德國裝甲的質量

翻譯轉自http://www.stwaracademy.com/thread-35758-1-1.html

Source:http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/06/on-german-armour/

來源↗

本文作者為EnsignExpandable，僅代表作者本人觀點。

轉載請註明出處以及原作者。

A while ago, I wrote a Q&A special on Soviet tank armour. Since then I have gotten periodic requests to do a similar special on German tank armour. Initially, I did not intend to write such an article, but duty calls. However, this is no ordinary article.

不久之前，我做了一份專注於蘇聯裝甲的QA。在那之後我就一直收到有人想要我做一個類似的但是是關於德國人裝甲的QA的請求。一開始呢，我本來是不想寫的，但是使命在肩，我不得不寫。然而這並不是一篇普通的文章。

Usually, archive materials do not particularly surprise me. I see a “that's interesting” here and there, maybe a “huh, I didn't know that”. I've even come to terms with ridiculous things that happen when you try to compare reports from the two sides involved. But this, this is something unprecedented. Many things I have written shocked my readers, but this discovery shocked even me.

通常來講呢，檔案之類的東西其實並不會讓我感到驚訝。我經常會在各處發現“挺有意思的”內容，偶爾會有“恩，我不知道這事嘛”的樣子。我個人碰到過許多把參與某事件的雙方的報告進行對比時，出現非常奇怪的狀況的例子。但是以下的東西是史無前例的。我曾經寫出的很多東西都震驚了我的讀者，但是以下發現甚至震驚了我自己。

It all started, as it usually does, with an argument on an internet forum. As it often happens, we were discussing a DTIC document, specifically “Metallurgical Examination of Armor and Welded Joints from the Side of a German PzKw (Panther) Tank“ , to be precise. This report says lots of things one would normally expect to see in a report about late-war German armour: “The steel quality rating was “D”…which is borderline acceptable”, “the fracture was extremely brittle in nature, with a bright flat crystalline surface”, “inferior toughness, as evidenced by brittle fractures and low impact resistance”, “extremely poor shock properties”, etc, etc. If you looked into German armour in any serious manner, you've seen it all before. However, WoT forums poster Daigensui brought something unexpected to my attention, a claim by American intelligence that the quality of German armour did not deteriorate from 1942 to 1945. I did not believe my eyes. How could that be? Surely German armour in 1942 was not as bad as it was in 1945? Let's take a trip back in time, through many years of armour samples, to see where it all went wrong.

像往常一樣，這事是在一個網上的論壇裡頭挑起來的。正如往常一樣，我們在討論一份DCIT（國防技術信息中心(Defense Technical Information Center) ）的檔案，準確的說是“對於德國的豹式坦克側面的焊點以及裝甲的冶金的實驗”這份報告。報告中說了很多可以在一般的關於戰後德國裝甲的報告中看到的內容："裝甲質量是“D”……也就是最低的可以接受的程度"，“裝甲本身就很脆弱，表面呈明亮平坦（平滑）的水晶狀”，“極差的（抗）衝擊性能”等等之類。如果你用任何嚴謹的角度來觀察德國裝甲的話，這些東西你以前也應該都看過。然而，WOT論壇的Daigensui提出了一些我沒有料到的東西，即是：美國情報局表示德國裝甲的質量在1942年~1945年間並沒有變壞。這讓我大跌眼鏡，這到底怎麼回事？德國人在1942年的裝甲質量真的比1945年的裝甲質量要好？讓我們回朔時間，通過觀察許多年的裝甲樣本來看看到底什麼地方出現了問題。

The aforementioned report is from 1945, past the end of the war. Let's rewind a bit and look at a slightly earlier study, “Metallurgical Examination of a 3-1/4″ Thick armor Plate from a German PzKw V (Panther) Tank“ , written in January of 1945. Not surprisingly, it's full of the same reviews: “poor toughness”, “resulting fracture exhibited a rough crystalline surface”, etc. All right, but that was only a few months prior, let's go back even further.

