C.G.Erickson Posted May 22, 2009 Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) OK here we go, first list your bonafides in metals. I have welded, machined and fabricated steel for over 28 years. Even helped weld a Panther Tank back together. Please list your experience with armor plate before this debate starts. Edited May 22, 2009 by C.G.Erickson
Tim the Tank Nut Posted May 22, 2009 Posted May 22, 2009 sort of an unpleasant way to start a debate. If you'd like I'll be happy to shoot at your Panther with whatever guns you want to verify the armor against...
Wobbly Head Posted May 22, 2009 Posted May 22, 2009 Since the Germans in WW2 in the latter years relied heavly on forced labour from occupied countries quality control is certianly going to come into it. The steel might be good but how was the original welds on the panther.
alejandro_ Posted May 22, 2009 Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) sort of an unpleasant way to start a debate.I think the same. The topic title should also include welding IMO; with current title I was expecting a long, interesting message with some sources stating why it is a myth. Quite disapointing so far. I have welded, machined and fabricated steel for over 28 years. I don't quite see what does this have to do with German plate production in WW2. And this is the sort of personal information many people will not want to disclose. I think G.C wanted the topic to start more or less here: WAL 710-750 states in page 7: The quality of the steel is not as satisfactory as that of the average German armour previously investigated at this arsenal. At the end of 1943 plates had 0.5-0.55% of molybdenum, which decreases to 0.15-0.25% in 2 sections tested in 1944 and then reduces to ~0 in latest analysis. Apart from WAL, B.I.O.S and NII-48 (USSR) reports there are other by tank crews. In the book "Deathtraps" it mentions the effects that WP (White phosphorus) rounds were having when hitting panzer. Rounds would break welds and smoke/Sparks (my translation) would go into vehicle. Damage on a Jagdpanzer by 75/76mm rounds (thanks Miguel): For curiosity, Panther: Edited May 22, 2009 by alejandro_
alejandro_ Posted May 22, 2009 Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) we've got anecdotes of shitty armor/weld performance but is there any "big picture" evidence of what the quality was in the entire fleet? How many are enough? 100, 1000, 10000? maybe one for each German vehicle produced? I have gone through reports/sources from US, UK and USSR. They all generally point to the same phenomeon, even if the tanks were taken from battlefields thousand of miles away from each other. Maybe they all took samples from same armour batch, but to me is a rather strange coincidence. German reports stating use of "diluted labour" in Tiger-II assembly; faulty HL 230 engines, some of them even with indications of sabotage, don't help neither. Maybe we should look for a document or report which states The quality of the steel is as satisfactory as that of the average German armour previously investigated at this arsenal. Edited May 22, 2009 by alejandro_
Archie Pellagio Posted May 23, 2009 Posted May 23, 2009 I always thought the episode of Tank Overhaul with Jaque Littlefield's Panther was interesting when they were listing the various things that had been sabotaged. From the electric systems, cigarettes in the engine, filed down cogs in the drive train. i wonder how widespread that was.
hatakashi Posted May 23, 2009 Posted May 23, 2009 In my "Germany's TIGER Tanks - VK45.02 to Tiger II: Design, Production and Modifications" by T Jentz, Appendix D, page 168-169... "There is no proof that substandard German armor playe was used during the last years of the War. All original documents confirm compliance with standard specifications throughout the war...." Also, from my New Vanguard "Jagdpanzer 38 Hetzer 1944-45" by T Jentz, page 10 - footnote: "The Brinell hardness test was used by most countries during WWII as a standard method of measuring the hardness of armour plate to indicate the resistance to penetration. There was no ideal hardness value for all thicknesses of armour plate - generally hardness was decreased as the armour thickness was increased; too hard and the plate was brittle and prone to shatter when struck by an armour piercing projectile. British and American armour usually had a lower hardness vlaue than the same thickness of German armour. British and Americans did not want their armour to shatter when penetrated, but this resulted in armour that could be penetrated at a shorter range"
jwduquette1 Posted May 23, 2009 Posted May 23, 2009 In my "Germany's TIGER Tanks - VK45.02 to Tiger II: Design, Production and Modifications" by T Jentz, Appendix D, page 168-169... "There is no proof that substandard German armor playe was used during the last years of the War. All original documents confirm compliance with standard specifications throughout the war...." Also, from my New Vanguard "Jagdpanzer 38 Hetzer 1944-45" by T Jentz, page 10 - footnote: "The Brinell hardness test was used by most countries during WWII as a standard method of measuring the hardness of armour plate to indicate the resistance to penetration. There was no ideal hardness value for all thicknesses of armour plate - generally hardness was decreased as the armour thickness was increased; too hard and the plate was brittle and prone to shatter when struck by an armour piercing projectile. British and American armour usually had a lower hardness vlaue than the same thickness of German armour. British and Americans did not want their armour to shatter when penetrated, but this resulted in armour that could be penetrated at a shorter range" That's actually a rather poor interpretation of the effects of plate hardness on ballistic resistance. Hardness effects on projectile penetration are far more complex. While it is true that higher hardness in high t/d events will typically increase the efficiency of the plate’s ballistic resistance, the complete opposite is true of low t/d events. For lower t/d events lower hardness plates resist penetration more efficiently. But even this is too simplisitic. For a given event -- projectile caliber -- plate thickness -- impact velocity -- there tends to be an optimum hardness level that provides the maximum ballistic resistance possible for that plate. Drop below that optimum hardness and the ballistic resistance begins to drop. Increase hardness above that level and plate resistance again tends to drop. Some projectiles are more sensitive to contrasts in plate hardness than others -- dependednt upon t/d. In addition, hardness can influence critical ricochet angle. Hardness can also influence back surface failure modes. High hardness plates have a tendency to create erratic rear surface plugs or rear surface spalling around the impact point -- with, or without actual perforation. Higher hardness plates also have a tendency to crack and break apart under impact. The multi-hit resistance of higher hardness plates that begin cracking will therefore be reduced. But plate hardness\tensile strength shouldn't be confused with inferior quality plates.
jwduquette1 Posted May 23, 2009 Posted May 23, 2009 (edited) For curiosity, Panther: That picture has always impressed me. I have looked at a great many photos of Panther turrets subjected to ballistic trials and this one has to take the prize in how badly poor quality armor steel can break up under non-penetrating hits. Edited May 23, 2009 by jwduquette1
jwduquette1 Posted May 23, 2009 Posted May 23, 2009 I've always been uncomfortable with this debate - even the best analysis I've seen wholly neglect any sort of statistical analysis. We've got plenty of test data, plenty of anecdotal evidence, but unless I'm completely out to lunch nothing that can meaningfully correlate armor quality in meaningful engineering way for the entire fleet of german tanks over the course of the war. Agreed. Something I had discussed years ago on a defunct forum regarding this very subject. But at the time it was in in the context of only one limited set of ad-hoc ballistic trials conducted against several captured Panthers. Allied ballistic testing of captured German AFVs represents a very-very small sample of overall armor steel produced by the Germans. But than any quality control also represents a very-very small sample of overall production. If I am constructing a concrete building I may be relying upon field sampling and laboratory testing of less than 