It’s high time to send the black prince back to 5.7 , his armor does not exist against German guns due to right angles, even a diamond does not save because of the 152 mm turret. but even this is not the reason for sending 5.7, but the damn m109, which push through any projection with fugas and destroy it with one fugas.my suggestion is to take away the penetration from sv mk 1 and send it to churchill 7 on 4.7,I do not understand why churchill 7 on 4.7 with overhead protection but without penetration, and black prince on 6.0 without armor and with a point projectile against fugas and fast equipment, with piercing projectiles
Up to 6.7 it goes…
But also, source on the test? And the armor?
No change will happen to the armor if you don’t bug report it with sources.
Where can I find more info about this?
Exit: @FlipAllTheTables LMAO, I commented before I saw your post. Funny how we both latched onto the same thing in this entire thread. :)
1 Like
1 Like
I know is Battleships grade steel because the Black Prince’s armor plates were too big for Vauxhall to press out them selves, so they sent a order off to a ship yard to make all the plates for the prototypes, Using the same manufacturing techniques that went into Battleship armor.
The Surface hardened thing is just common knowledge, basically every British tank during WW2 had surfaced hardened armor, they were the Pioneer of the technology.
As for the Live fire tests, id have to try and find the source for them, I’ve read about it in a book at SOME point, but have not a clue what book.
What you’ve stated is interesting, but is not a source. You are simply stating things but have not provided actual evidence.
The only tanks I’ve ever heard of using surface/face hardened armor during WW2 were German ones. Searching online I’ve find nothing about British WW2 tanks using such armor. The only information I’ve found related to British surface/face hardened armor comes from WW1 tanks, so you might very well be right about them being the pioneers of this technology, but as far as I can tell they simply did not use it in WW2.
The only thing I’ve read once is that on British tanks with rivetted armor, the outside plating is harder while the inner frame that supports the armor plates is softer.
But this is not the same as surface/face hardened armor, where is a singular plate of armor, rather than two, where the front/face has a higher hardness than the rest of the armor plate. Additionally, I don’t even know to what extent the difference in hardness is true. Most of what I’ve seen points towards the frame being of very soft steel while the armor itself has normal hardness compared to the RHA of other nations.
Additionally, the usage of penetration/protective caps (the C in APCBC or APC) effectively countered the effects of face hardened armor. This is because this type of armor works by trying to shatter the projectile before it hits the rest of the softer, more absorbant armor, while the protective cap works precisely to prevent such shattering by pretty much acting as a cushion, which made face hardened armor no better than normal RHA, potentially even worse. Seeing as almost every single German armor piercing round of WW2 is either APCBC or APC, I doubt that face hardened armor would’ve provided any meaningful advantage.
2 Likes
I second this. face hardening fell out of fashion quickly