You cannot outrun her Kongou. You can't out range her. You will have a hard time penetrating her armor, and at any range you can, she can definitely penetrate yours. She also outguns you by a lot.
Let her down easy if you can. Otherwise, accept it with Burning Love. She can take it.
You cannot outrun her Kongou. You can't out range her. You will have a hard time penetrating her armor, and at any range you can, she can definitely penetrate yours. She also outguns you by a lot.
Let her down easy if you can. Otherwise, accept it with Burning Love. She can take it.
Iowa only has 13.5 inches of belt armor. A Vickers pattern 14-inch gun will go through that fairly easily.
Iowa only has 13.5 inches of belt armor. A Vickers pattern 14-inch gun will go through that fairly easily.
Actually, Iowa had 12 inches of armor inlined at 19 degrees, giving an effective thickness of 17.3 inches. This could block a 2240 pound 16 inch mark 5 shell at around 16000 meters. Kongo's 14 inch guns CAN pen Iowa's belt, but only at very close range. Iowa's guns can pen Kongo's belt at their MAXIMUM range.
Iowa only has 13.5 inches of belt armor. A Vickers pattern 14-inch gun will go through that fairly easily.
Using your number, most data would indicate that such could only be done at what amounts to point-blank range for a BB. About 13,500 yards, give or take 500.
Meanwhile, the Iowa's 16"s are cutting through her like a hot knife through butter at any range she can actually hit her, and she (Iowa) has 3kts on her (Kongou) on a good day and quite a bit more than that on a bad day (the Iowa keeps speed better than the Kongou when damaged), so she'll be controlling the range.
Plus, what Prince of Darimar said. (Although, the common data is a 1.5" STS plate at 0 degrees over a 12.1" Class A belt at 19 degrees, meaning that the effective thickness is closer to 18 inches [which WW2 British 14" guns would have trouble penetrating at 10kyds/9144m, and the Japanese's 14in shells were not as advanced as the UK's in WW2], but older documents go on to suggest that there are actually more layers than that which would drive the number up higher - eventually requiring a nearly literal [for a ship] point-blank shot to penetrate reliably)
Using your number, most data would indicate that such could only be done at what amounts to point-blank range for a BB. About 13,500 yards, give or take 500.
Meanwhile, the Iowa's 16"s are cutting through her like a hot knife through butter at any range she can actually hit her, and she (Iowa) has 3kts on her (Kongou) on a good day and quite a bit more than that on a bad day (the Iowa keeps speed better than the Kongou when damaged), so she'll be controlling the range.
Plus, what Prince of Darimar said. (Although, the common data is a 1.5" STS plate at 0 degrees over a 12.1" Class A belt at 19 degrees, meaning that the effective thickness is closer to 18 inches [which WW2 British 14" guns would have trouble penetrating at 10kyds/9144m, and the Japanese's 14in shells were not as advanced as the UK's in WW2], but older documents go on to suggest that there are actually more layers than that which would drive the number up higher - eventually requiring a nearly literal [for a ship] point-blank shot to penetrate reliably)
Iowa's belt is only inclined at 15 degrees, and STS plate was not substantially more effective than the Class A belt. US DOD puts Iowa's effective armor thickness for the class at around 13.5 inches, going up to 1.4 on Missouri and Wisconsin which had an extra inch of STS on the front citadel armor for head-on engagements.
Iowa's belt is only inclined at 15 degrees, and STS plate was not substantially more effective than the Class A belt. US DOD puts Iowa's effective armor thickness for the class at around 13.5 inches, going up to 1.4 on Missouri and Wisconsin which had an extra inch of STS on the front citadel armor for head-on engagements.
IIRC, the DoD never officially admitted what effectiveness the armor of the Iowa class were. Only that they couldn't withstand their own "16-inch" firepower. Some schematics for the warships are still redacted to this day (particularly the 1980's restoration). I believe the 13.5 estimation is attributed to Dr. Norman Friedman, who admittedly is one of the finest naval annalists ever, but not the actual Bureau of Ordnance (which is now NAVSEA).
That aside, I do agree with you that Kongou COULD damage an Iowa if she could miraculously survive long enough to get into range. Honestly though, we're talking about two ships with about 20 to 30 years of technological difference between them, depending how much stock you put into Kongou's midlife modernization... all this entirely discounting the Cold War upgrades.
Iowa's belt is only inclined at 15 degrees, and STS plate was not substantially more effective than the Class A belt. US DOD puts Iowa's effective armor thickness for the class at around 13.5 inches, going up to 1.4 on Missouri and Wisconsin which had an extra inch of STS on the front citadel armor for head-on engagements.
1) 19 degrees, not 15 degrees. This according to Nathan Okun, the world's foremost expert on Naval Armor and a US Navy consultant on the Iowas, AND R.A. Landgraff, the guy behind the '80s Iowa-class reactivations. 2) Decapping is the primary effect of the STS Outer Shell, which basically makes the Kongou's 14in AP shell not AP except at point-blank ranges. (Incidentally, the Mk8 Super Heavy AP Shell was extremely resistant to this type of decapping, which skewed the US Navy's conclusions about the Iowa's durability towards the negative) 3) STS achieves about parity with Class A when at small thicknesses. 4) The US DoD still considers the Iowa's armor scheme to be classified. Almost all 'well known' schemes for the Iowa's armor have been 3rd parties' claims. The only things known for sure is that the US BuShips was under the opinion that the Iowas could not withstand their own Mk8 Super Heavy AP shells when fired from their own 16in/50cal guns and that the primary belt is either 12.1" or 12.2" thickness.
