Page 2 of 2
RE: Steel Quality in US BB's
Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 4:58 pm
by witpqs
That would be 'zed' for yous guys. [:'(]
RE: Steel Quality in US BB's
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 2:06 am
by Dili
Thanks Tiornu. This is the Diagram i have for Abruzzis: 30mm outside for decapping then space them 100mm. Probably the 30mm are the hardened the other is the Ductile. The Armour curvature baffles me but i have seen information that they tought this scheme was equal to the 150mm of Zaras.
I found strange that there is not explanation for that change from Class A to B specially in a country like US.
RE: Steel Quality in US BB's
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 2:40 am
by Tiornu
The 30mm plate is homogenous, like Class B. In most circumstances, 100mm is the minimum thickness for naval face-hardened armor. Without any specific info, I tend to think Abruzzi's main belt was face-hardened to better damage the decapped shell.
RE: Steel Quality in US BB's
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 2:49 am
by wdolson
ORIGINAL: Terminus
Since the colonials insist on misspelling aluminium, why don't they spell it uranum and plutonum?
It isn't just spelling, it's pronunciation too. American and Commonwealth English differ on the pronunciation of aluminum. However we pronounce uranium and plutonium the same, or at least have the same number of syllables in the word.
Bill
RE: Steel Quality in US BB's
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 11:39 am
by Dili
The 30mm plate is homogenous, like Class B. In most circumstances, 100mm is the minimum thickness for naval face-hardened armor. Without any specific info, I tend to think Abruzzi's main belt was face-hardened to better damage the decapped shell.
The contrary of what i tought. Thanks.