±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: 789
Total: 789
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Community Forums
02: Community Forums
03: Home
04: Home
05: Community Forums
06: Community Forums
07: Home
08: Community Forums
09: CPGlang
10: Community Forums
11: Home
12: Downloads
13: Community Forums
14: Community Forums
15: Your Account
16: Community Forums
17: Community Forums
18: Community Forums
19: Community Forums
20: Community Forums
21: Photo Gallery
22: Home
23: Home
24: Photo Gallery
25: Home
26: Your Account
27: Community Forums
28: Community Forums
29: Community Forums
30: Community Forums
31: Community Forums
32: Community Forums
33: Photo Gallery
34: Community Forums
35: Community Forums
36: Community Forums
37: Photo Gallery
38: Community Forums
39: Photo Gallery
40: Community Forums
41: Community Forums
42: Community Forums
43: Community Forums
44: Community Forums
45: Photo Gallery
46: Community Forums
47: Photo Gallery
48: Community Forums
49: Member Screenshots
50: Home
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: Member Screenshots
62: Community Forums
63: Home
64: Photo Gallery
65: Community Forums
66: Community Forums
67: Home
68: CPGlang
69: CPGlang
70: Community Forums
71: Community Forums
72: Community Forums
73: Home
74: Community Forums
75: Community Forums
76: Home
77: Community Forums
78: Community Forums
79: Community Forums
80: Community Forums
81: Community Forums
82: Community Forums
83: Community Forums
84: Photo Gallery
85: Community Forums
86: Photo Gallery
87: Community Forums
88: Photo Gallery
89: Community Forums
90: Community Forums
91: Home
92: Community Forums
93: Photo Gallery
94: Photo Gallery
95: Member Screenshots
96: Community Forums
97: Home
98: Your Account
99: Photo Gallery
100: Community Forums
101: Home
102: Community Forums
103: Home
104: Home
105: Community Forums
106: Community Forums
107: Photo Gallery
108: News
109: CPGlang
110: Community Forums
111: Community Forums
112: Community Forums
113: Community Forums
114: Community Forums
115: Photo Gallery
116: Community Forums
117: Home
118: Community Forums
119: Community Forums
120: Home
121: Community Forums
122: Community Forums
123: Photo Gallery
124: Home
125: CPGlang
126: Community Forums
127: Community Forums
128: Community Forums
129: Photo Gallery
130: Home
131: Community Forums
132: CPGlang
133: Community Forums
134: Community Forums
135: Community Forums
136: Photo Gallery
137: Community Forums
138: Home
139: Community Forums
140: Home
141: Community Forums
142: Community Forums
143: Community Forums
144: Community Forums
145: Community Forums
146: Photo Gallery
147: Community Forums
148: Downloads
149: Photo Gallery
150: Community Forums
151: Downloads
152: Photo Gallery
153: Photo Gallery
154: Community Forums
155: Community Forums
156: Community Forums
157: Downloads
158: Photo Gallery
159: Home
160: Photo Gallery
161: Community Forums
162: Photo Gallery
163: Community Forums
164: CPGlang
165: Community Forums
166: CPGlang
167: Community Forums
168: Photo Gallery
169: Community Forums
170: Photo Gallery
171: CPGlang
172: Your Account
173: Community Forums
174: Photo Gallery
175: Community Forums
176: Community Forums
177: CPGlang
178: Community Forums
179: Community Forums
180: Community Forums
181: Home
182: Photo Gallery
183: Community Forums
184: Community Forums
185: Community Forums
186: CPGlang
187: Community Forums
188: Photo Gallery
189: Photo Gallery
190: Home
191: Home
192: Community Forums
193: Community Forums
194: Community Forums
195: Photo Gallery
196: Home
197: Community Forums
198: Community Forums
199: Member Screenshots
200: Home
201: Community Forums
202: CPGlang
203: CPGlang
204: Home
205: Community Forums
206: Community Forums
207: Community Forums
208: News
209: Community Forums
210: Community Forums
211: Community Forums
212: Photo Gallery
213: CPGlang
214: CPGlang
215: Community Forums
216: CPGlang
217: Community Forums
218: Community Forums
219: Community Forums
220: Photo Gallery
221: Community Forums
222: Community Forums
223: Home
224: Community Forums
225: Community Forums
226: Photo Gallery
227: Community Forums
228: Community Forums
229: Your Account
230: Community Forums
231: Your Account
232: Home
233: Home
234: Statistics
235: Member Screenshots
236: Home
237: Home
238: Community Forums
239: Statistics
240: Photo Gallery
241: Community Forums
242: Photo Gallery
243: CPGlang
244: Community Forums
245: Community Forums
246: Community Forums
247: Photo Gallery
248: CPGlang
249: Community Forums
250: Community Forums
251: Community Forums
252: Community Forums
253: Photo Gallery
254: Community Forums
255: Community Forums
256: Community Forums
257: Community Forums
258: Community Forums
259: Community Forums
260: CPGlang
261: Community Forums
262: Community Forums
263: Community Forums
264: Community Forums
265: Community Forums
266: Photo Gallery
267: Member Screenshots
268: Photo Gallery
269: Home
270: CPGlang
271: Member Screenshots
272: Community Forums
273: Community Forums
274: Community Forums
275: Member Screenshots
276: Photo Gallery
277: CPGlang
278: CPGlang
279: Community Forums
280: Community Forums
281: Community Forums
282: Community Forums
283: Community Forums
284: Community Forums
285: Community Forums
286: Photo Gallery
287: Community Forums
288: Home
289: Photo Gallery
290: Downloads
291: Community Forums
292: Community Forums
293: Photo Gallery
294: Community Forums
295: Community Forums
296: Community Forums
297: Community Forums
298: Community Forums
299: Community Forums
300: Community Forums
301: Photo Gallery
302: CPGlang
303: Community Forums
304: Community Forums
305: CPGlang
306: Home
307: Community Forums
308: Community Forums
309: Home
310: Community Forums
311: Community Forums
312: Home
313: CPGlang
314: Community Forums
315: Photo Gallery
316: Photo Gallery
317: Community Forums
318: Community Forums
319: Community Forums
320: Home
321: Community Forums
322: Community Forums
323: Home
324: Member Screenshots
325: Photo Gallery
326: Community Forums
327: Community Forums
328: Community Forums
329: Photo Gallery
330: Community Forums
331: Community Forums
332: Photo Gallery
333: Community Forums
334: Community Forums
335: Community Forums
336: Community Forums
337: Photo Gallery
338: Photo Gallery
339: Community Forums
340: Photo Gallery
341: Community Forums
342: Home
343: Home
344: Community Forums
345: Photo Gallery
346: Home
347: Community Forums
348: Downloads
349: Community Forums
350: Community Forums
351: Community Forums
352: Home
353: Community Forums
354: Community Forums
355: Photo Gallery
356: Community Forums
357: Photo Gallery
358: CPGlang
359: Photo Gallery
360: CPGlang
361: Community Forums
362: Photo Gallery
363: Community Forums
364: Community Forums
365: Community Forums
366: Community Forums
367: CPGlang
368: Photo Gallery
369: CPGlang
370: Home
371: Community Forums
372: Community Forums
373: CPGlang
374: Community Forums
375: Community Forums
376: Photo Gallery
377: Community Forums
378: Community Forums
379: Home
380: News
381: Community Forums
382: Community Forums
383: Your Account
384: Community Forums
385: Home
386: Community Forums
387: Photo Gallery
388: Community Forums
389: Community Forums
390: Community Forums
391: Community Forums
392: Community Forums
393: Your Account
394: Community Forums
395: Community Forums
396: Photo Gallery
397: Member Screenshots
398: Downloads
