Re: Canopus Class pre-dreadnought armour
- From: "B F Lake" <nomail@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:46:43 GMT
"guy" <guyswettenham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Remember, with predreadnoughts the horizontal part of the deck was not
expected to be hit by intact AP rounds, it was there to protect the
ship from those nasty horible big chunks of AP or common shell after
they had gone off.
This was especially true of ships with a relatively deep belt, which
would stop intact shells hitting the deck anyway
Brown says incoming would be horizontal at expected fighting range less than
6,000 yds. In all this, it is important to note that the "protective deck"
under discussion was not the uppermost deck, but a deck down inside which
might be hit after the shell has gone through the ship's side. Once we are
talking where shells have some down in their trajectories we need to look at
the uppermost deck.
Since this would be after ? the improvements in propellent and the longer
gun barrels of the 1890s, but still "pre" DREADNOUGHT, IMO we cannot just
talk of pre-dreadoughts, but maybe need to have two "phases" for them??
Regards,
Barry
guy
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Canopus Class pre-dreadnought armour
- From: dott.Piergiorgio
- Re: Canopus Class pre-dreadnought armour
- From: Andrew Robert Breen
- Re: Canopus Class pre-dreadnought armour
- References:
- Re: Canopus Class pre-dreadnought armour
- From: Andrew Robert Breen
- Re: Canopus Class pre-dreadnought armour
- From: kenney
- Re: Canopus Class pre-dreadnought armour
- From: B F Lake
- Re: Canopus Class pre-dreadnought armour
- From: guy
- Re: Canopus Class pre-dreadnought armour
- Prev by Date: Re: Bismarck/Rudder Damage/Specifics?
- Next by Date: Re: Bismarck/Rudder Damage/Specifics?
- Previous by thread: Re: Canopus Class pre-dreadnought armour
- Next by thread: Re: Canopus Class pre-dreadnought armour
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|