Jump to content

Panther armor quality


Recommended Posts

242.png

2024-04-16-23-17-00.png

https://viewer.recherche.bar.admin.ch/?manifest=https://www.recherche.bar.admin.ch/recherche/files/manifests/0000/0714/4256/S_u_b_d_o_s_s_i_e_r_0000001/U_n_t_e_r_l_a_g_e_n_0000036/_w8kfmUJdRaKvrYkbqlmBOr.json

65eb0ef2736fc146104521.jpg

pantherdussr19-d0525a2907301aaf9b89503e9

358205_19_i_347.jpg

358205_19_i_351.jpg

ferdi+vs+panther.png

51020295042_923993f098_b.jpg

 

 

 

have seen a lot of reports on panther's and usually it's end up like this...is there any research on was panther armor any good ? 

Edited by Wiedzmin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand late war Panther armor was brittle because of the use of low tenacity steel alloys due to the lack of some alloying elements. The Jagdpanther at the IWM London is another example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, sunday said:

I understand late war Panther armor was brittle because of the use of low tenacity steel alloys due to the lack of some alloying elements.

the one which was tested in USSR was 1943 made, and later models quite often had same issues

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

the one which was tested in USSR was 1943 made, and later models quite often had same issues

Middle-to-late war, then. Good armor was reserved for Tigers and the like.

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, sunday said:

Good armor was reserved for Tigers and the like.

tigers also have problem with cracks, maybe not that big as panthers but

 

dd.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

have seen a lot of reports on panther's and usually it's end up like this...is there any research on was panther armor any good ? 

Panther's armor quality varied. Isigny tests clearly showed this. One tank hit dozens of times without cracking, two others (of which one was already seriously damaged, so maybe that didnt count) cracked only after a few hits. Severe cracking occurred in two main cases: 1, on tanks with face hardened plates (Ausf.D and some Ausf.A) 2, on late production Ausf.G (mainly due to poor heat treatment). Unfortunately there is absolutely no data about the percentage of Panthers with substandard armor. In the book "Panther & its variants", by Walter J.Spielberger and Hilary Doyle, there is some info about the quality. By 1945, Germans intentionally reduced nickel, tungsten and molybdenium content of the armor, and the "resistance (as in the book, probably tensile stranght)" from 180kg/mm2 to around 150kg/mm2 because they found out that the optimal range is between 120 and 150. The actual "resistance" varied between 100 and 150, until the end of the war. 

So thats why we can see horribly cracked plates on some tanks, and also tanks like this below:

file.php?id=438655&sid=e0dde35537fce0838

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 4/21/2024 at 6:53 PM, sunday said:

I understand late war Panther armor was brittle because of the use of low tenacity steel alloys due to the lack of some alloying elements. The Jagdpanther at the IWM London is another example.

On 4/21/2024 at 7:12 PM, JWB said:

IIRC Germany ran out of nickel.

I'm happy to possess the knowledge to be able to dismiss these misconceptions.

Firstly: although one can find the evidence of substandard quality armour on AFVs of any nation, it is clear to me from my research that ww2 germany was disproportionally affected by this in the second half of the war, despite whatever some people like to claim.

Secondly: The inferior quality of the armor plate found on many german vehicles was NOT caused in fact by the lack of strategic alloying elements, at least not directly. As the situation with supply of these alloying elements fluctuated during the war the german engineers worked tirelessly to design replacement ("ersatz") compositions for the armour, with considerable success. These new marks of armour steel had essentially identical ballistic performance as the ones they were meant to replace. At least in theory.

In practice it was quite different: the reason why these were not employed either before nor post ww2, despite considerable economic savings they promised, was the considerable difficulty in obtaining consistent results with the resulting product due to its sensitivity to the smallest deviations from the predetermined production cycle. When making small batches in near laboratory conditions, the results were acceptable, but when scaled up to mass production, under conditions of wartime demands on hundreds of AFV every month, the average quality of the armour plate declined sharply. As a result, although there were still some good plates that could be found in late production german tanks, but now a big fraction, perhaps even the majority of armour plate, was of sub-standard quality in it's ability to withstand ballistic shock without clacking.

