Does anyone know how much energy is involved in a standard fast-gun drop test for hull penetrability? Does it make sense that armor that is twice as thick would require twice as much energy to penetrate? I'm starting to brainstorm ideas for a big gun armor penetrability test.
I've thought that the harder hulls defeat themselves by suffering the chunking effect you guys get with the torpedos. In fact, we saw a lot of tearing with just the junky balsa at hobby stores instead of ordering nice balsa from lonestar. Getting a window smashed in the width of the window by the bearing... ruins your day I think a pen test of this sort is another hurdle to getting on the water game day... and another source of arguments Mike Horne
Part of the torpedo "chunking" was caused by firing two balls per barrel. The other part is caused by a harder grade of balsa. I suspect that the Dutch Battlecruiser uses the tougher wood, because it was the only ship to receive any chunks after the torpedoes were reduced to one ball per tube. I don't mind the harder grade because it can still be penetrated. The ability to check for proper hull strength is really only secondary because, while I have helped dissect and repair a used Shimakaze whose sides had been painted in epoxy (a hammer could barely get through), overly hard ships are few and far between. Whoever told you that this was legal and accepted practice in California must have gotten a wrong impression somewhere. I'm more interested in measuring the strength of the armor and comparing that to the penetrating power of different caliber cannons. Knowing the actual effectiveness of different thicknesses of armor vs different calibers of cannon goes a long way in theoretical ship planning and selection. What I'm hoping to do is something like: "1/8 inch armor requires 6 joules of energy to penetrate, and 1/16" armor requires 2 joules to penetrate. 7/32" ball bearings have 10 joules of energy at muzzle velocity, 1/4" ball bearings have 12 joules of energy, and the coefficient of fluid friction is 2 which means that projectile energy after travelling through 2" of water is ***, which means that 1/4" ball bearings are more effective against 1/16" armor than 7/32" ball bearings, while..." But for right now, I'm doing some practical field testing. Over the next few hours or so, I will find out how effective an un-armored ship travelling at 25 knots is at escaping damage. Yep, it's a battle day, and I'm running a mobile target!
Hmm... used boat, epoxy coated hull. Reaalllllyyyy... Now, do you really want publically to tell me who's it was, how many years it battled, what club it was in, and what TO's signed off on it? Do you care to make the mistake of openly calling somebody, some club, and perhaps several TO's and club officers with years of experience CHEATERS?? Because it shouldn't have been on the water at all officially. You will most likey regret the thunderstorm of anger this will cause for a long time. Or would you rather accept the possiblility that I just might be right, and was told privately that some people in some clubs in California years and I mean years ago coated the balsa and sometimes the inside with different stuff as waterproofing... and this was if not legal at least unenforced. You have *no idea* what I was told by who when I was TO years ago in a small starting club. Nor the number and types of infractions that we saw on boats we bought coming in. Nor the conversations I had trying to puzzle these things out. DO NOT do me the discourteousy of discounting my experience as remembered when offered to help you out. I don't post here to be treated rudely. I am trying to grow courtesy in my old age. It's challenging. Email conveys some things poorly when typed quickly. Next time I send you private email... why don't you email me privately back. Lest I get testy. Mike Horne