399: Photo Gallery
400: Community Forums
401: Community Forums
402: Community Forums
403: Community Forums
404: CPGlang
405: CPGlang
406: Photo Gallery
407: Your Account
408: Photo Gallery
409: Photo Gallery
410: Downloads
411: Community Forums
412: News
413: Photo Gallery
414: Home
415: Community Forums
416: CPGlang
417: Community Forums
418: Your Account
419: Photo Gallery
420: Community Forums
421: Community Forums
422: CPGlang
423: CPGlang
424: Member Screenshots
425: Community Forums
426: Photo Gallery
427: Community Forums
428: Community Forums
429: Photo Gallery
430: Downloads
431: Member Screenshots
432: Photo Gallery
433: Community Forums
434: Community Forums
435: Home
436: Photo Gallery
437: Community Forums
438: Photo Gallery
439: CPGlang
440: Community Forums
441: Home
442: Community Forums
443: Downloads
444: Community Forums
445: Member Screenshots
446: Community Forums
447: Photo Gallery
448: Member Screenshots
449: Photo Gallery
450: Home
451: Member Screenshots
452: Community Forums
453: Community Forums
454: Downloads
455: Downloads
456: Home
457: Community Forums
458: Community Forums
459: Community Forums
460: Home
461: Photo Gallery
462: Home
463: Photo Gallery
464: Community Forums
465: Community Forums
466: Community Forums
467: Community Forums
468: CPGlang
469: Home
470: Community Forums
471: Photo Gallery
472: Community Forums
473: Community Forums
474: Community Forums
475: Photo Gallery
476: Community Forums
477: Community Forums
478: Community Forums
479: Community Forums
480: Home
481: Community Forums
482: Community Forums
483: Home
484: Community Forums
485: Home
486: Home
487: Community Forums
488: Home
489: Photo Gallery
490: Community Forums
491: Photo Gallery
492: Community Forums
493: Community Forums
494: CPGlang
495: Community Forums
496: Community Forums
497: Community Forums
498: Community Forums
499: Community Forums
500: Downloads
501: Community Forums
502: Community Forums
503: Community Forums
504: Community Forums
505: Community Forums
506: Member Screenshots
507: Community Forums
508: Community Forums
509: Community Forums
510: Community Forums
511: Community Forums
512: Community Forums
513: Downloads
514: Community Forums
515: Community Forums
516: Community Forums
517: Photo Gallery
518: Community Forums
519: Photo Gallery
520: Photo Gallery
521: Photo Gallery
522: Photo Gallery
523: Member Screenshots
524: Community Forums
525: Community Forums
526: Community Forums
527: Photo Gallery
528: Photo Gallery
529: Photo Gallery
530: Photo Gallery
531: Community Forums
532: Community Forums
533: Home
534: Community Forums
535: Community Forums
536: Downloads
537: Home
538: Community Forums
539: Community Forums
540: Photo Gallery
541: Community Forums
542: CPGlang
543: CPGlang
544: Community Forums
545: Home
546: Community Forums
547: Community Forums
548: Home
549: Community Forums
550: Community Forums
551: CPGlang
552: Community Forums
553: Community Forums
554: Photo Gallery
555: Community Forums
556: Home
557: Home
558: Community Forums
559: News
560: Community Forums
561: Photo Gallery
562: Photo Gallery
563: Community Forums
564: Photo Gallery
565: Your Account
566: Community Forums
567: Community Forums
568: Community Forums
569: Photo Gallery
570: Community Forums
571: Home
572: Community Forums
573: Community Forums
574: Home
575: Community Forums
576: Community Forums
577: Community Forums
578: Community Forums
579: Home
580: Photo Gallery
581: Community Forums
582: Community Forums
583: Community Forums
584: Photo Gallery
585: Community Forums
586: Community Forums
587: Home
588: Downloads
589: Community Forums
590: Photo Gallery
591: Community Forums
592: Community Forums
593: Photo Gallery
594: CPGlang
595: Community Forums
