A Brief History of Naval Armour - Successfully Forging Onwards
2019 ж. 26 Қар.
952 261 Рет қаралды
Today we take a whistle-stop tour through some basic principles of iron and steel manufacture and apply them to a century of developments in naval armour technology.
Photo at time codes: 00:07:06 and: 00:17:22 by Barry Slemmings
Want to support the channel? - / drachinifel
Want a shirt/mug/hoodie - shop.spreadshirt.com/drachini...
Want a medal? - www.etsy.com/uk/shop/Drachinifel
Want to talk about ships? / discord
Want to get some books? www.amazon.co.uk/shop/drachinifel
Drydock Episodes in podcast format - / user-21912004
Music - / ncmepicmusic
Pinned post for Q&A :)
Drachinifel, If the two Akron-class airships of the U.S.N. did not crash, how would naval aviation be changed? Also, what would be the largest gun caliber you could put on a normal airship of the time?
Would you classify the Hiyo class carriers as Light or Fleet carriers? Does the displacement, usage, or compliment act as your deciding factor?
How thick do I need to make my Mithril belt armor to match Adamantium belt armor?
Do you have any statistics and photos of the effect of armour piercing shot against steel backed with teak armour as seen on many British WW2 Battleships, particularly in comparison to steel only armour?
@@gunner678 there are a number tests and studies done in the 1850's-1860's regarding wooden backed Vs unpacked armour. Can dig them back out if you want.
"There are literally two- to three-inch books ... that discuss this subject." Of course, the best of these books are face-hardened for their first 250 pages or so, while the remaining pages are optimized for ductility. This was a beautifully researched and constructed video, BTW.
Good one.
LOL
But we must know the face hardening process and what type of paper to determine if the book is made with Krupp or Krupp Cemented Papier.
Oh, well done.
@@sd501st5 but did it finally succeed in calming you down? :P
Having worked in the forging/heat treat industry for a few years, allow me to summarize the work environment: Hot, Noisy, and Dirty. My office was located between the furnaces and the press. I didn't have to look up to know when a 25 ton ingot was on its way to the press, I could easily feel the radiant heat of the ingot (30 feet away and through the wall) as it went by. I shudder to think how much radiant heat would be coming off of a 100 ton battleship armor plate...
Now imagine how the early industrial age working conditions took that up a notch or two.
I worked for a while in steel mills and ship dockyards. One particular job had me climb to the chimney right above a still smoldering blast furnace, to clean the slag from the walls with a shovel. I was in a special suit and had to work with a spigot directing water at me the entire time. Even with the water at full blast, i tell you i discovered that day how a turkey feels in the oven! My steel toe work boots melted. It´s amazing what we do for money... Another job had me climbing down 10 story high vertical ladders to an oil tanker ship´s hull, to clean the nafta (oil residue). A few weeks before, a crew was down there when the nafta caught on fire. They closed the deck hatch to stop the fire spreading, and those poor bastards were cooked alive down there.
The days when men were men and the women were glad of that ...........
@@Biden_is_demented Your storey brought back some memories for me, working at a shipyard in Vancouver B.C. Welding reinforcing plates inside a ships cast rudder, the whole rudder was kept up to a temp that, like you said would cause your work boots to melt, for the welding process. In you go wearing leathers with apron and reflective gloves, the only thing keeping you alive was a full head shield with air blown into it. After a short time you had to scramble out the small access down a ladder and, shedding your gear, run to the door. Standing outside in a light December rain felt dam near as good as sex. Darth, the shit we do for a living brother. Glad to be retired!
Darth, sorry to hear about the terrible death of your workmates and I hope your labours bring you to a peaceful and comfortable retirement. Jack.
"We leave that to dwarves who dig too greedily and too deep" Please standby for Diggy Diggy Hole
Brothers of the mine rejoice
Dig dig with me
@@kaisersnider8593 RAISE YOUR PICKS AND RAISE YOUR VOICE
@@turbowolf302 Sing, sing, sing with me
@@loreINzo Down and down into the deep...
Really, really, well done. As a Licensed Marine Engineer, with a good grounding in materials science, welding, and having worked in a steel mill I am willing to say that this may well be the best documentary on the range of topics presented that has ever been done. Congratulations!
The discussion of US Navy Class A armor brings to mind the old engineering line - "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."
When i was an apprentice an old tradesman told me "theory and reality don't always line up"....that quote always stuck with me
The difference between theory and practice is even greater in practice than in theory.
Well, that is better than "THEORY IS ALLWAYS WRONG! -- Even when practice says the theory is right!" -- Which I have experienced too often in Norway with the generation now about to entering retiring age. -- (They grew up in the most agressive counter culture age.)
Assume a spherical naval vessel of uniform density in a vacuum...
@@pensiring7112 nuclear shells ment they might as well just get along
''I got nothing to do and an hour until I need to start packin'' Drac: ''Say no more fam''
This video makes the followers of Vulcan and the Ommnissiah happy. Drach videos at 6am are always a treat. Thank you for everything you do sir. Your work is amazing.
VULKAN LIVES STOMP STOMP.
The Schoars of the Blood Ravens also appreciate these nuggets of history.
@@memecat57 *STOMP STOMP* ADVENTURE!
@@cnlbenmc No, go away you trickster! I know of the bloody magpies, they will steal the knowledge right out of your head and leave you dumbfaced! BOLT DOWN EVERY BIT OF INFORMATION, THEN BOLT DOWN THE BOLTS!
@@sd501st5 That is heretical. Your local commissar has been informed of your behaviour
As someone with literally zero understanding of engineering, I salute you for making this video not just understandable, but interesting for viewers like me. Any engineer can spit out facts, but you can break down extremely complex topics and render them accessible to anyone, and that's really a gift. I especially liked the comparison between the various nations' WW2 armor at the end. I've seen and heard lots of claims about various nations' armor quality, but they tended to be more one-dimensional, usually along the lines of "British and German armor were the best, Japanese armor was the worst" without qualification (often from battleship fans, which in retrospect explains a lot). And they never, *never* comment on Italian armor, or if they do they usually either assume it was poor because their shells were bad or they just appeal to the old incompetent-pasta-eaters meme. I didn't take these claims too seriously (being in no position to verify them), but your video was very enlightening. My only questions would be: 1) How did French and Soviet armor stack up? I've heard that the Soviets had issues manufacturing armor plates at battleship-grade thickness but no more than that, and French armor doesn't get talked about much. You covered 5 of the 7 major navies, and it'd be nice to hear about the last 2. 2) Why were the Italians so bad at monitoring shell quality when they were so good at monitoring armor quality? Did different branches of the navy handle armor and shell manufacturing? Did they have different policies for monitoring arms and armor industries? Was it just incompetence on the part of the team checking shell quality?
Quite a late response, but I believe the Italian shell quality issues come from the shells being produced over a much longer period of time. And the start of that time the quality control was more lax to allow more people to actually get training and make things because Italy hadnt properly industrialised. And then those poor shells sat around in inventory until they were used in WW2. However, for ships steel I assume the quality control was always of a higher standard
@James McCann The following is complete speculation: Perhaps the reason was that you can manufacture new shells and they're single use. A ship on the otherhand is a much more persisting item to manufacture.
To partially answer your question: USSR was indeed not capable to produce armor plates thick enough for battleships. Furthermore, the quality of soviet armor was dismal. Their tanks far into 1950's suffered from overly brittle armor aggravated by poor welding. Soviet tank forces during WW2 suffered a tremendous number of casulties from nonpenetrating hits due to armor plates cracking and/or spalling. Even the post-war IS-3, which on paper was unpenetrable by most AT guns of the time, suffered from these issues. There is no reason to think warship armor would be any better.
19:01, evidence the Eiffel tower was secretly built to build giant armor plates
psss be quite they still use the Eiffel tower to press steel for the antistick Tefal cooking pans.😁
@@obelic71 Je suis mort de rire...
GIGN wants to: /*KNOW YOUR LOCATION*/
@@Xander_Zimmermann I hope you don’t like to (cough) Twitch....
@@Xander_Zimmermann & @Lupus67 Remus - Il sont egalement la DGSI et la DGSE qui veulent toutes les deux connaître votre emplacement... :))
Alternate name for the video : "Cook with Drachinifel"
Yeah pretty much though it’s more baking than cooking, then again ‘frosting’ a steel plate with molten steel makes it sound like someone making wafer cookies.
and i found it fascinating, of course i like cooking shows....
It would have been good for American Thanksgiving to call it how to cook a battleship
@@ErikHare as an american i like your joke, atleast it would be better than turkey.
Just in time for Thanksgiving. How thoughtful.
Any video with a clever Lord of the Rings reference is worthy of a like.
"A brief history..." with Drachinifel - 50+ mins long Myself: Oh, he's back in form again!
I mean when summing up hundreds of years of history 50+ minutes is a brief overview I suppose
I wonder how long an "extended" view would be and how many cans of tea we need to watch it
@@christophpoll784 24
Get the tea and biscuits. Pop your feet up. The next hour of my life is gonna be DRACHERRIFIC
This is what is called a true 5 minute guide...
I read that initially as DRACHEFERRIC, which would have been rather apt
I loathed metallurgy when I was studying mechanical engineering. If I'd watched your video before starting out, I would have been much more enthusiastic about it and my career might have been completely different, but that was in the 1970s. Thank you. MORE PLEASE.
8:45. Love the Tolkein reference!.
Missed that the first time
As a material/metallurgy engineer myself I have to say this is a very good and informative video. Also this highlights the rather strong effect upon development of metallurgy due to war. Having a book about steel casting metallurgy dated 1940 I can say that basically they know everything - and since then it's mostly about reducing production cost.
Just want to say thank you to Drach for that brittle-ductile nail explanation. It helped me torture and execute a lampshade that had failed me for the last time.
And now we shall drift off to sleep, dreaming of the shining ships sheathed in adamantine mithril forged before the dwarves delved too greedily and too deep.
Imagining the dreadnought race in a world where mithril was real.
@@TerribleHamster It would likely be used like modern high tech composites.
Honestly I would love to see a picture of the martensite and pearlite structures of various nation plates and age groups to see the progression of the armor sophistication and face hardening development over the years.
Me too! Along with alloy composition and its effect on the steel lattice structure. Any metallurgy geekery would be a treat!
Thanks Drachinifel. This pretty much covers half of the criteria in a level 3 module I teach. I think that this may get included in my lessons.
17:55 "Special Comittee of iron" and the next sentence begins with "Ironically". Is that metal or what? ;)
Out to steel the comedy I see
That yoke was hammered in.
@James Harding We could be casting comedy show.
It snowed a foot last night, and I'm stuck in the house. What a perfect condition to listen to a man talk about armor forging.
I'd be interested in the methods of fastening such enormous slabs of steel while maintaining a water-tight fit across so many pieces. Just coping with thermal expansion & contraction must be a problem.
And working out the problems all over _again_ when they went from bolting to welding.
Remember that the armor was generally a separate layer from the water-tight shell of the ship. Either it was bolted to the shell, or it was internal and the water-tight shell was outside the armor.
I've lost track of it, but there is a picture and diagram on line of a bolt used to attach the armor belt of the Pennsylvania class battleships. Two things of interest layered into the bolt: A substance called oakum that absorbs water and expands to create a water-tight seal; and layers of cotton or other textiles dipped in white lead or red lead to make sure that galvanic corrosion doesn't happen between the bolt and plate.
Did the bolts need to be special too or didn't they shear off ?
They put the slabs together with flex tape.
Still want to see a video on naval traditions such as crossing the equator and such
you mean the Shellback title for equator? or the many others: Golden Shellback crossing International Date Line or the Domain of the Golden Dragon for just crossing the IDL, the Emerald Shellback or Royal Diamond Shellback for crossing the Equator at the Prime Meridian? Order of the Blue Nose (or Domain of the Polar Bear) for crossing the Arctic Circle, (do not know the Antarctic Circle) Order of the Spanish Main for sailing the Caribbean, Realm of the Czars for the Black sea Order of Magellan for circumnavigating the world, and i am sure there are more.
Aye!!! That would be good!!! Maybe a series?
@@tommy-er6hh you're right, every ship I sailed on, had their own unique ceremony. every line of significance had a certificate and disgusting but harmless ritual. As i served in the RCN, both my crossings were of the Arctic circle. They involved cold salt water baths, in below Zero conditions, thank god for "Up spirits". I'll never forget kissing the codfish, and the pasta noodle shower. Not only that, but we painted the Bullring on our bow Arctic Blue for a year, to honour the old ship as well.
I feel like he could make it into a series each video is a different country
@@tommy-er6hh Let's see here, I've never crossed the Equator (boo-hiss) but have the Blue Nose, Order of the Spanish Main and Realm of the Czars. Crossing the IDL by air probably doesn't count, did that several times.
There's a bit of this process that you can still go and see. The Kelham Island Museum in Sheffield contains a 12,000 horsepower 3-cylinder vertical steam engine (simple, not compound) that was built to power a rolling mill and produce armor plate. It's even been restored to operate and they steam it every so often.
The amount of money/energy/time/manpower these armor production methods took must have been mind-boggling. No wonder the Washington treaty came along. Thanks for this really neato piece, Mr Drak. Much appreciated.
Ehhhhhhh
If you choose to go ahead with an even more detailed metallurgy video, I run a metallurgy lab and have a master’s in materials engineering if you want any help/proofreading.
what do you think of polymer warships?
utvara1 for as much “armor” as they put on them now it wouldn’t make much difference. Not a great material for mounting machinery to. But things like light craft with fiberglass hulls are a large fraction polymer.
@@utvara1 I love my Materials Guys. I trained as a Metallurgist and do Project Management today. Greetings
Then perhaps you might start by explaining to some of the people on this site the difference between Wrought Iron and Steel.
@@MegaBoilermaker Wrought iron, very little carbon, lots of impurities. Steel, iron plus varying amounts of carbon (depending on alloy) and very few impurities. Steel is much stronger and can be heat treated to a much wider degree.
Christal structures? Oh, yes please! This has been an interest of mine for some time, but couldn't wrap my head around it until now. Thanks!
I second that - and a bit on the history of theory following or leading practice. Who gets to "just try something" on slabs of steel ?
Drach geeking out about armor, metalology and engineering? more please!
I remember reading about the armor used by the US Navy and the one point they kept making was that no US battleship ever actually had it armor truly tested in battle, except at the Battle of Guadalcanal. Basically the Japanese 14in shells failed to penetrate because of the tough nose cone designed to allow the shell to penetrate the hull underwater, the result was that it was unable to penetrate the hull above the waterline. It was also noted that the concept of all-or-nothing really worked, and that the 3in thick conning tower tower suffered more damage then if it had been just 1 1/2in thick. Tragically, this is where many of the AA crews were sent to protect them. They would have been safer at their posts then under cover. At the end of the war the Navy tested their armor against German, British, and Japanese armor and concluded the British armor was better, followed by the German and American armor types. The differences were small though, so the Navy concluded in battle the US ships still would have survived serious damage. The big difference in American ship construction was the use of special treatment steel (STS) which minimized the damage caused by splinters. As Drachnifel has pointed out, the lack of protection for cabling on Bismark was a serious flaw in their design. The US protected uptakes, cabling, and anti-torpedo bulkheads etc. with STS.
As I recall, the Japanese diving AP shells (standard for them in WW2) actually had a flattened nose for better directional stability under water (after the windscreen and cap broke off) with the intention of penetrating the skin of the ship below the belt. This flat nose is what made them worse for penetration on direct impacts, so the diving shells had to get lucky and hit a sweet spot just short of the target. As far as I'm aware, there is only one known case where this worked as intended, on Boise at Cape Esperance.
@@kemarisite Yes, it was the Boise. What I found odd was the fact that American battleships were known for their deep belts, in some cases, because of overloading, and thus less likely to be penetrated below their belts. This meant that the Japanese were confident that their shell fuses would not be activated for the length of time required to reach the bottom of the hull and not detonate until they were inside the ship. Because the Japanese destroyed all of their records at the end of WW2, there are no papers that describe the research or discussions of how this would be achieved. Cruisers and Destroyers of course had thinner belts, and relied on multiple compartments to contain damage rather then resist penetration. Anyway, it's very ironic, yet good luck for the American Navy that these shells were used!
Frank DeMaris Also why the 18.1” is similar to the 16” in penetration at long range.
>At the end of the war the Navy tested their armor against German, British, and Japanese armor What about France?
@@Poctyk France and Italy were not mentioned, probably because they had no samples to test. I should note that several French warships were repaired and rebuilt in America and I'm sure American and British experts had a close look at them. The British had a good look at Italian ships after they surrendered but their findings were never published as far as I know. (I've wondered at what they found?). The Italian "owl" radar was investigated and the British thought it could have been a lot more effective with research, and more time, which of course they ran out of.
So the often confused nomenclature of assigning "So and so's ship" prefixes to IJN ships has been solved at long last! at 37:38 the Kashima's plate is identified as coming from HIJMS . . . His Imperial Japanese majesty's Ship. Thanks, Drach!
Although that might be the British take on it rather than the official Japanese line, as the ship was built in Britain.
Some literature uses ship prefixes for navies that did not internally use one (Kriegsmarine and IJN being notable examples).
Again, props for the Tolkien reference... "..dwarves who delve to deep..." ;-)
I have seen amazing damages on forestry machines due to steel gets brittle when its too cold. As colder it gets, the more brittle the steel gets. When you are in colder then -25, this become a real issue.
It's interesting what happens to wood at these temperatures too. I had to thaw a piece of wood 🪵 over my car's defroster for 20 minutes just to get a nail into it at negative 10 Fahrenheit. When it was cold nails would just bounce off
If I had an award I'd give it to you, remarkable presentation my good sir, thank you
When you learn history in school you assume once a iron ship was build everyone adopt it because it was better but you never learn that there some issue that they have to work out with metal ship this video would be a surprise to anyone who didn't learn nice you point that out Darch
There was a similar issue with bronze vs. iron cannon - the latter could be made much lighter provided the quality of the iron and the casting process were satisfactory, but if anything went wrong the gun was likely to blow up. Foundries had a lot of experience of casting bronze (for church bells) so bronze guns were generally safer until iron casting techniques caught up.
Many technologies are like this, with pioneers, false starts, and new technical side issues cropping up. Electric cars have been around 100+ years, but only now seem to be gaining traction (pun intended!)
A breif history of engineering development: "-We can do a new thing! It'll be better than the old thing!" "We should do the thing!" "It turns out doing the new thing is HARD and we have all these problems we didn't notice until now!" "... Do the old thing until you work out the new thing-" "-We can do a new thing!..."
@@CharlesStearman I note bronze is soft and brass is hard. And iron is soft and flexible and hard and brittle depending on the batch and even the weather. Until you properly understand the properties of the material you would be foolish to mass produce it. There are always remarks about tin buttons decaying in the French army when invading Russia in the Nepolionic era. The phase transition of metallic tin into nonmetallic tin wasn't even heard of. And you cannot even replicate it reliably, even if you place 20 plates of tin in freezing conditions only some will exibit the phase change after a year, Cody's Lab had one in his freezer for years with no apparent changes before it suddenly started to change.
@@Zaprozhan electric cars were far more plentiful than internal combustion, until Henry Ford took a leap of faith with the Modek T. Garages had overnight charging statiins too.
I’ll have to remember this in case I get sent back in time.
Jarod John I'm not sure why but that thought always pops into my head as well, how much help could I be with just a pedestrian take on what's being offered. In reality we'd probably just be laughed at and put into a mental institution for thinking we were time travelers
Who the hell puts dislikes on Drach's videos?!? WITCH HUNT!!!!!
Readying the pitchforks!
@@disbeafakename167 Pitchforks? Time to bust out the 14, 15, 16 and 18-inch guns!
@@tomhsia4354 can i still bring torches? It's not really a witch hunt if there's not a crowd holding torches
@@an_f-14_tomcat Sure, bring all the torches. medieval-style torches, electric torches, oxy-acetylene torches, ALL of them. In fact, let's make some 18-inch napalm "torch" shells while we're at it.
So sadly geeky I'm not sure whether I'm enjoying the metallurgy, the engineering or the naval history aspects. Great layman's explanations.
Drachinifel video - like then watch so you don’t forget.....
But if you watch then like the Like is worth more in the Algorithm...
@@hawkticus_history_corner who fukn cares about that
@@johnballs1352 Because it really helps Drac out on engagement, which can get him more recommendations or ads on videos.
@@hawkticus_history_corner I know, I just hate how crazy everyone is over "algorithm". It's a very obnoxious buzz word.
@@johnballs1352 Its...not a buzzword? Thats literally what it is
The engineering you explain is great I love learning how it all comes together thank you sir you truly are a gentleman and a scholar as well as being willing to teach
"Iron ships will sink". I remember, a very long time ago, meeting this meme as an example of the stupidity of the Establishment. But, of course, the Naval establishment was not stupid, and it was actually true. In the age of wooden ships, it was actually rather rare for a defeated ship to sink: hence, the large number of captured ships taken into the service of the enemy, like HMS Belleisle or HMS Sans Pareille. Loads of them. If the powder magazine caught fire, or the ship was caught in a storm, they might go down: otherwise the wooden structure meant they floated, even if no longer capable of being fought, and could be taken back to be refitted. But once iron ships came in, no more were prize ships taken in to their enemy's navy. It wasn't a good reason for not adopting iron ships, but (if this argument was ever actually made) it was NOT evidence that senior naval officers didn't understand displacement. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the Navy (in Britain) was probably the best technically educated arm of the services.
Or they were so badly damaged they were more of a liability then anything else. In which case it was salvage what you could, impress or imprison the crew and set the ship on fire while you sailed away.
remind me when japan could board uss hornet (cv-8) and decided to tow her to tokyo but she already too flooded for it and then scuttled her instead.
"They varied the thickness of their hardened face *depending* on how thick the armor they were making!" -_- * smashes head on desk * I am amazed, this is so simple a concept that it should be obvious... yet only the italians seemed to think of it. It has this "AHA!" effect, when you're being told something and afterwards think "Yeah, that's right, why didn't I think of that?!". You got to give it to the italians, they cook their armor like they cook their spaghetti.
"You got to give it to the italians, they cook their armor like they cook their spaghetti" _Al dente_ Soft on one layer, hard on the other.
Aloha, A/S engineer here. Good job on this episode! More of that!
Have thoroughly enjoyed this video. A few years ago I was involved in restoring a horse tram and we had to have new wheels designed and manufactured. These were chilled cast iron and I had to learn a new vocabulary when dealing with the pattern makers and iron founders. The end results were four cast iron wheels with chilled and thus hardened rolling faces if austenitic iron. The engineers who then machined and assembled the wheelsets quoted a high price as they expected to break several lathe tools. In the end the castings were very accurate and no tools were broken and the finabill was substantially reduced. I asked how hard the wheel treads were and the manager replied "expletive deleted hard". Much of what I learned was touched upon in this video. .
Ah yes. Brittle and ductile deformation. Did this in my geology degree (I’m still a student)
Give up on the word armor after nuclear weapons are invented
@@rickevans3959 BVR warfare*
The first iron bridge at Ironbridge on River Severn,England was built using the same techniques you’d use for an oak timber bridge. It’s still there 250 years later because cast iron is extremely strong in compression. Just as timber is strong in compression. However make it into plates and any bending moments will shatter the metal.
As a Mechanical Engineer who had to request a Faculty Pass because I failed second year Material Science, thanks for explaining all this simply and relating it back to Phase Change Diagrams. Thankfully I excelled as Dynamic and Mechanics of Machines, and have only had to deal with material science incidentally as I chose different steel grades for automotive frames and panels, and could focus on yield point and post yield plasticity curves during high speed impact scenarios. This treatise now also helps me understand why the Russians struggled so much to create decent tank armour given the temperature and time control required within the manufacturing process to make even relatively basic face-hardened armour. Thanks for making us all a little smarter, Drach!
Who needs coffee when you have a new Drach video to watch first thing in the morning!
38:04 That ingot weighs 400.000, or about 181 metric tons. For comparison, that's about 100 cars, 30-40 male African elephants, 14 London busses, three modern main battle tanks, two railway locomotives, or a small house. That is one big chunk of steel.
AEC Routemaster 1954-1968 = 7 ton Just giving the weight is more specific than newly invented customary units. 4000 catfishes or hundredweight (before 1300)
Thanks for the vid Drac! I hope it gets the views you want and don’t get discouraged if people ‘don’t view it’. It’s a pretty specific group these vids are aimed towards, as I’m sure you know. I definitely liked and thank you for your time with this. Cheers!
Hey there, Mr Drachinifel. It just occurred to me as I'm boggling at the amount of money and effort involved, how about a brief piece on just how ruinously expensive big armored ships were? These couldn't have been cheap. Thanks. Love your work.
When I started watching my Wednesday Drach fix there were about 5200 views. Refreshed the browser at the end and found 6400 plus....... 1200 views per hour, that's a lot of people waiting for/anticipating new content. Congrats on a truly successful and well done channel.
29:38 damn you made me nostalgic i had to learn this in tradeschool as a machinist that was great.
Very VERY interesting, Drach! I would love to hear a bit more!!! Maybe also (if you haven't already done it) the brief history of shell design, or "how to design a naval shell for dummies: from cannonball to APFSDS!" If that name spikes your interest, by all means, you have my blessing to use it as a video title! (how magnanimous!!!) I would take sheer joy in listening to you explain the evolution of naval projectiles, the balistics envolved, the physics, the tech... I get all "chose" just thinking about it!!! Please give it a shot! XD
me too. Id like to know specifics and understand what goes into and the tools needes how do i make one
@@zaxxx1975 KZhead demonitization squad: Wants to know your location!
@Lupus69 Remus APFSDS is an armor piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot round that was never used in naval warfare. as far as i know... APFSDS is a tank round as far as i know.
@@kv2315 I know, but for the sake of an entertaining title, I kept it in...
Bravo! As a retired mechanical engineer focused on machine design you have done an excellent job explaining the rather dense subject of Ferrous Metallurgy for people that are not studying it for their career. I personally appreciated the history of developing the improved armor grades and can see the interaction of those with the development of the many alloys available today. Thank you!
Fat fingers on phone. To continue. The simple explanation of the science, research and development was perfect for a non science non engineering history and English guy. Too many of my books on the development of the ship and warship just fling out the types of steel with no explanation other than it was better than the last type. Thank you.
Thanks Drac for taking me back to my HNC metallurgy in 1972. I’ve never thought of a phase diagram again until today.
Remember concrete boats? Always a source of amazement to me.
Agreed. Those are both interesting and funny. I like the idea of making thin-skinned canoes out of fibre-reinforced concrete...
As a kid, I can remember watching a documentary film showing entire sections of quays and other, previously thought to be immobile, enormous concrete structures being towed across the Channel, over to Normandy (June 1944). I didn't comprehend it at the time, but those were also massive concrete caissons and other harbour sections being used to piece together the infamous Mulberry Harbours at Omaha Beach and at Gold Beach.
Some manufacturers use concrete hulls on sailboats.
Concrete ships are not that uncommon en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_ship
Ice and wood pulp ships. Plycrete.
ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS. Whilst this is such an esoteric subject but to those of us who find it fascinating this is, as I have already said, ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS.
Bravo. sufficiently detailed whilst elegantly succinct.
Ahhhh good old metallurgy. I had to understand this when I was in Welding school (both high school and university) One of the more difficult parts of metallurgy was the understanding of phase transition of metal at certain temperature ranges. Just iron alone gave me grief.
Yea metallurgy! I work for a company doing stamping and deep drawing. So I get to see all the high end steel alloys like S290. Harden them to 68HRC and they are still not brittle; Those alloys are about as close to magical ore as you'll come IRL...
@@Bird_Dog00 just looking at those designations of types of steels i am left with the conclusion that there must be thousands of variations
@Tristan Hundreds at least... There is a lot you can do with steel.
Yes please on the deep dark metallurgy video.
One word, excellent. Thanks Drac!
Thank you for making this, I loved every moment of it and even back tracked a few times on my first watch through to make sure I had certain bits. :D
I just read a few of the articles by Nathan Okun a while ago, this was a nice refresher and gave it all a bit more context. I do assume that this video (together with the follow-on regarding homogenous/Class B armour) will be rather important for the video on the Hood's destruction and how it might've gone down (pun not intended). I do faintly remember there being something about how homogenous plate is better for deck and turret roof protection as it is less likely to spall and increases the chance of a shell tearing a gash and ricocheting away rather than biting into the plate and normalizing to a more favourable angle.
Actually, there's an interesting point about shells "turning" to a more normal angle of impact, and that has to do with a phenomenon called "base slap". When the nose and cap of the shell dig into the plate and start rotating toward a more "normal" angle, that rotation continues through the penetration process. That rotation leads the mid-se tion or base of the shell to slam against the side of the hole in the plate. This can cause the shell to break up or damage the fuse, leaving a shell that penetrated the armor but not in a state where it would actually detonate.
@@kemarisite It really makes one wonder, how much we really know about the metallurgy of armor. I bet we're still two or three generations of materials science away from the real pinnacle of steel-based compound armor, given how we stopped making the stuff before computer-aided design and testing came about. There's probably a whole world of interesting and novel armor-projectile interactions that we don't really know much about. Which is a real shame, because materials science has made such incredible advances in practically every other area of armor since then, none of which scale up to a point where you could armor a ship with them. Even the most sophisticated composite tank armor doesn't really stand up to the warhead of your average anti-shipping missile, and we've never really figured out how to design anything to protect a ship against a torpedo, other than not get hit.
@@ashesofempires04 Apptly demonstrating that breaking something is much easier than protecting it.
Ooooh. I do love this sort of thing. :D Love your 'Brief History of X' videos. :D Armor and shell manufacture are definitely the most interesting part of ship making.
So glad i found this!I've always wanted to know the history of armor.This summarizes it perfectly
Excellent video Drac! You managed to pack an incredible amount of information into a satifying listen. Thank you!
Very good and detailed discussion! Well done!
High praise coming from you. Would love to see a collaboration between you and Drach on naval guns and armor. Plz link if you already have.
The last time I was this early Flamuu didn’t have a beard yet
Danyal Zhang >> Haven’t the faintest idea what you’re talking about, mate. Clue me in?
Jay Bee Flamu is a streamer/youtuber that plays world of warships
The smores joke was quick but quite brilliant.
I love this special. It scratches an materials science and manufacturing itch I get all too frequently, and does it in an easily digestible form, that is so rare. Thank you.
Also, by the early 19th century, the world, and especially most of North West Europe, was running out of *suitable shipbuilding timbers.*
Well, This happens when you chop down hundreds of jears old trees without planting new ones :)
We were smart, we planted lots and lots of oak trees. They are ready to be used now!
Humans can do incredible things. We can use up most of a continent's wood and we can plant 20 million trees to help reverse our impact
@@windwatcher460 There is no hope of really reversing the impact. I think most people don't realize most of Europe and North America outside of notable plains regions used to be completely covered in dense forest. If there is a non built up area with some trees in it, chances are the area used to be completely covered in trees for miles around. There is a reason why traditional children's tales always prominently feature forests. They are from a time when everything was forest. Most of the logging happened before portable cameras to capture what things used to look like existed, so people don't even have a visual of what it was like.
@@leifvejby8023 look in to, and the story behind what are called "Nelson's Oaks". It was known.
Enjoyed the "Forged in Fire" television show reference.
Well done. have a glass of water and relax I enjoyed your series very much.
This video, as well as the other about shells I have seen, are a fantastic lesson in history and science, with lessons that still resonate today. Thanks for your awesome and instructive work !
Another Darchinifel Video and it about Naval armor Yes Yes Yes Yes
You got all through the Harvey process without saying "allotrope" which must have been quite the challenge for you
Engineering students hate him!
EXTREMELY GOOD PRESENTATION!!! Thank you!
I really enjoyed this video. Thank you for your research and wonderful presentation. A fascinating subject.
You didn't answer the most important question though: What's the relative effectiveness as armor of the 2" thick books on armor?
"laminar cellulose sheathing" to use the technical term
There was an episode of Myth Busters on this subject - though they used phonebooks vs small arms (infantry guns)
The ancient chinese used (corrugated?) paper as body armor. As long as they could keep it dry (laminating or sg), it functions well - about on the level of brigandine.
Tests proved the difference is paper thin.
@@karlvongazenberg8398 watch the Mythbusters episode on Chinese lamellar paper armour effectiveness, surprising how cost effective and lightweight it is, with access to adequate glues and resins we would have all been wearing micarta type composite armour well before the 1970`s.😉
A small correction regarding Armor Piercing Caps used on shells: They were not designed to increase the penetrative ability of a projectile overall (or affect the armor being struck). Rather their purpose was to alter the transfer of energy during the initial impact to prevent the projectile from outright shattering against very hard steel. Unfortunately these caps have gained a reputation as existing to improve overall penetrative capabilites of a projectile because the German's used Face hardened armor extensively on many of their tanks instead of homogenous armor. If you add a cap designed to prevent shattering, then your projectile will subsequently perform much better against an armor that is designed to improve the ability to shatter projectiles at the cost of overall effectiveness.
Afaik ap capped at ammo wasnt a think. AP tank ammo was steel or tungsten core, aluminum body.
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 You are thinking of a type of projectile called Armor Piercing Composite Rigid (APCR) or in US terminology High Velocity Armor Piercing (HVAP). Those were indeed sheels where a hardened steel or tungsten sub-caliber penetrator was encased in a full caliber body of softer metal. These rounds were relatively scarce though. Most armor piercing projectiles were full caliber steel shot or shell. Both however were replaced during the cold war by HEAT (shaped charges) and Armor piercing discarding sabot (APDS) ammunition.
@@rapter229 Solid steel ap rounds very quickly became inadequate at defeating armour. I am only intimazely familia with Hunagrian WWII equipment, but I know for a fact they used nothing but APCBCHE for anti tank work by as early as 41, and they wernt an industroal poweehpuse
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 Even APCBCHE is essentially a solid steel AP round, just with extra features. the C stands for capped, which means it is using an Armor Piercing cap, the BC is ballistic cap, which is just another cap on top of the AP cap to make it aerodynamic, and the HE is a small charge inside the projectile to help guarantee the projectile breaks up into fragments after penetration. While obviously AP rounds have limitations, they continued to be used thanks to technological improvements during the cold war, at least in some larger guns, like the 120mm on the M103, which had a specially designed solid AP round that could penetrate about the same depth of armor as the 105mm APDS. Of course, by the time APFSDS came around, solid AP was absolutely outclassed in every way.
@@rapter229 Wrong actually. APCBCHE is Armour pircing ballistic capped high explosive, whicm is steel core aluminium jacket bakelite aerodynamic cap, high explosive, so it has no ap cap.
I love this video, the technical details help differentiate the armor differences.
Just wanted to let you know you're doing great work, and that it is very much appreciated.
Forging Onward - how brazen of you.
Boo...
Ok.. just had to laugh out loud over the '5 minute guide to' logo in the intro.. yeah, those are very long minutes.. Anyway, thanks for posting this, been waiting for this one for a while.
A subject that fascinates, the man, does an excellent job with both the science and the history.
Loved it. Huge subject given an excellent overview . Thanks.
Submarines need proper screrndoors because we have to have fresh air and to vent out the nasty odors from inside the sub. Plus need a golf range on the deck. No decent sub would be without a proper Admiral approved golf range on the deck
Oh my Gods, just imagine the fuel cost of all of this heating, re-heating, re-re-re-heating and so on.
I know I was just thinking that. Makes homogeneous armour much more appealing.
brilliantly well researched video thanks for all the info and the time taken to assemble it all into a comprehensive and understandably vid
Awesome subject! Really enjoyed this and will have to listen through it again soon.
*The first time I've understood "puddling" by one simple pic...*
I spend a lot of time flying to different places for work, and my latest forum of entertainment is saving your videos to watch on the plane. Thanks for another excellent video Drachinifel!
Thoroughly enjoyable video, once again! Thanks Drach!
Science I said, Science!!! I’d like to hear more about the impurity (alloying element) migration that is noted for the need to remove the upper 1/3 of the plate. Also at what sort of thickness does the face hardening stop being useful? I.e. do gunshield or tank type thicknesses gain anything from this process? Likewise, when you get to your video (you know you’re going to do one) on homogenous armor please cover the use of STS type steel such as it’s use on the Mk12 gun mount turrets.
What he is referring to is called rimmed steel. Steel was as he said cast into a large sand mold and was left to cool. In modern steels we introduce elements such as aluminum or silicon into the melt to reduce the amounts of oxides that did not get skimmed off into the slag and are entrained. We use Si and Al because they have a higher affinity for oxygen in the steel than most other alloying elements and float to the slag, in the form of alumina and silicon dioxide (Al2O3 and SiO2). The either alumina or silicon dioxide float and are skimmed/poured off because molten steel is much more dense and both are solids at steelmaking temperatures. In rimmed steel there is no killing element such as Al or Si so the top 1/3 is fully of nasty oxides and bifilms that are again lighter than the molten steel. In killed steels the residual oxygen is removed in the slag and is not removed in the killed steels. Face hardening stops being useful when it starts to negatively effect your mechanical properties such as impact toughness. You want a hard material to try to shatter or slow the projectile and enough toughness (relatively soft) in the remaining material that it can consumes the remaining projectiles kinetic energy without too much spalling. That is not a hard fast answer but it really does depend on the energy of the projectile and how hard it is. Typically armor is rated to a standard probability of penetration. Someone has determined that the armor is graded to withstand a type a projectile a percentage of the time. All has to do with the design standard.
"5 Minute Guide" **looks at video length** *[X] Doubt*
So long as he mentions at least 10 warships in the video, I think it averages out.
That was awesome. I've done some reading, but this video expanded my understanding of the process by a 1000%.
@8:13. Paused to get my head wrapped around that. The interaction of the forces are fascinating! I'm glad someone had the presence of mind to save that bit of ballistic goodness. The cracks in the cement of the monument only add to the shock that piece of iron must have felt.