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