\Pec|er4 ee . 7 & B.LO.S. FINAL REPORT No. 614 Ke COPY No. 378 ITEM No. 18 Mo HOOFAFSKRIF No. (3 MASTER copy RESTRICTED WELDING DESIGN & FABRICATION OF GERMAN TANK HULLS & TURRETS be protected by British Patents or Patent applications, this publication cannot be held to give any protection against action for infringement. RESTRICTED BRITISH INTELLIGENCE OBJECTIVES SUB-COMMITTEERESTRICTED WELDING DESIGN AND FABRICATION OF GERMAN TANK HULLS AND TURRETS Reported by jor R.J. Fowler, ReE. Fighting Vehicles Design Department BIOS Trip No: 707 BIOS Target Nos: 18/23, 18/83, 18/620. Armoured Fighting Vehicles RESTRICTED BRITISH INTELLIGENCE OBJECTIVES SUB-COMMITTEE: 32, Bryanston Squero, London, We 1.il 2. 3 WELDING DESIGN AND FABRICATION OF GERMAN TANK HULLS AND TURRETS LIST_OF CONTENTS Introduction Conclusions Discussion As Armour Welding Specifications Be Development and Design of Welded Joints (4) Main Welded Armour Joints (44) Survey of Development of armour Joints (444) Reference to Plug Joints in Specification T.Le21/9017 (iv) Introduction of Interlock Joints on P2.KweIV (v) Introduction of Interlock Joints on Tiger and Panther series (vi) Maus (vii) Ballistic advantages of Interlocking Construction (viii) Attectment of Armour Components end Structural parts (ix) Responsibility for Design C. Indication of Welds on Drawings De Welding Electrodes for Armour (4) History (ii) Estimation of Quantities (iid) Electrode Makes and Sizes Used (iv) Experiences in Production Shops Page Now 25~26RESTRICTED WELDING DESIGN AND FABRICATION OF GERMAN TANK HULLS AND TURRETS Reported by lor R.J. Fowler, R.E. Fighting Vehicles Design Department BIOS Trip No: 707 BIOS Target Nos: 18/23, 18/83, 18/62a. B.I.0.8. List Item 18 4rmoured Fighting Vehicles RESTRICTED BRITISH INTELLIGENCE OBJECTIVES SUB=COMMITTEE, 52, Bryanston Squere, London, W. 1.i. 2. 3. WELDING DESIGN AND FABRICATION OF GERMAN TANK HULLS “AND TURRETS LIST_OF CONTENTS Introduction Conclusions Discussion A» Armour Welding Specifications B. Development and Design of Welded Joints (4) Main Welded Armour Joints (41) Survey of Development of Armour Joints (444) Reference to Plug Joints in Specification TeLe21/9017 (4v) Introduction of Interlock Joints on Pz.Kw.IV (v) Introduction of Interlock Joints on Tiger and Panther series (vi) Maus (vid) Ballistic advantages of Interlocking Construction (viii) Attachment of Armour Components and Structural parts (ix) Responsibility for Design C. ‘Indication of Welds on Drawings De Welding Electrodes for Armour (4) History (4i) Estimation of Quantities (iii) Electrode Makes and Sizes Used (iv) Experiences in Production Shops Page No. 1-4 Br 1-58 8 -22E. F. Ge x. (y) Influence of Electrode Availability on Design (vi) Storage end Salvage of Electrodes Preparation of Armour Plate for Welding (4) Gas cutting (ii) Flattening and Bending (441) Cleanliness of Plates before Welding Layout of Production Lines (4) _DeHeHeVe Hulls for Panther and Tiger IT (ii) D.H.E.V. Turrets for " i * (444) Fs Krupp Hulls for Tiger II Assembly Jigging and Manipulation of Hulls and Turrets (4) General (44) Assembly of Panther Hyll at D.H.H.V. (443) " "Tiger II Hull at DeHH.V. and P, Krupp (iv) Extent of Tack welding (v) Assembly of Penther and Tiger II Turrets (vi) The Influence of Interlock Construction on Assembly (vit) Manipulation of Panther and Tiger IT Hulls and Turrets (viii) Manipulators used for Panther and Tiger II (4x) Jigs end Manipulators for Pz.Kw.IV Lower Hull at F. Krupp Welding Techniques and Procedures Now 26 26 27-29 27-28 29 30-32 30=31 31 31-32 32-h1 32 32-35 35 35-36 36 38 38-39 L247(i) General (44) Krupp Procedure for Welding Tiger IT Hull (ii4) Krupp Procedure for Welding Tiger II Turret (iv) Welding Procedures for Panther at D.H.H.V. (v) Welding Procedures at DEW. (vi) Standard Welding Procedures I. Heat Treatment of Hulls and Turrets J. Production Rates and Mmes (4) rs mee Production (43) D.H.H.V. Production (444) D.H.H.V. Panther Hulls (iv) _D-H-E.V. Panther Turrets (v) -D.HH.V. Tiger II Hull (vi) Plate Preparation D.H.H.V. K. Quality of Workmanship (4) Inspection (44) Qualification of Operators (414) Gaps in Welded Joints (iv) Gaps in Interlock Joints (v) Generel Remarks 4, Acknowledgements Page No. 46-47 Y7-YB 48-55 49-50 50-53 55-54, 5hn55 56-58 ” 57-58LIST OF FIGURES Noe ke Le Ue 156 16. le 18. 21. 226 230 Hull, Eight Wheeled Armoured Car S.D.Ktz 23h/3 Nose interlock joint S.D.Kfz 234/3 Tiger I Turret at D.H.H.V. Panther I G Turret Assembly Jig DeHeH.V. & Tiger TI Turret Assembly Jig D.H.H.V. & Tiger II Turret part assembled, Fe Krupp . . " ” " 2 . s = DeHeHeVe . * 4n manipulator F. Krupp Penther Turret " " D.H.H.V. Tiger II ana Panther Hull Assexbly and Welding = Shop D.H«H.V. & Tiger II and Panther Floor Sub-assembly Jig and Manipulator DeH.E.V. & Tiger II and Panther Assembly of Lower Side plates D-E.H.V. Penther Hull Front Plug Joints before inserting Packs D.H.H.V. Penther Hull Front Plug Joints after inserting Packs D.HeH.V. Panther Hull ~ Front End of Hull in Jig D.H.HeVe ‘Tiger II Hull - Front End of Hull in Jig Del.HeVe & Tiger II Hull = Assembly of Lower Plates in Jig Pe Krupp age Nos 59 S IQ RR & 69 7o 70Fige Noe Page No. 2h. & Tiger II Hull - Assembled and teck welded n 25. External views Fe Krupp 26. & Tiger II Hull - Assembled and tack welded 02 27. Internal views 28. Tiger II Hull - Rear Plug Joints before 3B Anserting Packs F. Krupp 29. Tiger II Hull - Finel drive Protection Armour B showing unwelded pack F. Krupp 30, Tiger II Hull - Upper side to Front Plate Th Joint showing unwelded pack D.H.H.V. 31. Tiger II Hull - Nose Joint before packing Th F. Krupp 32. Panther Photomacrographs of packs in plug a5 Joint 33+ & Tiger II Hull Manipulators DeHeH.V. 76 Ble 35,36,Tiger II Hull Manipulator Brackets F, Krupp 7 37,38. 39. ‘Tiger II Hull Manipulator on Tracks ¥. Krupp 78 40. Panther Hull in Static Manipulator D.H.H.V. 78 41. Tiger II Hull Menipulator with Welders’ 79 platform and plant ~ F. Krupp 42, Tiger IL Upper Front Plates finish Gas Cut - 19 F. Krupp 43. & PasKweIV Lower Hull Assembly Jig - F. Krupp 80 Lhe 45. & Pe-Kw.IV Lower Hull Tilting Ring Manipulator - 81 46. F. Krupp 47. & PaeKw.IV Lower Hull Tilting Cradle Menipuletor - 82 48. F. Krupp 49. & Maus Hull = - F. Krupp 8 HD. 51. & Meus Turret - FP. Krupp a 52.LIST _OF APPENDICES Tentative Specification for the Design and Fabrication of Armour Parts ~ T.L.21/9017 Repart of Meeting, Sub-camittee IIe on Armour Welding 6th May, 1942 Notes on the Firing Trial of a B.W. Lower Hull at Kumersdorf Correspondence concerning Gas Cutting end Interlock Joint Construction Correspondence concerning Gaps in Welded Joints Panther Hyll and Turret Electrode Consumption check at D.HeH.V. Panther Hull and Turret Assembly sequence instructions = D.H.H.V. Correspondence concerning total austenitic and ferritic electrode requirements for German Tank production Instructions concerning the indication of Welds on drawings Comparison of Tiger II assembly sequences at D.H.H.V. ond F. Krupp F. Krupp - Directions for Work upon Armour "Family tree" of German Tank Production Industrial Commission Output of Panther Hulls ~ D.HeH.V. = Chart Teble, summarising history of introduction Arm of the various types of German Armour Welded. Jointsow OW Oo Tiger II Hull Main Joint Details Tiger II Attachment of Parts Panther I.G. Hull Main Joint Details Layout of Production Lines Tiger II Hull, Main Manipulator Brackets, DEH.V. Welding Operation Sequences and Timing Schedules, Panther I.G. - D.H.H.V. Three Sheetst= INTRODUCTION The development of welded armour in Germany has been followed with interest by the Welding Brench of the Fighting Vehicles Design Department, information being obtained fran mills and turrets of enemy tanks snd armoured cars captured in the Field and examined by the Department. Liaison was maintained with the Tank Automotive Centre, Detroit, Us§.Ae and early in 1945, Capt. John Fe Randall, U.S. Ordnance, and Major L.F. Denaro of the Welding Branch, F.V.D.D., reconnoitred for exploitation enemy welding targets of interest. The British Tank Armour Welding Mission was organised by F.V.D.De 2s S00n as assessment reports of the various industrial plants were collatea by Group V, C.1.0.S, The Mission included officers of the Department responsible for welding research, design and fabrication of British Amour welded hulls and turrets and leading technical personnel of the British firms who were responsible for the development of armour welding electrodes and gas cutting plant. : The personnel of the Mission was as follows: - Major L.F. Denaro > F.V.D.D. Team Leader Welded A.F.V- Hull and Turret Design and Fabrication Mr. E.P.S. Gardner - F.V.D.D. Major ReJ. Fowler - = Capt. DeL. Sidney - " Gas Cutting and Welding Group Mr. He Inman - B.V.D.D. Mr. F.S, Williamson - a Mr. RS. Doré - British Oxygen Go. Ltd. Mr. L.J Hancocie - Hancock & Co. (Engineers) Lta. Mr. 0.5. Milne - CS. Milne & Co.Ltd, Armour Electrode Group Mr. JL. Hamilton Mr. E.F. Newell Dr. B.C. Rollason Messrs. Rockweld Ltd. QuasimAre Co.Ltd. Murex Welding Processes Ltd. Metropolitan Vickers Blectrical Cobtd,=2- The present report is on the welding Design and Fabrication of German Tank Hulls and Turrets. Separate reports are being issued covering the other aspects of the Mission as follows:- (a) German Research and Development of Tenk Armour Welding by Major LF. Denaro, RB. Published as CIOS File No.XXX111-10 (b) cecaes Are are) Weraing Electrodes and their ‘acture by Major L.F. Denaro, R.E., De E.Ce Rollason, Mre JeLe Hamilton, Mr. E.F. Newell and Mr. He West Published as C10S File No.Xxx111-12 (c) German Gas Welding and Cutting Industry by the Ges Cutting Investigating Team A separate and valuable report on "Welding of Germen Armoured Vehicles" by Capte John F. Randall, UsS-F.EeT. has already been issued covering the targets investigated by that officer between irda March and 25th Mey, 1945. The following report covers a more restricted mmber of targets, visited between 23rd July and 4th August, 1945, which were:~ 18/23 1. Frie@rich Krupp, 4.G. Essen (Ruhr), Germany 18/83 2. + Dortmund Hoerder A.V. (Werk Hoerde), Hoerde (Ruhr), Germany 18/62a. 3. Deutsche Edelstahlwerke A.G. Willich, Germany Vehicle production lines where existing were examined and the personnel who were available were interrogated. Documents and drawings examined and evacuated were largely of a disconnected nature es the great majority, according to the German employees, were either destroyed on orders by fire, or else removed by pre~ vious investigators. Free use has been made in this report of photographs taken during the investigation, and of translated documents reproduced as appendices in order to convey to the reader a true impression of the design principles, fsbrication end production methods fol- lowed on the German A.F.Vs. investigated. ‘The drawings produced at Appendices 0 and P have been adapted from German design drawings previously evacuated, and held by the School of Tank Technology. The drawings showing production arrange- ments have been adapted from Works drawings and sketches evacuated dy the investigating teem. This has been done in order to illus- trate only the salient points and thus to economise in spece. This report has been published as C105 Final Report No. XX1x-44.Eutten- Werk Hoerde Deutsche} Bdel- stahl Werk 1h It Willich Works Asphaltier- anlage I.G. and Tiger II Panther I.¢. and Tiger II Saktz 231,/ 3 (Bight Wheeled Armoured Car) order evacuated ‘by occupy— ing Allied ‘troops Personnel Interrogated Research Engineer Electrode qual- ity Welding Techniques Dr. Wasmaht Director of Quality end Ch. Metallurgist Dre Becker Welding Engineer Dr. Scherer Techl.Director Herr Kox VWelding Engineer Willichone Little mention has been made of the. design and febrication methods of SdeKfz 234/3 at Deutsche Bdelstehlwerke, in this report as no docu- mentary evidence was obtained. Arrangements have been made, however, for a hull to be evacuated to F.V.D.D. for detailed metallurgical and design examination by the Welding Branch. Photographs Figs. 1 end 2 show the construction layout of the forward hull section and the inter- lock joint in the nose, referred to later. Reference is made in the body of the report and in the appendices to certain individuals who were members of the industriel commissions which were responsible to the German Army authorities for development, design and supply in the various branches of tenk production, A section of the fanily tree of this organization dated 26/10/42 is reproduced in Appendix L end covers the two sub-camittees "I-k" and Il.e" responsible for electrodes, and Development of Armour Welding respectively. It is of interest to note that the meubership of these orgeniza- tions was limited to the leading technical representatives of the firms concerned, snd they must have materially forwarded the design end production of German tenks. The fact that only technical personn~ el sat on the camittees is reflected in the detail in which they dis- cussed the various problems associated with design and production. ‘A translation of the minutes of the armour welding sub-comittee "II.e" meeting for 6th May, 1942 is appended at B. ‘This illustrates the careful nature of the discussions even though, in the opinion of the author, correct reasoning and conclusions are not always dram. The subject matter of this meeting report throws an interesting Light on the German thought on a number of problems connected with welding armour and is, therefore, reproduced in full. Attempts were made to locate for interrogation Oberat Reus head of the section of the Heereswaffenamt, Wa Prif 6/IIb with whan the industriel commissions dealt, but these were unsuccessful It is strongly recomended thet this metter be pursued in order that the Official German views, particularly on the question of interlock construction may be obtained.“5 CONCLUSIONS A. Welding Specifications The German specifications covering the welding of armour were issued es (1) controlling the detail design and febrication of indivi- dual armour parts, end (2) a series, controlling amour structures made with various plate thicknesses. The latter deals more fully with welding workmanship end procedure, than does the former. Be Deve: t_and Des: of Welded Joints In 1942 joint design changed from rebated or ‘stepped’ joints to interlock and plug joints for all except the floor ana roof joints to sides, front and rear, Evidence points to the fact that this chenge was made, firatly, in order to econamise in machine tools by using gas-cutting, end secondly, although there is no definite proof of this, to give an increase in ballistic resistance. . C. Indication of Welds on Drawings A standard nomenclature which specified the throat thickness of eny weld, whether butt weld or fillet weld, was used throughout the ware This suffered from drawbacks in inspection caused by the incorrect representation af welds on Grawings, until attention was drew to it in 1945. De Welding Electrodes for Armour The Germans had three main phases of types of electrodes in uses Until 1942 ferritic end hard surfacing electrodes were in the main used with certain firms epplying austenitic electrodes. From 1942 to early 1944 eustenitic electrodes were used throughout with herd surfacing electrodes prohibited, and finally, due to the shortage of alloying elements, ferritic electrodes, replacing a large proportion of austenitic electrodes, were specified in Jan.19i. EB. Preparation of Armour Plate for Welding With interlock construction a large proportion of plete pre- paration was cerried out with gas-cutting, and the use of machining was restricted by order to the preparation of rebated joints. There was no indication of any attempt to clean the surface of armour plate at the works visited. The standerd of workmanship for gas~cutting was not required by specification to be of the high level common in this country, and attention is dram to the excess- ive sizes permitted for such defects as fluting. F. Layout of Production Lines The Fe Krupp and DeHsH.V. production lines for Tiger II and Panther were of interest, as the former employed mobile manipule- tors which progressed along the welding lines, whilst the latterused a large mmber of static manipulators placed transversely in Line; otherwise production lines followed orthodox principles. Ge Ass J: end tion of Hulls and Turrets It is not thought that the interlock construction offered eny advantages over the orthodox construction in esseubly of hulls end turrets, mainly because of the wide tolerances to which profiling was carried out. Assembly fixtures were no less complicated than those in this country when a similar type was used. Considerable time wes spent in fitting and meking adjustments during assembly. Manipulation af hulls and turrets for welding of Panther and Tiger ‘wes carried out using rotation about the longitudinal axis only. These manipulators were of simple and effective design. He Welding Techniques and Procedures Little evidence was availeble on detailed welding procedures, but it appeared from discussions that only where distortions were concerned, such as in hull roof plates and turret floors which