Does anyone know the thickness of the angled armour plating added to the turret of the A13 Mk II? Given what is referenced in Peter Brown's book about bringing the armour up to a 30mm standard I would have thought the plates were perhaps 12mm or more in order to make the armour an effective 30mm. "A13 Mk II was armoured to a "30 mm basis" with thicker plates on the turret and hull front plus additional sloping plates on the turret sides and rear." (But, despite its ahistorical nature, I play World of Tanks, and it models the plates as just 4mm thick.)
Hello Chris, According to Duncan Crow the A13 (Cruiser Mark III) its predecessor had 6mm to 14mm armour so presumably the extra armour was 30mm - 14mm = 16mm. I went to skool sea. . Regards, Will.
Hi Will, That is exactly what I would have thought! I was just looking for confirmation that the turret sides and rear were supposed to have a full 30mm and that I wasn't misreading the text in Brown's book. As for this odd 4mm plating, I wonder how thick the armour plates are on the A13 at A13 at Bovington, which is apparently not a Cruiser Mk IV but a III with test plates. The front of the turret plate has angled cutouts that show it is not just an ordinary Cruiser Mk IV.
The 30mm plates on the Cruiser Mk.IV were to a 30mm basis rather than a 30mm standard. This means that any angled plates were the equivalent of 30mm thick when attacked horizontally. The original Cruiser Mk.III armour was to a 14mm basis, so the angled plates of the sides of the turret were probably less than 14mm, I would guess about 12mm. The more steeply angled turret side plates of the Mk.IV would have been thinner than this, I would guess 9mm or 10mm. So my best guess is that the side armour was probably around 22mm in total. But we would need an actual plate diagram to confirm.
