Who Had The Best Armor of WWII Battleships?

[@jamescameron2490]

You should do an explanation of the concept of Immune Zones, and how that relates to ship design and the ranges at which ships would attempt to engage.

[@erloriel]

Yes please! Any movie on the many tactical considerations of a naval engagement would be awesome

[@Ph3NiX80]

I second this

[@WillieWanker8135]

I don’t remember if it was Ryan or someone else but I think someone did a video and there was some talk about the immunity zone Update: check out his video “The Evolution of Armor on Ships” 18:00

[@Quasarnova1]

While we may never know how effective it actually was, I think the Italian composite armor used on the Littorios was very innovative. They knew that simply layering armor plates on top of each other was less effective than homogenous plate, but the Italian industry couldn't make homogenous plate thick enough for the level of protection they wanted. So they tried an alternative, where the plates would be separated by a significant gap, which would be filled with a concrete foam to decap shells before they made it to the main armor plate. I wish we could have seen how it would have faired in a real battleship on battleship fight.

[@anonnymousperson]

Never thought I would see such a strange segue into japanese cooking knives.

[@YourOldUncleNoongah]

Not to mention those knives are scammy, cheap pieces of ultra-low grade shit as seen here. kzbin.info/www/bejne/haG1f6SQf7WDeM0

[@GazC]

Never thought I'd see Japanese cooking knives advertised in the Galley of an American WW2 battleship

[@birdymcpig]

Skamikoto. Ridiculously overpriced and and of similar quality to $20 knives from the grocery store.

[@DavidRLentz]

You see the ever-present quest for revenue to sustain one's endeavours. Start-ups issue stock, other firms negotiate loans.

[@termitreter6545]

These are super low grade chinese knifes. Kamikoto is basically a scam, selling knives that would usually go for

[@billkallas1762]

I know it's not Battleship news, but the USS Samuel B Roberts was just found, a short while ago.....Her last crewmember died three months ago......Can you imagine a Destroyer Escort, attacking Battleships, and Heavy Cruisers. Might make a good episode.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

We've got an episode on Sammy b coming out this week!

[@billkallas1762]

@@BattleshipNewJersey ...Great News.... I'm just finishing up a book on that battle......."The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors"......

[@starshipmechanic]

I've thought the last stand of taffy 3 against the center force is a story deserving of a movie or even a hbo style miniseries. I mean some of the smallest of America's Bluewater warships against the biggest battleship ever with an entire fleet is just insane, and the amazing thing is it worked, there's no way it should have worked but it did they chased them off like an overconfident housecat will chase off a bear on pure guts alone I'd see "Samar" on IMAX those guys deserve to have their story told.

[@leftyo9589]

@@billkallas1762 an excellent book.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

@@billkallas1762 It's a fantastic book, good read, good maps, good photos.

[@stormyc88]

I’ve been following your channel pretty much since you started it, look forward to every one you put out, and finally had the chance to come out and tour the ship and enjoy the beer festival this past weekend. You guys rock, the ship is in fantastic shape and your exhibits are top notch. Cant wait to come back!

[@vovinio2012]

There was an interesting armor scheme on the Italian Littorio-class battleships - spaced armor: 2,8 in of outer belt + lay of cement + 11 in main belt behind it. Unique feature.

[@187Burks]

Love technical videos like this. The more details the better!! We love everything steel, armor, and ammo!

[@JevansUK]

Wotan Harte was a homogenous steel similar to Ducol/STS, the german belt armour was Krupp Cemented new type.

[@RichardAmmo1]

I’m glad to see you are getting product sponsorship! This is going to be very helpful for you and the battleship!

[@NathanOkun]

Vickers Hardened Japanese face-hardened armor was not "cemented" in the same manner as all other WWII-era face-hardened armors. Cementing means baking the surface of the face with a high-carbon paste or liquid to form a thin layer that could be hardened to extremely high levels, but was only about 1-1.5" thick. This layer made WWI-era armors against soft-capped AP shells somewhat stronger, but the Japanese and some other nations found that it did not have any real effect against the hard-capped WWII-era AP shells. Everybody else in WWII seems to have added this cemented layer anyway as a "can't hurt" traditional thing, but the Japanese were both smart and had limited money, so they decided to restrict it (I am not sure that they completely stopped cementing their VH plates or just reduced the amount of cementing to a lower level, but the face surface was definitely somewhat softer than with the other foreign cemented plates). They also decided to keep the British Vickers Company form of Vickers Cemented face-hardening process given to them with the KONGO Class battle-cruisers -- later uprated to "high-speed battleships"-- in 1914. They knew that their new Vickers Hardened armor would not be quite as strong as the new plates made by most other nations in the early 1940s, but the difference was not very much (as mentioned) and the YAMATO Class armor was so thick that "Who cares?". (Note that later in WWII the Japanese did some experimental work on their VH plates using different hardening and tempering (toughening) methods and, though never used in any ships, post-WWII US and British impact tests of a couple of these experimental plates --one about 7.25" tested by the US and one about 15" tested by the British -- showed them to be THE BEST PLATES that either nation had ever tested, even though the personnel testing and evaluating those plates could not figure out how the Japanese had done this. Japanese engineers and scientists are second to none!)

[@treyhelms5282]

Thanks for all the great info! Your article on Bismarck's and other nation's armor was also fantastic!

[@danielpratt9510]

When the HMS Prince of Wales went into dry dock in 1941, they found a hole below the waterline from one of the Bismarck’s 15 inch shells that landed short of the ship. Crawling inside, they found the undetonated shell stuck in a void space. It would have caused catastrophic damage had it not been a dud.

[@metaknight115]

If it was not a dud, it would have exploded underwater long before it hit Prince of Wales

[@BeKindToBirds]

​@@metaknight115Without knowing precisely the timing angle and range that is impossible to say.

[@jamesb4789]

The shell was largely intact and removed from the ship. The fuse was a dud. It ended up adjacent to the engine room bulkhead and if it had detonated, the damage would have crippled PoW in the battle and it is highly likely she would have had her armor severely tested that day. .@@metaknight115

[@NathanOkun]

Special Treatment Steel (STS) is virtually identical to Class "A" armor. The difference is that BuORD was the controlling Navy organization for Class "B" armor used for protecting primary and secondary gun mounts and conning towers, as well as all Class ""A" armor used anywhere on a US Navy warship, ehiler STS was controlled by BuC&R and its WWII successor BuSHIPS for all other anti-shell armor used for decks, hull side protection, or light armor used for such things as protecting the AA machinegun-type gun mounts (up to 3" in WWII). STS was made by Carnegie-Illinois Steel C9orporation only, by the BuORD armors were made by them and by The Midvale Company and Bethlehem Steel Corporation. STS/Class "B" armor, of essentially identical properties, were a "rice bowl" competition kind of thing where only BuORD could use the word "armor" for homogeneous, ductile full-strength protective plating. BuC&R and BuSHIPS was also in charge of the regular and high-strength construction steels used in all US warships. Note that BuORD also had control of Class "C" armor steel used for bolts and nuts and other high-strength steel support materials used to connect armor plates together or to the ship structures behind them. Class "B" and STS did not change much in its pro-properties during the 20th Century fr9om the original 1894 German Krupp Company Plate #420 made of nickel-chromium extra-high-strength homogenous steel, but the face-hardened forms changed a lot as various manufacturers tried different methods of making it. US WWII "Thick Chill" Class "A" armor was of the highest grade steel, but its face thickness was too deep for the thickest plates for use against the largest armor-piercing (AP( gun projectiles. This was done to try to damage the extremely strong US Navy WWII AP projectiles, but it caused the brittle face layer to be too thick, since that layer failed by cracking apart while the soft back layer acted like a shock-absorber. Smaller AP shells could not cause as much breakage, so the face worked fine against them. This is called "scaling" and was not understood properly through the end of WWII. Since WWII Class "A" armor was significantly stronger than any WWI versions (there were more than four types made prior to 1930), the fact that the thicker plates could have been even stronger was not tested for. An "AP cap" was a "crash helmet" bonded to the nose of any AP projectile -- US Navy termed capped projectiles "AP", while those with no AP cap, no matter how strongly built, were just base-fuzed "Common" shells. The US Amy and the British added the letter "C" to get the term "APC" to separate AP shells with and without AP caps. As with Class "A" armor, AP caps were made in several ways, depending on the time (the pre-WWI and most WWI original AP caps were soft steel while later caps were hardened for better results) and the knowledge of the projectile manufacturer.

