Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
kiwi1960

26inch plate from Yammato class ship...

42 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

22,431
[HINON]
Supertester
18,902 posts
12,435 battles

Result of controlled conditions ballistic test, proving that we the human race are quite good at breaking stuff.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,087
[SPTR]
Members
3,457 posts
5,656 battles

I mean, if they failed to penetrate it, they certainly wouldn't show it :Smile_playing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
203
[O_O]
Members
776 posts
4,726 battles

Controlled experiment, yes.  Still very impressive to see in person.  Anything with that much energy is pretty neat and more than a little scary.

-R

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,203 posts
6,433 battles

Firepower will defeat armor one way or another. You can armor a vessel only to a certain degree, while the firepower and Penetration power of weapon System increases much faster.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,223
[RKLES]
Members
7,093 posts
8,733 battles
1 minute ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Where is this at?

Right off top of my head can’t remember the name of location, but if you look it up in the Nazi Mega Weapons series. They expanded the program to include Japanese projects and the Yamato episode can tell you. It’s on Netflix and have see it on YouTube. About to get some sleep or else I would look it up myself for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
115
[--V--]
Members
481 posts
10,593 battles

Love this comment from the link above regarding the 16" shell used on test 1.

"No damage to projectile indicated, though projectile had considerable remaining velocity and ended up in the Potomac River, never being recovered. "

 

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,268
[NERO]
Members
3,542 posts
12 minutes ago, SeaborneSumo said:

"No damage to projectile indicated, though projectile had considerable remaining velocity and ended up in the Potomac River, never being recovered. "

When your shooting range backstop just wasn't enough.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
260
[1RD]
[1RD]
Members
523 posts
8 hours ago, TTK_Aegis said:

When your shooting range backstop just wasn't enough.

May he rest in peace. :Smile_amazed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,433
[REVY]
Members
6,010 posts
5,102 battles
10 hours ago, The_first_harbinger said:

I mean, if they failed to penetrate it, they certainly wouldn't show it :Smile_playing:

Eh, the Maus tank is just covered in failed Soviet penetration marks, but they display the tank anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,087
[SPTR]
Members
3,457 posts
5,656 battles
1 hour ago, Sventex said:

Eh, the Maus tank is just covered in failed Soviet penetration marks, but they display the tank anyway.

Nahhhh. We can't hurt the feelings of special snowflakes who believe that all US ships can penetrate the earth's crust, snipe a fly beyond the horizon, and survive falling into a quasar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
On 4/3/2018 at 5:32 AM, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Right off top of my head can’t remember the name of location, but if you look it up in the Nazi Mega Weapons series. They expanded the program to include Japanese projects and the Yamato episode can tell you. It’s on Netflix and have see it on YouTube. About to get some sleep or else I would look it up myself for you.

Dahlgren is one of the US Navy surface warfare centers that conducted many ballistics tests. In any case, such TV programs are so full of oversimplifications, dramatizations, and embellishments that I strongly advise against using them as any kind of serious source. No, you're better off reading some in-depth book by researchers, like Janzs Skulski or Hans Lengerer. Warship International publications by INRO is a good place to start if you're actually serious about naval architecture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,433
[REVY]
Members
6,010 posts
5,102 battles
10 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

Dahlgren is one of the US Navy surface warfare centers that conducted many ballistics tests. In any case, such TV programs are so full of oversimplifications, dramatizations, and embellishments that I strongly advise against using them as any kind of serious source. No, you're better off reading some in-depth book by researchers, like Janzs Skulski or Hans Lengerer. Warship International publications by INRO is a good place to start if you're actually serious about naval architecture.

Is Nazi Megaweapons so bad, they can’t even label their filming locations correctly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
14 minutes ago, Sventex said:

Is Nazi Megaweapons so bad, they can’t even label their filming locations correctly?

The melodramatic acting is enough to turn me off, and more comprehensive and useful information can be obtained through books and INRO Warship International publications. In fact, thanks to the urging of Mr. Bill Jurens, I am an annual member of INRO, and the articles by Mr. Jurens and Strafford Morss on the protection scheme of the SoDaks and Iowas, as well as the gunnery publications by Mr. Jurens and Mr. Brad Fischer (who sometimes visit this forum) have been incredibly enlightening. They were directly involved in the 1980s gunnery improvement program on the Iowas. I've had the privilege of directly corresponding with Mr. Jurens and Mr. Fischer, something you can't do by watching some TV series.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,433
[REVY]
Members
6,010 posts
5,102 battles
6 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

The melodramatic acting is enough to turn me off, and more comprehensive and useful information can be obtained through books and INRO Warship International publications. In fact, thanks to the urging of Mr. Bill Jurens, I am an annual member of INRO, and the articles by Mr. Jurens and Strafford Morss on the protection scheme of the SoDaks and Iowas, as well as the gunnery publications by Mr. Jurens and Mr. Brad Fischer (who sometimes visit this forum) have been incredibly enlightening. They were directly involved in the 1980s gunnery improvement program on the Iowas. I've had the privilege of directly corresponding with Mr. Jurens and Mr. Fischer, something you can't do by watching some TV series.

That doesn’t change the fact that if they film at a location, they probably know what that location is.  No reason to assume that when they filmed at the armor plate that they didn’t know where they were or that a book would know the location of the plate better then they do.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
1 minute ago, Sventex said:

That doesn’t change the fact that if they film at a location, they probably know what that location is.  No reason to assume that when they filmed at the armor plate that they didn’t know where they were or that a book would know the location of the plate better then they do.

I don't think I ever claimed that they got the location wrong; I simply advised against using that TV series as a serious source since, based on my limited previews at least, the information tends to be condense and oversimplified, and also have some rather melodramatic (and unnecessary) acting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,433
[REVY]
Members
6,010 posts
5,102 battles
23 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

I don't think I ever claimed that they got the location wrong; I simply advised against using that TV series as a serious source since, based on my limited previews at least, the information tends to be condense and oversimplified, and also have some rather melodramatic (and unnecessary) acting.

Well your knocking Admiral_Thrawn_1 for pointing at the show to answer the question of where the plate of armor is at, which is a simple question.  And you advise against using condensed and oversimplified information as a source to answer that question.  Well I can answer the question: It's at the U.S. Navy Memorial Museum at the Washington Navy Yard.  I didn't need to consult a detailed book to answer such a simple question, nor will I dismiss information because it's being conveyed via melodramatic acting.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
293
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,980 posts
22 hours ago, The_first_harbinger said:

Nahhhh. We can't hurt the feelings of special snowflakes who believe that all US ships can penetrate the earth's crust, snipe a fly beyond the horizon, and survive falling into a quasar. 

Lol, K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
35 minutes ago, Sventex said:

Well your knocking Admiral_Thrawn_1 for pointing at the show to answer the question of where the plate of armor is at, which is a simple question.  And you advise against using condensed and oversimplified information as a source to answer that question.  Well I can answer the question: It's at the U.S. Navy Memorial Museum at the Washington Navy Yard.  I didn't need to consult a detailed book to answer such a simple question, nor will I dismiss information because it's being conveyed via melodramatic acting.

If someone brings up a source that lacks serious rigor, then I'll point it out, regardless of whether that particular piece of information is correct or not, and I'll also make suggestions on more reputable sources as those who are interested in naval history or naval architecture would be better served reading those instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,433
[REVY]
Members
6,010 posts
5,102 battles
18 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

If someone brings up a source that lacks serious rigor, then I'll point it out, regardless of whether that particular piece of information is correct or not, and I'll also make suggestions on more reputable sources as those who are interested in naval history or naval architecture would be better served reading those instead.

Unless you have information that proves the documentary wrong over this simple question, then your wasting everyone's time with your opinions on the show.  Basic questions do not require rigorous research.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
11 minutes ago, Sventex said:

Unless you have information that proves the documentary wrong over this simple question, then your wasting everyone's time with your opinions on the show.  Basic questions do not require rigorous research.

No one is obligated to take their time to read my opinion in that one post. For that matter, you've wasted time on four posts dismissing my recommendations on more reputable naval sources. This section of the forum is for historical naval discussions, correct? I frankly don't care about how basic a question is. A 4th grade textbook can get the date of the Battle of Midway but that's not going to provide any deeper historical insights and I will call it out as such and suggests further readings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,433
[REVY]
Members
6,010 posts
5,102 battles
Just now, DeliciousFart said:

No one is obligated to take their time to read my opinion in that one post. For that matter, you've wasted time on four posts dismissing my recommendations on more reputable naval sources. This section of the forum is for historical naval discussions, correct? I frankly don't care about how basic a question is. A 4th grade textbook can get the date of the Battle of Midway but that's not going to provide any deeper historical insights and I will call it out as such and suggests further readings.

Because your recommendations of reputable naval sources over the answer on where that armor plate resides implies the current answer that was provided is wrong.  Unless you have information that says otherwise, I will defend the current source of information because it appears correct.  Condensed information does not make that information wrong.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×