The Evolution of Armor on Ships

[@johnknotabuc]

Ryan you have got to be a real stand up guy to be doing all of these videos while furloughed. You have an impressive amount of knowledge. I am thoroughly enjoying them. I'm disabled and wouldn't be able to do a tour in person, so these videos are a treasure for me. Battleships have a special place in my heart. I was developmentally delayed as a child and had difficulty learning to read. My parents hired me a tutor who taught me to read by having me do a large report on the USS North Carolina. My reward when I was successful, was to get to visit her. That was in the 70's, but I'm still interested in Battleships. I'm mostly homebound now, so your videos have been a joy for me.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Full disclosure, Ryan's furlough has ended and he's back on the payroll. But thanks for sharing your story with us!

[@Scott11078]

I'm a disabled veteran with a son who is considered mildly Autistic, which in itself is kinda funny since there is apparently no accepted "grade" of autism. He's a bit delayed in some areas but we were assured he would "outgrow it" largely. I've always pushed him to be the best him that he could be but honestly after 8 years and seemingly the only one doing the difficult, stressful etc... things ontop of my own issues it was honestly starting to wear what little of me is left down. For what it's worth you have given me renewed hope and not to give up on him one bit, and to always remember the bond that exists between us is wholly on another level than everyone else. So thank you and I hope the last 8 months have been good to you.

[@jimnite4919]

Ditto!!!

[@rdallas81]

Thanks for telling us your story John.

[@johnandrews1334]

If it isn't my favorite Iowa class back again. Love ya'lls frequency of uploads. So much to learn about a great ship and her crew

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Every night, Monday to Friday!

[@tedrussell902]

@@BattleshipNewJersey Libby, when are you going to get on the camera??? Shy? :)

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Too many trolls. Its better to stay on this side of things. But I do plan to make an appearance for a special episode two Mondays from now.

[@tedrussell902]

@@BattleshipNewJersey well that will be a treat!

[@tedrussell902]

@@BattleshipNewJersey I shot you an email Libby.

[@sapiduscorvus]

I’m really impressed by your efforts during the pandemic. Great videos. I will be sure to come visit for real when things start to open up again!

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Thanks! We've had a lot of fun making nearly 60 hours of video this past year, and a hundred videos before that!

[@clif4403]

Yeah I really got hooked on the videos this past year when most things were shut down. I sent my donation to keep it going, and so I could see where Ryan would end up next. Most of the places I'd love to go explore, but there ain't no way I would've crawled through a gun barrel.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Thanks for your support! By the way, we intend to keep going after the pandemic ends, theres a rumor circulating that were stopping.

[@clif4403]

@@BattleshipNewJersey Good to hear!!

[@sapiduscorvus]

@@BattleshipNewJersey it’s a good thing you’ve got a battleship, and not a destroyer or a submarine!

[@acester86]

Perhaps the only benifit of starting the war with a dozen ships severely damaged was recovery and repair teams learned to work quickly and effectively on damaged ships, and they were able to apply those skills on active duty ships to return them to battle quickly.

[@dicebed]

I am really impressed by your devotion to this museum - you guys have had to deal with the fact that no one can visit the museum for a year - and you figured out a way to bring it to everyone and drum up interest in the museum - it's like the folks at the Bovington Tank Museum in the UK - without the pandemic, I would not have heard about you guys - and when I can travel, I'll definitely make a trip to see the New Jersey museum -

[@vrod665]

Ryan ... and crew, thanks for your devotion to making videos and the New Jersey. Keeping her alive in such detail for all to watch daily is awesome. As a retired sailor, I greatly appreciate it. BTW, loved the “I barely speak American.” Most of us that grew up in Maryland have to learn all over again.

[@kevobrien7346]

Grew up baltimore and got to say I barely speak english yet am ok speaking American w/ a Maryland accent of course. (pronounce Baltimore Bal"d"more, warsh not wash, yet don't say Zink instead of Sink..lol) thats why Im a horrible speller, b/c of that accent and of crap

[@rdallas81]

​@@kevobrien7346lol, awersome

[@richhagenchicago]

Love that you still have a Bridgeport Mill and a DoAll Surface Grinder there and are still using them to make parts. That is fantastic.

[@richhoule3462]

This was an outstanding video. Many questions answered. Thank you!!

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Psst, do you know we do live chats every night when we first premiere them? I know you watch many of them, you should join us!

[@richhoule3462]

@@BattleshipNewJersey I made a few comments

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Oops! But good, glad you were in there!

[@mcallahan9060]

This was a fantatsic presentation with tons of information that you just can't get anywhere else. Thank you so much for the work you do. Thumbs up!

[@Ccccccccccsssssssssss]

tremendous video! I’m a huge fan, and I really appreciate all the work you do. I would love to see a video in the same vein as this one that talks about the evolution of fire control from the pre-dreadnought to WW2 era. Thanks again you guys rock!

[@nathanokun8801]

The thickest plates on the YAMATO Class were not 24" (61cm), but 26" (66cm) VH armor plates; these being the turret face (port) plates sloped back 45 degree in their main gun turrets. These plates were the only ship-installed plates that, to my knowledge, no gun, except perhaps the ship's own 18.1" (46cm) Type 91 AP shells, could do more than make a hole -- no penetration into the turret by the shell itself -- and only the US 16"/50 with the Mark 8 AP shells could make that hole under two specific angle/impact velocity combinations (near the gun muzzle from the side at 45 degrees and hitting at almost exactly right-angles with an angle of fall of 45 degrees at extremely long range; fat chance of either of these cases ever happening!). The Mark 8 impact tests at right-angles (zero obliquity) were done at the US Naval Proving Ground, Dahlgren, Virginia, a year or so after WWII ended, on a 26" plate from the never-used SHINANO turret and neither shell had any damage (other than no more AP cap or windscreen, of course), one shell making a hole but not going through the plate while the next shell, at a slightly higher impact velocity, went right through. This test was one of those that allowed me to very closely calibrate the basic metallurgical resistance of this armor, using the most widely-used form of US WWII Class "A" armor (circa-1937-44) as the standard for all of my test evaluations.

[@melgross]

True. But if the hull was damaged too much, then the turret armor didn’t matter much. And as we know, Japanese crews had poor training against major ship damage.

[@barrygoldstein5252]

¡M

[@robertkelley3437]

The shells fired at the Shinano's armor plates were adjusted to reflect a shell velocity at a 10,000 yard range. As I remember the Shell that penetrated the armor is still at the bottom of the Potomac River, it was never located.

[@DrVictorVasconcelos]

You're right that they "were" 26 inches, but they were 65cm, not 66cm. 1 in is technically 2.54 cm (which would make out to 66 cm and change) but in industry it's widely used as 2.5 cm (which makes out to exactly 65 cm). This leads to so much confusion that decades ago Congress passed a law that made US industry actually go metric (or metric-converted imperial).

[@manilajohn0182]

@@DrVictorVasconcelos They actually were 660mm- according to "Japanese Capital Ships of the Pacific War: The Yamato Class and Subsequent planning".

[@anselmdanker9519]

Thank you , this is a very insightful discussion on the design compromises when building a battle ship.Keep up the great work

[@safetymikeengland]

Its one things to understand a concept - its a whole different thing to be able to explain it. Good work, sir.

[@safetymikeengland]

Ryan does SUCH a great job - I watched a different KZbin person yesterday and couldnt stand it. Nothing wrong with that guys presentation - its just that Ryan is so good.

[@stevecarswell6329]

I really wish I lived closer to the coast so I could come and visit all the museum ships. Someday I need to make a road trip out of it and try to see them all. Great video as always and keep it up!

[@Woody2Shoe]

Its worth the weekend trip. Take a bus or train here, and boom. History relived.

[@flipppy83]

Really like the vintage feel of the new intro to the videos

[@þþþþþþþþþ]

You guys really found some great pictures this time!

[@nathanokun8801]

Armor is designed to prevent major damage, as much as that is possible, from the most widely-used weapons that the warship is expected to be fighting under the most likely, from the point of view of the Navy creating the specs, wartime conditions. Sometimes these are correct and sometimes they are totally wrong -- the world is a complicated place! During the period leading up to WWI, most AP shells had non-delay base fuzes -- well away from the impact zone near the nose of the shell -- that exploded as fast as the firing pin could hit the sensitive detonator pellet by impact inertia, the flame move through the fuze body to some sort of booster (to enhance the explosion of the small detonator pellet) and from the booster blast into the main explosive charge to blow up the projectile. This would take about 0.003-second, on the average, to occur. In "high" explosives, the ones that detonate, this time frame was the same under all conditions; the only problem was that some of the less sensitive high explosives (TNT and US Navy Explosive "D", as the major examples here) were made to be insensitive enough to not detonate from just the shell impact alone (German WWI TNT was in pre-shaped stackable blocks with felt coverings for each block and a thick wooden cushion at the cavity tip to prevent premature explosions in intact shells that get through the armor; Explosive "D" did not need any sort of cushion whatsoever when installed properly) and it turned out that the small AP-shell fuze-end boosters used in WWI were not powerful enough to reliably set off many of those more insensitive explosives properly, giving lots of duds or low-power explosions or even just burning shells with flames coming out of the base. This was only solved circa 1928 by the introduction of Tetryl explosive in some Navies' AP shells, allowing delay-action fuzes to become reliable, too. After WWI, delay-action fuzes became the rule, with tiny black-powder short-delay pellets in-between two detonators, the first, the "primer", being set off by the firing pin and the second, larger detonator being set off by the burning black powder when it's flame reached its inner tip, allowing the shell to move into the target some distance before the shell exploded. Interestingly, even black-powder-filled shells were set off that fast when hitting thick armor, and were still used for some targets (in some secondary guns of US WWI-era battleships and even in some of the main gun ammunition). For example, the British Common, Pointed, Capped (CPC) shells of WWI for use in their biggest guns against smaller, less-armored ships; these had a front end exactly like a thick, hardened AP shell, with a heavy AP cap and small windscreen, but were very thin-cased from there down to the base and were much longer than an AP shell, being filled with about 10% by weight of compressed black powder, to keep the same weight and, hopefully, not too different a trajectory as the thicker-steel AP shells of the same guns. Usually, when hitting thin face-hardened or homogeneous plates, up to 0ne-third of the projectile diameter in thickness at up to 20 degrees obliquity from right angles or so, they could penetrate the armor intact and due to the slow burning of black powder, would move from 20-40' into the target before the slow-burning black powder blew up the shell into a rather small number of medium-to-large, rather slow-moving fragments moving forward like a shotgun blast through the enemy ship. No booster was needed here. However, against thick, face-hardened armor, these shells underwent a near-perfect detonation like the AP shell high-explosives did (British Lyddite being the comparison here), giving about the same blast power in the same 0.003 second after nose impact. What was happening was that in the under-20-degrees impact region, the nose acted exactly like an AP shell and could punch through even thick plate, but if the shell did not make a hole and begin to pass through it, the shell body would collapse like an accordion and the black powder would be set off on compression as the projectile destroyed itself, with a low-order explosion and lots of flaming black powder thrown around. This was much like what happened to a British Lyddite-filled shell that did not penetrate. If the CPC shell DID begin to completely penetrate, then the destruction of the shell body slowed down considerably and it could remain intact long enough to get imbedded in the plate with its front end extending behind the plate and its base still in front of the plate, after which it would break apart. However, if it got to the imbedded halfway point, the extreme deceleration of the shell by the hard-faced armor would throw the black powder forward toward the nose and compress it considerably. Since black powder is a mixture of three ground-up separate materials (potassium nitrate, sulfur, and charcoal), it has a lot of empty space between the flour-like grains so it can compress to about half of its length in the cavity as the shell moves forward through the plate. What happens is that the entire volume of black powder is suddenly compressed like it was hit by a hammer into the front end of the shell cavity and it all explodes everywhere inside simultaneously. It may be only about one-third as powerful as Lyddite, but there is about three times the weight of Lyddite in a CPC shell, so the total blast power and the short time make the two types of shell act very much alike. In tests, both shell types, when they exploded as a detonation (Lyddite) or pseudo-detonation (black powder) inside a thick armor plate, could break the plate in half, which is kind of amazing for black powder, is it not? When delay-action fuzes became the norm, stopping the enemy shell from getting deep into the ship or, failing that, destroying the shell's ability to explode properly became the reason for the armor. The inclined top-over-bottom armor scheme used in HOOD, SOUTH DAKOTA Class, IOWA Class, YAMATO Class, RICHELIEU Class, VITTORIO VENETO Class, and NELSON Class was there to do both. Tilting the belt plate that way made a downward-falling shell hit the plate at an angle and this makes the armor act like it was somewhat thicker than if it was hit square-on. It also has the effect that the shell is violently twisted by the asymmetric forces so that it tends to exit the plate back, if this angle is over about 15 degrees or so and the shell succeeds in penetrating, turned toward the right-angles direction in this extremely short distance in the plate. This puts a major stress on the projectile, especially its lower body and base as it swings around like a baseball bat pivoting on the shell nose and slams against the armor, especially the hard, rigid face surrounding the hole. This can deform and even break the projectile in half or snap off the base plug and fuze, rendering the shell either a dud or perhaps with a low explosion right there, nullifying the fuze delay. In the BISMARCK, they went in the opposite direction, with the tilted-back high-angle slope BEHIND the belt to cause any shell that penetrates the belt in one piece to glance upward into the two-deck region above the waterline main armor deck and explode there, causing more internal hull damage, but none in the important "vitals" under the armored deck. That is not so efficient as the top-over-bottom method, but it works too, as long as flooding from torpedo hits is not also present. Most of the thick deck armor in the WWII battleships was to stop aircraft AP bombs, but would also make it hard to penetrate with AP shells coming from the side at a shallow angle of fall, requiring deck hits from shells to be at extreme ranges where hits chance was much less, so the thick decks were a kind of "judo" against the fire-control systems of enemy ships, making them have to try to get into the inner area where side penetration was possible and the only way to get into the enemy ship, which gives the target ship a much better chance to even the odds against an enemy, since a smaller gun shell that can punch a hole in your side armor at closer ranges is just about as deadly as a bigger gun shell that your ship might have. The odds become more even at close range since a lucky hit by either side can end a battle, as HOOD demonstrated rather violently!

[@nathanokun8801]

Krupp's post-WWI equivalent to both STS and Class "B" armors was Wotan Härte ("Odin Hardened", pronounced WHOATAN HAHRTEH), replacing its prior full-strength WWI homogeneous, ductile armor -- usually called "Krupp Soft" or, after the first test plate of it in1894, in Germany "Quality 420" steel, made of the same steel used in its KC armor, but with no face layer -- as with the British, this kind of armor in any significant thickness was not used very much in WWI-era ships, just on turret roofs and similar flat or curved surfaces of rather small size, not on large "protective" (lightly armored by WWII standards) decks. Wh was a special separate alloy from KC from the mid-1920s to the end of WWII, just like in the US. German heavy cruisers of the HIPPER Class used Wh armor throughout. It was also used in some of the armor in prior cruiser-sized ships, though the homogeneous form of KC-type steel was also used in some of these too. NOTE: There was also a Ww (Wotan Weich (WHOATAN WHYK) or "Odin Soft") used in various grades in thin plates for fragmentation protection and anti-torpedo bulkheads after WWI. And a Wsh (Wotan Starrheit (WHOATAN STARHEIGHT) or "Odin Extra-Hard") for very thin plates against fragments or machinegun bullets, much like British WWII "Homogeneous Hard" aircraft armor to protect crewmen.

[@KainWT]

Wotan Härte (Voh-tahn Hehr-tuh)

[@safetymikeengland]

40 years ago, i was somewhat knowligable on armor warfare - I was an armor officer - its fascinating to hear you discuss similiar concepts.

[@edcollins6776]

you do really well with technical videos like this. Great job!

[@jeremycox2983]

I love your videos. I have a suggestion for you. You guys should talk about the safety innovations that have come out of the battle of Jutland.

[@nathanokun8801]

Interesting talk! This is a huge topic!!!

[@alexandrec9372]

Muito bom, sempre tive curiosidade de saber sobre a blindagem dos couraçados. Obrigado por compartilhar! Congrats From Brazil 🇧🇷! Already subscribed to your Channel!

[@beefgoat80]

I keep going back to these older videos, hoping it’s one I haven’t watched yet, but sure enough, I already hit the like button. Maybe I should start watching normal TV? Nah

[@jaybee9269]

Very nice as always! Thanks, Ryan...love and appreciate your knowledge.

[@MrDakotakid]

I remember as a kid, building a model of the USS Iowa back in the 60’s. Loved the lines of Iowa class ships ever since. Toured the Missouri in the early eighties in Bremerton. And the Alabama in Mobile. Impressive. But not like the Iowa’s. As a pilot I always enjoy base leg flying into Philly, looking down and seeing the New Jersey sitting down there. Some day I will get over to tour her. She is in good hands having someone as devoted to her as you are Ryan. Enjoy your video’s. Keep em coming!

Thank you for this Video.

[@davidbridges3292]

Thanks Ryan for your explanations regarding how to armor a ship and some of the science behind it. I was especially intrigued by your comments at around 36 minutes or so in. Regarding the concepts of layering the armor. Sometimes with spacing in between. This reminded me of battle tanks which started employing spaced armor during WW2. I hope this subject is expounded upon in greater detail perhaps at a later date. Its an intriguing subject to ponder on. And, Thanks again. : )

[@haljames624]

Thank you.

[@davidconger4541]

Bryan you are very informative. Great job keep up the good work

[@davidconger4541]

Ryan sorry, you got to love auto correct

[@riverbluevert7814]

Excellent video.

[@vikkimcdonough6153]

26:21 - IIRC, most of a supercarrier's armor is actually on the flight deck, where it does serve a useful purpose (it helps keep flight-deck accidents from endangering the ship itself).

