±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: cgsimpson
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6645

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 772
Total: 772
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Community Forums
02: CPGlang
03: Community Forums
04: Photo Gallery
05: Photo Gallery
06: Community Forums
07: Photo Gallery
08: Community Forums
09: Home
10: Member Screenshots
11: Home
12: Community Forums
13: Photo Gallery
14: News Archive
15: Downloads
16: Community Forums
17: Community Forums
18: Community Forums
19: Home
20: Home
21: Downloads
22: Photo Gallery
23: Community Forums
24: Community Forums
25: Photo Gallery
26: Community Forums
27: Community Forums
28: Community Forums
29: Community Forums
30: Community Forums
31: Community Forums
32: Community Forums
33: Community Forums
34: CPGlang
35: Photo Gallery
36: Community Forums
37: Community Forums
38: Search
39: Home
40: Community Forums
41: Your Account
42: Photo Gallery
43: Community Forums
44: Community Forums
45: Home
46: Community Forums
47: Home
48: Community Forums
49: Home
50: Community Forums
51: Community Forums
52: Community Forums
53: Community Forums
54: Community Forums
55: Community Forums
56: Community Forums
57: Community Forums
58: Community Forums
59: Community Forums
60: Community Forums
61: Community Forums
62: Community Forums
63: Community Forums
64: Community Forums
65: Downloads
66: Downloads
67: Home
68: Photo Gallery
69: Photo Gallery
70: Community Forums
71: Community Forums
72: Community Forums
73: Community Forums
74: Downloads
75: Community Forums
76: Photo Gallery
77: Photo Gallery
78: Community Forums
79: Photo Gallery
80: Community Forums
81: Community Forums
82: Community Forums
83: Community Forums
84: Downloads
85: Community Forums
86: Member Screenshots
87: Home
88: Downloads
89: Member Screenshots
90: Community Forums
91: Community Forums
92: Community Forums
93: Photo Gallery
94: Community Forums
95: Photo Gallery
96: Downloads
97: Community Forums
98: Home
99: Home
100: Downloads
101: CPGlang
102: Downloads
103: Community Forums
104: Community Forums
105: Community Forums
106: Community Forums
107: Downloads
108: Community Forums
109: Community Forums
110: Community Forums
111: Downloads
112: Community Forums
113: Community Forums
114: Community Forums
115: Community Forums
116: Community Forums
117: Community Forums
118: Downloads
119: Community Forums
120: Photo Gallery
121: Photo Gallery
122: Community Forums
123: Community Forums
124: Community Forums
125: Photo Gallery
126: Home
127: Community Forums
128: Community Forums
129: Community Forums
130: Photo Gallery
131: Community Forums
132: Photo Gallery
133: Community Forums
134: CPGlang
135: Photo Gallery
136: Community Forums
137: Photo Gallery
138: Community Forums
139: Community Forums
140: Community Forums
141: Community Forums
142: Community Forums
143: Downloads
144: Community Forums
145: Photo Gallery
146: Community Forums
147: Community Forums
148: Community Forums
149: Member Screenshots
150: Community Forums
151: Community Forums
152: Home
153: Downloads
154: Community Forums
155: Community Forums
156: Community Forums
157: Photo Gallery
158: Community Forums
159: Community Forums
160: Home
161: Community Forums
162: Community Forums
163: Community Forums
164: Home
165: Photo Gallery
166: Community Forums
167: Community Forums
168: Community Forums
169: Photo Gallery
170: Community Forums
171: Home
172: Community Forums
173: Home
174: Photo Gallery
175: Home
176: Photo Gallery
177: Photo Gallery
178: Community Forums
179: Community Forums
180: Community Forums
181: Community Forums
182: Community Forums
183: Photo Gallery
184: Community Forums
185: Community Forums
186: CPGlang
187: Community Forums
188: Photo Gallery
189: Downloads
190: Community Forums
191: Community Forums
192: Photo Gallery
193: Community Forums
194: Community Forums
195: Community Forums
196: Photo Gallery
197: Community Forums
198: Community Forums
199: Downloads
200: Community Forums
201: Community Forums
202: Home
203: Community Forums
204: Photo Gallery
205: Community Forums
206: Photo Gallery
207: Community Forums
208: Community Forums
209: Community Forums
210: Community Forums
211: Member Screenshots
212: Community Forums
213: Community Forums
214: Photo Gallery
215: Community Forums
216: Community Forums
217: Community Forums
218: Member Screenshots
219: Home
220: Photo Gallery
221: Downloads
222: Community Forums
223: Community Forums
224: Community Forums
225: Community Forums
226: Community Forums
227: Community Forums
228: Community Forums
229: Community Forums
230: Community Forums
231: Photo Gallery
232: Community Forums
233: Community Forums
234: Community Forums
235: Community Forums
236: Community Forums
237: Community Forums
238: Downloads
239: Downloads
240: Downloads
241: Photo Gallery
242: Home
243: Community Forums
244: Community Forums
245: Home
246: Community Forums
247: Photo Gallery
248: Community Forums
249: Community Forums
250: Photo Gallery
251: Community Forums
252: Home
253: Photo Gallery
254: Home
255: Home
256: Photo Gallery
257: Home
258: Home
259: Community Forums
260: Home
261: Community Forums
262: Community Forums
263: Community Forums
264: Community Forums
265: Community Forums
266: Photo Gallery
267: Downloads
268: Home
269: Community Forums
270: Community Forums
271: Home
272: Community Forums
273: Community Forums
274: Community Forums
275: Community Forums
276: Community Forums
277: Home
278: Community Forums
279: Community Forums
280: Community Forums
281: Community Forums
282: Community Forums
283: Home
284: Home
285: Community Forums
286: Community Forums
287: Home
288: Community Forums
289: Photo Gallery
290: Downloads
291: Community Forums
292: Community Forums
293: Community Forums
294: Downloads
295: Community Forums
296: Community Forums
297: Home
298: Home
299: Member Screenshots
300: Community Forums
301: Downloads
302: Photo Gallery
303: Community Forums
304: Community Forums
305: Photo Gallery
306: Photo Gallery
307: Community Forums
308: Community Forums
309: Photo Gallery
310: Home
311: Community Forums
312: Community Forums
313: Community Forums
314: CPGlang
315: Community Forums
316: Home
317: Community Forums
318: Member Screenshots
319: Community Forums
320: Community Forums
321: Community Forums
322: Photo Gallery
323: Home
324: Community Forums
325: Community Forums
326: Community Forums
327: Photo Gallery
328: CPGlang
329: Community Forums
330: Photo Gallery
331: Community Forums
332: Community Forums
333: Downloads
334: Community Forums
335: Home
336: Community Forums
337: Community Forums
338: Photo Gallery
339: Downloads
340: Downloads
341: Community Forums
342: Photo Gallery
343: Home
344: Community Forums
345: Home
346: Community Forums
347: Community Forums
348: CPGlang
349: Community Forums
350: Home
351: Your Account
352: Community Forums
353: Photo Gallery
354: Community Forums
355: Community Forums
356: Downloads
357: Community Forums
358: Community Forums
359: Community Forums
360: Community Forums
361: Community Forums
362: Statistics
363: Community Forums
364: Community Forums
365: Community Forums
366: Photo Gallery
367: Community Forums
368: Community Forums
369: Community Forums
370: Community Forums
371: Community Forums
372: Community Forums
373: Home
374: Community Forums
375: Photo Gallery
376: Community Forums
377: Community Forums
378: Home
379: Community Forums
380: Community Forums
381: Member Screenshots
382: Photo Gallery
383: Community Forums
384: Home
385: Community Forums
386: Community Forums
387: Photo Gallery
388: Community Forums
389: Community Forums
390: Community Forums
391: Community Forums
392: Photo Gallery
393: Community Forums
394: Community Forums
395: Home
396: Community Forums
397: CPGlang
398: Community Forums
399: Community Forums
400: Home
401: Community Forums
402: Community Forums
403: Photo Gallery
404: Community Forums
405: Photo Gallery
406: Community Forums
407: Home
408: Statistics
409: Community Forums
410: Community Forums
411: Downloads
412: Community Forums
413: Community Forums
414: Home
415: Photo Gallery
416: Community Forums
417: Photo Gallery
418: Community Forums
419: Community Forums
420: Community Forums
421: Community Forums
422: Community Forums
423: Community Forums
424: Downloads
425: Community Forums
426: Home
427: Downloads
428: Member Screenshots
429: Community Forums
430: Downloads
431: Downloads
432: Community Forums
433: Community Forums
434: Community Forums
435: Home
436: Home
437: Community Forums
438: Photo Gallery
439: Community Forums
440: Your Account
441: Downloads
442: Member Screenshots
443: Community Forums
444: Community Forums
445: Home
446: Community Forums
447: Community Forums
448: Community Forums
449: Photo Gallery
450: Community Forums
451: Community Forums
452: Community Forums
453: Community Forums
454: Community Forums
455: Community Forums
456: Community Forums
457: Downloads
458: Statistics
459: Photo Gallery
460: Community Forums
461: Community Forums
462: Community Forums
463: Home
464: Community Forums
465: Home
466: Community Forums
467: Community Forums
468: Your Account
469: Community Forums
470: Member Screenshots
471: Community Forums
472: Home
473: Community Forums
474: Community Forums
475: Community Forums
476: Community Forums
477: Home
478: Community Forums
479: Community Forums
480: Home
481: Member Screenshots
482: Community Forums
483: Photo Gallery
484: Community Forums
485: Downloads
486: Home
487: Home
488: Home
489: Community Forums
490: Community Forums
491: Photo Gallery
492: Home
493: Community Forums
494: Photo Gallery
495: Home
496: Community Forums
497: Community Forums
498: Photo Gallery
499: Community Forums
500: Community Forums
501: Community Forums
502: Community Forums
503: Downloads
504: Community Forums
505: Community Forums
506: Community Forums
507: Downloads
508: Community Forums
509: Community Forums
510: Downloads
511: Home
512: Photo Gallery
513: Home
514: Photo Gallery
515: Community Forums
516: Home
517: Community Forums
518: Community Forums
519: Photo Gallery
520: Photo Gallery
521: Photo Gallery
522: Community Forums
523: Downloads
524: Community Forums
525: Community Forums
526: Community Forums
527: Community Forums
528: Community Forums
529: Home
530: Community Forums
531: Photo Gallery
532: Member Screenshots
533: Community Forums
534: Home
535: Community Forums
536: Member Screenshots
537: Home
538: Community Forums
539: Photo Gallery
540: Photo Gallery
541: Community Forums
542: Community Forums
543: Photo Gallery
544: Community Forums
545: Downloads
546: Community Forums
547: Community Forums
548: Photo Gallery
549: Your Account
550: Community Forums
551: Community Forums
552: Community Forums
553: Downloads
554: Community Forums
555: Community Forums
556: Community Forums
557: Community Forums
558: Community Forums
559: Community Forums
560: Downloads
561: Home
562: Community Forums
563: Community Forums
564: Downloads
565: CPGlang
566: Downloads
567: Home
568: Community Forums
569: Downloads
570: Community Forums
571: Photo Gallery
572: Community Forums
573: Photo Gallery
574: Community Forums
575: Home
576: Photo Gallery
577: Community Forums
578: CPGlang
579: Community Forums
580: Community Forums
581: Home
582: Community Forums
583: Community Forums
584: Community Forums
585: Downloads
586: Community Forums
587: Community Forums
588: Community Forums
589: Community Forums
590: Member Screenshots
591: Community Forums
592: News
593: Community Forums
594: News Archive
595: Home
596: Community Forums
597: Photo Gallery
598: Community Forums
599: Community Forums
600: Photo Gallery
601: Community Forums
602: Photo Gallery
603: Photo Gallery
604: Community Forums
605: Community Forums
606: Statistics
607: Photo Gallery
608: Community Forums
609: Community Forums
610: Community Forums
611: Community Forums
612: Community Forums
613: Community Forums
614: CPGlang
615: Community Forums
616: Photo Gallery
617: Community Forums
618: Community Forums
619: Photo Gallery
620: Photo Gallery
621: Community Forums
622: Community Forums
623: Photo Gallery
624: Community Forums
625: Community Forums
626: Photo Gallery
627: Home
628: Community Forums
629: Community Forums
630: Community Forums
631: Community Forums
632: Community Forums
633: Community Forums
634: Community Forums
635: CPGlang
636: Photo Gallery
637: Home
638: Community Forums
639: Community Forums
640: Community Forums
641: Community Forums
642: Home
643: News Archive
644: Community Forums
645: Community Forums
646: Home
647: Photo Gallery
648: Community Forums
649: Community Forums
650: Community Forums
651: Community Forums
652: Home
653: Photo Gallery
654: Community Forums
655: Photo Gallery
656: Downloads
657: Community Forums
658: Downloads
659: Community Forums
660: Community Forums
661: Community Forums
662: Community Forums
663: Community Forums
664: Home
665: Community Forums
666: Community Forums
667: Community Forums
668: Community Forums
669: Community Forums
670: Community Forums
671: Home
672: Search
673: Community Forums
674: Community Forums
675: Community Forums
676: Community Forums
677: Home
678: Photo Gallery
679: Community Forums
680: Community Forums
681: Community Forums
682: Home
683: Photo Gallery
684: Community Forums
685: Community Forums
686: Community Forums
687: Community Forums
688: Photo Gallery
689: Community Forums
690: CPGlang
691: Photo Gallery
692: Community Forums
693: Home
694: Community Forums
695: Community Forums
696: Community Forums
697: Community Forums
698: CPGlang
699: Community Forums
700: Community Forums
701: Member Screenshots
702: Community Forums
703: Photo Gallery
704: Community Forums
705: Community Forums
706: Member Screenshots
707: Community Forums
708: Community Forums
709: Member Screenshots
710: Community Forums
711: Community Forums
712: Community Forums
713: Community Forums
714: Community Forums
715: Downloads
716: Community Forums
717: Photo Gallery
718: Photo Gallery
719: Statistics
720: Downloads
721: Community Forums
722: Downloads
723: Community Forums
724: Statistics
725: Community Forums
726: Community Forums
727: Photo Gallery
728: Home
729: Community Forums
730: Community Forums
731: Photo Gallery
732: Downloads
733: Community Forums
734: Community Forums
735: Community Forums
736: Member Screenshots
737: Community Forums
738: Member Screenshots
739: Downloads
740: Community Forums
741: Community Forums
742: Photo Gallery
743: Community Forums
744: Community Forums
745: Community Forums
746: Community Forums
747: Home
748: Home
749: Home
750: Community Forums
751: Photo Gallery
752: Community Forums
753: Community Forums
754: Community Forums
755: Photo Gallery
756: Community Forums
757: News Archive
758: Downloads
759: Photo Gallery
760: Photo Gallery
761: Your Account
762: Downloads
763: Downloads
764: Photo Gallery
765: Community Forums
766: Community Forums
767: Community Forums
768: Your Account
769: Downloads
770: Community Forums
771: Community Forums
772: Community Forums

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
Armor penetration formula
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Go to page 1, 2  Next
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
blair
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 87

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:05 am
Post subject: Armor penetration formula

A long time ago I had cme across an article that described a formula regarding the increased resistance of armor depending on the degree of angle. I'm sure I have my numbers mixed up but basically the formula stated that If you took a a plate of armor 2 inches thick and then angled it by 25 degrees the armor would then have the same penetration resistance depth of 4 inches of vertical armor.

The higher the angle then the higher the resistence depth.

Does anyone know any more about this principle/theory?
Back to top
View user's profile
JimWeb
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1439
Location: The back of beyond
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:29 am
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

Blimey this is really basic geometry!!!

Pick up a book which will represent our armour plate - measure its width then angle it at 45 degrees and measure it from corner to corner - That how thick the armour becomes along the horizontal....

Rolling Eyes

_________________
TTFN
Jim

If your not a member of JED then your
not serious about anything military..

***********************
www.jedsite.info
JED Military Equipment
***********************
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website ICQ Number
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:55 am
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

Where is Lorrin (from the old board) when you need him Rolling Eyes

If I understand your question Jim has the basics laid out pretty well. When I explain this on tours at Aberdeen I use my hand spaced about3" apart first vertically then at an angle. A 45 degree angle gives you about 1.707 times the thickness that vertical plate will, a 60 degree angle doubles the thickness. This is all geometry , Sines & Cosines (depending on if you are measuring the angle from the horizontal or vertical)

There would be a higher chance of the round 'glancing off' as the angle increases but I'm not sure this would be easy to calculate especially since the shape of the nose and the relative hardness probably play into the factoring.

And if you hit an angled plate (say the 47 degree nose of a Sherman) at an angle off of dead ahead (say 45 degrees off to the side) the angle effect is compunded. ( you get thickness * 1.7 (approx factor for 47 degree armor * 1.7 factor for the angle shot) or a total increase in thickness of 2.89.

