Scientific American Supplement, No. 803, May 23, 1891 by Various
page 65 of 143 (45%)
page 65 of 143 (45%)
![]() | ![]() |
|
Creusot plates.
Certain general rules may be laid down for attacking armor. If the armor is iron, it is useless to attack with projectiles having less than 1,000 feet striking velocity for each caliber in thickness of plate. It is unadvisable to fire steel or chilled iron filled shells at thick armor, unless a normal hit can be made. When perforation is to be attempted, steel-forged armor-piercing shells, unfilled, should be used. They may be filled if the guns are of great power as compared to the armor. Steel and compound armor are not likely to be pierced by a single blow, but continued hammering may break up the plate, and that with comparatively low-powered guns. Wrought iron must be perforated, and hard armor, compound or steel, must be broken up. Against wrought iron plates the projectile may be made of chilled cast iron, but hard armor exacts for its penetration or destruction the use of steel, forged and tempered. Against unarmored ships, and against unarmored portions of ironclads, the value of rapid-firing guns, especially those of large caliber, can hardly be overestimated. The relative value of steel and compound armor is much debated, and at present the rivalry is great, but the weight of evidence and opinion seems to favor the all-steel plate. The hard face of a compound plate is supposed to break up the projectile, that is, make the projectile expend its energy on itself rather than upon the plate, and the backing of wrought iron is, by its greater ductility, to prevent the destruction of the plate. It seems probable that these two systems will approach each other as the development goes on. An alloy of nickel and steel is now attracting attention and bids fair to give |
|