[@mr.iforgot3062]

Hey Ryan! What happens if your in the middle of the ship somewhere and you have to deficate? Poop? Is their a toilet on the ship? Or do you have to hurry off the ship to poop?

[@RamSkirata]

Hello Mr. Szimanski, Could you do a discussion video with Drachinifel on your respective thoughts on what caused the loss of Hood the way she did sink? I know both of you are aware of each other and I like to imagine, that both of you would enjoy such a colaboration. Kind regards

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Check this out kzbin.info/www/bejne/bmS6hGhqj7Z4eMk

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

Ducol was a very high strength homogenous manganese steel, it seems to be most similar to modern high strength steels. It was used extensively as a structural steel in their post-WW1 capital ships. Like STS it was used for light armour in many places. For their belt they used a type of KCA but messed with the chemical composition to make it incredibly strong and tough. It should also be noted that crushing tubes were only used in British torpedo bulges, not integrated side protection systems as on the ships built after WW1.

[@joeottsoulbikes415]

Thank you. This was really interesting and enlightening.

[@aassddaaasssddd5048]

you are an amazing explainer

[@adamcortright8838]

Thanks, fascinating watch!

[@AdamSmith-kq6ys]

@17:30 "If there's a bigger gun out there, why wouldn't you use it?" _KGV_ class: Am I a joke to you? (I know, I know, Treaty limitations, etc, just having fun sassing people)

[@R-2500]

That joke will never go out of style, but where she didn’t have better armament she had better armor thanks to increased thickness and higher grade armor plating, but everyone seems to forget about that

[@simonpitt8145]

@@R-2500 And yet the Japanese sank one of them ( Prince of Wales ) with effectively one torpedo hit. Others may have struck afterwards but these were actually unnecessary, as the first one was enough to seal the ship's fate. Ironically these later hits probably slowed the sinking down by creating counterflooding as they hit the opposite side to the fatal hit. What's more, this torpedo was WW1 vintage rather than one of the Japanese "long lance" super-duper jobs used by their cruisers and destroyers. Everyone seems to either forget about all of this or conveniently chooses to turn a blind eye to it. All in all, not very impressive for a modern generation ship to go down that easily - and i'm speaking as an Englishman!!

[@DontAttme]

@@simonpitt8145 torpedoes are way more deadly than any shell though, the only better tool at the time was in an infancy stage (German glider bombs, these were the first effective anti ship missiles).

[@ddoubleg]

@@simonpitt8145one torpedo? There was 80 planes involved and over 100 bombs and torpedos dropped

[@ДжонПартлов]

@-11:47... Ryan, you said "maths"... I knew you were a secret brit! Lol

[@ant4812]

Ducol sounds like "DEW-kol", Wotan sounds like "VOE-tahn". Hope that helps. I might have it wrong but I think Ducol is essentially the same as the USN's STS, or class B (homogenous) armour, depending on how thick the plate is. Wotan came in different grades, I know of "soft" & "hard". I don't know much about those. They might be chemically different but I suspect the difference has also to do with one going through the cementing / face hardening process, and the other not.

[@blablabla-qs5io]

I think it is closer to WOH-tahn then VOE-tan (take it from a Dutchman)

[@russellgough7801]

@@blablabla-qs5io German W sounds like a V as ant4812 said :-)

[@deth3021]

@@russellgough7801 for an English speaker to pronounce it like a German would. Voe-tahn is the best I think.

[@roberth5435]

For the next video: The fleet was *composed* of .... Use "comprised" exactly as you would included. Thanks for your excellent work.

[@SimonE-et2xg]

An excellently researched and produced video. Thanks so much Ryan & Libby. Do you have any idea about the total weight of all of the armour used on the ship?

[@ColdFireW]

I can’t get over how cool the USS NJ is.

[@Vile-Flesh]

Same. It seems like they literally planned for absolutely everything when she was being designed and built. The Iowa class seems to have been designed to fight to the very end even with their tops blown off and several spaces lost to flooding. I continue to be amazed with every episode Ryan gives us when he shares more of New Jersey's attributes.

[@Joe-ym6bw]

It's amazing how these ships can float with all that thick steel armor

[@rdfox76]

That's one thing that Showboat definitely has over any other museum battleship... since the North Carolina class used an external belt, it's very easy to see the thickness of her belt armor. Just look down the side as you're boarding! For those curious, the belt armor on the South Dakotas and Iowas was extended to the bottom of the ship to protect against shells that hit short of the ship and might penetrate the hull *below* the belt armor on a conventional design. That's also what the lower internal belt on the Montana class was intended to protect against, after the problems with the SD/Iowa arrangement were found in a live torpedo test against a caisson (simulated hull section). Such hits were extremely unlikely, but potentially devastating--Drachinifel and several other historians now believe that Hood's loss was due to just such a lucky hit by Bismarck.

[@bluemarlin8138]

It could have been a problem against large torpedo impacts, but against underwater shell impacts, the lower belt probably would have functioned as designed. A shell doesn’t contain nearly as much explosive filler as a torpedo warhead, so a system designed to defeat torpedo detonations will easily defeat a shell detonation. Unless the shell penetrates the lower belt, that is, but after passing through water, it’s extremely unlikely that it would. If I’m not mistaken, the Navy also made some fixes to the SoDak and Iowas’ TDS after those tests that partially remedied the problem. The Yamato class’s TDS, while similar, had a much more vulnerable connection of the lower belt to the ship’s bottom. This wasn’t bad enough to be exploited by air-dropped torps-which is why it took so many-but the Yamato class proved very vulnerable to the larger torps carried by subs.

[@rdfox76]

@@bluemarlin8138 Correct, but it was felt that the odds of an underwater torpedo hit were much higher than those of an underwater shell hit, so the system was redesigned again for the Montana class, reverting to an external main belt with a small strake of internal underwater belt that did *not* extend all the way to the bottom, but instead about halfway to it (bottom of the magazine/machinery spaces).

[@bluemarlin8138]

@@rdfox76 The Montana’s lower belt would have extended all the way down-although it’s hard to tell on some diagrams-but the fact that it was further inboard and not attached to the main belt made it much less likely that it would be a source of TDS failure.

