Armour on the Crusader Mk. I

[ClintHardware]

I have searched around the forum and across the internet but have not yet found the answer to the following:

The armour thicknesses and composition of the glacis plate supporting the machine gun turret and the armour details of the machine gun turret.

I have found the lower and upper hull nose plate details although not angles.

Also does anyone have details of the mantlet armour and it composition?

Thanks in advance.

[Mobius]

Wow that's a busy armor facing.
From World War II Armor and Ballistics by Bird and Livingston:

Drivers plate: 14/10/5 @ 12°
Front superstructure: 18/22 @ 0°
Glacis : 14 @ 59°
Front Nose 14/13 @ 26°

What is what I don't know.

[Michael Kenny]

[ClintHardware]

Wow that's a busy armor facing.
From World War II Armor and Ballistics by Bird and Livingston:

Drivers plate: 14/10/5 @ 12°
Front superstructure: 18/22 @ 0°
Glacis : 14 @ 59°
Front Nose 14/13 @ 26°

What is what I don't know.

Thanks Mobius and Michael.
I missed the following from Jentz...on page 200 of Jentz's TCinNA he gives some of the data but curiously not all.
Gun Mantle ..........50 mm IT90 complex
Drivers Front Plate 18 mm IT70 & 22.2 IT110 @ 0 degrees
Glacis .................9 mm IT70 only @ 85 degrees
Upper Nose Hull.....14 mm IT70 @ 60 degrees
Hull Nose.............14 mm IT70 & 12.7 mm IT110@ 29 degrees
Lower Hull Nose.....14 mm IT70 @ 60 degrees

He states that the basis was 40mm for turret and front of hull and 30mm for the remainder and that whenever 14mm thickness is exceeded* composite armour construction with IT70 for the front plate riveted to IT110 as the backing plate.

*Jentz may have meant that when the basis exceeds the outer/front plate thickness then there is composite armour.

Missing is the Machine Gun Turret information. The Upper Nose and Lower Nose would surely have had IT110 as backing plates. The Glacis is in effect the forward hull roof on the Crusader Mk I, and therefore its armour is in line with the Turret Roof that Jentz gives as 9 mm IT70 @ 77 degrees.

The driver has an armoured box and the data I have for that (I will give it shortly) is very different from the Drivers Front Plate so Jentz's DFP data appears to be a reference to the plate between the Glacis and the Hull Roof supporting the main turret and if correct Jentz's DFP is behind the Drivers Box. If this is the case the mostly obscured DFP in Michael's photo seems to be @ about 30 degrees and not @ 0 degrees as Jentz stated.

Jentz's reference to Gun Mantle appears to be the outer Gun Mantle but he does not give the inner plate data which is not the same part as the Turret Front but may have been similar to its 20 mm IT70 front plate but probably missing the Turret Front's backing plate of 19 mm IT110. He gives the Turret Front as being @ 0 degrees but side profile images seem to show an angle of 5 - 10 degrees on the Crusader Mk I.

The differences between your data Mobius and Jentz's may be between the Crusader I and II but I am not certain.

[ClintHardware]

Driver's Box Armour on Crusader Mk I

I have found on the internet - source unknown - the following:
Drivers Box Front......18 mm IT70 & 22.2 IT110
Drivers Box Sides......14 mm IT70 & 14.27 IT110
Drivers Box Roof........9 mm IT70
Drivers Visor...........50 mm IT90 - Looking at Michael's photo it may have been 50 mm in places...

The Machine Gun turret looks like a single horse shoe piece on the side and rear of about 20 mm with the front occupied by the visor perhaps of 50 mm IT 90 complex but that is pure guess work.

[Mobius]

The Mark III may help point out some of the complexity with composite and layered armor.
It looks like there is an air gap between some of the plates. Not unlike the space between the gun shield plates on German AT guns.

[Alanmccoubrey]

Mobius, if by an air gap you mean the double plates along the hull sides , these were for the protection of the suspension units and had nothing to do with "spaced armour".

[ClintHardware]

Thanks Mobius

Is your drawing from WO 194/104 on the Crusader from the file dated 1942? I noticed that WO 194/127 covers the Matilda Mks I II III and IV so perhaps WO 194/104 includes not just the Crusader Mk III although it refers to just one drawing TD.5911 so perhaps it is just Crusader III.

The plate differences for the Mk III look too different to rely on for the Mk I.

[Mobius]

I don't know what site it came from. I just Googled it.