Tiger

Face hardening (FH) is a method used to increase the armour hardness of the surface of armour plate. The rear side of the armour plate remains at its original hardness. Face hardening is carried out by taking a slab of RHA and heat treating it again, but on one side only. The heat treating is time consuming and results in a warped plate which must then be flattened in large presses. The Germans were able to handle plates up to and including 50mm thickness (with production oversizes up to 55mm), and tried 80mm FH on the early Panther glacis. Later on the Germans found a way to use a heavy electrical current flow through the steel to induction-harden one face. Both methods were used until the end of the war.

The purpose of the hardened face is to shatter an incoming projectile’s head before it can penetrate. The Germans found it resisted Soviet uncapped AP and APBC projectiles quite well, when the armour plate thickness was around the same size or not too badly overmatched by the projectile (such as Pz.Kpfw.IV 50mm front armour vs. Soviet 45mm or even 76mm AP or APBC). Britain and the USA tested projectiles against FH armour as a matter of course until about 1943, but rarely used it on production vehicles because of its relatively poor resistance to German APCBC in comparison to RHA. The Germans were faced with APC and APCBC from the Western allies only, not the Soviets, so their decision to use FH armour weakened their tanks against Western guns but strengthened them against Soviet guns.

http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/introduction.html

Take that, Lyndon.

 

Lyndon, I honestly find remarks like this quite offensive. If you can´t discuss certain topics without getting personal, then stay away from them.

 

No Skua, not when somebody claims something I haven't written. I never said a ten to one kill ratio was the norm. People should read posts properly before spouting off. It annoys me.

 

I don´t care Lyndon. If somebody hasn´t read your post properly, then repeat your points to them. Ask them politely to read your post again. Quote from it. Anything. Just don´t make offensive remarks. End of discussion.

 

Wooow....

Well what did it help the americans when the German guns were so much Superior against both RHA and FHA....

Best regards, KBO

 

Lyndon claimed that German armor was supperior. I proved that it was flawed. Simple.

And KBO, it helps because American APCBC rounds could penetrate German face hardened armor with equal or greater ease than tests showed. Since the Western allies used an APCBC round, and FH armor was especialy vulnurable to APCBC.

 

Come now Daniel, you know I was refering to armour as in AFV, the tank itself. In England we call tanks 'armour'.

 

Perhaps you should realize that the most common German AT gun was the 75mm L/48. It was used on the late PanzerIV (the most common German tank of the war), on the StuGIII and IV (the most common German TDs of the war), and on the JagdPzIV/L48. Also it was the standard German field AT gun, in the form of the PAK40.

This gun was quite powerful, but nowhere near as powerful as the guns used on the Panther, Tiger or TigerII which had enormous penetration values. While these guns could easily handle just about any Allied armour, the most often seen German gun was a lot more comparable to Allied AT firepower and had more trouble penetrating Allied armour standards. If a plate was thick enough, and composed of RHA, the shell of a PAK40 would have just as much trouble penetrating it as an Allied tank would have with the user of the enemy gun.

 

Well it still doesnt help because German APCBC was still alot better than Allied APCBC both against RHA and FHA, btw the allies also used APBC alot...

Oh yeah and the 17pdr's APDS shells would often break up against the vertical frontal arnor of an TigerI, even at point blank...

Regards, KBO

 

And thats what I was adressing. Lyndonn, you can dodge the statement as much as you want but untill you find evidence that contradicts my findings, then I have proven that German tanks are not the omnipotent power-houses you make them out to be.

KBO, you need to look at my first post and think for a minute. It appears you are still missing the point.

 

Daniel,

Sorry, you have never proved anything to me. Your post in this thread proves or says nothing about Panthers, King Tigers or Tigers not being 'power houses'. What are you talking about? It's sheer nonsense.

You are another one whose national prejudices get in the way of the truth. I find this amazing.

I even made those Tiger knock out threads thread partly for you but you declined to comment.

 

If you can't see how FH armor weakened German tanks against Allied shells disproves the omni potency of German tanks, then that is your problem.

The reason I did not post in your tiger thread is because you will not get your ego stroked from me. You have known me on these boards long enough to know that I will not bother to write a post against something I have no argument against.

Also, I do not let my nationalism get in the way of my judgment. If that were true, I wouldn't have routinely put my head on the chopping block for British designs whenever they were attacked.

 

Ive read it properly, but it still doesnt help the Allied tanks because they were alot more vulnerable to German APCBC Shells....and especially german 75mm and 88mm shells....

When it comes to firepower the Germans were far ahead of the allies.....

Regards, KBO

 

I´ve unlocked the topic. Let´s try to be civil this time.

 

Quote:

"Even if we half it to bring it down to five to one just for your sake that is still a very big difference"

And it shows you could be using data that is wrong by a factor of x2.




If you re-read my posts you will see I doubt your kill rate only and never said anything about the Tiger tank itself.

Quote:

"I never said a ten to one kill ratio was the norm."

yes you did, at least twice.

Quote:
Wed Jun 16, 2004 7:44 am
"The Tigers were not just 'ok' tanks . They had a ten to one kill ratio "

Sun May 09, 2004 7:26 am
" I would still like to know the answer to this question: which other tank had a ten to one kill ratio?"

Quote:

"It's clear that you should probably study the geography of Europe and the vital factor this plays in the role of tank v tank warfare, particularly when superior tanks are engaging inferior ones"

Are you implying I do not know enough to dispute your claims?

 

i think it is held generally that the later german tanks of tiger and panther designation were superior to the both the allied and russian counterparts for much of the last 2years of the war.

the russian T34 and IS models being very close to ht panther and tiger, while the allied shermans cromwells and churchills laggin stillfurther behind.

over the course of the war the allies admitted having to lose 4 tanks to every 1 german tank destroyed and the russians openly admit losing on a 5:1 ratio.

russianns figures being more because of the tactics they adopted, the allies down to german superiority in firepower and armour.

 

Quote:

"over the course of the war the allies admitted having to lose 4 tanks to every 1 german tank destroyed"

Did they? Where at? I think you will find you are wrong.

Quote:

"and the russians openly admit losing on a 5:1 ratio"

In the first years of the war yes but a sharp decline in late 43/ 44/45

 

The russians have admitted that the Sherman armor, gun, and survival features out classed the T-34 via several soviet tests of these three factors.

 

What makes you think he is wrong? You don't have any proof of his sources being wrong. What do you support your claim with, anyways?

I always see it like this. There were a lot more Allied tanks in the field than German ones, at almost any point in the war. Yet German AT technology was the most advanced and powerful in the world. Of course the Germans killed more tanks than they lost!

 

The soviets did indeed lose a lot more tanks than the Germans. A ratio of 5:1 might not be that far-fetched as an average for the whole war. But the Western Allies loosing tanks on a scale of 4:1 ?