Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Modern Naval Armour
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Wednesday, 7th January 2009
Pre-WWII, especially in regards to World War I, a lot of emphasis was placed on naval armour of varying thicknesses. Yet since the end of the Second World War, naval armour seems to have dropped out of discussion.
Although a fictional story, I remember reading in Tom Clancy's The Hunt for Red October an assertion that the armour of the Iowa Class battleship could take a hefty bit of punishment from modern naval weaponry.
So today, in modern navies and on modern ships, what's the status of naval armour? -
Message 2
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 7th January 2009
Battleships were expensive things. Given that there's only one world-class navy remaining, they're quite redundant; hence, the non-emphasis on armor today. That plus the accuracy of today's weaponry makes it unlikely it'll ever make a comeback.
Of course, that last *could* well be filed as "famous last words" but, short of a land-based missile sinking an aircraft carrier, I'm not holding my breath. -
Message 3
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Wednesday, 7th January 2009
So today, in modern navies and on modern ships, what's the status of naval armour?Β
I think the idea is not to be hit in the first place.
To be honest even I (a self confessed battleship nut) concede that they make great museum pieces (in the US ) but as a concept of war?Their time has passed.Tue the Iowa's had an Indian summer,but that was more a politically based decision than a "need" for a battleship.Shame as even though they are weapons of war,they were beautiful ships (even the Nelson class from the right angle)
Vf -
Message 4
Posted by colonelblimp (U1705702) on Wednesday, 7th January 2009
Armour is still in use, at least by the US Navy:
"The entire ship (except the two aluminium funnels) is constructed from steel, with vital areas protected by two layers of steel and 70t of Kevlar armour." -
Message 5
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Wednesday, 7th January 2009
Thanks for the replies. I appreciate that battleships have lost their use in modern naval warfare (though to be honest, if I was a naval officer and had to fight another naval force I wouldnt mind a battleship on my side!) but its the issue of armour that is intriguing me still.
Has armour simply evolved (such as the use of Kevlar) so that we don't see or hear of inch after inch of armour on modern vessels? Has it disappeared all together off naval ships?
If we look at the Falklands as an example, was HMS Sheffield and the other ships hit by missiles or bombs during that war armoured? Looking at the damage inflicted upon them, to me it just seems that either armour has either been totally outstripped by the pace of weapons development or that its not used anymore.
Also, is armour designed to stop missiles (if it exists, which it does on tanks at least) different from armour designed to stop shells? Again, the Falklands as an example I remember reading somewhere that one of the main reasons the Belgrano was considered a threat was its guns, not the fact it carried exocets. Back in WW2, the 6inch calibre guns on the Belgrano were pretty standard for cruisers and opposing vessels were expected to take a few hits and continue the fight. The RN taskforce were apparently concnerned about the havoc those guns would wreak on its own ships though. -
Message 6
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Wednesday, 7th January 2009
Ive always mused on if "Chobham" armour (as used on tanks) could be applied to warships,over say the hull where the machinery spaces,operations room is located.Then I looked at some pictures of HMS Devonshire after she had been hit by an exocet and couldnt convince my self that it would have made any difference.
I was reading DK Browns "From Nelson to Vanguard" about test used aginst HMS Nelson post war.They basically tested various types of bombs to judge effect.The ship survived some of the tests quite well (decks were penetrated but not the armoured citadel)but the final test used a 2000lb "special".Apparently this bomb went through the ship like butter and whilst Nelson was 20 years old the author believed that even the projected Lion class (modified design,specifically desgned against air attack) would have fared no better.
Given the advancement in missile and bomb technology I think that although you can "armour" against splinters and try and localise the effects of damage I not sure if you could keep the missile/bomb out entirely.It would have been very interesting if the RN had exoceted HMS Tiger of Blake rather than just tying them up in Fareham Creek and letting them rot as they were the last of the RN cruisers and as such had armoured protection.The only other "what if" is if the US cannot afford to keep all the Iowa's as museum ships (not impossble) and uses one of them in a SINKPAC (target ship) exercise (very unlikely)
Bttdp,or Lost Weekend are better placed to answer the question.But in my opinion its better to avoid being hit in the first place than attempting to clad your ship in Kelvar hoping that it gives you a degree of protection.
Just a few musings
Vf -
Message 7
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Wednesday, 7th January 2009
The Italian battleship "Roma" was sunk by Fritz X glider bombs in 1943. Later, "Warspite" was badly damaged in another Fritz attack.