0.001% of the volume of concrete actually placed during construction of the structure. But this is standard of practice and in my mind represents enough testing to allow me to sleep OK at night. What is interesting -- to me at least -- is the trend in Allied ballistic testing on captured AFVs. For me, one set of trials on a Captured German tank isn’t statistically relevant. Having said that, in my opinion multiple Allied testings conducted over a period of time spanning from 1943 to 1945 on a captured German AFVs suggests there may be a trend toward declining ballistic resistance of German armor steel as the war progressed. And again, while such testing does represent only a very-very small portion of German steel being tested, to me it is significant that these limited random samples collected by the British & Americans consistently show plate resistance in late war vehicles to have lower ballistic resistance quality than similar thickness Allied plates. However, I don't want to over generalize either. Some German plates tended to resist as much or more than similar thickness Allied Plates. I think what we are seeing is some proportion of inferior quality plate making onto German AFVs. The photo of the Panther turret Alejandro posted is a good example of how bad it could get. And no I don't intend on being an internet library and posting scans of ever piece of ballistic testing data I have managed to collect over the years. Those truly interested in the subject will do their own digging and draw their own conclusions. I think it unlikely that anything brought to the table in this setting is going to change anyone’s mind -- either way. Moreover I think the subject is complex enough that it is not going to be solved during an internet forum discussion. What I find fascinating is how no one raises an eyebrow when folks disscuss poor quality British armor steel – or poor quality Russian Steel – or poor quality American steel – or poor quality Italian steel. All of these armor steel producers also had their own rather tight manufacturing and testing specifications regarding how plates needed to perform. Yet when the subject of inferior German armor steel comes to the table there will always be some proportion of folks that get hot under the collar. I just don’t get the prejudice here. The conditions were far more condusive to producing inferior quality armor steel in Germany later in the war than the USA, UK, USSR and etc. Yet we see non-spec steel making it to assembly lines in the USA, UK and USSR. We are supposed to believe low quality steel never made it onto German AFVs based upon inspection specs provided in BIOS?
Tim the Tank Nut Posted May 23, 2009 Posted May 23, 2009 Back in '97 a group of us got a tour of Muenster with Colonel Wolfgang Schneider (Tigers in Combat). The subject of the failing armor came up and his answer was inconclusive. The gist of it was that "officially" all the armor was full spec from the first day to the last day but he also commented that "officially" Germany was winning the war during the battle of the Bulge. I gathered that his impression was that there was some faulty armor out there but no one was willing to report it on a grand scale.Bear in mind all of this was a passing comment in a fairly brief series of questions/answers so it must be taken with a grain of salt.
hatakashi Posted May 23, 2009 Posted May 23, 2009 That's actually a rather poor interpretation of the effects of plate hardness on ballistic resistance. Hardness effects on projectile penetration are far more complex. While it is true that higher hardness in high t/d events will typically increase the efficiency of the plate’s ballistic resistance, the complete opposite is true of low t/d events. For lower t/d events lower hardness plates resist penetration more efficiently. But even this is too simplisitic. For a given event -- projectile caliber -- plate thickness -- impact velocity -- there tends to be an optimum hardness level that provides the maximum ballistic resistance possible for that plate. Drop below that optimum hardness and the ballistic resistance begins to drop. Increase hardness above that level and plate resistance again tends to drop. Some projectiles are more sensitive to contrasts in plate hardness than others -- dependednt upon t/d. In addition, hardness can influence critical ricochet angle. Hardness can also influence back surface failure modes. High hardness plates have a tendency to create erratic rear surface plugs or rear surface spalling around the impact point -- with, or without actual perforation. Higher hardness plates also have a tendency to crack and break apart under impact. The multi-hit resistance of higher hardness plates that begin cracking will therefore be reduced. But plate hardness\tensile strength shouldn't be confused with inferior quality plates. Thanks for your detailed explaination As u said, plate hardness/tensile strength shouldn't be confused with inferior quality plates, but as I quoted ... according to documents compiled by Jentz there were no proofs.
C.G.Erickson Posted May 23, 2009 Author Posted May 23, 2009 (edited) That picture has always impressed me. I have looked at a great many photos of Panther turrets subjected to ballistic trials and this one has to take the prize in how badly poor quality armor steel can break up under non-penetrating hits. That turret armor did its job. No penetrations. 6 hits on it. The 75 m61 and 76 APC should have perforated that side turret armor in the test fires and yet it withstood 6 hits. I guess it depends upon your point of view. Edited May 23, 2009 by C.G.Erickson
C.G.Erickson Posted May 23, 2009 Author Posted May 23, 2009 (edited) Agreed. Something I had discussed years ago on a defunct forum regarding this very subject. But at the time it was in in the context of only one limited set of ad-hoc ballistic trials conducted against several captured Panthers. Allied ballistic testing of captured German AFVs represents a very-very small sample of overall armor steel produced by the Germans. But than any quality control also represents a very-very small sample of overall production. If I am constructing a concrete building I may be relying upon field sampling and laboratory testing of less than 0.001% of the volume of concrete actually placed during construction of the structure. But this is standard of practice and in my mind represents enough testing to allow me to sleep OK at night. What is interesting -- to me at least -- is the trend in Allied ballistic testing on captured AFVs. For me, one set of trials on a Captured German tank isn’t statistically relevant. Having said that, in my opinion multiple Allied testings conducted over a period of time spanning from 1943 to 1945 on a captured German AFVs suggests there may be a trend toward declining ballistic resistance of German armor steel as the war progressed. And again, while such testing does represent only a very-very small portion of German steel being tested, to me it is significant that these limited random samples collected by the British & Americans consistently show plate resistance in late war vehicles to have lower ballistic resistance quality than similar thickness Allied plates. However, I don't want to over generalize either. Some German plates tended to resist as much or more than similar thickness Allied Plates. I think what we are seeing is some proportion of inferior quality plate making onto German AFVs. The photo of the Panther turret Alejandro posted is a good example of how bad it could get. And no I don't intend on being an internet library and posting scans of ever piece of ballistic testing data I have managed to collect over the years. Those truly interested in the subject will do their own digging and draw their own conclusions. I think it unlikely that anything brought to the table in this setting is going to change anyone’s mind -- either way. Moreover I think the subject is complex enough that it is not going to be solved during an internet forum discussion. What I find fascinating is how no one raises an eyebrow when folks disscuss poor quality British armor steel – or poor quality Russian Steel – or poor quality American steel – or poor quality Italian steel. All of these armor steel producers also had their own rather tight manufacturing and testing specifications regarding how plates needed to perform. Yet when the subject of inferior German armor steel comes to the table there will always be some proportion of folks that get hot under the collar. I just don’t get the prejudice here. The conditions were far more condusive to producing inferior quality armor steel in Germany later in the war than the USA, UK, USSR and etc. Yet we see non-spec steel making it to assembly lines in the USA, UK and USSR. We are supposed to believe low quality steel never made it onto German AFVs based upon inspection specs provided in BIOS?Are we beating another dead horse? Brittle steel. Thats what Watervliet testers claimed. If the German low alloy steel was so bad then why did German Projectiles out perform allied projectiles? According to the flawed brittle steel theorists, the projectiles should have had shatter problems. Mechanics of impact and energy absorbed is the same if the steel is a plate or a projectile. In other words...steel is steel. Walter Speilberger claims that tensile strength criteria was lessened. This was done to speed up production. Less hard steel. I always found it fascinating as the critics of German Armor called German Plate Brittle but when you lessen tensile strength it becomes softer. An interesting steel related story is the acquisition of a former French Steel Manufacturing Facility by Hermann Goring. Seems he wanted to become an armaments Baron. The steel Goring's Plant produced had too high sulfer content and was rejected as armor plate. Edited May 23, 2009 by C.G.Erickson
C.G.Erickson Posted May 23, 2009 Author Posted May 23, 2009 Uhhh....I broke a drill bit drilling through face hardened armor plate without knowing it was face hardened once... I've always been uncomfortable with this debate - even the best analysis I've seen wholly neglect any sort of statistical analysis. We've got plenty of test data, plenty of anecdotal evidence, but unless I'm completely out to lunch nothing that can meaningfully correlate armor quality in meaningful engineering way for the entire fleet of german tanks over the course of the war. One thing we do know - no belligerents were practising anything close to six sigma Like Jeff, I always puzzle over the relevance of this argument. What is the tactical relevance?
Paul in Qatar Posted May 23, 2009 Posted May 23, 2009 It s seems their best armor was quite good, but other examples were very bad. Any debate over how much of which quality was produced would be very tedious and technical.
C.G.Erickson Posted May 23, 2009 Author Posted May 23, 2009 For any number of reasons including the fact that material behavior in the projectile is quite different than material behavior in the armor plate?Nope, thats a bastardized interpretation of penetration mechanics. Too simple to be in any way accurate. Because wars are fought and won at the strategic level - individual tactical engagements aren't all that important, its how the sum total of all those engagements within the strategic context of the war pan out that matters. The fleet wide quality and status of armor plate is in fact the sole relevant metric and its precisely the most difficult and tedious question to answer. I don't think anyone is disputing your technical expertise with armor plate but if you're questioning the relevance of the production quality issue (as opposed to manufacturing specifications) I question your familiarity with issues associated with mass production.Again gross generalization, while it is true as a trend that high tensile strength steels tend to be hard and brittle it is not the general case that lower tensile strength steels are inherently tougher. There are plenty of examples of steel formulations which have slightly higher tensile strengths yet better ductility and toughness than other formulations.I think this is actually one of the cruxes of the issue. Quality control with in situ sampling + destructive testing is a highly theoretically dependant exercise which involves all sorts of fancy mathematical ground work and a relatively robust knowledge of the quality and reliability of any given manufacturing process. I am struck for instance with the complicated game composite manufacturers go through or the construction of the Alaskan pipeline where they had a nightmare figuring out what was defective after a contractor built under engineering spec and faked their x-ray data. Wartime production is an arguably far more difficult quality control environment.Thats precisely the question I'd like answered. There is no way all german plate and welds were of top quality - its manufacturingly (I totally just made that word up!) impossible for this not to have happened. As you've suggested, the trend data suggests worst quality start creeping in late war. To what degree, from what factories on which models -I have no clue, and while that is the truly relevant question, we definitely aren't going to answer that here.Steel is Steel....The same physical properties apply. If you put X amount of energy into steel, at some point the energy will overcome the "strength" of the metal. Quality control is the primary issue here. German Plate acceptance criteria was enforced throughout the entire war. Firing acceptance tests to insure a standard level of reliability.Every nation on Earth has their own criteria for plate acceptance. The US metallurgists could not understand how "Nickel Free" German steel could out perform high alloy American Steel. The great Intelligence grab at the end of the war showed a "Great" interest in German Armor plate manufacture.(The Germans must have done something right as indicated by conclusions and investigations into German Armor Plate after the war) Culminating in the American CIOS report on German armor production throughout the war. Looking at British University courses by their most prestigious schools in Metallurgy, In 1942, the Brits admitted they did not know the mechanisms of "Temper Embrittlement." Bad thing, to not know what caused embrittlement in wartime steel maufacture. US CIOS report noted that the Germans were very aware of "Temper Embrittlement" and took great lengths to insure that their armor through Heat Treat did not turn out "Brittle." Does that mean every single Armor plate was perfect? No...Like you said under war time production that was impossible. The Generalised "Brittle" Armor theorists paint too broad a picture and I take offense at claims that these theorists have. Like claiming 2 out of 3 plates were flawed. German QC insured that this "flawed" armor was no where near this level.
Harold Jones Posted May 23, 2009 Posted May 23, 2009 Is it possible to find out how much armor plate was rejected for not meeting the the specs? If so wouldn't you be able to trend the amount failing against the amount produced each month and see if overall production quality took a hit?
C.G.Erickson Posted May 24, 2009 Author Posted May 24, 2009 (edited) Ug, please review your penetration mechanics and material science. Energy only applies on the mechanism side in terms of breaking bonds or distorting/dislocating the crystal lattice or in the very static/quasi-static concept of strain energy + internal energy absorption until failure/rupture. Exactly.... Neither are quite appropriate for detailed examination of high strain rate phenomena like penetration. Energy absorption until failure is inherently strain rate dependant for instance. Furthermore the properties of most materials themselves are quite different depending on the strain rate. Sorry Jason, I dont buy that. We are talking about "Brittle" Steel because of too low alloy content or improper heat treat. German Steel manufacturers produced the same steel for the AP projectiles as they did for the Armor Plate. So they should have also been "Brittle." The stress profile and wave processes in a projectile are different than those in the armor plate - point finale.You're missing out on the concept that destructive testing does not guarantee quality. Destructive testing only works when you can take a statistically viable sample and ensure uniformity and quality of manufacturing throughout. You need to combine the data from destructive testing with the design criteria and well estimated manufacturing error to create a design and manufacturing process that makes it so statically unlikely that failure will occur. If you can show that german total process control was such that a statistically insignificant quantity of bad armor came off the lines I'd love to see it. I don't doubt for instance that the germans turned out quality armor vehicles until the very end of the war but my impression is that bad plate (especially compared to previous standards) creeped more and more into production. Jason, Destructive Testing was the only way to assess quality. Tensile strength tests destroys the sample. Notch tests destroys the sample. Cross sectioning and acid etching requires the sacrifice of a piece of steel. Are you implying that none of these tests assures quality control? German Firing acceptance was the ultimate "Destructive" test. To insure that their tensile tests and others did not mislead them by sampling a too small area. So after the Smelt metallurgical tests, they would fire at plate from that smelt to assure that the quality was throughout the entire smelt. I'm fairly certain said theorists are pulling numbers like that completely out of their asses - as I said before I've never seen the sort of meta/ statistical analysis of all the test data and manufacturing data that would show how endemic the problem was. I certainly don't care enough about the question to go through what would be a graduate degree worth of work to prove it one way or another (unless you all bought the book for a boatload of money ) Been experimenting with post sorry for look of post. Edited May 24, 2009 by C.G.Erickson
C.G.Erickson Posted May 25, 2009 Author Posted May 25, 2009 Exactly what? Ever tried to quantify penetration based on microstructural lattice energy, fracture face free energy and other inherently thermodynamic concepts? It doesn't work well.If you don't believe that material properties depend on strain rate, or that fracture and rupture behavior are also strain rate dependant then there is absolutely no point in continuing conversation. I don't know what sort of proof you'd need other than the fact that strain rate dependant behaviour is canonical to dynamic loading material science. Crack propagation in a plate versus a projectile is going to be different - the geometry is different for one. Also its possible that an equal proportion of german rounds shattered or otherwise poorly performed compared to armor plate failure. There isn't going to be the same sort of evidence as for plate failures. Its also possible brittle rounds were less of an issue - for one a number of german tank guns were reasonably overmatched against western armor.I think you've missed the point. When destructive testing is the only way to asses quality you run into a very problematic scenario for managing your production. Relying on destructive testing means you need a robust statistical model to ensure that the destructed samples are representative of the quality of all product and this in turn relies on knowing precisely what the errors in your manufacturing processes are. This applies just as much to armor production as it does to making composites. While there is no argument the germans did the testing, how good was the whole quality control package? Its a tough pill to swallow that the germans maintained "perfect" quality control throughout the war, even when highly strained unlike every other belligerent. Jason Improper heat treat or poor metallurgy would show up in Firing tests for projectiles. Head to head tests between German projectiles and American projectiles show that the German low alloy projectiles out performed U.S. rounds made of high alloy. If you wish to see flawed Heat Treat, look at the comparisons between the German 88L/71 vs American 90mm projectile tests. T-33 90 was "flawed." Fractured at all obliquities.Mk 82 mixed zone of fracture and shatter was way worse than the 88.American testors recommended American AP projectiles to be made to German metallurgical and Heat Treat specs. U.S. projectiles could not be fired at German service velocities because metallurgically they could not hold up. I am trying to lay to rest that the low alloy German steel was a cause of the Low Alloy Brittleness Theory. Flawed manufacture would exhibit itself in head to head comparisons. C.G.
