British Spaced Armour Tests - Tank Design and Development

[@thisisthecall]

Refreshes KZbin. Armoured Archives video top of the pile. What a treat : )

[@SvenTheSveed]

Thank you for you continued work! Most enjoyable to learn new things from your well researched productions! Cheers 🍻

[@armouredarchives8867]

My pleasure!

[@gwydionjhr]

I recall reading/watching something about a British tank crew that had an extra speedy tank (Cromwell, I think). They were informed that they had been mistakenly issued a "training" tank with softer/lighter armour. They felt the benefits of the speed outweighed the reduced protection and refused to turn it in for a new one.

[@phoenixyo9987]

The Fast and Furious cromwell model.

[@stevenbreach2561]

I read the same

[@ptonpc]

Lindybeige talked about that in one of his videos.. According to him, the crew only found out when checking their tank after an action and found shells embedded on the armour.

[@adrielcamilo2564]

In my opinion it's the crew attachment that keep then with the tank, not the speed, the Cromwell is an already fast tank, and like the Chieftain said there's no prove that the tactical speed of very fast vehicles like the M18 tank destroyer make any difference in combat. Think about it, if you can do 60 km/h, if in an TACTICAL battle, you can make the engine do 62, 68, hell make it do 80km/h, the shells the enemy throw at you still will be fast enough.

[@232nightowl]

@@adrielcamilo2564 but the aiming might be off if especially they are traveling across the aiming tank not towards or away

[@blxtothis]

As always, thorough, educational and entertaining, well done.

[@CthulhuInc]

thanks again, ed, for providing another excellent vid on an often over-looked topic

[@stevenbreach2561]

Interestingly(or not) we were told to refer to them as side skirts,not bazooka plates on Cheiftain

[@nicolaandria522]

Thank you for this insight, as a matter of fact I have always wondered why spaced armour was not used in all armoured vehicles since it is simple and effective.

[@_scooter98_92]

1:58 "Sandbags example offered more protection to tanks more so than their equivalent weight and steel. And further tests by both the aussies and the uk, led to what was arguably the first form of explosive reactive armour, albeit never used" Source? Genuinely curious on this now.

[@armouredarchives8867]

totes comming up in a vid that!

[@_scooter98_92]

@@armouredarchives8867 Bloody excellent! Looking forward to it :)

[@jeremychurchill9489]

Thanks very much indeed! Your hard work in the archives is producing some excellent material.Please keep it up!!

[@chrisabraham8793]

The early A13 Mk2 had some form of spaced armour, obviously to early to encounter shaped charges.

[@waywardscythe3358]

Thanks for the video! I particularly enjoy these videos/sections about live fire testing and results.

[@armouredarchives8867]

Glad you like them!

[@diepanzerkanone1172]

Another fantastic video as always! Leaving a comment to feed the youtube algorithm :)

[@patrickshanley4466]

It seems various tests gave different results due, among other factors, that early shaped charge fusing was often HELPED by piling on sandbags, logs, wire mesh

[@adrianrutterford762]

Interesting video, thanks.

[@MisteriosGloriosos922]

*Amazing video, Interesting channel!!*

[@rogerlucy8817]

Thank you, interesting piece. Experiments were also carried out to see what would stop a Panzerfaust or Panzerschrek. Answer - not much

Well this was very intersting. And very nice visuales.

[@simongee8928]

Using track links as you say, was partially effective using readily available materials. Although much of their use was for the psychological peace of mind of the tank crews.

[@alan-sk7ky]

That littlejohn should be researchable in WT :-(

[@PeteCourtier]

I thought the fully researched 2lbr has it on. If not advertised. On the WOT Matilda II it does look like a little John. But then I haven’t played it for ages so I’m probably wrong😂

[@cwinkels]

@@PeteCourtier I always figured it was a Littlejohn, just not referred to as such. It sure punches (no pun intended) above its weight in terms of AP for a Tier IV.