affected later asseubly work, was care taken to adopt definite welding procedures. Otherwise, it appeared, procedures were sub- ordinated to a minimm mmber of rotations cf the manipulators. I. Heat Treatment of Hulls and Turrets No heat treatment of hulls and turrets was required on Panther and Tiger II, but it was wed for bulls of thinner plate; mainly by Deutsche Edelstahlwerk. Je Production Rates and Times Dats concerning output rates and operation times is included under this heading, but no attempt ie made to compare these figures with Allied practice. Attention is drawn to the large percentage of time allowed for welding repairs after hulls and turrets are completed. K Quality of Workmanship Although many instructions and decisions were made, from fairly high levels concerning various details of workmanship, it did not appear that they were effectively enforced at the works visited. Examination of pert-welded and fully-welded hulls and turrets showed many defective welds, and it was presumsbly because of this that such a large amount of repair time for making good these defects was allowed in production schedules. Gap dimensions were rigidly defined by specification, but due to the excessive tolerances used in profiling, it was clearly not possible for then to be maintained. In interlock construction where packs were specified to be of tight fit and hammered into position, it often resulted that packs were quite loose and samtimes tightened with thin shims, thus defeating the ballistic aspect of their design.=e A. Armour Welding Specifications 4s far as can be ascertained there was only one specification specifically controlling the welding of armour. This specification TeL. 21/9017 was issued on 2ist May, 1942 with latest revision dated 20th August, 1942, and was still in force even though it was a tente- tive specification, at the end of hostilities. It is reproduced, es translated by Capt. Randall at Appendix A, and served as a model to the Krupp armour welding instructions entitled "Directions for Work upon Armour" issued 28th July, 19k. T.Le 21/9017 rather strongly includes clauses controlling the tolerances on bolt and rivet hole centres and details af tapped holes, but does not make reference to quality of welding worknanship or the approval of welding procedures and operators. Another series of specifications, T.L.401}, 4028 and 4032 entitled “fentative Specification for armour Structures with Wall Thicknesses 16-30 mm, 35-50 m., and 55-80 mm. respectively" have limited welding requirements. These are summarised by Capt. Randall as follows:- 1. Metal arc welding to be used unless otherwise directed on the drawings. 2. A written welding procedure has to be produced and spproved by Wa Priif 6 before starting production. Any changes necessitate a new approval. 3. A list of the factors considered to be included in the welding process end is as follows:- ¢) Joint design yb) Electrode materials and diameters ©) Sequence of passes Stress relieving methods ©) Type Current and polarity of D.C. t) Amperage 4e No oracking is permitted in finished welds. 5» No ballistic test of welded structures is required. There was presumably a similer specification covering structures in plate thicknesses above 8 mm, but no evidence became available thet it existed. The requirements of these specifications are dealt with in the eppropriate sections of this repurt.Be (4) (44) =o it and Design of Welded Joints Main Welded Armour Joints The most pronounced difference in welded joint design between Western Allied and German tenks is that the latter developed a system of mechanical interlock for use mainly on their heavy vehicles. In pre-war days they commenced the welding of hulls and turrets using a combined fillet and butt welded construction. This was followed by the stepped or rebated joint. Later, the notch interlock ana plug Joints were developed for use on the Tiger and Panther series of vehicles, although both were used on late Pz.KweIV vehicles and the notch interlock alone on the eight wheeled armoured car SdeKfz 234/3. In the two latter cases the notch interlock was used on plate thicknesses of 20 m. and 30 mm. respectively. Other mechanical locking devices were used on prototype and production vehicles, in addition to the plug and notch interlock Joints. On the super heavy vehicle, Maus, designed by F. Krupp, dowel pins were inserted through interlock joints. Tiger I incorporated a double rebated joint, and a combined rebated and keyed constructions Survey of the Development of Armour Joints The teble, Appendix N, swmerises the history of the introduction of the various kinds of welded joints. The dates of the vehicles’ going into production are given as nearly as can be ascertained, comencing with the Pz. Kw.II. It is seen that up to 1936 neither the rebated nor interlock types of joint had been used in German A.F.V. design, On the PzeKweII all Joints were of an orthodox welded construction modified for protection. The rebated Joint was first used on the Pz.Kw.ITI and IV hull, nose transverse joints, and rear plate to side plate joints, and on the turret front to side plate joints. The protected single vee butt with fillet sealing weld joint was used for turret front to roof plate joints on these vehicles end was still used on the latest designs for Tiger II turret.SS5 (444) Reference to Joints in Specification 7 (av) That the German Heeresweffenamt hed already envisaged the use of interlock notch and plug type joints as a general practice in Jmgust "2 is cleer from Specification T.L.21/9017 Appendix A. Clause Ash, concerning sizes of gaps, refers to notch joints and states that the gap widths permitted apply only to such joints "welded with austenitic electrodes". (The reason for this lest condition is not explained). Clause B.4 refers to plug Joints and the use of tight fitting plugs and packed plugs. This is, perhaps, an indication that such joints have been developed irrespective of the methods of making them, that they were not used for ease of manufacture but for a constructional reason, 1.e. to increase resistance to attack or = doubtful = to assist assexbly. On examination of weld sizes, para Be5, it is seen that the weld size is dependent on plate thickness, and no reference is made to joint detail or joint design. ‘This At ds submitted is an indication that although a higher strength may be obtained with interlocks, the weld size would remain as for en alternative construction not incor~ poreting interlockss Cne could infer from this that interlocks were not developed to econcmise in weld metsl on the basis that interlock construction provided greater strength with less dependence on welding. Introduction of Interlock Joints on P: IV In March 1942, when the Pz.KweIV was the heaviest vehicle in production (Tiger I was then about to come into production), considerable discussion end corres- pondence arose over rebated joint manufacture and alter- natives that could be used by adopting gas cutting to avoid the machining required on the former. The nose plate of the Pz.Kw.1V had then been thickened up to 80 mm. Extracts fran such corresponience between Rohiland, head of the main commissicn for A.F.V. production and Oberat Reu of Wa Priif 6 are given at sppendices C and D.= 10F=) That at Appendix C is an official repart and cament, “Testing of a BeWe Hull at Kumersdorf (proving ground) on 3rd March, '42", A lower hull structure of the BW. vehicle (Pz.Kw.IV) had been built by Krupp incorporating interlock joints between the glacis and nose and side plates instead of rebated, and a plug joint between nose and side plates. All these joints were made from gas cut plates. Further, therebated side to floor plate joint was changed to a simple overlap of the floor on the lower edge of the side plate. It is considered that the comments made concerning the glacis plate being deflected downwards under attack fran 3.7 cme and 5 ame AsP. shot and the consequent condema- tion of the interlock joints to side plates overlooked thet as the glacis plate was only 20 mm. thick it would have deflected downwards similarly whatever the Joint to the side plates might be. No cament need be made here concerning the production savings claimed es these are quite clearly given in Rohlané's observations on gas cutting Appendix D (b). Attention is drawn, however, to the statements regarding the relief on the use of slotting and planing machines, and to the five proposals made by Rohland at the conclusion of his observations. It is quite apparent fram these that there wes no thought of turning to interlock construction on the MkeIV in order to increase the strength of joints. It wes solely to speed up and effect economy in the pre- paration of plates for welding by the use of ges cutting instead of machine tools. Avwora might be said with regard to the references to austenitic and ferritic electrodes in this correspondence. As Rohland stated, the use of these was independent of the question of gas cutting. The severe conditions of the Russian winter hed caused much ferritic welding cracking and the proposal wes-to substitute the tougher and more resistant to cold, austenitic electrodes, for the more comonly used ferritice This matter is dealt with fully by Major Denaro, R.E. in his report on German Research and Development in Tank Armour Welding. The fact that the Army authorities confused the use of ges cutting with the austenitic v. ferritic electrodes issue, and that they dia’not think the production advantages worth- while, or the re-training of welders warranted, (even though this letter was not necessary), is surely proof that the new(v) Saree! method of construction with interlock joints was not introduced primarily for strength or ballistic resistance reasons. Introduction of Interlock Joints on Tiger and Panther Series (a) Tiger I The Tiger I was introduced into production in the Autwm of 1942 and probably design wes initiated about a yeor earlier, ieee the middle of 1941. The hull incorporates plug joints on the side plates to front end rear plates connections, to- gether with a keyed plug joint combined with a rebated joint visor to glecis plate. This latter was obviously en attempt to prevent the glecis plate separating from the vizor and so losing the support of the rebated joint. In this case the joint mst be considered largely mechanical. a The turret had 2 plug type Joint between the upper and lower front plates, which were wedged in position and then welded around. An illustration of a partly completed turret is shom in photograph Fig. 3. This partioular turret hed been con- emned by the army inspector and had been left standing in the hmll production line at D.H.H.V. for some months prior to the end cf the War. The reason for condemnation was not stated. It is of interest to note that the front sloping roof plate'of these turrets was cerried cn a rebated support on the front and sides, whereas the flat portion of the roof (in the horseshoe shaped part of the turret) was welded with the protected single vee butt weld. In no instance on this vehicle wes the notch interlock used to replace the machined grooves for rebated jointse (b) Panther I.G. and Tiger II The armour of the hulls of these two vehicles is very similar in arrangement. ‘The joint design is also similer in principle on the latest models in production. See Drewings Appendices 0 and Q. The turrets, however, although very similer in form do net use the same types of