_________________
Bob Smart (bsmart@xecu.net)
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
JWB2
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 199

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 7:29 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

IIRC ricochet or "skip" starts when the slope is 45* or greater. Firing tests have shown that resistance can actually degrade when the slope exceeds about 56*. I imagine these facts heavily influenced the slope of both the Sherman and the Panther glacis plates.
Back to top
View user's profile
JimWeb
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1439
Location: The back of beyond
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:30 am
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

- JWB2
IIRC ricochet or "skip" starts when the slope is 45* or greater. Firing tests have shown that resistance can actually degrade when the slope exceeds about 56*. I imagine these facts heavily influenced the slope of both the Sherman and the Panther glacis plates.


Yes but rounds have been designed to overcome this by having flat angled fronts under ballistic caps to enable them to dig in.

Cool

_________________
TTFN
Jim

If your not a member of JED then your
not serious about anything military..

***********************
www.jedsite.info
JED Military Equipment
***********************
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website ICQ Number
clausb
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:08 am
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

- blair
A long time ago I had cme across an article that described a formula regarding the increased resistance of armor depending on the degree of angle. I'm sure I have my numbers mixed up but basically the formula stated that If you took a a plate of armor 2 inches thick and then angled it by 25 degrees the armor would then have the same penetration resistance depth of 4 inches of vertical armor.

The higher the angle then the higher the resistence depth.

Does anyone know any more about this principle/theory?


Goes like this:

Y/cos(Z)=X

where Y is the thickness of the armour plate
where Z is the angle of the armour, with vertical=0
and X is the effective thickness of the armour.

As an example using the frontal hull armour of the Soviet T34 , you get

Y=45mm
Z=60 degrees

and thus:

45/cos(60)=90

meaning that the distance the projectile has to travel through the armour plate is doubled when the plate is sloped at 60 degrees.

However......

That is not by any means equal to the actual resistance of the armour plate in any condition. Far from it. To even begin to approach that issue, you need to take into account a large number of factors including armour quality and hardness, projectile type (AP, APC, sub-caliber, HEAT etc.), projectile design, projectile caliber, projectile hardness and a lot of other elements.
The problem is mainly that while a perpendicular hit on the armour plate will spend most of its energy on going through the armour plate, once the projectile hits a sloped surface, it will have a tendency to move away from the plate and under the right conditions simply bounce off. Whether it bounces or not depends among other things on the shape of the projectiles nose: a pointed nose will tend to bounce, a flat nose will tend to dig in. It also depends on the relationship between the diameter of the projectile (d) and the thickness of the armour (t): if the so-called t/d ratio is more than 1 (say, 45mm of armour hit by a 37mm round) hitting, the projectile will be more likely to bounce off. If the t/d ratio is less than 1 (say, 45mm of armour hit by 75mm projectile) then the projectile will be less likely to bounce off.

It soon gets very complicated....... Smile

I'm deeply suspicious of the idea that an angle of more than 56 degrees will degrade performance, at least not in general. If that was the case, then tanks would have 55 degree slopes on their front hull and no more, which is clearly not the case. The T34 had 60 degree slope on the front hull and post-war tanks tend to get as much slope as possible, just look at Soviet designs. Also, US tanks like the M48 (60 degree front hull) and the M60 (65 degree front hull) shows an increase in slope over the WWII designs (M4 Sherman 56 and 47 degrees, M26 Pershing 56 degrees).

Claus B
Back to top
View user's profile
LeeW
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 26, 2006
Posts: 61

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:09 am
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

In addition once a projectile starts to penetrate it will tend to turn toward the orthoganal.

Face hardened vs homogenious can effect this as well.

For naval vessels there some info at:
www.navweaps.com/index...x_tech.htm
and of course:
www.navweaps.com/index...nathan.htm
which has some formulas and programs as well as info.

Unfortuantly I don't know of a simlar site for AFVs some of this will relate but exactly how is not my area of expertise.
Back to top
View user's profile
JWB2
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 199

PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 12:43 am
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

Yes but rounds have been designed to overcome this by having flat angled fronts under ballistic caps to enable them to dig in.

That only happens if the projectile is harder than the armor.

I'm deeply suspicious of the idea that an angle of more than 56 degrees will degrade performance, at least not in general.

