Landships II

vincent · Corporal

different armour plates of a7v

Mark Hansen · Legend

According to H&S the body armour was 30 mm thick at the front and sides, 20mm at the rear, and 10 mm for the roof. There isn't any distinction between early and later bodies as far as armour thickness. Some tanks were fitted with applique armour made from the cutaway sections of the mudguards which would have been 30mm thick.

mad zeppelin · Commander in Chief

The first order for A7V armour ran for 10 sets (1st lot) and was divided between Krupp and R�chling, both proven suppliers of ship armour plates. However, the Krupp plates for the A7Vs were found to be distorted and had to be cut and straightened. This resulted in five-part-side-armour and two-part-front&rear found on 503, 504, 541, 542, and 543. The R�chling plates fitted without major problem and were found on 501, 505, 506, 507, and 540. The supplier of the second lot is not known (but previous experience would suggest it was R�chling), second lot comprised 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 560, 561, 562, 563, and 564 (with 529 and 562 having 1st lot front armour fitted).
Armour thickness for both lots was 30 mm on front armour, and 15 - 20 mm on sides and rear, 20 mm on turret front and 15 on turret sides and rear. Horizontal surfaces (roofs) had 6 mm.
Addition: The production plans say 15 mm for side and rear, 506 at Bisbane actually has 20 mm side and rear.

-- Edited by mad zeppelin at 17:54, 2006-12-31

Centurion · Legend

It would be interesting to know the nature of the armoured plate. As I've pointed out in postings on other subjects Germany had problems with the production of thin armour plate (although they produced thick naval armour that was up to 25% more effective than British and American armour of the same thickness). The problem, as I've said at more length elsewhere, was mainly a severe shortage of the relatively rare metals needed to produce the requisite steel alloys rather than a lack of knowledge (although it was a technology in which Britain had a lead). Krupp produced naval (and other) armour through techniques such as casting into moulds with one face chilled. 30mm would be pretty much at the margins of what was possible with this technique so its not unreasonable to expect distortion in the plates supplied One wonders what techniques R�chling used. Its interesting to read that the Krupp plates were straightened as rerolling these plates without cracking would require them to be reheated which would be likely to destroy the internal structures that gave them their armoured characteristics. Is there any evidence of those A7Vs with Krupp plates being more vunerable to small arms fire?

In general its worth noting that the Central Powers were severely limited in their ability to produce thin armour plate. Initially (in 1914) Britain was the main producer of this product exporting plate to other countries. However the USA and France then developed their own capabilities (possibly with technology licensed from the UK?). Neutral Sweden appears to have had the capability of producing this plate albeit in relatively small quantities. I think that Japan either had it or developed it shortly after WW1. I'm not sure at all about Russia but the Soviet Union certainly had it as early as the begining of the 1920s. The point is that Germany was unable to produce or acquire thin armour plate in any quantity which makes both their plans for tank production in 1919 and various reports of clandestine tank production in this period questionable.

mad zeppelin · Commander in Chief

To quote Heigl: "The armour is a substandard, much too soft war-armour. ... For active anti-tank work the tank, although very strongly armoured, offers - because of the softness of the armour plate - no great difficulties."

Centurion · Legend

Thanks MZ

Was it just the Krupp plated ones or were the R�chling plates too soft as well? I'd expect the reworked Krupp plates to be 'soft'. If the R�chling plates were also soft it might be that they'd avoided the distortion problem by using a different casting technique but one that didn't harden the armour enough.

mad zeppelin · Commander in Chief

The illustration accompanying the Heigl entry is that of a Krupp-Vehicle. However, no indication is given that any differences had been observed. - The Krupps were considered more pleaged by splash, which is no wonder. Otherwise, there were no wartime complaints about the armour. The lacking quality was neutralized by quantity.

vincent · Corporal

thanks guys,

ive now added the a7v to my database. http://www.famousconflicts.com/ww1/armour/stats.asp?design=2

taz · Lieutenant

Hello fellow forum members,

At the moment I am reading the "Urpanzer zum Kampfpanzer leopard 2 book"

One part has this information on German tank armour construction.

German Tank armour was made of Steel plates in different quality mainly due to the lack of alloy metals, apart from the Chromium-Nickel Steel plates they tried to produce armour with a low Nickel content.
This armour was hard to maschine and resulted in contortion during the hardening process.
With regards to wartime complaints about the armour, because welding techniques were not advanced enough to allow it to be used in tank armour construction, bolt rivets were used. It was those that caused problems. If struck by a round from the outside they broke, sending splittered bolt parts flying around the inside causing injuries to crew members.

Best regards Eddie