The thickness of a tank's armor varies significantly depending on the model and era. For instance, during World War II, heavy tanks like the German Tiger I had armor thickness ranging from 25 mm to 120 mm in critical areas. Modern tanks, such as the M1 Abrams, utilize composite armor and reactive armor systems, which can effectively exceed 1,000 mm of equivalent thickness against certain threats. Overall, tank armor is designed to balance weight, protection, and mobility according to the intended combat role.
In WW 1, the armor on tanks was not THAT thick, and a heavy machine gun with armor piercing ammuntion COULD disable a tank. They were NOT invulnerable.
The M26 Pershing tank had armor 102 mm thick on the front of the hull, and 76 mm thick on the sides of the hull. The turret was protected by 102 mm of armor (the same as the hull), while the mantlet (gun shield) for the 90 mm main gun was up to 114 mm thick. The M26 Pershing was one of the only Allied tanks during WWII with thick enough armor to take a direct hit from the German 8.8 cm anti-tank gun and survive.
Tanks sunk easily in mud, for they were so heavy and large. The armor plating was also very thick and dense.
The armor thickness on Abrams tanks varies depending on the model and specific areas of the tank. Generally, the composite armor can be several inches thick, with some estimates suggesting it can reach up to 12 inches in certain areas, particularly around the turret. The use of advanced materials, including ceramics and depleted uranium layers, enhances protection against a wide range of threats, including armor-piercing projectiles and anti-tank missiles.
Panzer=Armor=tanks. Automobile makers generally produce tanks.
nsma,dnad
When you put the armor at an angle, the thickness is increased due to the fact that it is sloped as opposed to plumb.
Panzer=Armor. Therefore your question is asking "what impact did armor have in WWII?" Armor=Tanks=Panzer was simply an evolution process. Before tanks, men fought USING HORSES. In WWII every combatant nation (the smart ones) exchanged their HORSES for tanks! All combatants in WWII had tanks (panzers, armor); the USSR had T34 medium tanks; the US used M3 Stuarts & Lees; the French & Italians used Renaults and Fiat tanks; Japan had Type 97 medium & Type 95 light tanks; Germany had Mk I thru 7's. Just part of the evolution of mankind...horses to tanks, swords to rifles!
Like Americans, they call their tanks "armor"; in German armor is pronounced panzer. In the US Army (during the Vietnam era) an armor crewman was a tank crewman. A German tank crewman would be called a panzer crewman.
dinoflagellate
No. Titanium costs approximately 10 times more than steel and titanium is only lighter that steel. You actually will need more titanium than steel for armor (strength to size issue). Tanks don't have problem with heavy armor so weight is not an issue for them.
Depends on the country In Pakistan Army a Major is a Squadron Commander and there are 14 tanks in a squadron so he commands 14 tanks