That is the result of a firing test conducted by the US Army. IIRC it was 90mm vs Panther type armor so it probably has a lot to do with undermatch. Post war tank armor was desiged to deal with HVAP and early APDS.
Back to top
View user's profile
clausb
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:22 am
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

That is the result of a firing test conducted by the US Army. IIRC it was 90mm vs Panther type armor so it probably has a lot to do with undermatch. Post war tank armor was desiged to deal with HVAP and early APDS.


But the T-34s armour wasn't.....

90mm projectile vs 80mm of Panther frontal armour gives a T/D of 0.88 which is not exactly a massive "undermatch", in fact it is in the same ballpark as, say, a German 75mm vs a late-war Sherman hull at 63mm (T/D 0.84). In the latter case, your logic would dictate that hitting the Shermans armour at an angle of 40 degrees from the side would have a better chance of penetring than a hit at 30 degrees from the side. That sounds rather counterintuitive to me.....
I've yet to see an actual test result, official penetration data or an emperically based penetration formula that would result in what you describe - resistance of armour degrading at angles over 56 degrees. So unless you can point to the exact tests, I'd have to say that it is either a fairy tale or at least a misunderstanding.

Claus B
Back to top
View user's profile
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 8:33 am
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

- bsmart
Where is Lorrin (from the old board) when you need him Rolling Eyes


We'll remember you said that, Bob...especially if he actually shows up and registers to post. Wink (Be sure to notify Bushy, he'll need to lay on an extra terabyte or two of bandwidth). Alas, we don't have Russ on hand (owing to other "distractions" at the moment, lucky him) to keep him in check if he does.

...and I'm on my way out of the country for a couple of weeks, so if his apparition appears....handle it! Mr. Green
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 9:18 am
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

Hey, I never had a problem with Lorrin. I didn't agree with all his theories (Heck I'm not sure I even understood all his theories Rolling Eyes ) but he did bring a passion and dedication to the discussions.

Have a good trip (you gotta arrange for a layover in the Philly/ Baltimore/DC) region on one of them so we can visit Aberdeen) and we'll try to keep everyone under control (or at least keep them from parking the tanks on the zoomies runway)

_________________
Bob Smart (bsmart@xecu.net)
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2066
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 9:59 am
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

Doug,

Alas, we don't have Russ on hand (owing to other "distractions" at the moment, lucky him)


I was wondering how Russ was doing, good to here he's OK, I miss his posts.

Joe D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
piney
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 2330
Location: Republic of Southern New Jersey
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 2:08 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

I miss Russ too. no fun not having to warn against spit takes

Jeff Lewis
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:03 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

- Joe_D
Doug,

Alas, we don't have Russ on hand (owing to other "distractions" at the moment, lucky him)


I was wondering how Russ was doing, good to here he's OK, I miss his posts.

Joe D


I spoke with Russ recently, and am happy to report that his absence is due to his having discovered romance that is occupying a lot of his time, which inexplicably, he is finding preferable to the company of a bunch of fellow curmudgeons. "Bully for him", I say! We mean to do a tour of the El Monte collection soon (when I get in off the road for more than two weeks at a time Rolling Eyes ) but he sounded great!

I miss his humor as well.....

This update brought you courtesy of the Flagship Lounge at Chicago O'Hare Airport....
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
JWB2
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 199

PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:50 am
Post subject: Re: Armor penetration formula

- clausb
That is the result of a firing test conducted by the US Army. IIRC it was 90mm vs Panther type armor so it probably has a lot to do with undermatch. Post war tank armor was desiged to deal with HVAP and early APDS.


But the T-34s armour wasn't.....

90mm projectile vs 80mm of Panther frontal armour gives a T/D of 0.88 which is not exactly a massive "undermatch", in fact it is in the same ballpark as, say, a German 75mm vs a late-war Sherman hull at 63mm (T/D 0.84). In the latter case, your logic would dictate that hitting the Shermans armour at an angle of 40 degrees from the side would have a better chance of penetring than a hit at 30 degrees from the side. That sounds rather counterintuitive to me.....
I've yet to see an actual test result, official penetration data or an emperically based penetration formula that would result in what you describe - resistance of armour degrading at angles over 56 degrees. So unless you can point to the exact tests, I'd have to say that it is either a fairy tale or at least a misunderstanding.

Claus B

I got the info from C.G. Erickson a few years ago at one of the visits to Littlefields.
Back to top
View user's profile
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 1 of 2
All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Go to page 1, 2  Next



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum