|
|
楼主 |
发表于 2013-1-24 16:54
|
显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 seven_nana 于 2013-1-24 17:19 编辑
剑桥的老铁匠 发表于 2013-1-24 16:38 
看后来的资料，美国用b级装甲做正面，然后加66mm造船钢？
这倒是有趣的现象，434mm的B级装甲，美国人肯定 ...
45楼那篇文章的链接：http://www.chuckhawks.com/armor_schemes.htm
作者还是Nathan Okun
IOWA class battleship turrets varied in face thickness slightly, due to the manufacturer's limitations. As an example, the SOUTH DAKOTA Class battleship ALABAMA had solid 19" Class "B" armor turret faces, while the others had 18-19.5" (roughly) turret faces, in some cases made up of a thin back plate laminated (bolted flush with no gap anywhere) to a thick front plate. The result was slightly weaker than a solid plate, but in this design not by much. IOWA Class had similar variations in its Class "B" turret face armor from ship to ship.
The W.W.II U.S. Navy battleships from NORTH CAROLINA and WASHINGTON through MONTANA and here sisters were all equipped with Class "B" armor. This is homogeneous, ductile chromium-nickel steel. It is more or less KC armor without the cementing ("C") and without the deep face, both of which were used in most forms of face-hardened Class "A" armor.
It was originally used in the WASHINGTON Class ships due to problems with making the very thick (16" and up) Class "A" face-hardened armor for these ships after almost 20 years of never having made such armor. (The last was used in the COLORADO Class, it was not as thick, and it was an older, inferior grade material compared to what could be made in the late 1930's.)
The use was originally justified by the improved performance of U.S. Navy late 1930 AP ammo that was essentially impervious to the hard face of Class "A" armor at low obliquity (near right-angles) impact. Thus the hard face, which was expensive to make and which caused some plate weakening due to its brittleness, lost all of its previous advantages (breaking up the shell so that the shell had a more difficult time penetrating the armor) when used in the turret face that, by necessity, was always pointing directly at the enemy and thus could expect near right-angles impacts at all times.
Turret side armor and barbette armor would usually be hit at a more oblique angle, usually circa 30-45 degrees or more, though the very center of the barbette could be hit at near right angles. Using face-hardened armor to destroy the shell was more effective in these areas.
However, when extremely high oblique impacts occurred (55 degrees or more), as on turret roofs and decks, face-hardened armor, due to its brittleness, was a very poor choice since it could break and throw pieces into the region behind it even if the shell glanced off. DUNKERQUE's face-hardened turret roof, designed to maximize resistance to AP bombs from aircraft, was hit by HOOD and is a perfect example of this problem.
This was much less likely with soft homogeneous armor that could dent and tear slowly, easing the shell away and staying more intact, with few pieces torn off. It turned out that this reasoning was so true that even when Class "A" plates were later able to be made of maximum thickness, they decided to stick with Class "B" turret faces in battleships.
美国新式战列舰使用Class B作为炮塔正面装甲的原因：
1）已有近20年未曾制造过大厚度Class A装甲，起初制造上存在一些问题。
2）原先的穿甲弹在小角度命中Class A装甲时，由于硬化表面的存在，导致穿透效果不佳；但1930年代晚期的新式穿甲弹，在同样条件下的表现则有所提升。Class A制造费用昂贵，且具有一定脆性，会降低总体结构强度。并且炮塔正面装甲几乎总是正对着炮弹来袭方向，面对新式穿甲弹时硬化表面无太大优势，无法有效破坏其弹体，所以就采用了Class B装甲。
也就是说，Class A在面对有一定入射角的炮弹时，还是有优势的，有可能能对其弹体造成一定破坏效果
总结就是：在使用1930年代晚期的美国新式穿甲弹的前提下
1）在面对入射角很小或垂直入射的炮弹时，Class A没有明显优势，所以用了Class B
2）在面对有一定入射角（30-45度）的炮弹时，Class A优于Class B
3）在面对大入射角（55度以上）炮弹时，Class B优于Class A |
|
发表于 2013-1-24 16:17
发表于 2013-1-24 19:30
发表于 2013-1-24 19:43
发表于 2013-7-16 00:53
