Military Review

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

49

In previous articles, I tried to understand the quality of Russian and German armor of the First World War.


The result of the "showdown" turned out to be very flattering for the domestic industry of those years: it turned out that the quality of the German armor was approximately the same as the Russian one.

Of course, this conclusion is not the ultimate truth - after all, the statistical base at my disposal (especially for tests by shooting German armor) is not too large. But the fact is that the sources most known to the interested public (information about the shelling of "Baden" and the data of T. Evers) do not at all testify to the superiority of German products over domestic armor.

What about the British?

Of course, in the framework of modeling a possible battle between German and Russian ships, this question is inappropriate.

But, since I undertook to compare the quality of the armor of the two countries, why not add a third to the comparison?

Moreover, the question of British armor is very interesting.

British tests of Russian shells


Among those who are interested history fleet deep enough to understand certain nuances of armor penetration, a version is known that British armor was much stronger than Russian or German. In support of this, the tests of the newest Russian armor-piercing 305-mm shells produced in England are cited.

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

As you can see, 305-mm armor-piercing shells from various British manufacturers were used for shelling, including domestic shells.

The speed of the shells at the time of impact was different, but the angle of deviation from the normal was the same - 20 degrees.

The above data indicate that two Russian shells were used in this shelling. Both of them pierced the British armor.

But the second, which had an impact velocity of 441 m / s (1 feet per second), collapsed (“broke up” in the “State of Projectile” column). From this we can conclude that the second round penetrated the British armor plate at the limit of its capabilities.

If this assumption is correct, then it turns out that the "K" of British armor is approximately 2 or higher. At the same time, due to the fact that individual shots against Russian armor during tests showed a "K" coefficient equal to 374-1750, it can be assumed that British armor was at least 1900% stronger than Russian armor in terms of strength.

However, in my previous materials, I showed that we have no reason to consider the quality of Russian armor below "K" = 2. And that the cases when the value of "K" fell less than the specified one is quite explainable by the damage that the Russian armor plate received during the previous shelling ...

So, for example, the most typical case occurred during shelling of 270 mm armor plate No. 1.

The semi-armor-piercing 356-mm projectile collapsed on impact. And the second, exactly the same and released after the first, hit the armor at the same speed and at the same angle, pierced both the 270 mm armor plate and the 75 mm bulkhead behind it, also made of cemented armor. In the first case, when the armor was not pierced, the ratio of the quality of the armor and the projectile gave the coefficient "K" equal to or higher than 2600. While the second shot gave the coefficient "K" below 1890.

Such a dramatic difference in the results can be explained by the fact that the second shell hit not far from the first. And in the place of his hit, the armor was significantly weakened by the impact of the previous projectile.

But back to the British armor.

Very much doubt is raised by the assumption that the Russian projectile, which collapsed while overcoming the armor, pierced the 203 mm British armor plate at the limit of its capabilities.

The point is this.

Let's take a look at the very first shot in the table above.

The British 305-mm projectile produced by Hadfield, having a significantly lower mass (850 pounds versus 1) and a similar muzzle velocity (040 ft / s versus 1 ft / s), quite successfully penetrates the British 475 mm armor, which testifies to “ K "less than or equal to 1 447. And remains whole. True, another projectile of the same manufacturer, hitting an armor plate of the same thickness at a speed of either 203 or 2 ft / sec (on the scan, alas, it is not clear), collapsed while overcoming it - but, again, pierced the armor.

How can this be?

Maybe it's all about the quality of the British shells, which turned out to be significantly better than the Russians?

This is unlikely - it is enough to look at the photographs of a Russian armor-piercing projectile that pierced 203 mm armor plate at a speed of 1615 ft / s.


And a British shell produced by the same Hadfield, which also pierced British armor at a speed of 1634 ft / s.


As you can see, both projectiles passed through the armor, retaining the ability to detonate, but the British projectile looks much worse than the Russian one.

In general, it turns out like this - of course, British armor showed noticeably better quality in tests than German or Russian.

But to say that her "K" was 2 is hardly possible. Still, only two shots with Russian shells is too insignificant a sample to make far-reaching conclusions on its basis.

Note that the Russian armor-piercing shells used in the tests almost never shattered, even passing the armor barrier at the limit of their capabilities. So it is possible that we are talking about a defective shell. This version looks closer to the truth, since the shelling by British shells, not superior in quality to the Russians, gave a smaller "K" - no more than 2.

But the most interesting thing is that real combat operations showed even less durability of British armor.

At the Battle of Jutland


Unfortunately, it is very difficult to understand what kind of armor was installed on the dreadnoughts and battle cruisers of the British fleet. But still there is something on this score “on the Internet”.

So, according to Nathan Okun, the British fleet from 1905 to 1925 used the British Krupp Cemented (KC), which was an improved version of the 420 quality Krupp armor. And since the tests described above were carried out in 1918-1919, it should be assumed that this armor was installed on all ships of the Royal Navy.

In contrast to this, one can argue that Okun, alas, is far from always right in his research. And, besides, if a certain armor had the same name for a certain period, this does not mean at all that its qualities remained unchanged.

In the comments to my articles, opinions were repeatedly expressed that the British armors improved their products in 1911 or 1912, or even in 1914. Whether this is so or not - I, alas, do not know.

