Obviously there are borderline cases of partial penetration, where the armour is either holed but the projectile is rejected, or where the projectile only penetrates partially intact (and may or may not explode). This is also the kind of armour used on tanks.įace hardened and cemented armours on the other hand (such as those used on most battleship belts and turret faces - US Class A, IJN VH) are more resistant to this either the shell penetrates and the armour fractures, or the shell is rejected and the armour remains mostly undamaged. This is fairly true for homogenous armour, such as used for deck plating (US Class B, IJN MNC), etc, which tends to be more elastic when struck. In fact these ships never engaged any major surface combatants so all we really have to compare are their paper stats and what little is know from the combat they did see. At the ranges we are talking about, for every 100 rounds fires by Iowa, only about ten would hit and there is no gaurentee that they would hit consistantly in the same location.Įdit: I would also like to just point out the fact that these two ships never actually met in combat. Ok but the problem now is actually hitting the turrets two or three times.
The force of a 2k lb round travelling at 1000+fps is high enough to fatigue any armor. I can pretty much guarantee that if Yammy's turret were hit by more than 2 or 3 Iowa rounds, that turret would be thoroughly wrecked. The thing that seems to have been forgotten is that armor doesn't bounce rounds the way WOT or Navyfield shows, at least not after it has been fatigued by previous hits.
Just because Iowa's shells can't penetrate beyond 25k on paper doesn't mean that it won't IRL.
0 kommentar(er)