Nargrakhan said:
That aside, I do agree with you that Kongou COULD damage an Iowa if she could miraculously survive long enough to get into range.
I do too. The thing most people seem to discredit is that a BB/CC is almost never going to get to close range and only fire one shell at a single point. The 2nd, 3rd, ..., 7th, 8th, etc shell will have a much easier time getting through that belt in the same vicinity of the original impact. That's one salvo.
2) Decapping is the primary effect of the STS Outer Shell, which basically makes the Kongou's 14in AP shell not AP except at point-blank ranges. (Incidentally, the Mk8 Super Heavy AP Shell was extremely resistant to this type of decapping, which skewed the US Navy's conclusions about the Iowa's durability towards the negative)
The outer STS shell was not for decapping projectiles. It was designed as splinter protection. To reliably decap shells over 12", Iowa would need an extra 1.5" of STS.
The outer STS shell was not for decapping projectiles. It was designed as splinter protection. To reliably decap shells over 12", Iowa would need an extra 1.5" of STS.
Did I say purpose? No. I said effect. Don't put words in my mouth, please, thank you.
The US Navy put in the 2nd most research into decapping of any navy in the world during the 20s and 30s, they most certainly did know its effects.
Also, Nathan Okun maintains to this day that the Iowa's system has a 99% chance of decapping every naval shell under 18.3in - including the Yamato's. This is after he revised his decapping formulae. It's not just the steel you have to consider for this, the Iowa has reinforced concrete right behind that outer shell.
Did I say purpose? No. I said effect. Don't put words in my mouth, please, thank you.
The US Navy put in the 2nd most research into decapping of any navy in the world during the 20s and 30s, they most certainly did know its effects.
Also, Nathan Okun maintains to this day that the Iowa's system has a 99% chance of decapping every naval shell under 18.3in - including the Yamato's. This is after he revised his decapping formulae. It's not just the steel you have to consider for this, the Iowa has reinforced concrete right behind that outer shell.
Its main purpose and effect was splinter protection. Yes, being able to decap (US major caliber) shells was a side effect, but that was not the main purpose or effect of the outer STS plates. It will fail to decap all German and Italian 15" APCBC and furtherly the British 15" Mk 3A Greenboy APCBC involving obliquities greater than 45 deg. It will also likely fail to decap Austro-Hungarian 13.8" APCBC, which were close copies in cap design to the then in use KRUPP projectiles. The 11.1" KRUPP APBC of German raider and pocket battleships have a 50% probability to get decapped by the 1.5" STS at obliquities greater than 45 deg. (at smaller oblqiuities, they get never decapped) according to Nathan Okun´s revisited decapping article. Conclusively, the 1.5" STS plating is not very successful in decapping every projectile, although it is very effective against the then in use USN projectiles. Don´t know about Japanese and French, though.
Edit: I went and asked someone who's more knowledgeable than I am in this subject and she said that the outer STS plate had a snowball's chance in hell of decapping an 18" shell unless the hit was at a very extreme angle.
It's not just the steel you have to consider for this, the Iowa has reinforced concrete right behind that outer shell.
You put concrete behind it, the required steel drops drastically. You put reinforced concrete behind it, even more.
Alone, the steel does not do it, correct. I did not argue against this. But the entire armor scheme does it (the primary actor is still the initial shock of the STS, of course).
Japanese battleships that Iowa would need to worry about in combat = any in range.
Japanese battleships that can actually hurt Iowa at standard combat ranges = Yamato, Musashi, and probabaly Nagato and Mutsu.
Japanese battleships that can hurt Iowa at night fighting ranges = all of them, thought to what extent depends on the ship.
Japanese battleships that can be hurt by Iowa at all ranges = all except Yamato and Musashi, these two would still be hurt, but it would require getting a little closer to be sure, and Yamato's gun will hurt in return.
Shipgirl in danger of skinship in comic = Kongo. (Mugi would approve)
You put concrete behind it, the required steel drops drastically. You put reinforced concrete behind it, even more.
Alone, the steel does not do it, correct. I did not argue against this. But the entire armor scheme does it (the primary actor is still the initial shock of the STS, of course).
You originally claimed that the STS plate was enough to decap incoming shells. Now it's the entire armor layout? Quit shifting the goalposts. On top of this, the outer spaces in between the STS plate and main belt are liquid filled. Where's the concrete?
And no shit the layout will be effective as a whole (although the Iowas armor was not as effective against the Mk. 8 as it could have been).
No, seriously, didn't know that ships used concrete as armor.
And damage control teams to this day stuff wood into hull breaches as it will deform to fit most shapes with hammering, is easy to spit into different sizes, and swells to seal.
