OR, your steven seagull and come up with a stupid plot about a battleship being under siege by a handful of mercenaries working for LMAO Ha ha ha, nevermind I'll second that concept of doing it wrong.
The fact that the door was tilted forward shows that you had actual experts that knew how to orient a metal target properly to prevent ricochets from coming back .
It’s sad that we live in a day and age where preventing bullets from flying back at you by simply tilting something is considered “expert” knowledge. 🤦♂️
I had the job of caretaking a converted minesweeper while under sale way back in the 1980's. It had been refitted as a 'mother ship' for prawn trawlers. Every day I had to crawl down into the bilges and check levels, pump when necessary, Run all the auxiliary engines for power, Flush every toilet, basin, shower and sink. Run all the freezer units for 1 hour to ensure they were properly lubricated and working. Hose down the decks on my own. I truly gained an appreciation for how bloody hard enlisted sailor's work. That little converted minesweeper still had tags on the showers nearest the Officers Wardroom saying nuclear decontamination with the Radiation symbol.
I actually don't consider this a failed experiment, but more of a teachable moment. You clearly show the opportunity cost of using lighter material for construction. Merry Christmas!
Well, 5083 aluminium alloy is used in multiple armored vehicles. It just needs three times the thickness of steel for equal protection. The M113 series and Stryker come to mind, both defeating up to .50 BMG rounds at a low, low cost of several inches of aluminum, which still weighs less than its steel counterpart. And I agree with Gustav, the experiment succeeded, just not in proving what the experimenter thought would happen. Inconclusive or indeterminate would be a failed experiment.
@@spvillanoThe most alarming “by-the-way” was “melts at a lower temperature”. IMHO Much more significant for interior doors than for bulked-up armor belts.
I have a suggestion. if you guys continue this line of scientific testing. you should get ahold of the guys from the channel Ballistic High speed. It would be very interesting to see how these things react to the various calibers at a few hundred thousand frames per second. I think they may also love to be involved as well
Another tip for deciding what material something’s made of (especially the size of that watertight door)…if you can lift it with 1 or 2 people, it’s not steel, if a tellehandler is required equipment for moving it, it is steel.
Years ago when I was @ 17, a friend drove us both out to a spot in the desert one winter near Banning, CA. and we went plinking with our .22 rifles. We had the usual cans & bottles but ran out fairly soon. So we went walking and came across a bowling ball. Why was it there we wondered? It was in perfect condition so we figured it hadn't been used as a target but it became our target. We backed off @ 75 feet and fired away. He missed the 1st shot. I hit it on the 2nd. We both got hit by what we though was ricochet. I know the piece that hit me was a chunk of the ball because I saw it in mid flight coming at me. He said he never saw anything. Without moving we looked around our feet & he found the .22 bullet near his feet. It had hit him in his chest but didn't penetrate his coat. We went & looked at the ball & I hit it inside the thumb hole & it chipped a piece off that came back & hit me with the bullet bouncing back & hitting him. We were both lucky. Moral; NEVER shoot at stray bowling balls. They just might shoot back!
I presume that when the Iowa Class was being designed, extensive tests were made of how the 16-inch guns performed against battleship-type armor, and how the Iowa Class armor performed against naval gunfire. Are descriptions and/or photographs still around about such testing? That would be interesting.
@@jamestorrence9340 yes, that information is all public record now. Drachinifel has a number of videos on the Iowas, naval artillery design and development, and naval armor scheme development. If you're interested in the testing of the guns and armor, I would start there.
This is a excellent example of cover vs concealment.....also of note both of the 40 s&w hits were in areas of reinforcement, the weld of the grab handle and the port.
I've watched many TV and film documentaries that prove that the only reliably bulletproof doors are found on American police cruisers; as long as the officer behind it isn't a rookie, or within a week of retirement.
And the rookie or near retirement officer, Both presumably in good health die to one bullet. While by the end the lead characters can look like they tried to take Omaha Beach and just need a quick bit of attention from the EMTs if that.
50XX Aluminum is very soft and whimpy whimpy whimpy - Its properties makes for easy forming & welding for fuel tanks, wing tips and non structural covers....In aircraft. Saving Pirate Ryan, Coming to theatres near you this New Years
Idea for future video: Line up some pieces of cruiser and battleship armor plates on the other side of the river and see how well they stand up to 16" armor-piercing and HE rounds. :)
That won't happen... Battleship New Jersey has made it clear that they will NEVER fire the 16 inch guns because they have deemed it to be too dangerous. Even though their contract doesn't say they can't... They'd rather be safe than sorry.
@@hawk501st7 haha, I know. It was a joke. :) I mean, it would be really cool, but I know it's not going to happen. Especially not with actual projectiles there in the river. - haha
Unhinged Ryan during his Christmas break is a different change of pace I wasn't expecting. However, I love it. Can we do a Battleship New Jersey Mythbusters next, where we start blowing up random pieces with plastic explosives?
I must say Ryan, if nothing else this was a very interesting video and good for a laugh once you announced the door was aluminum. Thank you for all you and happy holidays to you, the crew and all of your families!
Great video! I like the change of pace and topic. Aluminum 5086 alloy has good corrosion resistance and is easily welded. It is a common choice for marine environments. It is not a strong alloy not heat treatable so keep that in mind.
Layered armor only works better than homogenous armor if there is enough space or a softer material between the layers to absorb fragments and allow energy to dissipate. Conveniently your buddy Drachinifel just posted a video explaining the layered armor scheme of the Littorios and why it probably wouldn't have been as effective as the Regia Marina hoped because there wasn't enough space. He also explains that the outer hull of the Iowas would not have functioned as layered armor despite being made out of 2 inch STS splinter proof plate, again because there isn't enough space behind it. .
Aluminium *is* used as armor - he even gave an example with the belt of USS Enterprise. And I'll give you another one: many APC around the world use aluminium hulls, the US example would be the M113. You just make it thicker and above all, use the proper alloy for the requirement.
Very interesting! I hope you mix in some other tests and experiments like this. Using some of the equipment on the ship to test it out (like that giant mixer) would be really cool, too.
Well fittings are steel, and mask the weight. Especially if you are not used to handling it and asked volunteers to chuck it into your pick up or whatever.
@@il400 Id say at least equal to the lowest level of bullet proof vest so a 9mm. My prediction before watching is it will stop normal pistol stuff but rifles will go through it.
I mean apart for large shrapnel from an exploding naval gun round, I suspect those doors are most susceptible to over pressure buckling the door and ruining its water tight integrity.
I took a Tiger Cruise on my dad’s ship back in 2000. One of the things he showed me in the berthing room was one bullet hole running through several bunks thin steel walls to the bulkhead through it but was stopped by the bulkhead on the other side of the hallway. What happened was when the ship was in port one of the guards that watches the gangway on and off the ship had gotten off duty and laid his sidearm too hard on his bunk causing the gun to go off through all the other bunks through one bulkhead and stopped by the other. Luckily there was no one in the other bunks but he did get in trouble.
Ryan, this was an awesome video. And i dont think this was a failed experiment- you can & im sure you will do a one-to-one comparison of the small arms effects on the aluminum door from today vs the steel door later. This’ll give viewers a great context on just how well protected & constructed the NJ is.
Great test. I never though that way aboard ship. I always concentrated on watertight integrity and proper maintenance of watertight integrity. Damage is reactive.
Ryan, Add a steel quick acting door to your next strip list! Remember to magnet test it before removing it! Now if you could find a piece of battleship main armor belt to do this test with!!! Keep having fun!
There are some things that are armored with aluminum. The trick is to use a soft grade sheet on the outer side, leaving an air gap, and then another sheet of aluminum that is a harder grade. Sometimes dense material such as sand will be used between the two sheets to further slow down or disrupt the projectiles path. While not as effective as actual steel armor plates, they can be used in certain applications where the overall weight would create other problems. Flack vests when I first went into service were plated and fiberglass or sand. I usually opted for the fiberglass ones because of the weight and just walked closer to the ground.
@@dukenukem8381 you mean put the harder aluminum on the outside? The harder aluminum is the more brittle it gets hence a bullet would just go through without much disruption. Soft aluminum is more dense and gummy. Tends to slow down the velocity considerably to capture the projectile. We installed aluminum and Kevlar armor in humvees and aircraft. It’s by no means the best option, but the carried weight had very tight limits.
@@Jim-sd5yq No, harder alloy is always first to break the tip and dissipate most of the energy . That why any glass can stop one bullet. Energy is dissipated via shattering. Energy dissipates at speed of light , match faster then complete fracture of the plate. Ideally armor alloy has balance between high hardness and flexibility to withstand multiple hits. Usually done through face hardening and special alloys.
Ryan, if you intend to do this test again. I would suggest you reach out to some of the guntubers on here. I’d be willing to bet that Demolition Ranch, Donut Operator and AK Jesus would be happy to help you out. Demo may even let you use the Desperado shooting range. And they all have access to several types of firearms that could never be found in New Jersey (or New England as a whole for that matter) It would be a great, conclusive test, and great publicity for BB-62. Something to consider.
Maybe test what it takes to set the powder charge for the 16" rounds off, just how flammable is it. That'sssuming, of course, that you can actually get your hands on some real 1^" powder. And for another ballistics test, how any particularly thick glass.
The powder would light off very easy. It's a standard Nitro-cellulose based smokeless. The ignition "pack" on the base of the bags is even easier to light, as it's ten pounds of good old black powder.
It doesn't matter if they are bullet proof, it would be more important if they are "buckle proof", as survivors from the Bismarck reported, the deck hatches and doors to the battleship when shelled by enemy fire often buckled thereby locking them inside the ship with no means to escape.
on my cruiser we used Steel doors below the water line and aluminum above. it frequently caused an issue with DCPO maintenance when steel parts got put in aluminum doors or vise versa due to bimetallic corrosion.
