请选择 进入手机版 | 继续访问电脑版

战列舰

 找回密码
 加入我们

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

搜索
查看: 11429|回复: 54

对1946年英国对提尔皮茨号装甲测试报告的探讨

[复制链接]

中将

五年服役纪念章一级铁十字勋章元老荣誉纪念章行政立法委旗手终身荣誉会员

发表于 2012-11-29 17:00:52 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
本帖最后由 克虏伯火炮 于 2012-11-29 23:57 编辑

  本坛 LeSoleil 贴过皇家海军对提尔皮茨号的装甲的测试的链接:
  http://www.admirals.org.uk/records/adm/adm213/adm213-378.php
  
  个人认为这个报告的结论并不能完全令人信服。
  现将其内容转帖到这里,黑色汉字是一部分翻译,蓝色汉字是我个人的注解。
  
  This document is a modern transcription of a portion of Admiralty record ADM 213/378. It is a record of post Second World War testing of German armour and comparisons to contemporary British armour. Additional comments have been made by our website staff where clarification is necessary (items in [brackets]). It was transcribed by Peter Klein of Germany on behalf of the the Royal Navy Flag Officers 1904-1945 website. The original file is held at the The National Archives at Kew, London. This Crown Copyrighted material is reproduced here by kind permission of The National Archives.
  This file is not complete. We will endeavour to add more of it in future updates.
  
  前言简介:以下是英国海军档案ADM 213/378的一个现代抄本。它是二战后测试德国装甲的记录,并与同时代的英国装甲作了比较。附加的评论(就是方括号内的项目)是我们的网站职员做的,这是必须澄清的......
  
  正文:
TESTS OF GERMAN ARMOUR
ACSIL/ADM/47/76C
D.N.C. 5/JULY 1946.
Armour Technical Committee.
Meeting 15th August 1946.
Item 4. German Armour.
(a) Reports on visits to Germany.
With the fall of Germany opportunity has occurred for visits to the German Steel Works and for examination of German methods in armour manufacture to be investigated. There have been various reports circulated to the Committee of this visits of Mr. D.E.J. Offord of D.N.C. and Mr. Walker of Messrs. Firth-Brown Ltd., to Czechoslovakia and germany, and those of Lieut. Commander B.R. Queneau U.S.N. to Dortmund and Essen. In regard to ship armour the reports stress the importance attached by Krupp, Essen, to low sulphur and phosphorus steel for armour manufacture. The Baoic (Basic (sic!)) Open Hearth furnace appears to be the main source of steel supply and elaborate precautions are taken to ensure deoxidation and desulphurization of the steel. The employment of a chromo recovery process for the manufature of armour at Krupp, Essen, is mentioned by Lieut. Commander Queneau U.S.N. in his report, it is believed that this process only applies in the production of low alloy steels for Tank armour and not normally for ship armour. The analysia employed by the Germans for heavy ship armour is similar to our own. In regard to manufacture of the finished armour plate it would appear that the German practice is to roll direct from slab ingot without forging, to avoid as they say, lamination in the finished plate. Treatment of the armour does not differ markedly from that employed in this country. For cemented armour the German prefers a deep face and produces this by carburising for a longer time than we do, thereby ensuring deeper carbon penetration. The process produces higher percentages on the plate face which would seem to be undesirable in the light of our own experience.
  大意是说战后我们参观了德国钢铁厂,考察了德国装甲的制造过程。并简单说明了德国装甲的特点和习惯,比如德国习惯直接从厚板或铸锭轧制,而不经过锻造,来避免lamination问题。另外德国装甲板的硬化深度比英国的大——“而根据我们自己的经验,这样做似乎是并不合适的。”
  请注意这里面着重提出了德国装甲钢低硫低磷特性可以带来额外的好处:
  In regard to ship armour the reports stress the importance attached by Krupp, Essen, to low sulphur and phosphorus steel for armour manufacture.
  硫和磷在钢中属于有害杂质,会增高钢的脆性、降低塑性指标(延伸率、断面收缩率、冲击功——在特定的实验条件下冲断单位截面钢试样所需的功),所以在炼钢中都要尽量去除这两种杂质。一般而言,钢材在冶金方面的技术指标,就是以硫磷含量来划分的。比如现在我国划分方法中是将硫磷含量均低于0.04%称作“优质”钢,均低于0.03%的叫做“高级优质”钢。
  
