German superdreadnoughts Bayern and Baden. And she, according to some reports, was improved relative to the one that was used in the construction of the German battleships of the previous series and, of course, battle cruisers.

Consequently, it cannot even be ruled out that the German armor plates, which defended the "Konigi", "Moltke" and "Derflingers", had slightly less durability than those that were installed on battleships of the "Sevastopol" class.

What could refute these considerations?

It can be assumed that the British and German shells were better and stronger than the Russian 305-mm 470,9 kg "suitcases".

But, generally speaking, almost all sources claim that the Russian shells were of very high quality.

Moreover, studying the data of T. Evers, one can even doubt the quality of the German shells. So, a 380-mm German high-explosive projectile with a cap hit 170 mm armor at an ideal angle (90 degrees, that is, without deviating from the normal) at a speed of 590 m / s. Note that in terms of the specific content of explosives (8,95%), this projectile occupied an intermediate position between the Russian armor-piercing (2,75%) and high-explosive (12,49%).

It is clear that the smaller the explosive charge, the stronger the walls of the projectile. And the German land mine cannot be called thin-walled. However, he was unable to overpower armor with a thickness of only 45% of its own caliber.

In our country, smaller-caliber high-explosive shells hit 225 mm armor, exploding in the process of overcoming it. Of course, a single example cannot claim to be a rule in any way. But (from the available statistical material) we have no reason to consider the German shells superior in quality to the Russian - adjusted for calibers, of course.

Of course, all of the above is not solid proof.

We can be more or less confident in the strength of Russian armor. But to assess the German statistical material is still not enough.

However, there is one more, indirect confirmation that the German cemented armor of the First World War, if it had a coefficient of "K" over 2000, then very little.

The fact is that T. Evers in his "Military Shipbuilding" already mentions a new generation of Krupp's cemented armor, which, among other things, was used in the creation of the battleship "Bismarck".


Below is a copy from The Battleship Bismarck: Anatomy of the Ship (Jack Brower).


As you can see, the compositions of the armor are identical.

What follows from this?

The fact is that T. Evers in his book proposes to use de Marr's formula (which I also use) with the coefficient "K" (in his book, this is the coefficient "C") equal to 1900 for non-cemented and 2337 - for cemented slabs.

It is quite obvious that this factor should be used specifically for the latest types of armor.

Thus, we see that the increase in durability of the famous German armor in comparison with the Russian and German armor of the First World War (if we consider them equivalent) is only 16,6%.

If we assume that the German armor of "König" and "Derflinger" was still superior to the Russian one by at least 10 percent, it turns out that the next generation of German armor, created 20 years later, turned out to be only 5-6% better than the previous one.

Of course, such an assumption looks extremely dubious.

Based on the foregoing, I think it would be correct to assume the approximate equality of the quality of Russian and German armor of the era of the First World War.

In all subsequent calculations, I will calculate the armor penetration for both the Russians and the German guns with a "K" factor of 2005.

To be continued ...
Author:
72 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. polpot
    polpot 17 March 2021 18: 13
    +4
    Thanks for the wonderful cycle, I look forward to continuing, the topic is interesting.
    1. Alien From
      Alien From 18 March 2021 01: 00
      +5
      I join you! Andrey is a very corrosive author good thanks to him!
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      18 March 2021 07: 15
      +7
      You're welcome! I'm glad I liked it. The continuation will be no later than next week - since I undertook to evaluate the armor of the WWII era, then in the next article I will also analyze the British one for a complete set :)))))
      1. yehat2
        yehat2 18 March 2021 11: 03
        -1
        so with them, this ring differed only in fragility and plasticity
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          18 March 2021 11: 09
          +1
          Quote: yehat2
          so with them, this ring differed only in fragility and plasticity

          Which could well affect the resilience in general
          1. yehat2
            yehat2 18 March 2021 11: 33
            -1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Which could well affect the resilience in general

            resistance to different types of damage.
            only it is worth remembering that the nen (m) etskaya ktsa was noticeably lighter than the others and the comparative thickness also matters.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              18 March 2021 11: 41
              +4
              Quote: yehat2
              resistance to different types of damage.