上述報告是1945年戰後寫就的（美國情報局的）。我們再往回走一點，看看早些時候的研究，“對於德國的豹式坦克（國服稱黑豹坦克）側面的焊點以及裝甲的冶金的實驗”，與1945年1月寫就。不出意外的是，報告中的點評也差不多：“硬度很差”，“測試用的平面在測試後展現出一種粗糙的透明的表面”之類的。好吧，但是這只是幾個月前的東西。我們繼續往回走。

In August of 1944, the Soviets captured a shiny new German tank, the Tiger II (depending on who you ask). Obviously, the Soviet were curious about the tank's thick armour, and it was tested extensively (courtesy of litl-bro). The Soviet findings are largely the same: “The front plates of the hull and turret, as demonstrated in the trials, are low quality. When the armour was not penetrated (dented), the armour formed large cracks, and large fragments broke off the rear side.” Don't worry about the “front” qualifier, the side armour is discussed in a later section of the report. “Due to a decrease in the armour quality, and due to relatively weak side armour, the tank is vulnerable to domestic 85, 100, 122, and 152 mm guns, as well as the American 76.2 mm gun”. The gunnery report is also quite critical of the armour: “The quality of the armour of the Tiger B dropped radically compared to the quality of armour of the Tiger H, Panther, and Ferdinand”. Translations of parts of these reports are availablehere, here, here, here, and here.

在1944年的8月，蘇聯繳獲了一輛嶄新的德國坦克，虎王（這要看你問誰了）（鏈接內是一封信件，信中稱虎王為“Tiger Imperial Tank”，也就是“虎式皇家坦克”）。顯然，蘇聯人對坦克厚重的裝甲很感興趣，坦克被廣範的測試了一下（感謝litl-bro的好意）（鏈接內為俄語PDF文獻的掃圖一​​份）。蘇聯人的發現也都差不多：“車身和砲塔的正面裝甲板如同實驗中所展示的一樣，質量都很差。當裝甲沒有被擊穿時（出現了凹痕），裝甲上會出現很大的裂痕，在裝甲板的背部會有碎片掉落。”別被“正面”這個詞限定住了，側面裝甲在報告後面的部分也有提到。 “鑑於裝甲質量的下降，以及側面裝甲薄弱，這輛坦克容易受到我們國產的85,100,122以及152毫米的主砲的攻擊，同樣也易於被美國人的76.2mm主砲所攻擊。”射擊報告（同樣為毛文掃圖）也對裝甲進行了批判：“虎式B型的裝甲質量相比於虎式H型，豹式坦克，費迪南都有從根本程度上的下降”。該報告可在這裡, 這裡, 這裡, 這裡, 以及這裡找到。

Oh hey, there it is, radical drop in quality! Could this be it? I mean, in 1944, it would make sense for German armour quality to drop. Their allies are leaving one by one, their factories are being bombed, the Western Allies are moving up through France, the Soviets crossed their old borders and are on German territory. But we're not satisfied with conje​​cture! Forward and onward backward, to 1943!

啊哈，有了！從根本程度上的下降！難道就是這個？我的意思是，在1944年，德國人的裝甲質量出現下降好像還說得通。他們的盟友正在一個一個的退出舞台，他們的工廠也正在遭受轟炸，西邊的盟軍也一直在通過法國向前推進，而蘇聯也跨過了自己原來的國境線，踏上了德國的領土。但是只有猜想是沒辦法滿足我們的！讓我們繼續前行後退，到1943年去吧！

May, 1943. The Red Army has seen a number Tiger tanks by this point, and drags one to the proving grounds to see just what makes them tick. I'll skip to the conclusions: “As a result of hits from 57, 85 , and 122 mm guns, the armour cracks and fragments break off. … The welding seams are very fragile, and are destroyed when the armour is hit by armour piercing shells.” If you go and click the links above, you'll see the nitty gritty pictures and details, but the nature of the damage is the same as to the King Tiger: burst welding seams, crystalline cracks, breaches much larger than a caliber in size. The quality of the armour on the King Tiger might have gone down , but it didn't go down that far compared to its predecessor. Seems that we have a bit to go before we find what we're looking for.

