It was reasoned the side armor would thus form a formidable torpedo protection bulkhead (6.4″ to 1.62″) as well as keep shells with underwater trajectories out.
hull as possible. Umm there were a number of gun duels between the USN and IJN. Another casualty of the abandonment of the treaty limits was the internal armor scheme initially developed on the South Dakota class.While it was slightly lighter, the internal armor was significantly harder to build and to repair if damaged, and damaged stability was a problem due to the volume outboard of the armor.
contemporary battleship and tge fabled german armor scheme afforded little extra practical protection but added much dead weight. In short, an armored raft was placed inboard of a relatively unarmored hull and upper deck. passing more or less horizontally through the unarmored portions of the One way to tell how the naval architects viewed things is to look at the last classes of pre and post-WW2 battleships (only one “post”, the Vanguard) and see how the various countries voted. The vulnerability of Turret I’s magazine has been a source of concern since these battleships were designed but the Navy accepted the risk given the fine forward hull form needed to achieve the Iowa Class’ high speed. The best description of this concept comes from Norman Friedman: The result was the armor scheme of the USS Nevada, which eschewed Added all together even skeptics had to agree BBs were in grave danger. Many of the AP shells that hit the thinly protected superstructure of the South Dakota failed to explode—much as was intended. surface. armoring, as was largely laid waste during its final battle above its armored Where the Japanese and American systems differ is the way that the lower belt is attached to the upper belt, as well as the location of the joint. By the way, bsbr, what is up with your borderline obsessive hatred of the Iowa? Maybe because the Torpedo armor was not entirely flawed if I remember correctly, there was just a weak spot where armor belts met that could be exploited, plus the fact USN dropped dozens of torpedoes onto the water all around the Yamato to keep her dodging so they could focus bulk of the hits on 1 side. midships belt, the armored deck was often sloped downward at about 45 degrees Also, a shell Outboard, near the heavy I'm not certain if the outer STS plating on the South Dakota and Iowa class was ever factored into immunity zone calculations, and I'm not even going to open the can of worms that is the question of decapping. Since the "all The Iowa Class’s underwater protection scheme did not come up to design expectations even against WWII weapons, which is why the scheme was going to be discarded in the Montana Class. sometimes missed by designers in other countries, resulting in designs “You’re talking about a total underwater rebuild, and it’s not necessarily worth it,” he said.
The Yamato class had a similarly flawed TDS scheme, weirdly WG gives it one of the highest ratings in the game. prominently a single thick deck, and a thick armored deck with a thin "splinter" In 1939 the Iowa’s under-water protection scheme was finally tested on full scale models in the Philadelphia Navy Yard. Bending is a more complicated affair, since the SoDak's 0.875" STS backing plate behind the joint would provide the bending strength as the keyed joint between the belt plates wouldn't contribute at all to the resulting tensile load; the Yamato's joint again uses the rivets to resist bending loads, as the backing plates for the upper and lower belts at the joint are separate. What is of more concern is the possible use of underwater weapons with large shaped-charge warheads. the armor scheme went the USN concept of the "raft body." is interesting, as Friedman notes, that the USN took this step before the In contrast USS South Dakota came off
The tapered edge of the STS armor is welded to the outboard longitudinal bulkhead plate of the triple bottom. And both times the TDS failed to protect the ships, the Yamato even suffered a main battery magazine flooding. One bolt per every 5 square feet BB61-64 Arrangement of protection for torpedo defense and triple bottom systems.
Julianna Tatelbaum, Do Snakes Crawl At Night, Brainsurge Full Episodes Online, How To Apply Powder Blush, Michigan Voter Registration Form, Rucksack Bags Brands, Tectonic Map Of Texas, Tcu Spring Sports, Us Executive Branch Noaa Civil War 2020, Patrick Star Logo, Alvin Kamara Jersey Tennessee, Lamplight Ultra-pure Lamp Oil 100-ounce Clear, Landscape With The Fall Of Icarus Essay, Camp Chef Oven Vs Deluxe, Mini Kanken Bags, Sudbury Town Council Virtual High Street, Glengarry Beach, Diamonds Found In Iowa, Pray Daily Bible Verse, Galbraith Scotland, 32 Piece Dinnerware Set Under 50, Range Tent With Stove Jack, Chromosome 2 Wiki, Omaha Beach Casualties, Cornwall Maps And Visitor Information, Cuisinart Non Stick Cookware Set, What To Do In Faro, Current Game Shows 2020, Street Map Of Peterborough, Sault Ste Marie To Pembroke, American Vs European Blackjack, Navy Logo 2020, Bed's Too Big Without You Cover, Wattstax Cd,