But why guess?

Consider hitting the battlecruiser Tiger, which, when laid down in 1912, probably had the best cemented armor that British industry could provide.

It is quite obvious that the bulk of British ships (all battleships and all battle cruisers with 305-mm and 343-mm guns) had armor of the same quality or worse.

Of particular interest are two hits in the 229 mm armor of this ship. According to Campbell, at 15:54 a 280mm German shell hit the barbet of Tower X just above the upper deck.


In this case, the British armor was pierced. The shell went inside the barbet and exploded. But he gave an incomplete break, which is why a big catastrophe for the cruiser did not happen.

Almost simultaneously with this, at approximately 15:53, another shell of the same caliber hit the side skin opposite the barbet of tower "A", and then, in fact, hit the barbet. But in this case, the 229 mm British armor was not pierced.

Thus, it can be assumed that in these cases the British armor was at the limit of its durability. At almost the same time, the 229 mm barbets of the cruiser Tiger experienced the impact of 280 mm shells, most likely from the same ship, since the Moltke was firing at the Tiger at that time.

In the case when the German shell hit directly into the barbet, it pierced the armor. And when, before that, he was also opposed by the thin sheathing of the side, he could no longer. Although, of course, the probabilistic nature of the armor penetration could have affected here.

In addition, it is possible that in this case the German shells hit the armor from different angles. Nevertheless, the armor of the barbet is bent, which is why even when firing from the same ship, different angles of deviation from the normal are possible, depending on the places where the shells hit.

Unfortunately, the exact angle of impact of shells on the armor is unknown. But the distance from which the shot was fired is known - 13 yards (or 500 m). At this distance, the 12 mm / 345 shell of the gun had a speed of 279 m / s, and its angle of incidence was 50 degrees.

So, if we assume that this projectile hit the barbet of tower "X" at an ideal angle for itself (the angle of deviation from the normal is equal to the angle of incidence), then even then the resistance of British armor corresponds only to "K" = 2 069. If the angle was different from ideal, then the durability of British armor is even lower!

However, this case also cannot be considered a representative statistical sample.

Perhaps, the probabilistic nature of the armor penetration formula I used here "played". Or maybe the need to create curved armor for barbets has led to some drop in its durability, relative to that achieved in the production of conventional armor plates. It is also likely that the incomplete rupture of the German shell in the barbet of the "X" turret of the cruiser "Tiger" is related to the damage it received while penetrating the armor. In other words, he passed for her, although in general, but not quite workable condition.

However, on the basis of the above, the "K" coefficient of British armor should be determined somewhere in the range of 2100-2200. That is, on the strength of 5-10% stronger than the German and Russian.

Interestingly, this conclusion is indirectly confirmed by some other sources.

About post-war British armor


As you know, in the period between the First and Second World Wars, a famous revolution took place in the manufacture of cemented armor. And the heavy ships of the Second World War received significantly more durable protection.

In the previous article, I have already mentioned the work of T. Evers, in which he talks about a significant change in the chemical composition of the new German armor and recommends using the coefficient "K" in the amount of 2. "At the level" K "= 337 2, the increase in strength is 005%, which is very, very good.

As for the British battleships of the Second World War era, it is more and more interesting with them.

The British themselves believed that their armor retained superiority over the German. And, most likely, the way it really was.

In the book "British, Soviet, French, and Dutch battleships of World War II" (by William H. Garzke and Robert Dulin), dedicated to both actually built and remaining on paper projects of battleships of the Second World War, page 267 indicates the estimated armor penetration 406-mm guns of the battleships "Nelson" and the promising battleships "Lion".


Using the presented data for 1080 kg of the "Lion" projectile, we obtain the shape factor of the projectile 0,3855, the angle of fall at a distance of 13 m - 752 degrees, the speed on the armor - 9,46 m / sec.

The table shows the armor penetration of 449 mm, which, taking into account the indirect relationship between the thickness of the armor and its durability (starting after 300 mm), is 400,73 mm of the "reduced" thickness. Accordingly, the "K" of the British armor plate in this case will be 2.

So, if we assume that the data of these authors (William H. Garzke and Robert Dulin) are correct, it turns out that the British armor of the Second World War was about 9,7% stronger than the German armor of the same period.

And, if we assume that the British improved the quality of their armor in comparison with what they had in 1911, by the same 16,6% as the Germans, it turns out that the coefficient "K" of armor mod. 1911 is 2!

In view of the above, the following conclusion suggests itself.

German and Russian armor of the First World War was roughly equivalent. And their "K" was 2.

British armor was 5-10% stronger (10% - provided that the quality of the British KS remained unchanged since 1905 and that the punched barbet of the "Tiger" is not typical for the characteristics of the durability of British armor).

The improvement of the armor case led to the fact that the German ships, built in the 30s of the twentieth century, received armor with "K" = 2, and the British - with "K" = 337 2.

In other words, the approximately ten percent superiority of the English armor remained.