That door may not have stopped small arms fire, but I would expect that it would slow small arms bullets (and shrapnel) to the point they would not do much if any damage inside the door. Looking forward to more battleship part ballistic testing! :D
For a science experiment I'd suggest seeing if an old Carley Float still floats, and if it will support a curators worth of weight. Only if there is one available, may also want to wait for warmer weather.
Fascinating video. I am so very glad you got right to the point and explained the problem. Kudos again sir! Never change. The Little Crappy Ship has aluminum all through it and it has ***never*** served as an "actual" warship and it never could have. Sometimes cutting corners and the good idea fairy just lead to lots of money spent and no good solutions offered. Peaceful Skies
I'm Paul Harrell, we are at " a range " not " the range " so please bear with any gunfire you hear in the background. Today we are using the door target. For those that haven't seen it before, it consists of a center structure of bracing angles, a main structure of 5086 sheet aluminum , 4 layers of paint on the front and back all followed by the new and improved backstop made from plies of dirt.
Ryan, Libby, maybe you could create video on the navy's plans and concepts on how to board a battleship if they are attacking it. And maybe also on how to defend the battlleship when it is being boarded.
Before watching the video my answer was "For small arms some are, others are not". I would imagine the doors to the ammo storage spaces and to the conning tower are significantly more bullet-proof than a non-watertight door in the interior of the superstructure.
In all fairness, the watertight doors were neither designed nor intended to stand up to small arms fire. They were designed to be water tight and to withstand a certain amount of pressure. That the steel ones might be able to defeat pistol rounds would be sort of an icing on the cake, but I doubt they would stand up to full power rifle rounds. Such as .30-06, .308 Winchester, .303 British, 7.92x57mm Mauser, 7.62x54R, etc..
Ryan one handy thing you may like if they make them for your phone is a case made by magbak allow to be stuck to any magnetic surfaces it's real great on cruises worked good to
How fitting that these armored test should be done on a door that was to a Gunner's Mate (GM) space. Got to give it to GMSN Brennen for being the last POIC for that compartments door.
Ryan dressed like he's trying out for the lead in a remake of Serpico. The Massachusetts is just 14 miles down the road. Wonder if they have a spare door I could have?
What you have there is a QAWTD for interior spaces. They are designed to prevent progressive flooding from one space to another. Doors on the weatherdecks are armored and would stop the small arms bullets
Ryan, I noticed that you are sporting a Navy-issued foul weather jacket. I still have mine from way back when! Still in good condition too! But a bit more worn 😊
So once you do the steel door test, use it as part of a dual display. Common calibres against a steel door. Common calibres against a lightweight door. I would expect the steel door to be proof against anything short of .50 BMG AP. Possibly even that beyond a certain distance, like 100 yards. I'm sure the designers considered the likelihood of being strafed amongst other things. Economics would suggest standardized doors for both internal and external use. I wouldn't be surprised if the steel door is face hardened on its external side.
It would be very intresting to see if you could simulate fragmentation with grenades or something simmilar to show the effects of shrapnel on things like doors, gunshields and other things likely to be hit by shrapnel
"Are battleship doors bulletproof?" My hot take: Depends on which door you mean. Some hollow-core door bought for an office? No. The weather doors in the upper decks and superstructure? Probably not, though they might be some protection. Watertight doors down in engineering, meant to hold back the ocean if bad things were to happen? Almost definitely, at least as long as you don't have anything spicy. The hatches in the main armor deck or the conning tower doors in the bridge? They were spec'd to withstand shell fire. Bullets would be an annoyance to these doors. Ooh, we're testing the interesting one... oh, nevermind, we're not testing one of the interesting ones. We're almost testing one of the interesting ones. We're testing something closer to upper decks and keeping the weather out than lower decks keeping the flooding from spreading.
This begs the question - how did they test armor designs for ships back in the day? Did they just scale up designs tested with small arms? Or did someone really lob a large shell at some test armor? Seems to me you'd want to do final tests with some big shells just to make sure there were no surprises when you got in the middle of a shooting war.
SUGGESTION: Get an actual steel door or a section of wall from some mothballed ship that is being stripped for parts, and send it to the Demolition Ranch youtube channel. They have 11.8 million subscribers, and if they post a link to your channel you will get a boatload of new subscribers and donations. "You call that a big gun? now THIS is a big gun!!!"
I'd be far more concerned about the fire resistance of aluminum than the bullet and shrapnel resistance of a WT door from inside the ship. HMCS Kootenay had her engine room ladders melt during the fire in 1969. Some of the destroyers sunk in the Falklands war had parts of the aluminum superstructure collapse from their fires. Not to mention the corrosion issues from mating aluminium to any other metal in a maritime environment. Littorial combat ships being a prime example of that.
@@wyattroncin941 you seem to think there is just one Aluminium. If the alloy is of a high enough grade, burning or melting will not be an issue before everything is lost anyway. Example: Melting ladders really dont matter when they would be glowing red if they were made of steel instead.
@@LillyRocket the highest temperature aluminum alloys are a mere 20% stronger at elevated temperatures than conventional alloys, and do not melt at any higher a temperature than 6061, if anything they would be eutectic and melt at a lower temperature. Regardless, aluminum alloys melt below the temperature threshold required for flashover to occur. Not only can you absolutely save a vessel that's put out before flashover, Kootenay's engine room experienced flashover and was so hot the outside of the hull was visibly glowing. They saved that ship, brought it home for repairs, and she sailed for another 25 years. If the ladders were steel, it would have been faster to put out the fire. And in actuality, it's not specifically the melting temperature that is the major concern; we can fight fires without entering if there's no ladder. The biggest issue is that aluminum loses all its strength at temperatures that we can enter at, but if you step on an aluminum ladder at 300°c you will simply go through it and die. There's very good reason to not use any aluminum in structural elements of warship design. Use it for bunks and desks all day, but that's about it.
how flammable are those wwii life jackets (when dry). they story I heard was that the NORMANDY caught fire in NY harbor from one of those. early in the war. such a horrible loss
Interesting. This is the first review I have ever seen where a 9 mm round "out performed" a 40 S&W. Perhaps because, as is shown at 2:18 in, the 40 S&W round also had to punch through the 2" backer crossmember when it hit whereas the 9mm, 45, and 50AE only had to punch through the single layer of aluminum.
There are no failed experiments, only experiments with unexpected results. The whole _point_ of an experiment is that one doesn't _exactly_ know what is going to happen - otherwise it would be just a demonstration.
I'd assume a ship being boarded by Marines would need to know such info. Also that they'd practiced and have specialized tools/weapons. While it seems unlikely a battleship sized ship would be stormed and boarded, lesser vessels maybe? I'd be interested in how such things were planned and what would be used.
At least the aluminum door was a lot easier to haul into the woods! But the results aren't a surprise to me, knowing the material. Light splinter protection at best at that thickness.
Cool. When we gonna test the 16 inch guns against 26 inches of face hardened armor plate at 20,000 yards? We never got a surface battle with IJN Yamato. We'll just need to replace every window in Camden afterwards.
Yeah, saw the first hole and knew something was wrong. Would have been cool if you could have nailed that viewing port, though. This door would have made things a lot easier for Tommy Lee Jones in that battleship documentary.
Ryan: Do not try this at home
Me: Looks at my stack of quick acting watertight doors with disappointment
😆
I don't have battleship doors at home sadly 🤣
@@psour33 don't look at me, I'm not giving up my armored front door for anyone.
😆😆😆
Ryan: Do not try this at home
Me: Remembers that it already has been done in spring 2014. Except they where French Frigate doors.
If the enemy has boarded your battleship with small arms you're doing war wrong.
Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, you prefer hard mode.
Don’t worry the cook will take care of it.
Maybe MARDET needs some exercise?
OR, your steven seagull and come up with a stupid plot about a battleship being under siege by a handful of mercenaries working for LMAO
Ha ha ha, nevermind I'll second that concept of doing it wrong.
FOR THE EMPEROR! Oh wait....Wrong channel lol!
The fact that the door was tilted forward shows that you had actual experts that knew how to orient a metal target properly to prevent ricochets from coming back .
It’s sad that we live in a day and age where preventing bullets from flying back at you by simply tilting something is considered “expert” knowledge. 🤦♂️
These live fire tests are gonna get a nutty amount of views for this channel
It would likely stop shrapnel, a 3in shell
I had the job of caretaking a converted minesweeper while under sale way back in the 1980's. It had been refitted as a 'mother ship' for prawn trawlers. Every day I had to crawl down into the bilges and check levels, pump when necessary, Run all the auxiliary engines for power, Flush every toilet, basin, shower and sink. Run all the freezer units for 1 hour to ensure they were properly lubricated and working. Hose down the decks on my own. I truly gained an appreciation for how bloody hard enlisted sailor's work. That little converted minesweeper still had tags on the showers nearest the Officers Wardroom saying nuclear decontamination with the Radiation symbol.
I actually don't consider this a failed experiment, but more of a teachable moment. You clearly show the opportunity cost of using lighter material for construction. Merry Christmas!
Exactly, that's what experiments do.
A failed experiment would have the gun malfunction or something like that.
Well, 5083 aluminium alloy is used in multiple armored vehicles. It just needs three times the thickness of steel for equal protection.
The M113 series and Stryker come to mind, both defeating up to .50 BMG rounds at a low, low cost of several inches of aluminum, which still weighs less than its steel counterpart.
And I agree with Gustav, the experiment succeeded, just not in proving what the experimenter thought would happen. Inconclusive or indeterminate would be a failed experiment.
@@spvillanoThe most alarming “by-the-way” was “melts at a lower temperature”. IMHO Much more significant for interior doors than for bulked-up armor belts.
Plus aluminum is flammable. Not easily but under the right conditions it will burn
@@chrisevans2645 Any metal will burn under the right circumstances. But yes, aluminum is worse than steel im that regard.
I have a suggestion. if you guys continue this line of scientific testing. you should get ahold of the guys from the channel Ballistic High speed. It would be very interesting to see how these things react to the various calibers at a few hundred thousand frames per second. I think they may also love to be involved as well
I was a Design draftsman for the 1980’s refurb of the New Jersey & Missouri. I could’ve answered this without wasting a door and time..
Or you get the Slow-No guys to help record the event and show what is happening to the bullets as they impact the target.
@@Dave_Mayberry didn't even need to waste a door, just get the same material of the same thickness.
@@ryanbarker5217 it no longer could hold back water, suggesting severe warping, so it was useless for anything other than testing or recycling.
Another tip for deciding what material something’s made of (especially the size of that watertight door)…if you can lift it with 1 or 2 people, it’s not steel, if a tellehandler is required equipment for moving it, it is steel.
cant say i wasnt expecting you to go into a paul harrel direction, and im delightfully pleased
Is Nauticus going to be asking about a missing door?
underrated comment
Theft is normal in Norfolk
@@RedBeardTheFirst
Camden NJ makes Norfolk look like Disneyworld
@@lsdzheeusi what? They didn't steal and pawn Camden yet?
"Oh, so that's why it was so easy to carry downrange"
Years ago when I was @ 17, a friend drove us both out to a spot in the desert one winter near Banning, CA. and we went plinking with our .22 rifles. We had the usual cans & bottles but ran out fairly soon. So we went walking and came across a bowling ball. Why was it there we wondered? It was in perfect condition so we figured it hadn't been used as a target but it became our target. We backed off @ 75 feet and fired away. He missed the 1st shot. I hit it on the 2nd. We both got hit by what we though was ricochet. I know the piece that hit me was a chunk of the ball because I saw it in mid flight coming at me. He said he never saw anything. Without moving we looked around our feet & he found the .22 bullet near his feet. It had hit him in his chest but didn't penetrate his coat. We went & looked at the ball & I hit it inside the thumb hole & it chipped a piece off that came back & hit me with the bullet bouncing back & hitting him. We were both lucky. Moral; NEVER shoot at stray bowling balls. They just might shoot back!
I presume that when the Iowa Class was being designed, extensive tests were made of how the 16-inch guns performed against battleship-type armor, and how the Iowa Class armor performed against naval gunfire. Are descriptions and/or photographs still around about such testing? That would be interesting.
@@jamestorrence9340 yes, that information is all public record now. Drachinifel has a number of videos on the Iowas, naval artillery design and development, and naval armor scheme development. If you're interested in the testing of the guns and armor, I would start there.
As the mythbusters say any result of an experiment is a result and thus valid. In this case aluminium watertight doors don’t stop bullets
This is a excellent example of cover vs concealment.....also of note both of the 40 s&w hits were in areas of reinforcement, the weld of the grab handle and the port.
Agreed, even 2nd was too
I've watched many TV and film documentaries that prove that the only reliably bulletproof doors are found on American police cruisers; as long as the officer behind it isn't a rookie, or within a week of retirement.
And the rookie or near retirement officer, Both presumably in good health die to one bullet. While by the end the lead characters can look like they tried to take Omaha Beach and just need a quick bit of attention from the EMTs if that.
"Tis but a scratch"
50XX Aluminum is very soft and whimpy whimpy whimpy - Its properties makes for easy forming & welding for fuel tanks, wing tips and non structural covers....In aircraft.
Saving Pirate Ryan, Coming to theatres near you this New Years
Idea for future video: Line up some pieces of cruiser and battleship armor plates on the other side of the river and see how well they stand up to 16" armor-piercing and HE rounds. :)
That won't happen... Battleship New Jersey has made it clear that they will NEVER fire the 16 inch guns because they have deemed it to be too dangerous. Even though their contract doesn't say they can't... They'd rather be safe than sorry.
@@hawk501st7 haha, I know. It was a joke. :) I mean, it would be really cool, but I know it's not going to happen. Especially not with actual projectiles there in the river. - haha
Well, its meant to stop water, not projectiles.
Maybe try a water pistol?
Super Soaker!
What caliber water pistol?
Unhinged Ryan during his Christmas break is a different change of pace I wasn't expecting. However, I love it.
Can we do a Battleship New Jersey Mythbusters next, where we start blowing up random pieces with plastic explosives?
I must say Ryan, if nothing else this was a very interesting video and good for a laugh once you announced the door was aluminum. Thank you for all you and happy holidays to you, the crew and all of your families!
THIS WAS AWESOME!!! Can we get some slow motion next time? Awesome stuff.
Oh boy, Drach is going to have words about the decaping layer business.
Heh - had the same thought!
Great video!
I like the change of pace and topic.
Aluminum 5086 alloy has good corrosion resistance and is easily welded. It is a common choice for marine environments.
It is not a strong alloy not heat treatable so keep that in mind.
Layered armor only works better than homogenous armor if there is enough space or a softer material between the layers to absorb fragments and allow energy to dissipate. Conveniently your buddy Drachinifel just posted a video explaining the layered armor scheme of the Littorios and why it probably wouldn't have been as effective as the Regia Marina hoped because there wasn't enough space. He also explains that the outer hull of the Iowas would not have functioned as layered armor despite being made out of 2 inch STS splinter proof plate, again because there isn't enough space behind it. .
I didn't expect such a test on your channel, great idea!
3:30 Aluminum in addition to not being an "armoured" material, is also flammable under the right conditions.
Aluminium *is* used as armor - he even gave an example with the belt of USS Enterprise.
And I'll give you another one: many APC around the world use aluminium hulls, the US example would be the M113. You just make it thicker and above all, use the proper alloy for the requirement.
Indeed it is as the officers and men on HMS Sheffield found out when an Exocet missile hit her
Very interesting! I hope you mix in some other tests and experiments like this. Using some of the equipment on the ship to test it out (like that giant mixer) would be really cool, too.
Surprised you couldn't tell it was aluminium from the weight .
Exactly what I was thinking as well.
Well fittings are steel, and mask the weight. Especially if you are not used to handling it and asked volunteers to chuck it into your pick up or whatever.
It all depends on what you call a bullet.
any bullet, so if it stops at least a 22, most people would say that you could consider that bullet proof
@@il400 Id say at least equal to the lowest level of bullet proof vest so a 9mm. My prediction before watching is it will stop normal pistol stuff but rifles will go through it.
@@jerithil lowest level of the old stsndard NIJ 1 is .22 and .380ACP
@@ctrlaltdebug Yeah was thinking about modern standards and what people actually make.
I mean apart for large shrapnel from an exploding naval gun round, I suspect those doors are most susceptible to over pressure buckling the door and ruining its water tight integrity.
I like the demolition ranch style of this video!
Not a fail test. Just got a result you didn't expect.
I took a Tiger Cruise on my dad’s ship back in 2000. One of the things he showed me in the berthing room was one bullet hole running through several bunks thin steel walls to the bulkhead through it but was stopped by the bulkhead on the other side of the hallway. What happened was when the ship was in port one of the guards that watches the gangway on and off the ship had gotten off duty and laid his sidearm too hard on his bunk causing the gun to go off through all the other bunks through one bulkhead and stopped by the other. Luckily there was no one in the other bunks but he did get in trouble.
Ryan, this was an awesome video. And i dont think this was a failed experiment- you can & im sure you will do a one-to-one comparison of the small arms effects on the aluminum door from today vs the steel door later. This’ll give viewers a great context on just how well protected & constructed the NJ is.
Great test. I never though that way aboard ship. I always concentrated on watertight integrity and proper maintenance of watertight integrity. Damage is reactive.
Ryan, Add a steel quick acting door to your next strip list!
Remember to magnet test it before removing it!
Now if you could find a piece of battleship main armor belt to do this test with!!!
Keep having fun!
You can’t remove those doors during strip ship. Anything involving watertight integrity is usually off limits.
There are some things that are armored with aluminum. The trick is to use a soft grade sheet on the outer side, leaving an air gap, and then another sheet of aluminum that is a harder grade. Sometimes dense material such as sand will be used between the two sheets to further slow down or disrupt the projectiles path. While not as effective as actual steel armor plates, they can be used in certain applications where the overall weight would create other problems. Flack vests when I first went into service were plated and fiberglass or sand. I usually opted for the fiberglass ones because of the weight and just walked closer to the ground.
Wouldn't you want it in reverse
@@dukenukem8381 you mean put the harder aluminum on the outside? The harder aluminum is the more brittle it gets hence a bullet would just go through without much disruption. Soft aluminum is more dense and gummy. Tends to slow down the velocity considerably to capture the projectile. We installed aluminum and Kevlar armor in humvees and aircraft. It’s by no means the best option, but the carried weight had very tight limits.
@@Jim-sd5yq No, harder alloy is always first to break the tip and dissipate most of the energy . That why any glass can stop one bullet. Energy is dissipated via shattering. Energy dissipates at speed of light , match faster then complete fracture of the plate. Ideally armor alloy has balance between high hardness and flexibility to withstand multiple hits. Usually done through face hardening and special alloys.
Ryan, if you intend to do this test again. I would suggest you reach out to some of the guntubers on here. I’d be willing to bet that Demolition Ranch, Donut Operator and AK Jesus would be happy to help you out. Demo may even let you use the Desperado shooting range. And they all have access to several types of firearms that could never be found in New Jersey (or New England as a whole for that matter) It would be a great, conclusive test, and great publicity for BB-62. Something to consider.
Interesting and entertaining, thanks for sharing!...
Maybe test what it takes to set the powder charge for the 16" rounds off, just how flammable is it. That'sssuming, of course, that you can actually get your hands on some real 1^" powder. And for another ballistics test, how any particularly thick glass.
The powder would light off very easy. It's a standard Nitro-cellulose based smokeless. The ignition "pack" on the base of the bags is even easier to light, as it's ten pounds of good old black powder.
It doesn't matter if they are bullet proof, it would be more important if they are "buckle proof", as survivors from the Bismarck reported, the deck hatches and doors to the battleship when shelled by enemy fire often buckled thereby locking them inside the ship with no means to escape.
I hope it was a joke if you guys carried an aluminium door and didn’t notice 🤣🤣
Man!! We are strong!! Y'all work out?
on my cruiser we used Steel doors below the water line and aluminum above. it frequently caused an issue with DCPO maintenance when steel parts got put in aluminum doors or vise versa due to bimetallic corrosion.
