±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: 430
Total: 430
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Downloads
02: Community Forums
03: Photo Gallery
04: Community Forums
05: Community Forums
06: Community Forums
07: Downloads
08: Photo Gallery
09: Community Forums
10: Photo Gallery
11: Community Forums
12: Your Account
13: Home
14: Community Forums
15: Community Forums
16: Community Forums
17: Community Forums
18: Home
19: Community Forums
20: Community Forums
21: Community Forums
22: Your Account
23: Home
24: News
25: Photo Gallery
26: Photo Gallery
27: Community Forums
28: Home
29: Photo Gallery
30: Community Forums
31: Downloads
32: Community Forums
33: Community Forums
34: Community Forums
35: Community Forums
36: Community Forums
37: Community Forums
38: Community Forums
39: Home
40: Community Forums
41: Community Forums
42: Photo Gallery
43: Photo Gallery
44: Community Forums
45: Home
46: Community Forums
47: Statistics
48: Home
49: Home
50: Photo Gallery
51: Photo Gallery
52: Community Forums
53: Community Forums
54: Photo Gallery
55: Community Forums
56: Member Screenshots
57: Community Forums
58: Community Forums
59: Photo Gallery
60: Community Forums
61: Community Forums
62: Member Screenshots
63: Community Forums
64: Photo Gallery
65: Community Forums
66: News Archive
67: Photo Gallery
68: Photo Gallery
69: Community Forums
70: Photo Gallery
71: Community Forums
72: Home
73: Photo Gallery
74: Home
75: Community Forums
76: Community Forums
77: Community Forums
78: Your Account
79: Community Forums
80: Community Forums
81: Downloads
82: Community Forums
83: Photo Gallery
84: Community Forums
85: Community Forums
86: Community Forums
87: Community Forums
88: Community Forums
89: Community Forums
90: Photo Gallery
91: Your Account
92: Community Forums
93: Community Forums
94: Community Forums
95: Community Forums
96: Statistics
97: Community Forums
98: Home
99: Photo Gallery
100: Community Forums
101: Photo Gallery
102: Community Forums
103: Community Forums
104: Community Forums
105: Community Forums
106: Community Forums
107: Photo Gallery
108: Community Forums
109: Photo Gallery
110: Community Forums
111: Community Forums
112: News Archive
113: News
114: Community Forums
115: Community Forums
116: Photo Gallery
117: Community Forums
118: Community Forums
119: Community Forums
120: Community Forums
121: Photo Gallery
122: Downloads
123: Member Screenshots
124: Community Forums
125: Community Forums
126: Community Forums
127: Photo Gallery
128: Community Forums
129: Community Forums
130: Community Forums
131: Downloads
132: Home
133: Your Account
134: Home
135: Community Forums
136: Community Forums
137: Photo Gallery
138: Home
139: Statistics
140: Community Forums
141: Home
142: Community Forums
143: Community Forums
144: Photo Gallery
145: Home
146: Community Forums
147: Photo Gallery
148: Community Forums
149: Home
150: Photo Gallery
151: Home
152: Community Forums
153: Home
154: Photo Gallery
155: Community Forums
156: Community Forums
157: Photo Gallery
158: Photo Gallery
159: Community Forums
160: Photo Gallery
161: Community Forums
162: Downloads
163: Community Forums
164: Photo Gallery
165: Community Forums
166: Community Forums
167: Member Screenshots
168: Community Forums
169: Home
170: Community Forums
171: Community Forums
172: Photo Gallery
173: Community Forums
174: Home
175: Community Forums
176: Photo Gallery
177: Photo Gallery
178: Community Forums
179: Community Forums
180: Home
181: News
182: Community Forums
183: Home
184: Community Forums
185: Community Forums
186: Photo Gallery
187: Community Forums
188: Community Forums
189: Home
190: Community Forums
191: Community Forums
192: Community Forums
193: Your Account
194: Community Forums
195: Community Forums
196: Community Forums
197: Community Forums
198: Home
199: Community Forums
200: Photo Gallery
201: Community Forums
202: Photo Gallery
203: Community Forums
204: Community Forums
205: Community Forums
206: Community Forums
207: Community Forums
208: Photo Gallery
209: Photo Gallery
210: Community Forums
211: Community Forums
212: Photo Gallery
213: Community Forums
214: Community Forums
215: Photo Gallery
216: Photo Gallery
217: Home
218: Community Forums
219: Community Forums
220: Photo Gallery
221: Community Forums
222: Downloads
223: Community Forums
224: Community Forums
225: Community Forums
226: Home
227: Community Forums
228: CPGlang
229: Community Forums
230: Home
231: Community Forums
232: Community Forums
233: Photo Gallery
234: Community Forums
235: Community Forums
236: Community Forums
237: Community Forums
238: Community Forums
239: Community Forums
240: Home
241: Community Forums
242: Community Forums
243: Community Forums
244: Downloads
245: Community Forums
246: Community Forums
247: Home
248: Community Forums
249: Community Forums
250: Photo Gallery
251: Community Forums
252: Your Account
253: Community Forums
254: Community Forums
255: Community Forums
256: Community Forums
257: Your Account
258: Community Forums
259: Community Forums
260: Community Forums
261: Community Forums
262: Photo Gallery
263: Community Forums
264: Home
265: Community Forums
266: Photo Gallery
267: Community Forums
268: Your Account
269: Community Forums
270: Home
271: Community Forums
272: Photo Gallery
273: Community Forums
274: Downloads
275: Member Screenshots
276: Photo Gallery
277: Community Forums
278: Community Forums
279: Community Forums
280: Downloads
281: Photo Gallery
282: Community Forums
283: Community Forums
284: Downloads
285: Home
286: Community Forums
287: Photo Gallery
288: Downloads
289: Community Forums
290: Community Forums
291: Community Forums
292: Photo Gallery
293: Community Forums
294: Home
295: Community Forums
296: Photo Gallery
297: Photo Gallery
298: Downloads
299: Photo Gallery
300: Community Forums
301: Community Forums
302: Treasury
303: Community Forums
304: Photo Gallery
305: Community Forums
306: Member Screenshots
307: Community Forums
308: Community Forums
309: Community Forums
310: Community Forums
311: Community Forums
312: Photo Gallery
313: Home
314: Home
315: Community Forums
316: Community Forums
317: Community Forums
318: Home
319: Community Forums
320: Community Forums
321: Community Forums
322: Community Forums
323: Community Forums
324: Community Forums
325: Your Account
326: Community Forums
327: Community Forums
328: Photo Gallery
329: Community Forums
330: Community Forums
331: Photo Gallery
332: Home
333: Downloads
334: Community Forums
335: Home
336: Community Forums
337: Community Forums
338: Photo Gallery
339: Community Forums
340: Community Forums
341: Photo Gallery
342: Photo Gallery
343: Community Forums
344: Photo Gallery
345: Photo Gallery
346: Home
347: Photo Gallery
348: News
349: Community Forums
350: Community Forums
351: Home
352: Your Account
353: Photo Gallery
354: Community Forums
355: Community Forums
356: Community Forums
357: Photo Gallery
358: Community Forums
359: Downloads
360: Community Forums
361: Community Forums
362: Home
363: Community Forums
364: Community Forums
365: Community Forums
366: Home
367: Community Forums
368: Community Forums
369: Home
370: Photo Gallery
371: Photo Gallery
372: Community Forums
373: Community Forums
374: Community Forums
375: Community Forums
376: Community Forums
377: Home
378: Community Forums
379: Community Forums
380: Community Forums
381: Photo Gallery
382: Community Forums
383: Community Forums
384: Community Forums
385: Community Forums
386: CPGlang
387: Community Forums
388: Community Forums
389: Home
390: Community Forums
391: Community Forums
392: Community Forums
393: News Archive
394: Photo Gallery
395: Community Forums
396: Community Forums
397: Community Forums
398: Community Forums
399: Community Forums
400: Downloads
401: Home
402: Home
403: Community Forums
404: Community Forums
405: Community Forums
406: Community Forums
407: Photo Gallery
408: Community Forums
409: Your Account
410: Community Forums
411: Community Forums
412: Community Forums
413: Community Forums
414: News
415: Community Forums
416: Member Screenshots
417: Community Forums
418: Community Forums
419: Community Forums
420: Community Forums
421: Photo Gallery
422: Community Forums
423: Community Forums
424: Community Forums
425: Community Forums
426: Community Forums
427: Downloads
428: Home
429: Photo Gallery
430: Photo Gallery

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