四号坦克有哪些改进的潜力？ 第1页

药府王辖镇大湿又在造谣四号坦克的装甲不含镍了

对此, 本人直接用报告AD-A954 370中的数据对德黑进行打脸即可

在报告AD-A954 370中被检验的来自四号坦克的装甲样本——含镍

------------分割线------------

------------分割线------------

原来这个所谓的“四号坦克的装甲里不含镍”还是德黑大湿从人家factpedia上抄过来的, 实在是很难令人绷的住。

------------分割线------------

药府王辖镇大湿又在其评论区中鬼扯所谓的“战争末期德国缺乏稀有金属 不只是传动 连装甲都没有之前好了”。

然而, Panther: Germany's quest for combat dominance一书中的内容如下

Some authors have concluded that as the German military-industrial complex came under increased pressure from Allied bomber raids, and in conjunction with the loss of access to certain key alloys needed to continue to manufacture armor of sufficient hardness, the quality of some of the armor plate for tanks like the Panther tank would be substandard and lack ductility.
According to the Combined Intelligence Objective Sub Committee G-2 Division, SHAEF (Rear) report discussing German armor plate dated July 17, 1945, German alloy content varied with the thickness of the steel armor plates being made. The thicker the plate, the more alloys were used. Alloys were intended to stop quench cracking (splitting of steel) during the heat treatment of thicker armor plates. Right up to the end of the war, steel armor plates 55 mm or thicker had very high alloy content. However, the Germans did reduce the alloy content in thinner steel armor plates.
The alleged loss of ductility in German steel armor plate supposedly showed up in captured Panther tanks subjected to ballistic tests conducted by the U.S. 12th Army in France, beginning on August 19, 1944, at the small French town of Isigny.
The purpose of the ballistic tests conducted at Isigny was to determine the comparative effectiveness of the main gun ammunition fired by both the second-generation Sherman tank armed with a 76-mm main gun and the British 17-pounder (76.2-mm) against the glacis plate of the Panther tank.
The trial subjects chosen for the 12th Army Group ballistic tests were three captured Panther Ausf. A tanks. After firing a variety of AP rounds against these vehicles, two reports were issued, a preliminary report on August 21, 1944, and the final report on August 30, 1944.
From the final report comes this extract describing the glacis plates on the three trial Panther tanks and the effects of the projectile strikes:
"The general characteristics of the frontal armor are: glacis plate 85-mm (3.35 inches) at 55 degrees and nose plate 65-mm (2.56 inches) at 55 degrees. Using an armor basis curve, the vertical equivalent of the glacis plate is 187-mm (7.36 inches) and of the nose plate 139-mm (5.47 inches) …. Wide variation was found in the quality plate on the three tanks. Tank No. 2 (hereafter referred to as the 'best plate') sustained 30 hits at ranges from 600 to 200 yards without cracking. Tanks No. 1 and 3 (hereafter referred to as average plate) cracked after relatively few hits."
Armor basis is the protection afforded by a given thickness of armor at a slope, expressed in terms of the thickness of armor required to give the same protection at a zero slope.
Researcher Carey Erickson performed a detailed analysis on the original test photographs supplied with the Isigny report. He concluded that the Panther Ausf. A tank labeled as No. 1 and listed as having only average plate had in fact a face-hardened glacis plate. This can be observed by the characteristic flaking that occurs only when face-hardened armor is penetrated by an AP projectile. Erickson explains that encountering a face-hardened glacis plate on a Panther Ausf. A tank was not impossible because it could have come from leftover stocks to meet production quotas as German tank production was under greater and greater pressure to put weapons into the hands of the Panzer divisions by 1944.
Erickson also notes that it took nine hits into the hard outer surface of the face-hardened armored Panther tank labeled No. 1 to make it susceptible to penetration. Pictorial evidence also shows that the Panther tank labeled No. 3 and described as having an average plate had significant prior battle damage with extensive cracking across its glacis plate. This damage should have excluded tank No. 3 from even being part of the testing process. Erickson makes the valid point that the Panther tank labeled No. 2 with the best plate reflected the true quality of Panther glacis plates for most of World War II and not the face-hardened armored Panther tank or the battle damaged example used at Isigny.
Erickson is not the only one who believes that Panther armor remained free of serious defects for the duration of the war in Europe. Jentz and Doyle stated in their book Germany's Tiger Tanks VK45.02 to Tiger II: Design, Production and Modifications that "There is no proof that substandard German armor plate was used during the last years of the war. All original documents confirm compliance with standard specifications throughout the war."
Evidence for the quality of late-war German armor plate can be found in a postwar U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground firing test (Project number 5044: July 16, 1945), which consisted of American 90-mm M82 AP projectiles fired at an early production Panther Ausf. D tank and at a late-war produced Panther Ausf. G tank. (late-war being the time period of supposed inferior steel). The 90-mm M82 AP rounds punched two holes through the Panther Ausf. D tank' s glacis plate with significant break out due to FHA brittleness in the face of overmatching projectiles. The 90-mm M82 AP projectiles did not penetrate the glacis plate of the Panther Ausf. G tank but did achieve a penetration through the glacis plate machine gun mount. The end result being only "scoops" upon the late-war glacis plate, not an indicator of substandard late-war armored steel against an overmatching projectile.