[@philperry4699]

@@bluemarlin8138 According to Drach, a 15 inch shell skipped off the water and into the bow wave trough near the X turret. Unlike a torpedo, which explodes against the outer plates, an AP shell penetrates deep into the ship before exploding, especially if it doesn't encounter any real armor on the way (it entered below the waterline). Unfortunately for the _Hood_, this one exploded at or very near the bulkhead of the 4 inch magazine, setting it on fire (and the rest is history).

[@Notthecobracommander]

Best armour 1.Yamato 2. King george v 3. Iowa Thanks for the video lots of useful information.

[@ddoubleg]

No that’s not true, Yamato had the thickest but not best. 1. Vangaurd 2. KGV 3. Yamato 4. Richelieu 5. Iowa

[@michaelbridges1370]

And. You know more about these ships than any one I ever. Seen

[@olivialambert4124]

Mathematically, with the armour plate there's a very simple way to view the angling. If you look at the thickness of the plate vs horizontal shots, lets use 60 degrees purely because the numbers work out. A 10 inch plate would be 20 inches horizontal. That will always have the weight of a 20 inch vertical plate, and the same is true for any angle we pick, it will always weigh as much as a vertical plate of equal horizontal thickness. The reality gets a little more complex with failures as the armour gets too thin (sloped gets worse) or projectiles taking a curved path (sloped gets better), but that's really only important if you're designing the armour or calculating reference cards with the various penetration ranges.

[@rdallas81]

Facts! Which is why the frontal armor of the t34 tank was so effective

[@olivialambert4124]

@@rdallas81 Plus the projectiles of the era were particularly bad against angled plates. Then those designed to improve upon that were still particularly bad. Whilst the T-34 had about the perfect thickness for angled armour to start becoming more effective. So it was all a perfect storm coming together to make the T-34 armour fantastic, whilst everyone else went into the war assuming tanks would have thin armour so their tests were stuck suggesting angling wouldn't help.

[@rdallas81]

@@olivialambert4124 wonderful analysis Olivia! The Germans figured put rather quickly just how effective armor angles vs thickness can be! Even with tigers flat armor being thick, and panthers thick angled armor, side shots from even short barreled guns was deadly. Whats your favorite ww2 tank? I believe had the Germans made more simpler tanks or tank hunters like the Stug (they could make 3 or 4 Stugs to 1 Tiger 🐅 ) (Meow! Lol) they could have had more success on the field but probably nothing worthy enough to stall the impending defeat by the Red army.

[@mr.iforgot3062]

How many toilets are on the ship? And do they work?

[@glocke380]

The #1 thing that impressed me about Iowa's armor was the pilot house doors.

[@stephenkester8791]

Ryan it might be interesting to have a listing of food stores that were carried on board. Some of the typical meals. In 1968 I was a crewmenber of E division on USS Hancock, CVA 19. On the carrier we always chowed well. With a crew of over 3000, not including the air wing, with over 9000 meals a day, meant a lot of food, food storage, reefer spaces, dry storage. Even to the point we would have bodies stored in the freezers. Another point of interest would be the evapsfor making FW. The amount of FW consumed an manufactured on board. The water an oil kings would be of interest.

[@MrJeep75]

Love the information

[@Splattle101]

Great content, as usual. Thank you! Re the Arizona being defeated by 16.1" shells, it's worth considering those shells were effectively plunging fire. I suspect they might've gone through the decks of the Arizona even if they were 'only' 14" shell / bombs.

[@bluemarlin8138]

They were also plunging at a much steeper angle than they would have been if fired from a gun, so they were more likely to penetrate IF they were striking at a similar velocity. I know an air-dropped bomb would hit at a lower velocity than a shell at muzzle velocity, but not sure how long-range shell velocity would compare to terminal velocity from an air-dropped shell/bomb.

[@Splattle101]

@@bluemarlin8138 I think the RN did some calculations along those lines in relation to their armored carriers. They were designed to stop a bomb of some max weight dropped from a certain height.

[@therasco400]

One of the more interesting things about ship armor is that it pretty much follows personal armor in development. To begin with you had the best you could do Gambesons which I would argue is the same with wooden ships, basically add more of what the thing is made out of. Wood for ships, cloth from clothes. Next you see fully armored knights comparison would be iron clads. Then you see Cuirass when muskets are deployed where it needed to be strong enough to protect the vitals but to heavy to have everywhere. After that you have camouflage to basically not get shot at. Then you have Kevlar, I would argue ships have not had that super material that would allow them to become armored again. Instead I see active defense as far more important.

[@theromanorder]

3:34 ancient ships (light wood ships for speed qnd strikes Sails alow for thick wood (early 1500) frams pushed closer together so no room for projects but weak against exaploaives 5:26 iron armor (wood on inside good for preventing exsplosive when iron fails 6:42 old vs new iron sides (old is some iron with wood behind, new is mostly iron, mostly by guns 7:35 steel armor 8:17 different types of steel armor 11:00 class a (thin but strongest, for cramped) class b (less then) 11:23 placing of armor (armoring by the guns and ligher armor by the ends against secondary guns And decks are mostly still wood 13:00 all or nothing (continues last but you only armor main bits, this hope of attacks go through one side to the other no exsplode) 14:19 armored citadel (the armor placing) Non important parts go outside armored area 18:09 immunity zone (ashume everyone uses biggest gun like yours and armor against that, but this says that sometimes you cannot protect against it. Rule.of thum, 1 inch shell penettates 1 inch aromor 20:45 belt aromor (your side armor,) talks about the penitating power at angles and ranges, (angle to get more protection but dont go too much to make it too big 23:05 armored barbette (mentions armor on turrets and a few other places not important 26:23 torpedo defense( 5 layere each with steel then a void, some liquid void and others air voids to alow distribution of force) The amount of layers you can aid are usaly more important then what you put in them but some are thin ships no no room for more layers like at the front its thin for more speed. 28:52 crushing tube system(a hallow cylander in the liquid void to take some of the force and not the outer walls) But the usual just redirect it away form the cylander, also you have to go in and replace the cylander and the layers, The first one just fix the layers. 32:23 places on the deck where you need thick armor or layed armor for decks 33:27 splinter deck 35:19 laminating multiple layers together (dont aid new layer on old, its better to have thin layer then gap then thicker layer, doing it like this can bring more effective thickness Dont have internal armor belt as it just caves in (curves into the ship) also your torpedo defense need to be able to keep up with the bottom of the belt armor 41:00 turtle deck (semi circle good for direct fire but plunging fire just strikes the weaker top 42:40 armor against missles, They stop armoring as its just armor needing more speed needed bigger needed more armor, so they have cheap light armor and later start using active anti missle systems like tanks (exsplosive armor destroyes the projectile, Mashine guns or missles intercept enemy fire