Trike. -
Message 8
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Thursday, 8th January 2009
Hi VF
I was on mine sweepers mainly theres no armour on them I can tell you that
As far as I am aware theres none or very little on any of the destroyers either. Its come to a point were as you say its better to not get hit in the first place because nothings going to save you.
Personally I seem to remember reading some were that exocet type missiles were supposed to be practically useless against heavily armoured ships. -
Message 9
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 8th January 2009
I was on mine sweepers mainly theres no armour on them I can tell you thatΒ
Hi Bttdp
Where you on the "Ton" class or the "Hunt" class?
Looking at the posted link I can only think that kevlar is there to keep aircraft cannon shells out and or splinters away from the electronics and such like.I just dont see how it would keep out a dedicated SSM or bomb.Like I mentioned earlier it would have been interesting to see what an exocet would have done against HMS Tiger.From what I can gather most of the missile tests carried out by the RN were carried out against destroyers.HMS Venus was used for trials of the "Seadart" system.Now given that there plenty of cruisers tied up in the 1960's,it would have been interesting to have seen the result.
Vf -
Message 10
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Thursday, 8th January 2009
VirtualF
I think most of the info has already been posted.
The test on Nelson really confirmed what Their Lordships already know - you couldn't really armour even a battleship against more than a 1000lb bomb or 8in shells. 21 inch torpedoes, 2000lb bombs in the right place and 15 or 16in shells (in sufficient quantity) would sink you. This was why the RN feared land-based bombers (which could lift 21in torpedoes and 2000lb bombs)and the RAF preferred to attack capital ships in port (where, additionally, they were stationary).
As Triceratops posted, the FritzX had already shown what a large guided missile could do, and the Soviets were developing even larger ones. Add to that nuclear warheads (for torpedoes as well), and no armour thickness that will still allow the ship to move and carry a decent armament is possible.
There was debate about the relative robustness of the older types (particularly Glamorgan and Plymouth) compared to the Type 42s and 21s in the Falklands, but that was as much structural as protection. The Arleigh Burke class is all steel because of the structural shortcomings of aluminium - it is not armour.
Ordinary steel provides a modicum of protection against shrapnel and small arms, and Kevlar more so, which is a factor in patrol/ anti-piracy work. Dan may have a view, but I believe the "Tons" on patrol work for Malaya and Borneo used sandbags for protection against such threats.
Exocet probably wouldn't penetrate battleship-thickness armour, but it was designed to knock modern DDG/FFG types out of the fight. It probably wasn't as effective as its manafacturers would like you to think. Of the three warships hit by Exocet in combat conditions, only one, Sheffield, sank, and that six days later in very high seas. The USS Stark, a virtual sitting duck, was hit by two missiles, and was still capable manoeuvring. Both Sheffield and Stark were sitting ducks and not closed up. Glamorgan, the only ship hit while closed up and - the true test - was still capable of fighting (albeit not with all systems). Of the five missiles involved, incidentally, two failed to detonate (Sheffield, and the first to hit Stark), not a great success rate. -
Message 11
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Friday, 9th January 2009
Hi VF
Ton class mainly. Did an exercise on a Hunt class when one of their RO's went sick but onlyr for a couple of weeks.
Ton class there was a Ship. LOL rolled like a pig in mud.
Thinking about it though I think a couple of them were converted to act as patrol boats in Hong Kong and were armoured with a layer of concrete? The sand bags in borneo were before my time.
They were a useful little ship thats for sure I got told they were designed post war as a temporary measure and are still going strong I think?
Not sure of the RN still runs them but a lot got
flogged on.
As for armour, I dont think we are ever going to fight the sort of fleet actions that called for it. Lets face it apart from a handfull of battles Im not sure we ever did. Weighing of the weight against speed might be a good idea. although if we ever have to do any coastal bombardment then a few inches of sheffields finest wouldnt go amiss, and some really big guns 8inchers sounds nice? Unless we can persuede the Admiralty that fifteen inchers is the way ahead?
Gentlemen! Give back your razor blades! Lizzy wants the Vanguard back!!!! -
Message 12
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Friday, 9th January 2009
Thinking about it though I think a couple of them were converted to act as patrol boats in Hong Kong and were armoured with a layer of concrete? The sand bags in borneo were before my time.Β
Hi Bttdp
Reinforced concrete or slabs?!It must have made them top heavy.
Gentlemen! Give back your razor blades! Lizzy wants the Vanguard backΒ
If only! I was bought Neil McCarts "Vanguard-The Last British Battleship".What a ship!Ok her day had gone,but I still reckon that in terms of "looking the part" she beats Park Royal hands down.