              We are talking about one type - an armor-piercing projectile. Why multiply entities beyond what is necessary?
              Quote: yehat2
              only it is worth remembering that the nen (m) etskaya ktsa was much lighter than others

              What's the point? Thicknesses are important for durability, not masses
              1. yehat2
                yehat2 18 March 2021 11: 44
                -1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                We are talking about one type - an armor-piercing projectile. Why multiply entities beyond what is necessary?

                meaning the booking scheme against the BB.
                for example, how spaced works, how it swallows shells of not the largest caliber
                an armor-piercing projectile is one type, but it can be stopped in different ways and the projectile itself is different.
                for example, the German ktsa was beneficial for spaced armor and especially for internal armored bulkheads and reserve layers, while the English one worked better as a solid plate against the largest calibers.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  18 March 2021 11: 57
                  +2
                  Quote: yehat2
                  an armor-piercing projectile is one type, but it can be stopped in different ways and the projectile itself is different.

                  Can.
                  Quote: yehat2
                  for example, the German ktsa was beneficial for spaced armor and especially for internal armored bulkheads and reserve layers, while the English one worked better as a solid plate against the largest calibers.

                  Firstly, you are now guided by a certain theory, but I am interested in the results of actual shooting. Secondly, in order to evaluate the spaced armor, it is necessary to understand how a conventional armor plate holds the projectile. Thirdly, on the basis of the coefficients presented by me, everyone will be able to calculate the armor resistance of any form of protection of cemented armor, even from 4 armor plates of different thicknesses. Fourthly, I myself am going to do this, exclusively within the framework of booking schemes for both our and German ships.
                  1. yehat2
                    yehat2 18 March 2021 12: 06
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    at least 4 armor plates of different thickness.

                    it is rather difficult to estimate the cascade absorption of kinetic energy when the projectile passes through more than 1 layer. Too many uncertainties
                    too much depends on specific conditions.
                    for example, on the core of the projectile, on its caliber and elongation, depends on the speed.
                    from the mass, the process also proceeds in different ways, the process of energy absorption into deformation can also proceed according to different scenarios.
                    In general, evaluating 4 slabs with high accuracy is an almost impossible task.
                    And the saddest thing is that the constant you are researching is of little use for such calculations.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      18 March 2021 12: 17
                      +2
                      Quote: yehat2
                      it is rather difficult to estimate the cascade absorption of kinetic energy when the projectile passes through more than 1 layer. Too many uncertainties
                      too much depends on specific conditions.

                      Actually, this is a typical problem in the theory of armor. The formula is easily derived from the same de Marr
                      Quote: yehat2
                      for example, from the projectile core

                      Does not depend. For one simple reason - there was no subcaliber ammunition in the naval artillery of the WWII era.
                  2. 27091965
                    27091965 18 March 2021 13: 05
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    You are guided by some theory now, but I am interested in the results of actual shooting


                    In the notes to the report of the Austro-Hungarian naval attaché about the Battle of Jutland, there is such a record.

                    "Note: The report only mentions that the 250mm slabs were pierced. The report mentions strong shaking, possibly caused by shells that, after hitting a 300mm slab, exploded from the outside without piercing it.". Signature Capt. Lauffer, Chief of technical department, marine section.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      18 March 2021 14: 06
                      +1
                      Quote: 27091965i
                      In the notes to the report of the Austro-Hungarian naval attaché about the Battle of Jutland, there is such a record.

                      There, dear Igor, it is generally impossible to work on German damage, because in almost all cases the British shell exploded at the moment the armor passed. And guess whether he would have pierced the armor without exploding, or whether he would have pierced the armor only thanks to the additional energy of the explosion.
                      1. 27091965
                        27091965 18 March 2021 14: 19
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        There, dear Igor, it is generally impossible to work on German damage, because in almost all cases the British shell exploded at the moment the armor passed. And guess whether he would have pierced the armor without exploding, or whether he would have pierced the armor only thanks to the additional energy of the explosion.

                        In this matter, you can take the official German report on this fight. It contains descriptions of the hits of the English shells. I think it's also worth remembering that theoretical calculations were not always confirmed in battles.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        18 March 2021 14: 25
                        0
                        Quote: 27091965i
                        In this matter, you can take the official German report on this fight.

                        I looked at Campbell, although of course I'm not sure about the accuracy of my translation. It seems that he has data just from the report, or am I mistaken? And if I'm wrong, where can I get the German report? (and pills for greed, and more) Thanks in advance :)))))
                      3. 27091965
                        27091965 18 March 2021 16: 50
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Where can I get a German report?

