Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: wdolson
A few months ago somebody posted an article on some Yamato class armor the US tested after the war. It was made for one of Yamato's sisters and discarded. It may have been the Shinano.

ORIGINAL: Symon
Some data would be nice, my friend. "Some guy posted it" doesn't quite cut it.

I recall the article said that the USN found the thick armor to be very fragile and easy to penetrate.

Once again, some data would be nice. The statement is, of itself, a metallurgical non-sequitor. Fragility is a function of 'inclusions'. If one can make decent medium plate, one can make decent thick plate, so long as one has the requisite thickness on one's rolling mill. Face hardening is another issue, but it has nothing to do with the quality of the base-plate.

They also tested some Japanese cruiser armor and it proved to be some of the best armor tested, exceeding British, German, and US armor of the same thickness.

That is rank, utter, nonsense. Sorry, Bill.

How the armor is made is another factor in its effectiveness. Japanese industry could produce very good armor of medium thickness, but when they went to thicker armor, they couldn't control the crystal size in the metal which made the resulting armor brittle.

Another metallurgical non-sequitor. I have a friend that can make a 6" boule of perfect crucible steel, in his backyard in 16 hours. There is no secret to steel. Face hardening is a bitch, but that has nothing to do with what's underneath.

I believe I read elsewhere the Germans were particularly good at making thick armor. It was another contributing factor to the ability of the Bismarck to take punishment.

Everybody who thinks on these things knows exactly what the parameters of Krupps finest were. Notwithstanding the "everything German is perfect" little kiddles, Krupp armor was pretty much average, and had nothing special to recommend it.

Have a doc with hundreds of contemporary primary sources to support this.

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: wdolson
A few months ago somebody posted an article on some Yamato class armor the US tested after the war. It was made for one of Yamato's sisters and discarded. It may have been the Shinano.

ORIGINAL: Symon
Some data would be nice, my friend. "Some guy posted it" doesn't quite cut it.

I figured that my posting that would stir someone's memory. The person who posted the article in the first place may be reading this thread. I did say I couldn't find it.

I recall the article said that the USN found the thick armor to be very fragile and easy to penetrate.

Once again, some data would be nice. The statement is, of itself, a metallurgical non-sequitor. Fragility is a function of 'inclusions'. If one can make decent medium plate, one can make decent thick plate, so long as one has the requisite thickness on one's rolling mill. Face hardening is another issue, but it has nothing to do with the quality of the base-plate.

Hopefully somebody will remember the article and post the link.

They also tested some Japanese cruiser armor and it proved to be some of the best armor tested, exceeding British, German, and US armor of the same thickness.

That is rank, utter, nonsense. Sorry, Bill.

How the armor is made is another factor in its effectiveness. Japanese industry could produce very good armor of medium thickness, but when they went to thicker armor, they couldn't control the crystal size in the metal which made the resulting armor brittle.

Another metallurgical non-sequitor. I have a friend that can make a 6" boule of perfect crucible steel, in his backyard in 16 hours. There is no secret to steel. Face hardening is a bitch, but that has nothing to do with what's underneath.

The grand total of my formal metallurgy training was a few days in a strength of materials class over 20 years ago. I probably misremembered something from the article. I do recall the article said the steel was brittle due to a manufacturing defect.

I believe I read elsewhere the Germans were particularly good at making thick armor. It was another contributing factor to the ability of the Bismarck to take punishment.

Everybody who thinks on these things knows exactly what the parameters of Krupps finest were. Notwithstanding the "everything German is perfect" little kiddles, Krupp armor was pretty much average, and had nothing special to recommend it.

Have a doc with hundreds of contemporary primary sources to support this.

I recall the article making a comparison to German armor plate, but again I could be wrong. Ship armor is far from my area of expertise.

Bill

ORIGINAL: Symon

ORIGINAL: wdolson
A few months ago somebody posted an article on some Yamato class armor the US tested after the war. It was made for one of Yamato's sisters and discarded. It may have been the Shinano.

Some data would be nice, my friend. "Some guy posted it" doesn't quite cut it.

I recall the article said that the USN found the thick armor to be very fragile and easy to penetrate.