[@adrianking8752]

Imagine a new, modern battleship protected with a Chobham-type armor system that's equipped with state-of-the art-rail guns, phalanx and latest gen ship-to-air missiles and a healthy compliment of ship-to-ship/shore missiles, drones and torpedoes, whilst still returning a good rate of knots and range, such a ship would be quite something!

[@manga12]

fun fact for you when they were doing repairs on old ironsides, the saw work was done by a Mr Tom Stephans of arcanium ohio, as his saw mill was one of the few with the extra carrages for logs of oak that size, and its said the great oaks used came from Crain Naval station in indiana and said to be grown there for that express purpose at least that is what Steve from the Railroad historical society told me when as a forrester for the state of indiana and got to tour the base down there and wooded area, at least that was the theory, that and the 16 inch battleship shells were being stored there at the time though I heard that they were talking about desposing of them a year or two ago.

[@jessicawells5145]

To this day the Texas still has a lare,of wood behind its original armor plate.

[@Balmung60]

I disagree a little with the classic triad approach, as there are at least two more points - price and size. America was able to score very high on all three base aspects by spending more on R&D than other countries, and as such, you have ships like South Dakota that do far more in 35,000 tons than other navies did in much more. And by simply building bigger, you can essentially achieve all the classic aspects through raw bulk. This is, of course, the Yamato approach.

[@Bird_Dog00]

Up to a point, yes. However, I'd call it a game of diminishing returns. While with ship hulls, the square-cube-law is in general on your side, you will still need more and more power to get the thing moving. Also, you can't just keep making the thing larger and larger because you will also have to make your dry docks larger and larger. And those things will cost a lot of money. Some nations simply didn't have the real estate in their harbours to keep expanding the docks. Add to this engineering problems like the way a ever larger hull moves and warps in the waves, and you will want to keep your ships as compact as you can make them.

[@brucermarino]

Generally agreed. To this you could add the things like range, damage recovery, compatibility with national resources, and much more. Thanks for a great comment!

[@trailhog86]

How would a damaged section of iowa class belt be replaced/repaired? Is it designed to come out in sections after upper deck is cut away or does the damaged 12 inch belt need to be cut out?

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

There isn't really a lot of precedent here, the Iowas never damaged their belt armor. And it would really depend on the extent of the damage. But it isnt easily split into sections to replace it.

[@jth877]

There is a picture of the belt sections stacked at the ship yard. I can't recall where that pic is hosted though. They are fastened to the sts steel with basically large bolts. Replacing the plate once in there i think would be the easy part. Getting to it sucks. I assume you could get to it from the side, but as constructed they were lowered into place from the top. Another question is how long would it take to get a specific armor section made to replace a damaged piece? If you did have one sitting around from an incomplete ship of the same class, it could be months to make one and transport it.

[@trailhog86]

@@jth877 Thank you. In a few old pics of South Dakotas and Iowas i thought it looked liked the angled belt was sectioned but wasnt sure how it was fastened and if it was reversable for repairs. I would hope they had some inkling how a repair would go and wouldnt have to torch 12 inch plate to replace it.

[@JevansUK]

@@jth877 I have a feeling you have to go up and out otherwise the framing is in the way. I would have thought you might have a few spare plates ordered with the ship to be available if a ship is damaged

[@JevansUK]

Isn't it generally made up of sections rather than being a single continuous slab, I was under the impression that the plates were about 30' x 10'.

[@jimfleming3975]

Best armored battleship? Why, USS Nevada, of course. At Pearl Harbor, she was hit by several bombs & beached ( the ultimate damage control maneuver). After the war Nevada survived 2 atomic blasts, the "new & improved" scuttling charge & point blank gunnery practice from USS Iowa. Still she floated until put down by an aerial torpedo.

[@EXO9X8]

I miss the longer videos

[@mariusfrost640]

It's worth noting that heat treating alone (heat and quench) doesn't increase the carbon content of the steel unless it's quenched in oil, it only changes the crystal structure. Nitriding and carburizing do add carbon.

[@michaelbridges1370]

Ryan. You are cool about. Doing. All these videos. Went you aren't. Getting. Paid for your. Work. Many thanks

[@GeneralKenobiSIYE]

You didn't mention how the US got a hold of a 24 inch turret face plate off a Yamato class that wasn't built, the Shinano I think, and using the 16/50 at a simulated range punched straight through the face plate and the shell kept right on going and was lost somewhere beyond the test site into a river bed and was never recovered, so the Japanese steel was far weaker than the thickness would imply on paper. the Japanese iron was far less pure as they used iron sands rather than ore.

[@T3hderk87]

Smells like seven layers, that battleship eats taco bell!

[@NorceCodine]

Bismarck's side-armor belt that ran almost the entire length of the hull was 30 cm thick (!) Given the size of Bismarck, especially its beam of 36 m, and still how deep it sat in the water (which made its big guns so precise and the ship fast), it had to be way over 60-thousand tons.

[@niclasjohansson4333]

Bismarks armour belt was 32cm thick, and about 171 meters long, the standard decplacement was 41700 tons, and just over 50k "full load"!

[@Lord_Ronin_The_Compassionate]

Ryan, when saying any name that belongs to Britain, such as Dorsetshire, the correct way to pronounce it is Dorset-sher (less emphasis on the shire bit as we’re not in Hobbiton). Hope that helps because your videos have been a marvellous distraction during pandemic times, although I am more than impressed that you don’t seem to use notes/teleprompter and your recall of all that in-depth knowledges frankly amazing! How long did it take you to learn all that, and memorise your way around “New Jersey” so well?