                        I sent you an email.
    3. Jura 27
      Jura 27 18 March 2021 11: 50
      +2
      [/ quote] As you can see, the compositions of the armor are identical. [quote]

      I am glad, of course, that the author finally began to distinguish the radius from the diameter, but with the chemical composition of the armor it is still extremely bad: the composition is different, but !!!
      Molybdenum is included in CS n / A, but in the old "original" CS, molybdenum is not included, and at all. Would read the author, something about armor, then, in the end, and then the opuses continue to amaze not literacy.
      Those. Russian and German factories, before and during WWII, drove the original Krupp patent (thus the main conclusion of the article is correct), but the Britons, from the 14th year (or even from the 13th) began to make the next generation of armor, therefore 225mm of Russian armor much worse than the British 229mm.
      But if the Russian armor of the previous generation was also thin on the "Sevastopol", then at least a decent thickness protected the Germans.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        18 March 2021 12: 12
        -1
        Quote: Jura 27
        I am glad, of course, that the author finally began to distinguish the radius from the diameter.

        As I see, there is nothing to argue with you on the merits of the issue. I never confused radius with diameter, it was you who decided that the armor should remain unchanged beyond the visible damage. So do not blame the sick side on the healthy one.
        Quote: Jura 27
        But with the chemical composition of the armor, it is still extremely bad: the composition is different, however !!!

        Who told you such nonsense?
        Quote: Jura 27
        Molybdenum is included in CS n / A, but molybdenum is not included in the old "original" CS,

        That is, you could not read it. Everts gives the composition of both the old COP (0,37 carbon, 4,1 nickel, etc.) and the new one - with 0,34 carbon, 3,78 nickel, etc. But Everts does not give the complete composition.
        Quote: Jura 27
        and then the opuses continue to amaze not with literacy.

        Quote: Jura 27
        the main conclusion of the article is correct

        The same feeling when you really want to say at least some nasty thing, but there is no reason, right, Yura? :))))
        Quote: Jura 27
        but the Britons, from the 14th year (or even from the 13th), began to make the next generation of armor, so 225mm of Russian armor is much worse than 229mm of British armor.

        Oh yeah. Undoubtedly, Tiger, launched in 1913, was greatly helped by the fact that in '14 they began to make armor better than before :)))) I generally keep quiet about the rest of Fischer's cats.
        Or would you venture to assert that the Tiger had new armor? Come on, Yura, say it out loud :))))) I want the whole forum to see it.
        1. Jura 27
          Jura 27 18 March 2021 12: 53
          +1
          [/ quote] Who told you such nonsense? [quote]

          Often times, the chemical composition of KS a / A and KS n / A is different, the first is chromium-nickel, the second is chromium-nickel-molybdenum.
          1. Jura 27
            Jura 27 18 March 2021 12: 55
            0
            [/ quote] That same feeling when you really want to say at least some nasty thing, [quote]

            If there is one positive point in your post, I noted it. If you write I’m getting on with other positions, I’m talking about it that way.
            1. Jura 27
              Jura 27 18 March 2021 12: 57
              0
              [/ quote] Oh yes. Of course, Tiger, launched in 1913, was greatly helped by the fact that in 14 they began to make armor better than before: [quote]

              Did the "Tiger" sink or did the German shells penetrate the KO, MO and cellars through 9 "armor?
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                18 March 2021 13: 16
                +1
                Quote: Jura 27
                Did the "Tiger" sink or did the German shells penetrate the KO, MO and cellars through 9 "armor?

                Yura, I'm a Jew here, so you don't have to answer a question with a question. Be clear about whether Tiger received the "new British armor" or not. It's not difficult :))))))
                1. Jura 27
                  Jura 27 18 March 2021 13: 26
                  0
                  [/ quote] I'm still a Jew here [quote]

                  I have no docks, so I judge by the durability of its armor against the German BBS and by the results of shelling a Britovan 8 "slab in 18-19ggs known to you.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    18 March 2021 13: 59
                    0
                    Quote: Jura 27
                    I have no docks, so I judge by the toughness of his armor.

                    So what was awarded? Was Tiger new armor or not?
                    Yura, I just love you. Then you shout to the entire Internet that the British armor of British LKR is much better than that of Sevastopol, and that their 229 mm is steeper than our 225 mm by tens of percent. Then - you can not answer the question whether the Tiger had this coolest armor or not.
                    1. Jura 27
                      Jura 27 18 March 2021 17: 39
                      0
                      [/ quote] and that their 229 mm is steeper than our 225 mm by tens of percent. Then - you can not answer the question whether the Tiger had this coolest armor or not. [Quote]

                      About tens of percent - these are your inventions.
                      There are only two options for "Tiger" wassat : either it was, or, the German shells, hit mostly at an unfavorable angle in 9 "armor.
                      There is a document on the shelling of the 8 "Britovskoy plate, and since shells were tested there, and not armor, it means that armor plates of this quality were previously on British ships.
              2. Jura 27
                Jura 27 18 March 2021 13: 18
                0
                [/ quote] I've never confused radius with diameter [quote]

                Yah ! Revised your previous opus:
                - plate number 1; the first shot is 14 "FS; the second shot is PBBS, - your quote (from Galkevich)" "a series of concentric cracks and gouges on diameters about 50-60 cm "."; the third shot of PBBS, - your quote: "Let us now recall the disturbances (cracks) of the cemented layer observed in radius up to 60 cm from the first "semi-armor-piercing" hit. "
                Inet, he remembers everything!
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  18 March 2021 13: 54
                  0
                  Quote: Jura 27
                  Inet, he remembers everything!

