What Tank Armour Can (& Can't) Do | Evolution of Armour

Understanding Tank Armor Protection

Introduction to Tank Armor

• The discussion begins with the concept of the "armor triangle," which includes mobility, protection, and firepower as essential components of a tank.

• The need for evolving armor protection is emphasized, noting that modern tanks have significantly different armor compared to those from a century ago.

Historical Context: World War I Tanks

• Early tanks were designed as machine gun destroyers, needing sufficient protection against small arms fire while facilitating infantry movement across battlefields.

• The Mark II tank is highlighted as an example, featuring 8 to 12 millimeters of hardened steel plate but suffering from vulnerabilities due to its riveted construction.

Vulnerabilities and Adaptations

• A specific Mark II tank saw action in 1917 and displayed battle damage from machine gun fire; however, the rounds did not penetrate the armor.

• The German Army recognized the need for anti-tank weapons and developed a 7.65mm armor-piercing round called SMK, which was less effective against newer tanks like the Mark IV.

Development of Anti-Tank Weapons

• A larger caliber weapon was introduced with a 13.2mm round designed for use against tanks; this led to the creation of heavy bolt-action rifles like the Tiger tank gun.

• Despite its ability to penetrate armor at close range (within about 100 meters), using such weapons was deemed risky due to their slow firing rate and significant recoil.

Evidence of Armor Limitations

• The narrator examines damage on a recovered tank from Aras in 1917 caused by shell fire, illustrating that even thick metal could fail under certain conditions.

• It is noted that proper armor capable of withstanding shell fire became crucial as tank warfare evolved during and after World War I.

Evolution in Tank Design Post-WWI

• As tanks progressed into the interwar period, they became faster and more mobile with improved turret designs and better armor-piercing ammunition.

• Construction techniques began shifting towards welded and cast methods rather than solely relying on riveting; this change aimed at enhancing structural integrity.

Case Study: M4A1 Sherman Tank

Production Techniques in Tank Manufacturing

The Complexity of Casting

• The production process for tank components is expensive and requires significant skill, particularly in casting molds, pouring metal, and cooling processes. These steps are complex and prone to errors.

• In wartime, the slow nature of casting becomes problematic as production needs to be ramped up quickly.

Advantages of Welding

• An alternative to casting is welding, which was pioneered by a Swedish company called Landsberg in the 1920s. This technique allows for quicker production compared to large cast components.

• For example, 8 out of 12 marks of the Sherman tank utilized welded hulls instead of cast ones. Some models combined both techniques with cast components at the front.

Armor Considerations

• The quality and composition of armor can vary significantly during wartime; considerations include whether it is face-hardened or rolled homogeneous steel.

• Weight is a critical factor in tank design; heavier tanks require more powerful engines that consume more fuel and limit range.

Impact of Weight on Design

• Tanks like the Tiger I weigh around 56 tons, leading German designers to create even heavier vehicles with larger guns, resulting in mechanical unreliability due to excessive weight.

• Vehicles such as the Jagdtiger weigh 72 tons, making them difficult to recover if they break down.

Field Modifications: Up Armoring Techniques

Basic Up Armoring Practices

• Engineers and tank crews often added materials like spare track links and sandbags for additional protection—a practice known as up armoring.

• Some Sherman crews applied concrete over vulnerable areas for extra defense; however, evidence suggests limited effectiveness.

Examples from History

• A Panzer I captured in North Africa showcases how extra armor was added post-construction but still struggled against light anti-tank rounds.

• The Panzer IV serves as an unsung hero throughout WWII due to its adaptability; it underwent substantial modifications including up-armoring.

Evolution of Tank Design

Innovations in Armor Design

• By the mid-1930s, tanks were primarily rectangular steel boxes until designs like the Soviet T-34 introduced sloped armor concepts that improved ricochet chances against incoming fire.

The Evolution of Tank Armor and Design

The Impact of Armor Design on Tank Capacity

• When armor is tilted back at a 45-degree angle, 100 millimeters of metal effectively increases to 140 millimeters without adding weight, enhancing protection.

• However, this design reduces internal space significantly, making the fighting compartment crowded.

• The T-34's design was influential in tank development, leading to advancements like the German Panther.

Advancements During World War II

• World War II marked significant improvements in tank capabilities: armor thickness increased from 6 to 14 millimeters in British Cruiser tanks to as much as 250 millimeters in the German Tiger.

• These enhancements were driven by adversarial considerations—designers focused on countering enemy threats.

Cold War Developments: MBT Debate

• The Cold War reignited discussions about the optimal balance between firepower, mobility, and protection for main battle tanks (MBTs).

• NATO designers advocated for lighter tanks emphasizing speed due to modern anti-tank munitions' effectiveness.

• In contrast, the British approach favored heavy armor and powerful guns with vehicles like the Chieftain.

Innovations in Armor Technology

• The British Chieftain served from the early 1960s into the 1990s and underwent several modifications including up-armoring techniques.

• Initial cast steel armor evolved with added blocks of still Brew for enhanced protection against incoming rounds.

Transition to Composite Armor

• Shobhum was one of the first new generation composite armors used by the British Army; it was developed at a military establishment in Surrey.

• Challenger 2 features advanced composite armor made from layers of steel, ceramic tiles, and polymers designed to dissipate energy from incoming rounds effectively.

Modern Tank Design Considerations

• Composite armor's structure allows it to absorb impacts better; when struck, it shatters ceramic tiles that help dissipate energy and stop projectiles.

• Modern tanks like Challenger 2 have angular designs due to composite armor being produced in flat sheets that are easier to replace if damaged.

Additional Protective Measures

• British vehicles deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan often utilized bar or slat armor designed primarily against RPG attacks by trapping rounds before they can detonate.

• Russian tanks have also adopted similar protective measures known as cope cages against anti-tank missiles; however, their effectiveness remains debated.

Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA)

• ERA consists of steel boxes fitted externally on vehicles containing explosive charges that neutralize incoming round impacts by detonating upon hit.

• This technology is commonly seen on Soviet-era T-series tanks such as T72 and T80.