Yamato Class - Ballistic Tests on the IJN Shinano's Turret Face Armor

[Matt308]

This makes for a very interesting read on the ballistic tests and conclusions associated with US Navy 16" guns tested against Yamato Class - Turret Armour.

Ballistic Tests on IJN SHINANO's Turret Face Armor

 

[Matt308]

And here is the pic from one of the tests

 

[evangilder]

Interesting.

 

[Freebird]

Interesting info, thanks Matt!

 

[wilbur1]

Very good reading matt so the germans and japanese had better armor than us but they did it with inferior metals, like i tell my customers its hard to beat german engineering8)

 

[Matt308]

Yeah. I look at my garlic press everyday and marvel that so much thought went into it. Magnificent society.

 

[ccheese]

I have the book, "Shinano"..... interesting reading about how a US Sub
sank her before she was actually completed. The book is recommended...

Charles

 

[syscom3]

I cant wait for delycros to offer his comments.

 

[Wayne Little]

Interesting info, thanks Matt!

Agree!!

 

[delcyros]

This article was submitted by Mr. Nathan Okun, one of the most important and certainly the most influencial recent researcher of the gun vs armour discussion. There are a number of points which needs to be specially mentioned:
(A) The proposed BB SHINANO turret faceplate was not rejected for it´s use (some of other plates found in the dockyard have been turned down but the decision to finish SHINANO as a carrier made the use of the premanufactured faces for her 18.1" turret plates pointless), so we may accept that they do match the quality acceptance limits.
(B) The gunnery test showed clearly that this plate could be defeated at normal obliquities by US 16"/50 as those installed in USS IOWA.
(C) Fortunately for the japanese, they have not installed any of these turret faces vertically but they do lean back 45 deg. and thus are the only part of single spaced armour, ever installed on any warship which could not be defeated by any naval gun(!). Her turret faces are virtually immune against IOWA´s projectiles at all distances. When the obliquity is normal (angle of fall = 45 deg. to match the faceplates declination), the resulting striking velocity is not large enough to make it through.
(D) with regards to short range penetration power, the IOWAS 16"/50 with 2700lbs APC was considered to be equal to the german 15"/52 (BISMARCK) with 1764 lbs projectile. Both and certainly YAMATO´s own guns may hole the plate at point blanc range and fortunate impact angles. With regards to long range penetration power, the US 16"/50 was considered to be superior to the german 15"/52 and equal to the YAMATO´s 18.1"/45, which in turn has superior short range penetration charackteristics than 15"/52 and 16"/50.

best regards,

 

[wilbur1]

Good info delcyros thanks

 

[delcyros]

The quality of armour is different for countries and types of armour. In general there are two major types: A) Homogenious and B) face hardened armour. The former is composed of a homogenious strength material and emphasizes ductility. The latter is made with an additional super hard, cementated facelayer and a different graduation of a transitional strength distribution in relation to thickness. This armour does not flex like homogenious armour and is designed to induce damage to incoming projectiles, as much as to render them ineffective.

The best face hardened armour is italian Terni cementated face hardened armour. Second best is UK cementated, followed by german and french. The worst seems to be US class A japanese VH:

Example: ideal cardonald manufactured 15"/42 (values: 1800 lbs weight with 1600 lbs body weight, all nose coverings intact at impact) fired against 12"
armour at 20 deg. impact obliquity with 1500 fps striking velocity: Remaining velocity according to Nathan Okuns Fh v.5.8:

italian Terni CA: 478 fps; UK CA: 582 fps; german KCn/A: 633 fps; US class A: 729 fps; japanese VH: 752 fps.

In comparison UK US homogenious armour seemed to be the best.