                  Oh yeah. He remembers what I wrote, quoting Galkevich
                  "A series of concentric cracks and gouges at diameters of about 50-60 cm."

                  This means that from the center of the hit, the destruction of the armor was observed in a radius of 25-30 cm. This, I hope, is not difficult for you?
                  The internet also remembers what I wrote
                  Both hits were approximately at the same level from the lower edge of the slab - 237 and 239 cm, 173 and 140 cm, respectively, from the right edge. In other words, the distance between hits was much less than 40 cm.

                  Too lazy to count, but the distance BETWEEN the CENTERS of hits was about 35 cm. Thus, the center of hit of this projectile was 5-10 cm from the damaged layer.
                  And the twelve-inch projectile, Yura, has a diameter of 30,5 cm. This means that the projectile, entering the armor, "hooked" on the damaged layer from 5 to 10 cm.

                  And if, Yura, you were interested in the essence of the issue under discussion, you would have seen all this (you seem to be an engineer, accordingly, you should be able to do four arithmetic operations). And then it would become completely clear to you that in this case my phrase
                  Quote: Jura 27
                  observed in radius

                  a banal slip of the tongue, but not a confusion of radius and diameter.
                  But you, Yura, are completely violet in response to the issue under discussion. You have a nosebleed to prove that I am wrong in at least something. This for you has long been an idiot fix, so you twist out of the blue in the hope ... well, I don’t know what you are hoping for.
                  1. Jura 27
                    Jura 27 18 March 2021 17: 29
                    0
                    [/ quote] banal slip of the tongue [quote]

                    It happens to everyone, but you draw completely wrong conclusions from this "slip": 12 "BBS hit a meter (shot No. 3 with 12" shells) from the center of the hit of the first 14 "PBBS, ie the edge of the destruction zone from 14" The PBBS is 70cm from the center of impact of the 12 "BBS and 55cm from the edge of the 12" projectile. Accordingly, the influence of any microcracks and other things is close to zero. But if 60cm is the radius of destruction in armor, then the center of impact of the 12 "BBS is only 40cm and 25cm to the edge of the same projectile. Here, of course, we can already talk about some influence of the hit of the 14" PBBS ... Therefore, I conclude that you have trite beguiled the radius and diameter, which, in fact, and admitted in this post.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      19 March 2021 07: 38
                      +1
                      Quote: Jura 27
                      It happens to everyone, but you draw completely wrong conclusions from this "slip": 12 "BBS hit a meter (shot No. 3 with 12" shells) from the center of the hit of the first 14 "PBBS, that is, the edge of the destruction zone from 14" The PBBS is 70cm from the center of impact of the 12 "BBS and 55cm from the edge of the 12" projectile. Accordingly, the influence of any microcracks and other things is close to zero.

                      We read what has been written again.
                      There are no problems with the first 305-mm projectile - it should have penetrated the slab with a reserve of speed.
                      For the second 305-mm projectile, I wrote
                      The answer is extremely simple. The fact is that this hit fell into a damaged cemented layer, deformed as a result of the 4th hit by a 356-mm projectile. The places of these hits were separated by only a little less than 69 cm.

                      The fourth hit with a 356 mm projectile led to the fact that
                      "The cemented layer bounced at a diameter of 74 * 86 cm."

                      Thus, the damaged layer of armor was within a radius of 37-43 cm. Accordingly, the distance between the edge of the projectile and the layer of bounced armor was at least 11-17 cm, not 55. Although my personal opinion is that the weakening of the armor took place at a distance greater than than 55 cm
                      And then, on the third hit, I wrote
                      The place of hit of this 305-mm projectile was a meter from the point of contact with the armor of the 5th 356-mm ammunition, which (being unloaded) made a hole 36x51 cm in the slab. an inch projectile is not contained. But, judging by the previous descriptions, the armor at the point of impact of the third 14-mm could very well (and even should) have been weakened.
                      1. Jura 27
                        Jura 27 19 March 2021 10: 15
                        0
                        [/ quote] on the third hit: The place of hit of this 305-mm projectile was in a meter; There is no information about cracking (or other damage) of the cemented layer in the description of the hit of the 14-inch projectile. [quote]

                        It is the 3rd hit of 12 "BBS that interests me, because to the center of the nearest hit is 1 meter (and more, to the centers of other hits), while one adjacent hit of 14" PBBS did not give cracking and spalling of the cement layer, because there was a through penetration, and the other caused damage to the cement layer in a diameter of 60 cm and, therefore, to the center of this 3rd hit, 12 "BBS as much as 70 cm of undamaged armor.
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              18 March 2021 13: 15
              -1
              Quote: Jura 27
              If you write I’m getting on with other positions, I’m talking about it that way.

              Well, what's the mess? That you failed at Everts?
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            18 March 2021 13: 12
            -1
            Quote: Jura 27
            Often times, the chemical composition of KS a / A and KS n / A is different, the first is chromium-nickel, the second is chromium-nickel-molybdenum.

            And why was it said? You still do not understand that Everts in his table gives the compositions of both KS a / A and KS n / A (but not completely) and Brower (or whatever it is - my pronunciation is quite bad) gives KS n / AND?
            1. Jura 27
              Jura 27 18 March 2021 13: 21
              0
              [/ quote] You still do not understand [quote]

              You still do not understand that the chemical composition of the "first" and "second" krupp is different - just admit it and everything is OK.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                18 March 2021 13: 33
                0
                Quote: Jura 27
                You still do not understand that the chemical composition of the "first" and "second" krupp is different, -

                Yura, you still have not understood that. looking at the Everts table, under n1 you see the composition of KS a / A - carbon 3,7, nickel 4,1, etc. More precisely - do not see, but it would be worth it.
                And under item 2 you see COP n / A - carbon 3,4, nickel 3,78, etc. But the Everts table is incomplete and molybdenum does not include
                At Brower, you see the composition of KC n / A, which is indicated more fully - carbon 3,4, nickel 3,78, but also molybdenum 0,2
                1. Jura 27
                  Jura 27 18 March 2021 17: 32
                  0
                  [/ quote] looking at the Everts table [quote]

                  Let you take your mind off your Evert for a minute and write that you have always known that the chemical composition of the "first" and "second" Krupp is different.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    19 March 2021 07: 41
                    0
                    Quote: Jura 27
                    Let you take your mind off your Evert for a minute and write that you have always known that the chemical composition of the "first" and "second" Krupp is different.

                    Of course - different. All the sources available to me are talking about this. About "I always knew" - I will not say, of course, I assumed, let's say
  2. Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 17 March 2021 18: 26
    +4
    As you can see, the compositions of the armor are identical.
    What follows from this?

    IMHO, from this it follows that you need to look for the source from where Brower took the information.
    With the same chemical composition, a simple change in the armor manufacturing technology will not be able to improve its mechanical properties.
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 17 March 2021 19: 12
      +5
      Unambiguously it can, albeit insignificantly.
      He himself was a witness, although he was a metallurgist for less than a year.
      1. Graz
        Graz 18 March 2021 06: 04
        +2
        I also watched a film with Celentano, where he spat while cooking bulletproof glass in a vat, which definitely increased the durability of his products and gave him an advantage over competitors
        1. Engineer
          Engineer 18 March 2021 07: 28
          +3
          Yes, you are Petrosyan laughing
          Optimization of the heat treatment process is always going on in many directions.
          For example, a more complete martensitic transformation is achieved, or the selection of cooling rates and holding time reduces internal stresses.
          In my case, step hardening was introduced. The characteristics have improved.

          In the Research Institute of Steel, they did R&D for us to reduce the grain size - it also works, but the technical process turned out to be too confused.

          All this, of course, while maintaining the chemical composition.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      18 March 2021 07: 45
      +5
      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
      With the same chemical composition, a simple change in the armor manufacturing technology will not be able to improve its mechanical properties.