joints. The reason for this is not apparent, although it may be that the joint design was influenced bythe plate thicknesses and the fact that the front on the Panther was cast whereas that of Tiger IT was plate, Also the vehicles were parented by different firms, and the Panther was designed earlier. Hulls (1) It is seen that the notched interlock Joints on=12= the noses of Panther I.G. and Tiger II differ in the lengths of the notch projections of the front plates uppers In the case of Panther 1.G, the two projections are considerebly shorter than those on the lower plate, whereas in Tiger II all the notch projections are of equal length. See Photographs Figs. 20 and 21. On the basis of greater weight of heavy impact or blast to be resisted on the front plate upper it may have been decided to increase the support to it, by this means in the case of Tiger II. Joints upper and lower sides to front and rear plates are all plug type, except in the case of upper side to upper front plate on both vehicles, which are notch inter locks. See Photograph Fig. 30. The packing plate used at the ends of the notches is clearly visible in this photograph. There is a different between the packing plates on the Penther and Tiger II plug joints. In the case of the lower front to sides and reer plate to sides on Fanther, the end packers to the plugs ere of semi-circuler cross section, whereas those for all the Tiger II plugs, and the front plate upper to upper side plate on Panther are the rectangular shape. Both these are in accordance with the welding specification 1.L.21/9017, Appendix A. 411 the Joints between the floor plete, pamier floor plate and roof plate to front and sides are rebated except in the case of the pannier floor to side plates, which in oth vehicles is notch interlocked, This last instance is not understood as it can provide no mechanical support against mine blast or other attack forcing the pannier floor upwards or the lower side plate inwards. Photograph Fige 26 illustrates this quite clearly. Eerlier designs of Panther had a notch interlock detail between floor and lower side plates, and presumably the upper joint on the lower side plate was made similarly for the seke of uniformity. However, when the hull floor to side plate reverted back to the rebated joint it is supposed that the upper joint was not similarly reconsidered. A plain overlap fillet welded corner joint would have been equally as efficient from all design points of view and mch more suitable for assembly than the notch interlock used.(wa) Turrets (2) I+ has been stated earlier that the turrets of Panther and Tiger II have different joint designs. In the ease of the former the front casting to side plates is notch type interlock, whereas that for the latter is rebated. The rear plate to sides on Panther is the plug type with the projection on the rear plate, whilst this joint on the Tiger is the interlock notch type, with one projection on the front plate. These differences are clearly visible on photographs Figs. Nos. 4, 7 and 9. Both turrets have curved side plates, and each are bevelled to give the protected single vee butt weld between roof and sides, ‘The roof plate joints to the front plate and casting are also protected single vee butt welds for Tiger II and Panther. Maus, The hull and turret of this vehicle were designed by Krupp in June 1942 and welding commenced in Ney 1943- Tais was just about the period whon interlocking joint construction was first in vogue, consequently it followed this system. The hull and turret are illustrated in Photographs Figs. 49, 50, 51 and 52. Dimensions of hull and turret are approximately as follows:- Hull Length = 2ht = 6" Width =10'- 5" th = kt = 0" Der’ o Plate thickness Front 160 mm, at 35 2 from horizontal Is g Sides = 170 mm. Vertical . e Rear = 155 um. at 50° fran horizontal Turret Length = 17! - 0" Wiath sio!-5" Depth = &t - 25" Plate thicimess Front = 200 mm, curved i. i Sides = " " at 65° from horizontal ie "Rear = = 200 mm, at 75° fran horizontal The weight of the finished vehicle was reputed to be in the order of 200 tons but it does not appear that one was ever completed. Krupp built three hulle end turrets(waa) -u- one of which was sent for firing trial, the other two remained in their Works. All the front and rear to side plate joints are the notch interlock type but in addition heave 3" diameter armour quality dowels at the ends of the notches, and are approximately as long as the plate dimension in thickness. In the turret, however, they pass through the notch projections themselves in both directions, and are twice the length of the plate thickness, continuing through into the plate behind, They axe thus ebout 18" - long. The holes for all these dowels are drilled after the welding was otherwise camleted. All the floor and roof plate joints are rebated except for the turret floor which is dovetailed into the side plates. Additional complication of the hull floor joints results from employing short notch projections of the floor plate into the sides, which further, are also dowelled in the case of the joint with the outer side plate. It would certainly appear in the case of the Maus, which would be designed to withstendvery heavy attack, that all the interlocking and dowelling was intended specifically to strengthen the structure. It was estimated that the weld dimensions were in accordance with the plate thickness Tule, see Appendix 4 paragraph 5 (Wold Sizes) . Ballistic Advantage of Interlocking Construction Because this system is such a radical change from that used by either of the Western Allies, some trouble was teken to elicit from the Germans, reasons for its adoption. Most of the firms' technical representatives assumed that it was used because of its ballistic advantages, but did not think that it at all simplified production over the previous joint forms. Dre Lucke of Krupp put forward the following reasons:- (a) It provided additional ballistic resistance by virtue of mechanical support over and above that given by the welds. (b) It providea greater strength by increasing the totel length of welding. (c) The joints were in short lengths and so prevented the spreading of cracks.