t-34 armour spawling

[flarg]

Unsure if it was a fluke, but been playing around with tanks and found the t-34 fails to create spawling when hit. http://www.tankarchives.ca/2017/11/t-34-armour-research.html source for what I understand as accurate t-34 armour

[Zephyr]

T-34 gets normal spalling damage.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2793272939

All the grey hits are non-penetrating. The grey hits with damage to them caused it due to spalling/armor fragments flying around in the tank. Look at the lower hull front and the turret.

It depends always on what hit the tank (and where). Screenshots are essential if you want to show anything that you find weird.

[Battleshipfree99]

Originally posted by Zephyr:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2793272939

Most spallings are at the welded upper/lower front hull connection. This is also the major weakspot on T-34's frontal hull armor (at least in GT).

[flarg]

Originally posted by Zephyr:

T-34 gets normal spalling damage.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2793272939

All the grey hits are non-penetrating. The grey hits with damage to them caused it due to spalling/armor fragments flying around in the tank. Look at the lower hull front and the turret.

It depends always on what hit the tank (and where). Screenshots are essential if you want to show anything that you find weird.

maybe I don't quite understand the damage graphic, does yellow arrow in mean spawling?

[archibaldthe1]

Yellow vector is the normal to the surface at the location of the impact.

Spalling isn’t explicitly listed, but as far as I understand it can be implied that spalling occurred if the projectile did not penetrate yet caused some internal damage.

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by flarg:

Originally posted by Zephyr:

T-34 gets normal spalling damage.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2793272939

All the grey hits are non-penetrating. The grey hits with damage to them caused it due to spalling/armor fragments flying around in the tank. Look at the lower hull front and the turret.

It depends always on what hit the tank (and where). Screenshots are essential if you want to show anything that you find weird.

maybe I don't quite understand the damage graphic, does yellow arrow in mean spawling?

All greyed out "non-penetrating" shell hits that do damage are reasonable candidates for spalling. There is only the shockwave and/or armor fragments that can do damage then. That does not mean that spalling (armor and bits breaking of inside) did not occur anywhere else, but here we can be quite sure.

Originally posted by Battleshipfree99:

Most spallings are at the welded upper/lower front hull connection. This is also the major weakspot on T-34's frontal hull armor (at least in GT).

Yes, that is one of the "fatal" spots for a hit. Effective armor thickness should get down to 45 mm max there (the closer the hit is to the weld), if I understand it correctly. I always assumed this, because the area where upper and lower hull meet is nice and rounded, so that 90 ° hits (more or less) are possible there.

[flarg]

I think there is a misunderstanding then, I tried this in a quick battle and found the crews were surviving far too much, as posted in the OP the article shows russian tests that the quality of the metal for (most) t-34s was subpar, and thus prone to fragmenting under stress.

[Koshkinets]

Originally posted by flarg:

as posted in the OP the article shows russian tests that the quality of the metal for (most) t-34s was subpar, and thus prone to fragmenting under stress.

That article doesn't say anything of the sort, so I don't know where you're getting that idea from. The myth of inferior Soviet armour is just that, a myth. In comparative trials it always outclassed German armour, even before they began suffering from shortages of critical alloying materials. A more relevant article from the same source: http://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/02/pziii-armour.html

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by flarg:

I think there is a misunderstanding then, I tried this in a quick battle and found the crews were surviving far too much, as posted in the OP the article shows russian tests that the quality of the metal for (most) t-34s was subpar, and thus prone to fragmenting under stress.

I usually do not read into source material about armor quality and similar things, but I read into the comments in your link. I must say that I find the notion a little weird that soviet armor should have been of bad quality when considering how much issues the germans had with the T-34. I mean, it does not make much sense saying that anything with lesser power than the long 5 cm guns were inadequate in fighting the T-34 and then talking about bad armor characteristics of the very same tank. The germans revised their complete AT weaponry because of the T-34 and KV-1, so .... .

Also, you may find the very same stuff being written about german armor :). And even there for the later war when germany lacked materials for alloys you may find controversy depending on which text you want to trust. I am far too little expert (actually none) in such sources, but my impression is that a lot of these things might tend to be exaggerated by using already damaged tanks for testing and such.

It is quite sure that there were tanks some with bad quality armor. That is simply to be expected by any manufacturing process under stress but as a general idea? Surely not, it does not make much sense considering the overall combat effectiveness of the T-34.

[archibaldthe1]

This is in Russian, but hopefully google translates sufficiently well:

https://t34inform.ru/doc/1942-11-03_NII-48_T-34.html

Main conclusion from looking at 178 knocked out t-34 -

To increase survivability, there are two aspects to be addressed:
1. Increase quality of internal mechanisms and drivetrain
2, increase the quality of crew training, so the tanks are used as intended and their advantages are utilized.
No major complaints about the armor.

And I am just as curious as @Koshkinets is - where does the original article conclude that the quality of metal is subpar?

Now, there is a much longer article, which includes the conclusion from the original article and then lists further test result from 76mm impacts (unsatisfactory). In the end, anti-76mm requirements was relaxed (I.e. it wasn’t designed to be 76mm-proof to begin with), but that’s a completely different story: https://t34inform.ru/publication/p02-1.html (sorry, also in Russian)

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by archibaldthe1:

And I am just as curious as @Koshkinets is - where does the original article conclude that the quality of metal is subpar?

I also did not get this.

Under the article is a comments/discussion section where some users claim this and are then opposed. I just does not make much sense.

[flarg]

Originally posted by Koshkinets:

Originally posted by flarg:

as posted in the OP the article shows russian tests that the quality of the metal for (most) t-34s was subpar, and thus prone to fragmenting under stress.

That article doesn't say anything of the sort, so I don't know where you're getting that idea from. The myth of inferior Soviet armour is just that, a myth. In comparative trials it always outclassed German armour, even before they began suffering from shortages of critical alloying materials. A more relevant article from the same source: http://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/02/pziii-armour.html

It explains the issue of hardness of armour vs ductile strength which russian armour has very little of the later due quality of metals.

[flarg]

Originally posted by archibaldthe1:

This is in Russian, but hopefully google translates sufficiently well:

https://t34inform.ru/doc/1942-11-03_NII-48_T-34.html

Main conclusion from looking at 178 knocked out t-34 -

To increase survivability, there are two aspects to be addressed:
1. Increase quality of internal mechanisms and drivetrain
2, increase the quality of crew training, so the tanks are used as intended and their advantages are utilized.
No major complaints about the armor.

And I am just as curious as @Koshkinets is - where does the original article conclude that the quality of metal is subpar?

Now, there is a much longer article, which includes the conclusion from the original article and then lists further test result from 76mm impacts (unsatisfactory). In the end, anti-76mm requirements was relaxed (I.e. it wasn’t designed to be 76mm-proof to begin with), but that’s a completely different story: https://t34inform.ru/publication/p02-1.html (sorry, also in Russian)

appreciate this but i'm gunna be honest, taking russian research at the time as fact feels very silly considering the amount of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ they had to put out to avoid being shot.

[archibaldthe1]

I know the original question is resolved, but I am going to continue arguing just for the sake of arguing (because internet! and because I obviously have nothing better to do during lunch), so please feel free to ignore me.

Originally posted by flarg:

appreciate this but i'm gunna be honest, taking russian research at the time as fact feels very silly considering the amount of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ they had to put out to avoid being shot.

I would like to point out that the original you linked is Soviet research, so if you throw "Soviet research" out, we have no basis to begin with :)

I also readily admit that all that arguing in comments goes over my head, so the conclusion is the only place that I may hope to interpret. And in that conclusion, it does have plates with "poor ductility" (30mm, 35mm) - but aren't those too thin for T34 (i.e. not used on it)?

[flarg]

Originally posted by archibaldthe1:

I know the original question is resolved, but I am going to continue arguing just for the sake of arguing (because internet! and because I obviously have nothing better to do during lunch), so please feel free to ignore me.

Originally posted by flarg:

appreciate this but i'm gunna be honest, taking russian research at the time as fact feels very silly considering the amount of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ they had to put out to avoid being shot.

I would like to point out that the original you linked is Soviet research, so if you throw "Soviet research" out, we have no basis to begin with :)

I also readily admit that all that arguing in comments goes over my head, so the conclusion is the only place that I may hope to interpret. And in that conclusion, it does have plates with "poor ductility" (30mm, 35mm) - but aren't those too thin for T34 (i.e. not used on it)?

you got me there on sources, but the issue isn't thickness, its just the issue of metal quality.

[archibaldthe1]

Originally posted by flarg:

you got me there on sources, but the issue isn't thickness, its just the issue of metal quality.

Ha! My inner troll is roaring in triumph! But seriously, I appreciate your raising the topic - it led me to a discovery of a treasure trove of T34 documents.

Regarding the plates, what I meant is the thicker ones were deemed to have "...excellent characteristics ... due to high hardness and satisfactory ductility" as opposed to thinner ones which "...demonstrated poor ductility during trials"