      Yes, but it's not that Bismarck and Baden had the same protection :))). I am only saying that the "K" that Everts recommends belongs to the new generation of German cemented armor, and nothing more. hi
  3. Potter
    Potter 17 March 2021 18: 47
    +6
    Thank. It was extremely interesting to read this material, they waited a long time. By virtue of my profession as a bridge engineer, several times in practice I came across the work of Russian railway engineers and steelworkers of the second half and late 19th - early 20th centuries. And I can say that the steels produced at the beginning of the 20th century were of high quality, these were already steels of increased resistance, and the technologies and methods of product acceptance and work were often superior to those in the west. We also had to deal with German examples - for example, the Queen Louise Bridge in Sovetsk (Tilsit), steel there did not surpass domestic ones. I agree with your conclusions.
  4. TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 17 March 2021 18: 48
    +5
    So the armor is hardened according to the Harvey method, it also seems to be two-layer. What is the difference from Kruppovskaya?
    1. Potter
      Potter 17 March 2021 19: 07
      +7
      Nickel steel was used in the manufacture of Harvey's armor, while chromium steel was used in the manufacture of Krupp's armor. Harvey's technology consisted of prolonged contact of a carbonaceous substance with a heated steel surface; in Krupp's technology, it was blowing with a carbon-containing gas. As a result - not only manufacturability and low cost, but also the strength is 20-25% higher.
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 17 March 2021 23: 57
        +3
        Both chromium and nickel are alloying additives, as are vanadium, and molybdenum, and manganese. That the use of chromium gives such an impressive result?
        1. Jolly Roger
          Jolly Roger 18 March 2021 09: 16
          +7
          During the tests of Harvey's armor plates, one was put wrong, and Admiral Makarov, who was present at them, came up with a "Makarov cap" for the projectile.
          1. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer 18 March 2021 10: 01
            +4
            I also heard this, but I think it's about naval tales)))
  5. Niko
    Niko 17 March 2021 19: 31
    +4
    Quote: Macsen_Wledig
    As you can see, the compositions of the armor are identical.
    What follows from this?

    IMHO, from this it follows that you need to look for the source from where Brower took the information.
    With the same chemical composition, a simple change in the armor manufacturing technology will not be able to improve its mechanical properties.

    On the VO tank branch there is a series of articles about the study of the strength of armor during the Second World War (And the studies themselves of those years) I will not argue (I am not a specialist), but the opinion of the commission investigating the German disease was held there, and one of the points that spoke about the low quality is that the Germans we went along the path of selection of additives and not the path of selection of technology. (In the USSR, it was temperature regimes that were of great importance)
    1. TermNachTer
      TermNachTer 20 March 2021 19: 52
      0
      The fact is that tank and ship armor differ significantly. The thickness and dimensions of the slab are 5 x 3 meters and the thickness is 300 mm. or 2 x 1 meter and thickness 100 mm.
      1. Niko
        Niko 20 March 2021 21: 38
        0
        This is clear. However, numerous tests of German tank armor during the Second World War give an unequivocal answer: if the sheets of one chemical. composition and thickness show VERY different indicators when tested for penetration and strength, this can be explained with a high degree of probability ONLY a violation of temperature conditions during production. change dramatically depending on the thickness of the material.) By the way, by the end of World War II, the thickness of the armor of tanks had grown to quite "battleship" values
        1. TermNachTer
          TermNachTer 20 March 2021 22: 18
          0
          Which tank had 350 mm?
          1. Niko
            Niko 20 March 2021 22: 57
            0
            Well, do not find fault with that., On the tests about which Andrey writes, not all the plates were 350 either. I do not want to argue at all, let alone swear. Not so many people are worried and interested in such topics, it is a pity if we also start to offend each other. You are right in your comment, I agree, I just wanted to draw attention to some other nuances, that's all.
  6. Niko
    Niko 17 March 2021 19: 33
    +4
    Thanks Andrey, as always interesting
  7. antivirus
    antivirus 17 March 2021 20: 26
    -2
    other things being equal, the fireman decided the outcome of the battle. and the quality of rags for wiping the face and .. also add something yourself
  8. Undecim
    Undecim 17 March 2021 20: 26
    +7
    Comparing the protective properties of the armor, we compare the Russian pre-war armor with the armor of the last German superdreadnoughts Bayern and Baden. And she, according to some reports, was improved relative to the one that was used in the construction of the German battleships of the previous series and, of course, battle cruisers.
    Was not. All ships built before 1918 had Avg. Original Krupp Cemented (KC a / A).
    The Krupp Cemented 'New Type' (KC n / A) armor appeared in 1928.
    The properties of the armor are in the tables below.



    The scale is small due to the size, the original is https://makettinfo.hu/forum/upload_20060921/299.1116.1_ARMOR.HTM
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      18 March 2021 07: 27
      +4
      Quote: Undecim
      All ships built before 1918 had Avg. Original Krupp Cemented (KC a / A).

      There are certain doubts about this, dear Undecim. It would be strange if over the years the armor did not improve in any way, and its composition and technical process remained absolutely identical. I came across statements (without strict evidence, alas) that the quality of the armor was still improving, that is, the quality of 420 at the end of the 19th century and the quality of 420 that defended Baden are still different things.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 18 March 2021 08: 14
        +4
        It would be strange if over the years the armor did not improve in any way, and its composition and technical process remained absolutely identical.
        There were no fundamental changes that could significantly affect the quality of the armor.
        The answers to these questions can be found in the literature, the same magazine Warship International published extensive articles on these topics in 1989 and 1990. However, there is no book in which all the information would be collected and systematized, you have to look for various foreign-language sources, which often, moreover, cost decent money.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          18 March 2021 09: 12
          +1
          Quote: Undecim
          There were no fundamental changes that could significantly affect the quality of the armor.

          I completely agree, but here the question is about 2-3 percent of the strength of the original quality. I don’t think it’s essential.
          Quote: Undecim
          Answers to these questions can be found in the literature, the same Warship International magazine published extensive articles on these topics in 1989 and 1990

          I'll try to search, thanks!
  9. swzero
    swzero 17 March 2021 23: 51
    +4
    In theory, when a projectile hits, in addition to mechanical deformation, the plate heats up strongly and then cools down, i.e. the mode of hardening / (tempering?) changes - and this is quite critical for steel, so one should probably expect that in some radius from the hit, the properties of the armor will change greatly, even if there is no mechanical damage in this zone. I think it is worth analyzing the similar situations with the shooting of tank armor (especially cemented armor). It seems that somewhere I came across information about the deterioration of resistance with repeated hits next to the previous ones, indicating the distances. There are much more statistics on tanks, you can probably study this issue in more detail. Further, regarding the analysis of the durability of armor by shooting it with different projectiles made from different materials using different technologies. How objective is this in general, without knowing the properties of the projectile? Immediately I recall the Soviet 45mm armor-piercing shells of the beginning of the war, which split due to problems with technology and significantly fell short of the passport armor penetration. And you can even remember the cast-iron shells of the RYAV times :)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      18 March 2021 07: 39
      +2
      Quote: swzero
      I think it is worth analyzing the similar situations with the shooting of tank armor (especially cemented armor).

      Very difficult. Firstly, the tank armor was already different in composition, and secondly, the tank shells are small-caliber and it is far from a fact that such tests can be extrapolated to our case. However, it would be interesting. Do you, by any chance, have such data? They did not come across to me.
      Quote: swzero
      Further, regarding the analysis of the durability of armor by shooting it with different projectiles made from different materials using different technologies. How objective is this in general, without knowing the properties of the projectile?

      :)))) Absolutely correct remark. I answer.
      Yes, you are right, the "K" coefficient, generally speaking, characterizes not only the properties of the armor, but the ratio of the properties of the armor and the projectile. That is, when using the same armor, it can change depending on the quality of the projectile. However, there are 2 points
      1) And our 305-mm shells, and the British "greenboys" and German armor-piercing shells of the WWII era were considered very high-quality products, and this is a widespread opinion (not only in the Russian Federation :))). The British had the opportunity to test Russian shells and they deserved a very high response. That is, there was hardly a big difference in quality between these shells.
      2) I make my comparison to simulate a possible confrontation between Russian and German heavy ships. In this case, the difference in the quality of the shells simply does not matter.
      I reached K = 2005 when firing Russian shells at Russian armor and German shells at German armor. Let's say that in terms of the "K" coefficient, German shells are 5% worse than Russian ones, which means that German armor is 5% better. But in this case, firing Russian shells at German armor will give exactly the same coefficient "K" = 2005 - the shell is better, but the armor is better, the advantages simply compensate for each other :)))))))
  10. looker-on
    looker-on 18 March 2021 01: 46
    +7
    Andrey is the pearl of the site. No "but". Such a passion for the sea and ships is something. "But" another - Bismarck is at the bottom ... Kings IV - survived the war. Conclusion: the coefficient is not important. Everything is as always: if you have a revolver, but you cannot reach it = you do not have a revolver. Our aircraft carrier as an example (
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      18 March 2021 07: 42
      +8
      Dear Ilya, thank you for your kind words!
      Quote: looker-on
      . "But" another - Bismarck at the bottom ... Kings IV - survived the war

      Wells did not survive :))))
      Quote: looker-on
      Conclusion: the coefficient is not important.

      Nuuu, when one LC is forced to fight with half the fleet of the Metropolis - of course, it is not important :))))) However, I will allow myself a small remark. As a pearl, so to speak repeat
      What I like about "VO" is that here you can discuss not only what is important, but also what is interesting :) drinks
      1. yehat2
        yehat2 18 March 2021 11: 01
        -2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        but also what is interesting

        what is interesting to the harsh Chelyabinsk guys? laughing
        I'm curious as to what layer of ice cream is equivalent to 250mm of German steel.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          18 March 2021 11: 08
          +1
          Quote: yehat2
          I'm curious as to what layer of ice cream is equivalent to 250mm of German steel.

          So write an article, who's in the way? wink
  11. yehat2
    yehat2 18 March 2021 11: 00
    -1
    Tirpitz in his book mentions more than once the tests of armor.
    can there be indirect links where to find real test data?
  12. Jura 27
    Jura 27 18 March 2021 11: 59
    0
    Quote: Potter
    Nickel steel was used in the manufacture of Harvey's armor, while chromium steel was used in the manufacture of Krupp's armor. Harvey's technology consisted of prolonged contact of a carbonaceous substance with a heated steel surface; in Krupp's technology, it was blowing with a carbon-containing gas. As a result - not only manufacturability and low cost, but also the strength is 20-25% higher.

    At first, then they began to use chromium-nickel - the main difference was still in hardening.
  13. yehat2
    yehat2 18 March 2021 12: 18
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    a typical task in the theory of armor. The formula is easily derived from the same de Marr

    an approximate formula, the error of which we do not know anything.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      18 March 2021 15: 07
      +2
      Quote: yehat2
      about the error of which we do not know anything.

      Armor penetration in any calculation is probabilistic :)))))) Armor penetration formulas are not built from the physical process, but from statistics based on the results of firing :)))))))
  14. Victor Leningradets
    Victor Leningradets 18 March 2021 12: 43
    +2
    Thank you so much Andrew!
    Quite objective material.
    A few comments.
    About a multi-layer barrier:
    If an armor-piercing projectile first penetrates the screen (S> 0,2 caliber), then it works hard along the main obstacle (CS) and, with sufficient hardness of the cemented layer, collapses, even if it pierces the armor plate.
    If an AP shell first penetrates the main obstacle (S> 0,75 caliber), then it almost certainly penetrates the anti-fragmentation bulkhead located behind it, but never a 100-mm bevel at an angle of 67,5 degrees to the vertical, or an 80-mm horizontal deck.
    If an armor-piercing projectile, having broken through the main obstacle, meets a second significant vertical (S> 0,5 caliber), it detonates on it, as a rule, without penetrating it.
    When piercing a thin cocking deck, an armor-piercing projectile, contrary to popular belief, normalizes very poorly and works along the main armor deck in deteriorated conditions without an armor-piercing cap. Here the interaction of the elastic plate and the impulse transmitted by an absolutely rigid body takes place - either it breaks - or it springs back.
    The most important point, especially for large calibers, is the ratio of the mass of the armor plate and the projectile. Here, the conditions for sealing the edges of the armor plate are important, which the Russians (at first) and German (until the end of WWI) neglected. Connecting the slabs with dowels allows you to damp the impact of the projectile, distributing the impulse to adjacent slabs, which shows the shelling of the cabin and barbets.
  15. Pushkowed
    Pushkowed 20 March 2021 06: 10
    0
    A 380-mm German high-explosive projectile with a cap hit 170 mm armor at an ideal angle (90 degrees, that is, without deviating from the normal) at a speed of 590 m / s. <...> However, he was unable to overpower armor with a thickness of only 45% of its own caliber.
    Actually, he broke it through. It says:
    A large hole was punched in the armor plate in 400 × 440 mm.
    Similar wording (about "punched hole") was used in the description of all other hits. Even the previous one (on a 300-mm plate), where the land mine also split without detonation, but its fragments somehow ended up behind the armor.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 March 2021 07: 35
      0
      Quote: Pushkowed
      Actually, he broke it through.

      Nobody argues with this. However, armor is considered to be pierced not when it is pierced, but when the projectile that pierced it passed behind the armor as a whole (perhaps - not quite as a whole, but capable of detonation). It is in this case that the armor does not fulfill the function assigned to it.
  16. looker-on
    looker-on 26 March 2021 02: 43
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Nuuu, when one LC is forced to fight with half the fleet of the Metropolis - of course, it is not important :))))) However, I will allow myself a small remark. As a pearl, so to speak
    What I like about "VO" is that here you can discuss not only what is important, but also what is interesting :)

    What you write is interesting. This is the main thing. If, IMHO, it is very interesting to learn about the cool French fleet, potentially cool. There is very little information on the ships ... I understand. But maybe you have something, Andrey?