1943年5月，蘇聯的紅軍在此時已經看見了不少虎式了，他們也把一輛虎式拖到了試驗場上，搞清楚到底是什麼才讓他們做出這個選擇。我直接上結論吧：“57,85,122毫米開火後的結果如下，裝甲裂開，碎片飛出……銲線看起來非常脆弱，在裝甲受到穿甲彈攻擊時（銲線）就會被摧毀。”如果你點開上面那些鏈接的話，你會看到一些很多（彈）孔的圖片以及細節什麼的，但是性質和虎王的測試結果是一樣的：會裂開的焊接線，呈水晶狀的裂痕， （被砲彈打穿的）缺口比砲彈（原本的）口徑要大很多。虎王的裝甲質量也許會下降了，但是相比它的前輩來說還沒下降那麼的多。看起來還要往前走一段時間才能找到我們想要的東西了。

Even further back, to 1942. Many Lend-Lease, domestic, and captured guns are tested against German vehicles. Here's where something strange happens. The StuG that is being tested performs very well. No cracks after being shot at with a 45 mm gun , penetrations only slightly larger than a caliber in size. Then the PzIII is swapped in, and the performance is absolutely abysmal. Huge cracks from the same anaemic 45 mm peashooter, the front armour plate falls off, breaches up to 120 mm in size form . When the 76 mm gun comes into play, the results are even worse: a single penetrating shot shatters a meter-long section of armour. Breaches increase up to 240 mm. The PzIV doesn't do much better. If you want, details are found here and here, as well as the above links. Aside from the StuG, the armour quality is low, which is mentioned by Malyshev himself in a note complaining about the shape of Soviet shells: “There are two reasons why we do not need to worry about the armour piercing properties of our shells. One is that our 45 and 76 mm guns are very powerful. The other is that German tanks are weakly armoured (40-50 mm in the front, 30 mm on the sides), and German armour is of poor quality.”

繼續往回走，回到1942年。許多通過土地租借租借法案，國產的以及繳獲武器都在德國車身上進行了測試。但是在這裡發生了些奇怪的事情。三突在測試中表現良好，遭受45mm炮的攻擊後並沒有出現裂痕，擊穿後的砲彈缺口就比砲彈口徑大一點點。三號坦克上場後，情況就變得非常糟糕了。同一桿沒啥威力的45mm玩具炮在三號身上打出了很大的裂痕，正面裝甲板掉了下來，（砲彈擊穿的）缺口大約有120mm的樣子。當測試用武器換成76mm炮之後，結果就更差了：一發擊穿了裝甲的砲彈直接打碎了一米的裝甲。擊穿缺口大約有240mm的樣子。而四號的表現也沒好到哪去。如果你想看的話，可以在這裡和這裡找到更多細節。除了三突以外，裝甲質量都普遍偏低，而Malyshev本人在抱怨蘇聯彈藥形狀的筆記中也提到了這一點：“我們不需要擔心我們的AP彈的屬性的原因有兩個。一是我們的45mm以及76mm主砲的威力都足夠大。另外一個是德國坦克的防護都很差（正面40-50mm，側面30mm），而且德國的裝甲質量很糟糕。”

We're on a roll, so let's keep going. In his memoirs, “Memories of a Soldier”, Guderian writes some reasons why German engineers, as excited as they were about captured T-34s, could not produce a copy. Among those reason, there is one we case about: “… our hardened steel, whose quality was dropping due to a lack of natural resources, was inferior to the Russians' hardened steel.” The events he recalls in this section happened in November 1941, a few months after Barbarossa started, long before any kind of significant damage to German factories caused by Allied bombings.

恩，這就是兩條了，接著搞下去。在他的回憶錄“士兵的記憶”中，Guderian寫到了一些德國工程師，對於繳獲了一輛T-34表示很激動，但是沒辦法製造複製品的原因。在這些原因當中，有一條是我們要尋找的：“……我們的由於缺少自然資源而質量下降的硬化鋼，要比蘇聯的硬化鋼差。” 在這本回憶錄的這個部分中，它所提到的事情都發生在1941年11月，也就是在巴巴羅薩計劃之前的幾個月，也是在盟軍的轟炸對德國能夠造成任何程度上的有效傷害之前的事了。

Why stop at 1941? Let's go way back, to the start of the war. As a part of the agreement between the USSR and Germany, the USSR got a copy of Germany's latest and greatest in tank technology. Of course, they tested every molecule of the tank they received. The results were bad. Really bad. The German armour failed catastrophically when subjected to the absolute minimum condition for acceptance by Soviet engineers. They were so shocked, they made an identical section of armour out of Soviet steel, just to make sure that there wasn't anything about the armour's shape that made it crumble to bits.