To be continued ...
Author:
49 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. NF68
    NF68 26 March 2021 18: 19
    +6
    Interesting stuff.
    1. Proxima
      Proxima 26 March 2021 18: 27
      +8
      We all live with stereotypes, in relation to this article - Krupp's armor is the best, but it turns out that the armor of the "sivolaph Russians" was at least no worse. Moreover, the nation of "hucksters, traders and world behind-the-scenes intriguers" was ahead of the rest of the world in this part of metallurgy! Thanks to the Author for his contribution to breaking these stereotypes. hi
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 26 March 2021 18: 43
        +9
        Moreover, the nation of "hucksters, traders and world behind-the-scenes intriguers" was ahead of the rest of the world in this part of metallurgy!

        This nation had a great opportunity with the choice of the original "ingredients". Ores, coal. So they brewed metal of higher quality in comparison with countries that do not have so many overseas colonies rich in minerals.
        The British did not have problems with copper mines, and the Russians, due to the shortage of copper, could not produce cartridge and artillery casings in the quantities they needed.
        1. The leader of the Redskins
          The leader of the Redskins 26 March 2021 19: 12
          -1
          Agree, the cycle is interesting))) Something new, unbroken ...
        2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 26 March 2021 20: 00
          +2
          Quote: hohol95
          This nation had a great opportunity with the choice of the original "ingredients".


          Good evening Alexey! I think that it's not even about the colonies, but about the fleet that could protect such logistics.
          Regarding domestic copper, perhaps the trouble is not in its absence, but in the lack of foresight of those who were called up in the First World War. Until the rooster pecked in one place, there was no stir in the exploration of copper ores. After the start of the war, sensing a profit in the Urals, they began to build at least five factories, although they were completed under Soviet rule. Now they are a good piece of UMMC's asset.
          1. hohol95
            hohol95 26 March 2021 20: 48
            +1
            Good evening Vladislav!
            A counter question - from what wood were British warships built after 1660?
            The answer is -
            "Timber Trouble" of the British Navy
            Sergey Makhov 13 Jul '17
            warspot.ru
            By the 1660s, the last oak groves were reduced, and there were no significant wood resources left in England.

            Initially, English ships were made of beech, but it ended by the 1600s. Therefore, in the future, the oak became the main tree for construction, from which the ship's hull was erected. Yew and elm were used to decorate the decks and cabins. Well, for the manufacture of the spars, the main materials were spruce and pine.

            Over time, empirical indicators were developed that allowed the forestry department to sort the tree depending on the growing area. Thus, in the book Correspondence of the Honorable John Sinclair (1842), p. 242, the following data on the service life of oak in shipbuilding are given:
            American oak - 10 years old.
            Russian Kazan oak - 10 years old.
            French oak - 15 years old.
            Polish oak - 15 years old.
            German oak - 15 years old.
            Danish oak - 20 years old.
            Swedish oak - 20 years old.
            English oak - 25 years old.
            The best English oak is 40-50 years old.

            And in conclusion -
            According to a 1792 report by the Forestry Commissioners of England and the Colonies, the average lifespan of ships built for the Royal Nevy from 1760 to 1788, with one upper timbering (repair of the hull and rigging above the waterline) was 11 years and 9 months. In the 1830s, it rose to 13 years. At the same time, ships built from colonial timber had a lifespan (without timbers) of 3 years 6 months, from the Baltic - 8 years 3 months, and from the English - 10 years 4 months.
            The authors of the report believed that, on average, a French ship served for about 15 years with timber ships, and an English one for 25 years with timber ships.

            Without exporting from the colonies and purchasing timber on the side, the British would not have created their legendary Royal Navy.
            1. Korsar4
              Korsar4 26 March 2021 21: 16
              +2
              Saw. Decent review.
              The only thing that is a little surprising is the possible use of spruce for the spar. Nevertheless, both strength and durability are significantly lower than that of pine.
              1. hohol95
                hohol95 26 March 2021 21: 21
                +2
                Their same article -
                "Timber Trouble" of the British Navy
                Sergey Makhov 13 Jul '17
                warspot.ru
                When it comes to the mast tree, Admiral Anson admitted in 1757 that the best masts are obtained from the fir trees growing east of the Oder between the 53rd and 65th parallels. In Royal Nevi, these trees firmly entered the name as the fir of Riga ("Riga spruce"), although most often this spruce (or pine) was Karelian.
                Norwegian spruce, which the British liked so much until 1716, turned out to be both thin and brittle in comparison with the Russians (Riga), therefore they earned the contemptuous nickname Satan's spears in Royal Nevi. In 1737, one of the commissioners wrote: "... of all the masts, the masts made from Norwegian spruce are certainly the worst in the fleet." The same could be said about the Pyrenean pines, which are brittle and subject to rapid decay.

                Spruce - ate strife. Like the oaks!
                1. Korsar4
                  Korsar4 26 March 2021 21: 49
                  +2
                  Norway spruce is the modern name for European spruce (ordinary).
                  Fir - now stands for fir. It is even less long-lived.

                  In Russia, until the end of the XNUMXth century, spruce was considered a weed species.

                  I can imagine that on a rather poor soil, spruce has small increments, and the density of wood may be higher, and, accordingly, strength.

