Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

P-700 Granit vs. Battleship armor

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • P-700 Granit vs. Battleship armor

    Weighing 7 tons overall and with a 750kg warhead, the Russian P-700 "Гранит" is one of the most devastating anti-ship missiles ever devised. Though it might be capable of gutting most of today's thin-skinned ships with a single hit, how viable would it be in actually sinking a heavily armored target, say a 60,000 ton Iowa class? Setting aside the fact that the ship would be mission killed after a few hits due to fire damage to the external systems, does 'Granit' have the capability to pierce heavy steel plate and physically put a battleship underwater?
    Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

  • #2
    'If you want to let air in use bombs if you want to let water in use torpedoes.'

    The biggest threat to naval units are subs.
    Credo quia absurdum.


    Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
      'If you want to let air in use bombs if you want to let water in use torpedoes.'

      The biggest threat to naval units are subs.
      Well, yeah, but I wanted to see what other people thought about this particular scenario. In the past I have encountered people who thought it would make swiss cheese out of the battleship, but I don't particularly think so on account of its lower velocity and warhead weight vis-a-vis a battleship shell, the overall weight of the missile notwithstanding.
      Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

      Comment


      • #4
        I would think it is not optimized to penetrate the heavy World War II armour of a battle ship. So it can't get in side a battle ship. So damage would be limited to Blast damage from outside the ship.

        Would this missile breakup against battle ship armor?
        "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Beatrice Evelyn Hall
        Updated for the 21st century... except if you are criticizing islam, that scares the $hii+e out of me!

        Comment


        • #5
          Military journalist Shirokorad wrote in his book that one first Soviet anti-ship cruise missile diring test penetrated hull of old WWII era warship near bow and came out of stern. It did not contain explosive but opened all deck like can opener. It was slow, its prototype was German flying torpedo.

          Comment


          • #6
            Armour on battleships tended to be thinnest on decks and thickest on the sides which is why US coastal batteries included some pretty powerful mortars.
            Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
            Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by MarkV View Post
              Armour on battleships tended to be thinnest on decks and thickest on the sides which is why US coastal batteries included some pretty powerful mortars.
              Said missile was flying at low altitude and aimed at a point near waterline as I remember.

              Comment


              • #8
                So the answer is "yes" - such a missile can sink a battleship, but more importantly, since we don't use battleships anymore, it can easily sink a carrier.
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #9
                  It will slice through any battleship armor like a hot knife through butter. Most if not all Soviet/Russian anti-ship have HEAT or "penetrating" warhead.

                  To illustrate the effect, here you can see smaller P-270 Moskit (also known as SS-N-22 "Sunburn" in the West) in action.

                  It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge.

                  Косово је Србија!
                  Never go to war with a country whose national holiday celebrates a defeat in 1389.

                  Armored Brigade

                  Armored Brigade Facebook page

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by nikolas93TS View Post
                    It will slice through any battleship armor like a hot knife through butter. Most if not all Soviet/Russian anti-ship have HEAT or "penetrating" warhead.
                    Does it? So far I have only found a loadout of nuclear or semi-armor piercing ordnance. Even if it did have a HEAT warhead, the penetration would be very small and probably easily contained by the ship's compartmentalized interior.
                    Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      So the answer is "yes" - such a missile can sink a battleship, but more importantly, since we don't use battleships anymore, it can easily sink a carrier.
                      A much simpler task
                      Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                      Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Actually, a single missile of this sort would cripple, if not sink a battleship outright.

                        For example, using the Iowa class. The armor is laid out like this:



                        With a linear shaped charge warhead the blast of the missile would be focused into the ship. Because the belt is internal the outer side of the ship would be torn open and between the missile blast and fragmentation, massive flooding would occur over at least 100 feet of the ship on that side.
                        The blast would also carry into the boiler and engine rooms via the ventilation system putting a good part of the power plant at least temporarily out of service.
                        If any portion of the torpedo bulkhead is damaged and flooding occurs beyond it this too will be a major problem. Damage control will be slowed significantly by the loss of power.
                        A bow or stern hit pretty much destroys that area of the ship entirely as these are all but unarmored and outside the raft body of the ship. While it wouldn't sink the ship, it would be devastatingly crippling. Progressive flooding would become a major issue to keeping the ship afloat.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I've always thought that in order for a HEAT "jet" to form correctly a relatively slow speed is required and wouldn't the excessively large explosive content of a 1+ metre wide missile take quite a long time to explode in ballistic terms?
                          I mean,by the time the fuse initiates at the base of the explosive charge how far would the so far unexploded forward portion of the warhead have travelled?

                          Seems to me that a giant HEAT warhead moving at Mach 1.6 and with such a large explosive content would take quite a few metres to fully combust and therefore form fully.

                          I'm not sure why the Russians would mount such a weapon on their SSMs when their targets are all thinskinned but very well passively defended.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by flash View Post
                            I've always thought that in order for a HEAT "jet" to form correctly a relatively slow speed is required and wouldn't the excessively large explosive content of a 1+ metre wide missile take quite a long time to explode in ballistic terms?
                            I mean,by the time the fuse initiates at the base of the explosive charge how far would the so far unexploded forward portion of the warhead have travelled?

                            Seems to me that a giant HEAT warhead moving at Mach 1.6 and with such a large explosive content would take quite a few metres to fully combust and therefore form fully.

                            I'm not sure why the Russians would mount such a weapon on their SSMs when their targets are all thinskinned but very well passively defended.
                            Even if it had a shaped charge warhead, wouldn't the layered armor serve to de-cap an incoming jet of molten metal to the point where serious damage to the internal works is nullified? Barring some freak occurrence, it looks to me like the actual damage done to the ship's interior would be relatively small.
                            Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by flash View Post
                              I've always thought that in order for a HEAT "jet" to form correctly a relatively slow speed is required and wouldn't the excessively large explosive content of a 1+ metre wide missile take quite a long time to explode in ballistic terms?
                              I mean,by the time the fuse initiates at the base of the explosive charge how far would the so far unexploded forward portion of the warhead have travelled?

                              Seems to me that a giant HEAT warhead moving at Mach 1.6 and with such a large explosive content would take quite a few metres to fully combust and therefore form fully.

                              I'm not sure why the Russians would mount such a weapon on their SSMs when their targets are all thinskinned but very well passively defended.
                              In this case, the "HEAT" warhead is more of a directed blast than a true armor piercing sort of weapon. A linear shaped charge focuses most of the blast, in this case, forward of the missile and into the target. This just increases the effectiveness of the explosion rather than it being a "random" blast that is undirected.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X