[@jamesb4789]

STS was actually metallurgically very different than traditional Class B. Class A is very different than both. Class A and B were originally forged armors with some Class be being cast or later even rolled. STS was always rolled steel plates. Rolled steel has more directional grain structure and strength patterns and it makes it vulnerable to heavy impacts. Forging the armor plates eliminated that and in the 1800's virtually all armor was forged or cast. The USN worked with Carnegie/US Steel to get a rolled armor plate. It was much cheaper and for cruisers and destroyers, it was better than nothing. With experience, improvements were made the STS quality rose, but it will never match forged armor.

[@Lovemy1911a1]

Nathan is the first part a typo? Class A would be face hardened armor and Class B would be homogeneous armor steel and extremely similar to STS

[@bkjeong4302]

The KGV gets the vote for me: excellent steel quality, good armour layout AND second-thickest armour.

[@metaknight115]

Yamato gets my vote, as she has the thickest armor and a great armor layout. Some parts of her are estimated to be impenetrable from reasonable battle ranges

[@bkjeong4302]

@@metaknight115 Yamato's up there, but I'd rank her s bit below KGV.

[@metaknight115]

@@bkjeong4302 Mmmh....interesting

[@Lovemy1911a1]

Problem is KGV main armor belt is external. The US & Italians internal belts behind sufficient decapping plates gained a major increase in protection over a naked belt. There would be extremely high likelihood of the uncapped shells shattering significantly raising the balistic limit. This would give ships like South Dakota superior protection against any shell 16" or less, even with a thinner belt.

[@HSS_yt]

@@Lovemy1911a1 i've heard that battleships with internal belts could list if the external plating were penetrated. they also moved on from internal belts, perhaps they valued having an external belt more? the british valued consistency a lot, their designs would say. no floodings, no penetration by medium calibur artillery. ship will not suffer from a mission kill or a list, flooding using up damage control.

[@matthewgillies7509]

I would say the British developments of composite armour for splinter-resistance of their merchant marine, to protect from shells and bullets fired from U-boats and planes, was extremely important for the protection of ordinary sailors. After that, I would say the other important armour practice used by the British, but not the Americans, was armouring the decks of their aircraft carriers.

[@petersouthernboy6327]

The Essex Class carried significantly more aircraft than the British Carriers of WW2. Armored flight decks only became an advantage during the Okinawa campaign, when the US Fleet came within range of mainland kamikazes.

[@matthewgillies7509]

@@petersouthernboy6327 I am aware of this, and the British aircraft carriers proved to be more durable during most of the engagements, particularly in those with kamikaze planes, or Japanese dive bombers. As such, they were often tasked with the forward operations.

[@Comnlink]

@@petersouthernboy6327 I mean it’s two different design principles. The British knew that their carriers would be generally operating within the range of land based aircraft a lot of the time. They knew that with a large scale land based attack the anti aircraft systems/ CAP of the carrier wouldn’t stop it all so the idea was to armour it to withstand those hits that got through. It served them really well in the European theatre, especially the Mediterranean. They knew they weren’t gonna carry as many aircraft. I mean the midway class went for armoured flight deck so it definitely wasn’t a mistake to do.

[@petersouthernboy6327]

@@matthewgillies7509 From Norman Friedman: “In fact, the British designs failed. Off Okinawa, the resistance of the British carriers seemed impressive but in reality the damage they took was severe. Having the hangar inside the hull girder made the hull structure weak and the ships were deformed by comparatively minor damage. Note how quickly nearly all the armored carriers were scrapped postwar - surveys showed they had irreparable hull damage. In contrast, the Essex's, which suffered much more severe damage, lasted for decades. The severe damage suffered by the British armored carriers is documented by their post-war surveys. These surveys were carried out to determine the suitability of the ships for modernization. Of the British armored carriers, Formidable and Illustrious were write-offs due to war damage. By the end of the war, Illustrious was in very poor condition; her centerline shaft was history due to structural deformation and her machinery was shot. Formidable had raped herself when a Firefly (sic – aircraft that caused the damage was actually a Corsair) rolled off a lift and raked the hangar with 20 mm gunfire. This started a very bad fire which was contained within the hangar and acted like a furnace. The heat deformed the hull and that was it. Indomitable was actually used in the post-war fleet and was modernized (lightly). In 1951 she had a gasoline explosion in her hangar deck. This was actually quite minor (an Essex would have shrugged it off) but the fact it was contained and was within the hull girder caused severe damage. She was patched with concrete for the Coronation Review, then scrapped. Victorious was surveyed, found to be in reasonably good condition and rebuilt. The rebuild was fiendishly expensive, largely because the flight deck was the hangar deck and partly due to idiotically bad project planning. The Victorious conversion was one of those tragedies that was almost comical. The original plans did not include re-engining the ship; this was a decision taken late in the rebuild process by which time most of the hull work (about 80 percent) had been completed. A machinery survey showed that the boilers had only about ten years of life left and it was decided they should be replaced. This meant that a lot of work had to be undone and then redone. The awful bit is that she was still within that ten year period when she was prematurely decommissioned. The Ship's Cover is pretty sulphurous in places. Another tragedy is that this monumental mess disillusioned the fleet with any sort of rebuild program (which had echoes in all sorts of places including the Type 15 program). Another point which should be brought up is that the armored box hangar on the RN CV's was restricted to a height of 16 feet maximum and was as low as 14 feet in the upper hangars on the Indomitable, Implacable and Indefatigable. This restricted the use of the F4U Corsair fighter in the 14 feet hangars. This also hampered the usefulness of the British carriers postwar as aircraft grew in size. By contrast, the USN carriers had a hangar clear height of 20 feet in the Lexington class, 17 feet 3 inches in the Yorktown class and 17 feet 6 inches in the Essex class. This greater height allowed the Essex class to easily adapt to the much larger postwar jet aircraft. The planned refits of the Implacable and Indefatigable would have seen the two hangars merged into one which would have made these ships much more capable. Sadly, the problems with the Victorious rebuild killed that plan off. In retrospect, they should have gone through the upgrade process first; as ships, they were much better than the first four armored carriers and were in good condition.”

[@petersouthernboy6327]

@@Comnlink Norman Friedman also stated that if the US had used British carrier designs in the Pacific it would have prolonged the war considerably due to the striking power (aircraft) deficit.

[@philgiglio7922]

Ryan, you should save that firehose, you will Never find a better tow rope... think about it a minute & you'll understand. Is class A armor similar to case hardened steel like some firearms utilize for the receiver? Always loved the play of color that makes it instantly recognizeble

[@lindsoalbrown4609]

Wow! i get to watch bb videos and the in vid ad is like a mini forged in fire?!? i love this channel.

[@montecorbit8280]

About kamikoto knives.... The KZbin channel Shadaversity did a video on kamakoto knives. The type of steel used in manufacturing them is extremely low quality, some people don't think that it is even worth calling it knife steel. You may want to look at that video....

[@FlyTyer1948]

Fascinating information about BB armor. Off topic, but Ryan, please use one of those marvelous knives to trim off that hanging purse of your belt or tuck it through the belt loop on your pants. I say this with respect for you and all you do. I used to share a belt making business & still have my tools, so you can send the belt to me for fixing if you prefer.

[@sIightIybored]

I'd contend the best general armour (by these criteria) was the Italian style, since they varied the thickness of the face hardening depending on the thickness of the plate. The metallurgy was not quite as good, but not so far off.

[@AsbestosMuffins]

by ww2 that's kind of an obsolete technology (much like their ships) but still viable. Really its all up to what you want to do and how you think armor should work, all or nothing vs turtleback

[@strydyrhellzrydyr1345]

The level of face hardening also matters very very much... Meaning HOW YOU TEMPER

[@paoloviti6156]

From what I understood the Italian foundries were producing goo quality armour despite shortage of certain alloys especially on the Vittorio Veneto class battleships but was not particularly well protected against torpedoes as found out at Taranto during the British attack as the he Littorio battleship was hitted by three torpedoes nearby the bow on both sides. It didn't receive particularly heavy damage, as it was repaired in 4 months, but suffering heavy flooding....

[@gnosticbrian3980]

@@paoloviti6156 The Littoria class Roma was sunk by the very same Fritz X glider bombs that failed to sink the WW1 British battleship Warspite.

[@paoloviti6156]

@@gnosticbrian3980 interesting as I didn't know that the same Fritz X glider bomb failed to sink the HMS Warspite. From what I read now, the battleship was hit by a Fritz X nearby the funnel that went all the way down hitting the bottom creating considerable damage that was never fully repaired until she was sent to the scrap yard, a sad ending for the most decorated ship in the war.

[@31dknight]

Another great video from the battleship. Thanks

[@xthetenth]

As I understand it the American hardening got carried very deep into their plates because they had very good results shattering shells with a deep layer of face hardening, but when they introduced superheavy shells they wound up taking it very deep attempting to make the hard layer thick enough to shatter those shells, but in the process ended up with armor that was somewhat more brittle than it should be against battleship shells.

[@Lovemy1911a1]

I don't believe it was the superheavy shells in particular but US naval shells construction & heat treatment kept improving driving US armor to increase hardness depth to improve chance of shatter.

[@BeKindToBirds]

The US still used coal shoveling kind of face hardening from my understanding

[@jamesb4789]

More complicated than that. The developments for very deep hardening came from Bethlehem Steel and were only used on the main battleship belts Cost was a big factor and massive increase in manufacturing time. the process used gas jets with coke introducing pure carbon to the steel. It was difficult to get it uniform and thus required much longer treatment times. the long slow process also resulted in a number of scrap plates. The delays in the processing lead to the USN paying to rebuild the Carnegie Forge out in Pittsburgh although it did not go on line until 1944. The Brits looked at it, but chose in part a 35% hardening depth for another rarely mentioned reason. The hardened steel becomes more brittle in the severe cold of the North Atlantic and Artic which the British knew would be a theater of battleship conflicts. The USN was in turn designing ships to fight in the tropical waters of the Pacific. A 40-50 degree shift in temperature matters with hardened steel facing impacts.

[@Lovemy1911a1]

@@jamesb4789 all US Class A armor in the 1930s till the end of WW2 was made with the same hardness profile. It was not just battleship belt armor, US cruisers would also use this armor and it would have the same profile and percentage of face depth as the thicker plates used on the BB.

[@jamesb4789]

Class A hardening is different than the process used for the heavy battleship plates. Most Class A and B armor at thicknesses less than 8" or so was rolled armor. The difference between the two was Class A had surface hardening. Thinner plats could be hardened by heat treating as well as by carbon induction. The heavy forged plates or castings were hardened by carbonizing the surface. In WW 1 ear, the carbon used was from coke (pure carbon) on the surface and then exposed to high heat to allow absorbtion. Another method was to use gas jets on the face of the armor and force the carbon from the burning gas into the surface. @@Lovemy1911a1

[@billpaine6241]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Ryan, but the knives you’re touting are in fact cheap low grade stainless steel knives deceptively marketed as “premium” kitchen knives. I would recommend dropping them as a sponsor.

[@raigarmullerson4838]

Thanks for all this new info i didnt know before. Much cheers for that. Also your Kamikoto ad it top notch, one of the best ive seen. Love and cheers from Estonia

[@littletimelord2755]

I’d be careful with calling kamikoto any kind of “good.”

[@RickLowrance]

Great video about the armor. I buy Japanese products, but I kind of lose my enthusiasm when I watch a video about WWII history. I remember seeing a Toyota commercial while watching a movie about the Bataan Death March. Not so great timing.

[@richardmillhousenixon]

Don't waste your money on Kamikoto, they are overpriced knives made with quite literally the lowest grade of surgical stainless steel out there. Remember years back when Kohl's was giving away those MasterChef branded knives for free with some orders? Kamikoto knives are made with the exact same steel. They aren't worth the price.

[@philgiglio7922]

@@richardmillhousenixon ... today's scalpels are plastic handled single use. They ARE sharp! It's possible to hear the blade cutting flesh. My experience with cheap stainless steel knives is that the edge looses it's sharpness quickly and are nearly impossible to resharpen. Ymmv

[@k9foru2]

@@richardmillhousenixon yeah they are perfectly usable as a knife if you are expecting at most a $10 dollar knife and the expected quality of that price point

[@keithmoriyama5421]

@@richardmillhousenixon A cheaper softer steel may appear sharper with it's first single solitary cut... but, it will not hold the edge. Probably these so called live "demonstrations" make the product look a lot better than it is.

[@F-Man]

Sponsored video!! This channel is really going places!

[@LBG-cf8gu]

Boomer here, "nam era. always wondered about this.. Thanks for the upload.

[@ScottDLR]

I've enjoyed and given every single one of your vids a thumbs up but that was too long of a commercial for me.

[@keithbaker1951]

I felt the same sentiment.

[@jayfrank1913]

I have that problem with my mooring line chafing.

[@LQ-C]

Steel mills hate copper in steel, and it is very difficult/impractical or impossible to remove from the steel. Same with phosphorus. Normal fluxes will reduce the steel before the copper or phosphorus. I believe the copper can cause stringers in the steel when it is rolled. Copper is the 2nd most common alloying element, after carbon, in the powdered metal industry because it is cheaper then stuff like nickel or chromium. In powdered metal copper powder is mixed with pure iron powder, graphite, and sometimes other powders. The alloying elements like copper powder will defuse into the iron in the furnace. The powdered metal industry also uses phosphorus as an alloying element. I would be nice to hear from someone in the steel industry about the problems they have with copper and how the Japanese got around it. My guess is they excepted the quality issues because some armor is better then none.

[@jamesb4789]

the issue is one of the form the copper takes before it is introduced into the steel, how it is introduced, the temperatures and the final processes. The issue though is with scrap that is comixed, it is possible to get copper in the strands. It also depends on what the steel making process is. Bessemer, , electric Arc, and open hearth were the ones of that era. i did some work at Bethlehem Steel Sparrows Point while the big open hearths were still in service and had less issue with them and copper than the BOF's.

[@joedelafranier278]

Adding copper would be a good idea as the copper would make the steel more flexible and equal for splinter protection

[@cimitarthegrumpygamer3879]

Hey Ryan, I’m not sure if the video on KZbin was me by you guys but I saw that the US tested the 16 inch shell against some captured Yamato class turret face armour. It did resist the shells from point blank range

[@Lovemy1911a1]

Well not exactly. Two shots were made on the turret face plate left over from IJN Shinano. The plate was held vertically and shot at 1992 feet per second (fps) & again at 1707 fps. The first shot punched clean through, the second shot penetrated 21" into the plate and knocked a hole out the back. The naval balistic limit was estimated at 1839 fps. So the plate did not resist the shells. However if the plate had been inclined at the 45° it would have been installed at it should have resisted the shot.

[@cimitarthegrumpygamer3879]

@@Lovemy1911a1 you are correct, would have resisted. Still what turret would have been shot from point blank. End of the day they were both (BB’s) sunk by the new king of the sea

[@Lovemy1911a1]

@@cimitarthegrumpygamer3879 I'm simply trying to correct the information about the test on the Shinano turret face plate. People seem not to understand the details and draw strange conclusions from it.

[@MrTexasDan]

... and here's a word from our sponsor ... Japanese knives, with no "molybdium"

[@Aliens308]

... made in China, using some chinesium 420 grade stainless steel. Shadiversity reviewed these and they where below average, especially for the price. Search for "Are Kamikoto knives a SCAM?"

[@WindHaze10]

I quite remember drach also mention that USA has best armor against cruiser guns but the best against BB guns was italy.

[@VincentComet-l8e]

Interesting point about the Japanese shortages of Nickel, Molybdenum, Chromium etc. The Germans had the very same problem obtaining rare metals during the war due to the naval blockade, and had increasing difficulty making valves and other critical components in aero engines and similar that were at the very cutting-edge of technology.

[@jamesb4789]

But they did not innovate alternatives like the Japanese did. Germany relied on its stockpiles and on materials from conquered countries.

[@crazyguy32100]

Making ships more vulnerable to torpedos because battleships will fight battleships. We all know how well THAT idea aged.

[@BeKindToBirds]

What are you referring to?

[@la_potat6065]

@@BeKindToBirds The age of carriers and air dropped torpedoes specifically, which definitely did not go well with Yamato's underwater armour scheme. Not only was the thick 200mm lower belt, too brittle to deform as a torpedo bulkhead, the upper and lower belt rivets, along side the other non armoured torpedo bulkheads and including the rivet connections to the welded torpedo bulge itself were parallel. The result of which literally dislodge the entire lower belt off its connection of the upper belt, shifting everything with it that it practically had the lower belt pierce into the ship, bypassing multiple bulkheads and flooding compartments much deeper into the ship. For example it had its no3 turret magazines directly flooded from such a hit off a submarine torpedo, and as for the air torpedoes it ate in Tengo, it flooded directly up to the last bulkhead on its machinery spaces. And to add insult to injury the excessively thick welded torpedo bulges, were too brittle (probably lack of flux, that the transition layer between weld and material became brittle) that torpedoes just punched right through them and exploded directly into the hull at its weak point, so tldr not even the torpedo bulges worked.

[@timothyschmidt9566]

I was hoping that you were going to address the armor scheme used to protect the ship. This was at least as important as the quality of the armor itself.

[@thefoodcan]

Its crazy to think about just how much metal went into these battle ships.

[@TheBlueGeebee]

Oh god not Kamikoto knifes, Shadiversity has a spectacular video on these.

[@montecorbit8280]

At 4:12 Cooking and getting microwave ramen noodles wrong.... I have actually burned water, and set my microwave on fire. When I was younger I let a pot boil dry that had nothing but water in it, (I was trying to make ramen noodles, and I forgot about it). So I "burned" water.... How did I set the microwave on fire?? You know the restaurant Arby's occasionally used to have those five for $5.55 deals?? There roast beef sandwich is wrapped in a shiny wrapper. I thought the rapper was plastic, but apparently it has some metal in it because when I got over to the nuker to shut it off seeing arcs and Sparks come out of the paper bag they were still in when I was trying to warm them up from the refrigerator, the paper bag caught on fire. Yes I know you don't put metal in nukers!! But it looked like it was plastic!! The upside is the burgers were warm and it had an actually pleasant Smoky taste to it....go figure.

[@arniestuboud]

CONGRATULATIONS!!! I see in this video that you do have the large radar antenna ROTATING!! Great !!

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

We have a whole video on that process, it wasn't easy! kzbin.info/www/bejne/b53HqZhpZ5mjps0

[@arniestuboud]

@@BattleshipNewJersey Oh I am aware of that. I saw the video about you all working on it BEFORE it was rotating when you put it out. I'm here every day.

[@aserta]

11:06 Kinda wondering if the dambuster-tech was ever used on ships. That's basically be a boat killer. Launch three of those at a distance, let them skip and they'd be guaranteed to pop a ship because it stuck to the hull as it went down.

[@k9foru2]

They tested a varient against the former French battleship Courbet using an inert spherical model and it punched a few hole into the ship just from the impact.

[@Klyis]

While not exactly the same weapon the British did use 12,000 lb Talboy bombs against the Tirpitz. In one attack one of these bombs punched completely through the bow of the Tirpitz and exploded underneath the ship, and several near misses caused additional damage. Despite all this they failed to sink her and a second raid was needed to finish her off. So I'm not sure that a dambuster would be more effective. However, using bouncing bombs was actually considered as a way to sink Tirpitz before it was decided to use Talboys instead.

[@k9foru2]

@@Klyis the design they thought about using on ships was spherical and supposedly would hug the hull as it sank and detonate under the ship

[@mpetersen6]

Drachinifel just had something on his Dry Dock 202 or 203 about skip bombing that covers the Highball.

[@Philip271828]

There was HighBall, which was developed too late to be used. The battle of Bismarck Sea saw skip bombing which sounds similar, but smaller.

[@Notthecobracommander]

I agree with your view that value was an important factor, on that basis I say the king George v battleships had the best value armor of the war. Against a larger battleship something few other ships have accomplished, its smaller guns did more damage to the larger ship than Bismark and it's larger guns did to the smaller ship, unlike many other scenarios it actually happened. Good video as always keep it up.

[@johnshepherd8687]

The engagement between Prince of Wales and Bismarck took place under 20kyds. Bismarck displaced more but her armor was only marginally thicker than North Carolina's. That is why the British 14s penetrated Bismarck's armor. Conversely a 15" round from Bismarck penetrated PoW's belt but was a dud. The British gun would not be able to penetrate Bismarck's belt much beyond 20kyds whereas the German 15s had a reasonable chance of penetrating a KGVs armor at 25 kyds. The KGV class was built on the assumption that 14" guns would the maximum caliber faced.

[@JevansUK]

@@johnshepherd8687 neither hit the others main armour, PoW put a short under Bismarck's belt and a hit through the unarmoured bow while Bismarck hit PoW's unarmoured compass platform, crane and a short that failed the fuse ended up under the belt by the torpedo bulkhead.

[@teddywoo83]

@@johnshepherd8687 kGVs were armoured against 16” shells. North carloilnas and Bismarcks were not.. at normal battle ranges.

[@johnshepherd8687]

@@teddywoo83 KGVs were armored against Rodney's 16" guns, not against 16"/45s firing Mk 5 or Mk 8 AP rounds, nor were they armored against modern high velocity Italian an Gernan 15" AP rounds. The 15" and 16"/45/Mk 8 could penetrate the KGV belt out to 25kyds which is the outer limit of practical battle ranges. The 16"/45/Mk 5 was good at ibe low 20s of KYs. The British 14" could not penetrate German or US armor until ranges were less than 20 kyds.

[@karlheinzvonkroemann2217]

Very interesting!

[@dacolgianmarco2833]

I read about the tests conducted on a section of armour originally to be mounted on Shinano, the 3rd battleship of the Yamato class shortly after the war. At point black range a 16inch gun from the Iowa class wasn't able to fully penetrate it. Gets me everytime.

[@metaknight115]

I have heard that the armor plating meant for Shinano was of a poor quality because Japan was rushing to get her finished, meaning that the 25.5 armor plating on Yamato and possibly Musashi were stronger

[@Lovemy1911a1]

Ok the 16" gun did penetrate the plate in the test. You can find pictures of the massive hole it left and broke a huge chunk off the plate. However the plate was held vertically not at the 45° angle it would be installed at. If it had been at 45° that's when there's no point the 16" Mk 7 could penetrate a plate that thick.

[@metaknight115]

@@Lovemy1911a1 That was a second test

[@Lovemy1911a1]

@@metaknight115 No there were 2 test shots taken to evaluate the balistic limit of the plate, this is standard practice in determining a balistic limit. The first shot was made on Oct. 16, 1946. The impact velocity was 1992 ft/s & the round completely penetrated. The second shot was made on Oct. 23, 1946. The impact velocity was 1707 ft/s, the round penetrated 20" into the plate, breaking the plate into pieces & ejecting a plug out the back of the plate. This was determined to show a balistic limit of 1838 ft/s. All this is part of the Naval Proving Grounds Report No 5-47. So yes the Shinano plate was defeated. It also was not considered a very good plate. No US plates were made that thick, though it was estimated that if one was it would have a balistic limit over 2000 ft/s. There's no reason to believe that Yamato or Musashi had any better steel in this grade. The Vickers process the Japanese used did a poor job of heat treating plates above 15". Also 11 of the 12 plates tested in the NPG Report 5-47 showed inferior performance to US average armor, many of them failed to meet minimum acceptance standards for US armor.

[@jamesb4789]

The first shot was done at a range of 100 feet (as close as they could mount it) and the maximum charge. The shell blew right through and sailed across the Chesapeake bay, fortunately missing everyone. It was nothing more than a stunt since when would dreadnoughts close to age of sail ranges. The second test was ordered and it was specifically designed to replicate standard combat range. To be honest the brass was ticked off at the stunt. The second test was intended to replicate a 16,000 yard engagement range. There was in fact a recognized flaw in the test and that was the plate was jury rigged in place and not mounted as designed, in part due to the damage from the stunt test. The test reports indicated some of the cracking and damage was de to the mounting arrangement and the doubted the plate would have suffered that level of damage mounted on the turret face. Testing other armor samples lead to a determination that at standard battle ranges, the 16"-50 with the mark 8 shell would have struggled to penetrate the armor until ranges closed to under 16,000 yards. The Iowas though had no effective immunity zone against the IJN 18" shell. @@Lovemy1911a1

[@OhYeaMista]

Kamikoto knives: “Their knives work.” Lmao. Not sure why that made me laugh so hard.

[@littletimelord2755]

It’s because their knives, in fact, don’t work. That’s the dirty secret of kamikoto. There’s a great video on shadiversity that explains exactly how that company scams you with low quality knives.

[@Train115]

I'm still here!

[@chrissouthgate4554]

What Armour invitation - WWII, Probable not what you had in mind, But the Tall Boy nose & Body. It had to be armoured to penetrate & had Considerable effect on anything it did including BB’s (or even U-boat pens it didn’t!)

[@JevansUK]

A grand slam really does the job if Tallboy isn't up to it

[@taterdude5532]

I definitely think Japanese experimented armor is my favorite.

[@T0ffik1]

Nice episode :), really liked it. Its actually interesting to see that US armor was the most inferior vs BB's while best vs medium cal guns, while a that time UK had best vs BB's and weaker vs other stuff with Germans having best all around, and IJN quite similar to germans but lower. Also interesting was that the lower quality produced single plate of best armor was still inferior to avg quality produced weakest armor. Shows how little difference it was at all. Also from what i read Italians could go for the 1st place in overall best armor with Germans. Also its a very important info that shows other prioperities biggest Navies chose to have for their armor, and armor=/=armor. Do i remember correctly that US had extreme problems with quality control? and that on Iowa one turret had 1 less inch because of that, while IJN had exceptional quality controll thanks to the proces being much easier and cheaper? I might be mistaken, but i'm sure i've read about it somewhere. Also its worth noticing that technology german plates treated by IJN and their "innovative" metods with alternative add on's of minerals made the best armor US has tested in WW2 (taken from neavyweaps Ballistic Tests on the IJN Shinano's Turret Face Armor) Note that one of these experimental plates - 7.21" (18.3cm) VH plate NPG #3133 - was patterned on Krupp KC n/A (probably from data traded with Germany during WWII) and was tested by the U.S. Navy at the NPG using 335-pound 8" Mark 21 Mod 3 and Mod 5 (the latter with the super-hard AP cap, which turned out to be required to penetrate that plate intact) during this same test series. It was found to be the best plate of its thickness range (6-8" (15.2-20.3cm)) ever tested by the U.S. Navy, even though its steel was of the same rather poor quality as the other VH plates tested!!! This caused the U.S. test conductors to state that obviously they did not understand what it took to make a high-quality Class "A" plate, since the 7.21" VH plate should not have been so good from everything they thought they knew about face-hardened armor!!! Obviously the Japanese could make armor as good as anyone if the specifications had required it!

[@Lovemy1911a1]

It's a bit more complicated. US 1930s Class A armor had a very deep face, it reached 55% the plate thickness. This had a negative scale effect as armor grew thicker at least in regards to the plate resisting failure. It did make US armor both thick & thinner very difficult to penetrate with intact shells, especially most non-US shells which seem to have been consistently found to be less robust as their US counterparts. So US class A would resist plate failure less well than most face hard armors in the 12" & above thicknesses but it could resist letting a shell penetrate in bursting condition better. There could also be conditions that US Class A would resist better if it caused shell shattering that shallower FH armor would not. Also US Class A even with it's overly deep face still generally had slightly better performance than Japanese FH armor in battleship thicknesses, simply because it was better steel, with better heat treatment. The quote about this amazing Japanese plate was of an experimental plate that was tested after the war. This particular plate was made to similar specifications as German KC n/a armor except it did not have a cemented face. The actual steel used in Japanese warships was not made the same as this plate & was found to be very similar to WW1 era British FH steel, which was inferior to improved steels in Europe & the US. The best all around face hard armor were the Italians who varied their face depth depending on thickness. Having face depth gradually decrease as plate thickness increased going from 50% to 30%. This is also just face hardened armor not homogeneous armor. The US had better homogeneous armor than the Japanese.

[@jamesb4789]

The class A and B forged battleship armor all came out of Bethlehem Steel's heavy forge division and the quality was excellent. Some class B was rolled by other sources, resulting in quality differences. One factor that is ignored by almost everyone is temperature. British and German armor was designed for war n the Artic and North Sea which is far colder than the likely zones of the Pacific for USN vs IJN battles. US armor was never tested in the artic, but the high carbon hardening would have been at risk of low temp embrittlement. since the RN intended to fight there along with the Germans, their armor designs took low temp into consideration.

[@aserta]

Obliquity - learned a new word today. :)

[@DolFunDolhpinVtuber]

This was very good.

[@saschawagner5167]

Thats hard to tell since nearly no armor was tested agist other BB fire in a way to make comparisions when it comes to WW2. Arguable the most impresive armor for surviving at their most dire moment was both Warspites and Sydlitz at Jutland in WW1. If you dont go on BBs vs BBs you could add the damage some of the Brit armored CVs suffered without going down in some of their Malta suport operations.

[@martypalmiere7672]

There is a piece of face plate armor from the Shinano with a perfectly round 16 inch shell hole through it at the Washington Navy Yard.

[@nicz7694]

Shows really good how it survived from a point blank range. Sadly there is mostly no real combat footage of these getting shelled

[@metaknight115]

That’s what 16 inch shells do from 400 feet away

[@martypalmiere7672]

That may be true, point blank IS rather devastating ! However, I've personally seen the 16" shells fired and their impact craters. They may not have much effect on the Turret faceplate but they would've easily penetrated the Turret roof and remainder of the ships structures. Plunging fire is immensely more effective.

[@metaknight115]

@@martypalmiere7672 Yep

[@jamesb4789]

Not really at the battle ranges. Testing at Dahlgren post war concluded the turret faces, side and roofs, the side armor belts and the decks were virtually invulnerable to the 16"-50 with the mark 8 shell. There were some ranges of vulnerability to plunging fire and point blank shots, but that was not likely to happen. @@martypalmiere7672

[@ashcarrier6606]

I remember reading about Krupp steel that went into ships like Bismarck and Tirpitz. Like it was meant to be malleable, rather than crack. Krupp could do interesting things with steel. The stainless steel of New York's Chrysler Building is from "Krupp Stahl". It has never needed polishing.

[@dave_sic1365]

Yeah they invented the modern stainless steel V2A (Versuchsmischung 2 austenitisch) That's the same steel from which big cooking equipment is made

[@Aubury]

I believe that Krupp, made stainless steel false teeth. As well as supporting fascism, slave labour..

[@sd906238]

It should be noted that in the post WWI period the United States was a relatively rich country compared to the rest of the countries. The US could afford to be generous with STS steel/armor in it's ships. The STS armor help to contain bomb splinter and spalling from shells strikes on hardened armor. A British shell hit a French battleship on it's main turret. The shell didn't penetrate the turrets armor but cause splitters from the inside of the armor to kill the turrets crew.

[@g.l.5072]

Loving the knifes

[@littletimelord2755]

Uh-oh, didn’t buy one did you?

[@davidncw4613]

There is a Yamato-class turret face with a big old 16-inch hole in it somewhere around Norfolk Virginia. We can debate striking angle, target fixture ect ect but, like I said, a 16'' porthole compliments of the USN.

[@manilajohn0182]

FYI- the faceplate in question was originally slated to be mounted on Shinano. It was erected (without any mounting to simulate turret support) perpendicular to the 16" .50 cal. gun which fired two shells at the faceplate from a range of 400 feet. One of the shells was a partial penetration. The faceplate in its intended mounting aboard Shinano was inclined at an angle of 45 degrees to the vertical. The firing tests on the faceplate were the basis of a U.S. Naval Proving Ground report which stated that the faceplate was impenetrable by the 16" .50 cal. gun at any combat range. EDIT: apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a955281.pdf

[@davidncw4613]

@@manilajohn0182 yes I am well aware, was it penetrated?

[@metaknight115]

That shot was taken from point blank range at a flat trajectory at 400 feet away, AKA, battleship point blank range. They fired two shots. The first shot was of reduced power to simulate a shot from combat range. This shot bounced off the 25.5 inch armor without doing any real damage. Due to the fact that the US navy was feeling a bit trigger happy and really wanted to see that armor with a big hole, the second shot was a completely normal shot that penetrated the armor. It was estimated that the 25.5 inch armor was immune to any gun the US navy had, as well as any naval gun in the world at reasonable battle ranges. I'm so sick of Iowa fans taking that armor plate out of context so much.

[@davidncw4613]

Yes, we were not going to be pokin holes in turret faces anytime soon in battlefield conditions. But, an important an very overlooked fact is that was the heaviest armor on the ship. It was penetrated. Most of the armor could be penetrated by our 16'' AP. As I have said, On a nice calm clear day the Yamatos had the advantage. The rest of the time I will take the agility an fire control of the Iowas.

[@manilajohn0182]

@@davidncw4613 The Americans would definitely hold an advantage in poor visibility conditions. That said, the Yamatos had a smaller turning circle than the Iowas and were the more maneuverable of the two classes- not that this would likely matter very much.

[@olivialambert4124]

I'd be very careful advertising Kamikoto knives. They've been reviewed tested and debunked as selling the very cheapest quality steel for knives, badly made, and below the standard of the most basic knives of both Chinese and western steels. They come well sharpened but that's about the only positive and would blunt very quickly (that being a core difference of good and bad knives). From what I recall they aren't Japanese either, but Chinese masquerading as Japanese knives. Given their price they clearly aren't what the customer is expecting. In other words, intentionally a scam in a pretty box. I'd rather use a free generic knife than a free Kamikoto knife, personally. I'd be careful advertising for them, I appreciate the need for the museum to generate additional funding through these tough times but a partnership like this is likely to degrade the good reputation you have gained. Unfortunately the better paying advertisements tend to be worse for the customer, but I'm sure given time there are some out there which would be a good fit.

[@donchaput8278]

Agreed. Not a Japanese Company. Mid Quality Steel that will quickly dull. There is nothing special about those knifes except they come in a box.

[@olivialambert4124]

@@donchaput8278 And the price. Not many companies would be so bold as to sell a $5 knife (to be generous) at this sort of price. Along with the aggressive and deceptive marketing that's unfortunately the only places the company are particularly special. I'd also say the steel is very low quality rather than mid. If you dig deep enough you see Kamikoto themselves stating which steel is used. Most are the very softest steel you'd see in a knife, pretty sure it was 420 from memory? As they state "to prevent the knife from chipping". I suppose that's true in that its hard to chip something as soft as butter. Its a good choice for cutlery, but for any sharp knife its about the lowest grade you can find. Then you pay a premium for a better steel, from memory 1095. That's a far better steel, you'd be happy with 1095 in a $5 knife bought from the supermarket. I think Indeed I might have a few 1095 bought that way. But for a well priced Japanese knife you'd be absolutely livid if that's the steel you got. Anything beyond budget knives you'd want something better to be honest - its one step above absolute junk. Unfortunately the majority of Kamikoto knives being said junk steel in 420.

[@adamseibert129]

Great informative video as ever but even better add lol

[@MultiSerge1980]

Ryan, if ships were to be built using "Modern" armor, using modern research, materials, like Chattem (?) and Kevlar and would it be possible to take hits from other Battleships?

[@Scott-S-]

That pause when you realized your pocket knife was gonna cut it like butter 😂

[@sparkplug1018]

Usually I get a little annoyed with sponsor spots, but in your case I think its awesome. Anything to support the battleship is great news.

[@jamesberlo4298]

Thats actually not true that the Yamato class Battleship Main Turret Face Armor was not immune to other Guns/ Battleship's, the U.S. Navy took spare Armour from the Kure Shipyard and took it to the Proving grounds and completely Penetrated it with a Super-Heavy 16" Projectile, it is on public display, about a quarter (the Face is shattered) and about 50% in the middle is actually shaped like the projectiles 16" width and the remaining quarters is completely spalled out, and it even caused deformation on the Plate.

[@manilajohn0182]

Not so, my friend. The U.S. Navy Proving Ground test consisted of two rounds fired at a 26" faceplate originally slated for Shinano. It was set up without any mounting to simulate turret support, and perpendicular to the 16" .50 cal. gun- which was 400 feet away. Two rounds were fired, with one being a partial penetration. The faceplate as installed would have been mounted at a 45 degree angle. The associated report stated that the faceplate was impenetrable to the 16" round at any reasonable combat range. The actual immunity zone of the faceplate to the gun was approximately 36,000 yards. Cheers...

[@jackstecker5796]

I was working in the nuclear security industry. Our AR500 armored "pepper popper" steel reactive targets for the weapons range had gotten worn out from extensive use. Some genius got a visit from the good idea fairy, and decided, "well the maintenance shop has plasma cutters, they could just cut us new targets. They've got steel plate on hand." Mild steel, mind you. I told them this was a bad idea. I explained why. They said, "nah, it'll be fine." First time using the new targets, the shooter got a bounce back that struck him just below the knee from about 45 yds. .40 S&W, 165 gr. if I recall. Didn't break the skin, but, goddamn, he had one hell of a bruise.

[@philgiglio7922]

...lucky it wasn't his head. Actually watched a .177 cal air rifle pellet ricochet off a target and impact the metal outbuilding behind me above my head. I SAW that pellet ricochet and knew I was in trouble

[@mahbriggs]

My cousin who was an armorer for a nuclear power plant security force, told me he had to talk someone out of trying the same thing.

[@lloydknighten5071]

Ryan, I found out ships like BISMARCK, PRINCE OF WALE'S, HOOD, and others had their armor belts mounted to a teak wood backing. did the IOWAS, NORTH CAROLINAS, and SOUTH DAKOTA'S follow suit?