[@PeteCourtier]

@@cwinkels 😂getting a sub 2 second reload was hilarious as well. Proper seal clubber in its day.

[@ajgoetsch]

Another very interesting video ... thank you. As I was watching, KZbin had another video lined up (yours I think) on the A12 Matilda, and what stands out with that tank are it's significant hullside armoured plates. (As was also the case with the Churchill.) What was the reasoning for these, if not 'spaced armour? The same question applies to a lesser extent to (other) British vehicles used in North Afruca, with their side skirts. Some explanation is the suppression of dust when running, but then too I recall as a child building an Airfix model of a particular version of the Crusader which had very signifucant full-length side skirts. Were these nothing to do with armour protection?

[@armouredarchives8867]

tansk like matilda and A33 had thick skirts with the aim to increase armour protection , but for use against regular rounds and APHE types, this stuff was amde to stop shaped charges while beign light, but they also wanted to see how it effected AP rounds as well

[@nigelsmith7366]

Well done More like this please

[@LawyerPapa]

Very interesting... Since you are working on archives, I have a question. I think I have seen a Cromwell with Zimmerit coating on the turret. I haven't heard of Zimmerit being used on British armor. Naturally, I'm wondering if it was a trick of the light or if it was a post-war practice. Perhaps it could be a future video material?

[@calessel3139]

I like the fact that the Brits deemed these tanks unsuitable for combat, so they just gave them to the French -- LOL

[@yereverluvinuncleber]

Fascinating

[@rexmundi3108]

"Rather bothersome" is an odd way of characterizing people being killed horribly.

[@trappenweisseguy27]

On a slightly different topic, I have seen pictures of British tanks with blocks of rubber glued to them as a type of anti magnetic zimmerit idea.

[@armouredarchives8867]

we used zimmerit as well :)

[@T_PLAYER]

can you make a video on the nuffield at series of tanks? there seems to not be so much information of them on the internet (or at least i couldnt find a lot), and some of them are very interesting designs. i like the at 9 and the at 10 the most. the at 9 reminds me of the b1, and the at 10 is just weird looking in a good way

[@armouredarchives8867]

already done, under first tortoise vid :)

[@markjames4951]

Any clues on why the 2pdr Littlejohn was featured in the trials as not much is openly discussed about it and its abilities.

[@armouredarchives8867]

oh a lot of study went into them, i have the reports on the 2,6 and 17pdr versions of it, the main issue (apart rom slow development) was it was costly and wore out barrels etc. but il see if i can get a vid on it - a lot of text though and few images sadly

[@markjames4951]

@@armouredarchives8867 That would be great if you could make a video on that. I have always wondered what they were thinking about . When they did things like APC for the 17pdr in mid 42 when it was not an issued gun but not 2pdr APC (in 42 ) which was issued and they were still building even more 2pdr guns. To me just adding the Littlejohn would "seem" to be the cost effective solution.

[@brucermarino]

Penetrating! Thanks for another excellent video!

[@comentedonakeyboard]

Armour testing with faulty armour? "Brilliant"!

[@KeithZim]

Good stuff!! comment to feed the alog

[@jameslawrie3807]

Does the test indicate how much weight a spaced armour package would add to the vehicle?

[@armouredarchives8867]

oddly no, in this one they didnt list weight, that said its shape and attachment was crude so more to see how/if it worked

[@DarkestVampire92]

So... they already knew everything by 1944, that plastic works, that spaced armor works, and that mesh works, but it took them another 20-30 years to combine those techniques into composite armor. Funny how that works....

[@dwwolf4636]

Plastic armor in this case refers to a Bituminous mass filled with basalt gravel. It was used on Commercial ships to protect the superstructure from machine gun bullets. As for the rest, Spaced armor arrays to defeat Pz Gr 39 75mm and took over a year of testing, post ww2. They finally settled on a 3/4" plate 30 degrees from horizontal as a spaced armor array. And that is just to de-cap the projectile, base armor still needs to be enough to defeat the main body. Does that sound like a workable profile to add to M4 hull sides ? or the Turret ? Post war the problem is that AT tech was gaining more ground than armor protection in the 1945-1960 timeframe. APCR matured, APDS matured, HEAT is gaining ridiculous strides forward.

[@CZ350tuner]

There is a very big difference between a APHE / APCHE / APCBCHE shell and a AP-HE / APC-HE / APCBC-HE shot. The former is a base fused hollow projectile, of 19th century naval origins, of which 60% to 70% of the projectile is explosive filling, where as the latter is a 90% solid projectile with a few grammes of an explosive bursting charge, housed in a small tail cavity, denoted by the hyphenated -HE suffix. The internal damage effects are completely different, between the two types of projectile, with the former having only 2/3rds of the penetrative performance of the latter.

[@kirishima638]

Interesting. So if it was effective in the 1944 tests, why wasn't it rolled out then?

[@armouredarchives8867]

time, we tested stuff extensivley, so by the tiem we would have made a fulls et up for cromwell, to check lines of sight, fitting procedures, the manual (there is a manual for just about everything) and of course more tests for ware or fasults etc the war would be over, though centurion had them as skirts for sure

[@kirishima638]

@@armouredarchives8867 I understand that but if it would even have saved just one tanker's life, it would have been worth it. I don't see why they couldn't have provided bolt on kits for the field units, like the Russians did. Allied tankers were already attaching anything they could find for increased protection and had been since the desert campaign.

[@bigblue6917]

I understand that the bazooka plate came in quite handy when the Australian army was in Vietnam with the Centurion and they were up against the RPG. I think I'm right in saying that the VC and NVA were so frustrated in their effort to knocking out the Centurion that they resorted to firing the RPGs into the tree tops with the hope of killing or injuring the tank commander with the falling tree branches.

[@Bialy_1]

Sounds like complete bs made by someone that never was in Vietnam jungle or have any understanding how this type of jungle looks or how RPG 7V works... not to mention that this whole plate was so effective that its hard to find any proper info about it in internet. This whole video was about tests with PIAT that was able to pen only 75mm of armor and RPG 7V popular in Vietnam was able to penetrate 260mm... the improved versions of RPG created in 1969 was able to pen 300mm and the one from 1972 up to 400mm. But considering how bad this simple plates was doing against a PIAT its hard to imagine that it would help much Centurion that got very crapy armor. Maybe that plate on Centurion was to stop overpenetration and in the end not allow killing centurion that was standing behind the one that was hit... 🤣

[@allanrowland130]

The bazooka plates were the first thing removed from the Centurion. They filled with soil and vegetation. There was extra armour welded to the front. A large volume fuel tank was added on the back. A few other mod's allowed for extra MG ammo and water. Check out the WoT Cent. Mk 5/1 for an acceptable representation of the 'Nam Cent'.

[@stevenbreach2561]

@@allanrowland130 that was my understanding,every picture I,be seen of Oz Cents have skirts removed

[@allanrowland130]

@@stevenbreach2561, there are a few shots of them with the skirts fitted. But that was early '68. They were modified very early in the deployment.

[@garygriffiths2911]

I've often wondered not why didn't the Brits copy the Germans, but rather why didn't the British Army adopt the US Bazooka instead of persisting with the PIAT? I presume here that this relatively simple and easily mass produced weapon could have been produced at home or supplied via Lead Lease if required.

[@cptant7610]

PIAT does have some advantages, you can't fire a bazooka from an enclosed space for example.

[@armouredarchives8867]

pretty much as mentioned, once fired it should recock itself, its relative quiet and hard to spot, and can fire in an arc with some skill, can be sued indoors and is eaasy to fix, - however its also much heavier all round, is a sod to cock quickly, and the round is fairly slow compared to later weapons.

[@Akm72]

PIAT, while heavy, seems to have been regarded as highly effective by the troops who used it in combat. At least that is what the Canadians found.

[@garygriffiths2911]

@@Akm72 As everything is indeed relative I have to wonder what the Canadian Army was comparing the PIAT with when they made this judgement regarding its effectiveness? If the answer is the old 'Boys' Anti Tank Rifle, then yes, I suppose that any weapon that features a potent shaped charge warhead is bound to offer a (vast) improvement in both armour penitration and HE effect in comparison to any AT Rifle round. However, this in itself does not necessarily prove that the PIAT was the optimum solution to the problem of providing the infantry with a portable AT weapon. The very fact that the PIAT would eventually be replaced in British service by a improved variant of the wartime US Bazooka is surly suggestive as to which weapon is ultimately adjudged to be superior.

[@annoyingbstard9407]

The Panzerfaust was a defensive weapon - used by a German soldier (or more often child) hiding in the trees or amongst the rubble as the allies advanced into their country. As an offensive weapon they were of no use at all.

[@ghdfhsfnfgbadfhsfh]

crusers had spaced turrets as standard, eg crusader and before

[@armouredarchives8867]

that was more laminate, ir the two layers and down to the way we armoured vehicles, - crusader and such, there was stuff on earlier cruisers designed to strip small rounds for sure, but not agaisnt larger HEAT rounds which this was looking at

[@DavidYoung-je8mf]

Crusaders didn't have spaced armour, unless you count the Christie suspension panels. The early cruisers, specifically the A13, didn't have spaced armour on the turret on the first mark.

[@armouredarchives8867]

@@DavidYoung-je8mf its a laminate on the crusaders, not spaced as mentioned, the cruiser mk IV does on the turret on later models

[@Zedyne]

Bah, the British should have just skipped testing plates and follow the Soviets' example: Use infantry as spaced armour!

[@jugganaut33]

Britain is a weird country. That everyone assume is backwards in ww2. The problem is they couldn’t afford to have ineffective prototype vehicles after dunkirk. Every vehicle, weapon, bullet they left the factory was already required somewhere in the empire. If you make 100 tanks with more material then necessary. You’ve wasted a factory’s tooling, time and resources that could have produced another tank, plane, gun, tool. Wartime production is Britain was more ruthless and efficient then other nations. Which is why there were so few production models. The less models, less variants, less alterations you make to production. The less downtime, retooling, retraining a factory needs. Which is how they managed the 27,500 tanks by 1945. And 100,000 armoured vehicles. Compared to the German 11,400 tanks and 21,400 armoured vehicles. Considering Germany had twice the population. Twice the land size and twice the production time for the war. Priorities become clear. The US produced over 600 unused Prototype vehicle and airframe chassis during the war. With over 100,000 unused vehicles and equipment being dumped into the ocean after ww2. The US produced more unusable/unused/ excess vehicles the the uK produced entirely. Simply because producing a thousand wasted vehicles hardly made a dent on their production outcome. Producing 1000 wasted vehicles in the U.K. could have lost the war.

[@j.e.v.5016]

Spaced armor againt HEAT rounds is typical misconception. Most HEAT rounds actually _gain_ the more penetration the further away they explode.

[@xyz-hj6ul]

So, if spaced armor is not a part of Chobham and yet is all the cool when it comes to beating HEAT rounds, why is it that the Challenger turret and deck plates rattle when you walk on them? Do you really believe the lie that the secret sauce as literal _tons_ of backpack was not installed, in Germany, where you needed to be able to move out of assembly in less than 30 minutes? And why is it that photos of wrecked M1 Abrams (blown apart by IED) in Iraq, also have a very obvious, 10-12", gap between the outer facade plate and the inner armor box? And what is 'Brimstone' in the WWII context of not enough Molybdenum to harden armor steel? We don't know half of how advanced armor really works.

[@armouredarchives8867]

huh!... im not talking about chobham types of armour here at all. this is conventional spaced plate type from ww2.

[@annoyingbstard9407]

You certainly don’t.