596: Downloads
597: Community Forums
598: Photo Gallery
599: Community Forums
600: Home
601: Home
602: CPGlang
603: Community Forums
604: Community Forums
605: Community Forums
606: Photo Gallery
607: Home
608: Home
609: Photo Gallery
610: Community Forums
611: Photo Gallery
612: Community Forums
613: Downloads
614: Contact
615: Home
616: Home
617: Community Forums
618: Community Forums
619: CPGlang
620: Home
621: Community Forums
622: CPGlang
623: Community Forums
624: Your Account
625: Community Forums
626: Photo Gallery
627: Home
628: Community Forums
629: CPGlang
630: Member Screenshots
631: Community Forums
632: CPGlang
633: Photo Gallery
634: Home
635: Photo Gallery
636: Community Forums
637: Community Forums
638: Community Forums
639: Community Forums
640: Community Forums
641: Community Forums
642: Downloads
643: Home
644: Community Forums
645: Community Forums
646: Community Forums
647: Photo Gallery
648: Community Forums
649: Home
650: Community Forums
651: Community Forums
652: Community Forums
653: Community Forums
654: Downloads
655: Photo Gallery
656: Downloads
657: Community Forums
658: Home
659: Photo Gallery
660: Photo Gallery
661: Community Forums
662: Downloads
663: Member Screenshots
664: Photo Gallery
665: Community Forums
666: Community Forums
667: Community Forums
668: Community Forums
669: Community Forums
670: Photo Gallery
671: Community Forums
672: Community Forums
673: Member Screenshots
674: Photo Gallery
675: Home
676: Community Forums
677: Member Screenshots
678: Community Forums
679: CPGlang
680: Community Forums
681: CPGlang
682: CPGlang
683: CPGlang
684: CPGlang
685: Community Forums
686: Community Forums
687: Community Forums
688: Community Forums
689: Community Forums
690: Home
691: CPGlang
692: Downloads
693: Photo Gallery
694: Community Forums
695: Community Forums
696: Member Screenshots
697: Community Forums
698: Photo Gallery
699: CPGlang
700: Community Forums
701: Community Forums
702: Community Forums
703: Community Forums
704: Community Forums
705: Photo Gallery
706: Community Forums
707: Your Account
708: Community Forums
709: Statistics
710: Photo Gallery
711: CPGlang
712: Community Forums
713: Community Forums
714: Photo Gallery
715: Community Forums
716: Community Forums
717: Community Forums
718: Community Forums
719: Community Forums
720: Community Forums
721: Community Forums
722: Downloads
723: Community Forums
724: Community Forums
725: News Archive
726: Community Forums
727: Community Forums
728: Community Forums
729: Community Forums
730: Photo Gallery
731: CPGlang
732: Community Forums
733: Home
734: Community Forums
735: Photo Gallery
736: Photo Gallery
737: Community Forums
738: Tell a Friend
739: Photo Gallery
740: Community Forums
741: Community Forums
742: Community Forums
743: Community Forums
744: Community Forums
745: Photo Gallery
746: Community Forums
747: Community Forums
748: Community Forums
749: Community Forums
750: Community Forums
751: Community Forums
752: Home
753: Community Forums
754: Community Forums
755: Photo Gallery
756: Community Forums
757: Community Forums
758: Photo Gallery
759: Photo Gallery
760: Community Forums
761: Photo Gallery
762: Community Forums
763: Community Forums
764: Community Forums
765: CPGlang
766: Photo Gallery
767: Community Forums
768: Photo Gallery
769: Community Forums
770: Home
771: Community Forums
772: Home
773: Community Forums
774: CPGlang
775: Community Forums
776: Photo Gallery
777: Community Forums
778: CPGlang
779: Photo Gallery
780: Community Forums
781: Community Forums
782: Home
783: Home
784: CPGlang
785: Community Forums
786: Photo Gallery
787: Community Forums
788: Community Forums
789: 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