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

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