tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post4643993586336885474..comments2024-03-20T11:41:56.776-04:00Comments on Tank Archives: German Armour QualityPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-32665587662142878782016-06-19T15:56:24.614-04:002016-06-19T15:56:24.614-04:00The term reappearing in primary sources for second...The term reappearing in primary sources for secondary application of face hardening to homogenious armour is "Einsatzgehärtet"<br /><br />You would heat up the surface of the plate by a heat source for a certain period and spray it with water immediately after.<br /><br />A crude procedure, not very effective. The surface gets hardened a bit but the back stays soft. <br />The hardneing is sufficient to break up pointed, uncapped shells, which may result in shatter, depending on the cal/plate ratio, obliquity and velocity.<br /><br />The tough, ductile back is smaller than with full homogenious armour, so if the face doesn´t succeed in breaking up the shell (like f.e. with well treated, capped AP, where the cap protects the nose tip), it will reduce the effectivity of armour to resist the shell in penetration Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-38920753926389959782016-06-19T15:47:37.451-04:002016-06-19T15:47:37.451-04:00The hardness of homogenious armour is inversely co...The hardness of homogenious armour is inversely correlated to ductility and section thickness. While You may have thick plates at high hardness, they would tend to be brittle and thus, less resistent to perforation.<br /><br />Thinner plates can have superior hardness at acceptable ductility because it was easier to controll the heat removement in thinner sections and thus keep the desired fibrous structure.<br /><br />At high obliquity impact, soft plates are definetely superior to hard plates because <br /><br />a) they tend to damage the penetrator less, a nose damaged projectile against a harder plate would inhibite ricochet, the projectile would undergo more often than not the attempt to penetrate rather than deflect<br /><br />b)harder plates normalize at significantly higher degrees than softer armour plates, thus reducing the benefit of high obliquity<br /><br />c) the effect of tensile strength / hardness is more pronounced in measurement of plate resistence at low obliquity and drops with increasing obliquity. Depending on the cal/plate relationship, there will be a cross over point at which point a harder plate is inferior to a softer plate<br /><br /><br />----<br />"face hardened" tank armour is basically "harveyized" surface-only hardened homogenious armour. It´s not what the Navy understands under the term "Face hardened" (=decrementally hardened KC derivative).<br /><br />Navy KC armour would be superior to capped and uncapped shell but the only case, I am aware of where Navy armour was intended to be used (doubtful if ever executed) was for the MAUS.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-61104350015296515012015-01-20T09:01:54.655-05:002015-01-20T09:01:54.655-05:00Yes. Yes. Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-57840221216427597122015-01-19T20:12:46.026-05:002015-01-19T20:12:46.026-05:00"However, it is necessary to collect more inf..."However, it is necessary to collect more information, as this armour could still be surface hardened." (#3)<br /><br />What exactly is this supposed to mean? Is this as in, "other Tigers could still be carrying face hardened armour"?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06229603412899514195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-22516897293029558812014-12-10T09:08:27.898-05:002014-12-10T09:08:27.898-05:00Tests of early model panthers by the allies in Nor...Tests of early model panthers by the allies in Normandy showed some faulty plates in one or two tanks, but general armour quality was reasonable in war conditions. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-28810125462216050912014-08-29T05:53:43.127-04:002014-08-29T05:53:43.127-04:00I think I confused Mb and V , and their respective...I think I confused Mb and V , and their respective effects, but in the end, the shortage demnded chage of material.<br />The american report on the Panther armor also explicitly states that inadequate production conditions eliminated any potential the new material composition could have been providing. Especially the hardening was done inexpertedly, speaking of great haste in the process. So, no, german armour was not that great, and later in the war, not so good at all. Plus, It showed the basic problem of german engineering: Very sophisticated design ideas, that called for overly complicated, horribly expensive manufacture, using top-quality material, which in reality quickly led to crappy products due to sloppy production and shabby material availableAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-32238570117074554312014-08-29T05:44:43.928-04:002014-08-29T05:44:43.928-04:00True is, that due to ressource shortness, V was re...True is, that due to ressource shortness, V was replaced by Mb as steel component, leading to more brittle plates. Also, the inductive face-hardening took too much time, and was too expensive. Early PzIV plates were hardened to the state of a good kitchen knife. <br />So, Imho, it was both factors: Capped shells calling for softer armour, and economic reasons calling for cheaper production. German tanks were generally too expensive for wartime conditions. Later models would be delivered bright red with only anti-corrosion coating, and a box of paint powder that could be mixed with fuel for the crew to paint the tank themselves, now what does that tell you?