It was reasoned the side armor would thus form a formidable torpedo protection bulkhead (6.4″ to 1.62″) as well as keep shells with underwater trajectories out. The side armor of the Iowa class was set several feet inboard, and inclined internally at 19 degrees to the vertical until it reached the top of the ships’ triple bottoms. As Oliver North would say, “It was a neat idea.” In lieu of making the design changes necessary to employ separate underwater and shell protection system, American naval designers opted to use a common system for both purposes. The designers felt they did not have sufficient weight margins available to employ a heavy multi-layered system against underwater attacks and thick side armor as well.
In the Iowa and South Dakota designs both weight and the advent of Japanese shells with underwater trajectories had to be considered. The US Navy is aware of the scope of these defects, but has done nothing to rectify a situation that could be calamitous should these ships suffer damage from modern torpedoes of mines. But very little was said about this important area of concern before, or since, the Iowa Class were reactivated. Their underwater protection system is known to be defective by many naval architects. Nor is propellant containment the only weak point in the Iowa Class battleship’s design. Iowa torpedo protection is very poor design and not properly tested and the navy tried to cover it up. I came across a very insightful article about the severe armor and protection problems of the Iowa class battleships by Dr George H Elder.
0 kommentar(er)