[@georgedistel1203]

On the tour , just exactly how far up in the superstructure do you allow visitors to go. Im not really big on cookie cutter tours but when I went on the Wisconsin in May of 2011 you were only allowed on the main deck and up to the first level of superstructure. Outside of course.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Our tour goes as high as the 05 level and down to the bottom of the engine room on 7th deck.

[@vincentlavallee2779]

This video was absolutely great! I had also recently watched the one about the steel that went into the armor, so putting these two together is like finishing a book! As for a current modern day missile hitting the Iowa's, I had previously looked into the Russian P700 (7,000 Kg) missile, and how much energy it delivered as compared to a WW II battleship. Without knowing the actual weight when it impacted, since part of its weight is the fuel within it, I can only estimate the energy value when colliding with the ship after a hundred or so traveling miles. Also, this particular Russian missile may be hitting the ship from a vertical position, changing the impact of the hit completely. So, in conclusion, one P700 would be equal to around 500M ft. lbs., which is about 1.8 more than the muzzle energy (energy at launch of projectile from the gun) of the Iowa 2,700 lb. AP round. So, if hit on the side, the Iowa class ship should be able to take it, but it would cause damage. Also, keep in mind that most of the other anti ship missiles of today are not that huge like the Russian P700, although I do not have any actual ballistics info on any of them.

[@rtqii]

The Mark 14 torpedo was the bane of the US Navy until they got all the numerous problems sorted out. It took two full years after the start of the war before the US Navy was fielding an adequate torpedo, with facilities able to produce them in any significant number. Once they got them though... Musashi was hit by an estimated 19 US torpedos, all of which functioned perfectly... Combined with 17 bomb hits on the superstructure, gun turrets, and deck... There is a great deal of debate about the number of torpedo detonations that Yamato absorbed during her sinking: Yahagi took 12 bombs and 7 torpedos before sinking; Yamato took significantly more damage before rolling over and detonating.

[@111zac6]

If I remember correctly it took 4 weeks and demo charges to sink USS America. So the Iowa’s could probably take a lot.

[@alexdunphy3716]

Use enough explosives and it'll take a few minutes

[@Bird_Dog00]

@@alexdunphy3716 Remember to only use them on one side of the warship you're trying to sink ;)

[@onlythewise1]

@@alexdunphy3716 sure like ten million bombs

[@tomwood8663]

@@onlythewise1 9

[@aaronkuminski3743]

NUKE

[@michaelbridges1370]

How thick of armor does it take to. Stop. A. 16 inch shells

[@maximilliancunningham6091]

I;d like to see a series, on what you would do, TODAY, if the DOJ showed up with a cheque for $1.2 Billion, and asked you to design/build a Battleship, now.

[@judybassett9390]

Does the New Jersey use any HY80 steel?

[@mikehenthorn1778]

With all this talk about armored belts rejecting shells I'm surprised you didn't mention the South Dakota and USS Washington having their little dust up in iron bottom sound with the Japanese battleship armed with 14 inch guns. I've looked over the after action report and damage assessment and it's amazing both what the shells did and what they didn't do

[@johnbrowning1232]

Would the NJ been able to Take the torpedo damage like the USS North Carolina (BB55) did and survive. Based on the comments you made about the torpedo defense towards the bow

[@cliffcampbell8827]

I wonder if a ship's torpedo defence area that was left empty, would the ship benefit from having those areas filled with pressurized air or maybe the opposite, have those areas as a vacuum? Would the explosion be pushed back from the high pressure air suddenly being released at the point of ruptured armor or would the vacuum chambers pull the explosion further into the chamber, away from the ship's more critical internal structure and components? Another thought I've had is what about jet drives? Speed boats and personal watercraft use jet drives for propulsion but a navel ship could have each room connected with a tube ending with a jet drive. After a hole is punched below the waterline and the ship is flooding, the jet drive could be turned on to pull the water flowing in through the damaged area and forced out the back adding to forward momentum. My final couple of thoughts on this subject, if a ship had rolls of metal bar reinforced rubber sheets on the sides, above the waterline, a torpedo blows a big hole in the side, damage control rolls down the appropriate rubber sheet (just above the hole) and the inflow of water would pull the rubber to the hull and keep it there, greatly slowing the flooding so internal repairs could happen without the teams being in waist deep (or deeper) sea water...but what about preventing the torpedo from detonating on the hull to begin with? Have 1" thick metal plates suspended above and away from the hull. The top of these plates would be attacked to wood or metal bars via a hinge at both ends of the bar and a cable at the top providing the suspension of the plate (to reduce drag when not needed). During combat, the plates could all be lowered into the water and the metal bars would keep these plates away from the hull so when a torpedo explodes, the energy is transfered to the water between the plate and the hull (which might get a little bent but not punctured). Honestly, I don't know why I thought about all this stuff but capitol ship defensive protocols, tactics and armor (and damage control) are aspects of ship survivability I tend to think about a lot (submarine design of capacity, capability, stealth, efficiency, speed and protection too).

[@rp1645]

Thank you for this History on Armor Deck Defense on impact from Hits. If a small PT boat say SHOT a Torpedo at say the Rudder or propellers, would that not take out a capital Ship Then massive Iron then could be Hit from Large Deck guns. A Capital ship then just going in circles or Dead in the water. Maybe you could do a video on how these Large great vessels defended themselves from a hit to propulsion system, so a vessel would not just be a floating target then. Just asking your expect opinion on protection of what makes the vessel go through water, Thank you.

[@66WDB]

Great video- I’ve seen USS North Carolina many times, USS Alabama a couple of times, and Big Wisky and Mighty Mo, must get to USS New Jersey. In my opinion, the KJV class probably had the best armor scheme-certainly for its size.

[@vikkimcdonough6153]

17:46 - "...so you're not gonna try and build something that's smaller than what everyone else has." What if you've got a gun that's smaller than the other guy's, but is more powerful or has a longer range or both?

