That's kinda interesting, i used to think all German tanks used FHA, but unlike the Pz 3 and 4 and some Panthers i never saw a decent source for the Tiger.
Well it's hard to find decent sources for the Tiger. Considering that the tiger was in production from 1942 to late 1944, and in it's lifetime it saw dramatic changes in the quality of German armour.
Unfortunately, I don't have any decent sources for the tiger on-hand either.
Has never been a problem for me, until i read that no country could actually make RHA plates thicker than 80 mm till the very end of the war.
I don't know if by RHA you meant to type in FHA.
But I'm almost sure you meant FHA.
I'm sure you know that when armour gets thicker, it becomes more brittle. That's because quenching the armour became harder and harder as the thickness increased, resulting in softer armour. But some alloys, such as chromium increased the internal hardening of such thick plates. But chromium, like tungsten, wasn't in greatest supply in Germany... so they had to use it sparingly, and on truely prized AFVs. Resulting in thick, yet hard armour.
And of course the armour could still be for example 260 BHN, but have a 350 BHN face.
All the info i can find is that they used rolled ****geneous nickel-steel plate, electro-welded interlocking-plate construction armor that had a Brinell hardness index of 255-260, which is way to low for FHA.
the 'hardness' of German armour varied throughout the war, as did the componenets of that armour. Once German nickel supplies began running low for example, they had to substitue... creating even more varied armour. To say that all tigers used hom0geneous nickel-steel play, with a BHI of 255-260 from 1942 to 1944, is probably not accurate.
A link would be appreciated.
It's not a source for the tiger, but it's a source about WWII and tank armour in general.
http://yarchive.net/mil/ww2_tank_armor.html
Some quotes:
From t-34 engineering
only the Germans utilized decent-
quality rolled alloy plate for tanks. Both the Russians and the Brits were
short on both first-class mill capability and alloy steel capability,
relative to the widely disparate numbers of AFVs they built.
from Griddling that armour
German armor started the war very hard, then lost hardness
as thickness and production quantities increased. The Germans used
face-hardened armor at first, with file-resisting hardness, then dropped
the face hardening and relied on the core hardness of 250-300 BHN,
similar to US tank armor.
Late-war German armor on the front of a
Jagdpanther was measured at about 200 BHN, as was Hetzer side armor. The
Elefants were measured in the low 200's after capture by the Russians, as
early as 1943. These are the softest examples of German armor I can
recall.
The last 2 quotes suggest that like the US, Germanys armour hardness varied GREATLY both throughout the war and between different AFV's.
The switch from the earlier face-hardened or
hard-all-the-way-through steel came about when the major combatants
introduced penetrating caps on their ammo, which protected against
shatter when hitting hard surfaces. These caps were so effective that
the FH armor resisted less well than softer homogeneous armor.
This quote backs up the instances reported of Western AFV's, which tended to use capped rounds were more effective vs. German tank armour then the Russian tank rounds which were more often then not just solid AP. This is logical as Germanys prime concern throughout the war WAS Russia. So advancements that would give German armour the edge on the eastern front even if it meant being slightly less effective vs. Western guns, which tended to lack the power to punch through the better German tanks anyway.
But this isn't proof, just a tidbit of evidence.
From FH/Homo; Cast/Rolled
Face Hardened armor is best at defeating uncapped AP when it overmatches
the projectile, that is, the diameter of the round is less than the
thickness of the armor.
Again, Russian AFV's tended to use solid AP shells. So FHA would be more effective on the eastern front.
FH tank armor generally had 80-95% of its depth at
machinable homogeneous levels. It was, in fact, made out of RHA. You can
see why it was more expensive as it took time, materials, and other
effort. After the additional heat treating, the plates tended to curl,
and so were flattened cold in presses.
An interesting quote that I know has some significance.
German 85-200mm specs at the
end of the war called for 220-266 BHN. 55-80 was 250-290, and 35-50mm
was 300-350 BHN. Much armor in that range was face hardened, with a
450-600 BHN face.
A captured Ferdinand in Russia was measured at 212-223 BHN on its 86,
110, and 200mm plates (Brit intell, 16 Feb '44). Spielberger tells us
that the plates for the Ferdinands were taken from Naval stocks, which
could mean it was made to different specs. German 85-200mm specs at the
end of the war called for 220-266 BHN. 55-80 was 250-290, and 35-50mm
was 300-350 BHN. Much armor in that range was face hardened, with a
450-600 BHN face.
This suggests that German armour of varying thicknesses went through an additional face hardening treatment that resulted in a BHN of 450 and higher... Which meant the tigers could have very well utilised face hardened armour.
![[TW]schneidzekk](/data/avatars/s/0/1.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}