為什麼停在1941年呢？讓我們回到戰爭剛開始的時候。作為德國和蘇聯的協議的一部分，蘇聯獲得了德國最新的科技的一份複製品。當然了，他們對拿到的坦克的每一部分都進行了測試。結果 相當糟糕，真的很糟糕。德國的裝甲在與蘇聯工程師的可接受底限進行對比時，獲得了災難性的失敗。他們（蘇聯工程師）也很震驚，他們使用蘇聯的鋼鐵造出了同樣的東西，僅僅是為了確認不是裝甲的形狀才導致結果如此之差的。

This was armour made before the war, before Allied bombings, before any lack of vital metals. This was German industry's finest hour, and their output was unacceptable by the standards of the Soviet military. Even without any excuses, the mythical Krupp steel does not measure up to Izhor's product.

這是在二戰前製造的裝甲，是在盟軍的轟炸之前，在任何程度上的鋼鐵短缺出現之前。這還是德國工業的最好的時期，而他們所獲得的成果甚至連蘇聯軍事工業都無法接受。神秘的克虜伯鋼鐵再也為比不上Izhor的產品找不出什麼藉口了。

“But Ensign!” some of you may complain, “Doyle himself said that 30 mm of German armour was worth 60 mm of other armour on Overlord's blog!” The people that claim this aren't remembering the specific post very well. 30 mm of high quality German armour was worth as much as 60 mm of Czechoslovakian armour, which wasn't particularly amazing either. From the Soviet trials of the Pz38(t): “The armour of the Czechoslovak “Praga” 38T tank is very brittle, fragments easily, and gives large cracks.” Armour that's superior to that isn't particularly difficult to obtain. He also states that quality of German welding did not deteriorate throughout the war. If you follow the articles linked above, this is true, their welding seams burst from penetrating and nonpenetrating hits in 1942 just as well as they do in 1945.

“但是少尉啊！”有人會這樣抱怨。 “Doyle他自己也在Overlord的博客上說過30mm的德國裝甲的防護能力和其他裝甲的60mm裝甲的防護能力一樣啊！”這麼說的那些人一定沒好好記住那個帖子。 30mm的高質量德國裝甲相當於差不多60mm的捷克斯洛伐克的裝甲，當然了，捷克人的東西也不是什麼好貨。以下是從蘇聯對於Pz38(t)的測試報告中截取的：“捷克斯洛伐克的“布拉格”38T坦​​克很脆弱，很容易散架，而裂痕也很大。”想要超越捷克人的裝甲質量並不是什麼難事。他同時表示了德國人的銲線質量在戰爭期間並沒有變壞。如果你去上面那些鏈接中的文章讀過一遍的話，你會發現這是真的。他們的銲線在1942年和1945年都會在擊穿和未被擊穿的情況下直接爆開。

Now, I'm not saying that all German armour was bad. From that StuG tested above, you can clearly see that not all German armour was that abysmal. But what you can also see is that German armour varied wildly in quality (see also the “soft” British Tiger), leaning towards the bad more so than the good. There is no magical Krupp Steel that is somehow superior to all (or even some) steel from the Allies.

當然了，我並不是說所有的德國裝甲質量都很差。從上述的三突的實驗可以看出並不是所有的德國裝甲都那麼爛。但是你也應該看到德國裝甲在質量上的確參差不齊（去看看“柔軟的”英國虎式） ，更偏向於壞的反面，而不是好的方面。並沒有什麼所謂的神奇的克虜伯金屬比所有的（或者一部分）盟軍的鋼鐵質量要好。

------------------------

法官我認罪,我是轉貼來打德糞的臉的