[@DrMacintosh]

What exactly is the appeal of the Imagine Key? $449 is more expensive than the cost of 2 tickets to either park. You get a small discount on food/dining, still have to pay for Genie+, and if you live close enough, you don't need to drive to the park like I do. Am I missing something or is it still better to just buy one day tickets if you're super local and only go a few times a year?

[@chadr2604]

What about a thin layer of very hard ceramic, a gap, a thin layer of very flexible material, an air gap, a thick layer of brittle steel with silicon carbide fiber reinforcing it, a gap, then a thin layer of soft metal with a hard backing plate and glass fiber for spalling

[@TheBigExclusive]

What are your thoughts regarding building ships out of Titanium? Since Titanium is 45% lighter than steel, but is just as strong,

[@MapleMan1984]

Expensive

[@rdallas81]

The Russians built titanium submarines with tens of thousands of tons weight displacements. Many of them.

[@thunderK5]

The word I heard used for the Krupp family of armors used in WWII was 'Wotan', after a figure in Germanic mythology featured in Richard Wagner's operas. I am not certain this is correct, though.

[@rdallas81]

Sounds accurate

[@angusalba]

Does the US retain the ability to make such armor plate as found on the citadel or for example the facilities to reline barrels Seems to me those are rather specialized facilities to be able to make the slabs of armor and temper them on this sort of scale

[@jerodrobinson4040]

A major Lesson in Alloy Composition in these Time's was how Cold Water effected a Ships Armor. It would become very Brittle in Colder Eater's..

[@kovi567]

5:30 Forgot the copper and the bronze plates.

[@awesomefan86]

The Krupp type armour "Wotan" sounds in german like wooTaan. Stretch the o an a and it is perfect

[@danmathers141]

When you talk about armor being brittle, it sounds like using fine china to defend a ship. Can you explain?

[@nycat7906]

About how much would it cost to build a modern battleship?

[@chrisjohnson4666]

The problem with cruise missiles are two fold one the speed is subsonic in most antiship missiles especially in the 80s the the other factor is the warhead basically being thin skinned HE no cap at all hence no armor penetration... I think the best analog for a BB vs cruise missile would be kamikaze hits the MO took one that dented the side (not armor) and basically was a paint over it deal... there could be a mission kill i.e swarms of missiles taking out topside stuff but anything thin the armored con or turrets probably OK... the newer supersonic missiles have the speed but lack mass and again no cap so thats a big question...

[@alexdunphy3716]

Even with supersonic missiles the results aren't great. The armor penetrating warhead needs to still be massive(like a BB shell). Battleship shells in WW2 generally had velocities of over mach 2.5. so a super sonic ASM with an equivalent AP warhead must travel that fast as well

[@chrisjohnson4666]

@@alexdunphy3716 yeah thats why the 2700pd super heavy shell was almost as good armor penetrating as the 18.1in shell... was a smaller lighter shell but faster... i dont think a Cruise missile could be made with enough mass because center of gravity would be way off because of the heavy now required...

[@alexdunphy3716]

@@chrisjohnson4666I think it's possible, but really inefficient. For example you could have a design with the seeker in the tip, followed by a long rod of dense metal like DU or WA surrounded by a cylindrical fuel tank, with the engine at the rear. At this point though it would be very large and few could be carried. It would also be very expensive and a large target for enemy point defenses. It is also doubtful that, in a war where large anti ship missiles are necessary, sensor coverage and communication would be functional enough of the time to provide targeting data for targets hundreds of kilometers away with any regularity. We need to rethink guns, there have been massive improvements since WW2

[@chrisjohnson4666]

@@alexdunphy3716 i think had the c0ld war been going on still we would of seen guided 16in shells and some type of sabo round extending the range significantly...

[@josephmagana6235]

Pretty much every anti-ship missile in existence has some kind of HEAT or SAP warhead capable of defeating armor, not "thin-skinned HE". They might not be designed to defeat a full on BB citadel but building such a warhead would not be difficult with modern technology, which is way more advanced than anything that was available when these armor schemes were developed in the 30s and 40s.

[@connorjohnson7834]

The best armor ever given to a battleship/battlecrusier was HMS New Zealand, despite being a modified Indefatigable class battlecrusier, had too very important items that gave it Devine armor, a Maori warrior skirt and a Maori pendant, which the captain was instructed to wear during battle. The ship served in many battles, including the Battle of Jutland, being in the battlecrusier squadron along with her sister Indefatigable. In all her combat service she only sustained one non-damaging hit.

[@robertgutheridge9672]

With the accuracy of things like the hell fire missile it would be possible to put multiple missiles in the same spot and possibly defeat the armor. But it would require a minimum of 4 to 6 missiles hitting the same exact spot. And the ciws its going to take out several of those. So in the real world situation i would say that New Jersey would survive at least a dozen or more since the missile would have to burn its way through. I need to make a edit here with what American hell fire missile did during desert storm to tanks i would guess that if you could hit the same spot it would still take 12 to 18 to breach the armor and all you would end up with is a small hole that would be easy to plug

[@alexdunphy3716]

Things change when the enemy has air defense and ew systems. Hellfire can't be fired from very far away so the delivery platform would be vulnerable. So hitting the same spot multiple time when the ship is moving, jamming you, shooting at you, and while you are trying not to be shot, is not practically possible

[@chadr2604]

On armor you need an extremely hard face to shatter the shell then high toughness but fairly soft to absorb the energy. Aluminum would actually make even better armor than steel as its strength to weight ratio exceeds steel and it can absorb more energy per unit weight.

[@robertwalker8964]

What about the chrome nickel armor that was supposed to be on the Bismarck nothing said of this

[@adamsan7494]

I'm going to say pound for pound armour it's got to be the KGV.

[@ddoubleg]

Fr

[@Roboticus_Prime_RC]

I would assume that the missile defense is an "active" system. There are missiles and guns meant to defeat missiles. Once the anti-missile lasers become main stream, I think we'll see guns and armor make a return.

[@vikkimcdonough6153]

28:40 - Without significant impacts to her combat ability... other than destroying her steering gear and forcing her to steam straight towards the British ships chasing her.