[ Post a Response | The SteelNavy.Com Message Board ]
Re: Comparative Armor Machining: Iowa to _________?
Armor plates for warships were machined before the turn of the last century. The "big deal" was what treatments and process was used. Brit battleships in WW1 had plates with double tapers..e.g. top of the plate one thickness, middle another and lower area a third thickness. I recall reading that channels were cut into edges so the plate "interlocked" along their vertical edges. You are no doubt aware that all plates were drilled from the back to receive bolts to hold them to the hull. Iowa's belt was internal. Some armor is welded and some is integrated into the ship's strength structure. I am not aware of any "special" armor plate installation techniques employed uniquely on the Iowas.
In the construction of the Iowa-class battleships no expense was spared. The design called for machining the armor plates as though they were made of pine and could have been done by Norm Abram.
Cut a scarf joint into 6–7" thick armor plates? No problem.
Cut a hook joint into 13–17" thick armor plates? A breeze.
Most armor plates required extensive machining at the mill and most required even more machining at the yard.
I was wondering if those with knowledge of the protection scheme of other battleships might be able to offer a comparative view of such armor machining.
SteelNavy.Com Home Page