  It is suggested that the Committee might consider in the light of additional evidence which may be available, wether there are any factors in the fundamentals of steel making, brough to light by the German visits which are worthy of investigation for British armour manufacture.
(b) Armour on Tirpitz
Armour plating removed from the ex German Battleship TIRPITZ was shipped to this country in August 1945, and arrangements were made for full metallurgical and physical examinations to be made by each of the three armour firms. Separate portions of armour (a) uniform thickness 12 1/2 " (b) tapered thickness 12 1/2 " - 6 1/2 ", from side armour of the vessel, and (c) cast armour believed from control tower or range finder hood were examined and reports have been received from the three firms as follows: -
Beardmore Ltd., Report No.462 11/3/46
Firth-Brown Ltd., Report R.L.C.4415 2/1/46
English Steel Co., Ltd., Report G.82 8/2/46.
  1945年8月提尔皮茨号上拆下来的装甲被船运到英国,被制作成三块并安排了全面的冶金学和力学性能上的测试。样品a是一致的12.5英寸厚度板材,样品b为逐渐减薄的6.5-12.5英寸(即提尔皮茨主装甲带),这两块是从其侧垂直装甲带而来的。样品c被认为是指挥塔或者测距仪罩而来。
  可见样品a和b是从提尔皮茨号主装甲带拆下来的,其中a是整块均匀厚度的,而b则是其装甲带下沿厚度逐渐减少到170毫米的那部分。
  提尔皮茨号主装甲带实际厚度是315毫米,所以样品a的实际准确厚度应该是315毫米,而不是12.5英寸。

A summary of the analysis of plates and mechanical properties of the German armour is given on the attached sheet which includes for comparison plates of British manufacture. The main point of interest on this sheet is the low sulphur and phosphorus and the greater reduction of area obtaining on the German armour.
  附页给出了德国装甲的成分鉴定和力学性能的摘要,包含与英国所造的装甲的比较。这份报告主要的观点是德国装甲硫磷含量较低,和具有较大的断面收缩率。
  请注意又一次提到了低硫低磷的特征,并指出其塑性更好。
The most important point brought to light by the investigation was the greta depth of hard face on the German armour. To the 300 Brinell level the German plates have approximately 45 - 50 per cent depth of face. In British plates 25 per cent - 35 per cent is the more usual practice.
The castings examined were of a low carbon analysis as [continued on next page]
——page break——
- 2 -
follows, .15 per cent C., 3 per cent Cr., 0.3 per cent Mo., 0.1 per cent Va, having a maximum stress of 40 -42 ton/in2 and Ized 80 - 100 ft. Lbs.
  这份调查研究显露的最重要一点是德国装甲具有较大的表面硬化深度,它们具有大约45-50%在布氏硬度300以上的硬化层,而在英国装甲板上通常只有大约25-35%左右。
  经检查它们具有较低的碳含量,为0.15%碳,3%铬,0.3%钼,0.1%钒,屈服强度40-42吨/平方英寸(608-638MPa),和 Ized 80 - 100 ft. lbs。
  之所以将“ maximum stress”翻译成“屈服强度”而不是“最大应力”或者“抗拉强度”,是因为本文最后的表格中标明的是该材质的“YIELD”是41,也就是40和42的中间数。而“YIELD”就是屈服强度。另外与其它资料中的数据核对,也该是屈服强度。
  但最后这个指标“Ized ”不清楚是什么,难道是冲击功?

They were free of unsoundness.
  这句话又是什么意思?
Firing trials against a number of the armour plates from TIRPITZ have taken place at Shoeburyness.
The 12 172 " plates were attacked by 15" A.P.C. Shell at 30° angle firmpact, in two groups.
(a) Small plates roughly 4'-6" x 5'-6", to determine resistance to perforation and gather information on the suitability of small armour plates for shell proof.
(b) Large plate No.27885 roughly 11' x 9'-6" for penetration and perforation limits
Group (a) was used also to give an indication of the likely starting velocity for (b) where limited room only allowed of a maximum of 3 - 4 rounds being fired.
  对一些提尔皮茨号的装甲板进行了射击试验。12.5英寸(那个12 172’’肯定是12 1/2’’的误抄......)用15英寸APC在30度角度下打击,分为两组进行。
  组尺寸1.37×1.68米,确定穿透抵抗力并收集适当的性能信息。
  组编号No.27885,尺寸是3.35×2.9米,做击穿和侵入极限试验。
  组(a) 也用于给b组试验指示出一个合适的初始试验速度,因为击穿和侵入试验仅仅允许最多3-4发炮弹的射击。
A summary of the results obtained for Groups (a) and (b)is as follows:-
(a) Small plates approximate size 4'-6" x 5'-6".
Velocity.  Result - Shell  Plate damage.
1539 fs. Perforation - whole Broke into pieces.
1507 fs. Stop - broke up on plate. Broke into two pieces.
1501 fs. Penetration - frags. front&rear. Holed. Broke into three pieces.
1456 fs. Stop - broke up on plate. Smooth bulge.
1450 fs. Stop - broke up on plate. "
1348 fs. Stop - broke up on plate. "
From plate No.27885.
1508 fs. Peforation - whole. Broke into three pieces and disced.
(b) Plate No. 27885. Size 11" x 9'-6" .
Velocity.  Corrected velocity  Result - Shell .  Plate damage.
1497 fs. 1507 Perforation - whole Disced and broke away to top edge.
1454 fs. 1462 Penetration. Frags. front and rear. Hole 13" x 11.8"
1371 fs. 1379 Stop - Broke up on plate. Smooth bulge 12" x 14"
  试验大致结果如下:
  组试验.速度、炮弹情况、板损坏情况:
  1539英尺/秒,贯穿,装甲整个碎裂。
  1507英尺/秒,在装甲上碎裂,装甲碎成两块。
  1501英尺/秒,穿透,前端探出装甲背面但卡住,装甲碎成三块。
  1456英尺/秒,在装甲上碎裂,装甲平滑变形膨起。
  1450英尺/秒,在装甲上碎裂,装甲平滑变形膨起。
  1348英尺/秒,在装甲上碎裂,装甲平滑变形膨起。
  组试验,编号27885的板,速度、炮弹穿透效果、板损坏程度:
  1508英尺/秒,完整穿透,装甲碎成3块and disced。
  速度、修正速度、炮弹情况、板损坏情况:
  1497英尺/秒,1507英尺/秒,穿透,整个disced并从上边沿穿出。
  1454英尺/秒,1462英尺/秒,穿透,碎成前后两段?装甲板开孔13×11.8英寸。
  1371英尺/秒,1379英尺/秒,在装甲上碎裂,装甲平滑变形凸出12×14英寸
  不清楚“修正速度”(Corrected velocity)是什么意思和目的。
D.N.C. was mainly interested in the performance of the large plate No.27885 and it would appear from the results obtained that
Limit of perforation = 1485 fs. ± 23 fs.
Limit of penetration = 1420 fs. ± 42 fs.
  主要依据b组实验得出结论:
  最小穿透速度1485±23英尺/秒;最小侵入速度1420±42英尺/秒。
For comparison with these results we had the figures for two British 520 lbs. C, plates used for proof of supplies
Firth-Brown Ltd., No.5020 3 1/2" Face 1389 fs. (Penetration).
E.S.C. No.9894 3 1/4" Face 1377 fs. ± 17 fs. (Penetration).
  作为与此结果的对照,我们有两块英国520磅C板的数据,用于提供证明。
  Firth-Brown Ltd., No.5020 3 1/2" Face 1389 fs. (侵入).
  E.S.C. No.9894 3 1/4" Face 1377 fs. ± 17 fs. (侵入).
  520磅的装甲板,厚度应该是324毫米,而不是一些资料比如康威世界舰船的图中所等效的330毫米。因为以(磅数/平方英尺)来标注厚度,主要就是为了核算总重量和重心位置方便而采用的方式,这就要求有一定的精确性。钢铁的密度大约是7850千克/立方米,则520磅/平方英尺×0.4536千克/磅,除以密度7850千克/立方米,再除以1平方英尺即(0.3048×0.3048米),得0.3234米即323.4毫米。再考虑到高碳钢(装甲钢经过渗碳之后其表层的含碳量大幅增加,成为高碳钢)淬火后得到的马氏体组织密度比铁素体要小一点,所以520磅/平方英寸=324毫米是十分可信的。另外更直接的证据是,乔治五世级战列舰的装甲厚度,就是精确的按照磅数标准来制作的。其炮塔正面装甲厚度恰为324毫米,即520磅;而其动力舱区域的主装甲带厚度为349毫米,是349/324×520=560磅;其主炮塔区域主装甲带厚度为374毫米,是374/324×520=600磅。
——page break——
- 3 -
In regard to penetration limit, therefore, there was an apparant superiority in favour of the German armour of the order of 30 - 40 fs. This may have been an under estimate of the difference since in assessing the penetration limit of the German plate the possible error was as much as ± 42 fs.
  所以,最小侵入速度,德国装甲有一个显见的(此处的apparant我认为是apparent的笔误)优势大约30-40英尺/秒。
  后一句没看懂,好像是说“这里可能要取差异中的低端数值,因为德国装甲板的测试数据误差范围是比较大的,达到± 42英尺/秒”?
  如果是这意思的话,为什么要取低端数值?

