ickysdad wrote:
67th Tigers wrote:It's not so much trying to prove you wrong I'm trying to do but to get across tests like that are just too incomplete or we don't know enough about them .
ickysdad wrote:
it wouldn't matter nobody's going to convince you. I'm thinking the British tests were braced entirely different. The US one was mounted on a bank of clay that would in and of itself absorb a huge amount of the energy.Oh no, I'm often proved wrong. It's just *you* are not going to convince me. Most of your arguments so far have been based on a single secondary source, which you've failed to grasp the context of.
Not really. RN tests were done against braced "ship" targets with no additional backing. US tests to show plate toughness were done with 10 feet
of dirt embankment backing them, while US tests to show gun power were done against freestanding unbacked plates. US tests tended to be loaded to give a result
they wanted.
Some plates still exist BTW: http://www.colonialwargaming.co.uk/Miscellany/Weapons/Armour/Proof.htm
