Landships II

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: MK1 Armour thickness?
MK1Nut

Date:
MK1 Armour thickness?
Permalink   


Hi Everyone

Well my plans are nearly ready, but I need some help!

It's to do with the armour plate fitted to Mark1 tanks... I have some publications referring to just 10mm and 6mm being used, and then one source going into more detail...

Sides 8mm

Underside 6mm

Conning Tower front 12mm, Sides 10mm and Top 6mm

My intuition tells me to go with the more detailed list, but I would just like to be sure.

Thank you for any help.

Helen x



__________________


Sergeant

Status: Offline
Posts: 46
Date:
Permalink   

Hello Helen XX

Thats sounds about right-Iwas going to say 12.5mm on the front, with 8mm to 10mm

on the sides and under 8mm for the underside as there weren't any antitank

"landmines" at that time( I could be wrong but I haven't seen anything to the contary)

at the beginning of WW2 armor was anywhere from 25-30mm up to 45mm front and

18-20mm up to 35mm on the sides all this is in general depending on nationality and tank doctrine.

I would say you are very close, with what you have, pity there aren't any Mk1's near Flint MI, I would go and try and find out for you. all I've seen in lower MI is WW2 tanks.

Your doing a marvelous job KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!!!

Jim



__________________


Sergeant

Status: Offline
Posts: 46
Date:
Permalink   

Helen I found Fletcher's book (while watching Iron Chef America with my son) and on page 11 he "states" 10mm on vital area's and 6mm everywhere else. That's all the reference that I have.



-- Edited by Potatopanzer on Monday 11th of April 2011 04:32:03 AM

__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2332
Date:
Permalink   

Being British the armour was in Imperial units 0.2 inches to 0.4 inches



__________________
aka Robert Robinson Always mistrust captions


Commander in Chief

Status: Offline
Posts: 530
Date:
Permalink   

Centurion wrote:

Being British the armour was in Imperial units 0.2 inches to 0.4 inches


I don't know whether Imperial was used on the MarkI but metric was definatelyused on the MarkIV, manufactures drawings show12mm A.P. for upright front plate, 10mm A.P. for the angled plates. 3/8" plate (not marked A.P.) is used for the inner side plates. I cannot make out the outer plate size but it looks like 8mm A.P.



-- Edited by LincolnTanker on Tuesday 12th of April 2011 12:51:47 PM



-- Edited by LincolnTanker on Tuesday 12th of April 2011 12:53:06 PM

__________________
ChrisG


The cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity (Dorothy Parker)


Hero

Status: Offline
Posts: 808
Date:
Permalink   

Thanks everyone xx

Well I've been back through my books and I can't find where i found the measurements I quoted above.confuseI know I read it somewhere, but I am beginning to wonder if I confused MK1 and MK4 armour thicknesses.

Having read back through the information I have, my best guess is as follows...

10mm protecting the front of the tank, 8mm down the sides and 6mm everywhere else.

I have copy of " An illustrated record of the development of the British armoured fighting vehicle tanks 1915-1918", published by the RAC Tank Museum. Phew! that's a looong title!!

It is printed in 1971, so the measurements are in millimetres. :)

In there it gives the plate thicknesses as between 6 to 10mm, with a single 12mm plate at the front. This single plate seems to be the one I found mentioned before, and protects the front of the drivers cab.

The impression I get is one of rolling changes in plate thickness from the MK1 to 3, culminating in a standardisation, and speeding of build, in the MK4s.

Helen x



__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2332
Date:
Permalink   

Mk II & III had no armour plate so thickness of boiler plate on these probably irelevant. Mk IV did have increased thickness of armour to resist the German K rounds. Mk V had further increases.



__________________
aka Robert Robinson Always mistrust captions


Hero

Status: Offline
Posts: 808
Date:
Permalink   

Hi All

I think I will go with the following plate thicknesses for the plans...

Front Cab Plate 12mm

Front 10mm

Sides 8mm

All else 6mm

The reason for the sudden interest in plate thicknesses is that I am close to finishing them, and this is the last 'best guess' for me to sort out.

The other reason is that in the future there is the possibility of a 3D model.

It is the overlapping nature of the plates that make all this important.

Helen x



Attachments
__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1613
Date:
Permalink   

Hi MKI

According to Stern pg 51 "The log book of a pioneer"

Protection
The conning-tower is protected generally by 10 mm. thickness of nickel steel plate, with 12 mm. thickness in front of the drivers. The sides and back ends have 8 mm. thickness of nickel-steel plate. The top is covered by 6 mm. thickness of high tensile steel and the belly is covered with the same.

Cheerswink



-- Edited by Ironsides on Tuesday 19th of April 2011 09:09:29 PM

__________________

"Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazggimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul"

 



Hero

Status: Offline
Posts: 808
Date:
Permalink   

Ironsides wrote:

Hi MKI

According to Stern pg 51 "The log book of a pioneer"

Protection
The conning-tower is protected generally by 10 mm. thickness of nickel steel plate, with 12 mm. thickness in front of the drivers. The sides and back ends have 8 mm. thickness of nickel-steel plate. The top is covered by 6 mm. thickness of high tensile steel and the belly is covered with the same.

Cheerswink



-- Edited by Ironsides on Tuesday 19th of April 2011 09:09:29 PM


Hi Ironsides

That looks good to me. I've only seen one mention of 6mm on the back panel, so I think I will go with your 8mm.

Helen x



__________________


Sergeant

Status: Offline
Posts: 30
Date:
Permalink   

Helen,

I made my models of vickers independent and canadian autocar by making 3d drawings and have these printed in 3D.

If you intend to do same,my experience is that much details are lost and parts get to fragile if you simply scale down 1/1 drawings to 1/35-72-76-144!
Minimum resulution for afforable 3d prints is 0.2mm smaller detail gets lost.(Of course in future quality will get better).
So you have to make a drawing keeping the scale you are going to print in mind.

I really like to have a correct Mk I in 1/72 so keep me informed!!

Hans


__________________


Hero

Status: Offline
Posts: 808
Date:
Permalink   

Hans56 wrote:

Helen,

I made my models of vickers independent and canadian autocar by making 3d drawings and have these printed in 3D.

If you intend to do same,my experience is that much details are lost and parts get to fragile if you simply scale down 1/1 drawings to 1/35-72-76-144!
Minimum resulution for afforable 3d prints is 0.2mm smaller detail gets lost.(Of course in future quality will get better).
So you have to make a drawing keeping the scale you are going to print in mind.

I really like to have a correct Mk I in 1/72 so keep me informed!!

Hans


Hi Hans

Sorry to say the 3D side of things may not happen... or at least by me. I have stretched my abilities to use a Cad program to do my drawings. This alone is taking up a lot more time than I ever envisaged, and so I have all but no time left to teach myself 3D modelling.

I won't say it will never happen, as I do sometimes change my mind.smile

I'm hoping it will not be to long now for my plans to be finished... although for now they will be without the tailwheel mechanism as the lack of any measurements has been putting me off what is a VERY challenging part of the Tank.

Helen x



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard