Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 170
- 0
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Nah, AT weapons simply arent at a scale they can pose any threat to a battleship armor belt or turret faces. A javelin may have a spec 800 mm of RHA penetration, but the 12.1" Class A monolithic plate that makes up the main belt on an Iowa is something north of 1000mm RHA equivalent (though RHA equivalent testing is really only done for much thinner tank armor, not naval armoring). Also, there are a minimum of three layers of armor to penetrate the citadel (decaping plate, main belt, spall liner or bomb, main, and splinter decks) with feet of standoff distance between them, that alone would defeat an EFP warhead designed to punch through one layer of tank armor.
Modern naval ships are much less heavily armored for a wide variety of reasons, but armor not working isn't one of them. Economics, geopokitics, and submarines would be the big three IMO.
When I last looked at this, I was specifically looking at the turret armor, which doesn't have the extra layers of ship around it. It might be able to knock out a turret (with some luck on powder handling), but probably not the whole ship barring Jutland-type cascading failures Iowa's designers were aware of. But I also didn't really have much faith in comparing ballistic numbers from the 1920s with modern claims: it's unclear if "RHA equivalent" really is a static comparison and if all the sizes really scale linearly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link