87 replies to this topic

[_Freddy_]

 bullofscapa, on Apr 30 2012 - 20:45, said:

You have to not only take armor slope into account, but the armor itself. The Panzer IV had the famous Krupp rolled steel in her armor, where the Sherman had Cast armor. Cast armor is much weaker than the same thickness of RHA (Rolled Homogenous Armor) found on German AFV's.

The Sherman was a good tank, so was the Panzer IV. I like my German tanks a lot more though.  

But not all the steel used for armour was Krupp steel. many other manufacturers and the quality did drop as certain additives became rarer.

Shermans (depending on the model) also used lots of welded plate, was that rolled or cast flat plates because the finish is pretty darn good for cast plates if it is.

[bullofscapa]

 _Freddy_, on May 01 2012 - 01:09, said:

But not all the steel used for armour was Krupp steel. many other manufacturers and the quality did drop as certain additives became rarer.

Shermans (depending on the model) also used lots of welded plate, was that rolled or cast flat plates because the finish is pretty darn good for cast plates if it is.

Good point! I have seen a few (not many) shermans with flat plate in person. They existed, but the cast shermans (IIRC) were more numerous.

[President_Romney]

 bullofscapa, on May 01 2012 - 16:27, said:

Good point! I have seen a few (not many) shermans with flat plate in person. They existed, but the cast shermans (IIRC) were more numerous.

Only the M4A1 series and some of the M4 Shermans were cast hulls. The M4A2 versions and later were all welded plates.

[_Freddy_]

 Taerkar, on May 01 2012 - 21:06, said:

Only the M4A1 series and some of the M4 Shermans were cast hulls. The M4A2 versions and later were all welded plates.

So as I understand the welded plate is rolled plate, which is as I thought that the often spouted, Shermans were worse than the German Panzer IV because it had cast armour and not rolled plate is a little bit wrong.

[Zergling]

Why the heck did someone necro this topic?

 Taerkar, on Apr 30 2012 - 21:42, said:

Later in the war German armor quality really started to go down, as did the reliability of their rounds, so that is a factor against them. German tanks also tended to have face-hardened armor before 1944, especially on the smaller thickness plates that the Pz IV had, which was better against Russian shells but worse against US/UK shells. The reason for this is that the US/UK used APCBC rounds while the Soviets did not.

Incorrect; this appears to be a myth.

German steel composition changed as various materials ceased to be available later in the war, but the overall quality did not drop.
German steel maintained (and actually slightly improved) in hardness and overall quality throughout the war.

A large number of Panther tanks were produced with flawed glacis armor, but this appears to have been manufacturer specific rather than an overall problem.

The weld quality of German armor was pretty bad throughout the entire war though; there were reports of the weld points on Tiger I and Tiger II armor coming apart under hammer blows, nevermind enemy fire.
This was due to the high carbon content of German steel, which lead to German tanks being designed with interlocking plates (to reduce reliance on welding).
This was rather expensive, and was one of the causes of much higher production costs for German tanks than simpler Western and Russian designs.

[Lezt]

 Zergling, on May 02 2012 - 17:38, said:

Why the heck did someone necro this topic?


Incorrect; this appears to be a myth.

German steel composition changed as various materials ceased to be available later in the war, but the overall quality did not drop.
German steel maintained (and actually slightly improved) in hardness and overall quality throughout the war.

A large number of Panther tanks were produced with flawed glacis armor, but this appears to have been manufacturer specific rather than an overall problem.

The weld quality of German armor was pretty bad throughout the entire war though; there were reports of the weld points on Tiger I and Tiger II armor coming apart under hammer blows, nevermind enemy fire.
This was due to the high carbon content of German steel, which lead to German tanks being designed with interlocking plates (to reduce reliance on welding).
This was rather expensive, and was one of the causes of much higher production costs for German tanks than simpler Western and Russian designs.

You got some proper sources for that? hammer blows?

Armor is not just about hardness, it is about elasticity, ductility, grain size and distribution, spall effect  etc. The time quenched method used in late war did not produce armor of the same quality as with proper alloys and uninterrupted production in early war. I doubt you will find a crediable scientific and historic source suggesting otherwise.

[Stormrane]

 Kruzenshtern, on Oct 04 2011 - 05:15, said:

Ok, I'm going to need to see a source for this nonsense.

German side (from Panzer Truppen vol. 1 and 2, appendices), total vehicles produced 1933-1945 (excluding rebuilds), by class:

Panzer I (incl. Befehlswagen) = 1,459
Panzer II (all marks) = 1,756
Panzer 35(t) = 202
Panzer 38(t) = 1,335
Panzer III (3.7cm) = 651
Panzer III (5.0cm & 7.5cm) = 5,019
Panzer IV (all marks) = 8,548
Panzer V = 6,207
Panzer VI Tiger I = 1,347
Panzer VI Tiger II = 492

That's 27,016, and includes every single vehicle of these marks produced since 1933 and utilized in the war.

Even if you throw in TDs and SPGs,

There was in the region of 10,000-11,000 StuG's and its variants built, I've got no idea how many other self propelled gun numbers were built but there was a heavy focus on this type of weapon late in the war due to their unit price.

[Skriva2356]

also in the last parts of WW2 when germany was looseing alot say that the germans were experts at gurrilla warfare laying traps in the most complex yet simple places where one person wouldnt think to expect them.

So yea they were and probbly still are some of the toughest warriors of there age, Probbly right up there with Japans fighters probbly.