-15- (@) The machining for rebated joints was eliminated. Herr Hausmarm, Chairman of the Electrode Sub- committee of the Panzer Comission, stated that the change from rebated to interlock joints had been Antroduced in order to iS allow of gas cutting instead of machining, b) ensure that the welds carried as little stress under attack, as possible. Reference has already been made in Section B (iv) of this report to the correspondence between Dr. Rohlend, Chairman of the Panzer Commission and Herr Rau of Wa Prif VI, in which the former pressed for interlock joints in order that profiling by gas cutting could be used. On the weight of evidence available it does appear that the change to interlock construction was made primarily on the grounds of increased ballistic resistance. On the other hand, the earlier change fron nomal joints to rebated joints was quite clearly made to dnorease the structural resistance of the vehicles to heavy impact attack, and this was no doubt a wise step 4n view of the Germans' then using mainly ferritic welding, 4n spite of the extra complication in mchining plate preparations. In order to obtain the official German view on this subject it is considered that steps should be taken to locate and interrogate Rau of Wa Priif VI. Hausmamn stated that towards the end of the War the trend of opinion was towards a return to rebated joints because they gave greater resistance to A.P. penetration and less opening up of joints under A.P. attack then did interlock joints. He also gave production experience against interlock construction as compared with rebated, and these are referred to in Section V (vi) of this repert. In the opinion of the author there is little real proof yet that within the bounds of battle damage interlock, or for that matter, rebated construction has any advantage over normal fillet weld or full depth penetration welding. There are very few instances in which plates have been completely dislodged under attack in the field. In thea6 In the one instance known to the author there was no doubt that the welding wes undersize. The vast majority of tank casualties have been cuased by AeP. penetration of a few rounds, and by the effects of HE. in which the structure of the vehicle has suffered little damage for which the failure of welded joints can be held responsible. The principle of mechanical suppurt to the plates by virtue of interlock, or rebated construction, depends upon the plates being in actual beering for the full erea of the mting surfaces. If this is not so, then there is no alternative but for the welds to teke the effect of impacts until the tearing surfaces do physically bear one upon the other. That means that the welds mst first yield or fail by cracking for the mechanical support to become effective. The examination of captured enemy tanks by the Welding Branch, F.V.DeD. during the War hes disclosed, on all vehicles investigated, very poor set up conditions, even in the cases of machined rebated Joints on the earlier models of Pze II, III and IV. Sections cut fran Panther and Tiger have shown quite conclusively thet the mechenical support is Just not there and camot take effect until feil~ uré of the welds and subsequent movement of the plates has occurred, fn example of the geps which may occur is given in photograph Pig, 52. Such construction can be likened to a badly built but well pointed brick well. The pointing gives an appearance of solidity, but there may be many interstices due to un- filled joints in the interior brickwork. Similarly, a finish welded interlock armour construction conveys the impression of solidity and strength which may be completely misleading. In the opinion of the author such construction can only prove of greater ballistic value over normal design if true mechanical surface bearing obtains throughout, and this, of course, entails machining to fine limits all plate edges and contacting surfaces instead of profiling by gas cutting. Assuming that this precision standard of worknenship is feasible, it must be remembered that there are still the intense reverse loads to be withstood, when @ plate rebounds and vibrates after deflection fran a strike. There are grounds for belief that these may be of a value approximating to that for the criginal reaction to the strike. If the welds are reduced in dimension by virtue of a supposed strengthening through the use of interlock construction, they will be the Jess able to withstand the secondary effects from shock impact.-W- It is clear that this matter can only be solved by a comprehensive investigation on full size targets with varying plate thicknesses and processes of edge preparation. Research on these lines has already been initiated by F.V.D.D. The production espects of interlock construction are discussed in Section G. (vi) of this report. (vii4) Attachment of Armour Camponents and Structural Parts There are a number of points on the methods of attachment of sub-components and fittings which ere of comment. A considerable measure of mech- anical interlocking between such components and the main armour, combined with welding wes used. The more outstanding of these taken from Tiger II, are described below end shown on Drawing Appendix P. (a) Final drive protection armour (See Photograph Figs29) (») This is e curved plate 60 m. thick in Tiger IT which is cornected to the lover side plate in front of the final drive. It has two interlock notch projections with packers at the ends of the notches, together with a dowel 55 mm. dia. which is machined solid with this plate. The object of the dowel is not sppreciated unless it is to form an exact loce~ tion for the upper end of the protecting plate. This does not appear fully logical as the lower end of the curved plate will take up its position accord- ing to the gas cut profile of the notch openings in the front of the side plate. The detail is similar in principle for both Tiger II and Panther. On a ballistic basis the cambination of a machined dowel with the gas cut interlock notches is not considered a sound construction for the reasons already put forwards In the opinion of the writer an equally satisfactory @esign on a ballistic basis and me considerably mare economical in produetion with no increase in weight would be a simple corner connection with the curved protection plate covering the front edge of the side plate allowing sufficient space for a fillet weld be- tween them, with another fillet weld om the inside corner. Hall KG. Housing This example is one of a mmber of cases in which the component casting is spigoted into the armour plate,(e; ce with the spigot passing through sufficiently far enough to eneble a system of circliping to be used. The circlips are in segmental form made from plate, and are welded to both the component end the armour base. ‘The external weld between the component and the armour may be a grooved butt weld or e normal fillet weld, It is unlikely with this system that complete Gislodgement: of the component would be effected under attack adjacent to it, but there would still be a Like- lihood of extensive weld cracking unless the whole were @ tight fit with accurate mechanical bearing before welding. On consideration of the thickness of the circlips it is unlikely thst they were used for a purely production purpose such as tc assist assembly. This is again an instance where mich production effort is put into a device of very doubtful advantage. Attachment of hinges Three examples of hinge attachnents are described. It is clear that the Germans found it difficult to attach hinge parts sufficiently strongly without recourse to mechanical locking in addition to welding. The first case is taken fram an early Krupp design for Tiger II turret roof door. In addition to the welding, the hinge lugs were dovetail grooved into the base plate. Another instance, again for Tiger II turret, is of a normal type leaf welded to the armour plate surface, but also dowelled with the dowel pins welded in. Finally, another example is given of the back door in Tiger IT turret - Krupp design. In this case the hinge blocks, show in photographs Figs. 7 and 6 have a substantial dowel, machined integral with the block, which passes through the base plate and is plugged and fillet welded round to the inside surface of the plate. Of the three examples described the third is the soundest in principle. The attactment of a small comp- onent such as a hinge must be sufficient to withstand the effects of anear strike. It is difficult to do this without making the component unduly heavy in order to obtain an adequate amount of weld metal. In passing the heavy dowel through the plate and fillet welding it on the inside this increase in welding is obtained with very little increase in weight. The use of light dowel pins as in case 2 is not good, as the amount of attachment given by them is limited by their small cross-sectional area and the small doubtful quality fillet weld round their ends.eg ‘The dovetail section morticed joint may or may not be sound against adjacent shock, but it is no doubt very expensive. (a) Front Bulkhead or Roof Support This menber is not in fact a bulkhead, although it is located at the front of the fighting camertment. 4s is seen from Drawing Appendix P the menber provides support to the roof plate adjacent to the front of the turret ring, and spans from the lower side plates. It is constructional quality steel St.37-21M 20 ume thick» The method of attachment to the hull side plates and pannier floor plate is of interest, and is dependent on the late stage of production in which it is fitted, After welding of the ull armour is completed the roof support plate is inserted and forced against the roof plate, with wedges against the pannier floors, Other wedges against the side plates locate the support plete laterally. Thus, the very considerable internal tol- erence in hull dimensions is cvercane. It is seen from the drawing showing floor members, that the internal hull width between lower side plates is given a * 8 mm. tol- erance, or approximately * 3/8". Section P2Q2 on drewing Appendix P details the wela- ing of the support plate to the wedges and the wedges to the hull plates. In order to obtain en intermittent weld to the roo? plate the support plate is notched with four long notches along its upper edge where welding is omitted. The main criticism against the design is that the welds are of insufficient length and section particularly against the side plates. They are equivalent to four 9/16" fillet welds 4" long on the upper side plates and only two such welds on the lower side plates. Tt is not considered that they would withstand much impact on the side plates without extensive cracking and risk of displacement of the wedges. It is considered that there would be no object in using this type of cmstruction when the internal di- mensions of the hull ere within close limits, in which case the support plate would be used as an internal profile in jigging and assembly.