Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!oliveb!apple!rutgers!att!cbnews!mcdaniel@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu From: mcdaniel@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu (Tim McDaniel) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Ship armor Message-ID: <5928@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 26 Apr 89 04:09:39 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Center for Supercomputing R&D (Cedar), U. of Ill. Lines: 83 Approved: military@att.att.com From: mcdaniel@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu (Tim McDaniel) From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) > There is never enough ... weight available in a warship. Useful > amounts of armor are very heavy. Even the Iowas aren't armored > everywhere ... > Armor fell out of fashion after WWII, since it wasn't useful against > nuclear weapons. Ship designers were happy to have the extra weight > for other things, and haven't been enthusiastic about reintroducing > armor. From: rupp@cod.nosc.mil (William L. Rupp) > the four Iowa class ships are a bargain, and for the following > reasons: > They are very, very, heavily armored, which is *extremely* important > in these days of cheap missiles that can disable a very expensive, > but unarmored, modern warship. Perhaps I am simply ignorant, but Mr. Rupp's argument seems more reasonable. Please correct any errors of fact or misapprehensions. - I have my doubts about the probability of nuclear war remaining contained to the naval arena. Consider that such a war would hurt the U.S.'s strategic position far more than the Soviet's, because we are separated by oceans from our major allies. If nuclear weapons aren't restricted to naval war, it doesn't greatly matter what we do with ship armor. - Our naval conflicts haven't involved other nuclear powers. - Missiles seem to be today's general weapon-of-choice, unlike the shells, torpedos, and mines of previous years. However, conventional missiles tend to have low explosive yields, so less armor should be necessary. I've heard that "six hits from any of today's missiles in the same place still won't pierce battleship armor". This is unlikely (armor isn't uniformly protective) but indicative. - Armor is "expensive" in weight, leading to a deeper draft, thus less fuel efficiency and less maximum speed (any other costs?). Anti-missile defences, however, are expensive in research, development, and production ($). Furthermore, as Sheffield and Stark found, the missile defence has to be turned *on* and has to be *working* -- armor's always there, even when surprised. (See the occasional doubts about the effectiveness of the Phalanx.) - Armor gives at least some protection against missiles, torpedos, shells, bombs, *and* mines. Active protection can be used: making sure that hostile units never get to *use* missiles, etc., or stopping those that get used. However, some will still get through. - It's possible to go too far in reducing weight. Does non-powdered aluminum burn if given enough heat (i.e. an Exocet engine)? If not, ignore this. If so, building destroyers out of aluminum seems silly. - We now know how to made lighter armor, albeit with greater expense. How much speed would be lost in armoring a cruiser, then? (Recall that the maximum speed of USS Iowa is a respectable 33 knots.) In a real-war mix of operations, how important is that extra speed? How important is the capability to absorb more punishment? Some World War II German tank commanders said that they would have preferred lighter, faster tanks, mobility being more important (was this in Liddell-Hart?) How well does this generalize to ships? In the relatively static venues of the Falklands and the Persian Gulf, armor would seem more important. Again, I welcome corrections, amplification, rebuttal, et cetera. Even "shut up, you don't know what you're talking about." :-) -- Tim, the Bizarre and Oddly-Dressed Enchanter Center for ||| Internet, BITNET: mcdaniel@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu Supercomputing ||| UUCP: {uunet,convex,pur-ee}!uiucuxc!uicsrd!mcdaniel Research and ||| ARPANET: mcdaniel%uicsrd@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu Development, ||| CSNET: mcdaniel%uicsrd@uiuc.csnet U of Illinois ||| DECnet: GARCON::"mcdaniel@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu"