Identifier: historyofmanufac00amer (find matches)
Title: History of the manufacture of armor plate for the United States navy
Year: 1899 (1890s)
Authors: American Iron and Steel Association, comp
Subjects: United States. Navy Armor-plate
Publisher: Philadelphia, American Iron and Steel Association
Contributing Library: The Library of Congress
Digitizing Sponsor: The Library of Congress

View Book Page: Book Viewer
About This Book: Catalog Entry
View All Images: All Images From Book
Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.

Text Appearing Before Image:
§3,- 000,000, taking Senator Chand- lers low estimate of 6 per cent., and making 2,000 tons of plates per year - 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 $306.45 $318.85 $300.09 $307.78 Plates at $400 per ton would show a profit per ton of 93.55 81.15 99.91 92.22 Or total profits on 2,000 tons of. 187,100 162,300 199,820 184,440 Would show the investment of $4,000,000, m property and • working capital, returning an- nually 4.68% 4.06% 4.99% 4.61% On the basis of 10 per cent, for maintenance, as allowed by Secretary Herbert, the profit per ton of armor selling at $400 would be - $33.55 $21.15 $39.91 $32.22 Making the annual return on in- vestment from a product of 2,- 000 tons 1.68% 1.06% 1.99% 1.61% On the basis of 10 per cent, for maintenance and arnior selling at $540 per ton the profit per ton would be $173.55 $161.15 $179.91 $172.22 Making the annual return on in- vestment from a product of 2 000 tons . 8.68% 8.06% 8.99% 8.61% XQ 00 5 00 mm r O 00 > o >w O oo I o >c rn O o I—H o m I
Text Appearing After Image:
ARMOR PLATE FOR THE NAVY. 32 The New American Warship Armor that is aVeritable Miracle in Metal. From The New York Journal. Tests made lately by the Government of the new Krupp armor forour warships show results that astound even naval experts. It hasbeen proven that armor metal has at last been devised that is practi-cally perfect. In the trials made at Indian Head the Krupp platesshowed that they had greater resistance than the hardest of the pres-ent Harveyized, nickel-steel armor, and, unlike the Harveyized plates,they did not crack or break up under the most terrific fire. Although but 12 inches or less in thickness most of the heavy pro-jectiles fired at close range merely indented the plates, shattered them-selves, and fell outside the armor. Even the biggest shells, that stinickwith an impact of thousands of tons and finally penetrated the armor,did not shatter or crack the plates at all. Hitherto the cracking of armor plates has been their chief defect.But the new Krupp proce

Note About Images