That door may not have stopped small arms fire, but I would expect that it would slow small arms bullets (and shrapnel) to the point they would not do much if any damage inside the door. Looking forward to more battleship part ballistic testing! :D
Another fun and interesting video. I was surprised at the results until you revealed it was an aluminum door.
Love this type of video. If you can get a steel door, it would be great to see it again.
For a science experiment I'd suggest seeing if an old Carley Float still floats, and if it will support a curators worth of weight. Only if there is one available, may also want to wait for warmer weather.
Fascinating video. I am so very glad you got right to the point and explained the problem. Kudos again sir! Never change.
The Little Crappy Ship has aluminum all through it and it has ***never*** served as an "actual" warship and it never could have. Sometimes cutting corners and the good idea fairy just lead to lots of money spent and no good solutions offered.
Peaceful Skies
I'm Paul Harrell, we are at " a range " not " the range " so please bear with any gunfire you hear in the background.
Today we are using the door target. For those that haven't seen it before, it consists of a center structure of bracing angles, a main structure of 5086 sheet aluminum , 4 layers of paint on the front and back all followed by the new and improved backstop made from plies of dirt.
For a future scientifc experiment, test how far away and for how long the dye packs attached to inflatable life jackets and life rafts are visable.
Ryan, Libby, maybe you could create video on the navy's plans and concepts on how to board a battleship if they are attacking it. And maybe also on how to defend the battlleship when it is being boarded.
I love your science experiments!
Before watching the video my answer was "For small arms some are, others are not". I would imagine the doors to the ammo storage spaces and to the conning tower are significantly more bullet-proof than a non-watertight door in the interior of the superstructure.
In all fairness, the watertight doors were neither designed nor intended to stand up to small arms fire. They were designed to be water tight and to withstand a certain amount of pressure. That the steel ones might be able to defeat pistol rounds would be sort of an icing on the cake, but I doubt they would stand up to full power rifle rounds. Such as .30-06, .308 Winchester, .303 British, 7.92x57mm Mauser, 7.62x54R, etc..
Yall need to team up with Demo Ranch and Ballistic High Speed for something like this again.
Ryan one handy thing you may like if they make them for your phone is a case made by magbak allow to be stuck to any magnetic surfaces it's real great on cruises worked good to
How fitting that these armored test should be done on a door that was to a Gunner's Mate (GM) space. Got to give it to GMSN Brennen for being the last POIC for that compartments door.
Would be really interesting to see how one of the steel doors on New Jersey would hold up to shrapnel.
Demolition Ranch would have been a perfect colab.
Ryan dressed like he's trying out for the lead in a remake of Serpico.
The Massachusetts is just 14 miles down the road. Wonder if they have a spare door I could have?
So Wise , Thank You. Good Idea
Capital doors of the era would be shell splitter resistant. So probably very resistant to standard small arms fire.
What you have there is a QAWTD for interior spaces. They are designed to prevent progressive flooding from one space to another. Doors on the weatherdecks are armored and would stop the small arms bullets
How about the fact that one guy could carry that door versus six guys if it was steel.
Ryan, I noticed that you are sporting a Navy-issued foul weather jacket. I still have mine from way back when! Still in good condition too! But a bit more worn
😊
So once you do the steel door test, use it as part of a dual display.
Common calibres against a steel door. Common calibres against a lightweight door.
I would expect the steel door to be proof against anything short of .50 BMG AP.
Possibly even that beyond a certain distance, like 100 yards. I'm sure the designers considered the likelihood of being strafed amongst other things.
Economics would suggest standardized doors for both internal and external use. I wouldn't be surprised if the steel door is face hardened on its external side.
Love these videos
You actually did something COOL! Finally! Thanks! Peace!
It would be very intresting to see if you could simulate fragmentation with grenades or something simmilar to show the effects of shrapnel on things like doors, gunshields and other things likely to be hit by shrapnel
Whaaaat??? No way. Cool video!!!
"Are battleship doors bulletproof?"
My hot take: Depends on which door you mean. Some hollow-core door bought for an office? No. The weather doors in the upper decks and superstructure? Probably not, though they might be some protection. Watertight doors down in engineering, meant to hold back the ocean if bad things were to happen? Almost definitely, at least as long as you don't have anything spicy. The hatches in the main armor deck or the conning tower doors in the bridge? They were spec'd to withstand shell fire. Bullets would be an annoyance to these doors.
Ooh, we're testing the interesting one... oh, nevermind, we're not testing one of the interesting ones. We're almost testing one of the interesting ones. We're testing something closer to upper decks and keeping the weather out than lower decks keeping the flooding from spreading.
Forget the magnet, just read the label before the test. But still it was interesting to see how ineffective the 3/8" aluminum is stopping even a 9mm.
what actual source of small caliber rounds do you expect the battleship to encounter?
Staffing by aircraft would be the most likely. A group of drunk Marines with access to one of the small arms locker
@@KnightRanger38 then he should be shooting something akin to a .303 at the door. not even going to look up what the germans might have used.
This begs the question - how did they test armor designs for ships back in the day? Did they just scale up designs tested with small arms? Or did someone really lob a large shell at some test armor? Seems to me you'd want to do final tests with some big shells just to make sure there were no surprises when you got in the middle of a shooting war.
Now I need a Forgotten Weapons/Battleship New Jersey crossover.
SUGGESTION: Get an actual steel door or a section of wall from some mothballed ship that is being stripped for parts, and send it to the Demolition Ranch youtube channel. They have 11.8 million subscribers, and if they post a link to your channel you will get a boatload of new subscribers and donations.
"You call that a big gun? now THIS is a big gun!!!"
Yeah aluminium in theory was a good idea but in practice was not so much
I'd be far more concerned about the fire resistance of aluminum than the bullet and shrapnel resistance of a WT door from inside the ship.
HMCS Kootenay had her engine room ladders melt during the fire in 1969. Some of the destroyers sunk in the Falklands war had parts of the aluminum superstructure collapse from their fires.
Not to mention the corrosion issues from mating aluminium to any other metal in a maritime environment. Littorial combat ships being a prime example of that.
@@wyattroncin941 you seem to think there is just one Aluminium. If the alloy is of a high enough grade, burning or melting will not be an issue before everything is lost anyway. Example: Melting ladders really dont matter when they would be glowing red if they were made of steel instead.
@@LillyRocket the highest temperature aluminum alloys are a mere 20% stronger at elevated temperatures than conventional alloys, and do not melt at any higher a temperature than 6061, if anything they would be eutectic and melt at a lower temperature.
Regardless, aluminum alloys melt below the temperature threshold required for flashover to occur. Not only can you absolutely save a vessel that's put out before flashover, Kootenay's engine room experienced flashover and was so hot the outside of the hull was visibly glowing. They saved that ship, brought it home for repairs, and she sailed for another 25 years. If the ladders were steel, it would have been faster to put out the fire.
And in actuality, it's not specifically the melting temperature that is the major concern; we can fight fires without entering if there's no ladder. The biggest issue is that aluminum loses all its strength at temperatures that we can enter at, but if you step on an aluminum ladder at 300°c you will simply go through it and die.
There's very good reason to not use any aluminum in structural elements of warship design. Use it for bunks and desks all day, but that's about it.
do a colab with demolition ranch or hickock45 !
I love these live fire videos. I like to see more.
2:23 GMSN's gonna fail that next zone inspection lol
Considering what these doors are intended to work for, I'm surprised at how weak that door was.
"only 12" thick" armor he says. Thanks for sharing.
how flammable are those wwii life jackets (when dry). they story I heard was that the NORMANDY caught fire in NY harbor from one of those. early in the war. such a horrible loss
I think you mean Nomrandie. Fire and Capsized on 9 February 1942
Well you're both wrong, it's: "Normandie"
@@johnmf6096 still a shameful loss! and if it was one or a pile of those life jackets?
All you need to do now is scale it up. Maybe 5 inch and then 16 inch - but you might need to get a different range. The neighbors may complain.
This is America so yes try this at home.
Be neat to see how many hits in the same area the armor can hold up to.
I would guess 4 once the outer layer is defeated.
I was honestly expecting Kentucky Ballistics to show up, yall should really reach out for some fun testing
Interesting. This is the first review I have ever seen where a 9 mm round "out performed" a 40 S&W. Perhaps because, as is shown at 2:18 in, the 40 S&W round also had to punch through the 2" backer crossmember when it hit whereas the 9mm, 45, and 50AE only had to punch through the single layer of aluminum.
Can we test if shipyards are battleship proof next ?
There are no failed experiments, only experiments with unexpected results. The whole _point_ of an experiment is that one doesn't _exactly_ know what is going to happen - otherwise it would be just a demonstration.
I'd assume a ship being boarded by Marines would need to know such info. Also that they'd practiced and have specialized tools/weapons. While it seems unlikely a battleship sized ship would be stormed and boarded, lesser vessels maybe? I'd be interested in how such things were planned and what would be used.
At least the aluminum door was a lot easier to haul into the woods! But the results aren't a surprise to me, knowing the material. Light splinter protection at best at that thickness.
If you can't pick it up, its steel :) I'd bet Hickock45 or Demolition ranch would be a great collab, maybe even scare up a 5 inch or 40mm
Cool. When we gonna test the 16 inch guns against 26 inches of face hardened armor plate at 20,000 yards? We never got a surface battle with IJN Yamato. We'll just need to replace every window in Camden afterwards.
16 inch main gun next ? We have to try for science !
Not a fail. Now you've got a point of comparison for when you try a steel door.
Try paper plates or beer cans next time!
No worries, Ryan. It was still an interesting video, even if it was not the video you wanted to produce.
Yeah, saw the first hole and knew something was wrong. Would have been cool if you could have nailed that viewing port, though. This door would have made things a lot easier for Tommy Lee Jones in that battleship documentary.
Wake up a new guntuber just dropped