Vf -
Message 13
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Friday, 9th January 2009
How about the infamous pykrete and it's survivability?
Thanks for the replies on this guys. I appreciate it. -
Message 14
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Friday, 9th January 2009
If memory serves, the "mk I" surface-surface warhead for Seaslug was a concrete block. When it's travelling at mach 2 or thereabouts, that's quite sufficient to see off a warship of that era.
Devonshire - I thought she was used in the Sea Eagle tests rather than Sea Dart?
Armour today - I'd agree that it's better to avoid being hit rather than being able to take the hit and survive, so I'd trade armour for PD missiles to the same weight any day. -
Message 15
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Friday, 9th January 2009
Devonshire - I thought she was used in the Sea Eagle tests rather than Sea Dart?Β
Urnungal
I think you are right about the Sea Eagle as opposed to exocet,all references to the sinking I could google refer to the ship being used as a target for Sea Harrriers.
Seadart was trialed against HMS Venus.In the book "To sail no more" there is a picture of the poor old girl after the RN had finished with her.Pitiful really.
Vf -
Message 16
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Friday, 9th January 2009
Ah the Vangaurd was the best of the best..the most elegant of all.
I used to think that an old battlewagon would stand up well, but after a bit of reflection over the last few years I think they would not survive for too long. I also used to buy the USMC argument for a big gun support ship, until I learned how quickly the barrels wear out!
I'm a complete convert to organic air power now - and think the abandonment of the Sea Harrier Mk2 for a GR mongrel was a really bad idea... -
Message 17
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Friday, 9th January 2009
Scotty
Ironic, considering the Vanguard was really only built because there were spare turrets, and spare capacity in the yard (and Churchill was still living in the first decade of the century).
And, with all due respect, the Sea Harrier was the mongrel, with air defence bits strapped onto a 1960s mud-mover airframe, not the GR versions. At least the GR9 has proper modern avionics for its intended role. And the RAF can show the FAA how to fly it properly.
LW -
Message 18
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Friday, 9th January 2009
Ironic, considering the Vanguard was really only built because there were spare turrets, and spare capacity in the yard (and Churchill was still living in the first decade of the century).Β
Agreed,without those turrets building the Vanguard wasnt a practical proposition.To be fair Churchill wasnt the only one who was still pushing for battleships.The First Sea Lord (Cunningham) is quoted as saying to Stanley Goodhall that the battleship still had a future and that carriers would disappear from fleets within 20 years!
I suppose in the case of the RN he was almost right
Vf -
Message 19
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Friday, 9th January 2009
Hi VF dont quote me on this but I think they sparyed a 2" coat on the inside of the hull arround the engine room and that was it. As it stood you could probably knock out a ton class with a AK47 if you shot at the rigght places. the concrete was enough to protect the engines.
they also took the governers off the deltics so they went a lot faster. still had trouble catching a speed boats but you cant have evrything. -
Message 20
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Friday, 9th January 2009
Ah yes Lost but those 15" twin turrets were real classics weren't they?
And the 4 turret layout was THE classic battleship "look", though I will admit that 3 turrets is more efficient.
Disagree about the Harriers - often aircraft are very good in a role they are not intended originally for...should have been a 3rd air superiority model but I am sure the F35 will have it all covered! -
Message 21
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Friday, 9th January 2009
Vanguard was nice, but what about Hood? Technically, she was a battlecruiser but that's just semantics!
-
Message 22
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Sunday, 11th January 2009
I prefer Vanguard, but then again I thought the Nelson and Rodney looked great.
-
Message 23
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Sunday, 11th January 2009
Hood is my favourite as well.
The Russian Navy still has a couple of Kirov class in service. Officially they are missile cruisers,but with a displacement of 25/26,000 tons they are the size of a World War One dreadnaught.
their only armour is the plating round the nuclear power plant.
Trike. -
Message 24
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Monday, 12th January 2009
The big Soviet Sverdlov cruisers were part of the rationale for retaining Vanguard and George V in the late 40s/early 50s. The argument being that only a battleship could be certain of defeating a Sverdlov in ALL sea states in the North Atlantic.
But the battlewagons were too manpower intensive, even with one or two turrets non-operational. Carriers were more flexible (even if not as pretty).
Once a viable tactical nuke could be taken to sea, 15 inch guns weren't needed anymore.
And, as the RN and the USN between them could field more cruisers than the Sovs, they reckoned they could manage a replay of the Rio del Platte, with the Sverdlovs standing in for Graf Spee.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.