It was interesting to examine the results of trials against E.S.C. 9894 in relation to those obtained on the German plate in order to determine if possible the the order of difference with more accuracy.
为了更准确地判定差异,令人感兴趣的是调查对E.S.C. 9894的测试结果和从德国装甲板获得的结果之间的关系。
E.S.C. 9894 1373 fs. 1394 fs. Damage Hole 9.2" x 10.8" Plug/disc 19" x 14" Lip 1.5"
TIRPITZ. 27885 1454 fs. 1462 fs. Damage Hole 13" x 11.8" Plug/disc 22" x 13" Lip 2".
i.c. the damage were comparable for a velocity difference of 68 fs. in favour of the German plate.
  这两个损害是可比较的,所需速度差为68英尺/秒,德国装甲有优势。
Whilst it was not a strictly fair, on the above basis of comparison, to assume that, in regard to penetration limit, the same difference would apply it seemed reasonable to state that the German Plate No.27885 showed a superiority over the British armour of the same thickness of about 50 fs under attack by 15" A.P.C. Mark XVIIB shell at 30°.
  然而这不是完全公平的,在上面比较的基础上,假定,关于最小侵入速度,同样的差异使它似乎合理地表明,德国No.27885装甲在受到15英寸A.P.C. Mark XVIIB(879千克6crh穿甲弹)炮弹、30度打击时,相比于英国同厚度的装甲显示了一个大约50英尺/秒的优越性。
  Little information was available regarding perforation limit of British armour. Trials have been undertaken against E.S.C. No.9894 to establish the limit of perforation. The following results were obtained.
  少量关于英国装甲最小穿透速度的资料是可利用的。对E.S.C. No.9894的考察早已经从事过,去建立最小穿透速度,结果如下:
E.S.C. 9894. Damage.
Velocity  Corrected Velocity  Shell. Front.  Back.
1. 1439 fs. 1463 fs. B.U.O.P. Stop Smooth bulge.
2. 1504 fs. 1528 fs. B.U.O.P. All frags. in front. Hole 12.5"x14" Disc 42" x 42".
3. 1555 fs. 1582 fs. Perforation (broken). Hole 20.8"x31.2" Disc 72" x 50".
  速度、修正的速度、炮弹、前、后
  1. 1439英尺/秒,1463英尺/秒,B.U.O.P. 停止,平滑变形凸出。
  2. 1504英尺/秒,1528英尺/秒,B.U.O.P. 前端全部损坏?开孔12.5×14英寸,Disc42×42英寸。
  3. 1555英尺/秒,1582英尺/秒,穿透(碎裂),开孔20.8×31.2英寸,Disc72×50英寸。
Note in round 3 shell was recovered just behind the plate.
  注意在第3轮炮弹是刚刚穿过装甲板。
The assessed limit of perforation of this E.S.C plate was 1582 fs. (shell broken) on the above results.
The assessed limit of penetration of the German plate 27885 was 1485 fs ± 23 fs. (shell whole).
The remarkable feature of this trial is that the deep face on the German plate did not break-up the shell at perforation velocity. The lesser face of the British plate did so and gave a result approximately 100 fs higher for perforation.
  在上述结果中对这块E.S.C板最小穿透速度的评估是1582英尺/秒(炮弹碎裂)。
  在对德国27885板最小侵入(从上文看,这里应该是perforation即穿透)速度的评估是1485英尺/秒(炮弹完整)。
  这次试验显示的卓越特性是德国装甲板的大硬化深度不能在贯穿速度撞碎炮弹。而英国装甲板较薄的硬化深度则做到了,并得到了一个大约高出100英尺/秒的贯穿速度。
The result on E.S.C. 9894 where a stop was obtained at a velocity of 1463 fs (corrected for thickness), is at variance with Proof of Supply result where the limit was assessed as 1377 fs. This is due to the fact that, at the trial for proof of supplies on 30th June 1943, the first round at bottom of ingot plugged the plate at a velocity of approx. 1400 fs (corrected for thickness). The general quality of the plate is felt is more keeping with a limit assessed on the second trial namely 1485 fs ± 35 fs (corrected for thickness).
  这次E.S.C. 9894试验的结果(where a stop)是获得了一个1463英尺/秒的速度(corrected for thickness),与提供的证明所评估的最小侵入速度1377英尺/秒有差异。这是由于这样的事实,即那个试验是在1943年6月30日......这块板正常的质量感觉上应该是第二次试验也就是1485±35英尺/秒(corrected for thickness)更符合评估要求。
  中间这一段没看懂,哪组数据是1943年6月测得的?到底是什么原因才被认为不准确?为何“is felt”1485的数据更靠谱?另外这里只有两个试验所得数据,一个是1463,一个是1377,那么1485是怎么来的?
——page break——
- 4 -
In conclusion it seems that if Plate No.27885 and No.9894 are generally representative of German and Britsih armour then,
  如果No.27885板和No.9894板通常代表德国和英国装甲,则看起来其结论是,
  如前所述对提尔皮茨号的装甲进行了分析和测试,“and comparisons to contemporary British armour”,这里又说No.9894代表英国装甲,则可推断这块No.9894应该是与德国KC n/A同时代的、英国最好的装甲,也即是P1935CA。
(a) Penetration Limit.
British armour is probably superior to the deep faced German Plates by approximately 65 fs. (If the proof of supply result is taken the penetration limit of British armour is about 50 fs. below that of plate No. 27885).
  (a).最小侵入速度
  英国装甲可能优于德国大厚度硬化层装甲大约65英尺/秒(如果那个 proof of supply结果被采纳,则英国装甲的最小侵入速度大约低于No. 27885装甲板50英尺/秒)。
    如前所述,为何取值1485?为何不“the proof of supply result is taken ”?
(b) Perforation Limit.
British armour is superior to the deep faced German plates by approximately 100 fs, with added advatage that the British armour breaks up the shell at bare perforation velocities.
  (b) 最小穿透速度
  英国装甲优于德国装甲大约100英尺/秒,当增加了英国装甲在穿透速度下撞碎炮弹得益前提下。
The trial presented by the trial results, therefore, is a credit to British armour manufacture.
  这试验提出的结论,是英国装甲产品的一个荣誉。
(c) Armour plates removed from MEPPEN.
  (c)从MEPPEN送来的装甲板
The following armour plates have been removed from Krupp Proving Tange at Meppen, Germany and are available at Shoerburyness.
        Plate No.        Thickness        Size.
٪        No.33084        3 ¼ N.C.        19'-9 ½" x 10'-6 ½"
٪        No. 33085        3 ¼ N.C.        19'-9 ½" x 10'-6 ½"
٪        No. 32438        3 ¼ N.C.        19'-9 ½" x 10'-6 ½"
        No. 37363        4 ¾ N.C.        23'-9" x 9'-10"
        No.29785        4 ¾ N.C.        17'-0" x 10'-0"
        No. 29691        4 ¾ N.C.        17'-10" x 11'-6"
        No. 42716        6.4" N.C.        9'-11" x 8'-2 ½"
ж        No. 33228        6.4" C.        20'-10 ¾" x 7'-8"
ж        No. 32551        8.7" C.        18'-3" x 11'-6"
ж        No. 34507        8.7" C.        18'-8" x 11'-8 ½"
ж        No. 29332        8.7 " C.        16'-9" x 11'-5 ½"
ж        No. 29863        14.4" C.        19'-5" x 10'-0"
ж        No. 29873        14.4" C.        19'-6" x 9'-10"
        No. 29906        14.4" C.        19'-6 ½" x 9'-11"
        No. 23787        17 ¾"        16'-3" x 8'-6" (shaped and curved).
٪ These plates are partly used.
ж Copies of the mode of manufacture of these plates have been circulated to members of the A.T.C. Committee in February 1946.
Arrangements are being made for certain of the plates to be fired at under standard conditions of proof, at the earliest possible opportunity as follows:-
(a) No.33084 3 ¼ N.C. 19'-9 ½" x 10'-6 ½" 8" S.A.P.C.B.C. Mark IVB/60°/1380fs.
(b) No.37363 4 ¾ N.C. 23'-9" x 9'-10" 15" A.P.C. Mark XVIIR/65°/1240 fs.
(c) No. 29863 14.4" C. 19'-5" x 10' 15" A.P.C. Mark XVIIR/30°/1560 fs.
and representatives of the Armour Firms and the Ordnance Board will be invited.
Consideration will be given to further trials when the above are completed. Unfortunately most of the other thicknesses of plates shown above do not lend themselves for trials for direct comparison with our own armour and suggestions how to make best use of the plates would be welcome.
——page break——
- 5 -
COMPARISON OF BRITISH & GERMAN (EX TIRPITZ) CEMENTED ARMOUR.
ANALYSIS  520 LBS THICKNESS.

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

END OF TRANSCRIPTION
从两者成分的比较来看,德国装甲硫磷含量是低得多的。其延长率(下表ELONGATION)和断面收缩率(下表R.of.A)也比英国装甲大一点。而屈服强度则比英国装甲稍低。
回复

使用道具 举报

少尉

四年服役纪念章

发表于 2012-11-29 17:15:10 | 显示全部楼层
提尔皮茨号主装甲带实际厚度是320毫米
俾斯麦从小炸不怕,俾斯麦启航不怕炸
俾斯麦开战怕不炸,吊一串水雷碰陀掌

俾斯麦从来炸不怕,俾斯麦生性不怕炸
俾斯麦炮术夸啦啦,一轮半齐射会说话
回复

使用道具 举报

上将

六年服役纪念章功勋勋章钻石金双剑金橡叶铁十字勋章行政立法委骑士团勋章政道纪念章旗手终身荣誉会员

发表于 2012-11-29 17:36:25 | 显示全部楼层
虽然留下了少许未定稿的翻译,为鼓励同好直接碰触第一手文件,还是一定要加精。








回复

使用道具 举报

少尉

四年服役纪念章

发表于 2012-11-29 17:50:53 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 lse 于 2012-11-29 17:52 编辑

这才是第一手文件,有钱的可以去申请
http://discovery.nationalarchive ... Details?uri=C518202
俾斯麦从小炸不怕,俾斯麦启航不怕炸
俾斯麦开战怕不炸,吊一串水雷碰陀掌

俾斯麦从来炸不怕,俾斯麦生性不怕炸
俾斯麦炮术夸啦啦,一轮半齐射会说话
回复

使用道具 举报

上将

六年服役纪念章功勋勋章钻石金双剑金橡叶铁十字勋章行政立法委骑士团勋章政道纪念章旗手终身荣誉会员

发表于 2012-11-29 18:30:42 | 显示全部楼层
几点外行的看法请火炮君参考:

Ized——〉可能是OCR无法辨认原稿,而人工也未能校正的错字。

They were free of unsoundness.——〉它们被去除了不可靠性=它们具有相对的可靠性。

This may have been an under estimate of the difference... ——〉个人认为应是“这里貌似有低估差异的可能”的意思。

The result on E.S.C. 9894 where a stop was obtained at a velocity of 1463 fs (corrected for thickness),——〉用1463英尺/秒的速度(初速相应厚度做出修正)所作的E.S.C. 9894试验的结果是射弹被装甲板挡下,

Corrected Velocity——〉貌似即上述的因初速相应厚度做出修正。
回复

使用道具 举报

中将

五年服役纪念章一级铁十字勋章元老荣誉纪念章行政立法委旗手终身荣誉会员

 楼主| 发表于 2012-11-30 00:37:53 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 克虏伯火炮 于 2012-11-30 01:23 编辑
lse 发表于 2012-11-29 17:15
提尔皮茨号主装甲带实际厚度是320毫米


提尔皮茨号与俾斯麦号有很多地方不一样。其中关于主装甲带,尤其是单独提及提尔皮茨、而不是说俾斯麦级战列舰的时候,大都是写作315毫米:
http://tieba.baidu.com/p/570179139
http://lidong1979.blog.hexun.com/29124494_d.html
另外在http://www.schlachtschiff.com/kr ... hnik/panzerung.html
中也标注为315毫米,而同一个网站中俾斯麦的则为320毫米。
回复

使用道具 举报

中将

五年服役纪念章一级铁十字勋章元老荣誉纪念章行政立法委旗手终身荣誉会员

 楼主| 发表于 2012-11-30 01:22:03 | 显示全部楼层
mathewwu 发表于 2012-11-29 17:36
虽然留下了少许未定稿的翻译,为鼓励同好直接碰触第一手文件,还是一定要加精。

惭愧了。其实我没有能力翻译资料,这一点深有自知,此处只是提出我的质疑观点并求行家考证或者指正而已。
还是不要精华了吧,实在受之有愧呀。
回复

使用道具 举报

中将

五年服役纪念章一级铁十字勋章元老荣誉纪念章行政立法委旗手终身荣誉会员

 楼主| 发表于 2012-11-30 01:46:23 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 克虏伯火炮 于 2012-11-30 02:00 编辑
mathewwu 发表于 2012-11-29 18:30
几点外行的看法请火炮君参考:

Ized——〉可能是OCR无法辨认原稿,而人工也未能校正的错字。


从上文看,Ized 应该是个衡量材料机械性能的一个参数。这一参数的单位是能量单位(英尺.磅),而我能想到的与能量有关的机械性能参数只有冲击功,也就是在韧性试验中将试样材料打断需要的冲击能量,所以我脑补做冲击功,呵呵。

where a stop 应该理解为未侵入,还是侵入但未击穿(而停留在装甲上)?
其后的内容,也就是
This is due to the fact that, at the trial for proof of supplies on 30th June 1943, the first round at bottom of ingot plugged the plate at a velocity of approx. 1400 fs (corrected for thickness). The general quality of the plate is felt is more keeping with a limit assessed on the second trial namely 1485 fs ± 35 fs (corrected for thickness).
是解释“出现这个差异的原因”并且得到结论“ 该取1485的速度”。可我实在搞不懂他说的原因,所以无法知道为何应该选取后者。能帮忙翻译一下吗?

“is felt” 该是“感觉上”的意思吧?有一定的主观色彩?

对于“修正速度”,我仍有疑问,就是德国装甲和英国装甲都提到了“以厚度修正”。可是按照我的理解,只需要将其中一块板的试验速度相对另一块板进行修正就可以了,为何都有提及呢?
回复

使用道具 举报

上士

五年服役纪念章

发表于 2012-11-30 05:25:25 | 显示全部楼层
太专业了,强大
回复

使用道具 举报

上将

六年服役纪念章功勋勋章钻石金双剑金橡叶铁十字勋章行政立法委骑士团勋章政道纪念章旗手终身荣誉会员

发表于 2012-11-30 14:11:09 | 显示全部楼层
克虏伯火炮 发表于 2012-11-30 01:46
从上文看,Ized 应该是个衡量材料机械性能的一个参数。这一参数的单位是能量单位(英尺.磅),而我能想到 ...

有关"Ized"的看法我收回,因为接连出现了3次,3次都被OCR辨认错误而人工又不去校正的的机会貌似不大。

有关那一整段,回到你前头对E.S.C. 9894. Damage.的翻译:
速度、修正的速度、炮弹、前、后
1. 1439英尺/秒,1463英尺/秒,B.U.O.P. 停止(Stop),平滑变形凸出。
2. 1504英尺/秒,1528英尺/秒,B.U.O.P. 前端全部损坏?开孔12.5×14英寸,Disc42×42英寸。
3. 1555英尺/秒,1582英尺/秒,穿透(碎裂),开孔20.8×31.2英寸,Disc72×50英寸。

已经指出1.是一次“侵入但未击穿(而停留在装甲上)“,所以我才建议将第一句翻成“用1463英尺/秒的速度(初速相应厚度做出修正)所作的E.S.C. 9894试验的结果是射弹被装甲板挡下(where a stop),”

第2句后半段的"the first round at bottom of ingot plugged the plate at a velocity of approx. 1400 fs (corrected for thickness)."直译是“第一发以约1400英尺/秒初速(相应厚度做出修正)打在金属块底部的炮弹卡在板块上”,至于前因后果,我也看不懂。


我原以为对相应厚度做出修正(corrected for thickness)是针对取得的样品b,即逐渐减薄的6.5-12.5英寸装甲,仔细看过后还是针对一致的12.5英寸厚度板材样品a测试时所分成的a组及b组,所以推论也不对,就无视吧。
回复

使用道具 举报

中将

五年服役纪念章一级铁十字勋章元老荣誉纪念章行政立法委旗手终身荣誉会员

 楼主| 发表于 2012-11-30 15:23:38 | 显示全部楼层
mathewwu 发表于 2012-11-30 14:11
有关"Ized"的看法我收回,因为接连出现了3次,3次都被OCR辨认错误而人工又不去校正的的机会貌似不大。

...

多谢前辈。
此文给我的,有一种英国人发现最初的试验数据不利于自己,然后稍做转进给自己找面子的感觉......
网上有一种说法是在320-350毫米以上的厚度,1935CA才超过KC n/A,因没见过可信资料,必然是存疑的。
结合此文,我认为在这一厚度上(315毫米左右),KC n/A不输于CA,至少不明显输与它。
回复

使用道具 举报

上士

四年服役纪念章

发表于 2012-11-30 17:02:42 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 saibaby 于 2012-11-30 17:28 编辑

看了半天,还是五里雾中。
求那位大神给系统整理下。

不过文中数据显示NavWeaps里出自"British Battleships of World War Two."  MK1的穿甲数据还是比较可靠的。
回复

使用道具 举报

上士

五年服役纪念章

发表于 2012-12-3 07:44:01 | 显示全部楼层
炮哥果然非同凡响啊。
回复

使用道具 举报

上士

四年服役纪念章

发表于 2012-12-5 11:14:45 | 显示全部楼层
太白了看不大清楚,不过看起来德国装甲并没有想象中的那么好。
回复

使用道具 举报

军士长

五年服役纪念章

发表于 2012-12-6 19:39:57 | 显示全部楼层
简单来说这篇文章表明了德国人在制造工艺上先进的,能够明显的降低装甲的磷硫含量,但是在制造理念上无疑是落后的,片面的迷信高硬化深度,结果导致更高工艺水准制造的装甲钢实际防御能力反而和理论上工艺不如德国货的英国装甲差不多
回复

使用道具 举报

中将

五年服役纪念章一级铁十字勋章元老荣誉纪念章行政立法委旗手终身荣誉会员

 楼主| 发表于 2012-12-6 21:29:14 | 显示全部楼层
鸡同鸭讲 发表于 2012-12-6 19:39
简单来说这篇文章表明了德国人在制造工艺上先进的,能够明显的降低装甲的磷硫含量,但是在制造理念上无 ...

有道理。美国在硬化深度上的误区走的更远,这也是战后才知道的。
回复

使用道具 举报

中将

五年服役纪念章一级铁十字勋章元老荣誉纪念章行政立法委旗手终身荣誉会员

 楼主| 发表于 2012-12-7 16:40:10 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 克虏伯火炮 于 2012-12-7 16:53 编辑

怎么没几个人参与讨论?

看起来,表面硬化的绝对深度达到一定程度就够了,不宜更深。更深的话,装甲板整体的脆性过大,对炮弹穿透的抵抗作用(直观地说就是对炮弹能量的消耗作用?)反而降低。
英国人说:渗碳“The process produces higher percentages on the plate face which would seem to be undesirable in the light of our own experience.”,表达了他们对渗碳硬化深度的理解。

但我的理解是,上述论点的前提是,渗碳硬化的绝对深度达到一定程度。而在小厚度下,因为绝对深度不足,所以还是硬化深度更大的,抵抗能力更强;在大厚度下,因为绝对深度显著增大,所以最适宜的硬化深度则相应减小。

公认在180毫米以下防护效果最好的是美国Class A,它的硬化深度达到55%左右板厚,恰是几种表面硬化装甲中最大的。而战后美国测试的那块超过了Class A的日本183毫米VH,它的硬化深度则是测试过的同厚度级别4块装甲中最大的:在美国人的报告中说这块板(plate No.3133)“has already been pointed out plate No.3133 had the hardest face and the deepest chill.”——也许这才是这块材质粗糙的装甲却能有如此优秀表现的本质所在。

英国1935CA的硬化深度大约是30-35%板厚,德国KC n/A的硬化深度大约是40-50%板厚。而有说法是在330-350毫米以上,1935CA超越了KC n/A。这与厚度增大、所以最适宜的硬化深度相应减薄不无关系。

日本VH装甲,其硬化深度比VC装甲还小。有资料认为其在“大厚度范围内”防护水平最强,也符合这个推论。
回复

使用道具 举报

中将

五年服役纪念章杰出服役十字勋章全球架空纪念章旗手

发表于 2012-12-7 16:51:19 | 显示全部楼层
克虏伯火炮 发表于 2012-12-7 16:40
怎么没几个人参与讨论?

看起来,表面硬化的绝对深度达到一定程度就够了,不宜更深。更深的话,装甲板整体 ...

问一下VN是什么?NVNC?MNC?还是其他?
回复

使用道具 举报

中将

五年服役纪念章一级铁十字勋章元老荣誉纪念章行政立法委旗手终身荣誉会员

 楼主| 发表于 2012-12-7 16:53:16 | 显示全部楼层
owaii 发表于 2012-12-7 16:51
问一下VN是什么?NVNC?MNC?还是其他?


按错了,VH嘛......
改正了
回复

使用道具 举报

中将

五年服役纪念章杰出服役十字勋章全球架空纪念章旗手

发表于 2012-12-7 17:02:35 | 显示全部楼层
克虏伯火炮 发表于 2012-12-7 16:53
按错了,VH嘛......
改正了

可是VH并没有用来进行水平防护啊。大和的水平装甲大多数是MNC,包括主水平装甲,主炮塔天盖这些厚度200毫米及以上的重要防护部分。次要部分用的NVNC。
回复

使用道具 举报

手机版|Archiver|© 2010-2018 zhanliejian.com, All Rights Reserved ( 沪ICP备13004737号

GMT+8, 2019-4-20 04:25 , Processed in 0.211405 second(s), 12 queries , File On.

Powered by Discuz! X3.3

© 2001-2017 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表