Dave Saxton wrote:What may be going on here, is that British steel is not being given it's due credit. The British have always produced armour plates (particularly cemented armour) of outstanding quality. I recall reading discussions about how British face hardened plates out performed contempory American Class A examples by significant margins in early 20's trials. To say that an armour only almost matches the performance of a British face hardened plate of the same era, does not reflect badly. There are also questions as to when the British started using CA plates of WWII or close to WWII quality. There are some indications that may have been as earely as the late teens and early 20's. Face hardened armour of even the highest quality does not match the UTS and toughness of the better WWII and later homegenious armour materials.
marty1 wrote:I was flipping through British Battleships of World War One. I found the following bit regarding the Baden Trials:
“With regard to the oft-quoted superior strength and quality of German Steel plates, it is interesting to note that when tests were carried out in the captured battleship Baden in 1919, only a slight difference was found between British and German steels; and when fired upon during the tests, her plates did not meet the strict standards required of British plates. Baden’s vitals were protected by Krupp armour, and it was very gratifying for the British to discover that the armour plates used in their later dreadnoughts were slightly superior to the Krupp process.”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests