delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Here are my results of the protective armour scheme comparison of both super battleships. Have a read!
Please be kind and tell any errors you encounter. This paper IS NOT INTENDED for commercial use or publication, it´s for You and for discussion. Acrobat reader V 7.0 is required to open the document (17 pages + 5 pages appendix). Excuse grammar mistakes but feel free to correct me anytime.
It seems, as mentioned previously, that Iowa gets the low end of the line in a comparison with Yamato. The better quality of it´s armour (and even this generalization is wrong regarding class A US armour and VH) does not offset the sheer thickness. My renewed version shows that both designs are more equal thanks to the type 91 APCBC problems with the AP-cap. Still, Yamato is in most area´s, except for simple belt penetration superiorly protected.
Please be kind and tell any errors you encounter. This paper IS NOT INTENDED for commercial use or publication, it´s for You and for discussion. Acrobat reader V 7.0 is required to open the document (17 pages + 5 pages appendix). Excuse grammar mistakes but feel free to correct me anytime.
It seems, as mentioned previously, that Iowa gets the low end of the line in a comparison with Yamato. The better quality of it´s armour (and even this generalization is wrong regarding class A US armour and VH) does not offset the sheer thickness. My renewed version shows that both designs are more equal thanks to the type 91 APCBC problems with the AP-cap. Still, Yamato is in most area´s, except for simple belt penetration superiorly protected.
Last edited: