±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: HighestAce
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6648

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 485
Total: 485
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Home
02: Community Forums
03: Community Forums
04: Community Forums
05: Community Forums
06: Home
07: Community Forums
08: Photo Gallery
09: Photo Gallery
10: Photo Gallery
11: Community Forums
12: Community Forums
13: Statistics
14: Home
15: Community Forums
16: Community Forums
17: Community Forums
18: Your Account
19: Community Forums
20: Home
21: Home
22: Community Forums
23: Downloads
24: Downloads
25: Community Forums
26: Downloads
27: Community Forums
28: Home
29: Photo Gallery
30: Home
31: Home
32: Community Forums
33: Member Screenshots
34: Community Forums
35: Community Forums
36: Community Forums
37: Community Forums
38: Community Forums
39: Photo Gallery
40: Home
41: Downloads
42: Community Forums
43: Downloads
44: Home
45: Community Forums
46: Community Forums
47: Home
48: Home
49: Community Forums
50: Photo Gallery
51: Community Forums
52: Home
53: Home
54: Community Forums
55: Downloads
56: Community Forums
57: Community Forums
58: Home
59: Home
60: Community Forums
61: Downloads
62: Downloads
63: Photo Gallery
64: Community Forums
65: Photo Gallery
66: Photo Gallery
67: Home
68: Community Forums
69: Member Screenshots
70: Home
71: Community Forums
72: Home
73: News
74: Photo Gallery
75: Community Forums
76: Downloads
77: Community Forums
78: Home
79: Photo Gallery
80: Community Forums
81: Community Forums
82: Home
83: Home
84: Community Forums
85: Photo Gallery
86: Community Forums
87: Downloads
88: Home
89: Photo Gallery
90: Downloads
91: Member Screenshots
92: News
93: Community Forums
94: Photo Gallery
95: Home
96: Photo Gallery
97: Downloads
98: Community Forums
99: Community Forums
100: Community Forums
101: Community Forums
102: Downloads
103: Community Forums
104: Home
105: Home
106: Photo Gallery
107: Photo Gallery
108: Community Forums
109: Community Forums
110: Photo Gallery
111: Downloads
112: Community Forums
113: Home
114: Home
115: Community Forums
116: Photo Gallery
117: Community Forums
118: Your Account
119: Community Forums
120: Community Forums
121: Home
122: Community Forums
123: Community Forums
124: Home
125: Community Forums
126: Community Forums
127: Community Forums
128: Community Forums
129: Home
130: Home
131: Photo Gallery
132: News Archive
133: Statistics
134: Community Forums
135: Community Forums
136: Photo Gallery
137: Home
138: Community Forums
139: Home
140: Member Screenshots
141: Photo Gallery
142: Downloads
143: Community Forums
144: Photo Gallery
145: Home
146: Photo Gallery
147: Community Forums
148: Photo Gallery
149: Community Forums
150: Home
151: Photo Gallery
152: Downloads
153: Community Forums
154: Home
155: Community Forums
156: Community Forums
157: Downloads
158: Photo Gallery
159: Community Forums
160: Home
161: Community Forums
162: Home
163: Home
164: Member Screenshots
165: Home
166: Statistics
167: Community Forums
168: Community Forums
169: Photo Gallery
170: Community Forums
171: Photo Gallery
172: Home
173: News Archive
174: Community Forums
175: Community Forums
176: Home
177: Home
178: Statistics
179: Home
180: Home
181: Community Forums
182: Photo Gallery
183: Community Forums
184: Community Forums
185: Home
186: News Archive
187: Community Forums
188: Community Forums
189: Community Forums
190: Downloads
191: Community Forums
192: Community Forums
193: Community Forums
194: Home
195: Community Forums
196: Community Forums
197: Community Forums
198: Photo Gallery
199: Photo Gallery
200: Community Forums
201: Home
202: Your Account
203: Home
204: Community Forums
205: Member Screenshots
206: Home
207: Downloads
208: Community Forums
209: Photo Gallery
210: News Archive
211: Photo Gallery
212: Community Forums
213: Community Forums
214: Home
215: Community Forums
216: Home
217: Community Forums
218: Home
219: Community Forums
220: Home
221: Downloads
222: Community Forums
223: Home
224: Community Forums
225: Community Forums
226: Community Forums
227: Home
228: Community Forums
229: Community Forums
230: Photo Gallery
231: Community Forums
232: Community Forums
233: Home
234: Community Forums
235: Home
236: Downloads
237: Home
238: Community Forums
239: Downloads
240: Community Forums
241: Community Forums
242: News Archive
243: Photo Gallery
244: Home
245: Member Screenshots
246: Home
247: News
248: Community Forums
249: Home
250: Community Forums
251: Community Forums
252: Community Forums
253: Community Forums
254: News Archive
255: Community Forums
256: Downloads
257: Member Screenshots
258: Community Forums
259: Community Forums
260: Community Forums
261: Home
262: Your Account
263: Community Forums
264: Home
265: Community Forums
266: Downloads
267: Community Forums
268: Home
269: News Archive
270: Downloads
271: Community Forums
272: Community Forums
273: Community Forums
274: Photo Gallery
275: Downloads
276: Home
277: Community Forums
278: Home
279: Community Forums
280: Downloads
281: Home
282: Community Forums
283: Photo Gallery
284: Downloads
285: Community Forums
286: Community Forums
287: Community Forums
288: News
289: Home
290: Member Screenshots
291: Photo Gallery
292: Community Forums
293: Photo Gallery
294: Home
295: Community Forums
296: News Archive
297: Community Forums
298: Downloads
299: Community Forums
300: Downloads
301: Downloads
302: Home
303: Home
304: Photo Gallery
305: Community Forums
306: Community Forums
307: Community Forums
308: Downloads
309: Community Forums
310: Community Forums
311: News
312: Community Forums
313: Home
314: Community Forums
315: Community Forums
316: Home
317: Downloads
318: Community Forums
319: Photo Gallery
320: Member Screenshots
321: Community Forums
322: Community Forums
323: Community Forums
324: Community Forums
325: Community Forums
326: Home
327: Home
328: Community Forums
329: Home
330: Home
331: Community Forums
332: Photo Gallery
333: Community Forums
334: Home
335: Member Screenshots
336: Community Forums
337: Community Forums
338: Home
339: Home
340: Downloads
341: Community Forums
342: Community Forums
343: Community Forums
344: Home
345: Member Screenshots
346: Home
347: Home
348: Community Forums
349: Home
350: Photo Gallery
351: Community Forums
352: Photo Gallery
353: Home
354: Downloads
355: Community Forums
356: Photo Gallery
357: Community Forums
358: Community Forums
359: Home
360: Home
361: Community Forums
362: Downloads
363: Home
364: Community Forums
365: Community Forums
366: Community Forums
367: Community Forums
368: Home
369: Community Forums
370: Home
371: Home
372: Home
373: Photo Gallery
374: Home
375: Photo Gallery
376: Home
377: Community Forums
378: Photo Gallery
379: News Archive
380: Community Forums
381: Home
382: Community Forums
383: Community Forums
384: Community Forums
385: Community Forums
386: Member Screenshots
387: Home
388: Downloads
389: Photo Gallery
390: Home
391: Community Forums
392: Downloads
393: Home
394: Photo Gallery
395: Statistics
396: Home
397: Photo Gallery
398: Community Forums
399: Community Forums
400: Photo Gallery
401: Community Forums
402: Downloads
403: Home
404: Community Forums
405: Photo Gallery
406: Home
407: Community Forums
408: Photo Gallery
409: Home
410: Member Screenshots
411: Home
412: Your Account
413: Home
414: Community Forums
415: Community Forums
416: Photo Gallery
417: Photo Gallery
418: Community Forums
419: Community Forums
420: Member Screenshots
421: Home
422: Community Forums
423: Home
424: Photo Gallery
425: Home
426: Photo Gallery
427: Home
428: Community Forums
429: Member Screenshots
430: Community Forums
431: Community Forums
432: Community Forums
433: News Archive
434: News Archive
435: Home
436: Photo Gallery
437: Home
438: Home
439: Photo Gallery
440: Home
441: Community Forums
442: Home
443: Member Screenshots
444: Photo Gallery
445: Community Forums
446: Home
447: Photo Gallery
448: Community Forums
449: Community Forums
450: Community Forums
451: Photo Gallery
452: Member Screenshots
453: Community Forums
454: Home
455: Photo Gallery
456: Community Forums
457: Community Forums
458: Home
459: Member Screenshots
460: Community Forums
461: Home
462: Photo Gallery
463: Home
464: Community Forums
465: Home
466: Photo Gallery
467: Community Forums
468: Member Screenshots
469: Community Forums
470: Home
471: Community Forums
472: Home
473: Community Forums
474: Community Forums
475: Home
476: Community Forums
477: Community Forums
478: Home
479: Home
480: Member Screenshots
481: Photo Gallery
482: Community Forums
483: Community Forums
484: Home
485: 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: 2067
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