However, the T44, which in itselfe was a post ww2 tank which happened to be conceived and partially tested during ww2
It is actually not the case. It was not partially tested. The T-44 official entry into service was September 1944. And this is only a formality. Trials were so succesful that it was accepted into service even before they were finished (decree signed in July 1944).
What is the source for this information? The requirements for the new medium tank that led to the T-44 specify protection against 75 and 88mm shells. These were formulated at the end of 1943. As a matter of fact, I don't recall any ballistic testing carried out with Soviet guns (85/100/122mm) during development.was specified to resist domestic AP, and at one point had the requirements to include also german AP resistence.
No, I have seen it mentioned a few times but 100mm@60° is a tough target. The book you mentioned states that 88mm Pak 43 was not capable of penetrating at more than 500 meters.Btw, have You ever seen details of the Nashorn report? Have You ever seen and read it?
I have singled out this part because it deals with a different question. I am aware of what MBL-1 means, but we were not talking about MBL-1 (introduced in T62 and T55 turret casting).
T-62 and T-55 turrets were casted with MBL-2 steel.
The soviets adopted their new HHA ca. 1940 to replace the common RHA (i.e. armor with BHN ranging between 210 and 350 for most relevant section thicknesses). HHA beat their own shells much better up then common RHA could.
However, initially, it could only be made in small section thicknesses succesful with the chemical composition developed, leaving KV1 with it´s thicker sections with normal RHA instead.
In reality the T-34 choice was more based by the lack of nickel. At some point 8s steel had to be replaced by a different type due to lack of nickel
It´s 42SM. The same type of steel but treated to different hardness levels.
Of course, You may notice, that this is also why 42SM from older tanks is only chemically similar to 42SM while the same steel varies significantly in it´s physical properties from tanks made after the T54-3, particularely in terms of hardness, ductility and how hardness changed with section thickness.
Do you have a source for this? Usually the steel specifications is given depending on the yield strength. The hardness will be proportional to the tensile strength so it isn’t normally necessary to specify or measure both of them. This is of course for modern steel, after Euronorm EN 10202 revision.
You will find the 71L used for turret casting in Postnikov 2004, I have mentioned it already in this thread, You migth whish to look it up. HHA is confirmed by various post ww2 metallurgic analysis (glacis 444BHN, turret casting 448BHN, under relatively ductile state. My own reading with XRF from a museum exhib gives 435, 442 and 441BHN).
If you check Turi Pasholok latest article you will realize that several types were use. UZTM used a high hardness steel in the turret, Plant #200 70L. This is for the vehicles produced in late 1943-early 1944. I will check the book you mentioned anyway.
As I said above, in these years the priority was to simplify and economise the design. The quality of the T-34s produced in 1942 deteriorated for a number of reasons.Somewhen in mid ww2 (1942-1943) they adopted "their new" HHA, (which they believed to be "superior" owing to the effect it had on their own projectiles)
Also, the USSR had access to Allied armour/steel, which was judged superior to their own in some features (less cracking/spalling). When examining steel used in US tanks captured in Korea it was judged superior to late war German as it had better viscosity.
Even German armour changed quite a bit during those 15 years you make reference. See for example face hardening in Panther tanks.