                  It is important here in what type of forest the spruce was harvested.
                  1. hohol95
                    hohol95 26 March 2021 22: 06
                    +2
                    Read the entire article. Good article. hi
                    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
                      Kote Pan Kokhanka 27 March 2021 02: 22
                      +2
                      Quote: hohol95
                      Read the entire article. Good article. hi

                      Thanks for the sketch. On my own I would add that I read from Ivanov that the Americans used mahogany and American oak with a rarer longitudinal-cross-member power set in the construction of their heavy frigates with 24-pound koranades. The reason is the confidence in the higher quality of the wood.
                      In 1812-13, at least four equivalent stitches of frigate to frigate, the Americans won three times. And the oldest living frigate, the Constitution, is just one of them, by the way, the winner of Ajax.
                      Now on the pine tree. As a practitioner, I will say that pine is a very soft and easy-to-handle wood. As a mast tree, in principle, it should be priceless. Spruce and fir are capricious in processing. But if you cut them in January and February (minimum moisture), the first can be used for elastic structures (for example, for side stops and rake teeth), the second as a basis for gate posts. In dry ground, fir stands, as it were, no longer than larch.
      2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 26 March 2021 19: 50
        +2
        Quote: Proxima
        We all live with stereotypes, in relation to this article - Krupp's armor is the best, but it turns out that the armor of the "sivolaph Russians" was at least no worse. Moreover, the nation of "hucksters, traders and world behind-the-scenes intriguers" was ahead of the rest of the world in this part of metallurgy! Thanks to the Author for his contribution to breaking these stereotypes.

        Andrey is definitely a plus, otherwise there are questions.
        In order to build a fleet at the beginning of the 19th century, wood was needed, at the end of this century, metal was needed.
        Before the Napoleonic Wars, Britain was an exporter of iron, first from Sweden and later from Russian. But from the middle of the 19th century, through advanced technologies, it breaks out into the world leaders in the production of ferrous metal. The key - in "innovative industrial technologies" - is the introduction into the work of manufactories - steam, Bessermen casting of malleable iron and the use of coal in metal smelting. Here are three whales that have kept Britain at the top of the food pyramid for another century.
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 26 March 2021 21: 01
          +2
          And again, data from the global network -
          In three coal basins of Great Britain, all the brands of coal needed for the industrial economy were concentrated: in the Yorkshire Basin, thermal coal was mined, in the Northumberland-Durham Basin, coking coal was deposited, and in South Wales, super-quality anthracite was mined.

          During the Russo-Japanese War, St. Petersburg consumed 1 million tons of British coal. And the Republic of Ingushetia was seriously afraid of a coal blockade from the side of Foggy Albion!
          His ember did not compete with the British one!
          And the coal industry itself in Britain originated in the 12th century!
          And we have? And we have a lot of forests ... a lot of firewood ...
          Since the 30th century, the development of coal with short shaft pillars with a depth of mines up to 90 meters has been introduced in England, and in the XNUMXth century, the depth of the mines has already reached XNUMX meters. Since that time, the shafts of English coal mines already pass with wooden fasteners from top to bottom, which allows avoiding unnecessary human casualties in case of accidental collapse of the roof of the mine.
        2. Undecim
          Undecim 26 March 2021 21: 39
          +3
          Bessermen malleable iron casting
          Good evening, Vladislav. Ductile iron cannot be obtained by casting, only by prolonged annealing of hypoeutectic white cast iron. Bessemer did not deal with these processes; he invented the Bessemer converter for steel production.
          1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
            Kote Pan Kokhanka 27 March 2021 01: 58
            +2
            Victor Nikolaevich, thank you for correcting it. Apparently I dumped everything in a heap, but you will not argue that in industrial volumes they began to blow raw iron with air in Britain. According to the history of Bessemer, it seems that he didn't even burn something while experimenting with the convector. The fact is different, in the middle of the century before last, the British rushed in the field of metallurgy, we caught up with them literally just before the First World War. Due to the commissioning of factories in the territory of modern Ukraine.
            However, in Zlatoust, Anosov also invented cast damask (steel). Perm poured artillery steel for guns.

            I remembered that there was a photo of one of them in Perm on my phone.
            By the way, Russia sounded like a metallurgical power, At least two gold medals of the Paris exhibition (for Kasli casting and welded prism made of non-ferrous and ferrous metals.
            1. Undecim
              Undecim 27 March 2021 09: 14
              +1
              in the UK began blowing raw iron with air on an industrial scale
              Yes, the blowing of cast iron with air was developed and introduced into production by Bessemer, which made it possible to obtain liquid steel.
              Kasli casting

              Kasli "Pig-iron Pavilion", awarded the Crystal Grand Prix of the exhibition and the big gold medal of the Paris exhibition in 1900.
              welded prism made of non-ferrous and ferrous metals.
              A "glass of Slavyanov" is a world electrical engineering exhibition in 1893 in Chicago.

              But this is not metallurgy, this is electrical engineering.
              By the way - great topics for articles.
    2. Jura 27
      Jura 27 27 March 2021 10: 32
      0
      Something the analysis is lame, and on both legs.
      The table clearly shows that the British shells are destroyed (piercing armor) at speeds of 1450-1520 f / s and do not collapse (having damage) at speeds above 1630 f / s, i.e. everything is fine: there is not enough speed to pass through the armor in a relatively general form, the shells are destroyed, there is enough speed, - there is a passage over the armor of the main part of the projectile.
      Russian shells are not an indicator here (in comparison with the English ones), because they are 22% heavier than the English ones and, accordingly, have much more energy to penetrate the armor and at the same speeds with the Britons, they must sew armor easily through. However, one shell collapsed, well, let it be defective.
      The second "lame leg": when a German 28cm BBS hits the barbet, damage to an inch-wide deck measuring 1,2 by 0,9m is shown, which indicates that the explosion occurred during the passage of the armor, which means that either the fuse went off early, or the armor of the barbet almost held the projectile (i.e., for the classic full-fledged penetration with a whole projectile, it was necessary to have a higher speed and, accordingly, the K-t would be higher).
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        27 March 2021 13: 13
        0
        Quote: Jura 27
        According to the table, it is clearly seen that the British shells are destroyed (piercing armor) at speeds of 1450-1520 f / s and do not collapse (having damage) at speeds above 1630 f / s

        And how does this negate the K calculated by me in the region of 2?
        Quote: Jura 27
        The second "lame leg": when the German 28cm BBS hits the barbet, damage is shown to an inch deck measuring 1,2 by 0,9m, which indicates that the explosion occurred during the passage of armor

        Didn't happen. Campbell gives a description
        `` X 'turret was hit on the 9in barbette armor near its junction with the 3in armor and the lin upper deck. A piece of 9in armor 27in x 16in was broken off, the 3in armor dented in about 3in and the upper deck holed, while the 4in armor plate adjoining the 3in was also dented at the top corner. The shell entered the turret through the revolving structure about 3ft below the lower edge of the turret shield, but did not explode properly, though the bursting charge ignited with a partial burst and partial rocket effect just inside the turn-table, and the body of the shell without the point, remained in the lower floor of the gun-house between the guns in the center of the turret, together with large fragments of armor. The center sight-setter was blown against the roof and killed but there were apparently no other casualties, respirators preventing any gassing. The center training shaft was smashed, one of the flash doors jammed, the left gun depression control valve casting fractured which led to water running down to the handing room, and the Director laying and firing circuits cut. After 7 minutes the turret began firing again, and both guns were able to continue in action with Director training, individual laying and percussion firing. A total of 75 rounds was fired by `X 'turret in the battle but some probably went very wide as at 1811 it was discovered that the turret was 19 ° off its correct bearing in Director training, and had to be lined up. The effect of these two hits was thus to reduce the Tiger to at best a 3.-turret ship
        1. Jura 27
          Jura 27 27 March 2021 13: 56
          0
          [/ quote] near its junction with the 3in armor and the lin upper deck [quote]

          Then everything is even worse, in the sense of better for English armor, a German shell hit the lower edge of the barbette plate (horizontal joint with 3 "and 4" below the armor) and chipped off a piece.
          1. Jura 27
            Jura 27 27 March 2021 13: 57
            0
            [/ quote] And how does this negate the K calculated by me in the region of 2 189? [Quote]

            I don’t even remember that I denied it.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              27 March 2021 15: 01
              0
              Quote: Jura 27
              I don’t even remember that I denied it.

              You write
              Quote: Jura 27
              Something the analysis is lame, and on both legs.

              And as an example of lameness, you indicate
              Quote: Jura 27
              The table clearly shows that the British shells are destroyed (piercing armor) at speeds of 1450-1520 f / s and do not collapse (having damage) at speeds above 1630 f / s, i.e. everything is fine: there is not enough speed to pass through the armor in a relatively general form, the shells are destroyed, there is enough speed, - there is a passage over the armor of the main part of the projectile.

              What contradicts my conclusions here?
              1. Jura 27
                Jura 27 28 March 2021 07: 45
                0
                [/ quote] What contradicts my conclusions here? [quote]

                Nothing to the main conclusion, therefore I do not dispute it, only the analysis is made crookedly and obliquely, and I made it short, clear and clear, incl. and on Russian shells, which had incomparably more energy to penetrate, due to the greater weight.
                If we are really going into the jungle, then there are two criteria for armor penetration, in the Soviet version these are: PSP and PTP. So, when we consider the armor penetration of Russian shells against Russian armor, we mean the PSP, that is, we need a case when a relatively whole shell passes behind the armor, breaks through a couple of light bulkheads (including a relatively thin deck slope) and explodes into cellars / KO / MO.
                In English experiments, the PSP corresponds to speeds from 1600 f / s (and the PTP is in the region of 1450-1500 f / s) and, therefore, K-t goes off scale for 2500 units. But it is assumed that the Russian shells are still stronger than the English ones (although in one case the shell collapsed) and therefore, K-t can be lowered to 2200-2250 (i.e. to the anti-tank gun).
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            27 March 2021 14: 42
            0
            Quote: Jura 27
            Then everything is even worse, in the sense of better for English armor, a German shell hit the lower edge of the barbette plate (horizontal joint with 3 "and 4" below the armor) and chipped off a piece.

            It did not fall into any "joint", it is written clearly
            X 'turret was hit on the 9in barbette armor

            Damaged area of ​​229 mm armor
            near its junction with the 3in armor and the lin upper deck

            next to where this armor connects to the 229-inch armor and the upper deck. In this case, the projectile, breaking off a decent piece of XNUMX mm of armor, went inside
            1. Jura 27
              Jura 27 28 March 2021 07: 50
              0
              [/ quote] He did not fall into any "joint", it is written clearly [quote]

              I did not write that he hit the joint, he hit near the junction of the slabs, close to the edge of the 9 "barbet slab (even the underlying, adjacent slabs were damaged) - a typical non-valid hit, these are usually excluded from the test statistics. as before, you are trying to exclude hit No. 3 by the 12 "BBS, despite the fact that the center of neighboring hits is one meter or more, although such hits are considered quite valid.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                28 March 2021 09: 32
                +1
                Quote: Jura 27
                a typical non-valid hit, usually these are excluded from the test statistics. You are, as before, trying to exclude hitting No. 3 by the 12 "BBS, despite the fact that the center of neighboring hits is one meter or more, although such hits are considered quite valid.