<br />Biggest Problem AFAIK was the brittleness of inferior Mb-steel qualities due to the shortage of high quality steel components (also for the gearbox and transmissions of tigers and panthers, that called for very high steel qualities!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-45868412650797547912013-09-14T20:21:40.848-04:002013-09-14T20:21:40.848-04:00That doesn't necessarily means the armor is ba...That doesn't necessarily means the armor is bad, read the full report... It's a mostly deflective armor, not a resistive one, it's designed to deflect overmatching projectiles, not resisting direct impact/penetration.<br />The key is that soviet engineers tried to avoid penetration at all, to reduce damage from HE AT and prolonged low-caliber fire, that lead to the adoption of harder armor.RdClZnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10002951693159953908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-28038775249210350332013-08-18T10:44:37.357-04:002013-08-18T10:44:37.357-04:00I made an article about this some time ago (in spa...I made an article about this some time ago (in spanish): https://sites.google.com/site/worldofarmor/blindaje/acero-aleman<br /><br />Germans didn't say their armor quality was bad or worse, but the enemies (british, soviets and americans) say their qualitie fell down. Armor more brite and less hardened.<br /><br />FH was used to break enemy AP shells when impacting their armor. Once the shell penetrates, FH armor is a little less resistance than normal armor.<br /><br />SS, I can send you the book "WW2 Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery" if you don't have it yet (pdf).<br /><br />GreetingsACB, el Mutiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17113751057298030182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-30298221473556488632013-08-16T13:42:34.211-04:002013-08-16T13:42:34.211-04:00US engineers were not kind to the Russian armor ei...US engineers were not kind to the Russian armor either.<br /><br />Watertown Arsenal for metallurgical examination:<br /><br />The very high hardness encountered in most Soviet tank armor has<br />caused much unnecessary concern regarding the relative ballistic performance of the hard Soviet armor and the softer American armor. Many people associate high hardness with high resistance to penetration. Although this is true, within limits, in the case of attack of armor by undermatching projectiles (i.e. caliber of shot is less than the thickness of the armor), articularly at low obliquities of attack, it is definitely not true when the armor is attacked by larger caliber<br />shot at higher obliquities of impact. Competitive ballistic trials which have been conducted at ordnance proving grounds on both very hard and normally hard domestic armor and Soviet armor have established beyond question of doubt that in many cases, representative of actual battlefield attack conditions, very hard armor is distinctly inferior in resistance to penetration as compared to armor of more conventional hardnesses (280-320 Brinell).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-76363855234924724222013-08-16T10:58:50.900-04:002013-08-16T10:58:50.900-04:001) Its not that easy.
Homogenous armor is not in a...1) Its not that easy.<br />Homogenous armor is not in any case worse than face-hardened armor, that should be noted here.<br /><br />Successfull German use of face hardened armor during the early stages of the war was because allied fielded a lot solid AP shells. AP shells without a cap may shatter against the high hardness layer on the surface of the face hardened armor. <br />However allied intelligence fitted their rounds with caps as well and now the FHA was very well penetrateable for them.<br /><br />As example, Shermans 75mm APCBC round against Panzer IVH front (85mm@10°):<br />- if the front was face hardened, the Sherman's APCBC could penetrate it at up to 940m<br />- if the front was homogenous, the Sherman could penetrate it only at up to 150m (!)<br /><br />Homogenous armor was infact more resistant against capped rounds. Thus i bet on your first point, the economical reasons, because the expensive electrical induction face hardening was not needed anymore with the rise of capped shells.<br /><br />[1] WW2 Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />2) The Panther plate in the report was one of the late ones. Mb (because it was in short supply) has been replaced by V (vanadium) already, thus shattering.<br /><br />Thor_Hammerschlaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09052934459112536174noreply@blogger.com