RE: Chobham armor on ships?

RE: Chobham armor on ships? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

wwengr -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 11:33:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve Modern USN do have armor. And the carriers have kevlar armor (no I'm not making this up). [:)] It's a 65 mm kevlar plate covering "vital spaces". I wonder if that is Navy speak for "Reactor Compartment"?

Mynok -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 11:51:45 PM)
Bah......it's a euphemism for "beer locker". [:'(]

Mobeer -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/7/2009 12:43:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iridium ..This all said, I'm still waiting for the next phase of armor vs weapons on naval vessels.[:D] Here is the answer: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/2104716/Navy-destroyers-sail-without-missiles.html No armour, no real weapons either - I suppose it's a tie.

AW1Steve -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/7/2009 1:16:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mynok Bah......it's a euphemism for "beer locker". [:'(] Sadly , USN ships are still dry (offically). [:D]

String -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/7/2009 11:17:37 AM)
You can fit as much armour as you like, when someone nukes you it won't make a single bit of difference.

Apollo11 -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/7/2009 11:44:52 AM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 How would best of WWII ships (DDs, CAs, BBs) fare against current missile anti-ship threat? Very well. I was on Guam when they used a WW2 cleveland class light cruiser as a target. It absorbed a tremendous number of missiles, shells and torpedo's. Somehow I expected that and that's why I asked... [:)] So... how come the navies around the world decided to abandon armor altogether and all started to produce the "tincans" (IMHO really really strange thing to do)? Was it because nuclear weapons make all armor insignificant (but then there are myriad of weapons that still use ordinary warheads)? Leo "Apollo11"

rtrapasso -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/7/2009 12:04:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: String You can fit as much armour as you like, when someone nukes you it won't make a single bit of difference. Depends if it is a direct hit... armored ships (and tanks for that matter) are surprisingly resistant to near misses... some of tests in the 50's showed tanks that were nose on to a blast at down to 100 meters or so away from a tactical nuke were relatively undamaged... i didn't see data on how well the CREWS would fare, but still, it was surprising. [X(]

Terminus -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/7/2009 12:23:09 PM)
Well, sheep and pigs tethered on the decks of the Bikini test ships SOMETIMES survived the initial blasts...[:D]

Elessar -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/7/2009 12:33:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: String You can fit as much armour as you like, when someone nukes you it won't make a single bit of difference. Several heavy ships like the Prinz Eugen or the Nagato were only slightly damaged in US nuclear weapons tests shortly after the war. They withstood aerial bursts close by ~1000-2000m wihtout problems and sufferd minor underwater damage from nearby underwater blasts. The fact that they sunk later was probably due to the fact that they had no crew onboard for damage conrol. I imagine that much of crew would have survived inside the ship (dont want to think of the guyes at the AAA mounts). The armor would have proteted them from blast, heat and much of the harder radiation. Im not talking about those guyes getting many children in the years to come but the ability to keep the ship afloat. The warheads used were probably weak but you would expect a nuclear cruise missile or torpedo to be armed with a tactical warhead not a hydrogen bomb. quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 So... how come the navies around the world decided to abandon armor altogether and all started to produce the "tincans" Heavily armored ships would cause prohibitive costs. They were expensive enough in their days. I think while you would have a hard time sinking Iowa, or a carrier with compareable armor, with anti ship missiles it would be rather easy to get a "soft kill" by damaging it to an extend where it can not fullfill its mission any more. Then you are stuck with a very expensive, useless ship thats bound for the dockyard for the next year. The decission to build more cheaper ships and to concentrate on not getting hit instead of surviving hits seems logical. Concerning "soft kills" I wonder why the concept has not been given more attention during the war. As far as I can remember one of the Kongos got shot up pretty badly of Gudalcanal by lighter US Guns. Bridge hit, Admiral killed, targeting gear gone, ship on fire etc. But this did not seem to inspire a change of doctrine back then. I'm not sure but I think this BB was sunk by aircraft later on.

wwengr -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/7/2009 11:55:21 PM)
How much armor is simply a matter of Naval Engineering. Everything on a ship is evaluated in terms of mass and volume. Volume becuase there is a limited amount within the hull and mass because, you can only put so much in or on before the Flush Deck becomes Flush and gets Flushed. Armor is heavy. Every armor plate is that much less mass that can be put on the decks. Armor also takes some volume as well.