[@JevansUK]

Hood's main belt is back by cement over laminate HT the Iowa and south Dakota are the cement over sts

[@martypalmiere7672]

In a word...NO ! The Iowa Class Armor was bolted to an STS backing plate on the Turrets, main belts are all tongue & groove fitted to each other and attached to the hull structure by welded scalloped steel plates. If you're looking for greater detailed info regarding the armor plating get hold of "Iowa Class Battleships" by Bob Summerall.

[@RMSTitanicWSL]

Oh, the irony of Japanese knives being sold by an American battleship museum.....

[@MesCaLiN21]

Undoublty german battleship armor combination of Wotan hart and Wotan weich. Bismarck took hundreds of shells and torpedoes.

[@patrick3426]

hey, you forgot Krupp Cementred (KC). WH is an Class B type steel and WW is an STS type of steel. And yes, he got that wrong in the video xD

[@HACM-mk3qx]

Firing full broadsides can put a strain on the hull if regularly done over time. Also the seams where the plates join can be weakened by torpedoes. This befell Musashi. They didn't connect their plates the same way as American Armour.

[@jamesb4789]

North Carolina when torpedoed exhibited the same nearly fatal flaw. Musashi was hit by dozens of torpedoes.

[@Cragified]

More then just heated up. Face hardening involved a carbon source such as carbon black or carbon bearing gas (CO, Methane etc.) along with the heating process then the quench.

[@mahbriggs]

No, that is Case Hardening. Different process. Face hardening was as described. Case hardening is applied to low carbon steel or iron. Face hardening is applied to medium or high carbon steel.

[@keeroy]

i didn´t recognize the add at first. i was about - is ryan going now to cut the armor plate with a knife to prove its strenght?

[@deltapee9259]

Hey Ryan, If the U.S. decided to make a new battleship (with big guns), and they came to you for advice on main design features... what would this ship be like?

[@tsumacity]

I am interested in what a new battle wagon would look like but I am afraid drones and ship-killer missiles have made capitol ships obsolete.

[@Attaxalotl]

@@tsumacity If anything; antiship missiles are a reason to bring them back; though a bit different. A massive but minimally crewed brick of armor and gun (or VLS packs) designed to be the first thing an antiship missile would hit and survive.

[@ColonelSandersLite]

@@Attaxalotl Don't forget that CIWS is a thing too and a BB could pack a ton of it. Carriers are limited in this department because they need that open deck space for aircraft and smaller vessels are simply limited by their size.

[@AUsernameWeShallMarchToKiev]

@@ColonelSandersLite the thing is, this has been tried (and failed) before with the Iowa modernization. Same missiles as a destroyer, but thicker armor and same amounts of CIWS. Why? Because it turns out having big fuckoff guns means the blast from those guns means you can’t build anything in their direct proximity, and the rangefinders and support equipment for those big fuckoff guns is going to take up a ridiculous amount of room. Add in the fact that a battleship salvo is just an objectively worse, with lower and range and no guidance missile salvo, and that submarines and torpedoes exist, all a fat fuck battleship would do in modern warfare is get saturated by every single missile the enemy can throw at it, lose it’s entire crew, and then get sunk by a submarine. There will always be a conflict between armor protection and armor penetration, and here, armor penetration has won out. Battleships, cool as they might be, are nothing but oversized missile boats now that high-caliber guns can be outranged by a equally as powerful salvo of missiles.

[@joecolabelli4339]

@@Attaxalotl 2 Loaded out f 18 Super Hornets could sink any one of them in minutes (ARMOR IS USELESS as there is nothing a battleship can do but shell a beach that an AB DESTROYER cant do at 30% the price )As per the above WHY would anyone want to bring them back ???? History lesson the Bismark was doomed by a 1920s era BI PLANE Where does the Yamato reside and how did it get there (VIA 1940S ERA PLANES)

[@bretsk2500]

I love it when my donation keeps showing up in videos :)

[@robertschultz6922]

What would be considered the best armor that a ship could be made from today. Since krupp cement armor is eighty years old I would think there would be something better today. I keep don't worry about shell penetration in today's navy, but what would they use if that was a concern, or what would be best used against a anti ship missile?

[@Lovemy1911a1]

Today we would probably use ceramic as a face layer with rolled homogeneous armor steel backing it. There would also be a thin high hardness steel cover plate for the ceramic. At least that would be the moder way of achieving what face hardened armor did.

[@jamesb4789]

You would see a version of Chobham armor with face hardening and a standoff STS plate to trigger warhead fuses.

[@StHelens1980]

I have a request for a topic video: Colorado class battleships vs Queen Elizabeth class battleships

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

We only compare ships to the Iowas. Because we have an Iowa.

[@michaelhibbs3683]

Very informative video. Thanks! Also, try practicing your pronunciation of "molybdenum".

[@macpaul1391]

Armour plate thickness or armour quality are only part of armour protection, not to mention survivability. When you wanna asess this as a whole you might take a look at german battleships thoughness in WW II and reconsider your stance towards asessing armour protection.

[@miketorres8441]

You stabbed our battleship!!!

[@craigtupper103]

Mmmm fire hose! Give me a slice!

[@Obirzoe]

I understand that one needs to make money, but if someone really thinks about buying the knives they might want to look up Shadiversitys video about it. Might save you some money.^^

[@alexandarvoncarsteinzarovi3723]

Pound for pound the Yamato class could take a beating but the steel was not really top-tier, so I say the Yamato in 1st place, Iowa & King George 2nd place, the Bismarck, Richelieu & Veneto in 3d place,

[@DevideNull]

I suggest anyone who tries to buy it watch Shadiversity video first...

[@theLonesoldier18]

the best armor is the one you don't have to use.

[@j3rwu534]

Can you explain armor schemes?

[@TheFreaker86]

„Who had the best armor of WWII battleships?“ All the Germans here: „KRUPPSTAHL! IT IS KRUPPSTAHL! 😜

[@richpontone1]

What happened was the British invented Torpex explosives in 1942 which made artillery shells, bombs and torpedoes 50 percent more explosive. It was this explosive that was used in torpedoes and bombs effectively to sink the Japanese Super Battleship Yamato. The technology of Explosives surpassed the technology of Battleship armor.

[@Pamudder]

The Japanese substitution of copper and silicon in armor plate is very similar to their design of the Zero fighter-- with the Zero the designers acknowledged that they would not be able to produce an aero engine comparable to the US, so they designed around this acknowledged fact. It was my understanding that all plans and specifications for the YAMATO class battleships were destroyed prior to the end of the war. Where does our information on the YAMATO come from?

[@AUsernameWeShallMarchToKiev]

Armor tests with the unfinished 3rd Yamato’s gun turrets for the gun turret armor, and I have no idea for the rest.

[@Philip271828]

Was there much effort to dissipate the energy of a hit? It often sounds like they were just Built More Rigid but it's not a very glamorous thing to talk about.

[@victorydaydeepstate]

How about the boxing matches?

[@burroaks7]

very cool

[@thomasmoore8142]

From what I've read coming from released Navy documents on Wiki years ago there are some discrepancies with your facts. I'll just list a few in no particular order. The 3 main types of US Navy Armor are class A, class B, and Cast and they are all made from STS steel and have the same chemical make up before "finishing". In simplest terms, class A is Horizontal armor and is made to resist steep plunging shells. Class B is vertical armor and is made to resist low angle shells. Cast is poured into a cast shape and little or no armor finishing is done (mostly milling and machining is done though). Most all of the steel on a WWII battleship that is not considered armor is still made of STS steel, such as Frames, Decks, Doors, and the like. 2. all accounts of "cemented" armor is that it is vastly inferior to our class A and class B armor schemes except under certain conditions such as certain angles and certain shells. Cemented armor is made from heating 2 (or more) sheets of armor and laying them together, rolling them, and burying them is burning charcoal, sand, and peat for months. On finishing the armor, both class A & B get reheated and quenched with carbolic acid to drive extra Carbon into the metal causing it to become "deep face hardened", just class A gets more treatment and additional burying in the charcoal treatment for months to increase overall hardness. Krupp armor was the best armor in the world when the US got serious and developed our STS alloy and did testing against all the other types of armor thru the 1940, and the US developed the Carbolic acid Quenching process making our armor the best per pound for big ships.

[@JevansUK]

Class "A" was face-hardened armour , Class "B" was homogeneous armour. A is used for low angle impacts due to the likelyhood of spalling at high obliquity impacts were the shell is rejected.

[@thomasmoore8142]

@@JevansUK Jon, I really didn't want to get into this much on armor but here it is. I read a lot on armor years ago and much of it was printed off but I'm not going to hunt it down and supply you all with links to read about it. I can tell you that there is a lot of confusing and contrary info on every aspect of battleship design. So, from my studying of US Navy Documents from the 1890's thru 1950 on armor I stand by my earlier comments. Both Class A & B armor are face hardened--that is that they have carbon driven into a strata to harden the metal. Homogeneous armor is used for framing, castings, splinter decks and the like. And "A" is used for low angle impacts which is the opposite of oblique angle--a glancing angle.

[@Lovemy1911a1]

@@thomasmoore8142 Class A armor is non-homogenous and has one side with an extremely hard face that extends to 35-40% of the plate thickness, then gradually softens for another 15-20% of thickness before reaching a homogenous soft layer for the remaining thickness. Class B armor is a homogenous steel with essentially uniform hardness throughout. Class B is pretty much identical to STS, but class B designation is for plate over 4 inches. much of a battle ship would not use STS or armor grade steel, and would be much softer HTS or structural steels. Class A was used mainly on vertical or close to vertical armor. Class A is less effective at large impact angles (>45%) because the brittle face increases the ability to have a shear plug failure even if the round deflects. Much as Jon stated this plugging or spalling made Class A not great for large angle impacts

[@jamesb4789]

Actually Class A and B are different steel than STS. STS was developed for rolled armor and originally intended for cruisers, destroyers, splinter shields etc. It was far cheaper than the cast or forged armor. Class A and B were originally forged armor, but there is a difference in the alloy mix de to the hardening. some class B was rolled, but not a great deal. Class A alloy mix was different due to the carbon hardening on the one surface and playing with the mix can increase the hardenability of the armor. The differences seem small, but they have a real impact. STS was developed in pat because better armor often was not needed and a number of plate rolling mills could make STS grade armor.

[@thomasmoore8142]

James, please re-read my post, I explained that all STS starts out with the same batch materials--It is the hardening and other "finishing" that makes the differences.@@jamesb4789

[@langbart8218]

Hi, realy good video but I have a problem with the sponsor segment. Sponsors in general are good and you can use the money but this one specificly is scaming its customers. Shadiversity made a video testing it in detail. They are using a very cheap steel with near to no edge retention. Please take more care in the future with the sponsors so you don't lose your good reputation.

[@Quasimodo-mq8tw]

Cpt. Hindsight here: considering that Japans Armorindustry was withered, it should have been a very big Incentive to Play to thier strengths and go full into Carriers. Especially they ended up building only Two battleships.

[@AUsernameWeShallMarchToKiev]

They ended up building only 2 battleships during world war 2, but they had far more, because the video maker decided that the Kongo, Nagato, and Fuso class BBS don’t exist anymore.

[@ebla83]

You said the Yamato had 22,000 tons of armor in total. How much tonnage did the Iowa class have versus other battleships such as King George V, Bismark, etc?

[@michaelworsley3341]

Bismarck had 42% of her total displacement as armour , Iowa about 36% , KGV 35% and Yamato about 32% if memory serves correct

[@QurikyBark32919]

Does STS mean “special treatment steel”? I think you mentioned this in the past.

[@JevansUK]

Yes that's correct.

[@markadams4593]

am I the only one who noticed what surely appears to be a paid commercial segment on japanese knives? With absolutely no segue or indeed explanation for why?

[@diabolicwave7238]

No, I didn't notice one. I did notice an advert for Chinese knives using Japanese steel, though :P I do think that New Jersey needs to vet their sponsors a little bit better.

[@stevemc6010]

Yes, those are the Raid Shadow Legends of the knive world

[@MarcPawlowsky]

Anybody else felt that Ryan looked uncomfortable doing the knife sponsorship. It reminded me of the early videos. I think he should stick with the whiskey. Imagine the job interviews for museum curators these days: Interviewer:. "How Would you shill for Internet product scam, please demonstrate on how you would sell NFTs to raise money for a new toilet?" Interviewee:. "Why did I get a history degree? I wonder if McDonald's is hiring?"

[@diabolicwave7238]

@@MarcPawlowsky I mean I would too if I was shilling for knives that are, frankly, being sold with misleading promises. I understand him feeling uncomfortable.

[@MarcPawlowsky]

@@diabolicwave7238 in case it did not come across, I have full sympathy. Pandemic killing revenues in a tough market to start with, Non profits are always searching for funds. Ryan's videos have me planning a trip to see HMCS Haida which doesn't help New Jersey any, and I still watch the videos as soon as they come out. Tough gig, and I appreciate it and enjoy seeing how the channel has improved. Hope to see BB New Jersey one day.

[@sometimesleela5947]

How well do those knives hold fingerprints?

[@johnhallett5846]

IF I recall correctly the South Dakota was the only US Battleship that was ever hit by another Battleship squarely. Though I always called the Kongo class battle-cruisers due to their weak main belt. Still the 14" guns on the Kongo Class were pretty decent; though the shell design was inferior. From what I remember the Germans had trouble with their shell performance; the US worked probably the most on shell design and their super heavy 16" shell was probably about the best overall. I found that the British had some strange ideas on armor; what happened to the Prince of Wales vs the Bismark could have been fatal when that shell hit the relatively unarmored bridge,

[@metaknight115]

The USS Massachusetts opened fire on the battleship Jean Bart, and Jean Bart returned fire. Massachusetts was hit several times, including a hit that penetrated her deck armor and started a fire. However, Massachusetts inflicted far more damage than she recieved, and crippled the near complete Nazi controlled French battleship.

[@jamesb4789]

She was hit only once by the 15" guns and it was a dud. @@metaknight115

[@jamesb4789]

The British deliberately left eh Bridge with splinter armor only because WW 1 experience found he armored control tower was nearly useless. Only the British and Germans had any real WW 1 battle experience so it should not surprise anyone that the other navies did not follow suit. the RN found that generally the upper light structures let shells pass though and did not suffer major damage. That is what happened to PoW. The bridge crew mostly died form splinters but the bridge equipment was fully functional. Yet the increased visibility and access paid off in other engagements. And the British designers saved several thousand tons dropping the conning towners.

[@AsbestosMuffins]

seems like there's no one answer since everybody has their own thoughts on armor based on their country's industrial capability and military thinking.

[@csbgky144]

Did not realize teak was so resistant to large caliber shell fire?

[@Lovemy1911a1]

I have to question some of these statements made in this video. There is data from the Naval Proving Grounds that show Japanese armor steel performance being consistently lower resistance compared to US armor, sometimes by very large margins. In NPG Report 5-47 there were 12 plates tested, 4 face hardened, 8 homogeneous. Of these 6 of the plates tested to a balistic limit >7% lower than average US testing data for comparable plates, 4 of the plates were >9% below US average. These performances were low enough that almost all of these plates would not meet US acceptance criteria for its armor. Only 1 of the remaining plates actually exceeded US average all others were below by 2-4%. There was a final plate that was 26" thick that had no direct US comparison so it could not be directly compared, however it was expected to have a lower balistic limit. There is also one data set that includes a German, Japanese, & US average 15" Class A plate and the Japanese plate had a 7.5% lower balistic limit than the US plate & a 15% lower limit to the German plate. So variation on performance could be significantly higher than 5%. It would also depend on the characteristics of the projectile, especially for Class A armors.