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