Logo from Scott Cunningham.
Logo from Scott Cunningham.
rior to World War II, experience in the use of armour piercing projectiles was confined mostly to Naval warfare. Naval armour came into general use around 1860 when the adoption of spherical, cast iron shot rendered wooden ships vulnerable. To counter this, ships were fitted with a belt of wrought iron plates which broke up the incoming projectile. As a consequence projectiles became ogival headed, cylindrical bodies of chilled cast iron and were spin stabilised.1
Following this ships were armoured with compound armour of wrought iron plates faced with steel, and then with homogeneous steel plates. Projectiles correspondingly were developed using hardened steel.1
To defeat the hardened, forged steel projectile, armour plate was carburized and chilled on the outer face (face-hardened) and this led to the fitting of projectiles with piercing caps. Early caps were made of mild steel and of various forms. Against early forms of face-hardened armour and at angles of attack near normal, they prevented break-up of the projectile’s head by the hard face of the plate.1
By the 1930s Navies had developed armour piercing projectiles with piercing and ballistic caps, yet anti-tank guns continued to use simple AP projectiles.
Further improvements led to the adoption of various forms of hardened steel penetrating cap and to a reduction in the length of the projectile head. Thus between the two World Wars the projectile in use by the major Navies of the world had all developed to a rather similar form, with an ogival head made from heat treated, high carbon, high alloy steel. Generally these were fitted with a steel piercing cap having about a tenth of the weight of the projectile’s body, and were also fitted with a long ballistic cap to improve the external form of the projectile in flight.1
Between the two World Wars all leading nations developed anti-tank armour piercing projectiles. However, the thicknesses of armour involved was relatively small and such armour could be severely overmatched by reasonably small weapons. While there was an appreciation of the advantages of good quality projectiles along Naval designs, the natural tendency was to develop guns and simple projectiles which easily overmatched existing armour. For this reason the design of anti-tank projectiles was not so severely tested as it was to be later.1
Early Armour Piercing Projectiles
Do you like this web site? Please rate it between one and ten, with ten being the best:
Ratings are submitted to: The Wargames and Military History Search Engine.
