Jump to content


Myths of American Armor


  • Please log in to reply
216 replies to this topic

NL_Celt #201 Posted Jun 22 2015 - 22:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 24240 battles
  • 5,087
  • Member since:
    10-05-2012

View PostPriory_of_Sion, on Jun 22 2015 - 17:07, said:

It's apparently from a South African, possibly cricketer/tanker/journalist Bob Crisp.

 

Name seems half familiar, but it has been some 40 years since I read it.

Priory_of_Sion #202 Posted Jun 22 2015 - 22:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 14866 battles
  • 6,761
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011

View PostNL_Celt, on Jun 22 2015 - 16:02, said:

 

Name seems half familiar, but it has been some 40 years since I read it.

Brazen Chariots was his account of the desert war, it seems that it was his driver who coined the term. Crisp's somewhat celebrity status would make this name spread around pretty quick. 



NL_Celt #203 Posted Jun 22 2015 - 22:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 24240 battles
  • 5,087
  • Member since:
    10-05-2012
Brazen Chariots. Sounding more familiar all the time.

NL_Celt #204 Posted Jun 22 2015 - 22:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 24240 battles
  • 5,087
  • Member since:
    10-05-2012

View PostPriory_of_Sion, on Jun 22 2015 - 17:36, said:

Brazen Chariots was his account of the desert war, it seems that it was his driver who coined the term. Crisp's somewhat celebrity status would make this name spread around pretty quick.

 

yeah, just looked him up and there was the book name. Might have to go and find it and give it a re-read.

Artorius_the_Bear #205 Posted Jun 26 2015 - 18:58

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 639 battles
  • 10
  • [COFZ] COFZ
  • Member since:
    04-10-2014

I have a question for the Chieftain;

The US used RHA armor while the Germans used FHA armor. What are the differences and advantages or disadvantages of each type of armor. I have heard that RHA is stronger and better at stopping kinetic energy weapons. But I cannot seem to find any data on it.



Guardianleopard #206 Posted Aug 24 2015 - 20:33

    Captain

  • Players
  • 11186 battles
  • 1,131
  • [SAKU] SAKU
  • Member since:
    05-11-2012
And I remember hearing that Germany had (very recently) extremely limited experience in the construction of thinner plates.

Mechanize #207 Posted Aug 25 2015 - 00:57

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 1428 battles
  • 2,844
  • Member since:
    08-04-2010

View PostArtorius_the_Bear, on Jun 26 2015 - 10:58, said:

I have a question for the Chieftain;

The US used RHA armor while the Germans used FHA armor. What are the differences and advantages or disadvantages of each type of armor. I have heard that RHA is stronger and better at stopping kinetic energy weapons. But I cannot seem to find any data on it.

 

RHA is the same, uniform hardness and malleability throughout the entire plate, FHA is much harder on the front of the plate due to how it's treated, basically by shifting the carbon content (and in some cases, other alloys in the steel) to the front to get said hardness. making some projectiles more likely to deflect or shatter, however at the cost of making the center and back of the plate softer and the front more brittle and less malleable. (Brittle armor is more likely to crack and spall.)

 

 


Edited by Mechanize, Aug 25 2015 - 00:58.


mattwong #208 Posted Aug 25 2015 - 02:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 30234 battles
  • 16,887
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostArtorius_the_Bear, on Jun 26 2015 - 12:58, said:

I have a question for the Chieftain;

The US used RHA armor while the Germans used FHA armor. What are the differences and advantages or disadvantages of each type of armor. I have heard that RHA is stronger and better at stopping kinetic energy weapons. But I cannot seem to find any data on it.

 

There are many different methods of face-hardening.  In theory, face-hardening should allow you to maintain a ductile interior while having very high hardness on the surface.  However, we know that German armour was brittle all the way through.  Frankly, the problem with German armour is almost certainly that they had poor understanding of metallurgy.

 

From what I've read about the quality of German armour, it sounds almost like copying, ie- the people who ran the mills were just rote-copying procedure and didn't really understand the underlying principles of metallurgy, so when they ran out of a particular ingredient, they didn't know what to do.



Legiondude #209 Posted Aug 25 2015 - 03:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 19967 battles
  • 22,809
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View Postmattwong, on Aug 24 2015 - 20:38, said:

From what I've read about the quality of German armour, it sounds almost like copying, ie- the people who ran the mills were just rote-copying procedure and didn't really understand the underlying principles of metallurgy, so when they ran out of a particular ingredient, they didn't know what to do.

Reminds me of a British intel report dated September 1945 analyzing German artillery(including tank) round design, how the designers at Krupp and Rheinmetall had taken notice to ballistic effects(round type and sloping with velocity determine the real penetrating power) but determined that they had it figured out in 1935, which dictated their designs for the war.

 

Whereas US experimentation with extremely long tank guns(i.e. T15 and T5 derivatives) showed them finding out new nuances to artillery ballistics well past the wars end.



SGT_LIPT0N #210 Posted Aug 25 2015 - 04:38

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 10192 battles
  • 649
  • [L0ST] L0ST
  • Member since:
    10-12-2014

I want his job! 

 

That would be so awesome to be able to go to all the museums and National Archives. How awesome would that be? And to get paid for it. I'd take trips on WG's dime forever!

