Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
This is where I disagree. It's my understanding (I've read some actual sources but don't have them handy right now, so "it's my understanding" is as far as I will commit right now) that tests were done during the First World War that concluded that hardened armor isn't really more resistant to a torpedo hit than mild steel. The armor was designed to resist 'point hit's from a shell coming in at supersonic speeds. What did help a little was the fact that the armor was much thicker than the usual 1/4-to-1/2 inch steel plates found on destroyers up through merchants, but the very weight of the armor meant that it couldn't be very wide, usually ending just a few feet below the waterline. This left the lower hull exposed, and toward the end of World War 1 the British started experimenting with TDS (Torpedo Defense Systems). These usually consisted of a 'bulge' of mild steel which was filled with some liquid, allowing the torpedo to rupture the bulge and not reach the hull. The magnetic detonator was originally created to counter that, since the bulge itself couldn't be made to wrap around the bottom of the ship.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-torpedo_bulge |
Absolutely! The science of designing armour plating is a most complex topic. Similarly to explosives (in that there is no best for all purposes) there is no "best" armour composition. What pretty much everyone learned during WWI is that it is not simply a matter of finding the "strongest" metal compositions and then increasing the thickness.
Armour plating needs to be designed to resist a particular type of attack.
Against hardened armour piercing ordnance, thicker more dense armour is good.
Against explosives, less dense armour that can flex is good.
This is actually a criminally oversimplified explanation of an incredibly complex topic of armour design and construction.
Actually armour is made up of layers with different metals as distinct layers with other layers made of different metal compounds. It is an interesting topic.
I am afraid I am more familiar with blowing stuff up than designing stuff to resist being blown up. But excellent points Steve.
One can't discuss the effectiveness of torpedoes without taking into effect the hull/armour compositions.