wwengr -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 4:29:40 AM)
Just to add one more bad thing to say about Titanium. I just heard on the news, that using Titanium drivers to play golf is bad for your hearing. The impact with the ball produces more that 130 decibles. So, if the make a ship with a Titanium hull, they will have to confiscate all of the sharpies and provide hearing protection to the sailors. PS This is my 251st post, so now I am promoted to Matrix Hero! I wanted to ensure the post that promotes me is particularly meaningful and relevant!

vettim89 -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 5:00:26 AM)
Most modern warships would be easily sunk by a WWII era bomb. They are largely "one hit wonders". Look at the ships the RN lost in the Falklands. An Exocet missile has a 45 kg warhead. Can you imagine a WWII DD being sunk by a single 100 lb bomb hit? Reading accounts of the Falklands battles and the hit on the USS Stark, the missile fuel did as much harm to the ships as the explosives. In fact, the warhead did not explode at all on Sheffield and may not have exploded on Stark (some accounts think Stark may have been hit by two missiles of which only one detonated) Because of the ability of modern waepons to project well beyond visual range, armor became obsolete. USN doctrine and ship design has become increasingly focused on preventing detecting first and if detected destroying the enemy weapons before they hit the ship. A second issue is budgetary constraints. Armor not only costs a lot of money, it weighs a lot. It takes a lot of fuel to push a heavily armored ship through the water. I read a journal of USS Wisconsin's last year in active service once. Her last three months of steaming were canceled because the ship's fuel budget had been expended. Yes, USN ships have budgets and the commanders are expected to keep within them. Of course this was during peacetime. I am sure the Navy Design Bureau would love to find a way to put armor on ships. Just not possible in the present environment. The USN learned a lot from the RN Falklands' experience and Stark. The newest US ships have major design features to reduce splinter damage and block the spread of fuel fed fires. Another issue is the amount of wiring on a modern warship. Ever notice how thick and black the smoke was from the Sheffield? Besides her aluminum alloy structure burning, the fire was fed bby all the insulation on the electrical systems. Note on attached image the biphased smoke trail - the black portion is the electrical fire [image]local://upfiles/25806/D4E54F6149614332B153CA4526CE20F8.jpg[/image]

wild_Willie2 -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 6:23:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vettim89 Most modern warships would be easily sunk by a WWII era bomb. They are largely "one hit wonders". Look at the ships the RN lost in the Falklands. An Exocet missile has a 45 kg warhead. Can you imagine a WWII DD being sunk by a single 100 lb bomb hit? An exocet missle has a warhead of 165 kg, that is 330 pounds

Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 8:48:59 AM)
But what this armour would protect? Nowadays (well actually 20 years ago - before vertical launchers appeared) not many armament is stowed under deck. Also look at that electronics on top of masts. If even single missile would hit armoured ship - it would make it defenceless (radar aerials destroyed) and harmless (ASuW armament destroyed). Is cost of expensive armour worth the effort?

String -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 10:09:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elessar quote: ORIGINAL: String You can fit as much armour as you like, when someone nukes you it won't make a single bit of difference. Several heavy ships like the Prinz Eugen or the Nagato were only slightly damaged in US nuclear weapons tests shortly after the war. They withstood aerial bursts close by ~1000-2000m wihtout problems and sufferd minor underwater damage from nearby underwater blasts. The fact that they sunk later was probably due to the fact that they had no crew onboard for damage conrol. I imagine that much of crew would have survived inside the ship (dont want to think of the guyes at the AAA mounts). The armor would have proteted them from blast, heat and much of the harder radiation. Im not talking about those guyes getting many children in the years to come but the ability to keep the ship afloat. The warheads used were probably weak but you would expect a nuclear cruise missile or torpedo to be armed with a tactical warhead not a hydrogen bomb. Those were bombs dropped almost a mile away. A nuclear torpedo doesn't explode a mile away. Neither does a Shipwreck missile. No use in slapping on 300mm belt armor when a single enemy missile or torpedo will turn your ship into tiny molten particles in a millisecond.