The reason why the quality control did not catch these and eliminated them from the production, was because in german practice it was left to the armor plate maker to select the ones they are supposed to send to be analyzed by the quality control inspectors, and, apparently, they only sent the ones they tested themselves and were sure where up to spec.

Because of this, on paper, "...there has been no relaxation in acceptance specs for armour and consequently no decline in armour quality of late war german armour" (c) Jentz, which certain people like to refer to whenever somebody brings up this topic.

Look up the posts on the topic of german armour quality made my Miles Krogfus at AxisHistory forums for my sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice to know someone did actual research instead of relying on old documents.

What kind of equipment did you use to make your research?

I understand one needs things like melting furnaces, heat-treatment ovens, hardness testers, Charpy impact testers, electron scanning microscopes, mass spectrometers, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, sunday said:

Nice to know someone did actual research instead of relying on old documents.

What kind of equipment did you use to make your research?

I understand one needs things like melting furnaces, heat-treatment ovens, hardness testers, Charpy impact testers, electron scanning microscopes, mass spectrometers, etc.

Unless you're being facetious: 

Quote

Look up the posts on the topic of german armour quality made my Miles Krogfus at AxisHistory forums for my sources.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Peasant said:

Look up the posts on the topic of german armour quality made my Miles Krogfus at AxisHistory forums for my sources.

Some links will be welcomed. Not much there about the metallurgical properties of Panther armor that I could find.

Sorry for misinterpreting the meaning of the word "research" you used.

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thank you. You have restored some of my faith in humanity. People in these circles, related to tanks and military equipment in general, often do not take kindly to someone challenging their beliefs. 

 

You can easily find what you're looking for by using advanced search commands in Google search, like, for example: "site:forum.axishistory.com german armor quality" 

 

But as you asked, here are few of the threads there that contain relevant information: 

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=215864

 

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=248245

 

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=215542

 

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=247739

 

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=219251

 

https://forum.warthunder.com/t/armour-quality-of-tiger-ii-tanks/38729

 

You can also take a look at some of the original historical documents that have been digitized, like these: 

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA954407

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA954370

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA954940

You can find more using "site:apps.dtic.mil metallurgical examination tank armor 1940..1950" or whatever topic you're interested in. 

Edited by Peasant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the sources!

I think all of us already agreed here that some german tanks definitely had substandard armor. The real question is the percentage. I also tried to find info about this, but sadly there is simply nothing... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

with Panzer 3 and 4 situation was pretty much the same, some can withstood some shot from 2pdr and 45mm, but some simply cracked all the way after 1-2 shots, and completely failed vs 57 and 76 

 

3_TP5qsLqoo.jpg?size=1321x2160&quality=94I0KbspL0Jo.jpg?size=1206x2160&quality=9

m5uaNejzpf8.jpg?size=2250x1122&quality=9

2hf4D8Y581U.jpg?size=1525x2048&quality=9

 

Churchill's had some issues with armor cracking 

 

hetzer.png

 

hetzers IIRC was known for their bad armor 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

> "with Panzer 3 and 4 situation was pretty much the same, some can withstood some shot from 2pdr and 45mm, but some simply cracked all the way after 1-2 shots, and completely failed vs 57 and 76 

 

One needs to keep in mind that brittle damage produced in the armor is a function not only of the physical properties of the plate itself, but also of the kind of attack it's subjected to. Overmatching shells striking at near right angle to the surface subject the target to greater stress and are more liable to produce cracking and spalling. 

 

This means that, for example, a good quality 80mm plate set at a 55° angle would show little brittle damage when attacked by 75mm/85mm guns, but would crack much more if removed from the tank and shot at 0° obliquity. 

 

The German 30mm RHA plates were tested only against their 20mm gun at low obliquity and against 37mm at high angles (>50°) of impact, because those are the threats it can hope to stop at reasonable combat ranges. Shooting it with a 45mm gun (Thickness/Diameter = 0.66) at close to 0° angle is expected to produce brittle fractures, but it's not necessarily an indication of excessive brittleness (although it could be, there is no way to tell for sure from testing under these conditions). 

 

Edit: Forgot to mention: the exit velocity of the shell also plays a role, large residual velocity favours the creation of larger spall from the rear of the plate.

Edited by Peasant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Peasant said:

One needs to keep in mind that brittle damage produced in the armor is a function not only of the physical properties of the plate itself, but also of the kind of attack it's subjected to. Overmatching shells striking at near right angle to the surface subject the target to greater stress and are more liable to produce cracking and spalling. 

Maybe the americans were right after all with their softer than average armor then? I didnt really see Shermans cracking/disintegrating like basically any other nations' tanks. We can observe cracked open Panthers, T-34s, Churchills, basicallly anything, but it is very rare when it comes to the Sherman. Of course the price was less resistance to penetration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peasant said:

One needs to keep in mind that brittle damage produced in the armor is a function not only of the physical properties of the plate itself, but also of the kind of attack it's subjected to. Overmatching shells striking at near right angle to the surface subject the target to greater stress and are more liable to produce cracking and spalling. 

yes and no kinda, as for example KV-1 and matilda, +- same plate thickness, but KV-1 very rare to form any crack even after 105mm and 88mm hits, where matilda,well

 

CcX7LQHYOpk.jpg?size=1626x1080&quality=9

 

but in this case physical size of plate also works against it, but US trialed turret and it also cracked 

 

SMus5tOk-Wg.jpg?size=1449x2160&quality=9

 

same for churchill's, geometry of plates + cuts + quality of plates "preprogrammed" the failure 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

with Panzer 3 and 4 situation was pretty much the same, some can withstood some shot from 2pdr and 45mm, but some simply cracked all the way after 1-2 shots, and completely failed vs 57 and 76 

3_TP5qsLqoo.jpg?size=1321x2160&quality=94I0KbspL0Jo.jpg?size=1206x2160&quality=9

m5uaNejzpf8.jpg?size=2250x1122&quality=9

 

 

A bit of off-topic here, but would you happen to have more details on how this shielded Pz.III fared in this trial? I have long theorized that the skirting plate would strip the cap from incoming APC shells, making them behave like normal AP shell once they hit the main face-hardened armour, e.g. shatter. 

 

11 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

yes and no kinda, as for example KV-1 and matilda, +- same plate thickness, but KV-1 very rare to form any crack even after 105mm and 88mm hits, where matilda,well

 

CcX7LQHYOpk.jpg?size=1626x1080&quality=9

 

but in this case physical size of plate also works against it, but US trialed turret and it also cracked 

 

SMus5tOk-Wg.jpg?size=1449x2160&quality=9

 

same for churchill's, geometry of plates + cuts + quality of plates "preprogrammed" the failure 

Excellent pictures, never seen those before.

Indeed, I would expect Matilda's armour to be more brittle than that of an average KV-1 tank, because cast armour is inherently more brittle, which is why it is usually tempered during production to a lower hardness level in order to get satisfactory toughness.

AFAIK when it was being developed (1930s) the Matilda was designed to withstand attacks from 37mm ATG, which were standard at the time, which might've led its designers to not pay as much attention to the toughness of its armour, while the KV-1 was expected from the start to resist the soviet medium velocity 76mm gun, which imparts a much greater shock to the target.

Metallurgical examination of one turret from the A12 tank is described in this report: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA954293.pdf

 

12 hours ago, old_goat said:

Maybe the americans were right after all with their softer than average armor then? I didnt really see Shermans cracking/disintegrating like basically any other nations' tanks. We can observe cracked open Panthers, T-34s, Churchills, basicallly anything, but it is very rare when it comes to the Sherman. Of course the price was less resistance to penetration.

I have data from the UK National Physics Laboratory that ran a program studying the correlation between armour steel hardness and its resistance to penetration between 1940-1943, and it's conclusion was that as long as armour hardness does not stray too far from its ductile-brittle transition point, its ballistic resistance does not appreciably change in a relatively wide range of BHN values. I wouldn't expect the US tank armour to be significantly weaker than that of other nations beyond a few% max.

