Jump to content


T110's Second Summer of Love (And Tolerance)

The Epic Thread Continues

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
79991 replies to this topic

Silentstalker2 #31501 Posted Dec 25 2013 - 20:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 23 battles
  • 5,780
  • Member since:
    05-18-2012

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Dec 25 2013 - 19:54, said:

 

When did he state that? You can see the horribly brittle late war German armour in a number of photographs and trials. Surely he did not imply that German armour was always like this.

 

Found Doyle's quote:

 

Spoiler

 

Source: http://overlord-wot....ore-part-5.html



Daigensui #31502 Posted Dec 25 2013 - 20:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 39215 battles
  • 29,991
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Dec 25 2013 - 10:54, said:

When did he state that? You can see the horribly brittle late war German armour in a number of photographs and trials. Surely he did not imply that German armour was always like this.

 

Because you misunderstood what you saw in those photographs, never mind that you only look at Soviet reports.

 

 

23.    How developed German steel and welding quality over the years in war? Did it get better or worse?

 

German welding quality remained the same until 1945.  It must be remembered that before the war the Germans were ahead of all the allies in terms of welding technology. Production of steel during the war changed somewhat due to the reduced availability of certain raw materials but the Germans compensated for this by modifying their formulae and by increasing the thickness of armour in some cases. High-quality German armour was reserved for panzers.


To increase production of self-propelled guns at the same time as Panzers the lower quality armour available from foreign steelworks was used. For example the Jagdpanzer 38(t) (often incorrectly called the Hetzer) was designed to replace earlier open topped self-propelled antitank guns. So the Jagdpanzer 38 had the cheaper armour - 20 mm on the side (roughly equivalent to 10 mm German armour) and a front plate of 60 mm (equivalent to approximately 30 mm German armour) but this allowed a big production of these vehicles and afforded somewhat better protection to gun crews than a open topped self-propelled antitank gun. 

 

 

49.    What materials were used to make the armour of the Panther and King Tiger?

 

Materials have not been a focus in my AFV research so I have not made copies of the many reports on armour I have seen in various archives.  The British had a very thorough technical examination system for captured vehicles and issued a number of reports on armour.

 

Following the collapse of Germany Allied Intelligence teams were specifically tasked with gaining immediate access to the German steel firms in order to collect specific information on the composition and production techniques for German armour plate as it was recognised that this was of very high quality.



Starne #31503 Posted Dec 25 2013 - 20:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 7539 battles
  • 6,488
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

View PostXlucine, on Dec 25 2013 - 14:00, said:

Which means the germans don't have any excuse for the king tigger getting spalled frontally by 122mm HE :trollface:

 

 

Right, like any other tank of the period would've taken a direct hit from a 122mm HE shell well.



EnsignExpendable #31504 Posted Dec 25 2013 - 20:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 23762 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostSilentstalker2, on Dec 25 2013 - 14:01, said:

 

Found Doyle's quote:

 

Spoiler

 

Source: http://overlord-wot....ore-part-5.html

 

Yeah, I figured as much. That quote is about welding. I didn't say anything about welding, and I'm pretty sure WT doesn't model weld seams either.

 

View PostDaigensui, on Dec 25 2013 - 14:02, said:

Because you misunderstood what you saw in those photographs, never mind that you only look at Soviet reports.

 

A photograph of massive cracks is pretty hard to misunderstand. And no, I don't only look at Soviet reports. Besides, the quote you quoted, again, does not say that German metal quality did not deteriorate as the war went on. It says that a) welding quality didn't go down and b) the British wanted German metalworking processes, neither of which are things I contested, or even mentioned.

 

View PostStarne, on Dec 25 2013 - 14:03, said:

 

Right, like any other tank of the period would've taken a direct hit from a 122mm HE shell well.

 

IS-4 did, unless it hit underneath the turret.



Daigensui #31505 Posted Dec 25 2013 - 20:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 39215 battles
  • 29,991
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Dec 25 2013 - 11:06, said:

Besides, the quote you quoted, again, does not say that German metal quality did not deteriorate as the war went on. It says that a) welding quality didn't go down and b) the British wanted German metalworking processes, neither of which are things I contested, or even mentioned.

 

Read again:

 

View PostDaigensui, on Dec 25 2013 - 11:02, said:

 Production of steel during the war changed somewhat due to the reduced availability of certain raw materials but the Germans compensated for this by modifying their formulae and by increasing the thickness of armour in some cases. High-quality German armour was reserved for panzers.

 

 



EnsignExpendable #31506 Posted Dec 25 2013 - 20:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 23762 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostDaigensui, on Dec 25 2013 - 14:08, said:

Read again:

 

I'm sorry, I must be illiterate, please point out where it says "German metal quality did not deteriorate". It says that they modified their formulae (they'd have to, as they couldn't keep the old one due to lack of materials) and that they compensated with added thickness (which has nothing to do with the quality of the metal).



Daigensui #31507 Posted Dec 25 2013 - 20:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 39215 battles
  • 29,991
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012
We don't need to make the leaps of conclusions you are prone to do with your research to note from Mr. Doyle's answer that there was no decline in quality. Why do you think he specifically said "High-quality German armour was reserved for panzers"?

SpectreHD #31508 Posted Dec 25 2013 - 20:18

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17182 battles
  • 17,757
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Dec 26 2013 - 02:58, said:

View PostSpectreHD, on Dec 25 2013 - 13:54, said:

 

That makes sense. Although it also makes sense that German tanks would have subpar armour quality during the later war period. But then we have Jentz or Doyle stating that the quality never dropped.

 

Maybe you should be sure about who said a thing before you repeat said thing.

 

I may not remember details but I know it was the German experts. And SS and Daigensui has clarified.

 

View PostStarne, on Dec 26 2013 - 03:03, said:

View PostXlucine, on Dec 25 2013 - 14:00, said:

Which means the germans don't have any excuse for the king tigger getting spalled frontally by 122mm HE :trollface:

 

 

Right, like any other tank of the period would've taken a direct hit from a 122mm HE shell well.

 

Heck, I think even the Maus would take considerable damage depending on where it was hit. Definitely enough to affect its performance.

 

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Dec 26 2013 - 03:14, said:

View PostDaigensui, on Dec 25 2013 - 14:08, said:

Read again:

 

I'm sorry, I must be illiterate, please point out where it says "German metal quality did not deteriorate". It says that they modified their formulae (they'd have to, as they couldn't keep the old one due to lack of materials) and that they compensated with added thickness (which has nothing to do with the quality of the metal).

 

I think the part where the thicker plates were used to compensate poorer quality on the "Hetzer". But it is not a tank/panzer. Tigers and Panthers would be the one reserved to get the better quality one. But to be fairl, I am sceptical, but Doyle says the quality or at least the performance was managed to be kept up.

 



EnsignExpendable #31509 Posted Dec 25 2013 - 20:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 23762 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

He didn't say anything about there not being a decline in quality of armour. Welding, yes. Change in formula, yes. No decline in quality, no.

 

Just because overall quality went down, doesn't mean that the concept of "high quality" and "low quality" goes out of the window.



karnage666 #31510 Posted Dec 25 2013 - 20:20

    Captain

  • Players
  • 25702 battles
  • 1,845
  • Member since:
    05-31-2012

View PostDaigensui, on Dec 25 2013 - 20:16, said:

We don't need to make the leaps of conclusions you are prone to do with your research to note from Mr. Doyle's answer that there was no decline in quality. Why do you think he specifically said "High-quality German armour was reserved for panzers"?

The formula was changed and was thickened to keep with the original steel quality. Hence in warthunder gameplay terms late war german tanks get no  superior quality modifier over the nominal thickness.



EnsignExpendable #31511 Posted Dec 25 2013 - 20:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 23762 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostSpectreHD, on Dec 25 2013 - 14:18, said:

I think the part where the thicker plates were used to compensate poorer quality on the "Hetzer". But it is not a tank/panzer. Tigers and Panthers would be the one reserved to get the better quality one. But to be fairl, I am sceptical, but Doyle says the quality or at least the performance was managed to be kept up.

 

Where does he say that the performance kept up? The word "performance" does not appear in the quote. You and Dai are really extrapolating from "welding quality didn't go down".



Daigensui #31512 Posted Dec 25 2013 - 20:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 39215 battles
  • 29,991
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Dec 25 2013 - 11:20, said:

Where does he say that the performance kept up? The word "performance" does not appear in the quote. You and Dai are really extrapolating from "welding quality didn't go down".

 

Where did he say things went down, then? You're starting from your unfound premise that German steel quality went down. Given that there is no evidence of such, how is it that you are attempting to force untruth as fact?



EnsignExpendable #31513 Posted Dec 25 2013 - 20:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 23762 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostDaigensui, on Dec 25 2013 - 14:22, said:

 

Where did he say things went down, then? You're starting from your unfound premise that German steel quality went down. Given that there is no evidence of such, how is it that you are attempting to force untruth as fact?

 

My "unfound premise" comes from other things than a single Doyle quote. Things from actual metallurgists who got paid to do this sort of thing that state that the quality of metal went down. Both Soviet and American fracture tests demonstrate crystalline fractures (the steel is cracking).

 

 

I also have the Soviet ones, but we both know how much you love those. 



EnsignExpendable #31514 Posted Dec 25 2013 - 20:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 23762 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

Ooh, here's a good one.

 

 

Borderline acceptable! High fives all around. 



Daigensui #31515 Posted Dec 25 2013 - 20:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 39215 battles
  • 29,991
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012
Yes, but from what source did they test? I see you haven't actually added that part.

EnsignExpendable #31516 Posted Dec 25 2013 - 20:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 23762 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a954952.pdf

 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a954940.pdf

 

Knock yourself out.



rrw #31517 Posted Dec 25 2013 - 20:50

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 7055 battles
  • 983
  • [MUP] MUP
  • Member since:
    03-05-2011

Hey guys what happens....

.....oh

 

*continue play PS2 emulator*


Edited by rrw, Dec 25 2013 - 20:50.


Daigensui #31518 Posted Dec 25 2013 - 21:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 39215 battles
  • 29,991
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Dec 25 2013 - 11:33, said:

Things from actual metallurgists who got paid to do this sort of thing that state that the quality of metal went down.

 

You mean like this?

 

 

 

Which is backed up by "German Cast Armor", Combined Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee, Page 4-5:

 

Chemical Analysis and Physical Property Requirements. (Changes from 1942 to May 1945.)

 

1. The analysis of German cast armor has undergone various modifications during the last two years of the war. These changes were caused by shortages of various alloys, and were not attempts to improve armor quality. However, no significant reduction in physical property or ballistic test requirements was made as a result of the alloy reductions.

 

 

The main problem I'm seeing from your flawed assumption is that you see "brittle" and immediately leap to the conclusion that brittle armor is "obviously" inferior and that early-war German armor was not brittle. This was never the case, since Germany always used relatively brittle armor when compared to the Western Allies due to the philosophy of countering penetration. This is based on the use of APHE, since the lethality of APHE is reasonably guaranteed if the armor is penetrated by an intact projectile, so it makes sense to have high hardness/slightly brittle armor to reject the round completely if possible. After all, the brittle failure of the armor is no worse a risk than a functioning APHE round passing through ductile plate, in fact it could be argued that spalling is preferable to a penetrating APHE.

 

However, two facts meant that this emphasis on hard armor was "flawed". First, the Western Allies used AP shots, which meant that by striking hard armor it would actually cause shattering more frequently than if APHE was used. Second, the German philosophy works in regards to events in which the projectile is overmatched or severally overmatched by the armor, but this is a double-edged sword since if the armor was overmatched by the projectile (which with the constant upgunning by the Soviets was basically overwhelming), this would result in catastrophic failure, like the ones you tend to see in the photos.

 

If anything, the supposed "deteriorating" quality of German armor is not that of actual deterioration, but of German armor philosophy which was overtaken by the both a different armor philosophy and the realities of development in war. You've been starting from the wrong premise and trying to fit the evidence to your conclusion instead of considering whether the evidence points in the opposite direction. This is certainly not what any actually reasonable person should be doing.



EnsignExpendable #31519 Posted Dec 25 2013 - 21:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 23762 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
Ah, it seems I was mistaken then. Good to know that German armour was always grade "D (borderline acceptable)".

Daigensui #31520 Posted Dec 25 2013 - 21:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 39215 battles
  • 29,991
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Dec 25 2013 - 12:28, said:

Ah, it seems I was mistaken then. Good to know that German armour was always "Grade D (borderline acceptable)".

 

By American standards of the time which were also flawed in its own way, since soft armor (which was considered "better" and thus received better grades) would allow penetration resulting in not a comfortable situation for the crew.

 

Your conclusions almost always lack the objectivity required of actual researchers, never mind the leaps of logic and coming to completely wrong conclusions based on what you think is right.






9 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 9 guests, 0 anonymous users