goodboyladdie -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 11:22:48 AM)
As armour improves (see attached link) and Navies have less ships, which therefore become more valuable to them, we may see some vessels regain a level of protection. Many Navies have missiles and torpedoes with tactical nuclear warheads, but it takes time to escalate to the use of them. It is more likely that vessels will face supersonic missiles with large explosive warheads, or torpedoes that explode under their hulls to break their backs. The people who have contributed dismissing armour on the grounds that nuclear weapons exist miss some of what history has taught us - Nations are very reluctant to use nukes and innovations in warheads and penetrative effect tends to lead to innovation in armour... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7811567.stm

rtrapasso -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 12:09:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: String quote: ORIGINAL: Elessar quote: ORIGINAL: String You can fit as much armour as you like, when someone nukes you it won't make a single bit of difference. Several heavy ships like the Prinz Eugen or the Nagato were only slightly damaged in US nuclear weapons tests shortly after the war. They withstood aerial bursts close by ~1000-2000m wihtout problems and sufferd minor underwater damage from nearby underwater blasts. The fact that they sunk later was probably due to the fact that they had no crew onboard for damage conrol. I imagine that much of crew would have survived inside the ship (dont want to think of the guyes at the AAA mounts). The armor would have proteted them from blast, heat and much of the harder radiation. Im not talking about those guyes getting many children in the years to come but the ability to keep the ship afloat. The warheads used were probably weak but you would expect a nuclear cruise missile or torpedo to be armed with a tactical warhead not a hydrogen bomb. Those were bombs dropped almost a mile away. A nuclear torpedo doesn't explode a mile away. Neither does a Shipwreck missile. No use in slapping on 300mm belt armor when a single enemy missile or torpedo will turn your ship into tiny molten particles in a millisecond. Again - it depends if it hits or not... if countermeasures and/or antimissile defenses hit a missile and cause it to explode 3000 meters away, or if it hits a different target a few thousand meters away, then armor could make a big difference. As to a previous post - what to protect underdeck - well, MOST of modern warships have all their vital systems (and a good deal of the crew) underdeck, as least in the USN and most Western navies... This sort of reminds me of what happened when they put unarmored vehicles into combat in places like Iraq and Afghanistan... once the shortfalls of the "smart" decision of not having armor became apparent (it costs money, it's heavy, etc.), they couldn't make armor to retrofit onto vehicles fast enough.

Terminus -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 12:16:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie As armour improves (see attached link) and Navies have less ships, which therefore become more valuable to them, we may see some vessels regain a level of protection. Many Navies have missiles and torpedoes with tactical nuclear warheads, but it takes time to escalate to the use of them. It is more likely that vessels will face supersonic missiles with large explosive warheads, or torpedoes that explode under their hulls to break their backs. The people who have contributed dismissing armour on the grounds that nuclear weapons exist miss some of what history has taught us - Nations are very reluctant to use nukes and innovations in warheads and penetrative effect tends to lead to innovation in armour... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7811567.stm No amount of armour can defeat an under-the-keel torpedo explosion. Absolutely none.

herwin -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 1:39:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie As armour improves (see attached link) and Navies have less ships, which therefore become more valuable to them, we may see some vessels regain a level of protection. Many Navies have missiles and torpedoes with tactical nuclear warheads, but it takes time to escalate to the use of them. It is more likely that vessels will face supersonic missiles with large explosive warheads, or torpedoes that explode under their hulls to break their backs. The people who have contributed dismissing armour on the grounds that nuclear weapons exist miss some of what history has taught us - Nations are very reluctant to use nukes and innovations in warheads and penetrative effect tends to lead to innovation in armour... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7811567.stm No amount of armour can defeat an under-the-keel torpedo explosion. Absolutely none. Countermeasures exist, and the ship design can be given adequate underwater protection.

wild_Willie2 -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 1:55:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie As armour improves (see attached link) and Navies have less ships, which therefore become more valuable to them, we may see some vessels regain a level of protection. Many Navies have missiles and torpedoes with tactical nuclear warheads, but it takes time to escalate to the use of them. It is more likely that vessels will face supersonic missiles with large explosive warheads, or torpedoes that explode under their hulls to break their backs. The people who have contributed dismissing armour on the grounds that nuclear weapons exist miss some of what history has taught us - Nations are very reluctant to use nukes and innovations in warheads and penetrative effect tends to lead to innovation in armour... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7811567.stm No amount of armour can defeat an under-the-keel torpedo explosion. Absolutely none. Countermeasures exist, and the ship design can be given adequate underwater protection. I am with Terminus on this one, an under the keel explosion is bad news for any warship, how well protected. Maybe a multiple hull design like a trimaran could make the hit survivable, but even then the ship would be almost certainly be a write-off ...

rockmedic109 -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 2:24:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2 quote: ORIGINAL: herwin quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie As armour improves (see attached link) and Navies have less ships, which therefore become more valuable to them, we may see some vessels regain a level of protection. Many Navies have missiles and torpedoes with tactical nuclear warheads, but it takes time to escalate to the use of them. It is more likely that vessels will face supersonic missiles with large explosive warheads, or torpedoes that explode under their hulls to break their backs. The people who have contributed dismissing armour on the grounds that nuclear weapons exist miss some of what history has taught us - Nations are very reluctant to use nukes and innovations in warheads and penetrative effect tends to lead to innovation in armour... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7811567.stm No amount of armour can defeat an under-the-keel torpedo explosion. Absolutely none. Countermeasures exist, and the ship design can be given adequate underwater protection. I am with Terminus on this one, an under the keel explosion is bad news for any warship, how well protected. Maybe a multiple hull design like a trimaran could make the hit survivable, but even then the ship would be almost certainly be a write-off ... The defense is to keep from getting hit in the first place. Same as for large ASMs. The sea makes the incoming threat slower than a supersonic missile, but likewise makes it harder to develop a mechanism to stop them. Maybe some bright engineer should create an anit-torpedo torpedo.

witpqs -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 2:35:38 PM)
My understanding is that they have them already. Maybe not deployed...

Shark7 -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 2:53:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2 quote: ORIGINAL: vettim89 Most modern warships would be easily sunk by a WWII era bomb. They are largely "one hit wonders". Look at the ships the RN lost in the Falklands. An Exocet missile has a 45 kg warhead. Can you imagine a WWII DD being sunk by a single 100 lb bomb hit? An exocet missle has a warhead of 165 kg, that is 330 pounds Plus the Exocet is made to penetrate into the vital spaces before exploding, 100 lb GP bomb doesn't.

Iridium -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 4:34:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 Plus the Exocet is made to penetrate into the vital spaces before exploding, 100 lb GP bomb doesn't. I think the point was that most missiles today would not be considered armor piercing so they'd never penetrate to begin with. Unless I'm mistaken, I was under the impression that missiles only rely on mass and momentum to carry them into a target. Unless we've built bunker buster missiles, thought they were only free fallers though.

Terminus -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 4:40:33 PM)
Far as I know, there's considerable doubt about whether the warhead on the Exocet that hit the Sheffield actually detonated. She burned due to the lovely mix of missile fuel, aluminium and wiring insulation. With the Stark, only one of the two missiles warheads exploded, but she burned too. Fire is the great foe for ships at sea.

Speedysteve -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 4:42:57 PM)
Not in WiTP[:'(]

Iridium -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 5:17:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Fire is the great foe for ships at sea. Especially when it's an AL fire, those are not normal...

wernerpruckner -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 5:23:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iridium quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Fire is the great foe for ships at sea. Especially when it's an AL fire, those are not normal... as is the fire with each of the light weight metall elements........I witnessed once a fire in a processing plant - a stock of around 150 kg of Magnesium caught fire due to an failure.......[X(] luckily no one was really hurt, but the damage was enormous. The fire fighters of that plant were well trained and did know what to do, but do not want to witness such an fire tat close again!!

rtrapasso -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 7:50:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iridium quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 Plus the Exocet is made to penetrate into the vital spaces before exploding, 100 lb GP bomb doesn't. I think the point was that most missiles today would not be considered armor piercing so they'd never penetrate to begin with. Unless I'm mistaken, I was under the impression that missiles only rely on mass and momentum to carry them into a target. Unless we've built bunker buster missiles, thought they were only free fallers though. i read a while ago that some missiles have shaped-charged warheads, and some have multi-part shaped-charged warheads (to punch through multiple layers of armor) - don't know if it is true, though.

Iridium -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 8:07:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso i read a while ago that some missiles have shaped-charged warheads, and some have multi-part shaped-charged warheads (to punch through multiple layers of armor) - don't know if it is true, though. Even if true, can't this be defeated with a simple plate of metal offset from the hull proper?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.5