I'm not a metallurgist. I'd actually like to know more about armor plate. A retired American general once told me that during WWII one of the problems that American AFVs had was that the Navy had first call on the best armor plate. I could never find anything to support the claim - but I've never looked hard either. I do believe most WWII armor was homogeneous armored plate - think "face hardened" steel was found not effective against AP ammo. I was in a big steel mill many years ago - everything looked dam hot to me.
For the 38T I'm thinking to leave it alone. Again, this is a kind of experiment: can I make Tony Greenland style "pretty" kit? It sure won't come out like Greenland's, but it's a challenge and I'm hoping to learn something. But in general I don't agree with Greenland's idea of modeling the tank and not the mud it fought in. (In other words, keep weathering to a bare minimum - concentrate on a good finish and effects that emulate shadows.) I think it perfectly proper to model what a fighting vehicle looked like 30 minutes before or after combat.
So even if I treat my little 38T with a kinder touch than deserved for a fighting tank (it's actually a cute little thing - very nice lines) I'm very interested in learning how to mess around with texture. If nothing else, I have a KV-2 up next - we shall be throwing everything in the weathering universe at that lovely. Sure couldn't hurt its looks. (I've been trying to think of an uglier tank than the KV-2 and I can't. So I've upped the ante. I can't think of an uglier weapon than the KV-2. We throw mud at that guy, no error.)
Eric