                If you haven't noticed, I excluded this penetration from the statistics :))))) I stopped at the fact that K British armor is equal to 2100-2200, but no less equal to or below 2069, which gives the specified hit.
  2. Niko
    Niko 26 March 2021 18: 31
    +4
    Thank you Andrey. Finally, something interesting on VO. Otherwise, out of boredom, I start to break into arguments with people who clearly read only the news. laughing
  3. Macsen_wledig
    Macsen_wledig 26 March 2021 19: 20
    +3
    So, if we assume that the data of these authors (William H. Garzke and Robert Dulin) are correct, it turns out that the British armor of the Second World War was about 9,7% stronger than the German armor of the same period.

    In general, the data is absolutely calculated, which speaks not only of their unreliability, but rather incompleteness.
    For example, the Germans, building their curves of armor penetration on the basis of shooting at the firing range in Meppen, honestly pointed out that the penetration of such and such a projectile is indicated for armor that has characteristics similar to the armor of KS n \ A (for example), that is, even knowing the "tabular" armor penetration, true the numbers will be different.

    The only option is to carry out comparative shots on the model of shooting the Bayern or American experiments with the frontal plate of the Shinano turret ... But, unfortunately, this is unrealistic.
  4. Engineer
    Engineer 26 March 2021 19: 35
    +2
    The British themselves believed that their armor retained superiority over the German. And, most likely, the way it really was.

    According to: David Brown, British shipbuilder and author of many books on the history of the fleet and military shipbuilding, who was directly involved in the design of the ships of the KF,
    British armor by the end of the 30s had 25% more resistance than its WWI versions. He twice notes that the Germans made a similar dash around 1930 and their armor was roughly equal to the British. Post-war shelling of armor plates from Tirpitz confirmed this.
    Source - From "Nelson to Wangard" by the named author. Chapter first. Battleships
  5. Cartalon
    Cartalon 26 March 2021 20: 22
    +5
    English armor is better than German armor when tested by the British.
    In the Battle of Jutland, the British probably had some doubts about this, but the trials certainly strengthened their faith in their armor.
  6. 27091965
    27091965 26 March 2021 21: 43
    +1
    The British 305 mm projectile produced by Hadfield, having a significantly lower mass (850 pounds versus 1) and a similar muzzle velocity (040 ft / s versus 1 ft / s), quite successfully penetrates British 475 mm armor.


    Dear Andrey. Regarding the projectiles, the 12 "projectile produced by Hadfield was called" Heclon ", this projectile at a distance of 6,5 miles (as indicated in the description of the tests), the speed of 1700 fps, penetrated the 12" armor of the KS. However, he did not have serious damage.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      27 March 2021 00: 17
      +1
      Good day, dear Igor!
      Quote: 27091965i
      Regarding the projectiles, the 12 "projectile produced by Hadfield was called" Heclon ", this projectile at a distance of 6,5 miles (as indicated in the description of the tests), the speed of 1700 fps, penetrated the 12" armor of the KS. However, he did not have serious damage.

      Most likely we are talking about quality 420, that is, not improved armor - even with a deviation from the normal 0 deg K should be equal to 2020, which is not enough for an improved British COP.
      And that did not have serious destruction ... so our shells usually did not have destruction when overcoming the armor, but for some reason the English shell split. There, after all, conditions are important - at what angle the projectile hit, etc. The British had a bunch of shells falling apart when firing at a 203 mm plate at an angle of 20 degrees.
      1. 27091965
        27091965 27 March 2021 12: 23
        0
        Good afternoon.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Most likely we are talking about quality 420, that is, not improved armor - even with a deviation from the normal 0 deg K should be equal to 2020, which is not enough for an improved British COP.


        The armor was of good quality. The fact is that a separately taken country until 1912 practically could not produce improved Krupp armor, with the exception of the United States. Let me explain why. In 1900, an international corporation for the production of armor was created. It included Britain were Brown, Cammell, Vickers, Armstrong, from 1902 Beardmore (England); Dillinger Hütten, Krupp (Germany); Acieries de la Marine, Schneider, Chatillon (France); "Bethlehem and Carnegie" (USA) they not only shared profits and orders for the production of armor from countries outside this association, but also new scientific developments. The Americans left it in 1908, starting independent development, the corporation itself ceased its joint activities in 1912. After that, all the countries included in it went their own way.
        I will answer in a few comments, the volume is too large.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          27 March 2021 13: 15
          0
          Quote: 27091965i
          The armor was of good quality.

          Then we will have to admit that this armor had a quality at best not the level of Russian and German, but, most likely, it was worse.
          Quote: 27091965i
          they not only shared profits and orders for the production of armor from countries outside this association, but also new scientific developments.