 

Great informational vid! MORE PLEASE!



mattwong #211 Posted Aug 25 2015 - 16:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 30234 battles
  • 16,887
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostLegiondude, on Aug 24 2015 - 21:41, said:

Reminds me of a British intel report dated September 1945 analyzing German artillery(including tank) round design, how the designers at Krupp and Rheinmetall had taken notice to ballistic effects(round type and sloping with velocity determine the real penetrating power) but determined that they had it figured out in 1935, which dictated their designs for the war.

 

Whereas US experimentation with extremely long tank guns(i.e. T15 and T5 derivatives) showed them finding out new nuances to artillery ballistics well past the wars end.

 

I wonder if the Germans lost a lot of their technical expertise due to defection.  After all, many people working on the US A-bomb program were Jewish scientists who fled Germany.

1lt_wert #212 Posted Aug 26 2015 - 04:25

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22512 battles
  • 755
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostArtorius_the_Bear, on Jun 26 2015 - 09:58, said:

 

I have to say, I like your Avatar. :)

 



CaptainHeap123 #213 Posted Sep 03 2015 - 02:21

    Private

  • Players
  • 2109 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    06-24-2011
@ 26:52 "As far as tanks go, the 76 E8 (Easy 8) was the better" <-- Damn Right it was.

ProfessionalFinn #214 Posted Oct 31 2016 - 20:47

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 11897 battles
  • 323
  • Member since:
    02-23-2016

View PostLucid_Donald_Trump, on Jun 07 2015 - 14:06, said:

Huh, they list the M36 as "Slugger" in that last one. Never saw that before.

In my research and interviews around the use of the M36 to breach the Maginot fortress at Simserhof in December 1944, the crews always referred to this TD as "Slugger".  And never as a "Jackson".  The primary  tactic was to get close and then bore-sight the 90mm into the fort's apertures and fire way with AP in an attempt to blind the German defenders.  The Germans used the same tactic in 1940 in storming other Maginot forts using the 88 AA cannon.  Plenty of guts in both accounts.


Edited by ProfessionalFinn, Oct 31 2016 - 20:49.


Karl__Childers #215 Posted Nov 01 2016 - 20:38

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 10739 battles
  • 557
  • Member since:
    02-04-2014

Great video and very appropriate for you to go grave robbing and dig this thread up on Halloween :trollface:

 

Not a criticism btw, I'd never seen it before so thanks, I just thought it was amusing...



Nonamanadus #216 Posted Feb 12 2017 - 17:57

    Captain

  • Players
  • 21813 battles
  • 1,801
  • [HBG] HBG
  • Member since:
    02-02-2013

I have to give you an A++ for this informative video, I been reading about WWII since I was a kid (even bought the Encyclopedia Britannica set on the war). It was really interesting and an eye opener.

 

Thanks.



Horizontalvolute #217 Posted Feb 15 2017 - 10:19

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 3586 battles
  • 40
  • [60FTB] 60FTB
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

To those of you asking about the differences in steel quality, specially RHA and FHA...advantages disadvantages etc. 

 

All of the major combatants of ww2 except for the Russians used medium hardness RHA for most tanks, or cast armor of similar hardness levels. The quality of the steel was really for all intensive purposes the same. A lot gets made of the tiny differences in manufacturing process etc, but the bottom line is that all RHA within certain hardness margins functioned about the same. Keep in mind I'm generalizing here, speaking broadly etc. Although a good example of how even poorly made RHA still more or less functioned as it should have is the Isigny tests on Panther G's which had known issues with their armor. The Panthers in those tests reacted pretty much exactly as you would have expected from steel without serious faults. 

 

Medium Hardness RHA was chosen because it was found to have the best general purpose characteristics. Too soft and you lose effectiveness. Too hard and you lose effectiveness in certain situations. This is why most RHA varied between 240-300 Brinell for most thickness plates. 

 

Regular solid shot AP shells could be make to have their noses shatter by face hardened plate, which was the main reason for using face hardened plate. For this reason, capped rounds became the norm generally speaking. The cap takes the impact force and prevents shatter. However it reduces straight line penetration in most cases vs RHA by a small amount, and APCBC specifically performs worse against sloped plate. APBC on the other hand generally performs much better at high angles of slope. 

 

Extremely hard steel has a somewhat higher resistance against non-over-matching rounds, but once you get over 375 brinell over-matching rounds become a serious issue for high hardness steel. An example is the armor of the T-34. At 45mm it is over-matched by most rounds. The reduction in effective armor is quite alot, going from 122mm effective to 97mm at 450 Brinell hardness when faced with a 75mm shell. 

 

Lastly you have cast steel. Cast armor got used alot because it was easier to shape etc. It does not resist as well as RHA. This is the reason that the M4A3, M4A3W, and Easy Eight all used 64mm of RHA sloped at 47 degress instead of the cast steel of the M4A1. It is almost never mentioned, but the later marks of Sherman had significantly better protection than the cast models. The 64mm of RHA at 47 degress offered 118mm of protection versus a 75mm gun like the KwK 48. The 51mm of cast steel on the M4A1 only offered about 93mm. To put that in context, the often derided armor protection of the Sherman in 1944 was sufficient to be immune to glacis strikes at ranges over 750m...the average engagement range in Europe. A massive improvement over the 1600m kill range of a M4A1. 


Edited by Horizontalvolute, Feb 15 2017 - 10:53.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users