German Army paid a great deal of attention to the performance of AP-HE anti-tank shells, both the performance of their own designs as well as to protection from those its armour would face on the battlefield, as they believed the ability to reliably set on fire the enemy tank with as few shots as possible in order to make it unrepairable to be of high importance.

It is perhaps for this very reason, at the beginning of the war, they've opted to equip their tanks with armour of somewhat higher hardness in order to give it better chances to damage the incoming shell and make it fail to detonate inside the vehicle. At the latter stages of the war, once it became clear that APC shells were quickly becoming the standard type for ATGs the german armour was reduced in hardness: at the beginning the 50mm plates on Pz.III and IV were of 320-360 BHN, while towards the end the 45mm plates on Panther tanks were around 270-310 BHN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2024 at 11:23 AM, Peasant said:

A bit of off-topic here, but would you happen to have more details on how this shielded Pz.III fared in this trial? I have long theorized that the skirting plate would strip the cap from incoming APC shells, making them behave like normal AP shell once they hit the main face-hardened armour, e.g. shatter. 

will try to find it again

 

https://disk.yandex.ru/i/BZFJazBlfuZzZg

 

if you interested here some report on german AP production

 

http://www.tigerscorner.ru/index.php?topic=2077.15

 

and my thread with some WW2 and post WW2 data 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

Found data relevant to the ballistic trial of this Panzer.III.

Its a copy&paste of a very old post on this very forum, from back when it was still called "tank-net.com". :

Quote

D.T.D. Experimental Report
A.T. No. 113
Parts I, II, and III
Project No: A.3305
Trial No: X426
File Ref: 160/78/2
Report on Firing Trial
against Pz.Kw. Mk II. Model J
D.T.D. , No. 2221. Held at S. of E. Range. Shoeyburness, on 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 23rd of February. 1943.

British seem to be more thorough, not just relying on notch tests.

Germans cut alloy content in mid 1942 so these tests should show flaws in armor, according to Flawed armor theorists. I will not provide a shot by shot tabulation of the weapons fired. 2lber, 2lber Littlejohn, 57mm, 25lber. I will just post conclusions of the 106 rounds fired at this single Pz.Kw III Model J.

First. Littlejohn. After firing at upper visor glacis with 5 regular 2lber and firing at nose with 4 regular 2lber.

Upper Visor FH addditional armor over Machine Quality(RHA) plate.
Angled upper nose FH Armor.

" (a) On visor spaced assembly, against additional M.Q. Plate, front of tank normal to attack.

Two rounds were fired. Both projectiles broke up on the front plate, the broken shot producing a smooth bulge in the visor plate at the rear."

" (o) Upper sloping nose plate, attack normal to plate.

Both impacts, produced external scoops 21/2" to 3" long, and 3/4" to 7/8" deep, with a smooth bulge at the rear."

2 pdr A.P.C.B.C. attack
Lower Nose Plate, normal to front of vehicle

" The plate appeared to be of good quality and resisted the attack satisfactorily without flaking at the rear or cracking at the face."

Main Hull side plate, at 31 degrees.

"The plate was ductile and did not flake at the rear."

Main hull at 40 degrees.

"The armor appeared to be of good quality, being ductile and free from flaking."

Hull Superstructure

"The difference in favour of the superstructure is accounted for by the fact it is face hardened."

"3. A review of the results under 6-pdr. attack indicates clearly the inability of this vehicle to withstand this attack."

Source: http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.ph ... ntry678690

Edit: Found the report file in the UK archives, but its not avilable: https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C6144193

 

Edit2: Additional information:

Quote

The actual production 2 pounder APCBC round was tested against a captured Panzer III Ausf J in February 1943, this confirming that the 52mm FHA nose plate was vulnerable at 500 yards at normal (i.e. at 20 deg.), while the 31mm FHA side superstructure plate was vulnerable at 2000 yards at 30 deg. and 1000 yards at 40 deg. This was with the APCBC with a standard charge (i.e. 2600-2650 fps). These trials are described in Armour Trial Report AT 113 of 10th May 1943.

Source: https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=2142766#p2142766

Edited by Peasant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...