Happy Treadhead Tuesday!
Became known as the Queen of the Battlefield. However, once the Germans brought 88 mm Flak guns this dominance was over.
Why? What does and increase in MM do to a tanks dominance or lack therof? Help me Obee-won.
Afternoon w_over_w.
The Matilda's armor was heavy enough, early in the war, to make most German anti-tank guns (mainly the 37mm)ineffective, the guns didn't have the power to penetrate her armor. The Germans started using their 88mm Anti-aircraft gun against armored targets. That gun proved an ideal tank killer due to its high muzzle velocity and efficient heavy projectile.
What's ironic is that the British had an excellent 90mm anti-aircraft gun at the time just as effective. They wouldn't use in the anti-armor role though. (It just wasn't "cricket" to "misuse" it that way)
"After the battle at Halfaya Pass a member of Rommel's staff overheard a captured British tank driver under interrogation expressing his indignation: In my opinion said the Englishman, with an unfriendly glance at a near-by 88, it is unfair to use 'flak' against our tanks.
A German artilleryman who was sitting on his haunches near by, listening to the interpretation, interjected excitedly, Ja, and I think it most unfair of you to attack with tanks whose armour nothing but an 88 will penetrate."
Good evening w/w. I see obi-wan has replied. :-)
Diameter of the projectile doesn't have all that much to do with armor penetration. It is more a matter of force per unit area integrated over the time of penetration, I think.
Extremely good links, non-technical, on the subject:
http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/defin_2.html#normaliz
http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bookshelf/weapons/weapons10.html
There is a wealth of good material at the above sites. Something more modern:
http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/reactive-armor.htm
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/kontakt5.html