Nealithi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:09 pm
I was more referring to submarine use. As a nuclear attack submarine could wreck a ship no matter the armor. So if armour was not going to help and was expensive. . .
Forgot to add, armoring a ship so low in the ship would create bad stability problems. Actually the best way to defense against explosions is have the hull V shaped. Flat bottom is the worse but they are the most stable and round cross section hulls make the ship roll.
In the weapons versus armor battle, weapons have greatly exceeded the armor. I know there is new types of material and metallurgy out there that could do it on a significant weight savings.
Really the best defense is preventing it from happening.
McAvoy wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:21 am
In the weapons versus armor battle, weapons have greatly exceeded the armor. I know there is new types of material and metallurgy out there that could do it on a significant weight savings.
Eggshells and hammers. Something that is literally no fun to watch.
"I know what you’re thinking now. You’re thinking 'Oh my god, that’s treating other people with respect gone mad!'" When I am writing in this font, I am writing in my moderator voice.
Spam-desu
McAvoy wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:21 am
In the weapons versus armor battle, weapons have greatly exceeded the armor. I know there is new types of material and metallurgy out there that could do it on a significant weight savings.
Eggshells and hammers. Something that is literally no fun to watch.
True.
I was going to continue that analogy but I couldnt figure out a way to follow through with it.
Let's just say armor is expensive and naval ships are already expensive. So I doubt we will see it again unless some scientist creates a material that one inch is equal to 36 inches of the best steel armor, and is pennies to make, we will just see thin hulls on ships for the time being.
Nealithi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:09 pm
I was more referring to submarine use. As a nuclear attack submarine could wreck a ship no matter the armor. So if armour was not going to help and was expensive. . .
That is why modern subs are THE anti-ship arm.
McAvoy wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:21 am
Forgot to add, armoring a ship so low in the ship would create bad stability problems. Actually the best way to defense against explosions is have the hull V shaped. Flat bottom is the worse but they are the most stable and round cross section hulls make the ship roll.
In the weapons versus armor battle, weapons have greatly exceeded the armor. I know there is new types of material and metallurgy out there that could do it on a significant weight savings.
Really the best defense is preventing it from happening.
Defences just went electronic.
Subs did lead the way in the "best defence is not getting hit at all" territory, though.
I was going to continue that analogy but I couldnt figure out a way to follow through with it.
Let's just say armor is expensive and naval ships are already expensive. So I doubt we will see it again unless some scientist creates a material that one inch is equal to 36 inches of the best steel armor, and is pennies to make, we will just see thin hulls on ships for the time being.
Armour isn't expensive. The difficulty often "back in the day" was the limited number of factories making plates and the rate of production. You wanna build battleships with x inch thick armour and one factory in your country might be able to do it which could take years to produce the required plates for the class of 4 ships you are ordering. God help you if your country didn't have that factory and lacked the tech to produce certain thicknesses.
Same with factories making gun barrels.
Ships physically are not expensive, at least anymore. 95% of a ship's cost these days is its electronic suite. It's the reason why mid life upgrades are becoming obsolete and why the warships might just be retired outright soon. Why go to the trouble of replacing 20 or 30 year old electronics and keep an aged hull for 20 more years when you could build a new hull complete with the latest suite?
Armor was expensive. Like guns there is much more involved than just rolling steel plate. It takes time and effort to make. Yes there was a limit on how much armor a country could do before either accepting it or buying it from another country.
Building the battleship hull itself is not that expensive. The triple turret on a Iowa class ship with guns or armor was only $1.5 million per turret. Out of the total cost of $100 million.
Battleships just take so long to build due to the armor and guns. Plenty of examples of the Brits specifically Jackie Fisher taking turrets from other ships under construction to speed up the build time. Or designing a new ship around existing turrets such as the 6 gun Renown and Repulse or the Vanguard reusing turrets from the Glorious and Courageous when they got converted into carriers. Or HMS Dreadnought using turrets meant for the Lord Nelson class.