alejandro_ Posted May 25, 2009 Posted May 25, 2009 Improper heat treat or poor metallurgy would show up in Firing tests for projectiles. Head to head tests between German projectiles and American projectiles show that the German low alloy projectiles out performed U.S. rounds made of high alloy. If you wish to see flawed Heat Treat, look at the comparisons between the German 88L/71 vs American 90mm projectile tests.This -if comparable- should be placed in proper context. i.e when were those rounds manufactured and so on. In any case, it not quite comparable. Design issues would play a role. Steel is Steel....The same physical properties apply. If you put X amount of energy into steel, at some point the energy will overcome the "strength" of the metal. Not quite, it will depend on the type of testing, or "boundary conditions" in a simulation i.e inclination, t/d ratio, angle of impact, quality of welding... In any case, a WAL report states that quality of German steel tested was not as good as previous ones tested. The quote can be found in one of my previous meesages.
C.G.Erickson Posted May 25, 2009 Author Posted May 25, 2009 Only if you subscribe to the theory that firing tests, like armor proofing tests, are capable of capturing the entire picture of german metallurgical armament production. You're claiming that the tests that show decrease in armor quality are completely wrong, yet in the same breath claiming that any failing in projectiles would immediately appear in testing. Thats an inherently contradictory position on the relevance of destructive testing.Flawed manufacture would only appear if the head to head comparisons of accurate statistical samples - I think there is sufficient reason to question how accurate these samples were.This is conflating the concept of engineering/design spec with actual manufacturing quality. We're also still not addressing the issue that I initially brought upt - which is about quantifying the degree of loss of quality and manufacturing defect.Are you saying that we dont have enough statistical evidence today or that German Manufacturers did not have enough statistical evidence to qualify their own steel? Someone in Germany did enough testing to arrive at statistical trends to say whether steel was good or not. Here is Appendice C for Wapruf acceptance of Plate up to 15mm thick.Proof of high detailed statistical studies in steel.................................Oil Harden.Water Hardening.Intermediate.Water Hardening................................................... Low Temp.........Step Heat...Removal from BathAlloy Requirement:.....Medium.........High.................Medium......MediumOil Requirement:........High..............Zero................Zero...........ZeroInstallation Cost:........Low...............Medium............High...........LowManPower Req:..........Medium..........Medium............Low............HighProduction Feasability:Good..............Good...............Good..........BadDistortion:.................Low................Good...............Low.............HighCracking Prob:...........Low................Low.................Low.............HighUniformity:................Good..............Medium............Medium........BadSmk Protection:.........Good..............Good................Good...........MediumMed. Caliber:.............Bad................Good................Good...........GoodWelding Results:.........Bad...............Good.................Good..........Good Will have to continue in another post.
C.G.Erickson Posted May 25, 2009 Author Posted May 25, 2009 More of Appendice C .................................Hot Salt Solution..........2nd Heat Range...............................................................Intermediate Step HeatAlloy Requirement:......Low........................MediumOil Requirement:.........Zero.......................ZeroInstal. Cost:................Medium...................HighManpower Req:............Medium..................MediumProd. Feasability:..........Good.....................GoodDistortion:....................Low.......................LowCracking Prob:..............Low.......................LowUniformity:...................Good.....................GoodSmk Prot:....................Medium..................GoodMed Cal:.......................Good.....................BadWelding Results:...........Good......................Bad As you see, some sort of statistical study was going on. Notice that actual plate performance against projectiles is included. I am not going to print page for page Plate acceptance material. There are over 150 pages of acceptance criteria with curves and such.
Lieste Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Is there any correlation between armour quality and the probability of being knocked out and available for further testing? I know that there are other causes for the capture of armoured vehicles - lack of fuel, mechanical casualties etc, but perhaps a larger proportion of the vehicles with better quality armour simply drove off the battlefields than of those with poorer quality armour?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now