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