FEBRUARY 1904 - SEPTEMBER 1905 |
WAR-DECLARED | PRE-WAR | NEWS AND UPDATES | DOCUMENTS | THE NAVAL CAMPAIGN | THE LAND CAMPAIGN | STORE |
MAPS AND CHARTS | MEMBERS ARTICLES | CONTACT THE EDITORS | PERSONALITIES | MESSAGE BOARD | LINKS | HOME |
NOTES ON USAGE & ABBREVIATIONS SHELLS AP Armour Piercing (either shot or shell) FILLERS T TNT NOTES These shell classifications are not the official nomenclature. Rather, they are the actual functional 'type' from analysis. For example, a thin cased base-fuzed shell similar to the British type CP/CPC is called CP/CPC, regardless of what the 'official' nomenclature was. Likewise, a thick Cased base-fuzed shell like the German 'base-fuzed HE' is an SAP. There is also a difference between CP and SAP. The former is intended to penetrate armour from about .33 to .5 caliber thickness. The SAP was to penetrate armour .5 to .67 calibers thick. The British AP Mk. I and Mk. II, which became the Japanese No. 1 and No. 2 shells, were really closer to SAP than AP, due to the large cavity for a c. 5% BP burster. AP caps and face-hardened armour changed the equations somewhat. Mike Ley believes that the IJN did NOT use CPC in the RJW, which seems to be confirmed by the fact that the British did not cap theirs until 1909... Common shell was somewhat effective against thin armour (iron) of about .25 calibers. The later steel Common would have equal effectiveness against homogenous steel armour, or .33 caliber iron, but none against face-hardened. Anyway, the effect was to blow a hole in the plate, rather than penetrate. Under the absolute best circumstances, AP/APC shells filled with Shimose [or any of the other picric acid derivatives] could not penetrate into the target. The burster was so sensitive that it would explode generally on contact, or at best in the process of penetrating the plate. In effect, this made the Japanese APC little more than base fuzed HE with a small burster. Kent Crawford
|
Copyright © 2002 russojapanesewar.com |