          Well, we can see that testing German and British armor makes a significant difference. So, they still did not quite share, leaving something for themselves.
      2. 27091965
        27091965 27 March 2021 13: 16
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        but on the English shell for some reason split


        In our books devoted to the Navy, you can find the statement that England learned about the low quality of their shells after the outbreak of hostilities, this is not true. They knew in 1910 that English shells hitting armor at an angle in most cases do not pierce it and tend to split. Admiral John Jellicoe, who held the position of "controller of the fleet", proposed to develop a new projectile, promising certain bonuses. Hadfields and Firth developed such a projectile, hitting 15 to 20 degrees, in 1912. In 1913, these shells were publicly tested, they showed a very good result, but the Admiralty refused to pay the bonus, noting;
        " Manufacturers will not tell the Admiralty what it should do. "
        As a result, the order was canceled.

        so our shells usually did not have destruction when overcoming armor,


        They weren't supposed to have them. In 1909, Russia signed a contract with the English firm "Thomas Firth & Sons" for the development of a projectile, the emphasis was on the high-explosive projectile, but also took into account the armor-piercing projectile, which penetrates thin and medium armor at an angle of 20 degrees. Thomas Firth & Sons sent its specialists to Russia where this projectile was developed and tested.
  7. Mooh
    Mooh 27 March 2021 01: 05
    +1
    According to the material: A very interesting topic, a lot of information that is new to me, but I'm afraid that with such scanty statistics, the reliability of the conclusions is extremely doubtful. In all tests, the minimum number of shots, different conditions, different guns. The reliability of tabular data is unverifiable, and there could be errors. You can get some idea, but I would not rely on the findings.
    Site: What the hell? Why does the site hide the articles of a respected author somewhere? Many times the same story - in the section "new on the site" there is no article, in the section "weapons" too, and then bam and appears on the main page with the mark "published X hours or even days ago. I never caught a glitch.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      27 March 2021 13: 16
      0
      Quote: MooH
      You can get some idea, but I would not rely on the findings.

      You are largely right, but here it is more likely that, with the available data, we have no reason to believe that German or English armor had a significant superiority over ours.
      1. Mooh
        Mooh 27 March 2021 13: 38
        +1
        As a layman in the subject, I never considered it. I didn’t read anything serious on this topic, I believed that at that time the technological level of all more or less developed countries differed insignificantly. Ignorance is a blessing :))
  8. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 27 March 2021 01: 06
    +1
    I wanted to remain silent. Like that parrot with Khazanov ... I could not restrain myself laughing

    To be honest - completely uninteresting. Discussion already in four articles of a coefficient to the empirical formula that few people need and, in addition, obviously a curve .. Well, I don’t know .. Maybe this dregs really interests someone. Practical sense - absolute zero.

    Discuss further since it is so impatient laughing
    1. Mooh
      Mooh 27 March 2021 13: 51
      +3
      Yakutokon, at least, informative for those who are not in the subject. In general, before this cycle, I did not know that the Krupovskaya armor is different. Plus the systematization of all tests in one source. It is a very valuable job for a popular military resource. It is unlikely that at the output we will receive sensational data that will turn the entire history of the First World War, but this is not the Academy of Historical Sciences. You are definitely biased towards the respected author;)
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 27 March 2021 21: 31
        +1
        Quote: MooH
        Plus the systematization of all tests in one source.

        In view of the incorrectness of this coefficient itself, to which the author is trying to bring all the listed tests, it is problematic to call it systematization. Rather, a bunch of information about shooting and armor. Poorly docked with each other, unfortunately.

        Quote: MooH
        You are definitely biased towards the respected author;)

        This is yes. You guessed it. Having caught the author a couple of times deliberately distorting information in favor of his theories, the author has become more than biased. Either you are a historian and honestly present the information as it is, or you are a propagandist and then pardon me, hang a label on each post - "everything said is the advertisement of the Romanovs."
  9. Comrade
    Comrade 27 March 2021 05: 05
    0
    In the comments to my articles, opinions were repeatedly expressed that the British armors improved their products in 1911 or 1912, or even in 1914.
    Consider hitting the battlecruiser Tiger, which, when laid down in 1912, probably had the best cemented armor that British industry could provide.

    Dear Andrey, there is information that in 1906-1907, based on the results of experiments, Krupp slightly improved his armor.
    Accordingly, a trial batch of improved armor was released in 1908 and demonstrated no earlier than 1909-1910.
    At the same time, between 1906-1910, the Krupp armor was improved in Great Britain, Austria, Italy and the USA.
    Judging by the Battle of Jutland, the exact date of the start of production of the German improved Krupp armor can be narrowed down to 1908-1910, therefore, the German ships that entered service starting in 1912 already had new armor.
    However, the lead times for orders for improved armor increased. As stated in Tirpitz's letter to the Kaiser, an order for armor plates intended for the battle cruiser Derfflinger, for example, had to be made 39 months in advance (for dreadnoughts - in 32-37 months).
    Since the construction of the cruiser "Tiger" was approved by the 1910-1911 program, it turns out that she really carried the best armor that the British had then. The latter had time to make it.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      27 March 2021 13: 18
      +1
      Quote: Comrade
      Dear Andrey, there is information that in 1906-1907, based on the results of experiments, Krupp slightly improved his armor.

      Thank you, dear colleague! I myself believed that the armor, even if it even had one name, did not remain unchanged, and I have repeatedly expressed this assumption!
  10. Andrey152
    Andrey152 27 March 2021 09: 23
    +1
    Thank you, Andrey, very interesting!
  11. Engineer
    Engineer 27 March 2021 11: 55
    0
    What caught my eye.
    For the British PMV armor, three values ​​of the K coefficient were obtained. There is no convergence. The author just takes the mean and notes
    Interestingly, this conclusion is indirectly confirmed by some other sources.

    However, “some other sources” are not named. It may seem that the author is simply adjusting the result to the desired result.
    For a 356 mm projectile with diametrically opposite results, the conclusion is given
    Such a dramatic difference in the results can be explained by the fact that the second shell hit not far from the first. And in the place of his hit, the armor was significantly weakened by the impact of the previous projectile.

    But as far as I know, there is no picture of the distribution of shells. And if so, then this is speculation. Maybe both shots were really close, or maybe not. I admit that I am wrong and someone has a picture of the hits.
    Further, according to the number of cases under consideration.
    However, this case also cannot be considered a representative statistical sample.

    Absolutely right. But the trouble is that there is no statistical sample at all. Neither the shooting of Chesma nor the shelling of Baden give statistics. Statistics should show patterns at least. 3-5 shots with the same initial conditions. This is not even close in all cases.

    The biggest complaint. De Marr's formula is empirical, which means that the error for determining K can easily be 10% or more. It cannot be said that armor A surpasses armor B by 5-10% according to the results of calculating K, because the difference is within the margin of error.

    Everything has turned into a fun mental exercise, but it can in no way be called research, even if it is personal.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      27 March 2021 13: 02
      0
      Quote: Engineer
      But as far as I know, there is no picture of the distribution of shells. And if so, then this is speculation.

      This is not speculation, the test reports give the hit points of the indicated projectiles (distance in cm from the right and bottom edges of the armor)
      Quote: Engineer
      However, "some other sources" are not named

      In general, even the scan is given
      Quote: Engineer
      But the problem is that there is no statistical sample at all. Neither the shooting of Chesma nor the shelling of Baden give statistics. Statistics should show patterns at least. 3-5 shots with the same initial conditions.

      Close to this
      Quote: Engineer
      The biggest complaint. De Marr's formula is empirical, which means that the error for determining K can easily be 10% or more. It cannot be said that armor A surpasses armor B by 5-10% according to the results of the calculation.

      How is it? There are three cases that show K British armor within certain limits, so I see no reason why not to take the average.
      Quote: Engineer
      Everything has turned into a fun mental exercise, but it can in no way be called research, even if it is personal.

      Let's just say - based on the work done, I am ready to assert that the sources known to us do not give reason to assumethat German armor was better than Russian armor, and British armor was more than 5-10% better than both of them.
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 28 March 2021 10: 27
        +1
        In general, even the scan is given

        Appendix 1c?
        Here is the author's idea for the PMV armor
        However, on the basis of the above, the "K" coefficient of British armor should be determined somewhere in the range of 2100-2200. That is, on the strength of 5-10% stronger than the German and Russian.
        Interestingly, this conclusion is indirectly confirmed by some other sources.

        Which of this does this scan confirm?
        The question was what other? Are there any other sources that say the superiority of British armor is 5-10 percent.
        However, this case also cannot be considered a representative statistical sample.

        Close to this

        Appendix 1c - only shots 3 and 4 are repeated. The result is repeated
        The shelling of Baden - no repetitive experiments.
        The shelling of the Russian 225 mm armor two shots with the same OU. Result does not repeat
        Shelling of Russian 250 mm armor 5 shots with the same OU. Result plus or minus is repeated with caveats
        In total, only one conditionally full-fledged series of experiments - on Russian 250 mm armor. Conditionally, since 2 out of 5 experiments gave a different outcome. For statistics, it would be necessary to continue experiments to show that the excluded outcomes are really not significant.
        There are no statistics in any case.

        How is it? There are three cases that show K British armor within certain limits, so I see no reason why not to take the average.

        There are estimates in articles 2069, 2374, 2189
        The median is 2189. The average is 2210. The author's estimate is 2100-2200 against the Russians in 2005. It is concluded that the superiority is 5-10 percent "from strength." Although the figures are quite solid 10 percent dance.
        But this is not the main thing.
        If the expected difference in characteristics is indeed within 10 percent, then when evaluating each of these characteristics with an accuracy within 10% (at best), the problem has no purely methodological solution.
  12. doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan 27 March 2021 15: 43
    0
    As always, interesting and informative ...
  13. Charlie
    Charlie 28 March 2021 15: 48
    +1
    It's boring to read something about armor. Tiring. Better about battles, about battles ...
  14. Elturisto
    Elturisto 1 May 2021 22: 00
    0
    The author first needs to use the correct terms. Not Russian shells, but Russian. This is in English, these concepts merge, but in Russian they are clearly distinguishable in meaning. The empire is Russian. Therefore, the author suffers from sycophancy before the West, although he covers it up with a fig leaf of imaginary patriotism. And the whole topic has been sucked from the finger. Any conclusions can only be drawn under the conditions of a correct experiment. The bourgeois cannot be taken at their word.