Once again, some data would be nice. The statement is, of itself, a metallurgical non-sequitor. Fragility is a function of 'inclusions'. If one can make decent medium plate, one can make decent thick plate, so long as one has the requisite thickness on one's rolling mill. Face hardening is another issue, but it has nothing to do with the quality of the base-plate.

They also tested some Japanese cruiser armor and it proved to be some of the best armor tested, exceeding British, German, and US armor of the same thickness.

That is rank, utter, nonsense. Sorry, Bill.

How the armor is made is another factor in its effectiveness. Japanese industry could produce very good armor of medium thickness, but when they went to thicker armor, they couldn't control the crystal size in the metal which made the resulting armor brittle.

Another metallurgical non-sequitor. I have a friend that can make a 6" boule of perfect crucible steel, in his backyard in 16 hours. There is no secret to steel. Face hardening is a bitch, but that has nothing to do with what's underneath.

I believe I read elsewhere the Germans were particularly good at making thick armor. It was another contributing factor to the ability of the Bismarck to take punishment.

Everybody who thinks on these things knows exactly what the parameters of Krupps finest were. Notwithstanding the "everything German is perfect" little kiddles, Krupp armor was pretty much average, and had nothing special to recommend it.

Have a doc with hundreds of contemporary primary sources to support this.

ORIGINAL: Symon


Another metallurgical non-sequitor. I have a friend that can make a 6" boule of perfect crucible steel, in his backyard in 16 hours. There is no secret to steel. Face hardening is a bitch, but that has nothing to do with what's underneath.

I believe I read elsewhere the Germans were particularly good at making thick armor. It was another contributing factor to the ability of the Bismarck to take punishment.

Everybody who thinks on these things knows exactly what the parameters of Krupps finest were. Notwithstanding the "everything German is perfect" little kiddles, Krupp armor was pretty much average, and had nothing special to recommend it.

Have a doc with hundreds of contemporary primary sources to support this.

ORIGINAL: Symon

ORIGINAL: wdolson
A few months ago somebody posted an article on some Yamato class armor the US tested after the war. It was made for one of Yamato's sisters and discarded. It may have been the Shinano.

Some data would be nice, my friend. "Some guy posted it" doesn't quite cut it.

I recall the article said that the USN found the thick armor to be very fragile and easy to penetrate.

Once again, some data would be nice. The statement is, of itself, a metallurgical non-sequitor. Fragility is a function of 'inclusions'. If one can make decent medium plate, one can make decent thick plate, so long as one has the requisite thickness on one's rolling mill. Face hardening is another issue, but it has nothing to do with the quality of the base-plate.

They also tested some Japanese cruiser armor and it proved to be some of the best armor tested, exceeding British, German, and US armor of the same thickness.

That is rank, utter, nonsense. Sorry, Bill.

How the armor is made is another factor in its effectiveness. Japanese industry could produce very good armor of medium thickness, but when they went to thicker armor, they couldn't control the crystal size in the metal which made the resulting armor brittle.

Another metallurgical non-sequitor. I have a friend that can make a 6" boule of perfect crucible steel, in his backyard in 16 hours. There is no secret to steel. Face hardening is a bitch, but that has nothing to do with what's underneath.

I believe I read elsewhere the Germans were particularly good at making thick armor. It was another contributing factor to the ability of the Bismarck to take punishment.

Everybody who thinks on these things knows exactly what the parameters of Krupps finest were. Notwithstanding the "everything German is perfect" little kiddles, Krupp armor was pretty much average, and had nothing special to recommend it.

Have a doc with hundreds of contemporary primary sources to support this.

An experimental 7.21" (18.15cm) VH plate (#3133 at NPG, Dahlgren) seems to have been made from a German KC n/A (see above) specification added to an otherwise standard VH plate. It had a 535 Brinell maximum face hardness 3% into the plate, which is harder than all heavy VH production plate, though only by a small amount, with the hard point the closest to the face surface (about the same distance from the face surface (0.22" (0.55cm)) as with most cemented non-German KC-type plates), and a back hardness of 210-215 Brinell, which is slightly higher than production VH, but still well below average foreign World War II-era KC-type plates. The steel used was identical to the production VH plates that had been tested previously (rather dirty steel again of circa-1910 quality) and the hardness curve showed a typical VH-style pattern for the high-hardness portion. However, the major difference between this plate and all other VH plates was that the transition layer was much wider, extending to 43% into the plate (57% unhardened back), almost identical to German KC n/A, though with a higher average hardness than KC n/A in the decrementally hardened region. Since Germany and Japan were allies during World War II, it is not surprising that the Japanese may have obtained such information on German Krupp armor and made test plates to compare it with their own armor. The U.S. test personnel at the U.S. N.P.G. did not expect it to be much different from the production VH plates, especially due to its relatively poor steel quality. However, this plate was found to be the best face-hardened plate of its thickness ever tested at the U.S. N.P.G.! (The next best plate of similar thickness was also an experimental non-cemented face-hardened plate of 7.6" (19.3cm) thickness made by Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation during World War II, which was only slightly inferior to this VH plate.) It required the late-World War II, improved, super-hard-capped (650-680 Brinell all the way through) U.S. 8" (20.3cm) Mark 21 Mod 5 AP projectiles to completely penetrate this plate in "effective" condition at 30o obliquity (the standard U.S. armor test in World War II)--the older Mod 3 projectiles, similar but with a maximum cap hardness of 555-580 Brinell, were torn up badly even when they completely penetrated (a rare feat against these U.S. projectiles!) and needed a much higher striking velocity to do so. Against the Mod 5 projectile, my calculations indicate that this plate was 1% better on an equivalent thickness basis than an average KC n/A plate (probably because the VH plate does not lose any resistance due to the existance of the thin, but very brittle, cemented layer used in KC n/A armor), meaning that it would take an average 7.28" KC n/A plate to replace this 7.21" VH plate--a pretty big improvement from regular VH armor in a single step! The U.S. test personnel were at a loss to explain this, but to me it seems that the Japanese personnel used the face tempering process of KC n/A, possibly with some of their own expertise added, in addition to just increasing the chill thickness. Japanese metallurgists (and most other technical personnel) obviously were (and are still) just as good as anybody else when allowed to set their own standards of excellence, as the post-World War II world has discovered big-time!

NOTE: The 26" (66cm) VH turret face plates on the YAMATO Class were inclined back 45o and were the only plates that could not be completely penetrated by any gun ever put on a warship--these plates could be holed at point blank range by a newly-lined World War II U.S. Navy 16"/50 gun with late-World War II hard-capped AP projectiles, but even these projectiles would always ricochet; the YAMATO's own 18.1" (46cm) hard-capped AP projectiles, which were designed to an only slightly-improved British circa-1921 armor penetration specification, could not even make a hole in these plates at any range, though the impacts might crack them!

ORIGINAL: Dili

http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/me ... pt2009.htm

An article where there is a round up of armor types and its qualities.

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
I use that "I have a friend" trick all the time, good work. Bet he couldn't make Damask steel.

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Had to look that up. These must be total crap.

http://www.darkknightarmoury.com/p-9505 ... sword.aspx

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Had to look that up. These must be total crap.

http://www.darkknightarmoury.com/p-9505 ... sword.aspx

You can find lots of swords for sale at that price and they must be the equivalent of $5 knives. One that gets housed at the Smithsonian... different story!

ORIGINAL: msieving1

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Had to look that up. These must be total crap.

http://www.darkknightarmoury.com/p-9505 ... sword.aspx

You can find lots of swords for sale at that price and they must be the equivalent of $5 knives. One that gets housed at the Smithsonian... different story!

Those particular swords are made by Windlass Steel Crafts, an Indian manufacturer of edged weapons. They're mass-produced, but are of reasonably good quality. People do use Windlass products for medieval style martial arts, and Windlass makes ceremonial swords for the military of several countries, including the US and UK. To be slightly on-topic, Windlass started during World War II making kukris for the British Army.

ORIGINAL: msieving1
Those particular swords are made by Windlass Steel Crafts, an Indian manufacturer of edged weapons. They're mass-produced, but are of reasonably good quality. People do use Windlass products for medieval style martial arts, and Windlass makes ceremonial swords for the military of several countries, including the US and UK. To be slightly on-topic, Windlass started during World War II making kukris for the British Army.