Jump to content

Sloped armour on the slope - will it reduce penetrations?


Recommended Posts

Guest Mikeman

Actually, if the enemy is to your front and you are going down a hillside your front armor thickness is effectively decreased. Enemy fire would hit your sloped front armor at a more effective angle. You are also exposing the much thinner armor on the top of your turret to fire. If you are facing uphill with the enemy to the front and shooting at you then you are close to a very desirable hull down position. When you've passed the hull down position you are risking exposing your thin underbelly to fire and in general presenting a nice target against the background sky. If you were coming over a 15 degree rise and got nailed on your front armor the 15 degree tilt would indeed help, but that thin underbelly is probably just as likely to be hit. Best to stop when you're hull down if you're taking AP fire I would think. The game models all this stuff and much, much more. The whole armor penetration, ballistics thing is absolutely amazing in this game. There's plenty of threads on it, but you'll have to dig a little.

Mikeman out.

[This message has been edited by Mikeman (edited 12-27-99).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Killmore,

The quick answer is that, yes, being hull-down and on a slope will change the angle of impact of the shell on your front turret which then affects penetration.

Also the fact that a shell comes in slightly from the side plays into this etc etc etc.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL..

Ah wink.gif. Well, I guess it has got to be the ultra-long answer then wink.gif.

BTW what you said in your above post was all right, except for the fact CM doesn't model underbelly armour. That's not a biggie though wink.gif

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mikeman

What?! No underbelly taken into account?! I guess I gotta go back to CC4 for my realism then. smile.gif Actually, now that you mention it, I do recall a thread where that was brought out. Mowing down bocage with tanks and exposing the underbelly was the context of it I believe. Maybe it was climbing stone walls.

Mikeman out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it involved people asking if the underbelly would be exposed if a tank cleared stone walls.

I then countered with the vertical step performance of some of the tanks being so low that underbelly exposure would be virtually zero.

Then Simonfox got involved by saying that passage through bocage would have exposed underbellies for a fraction of a second but a lot of people disagreed with him as to his interpretation of bocage and how realistic it is for a tank to "charge" a ramp so as to leap into the air as it clears the bocage.

All in all, no it won't be in wink.gif.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Knaust,

Most likely hitting the Back and Forward buttons in your browser. That will definately do it to you every time!

Howard, I have *no* idea about how good/bad the Sweedish "S" tank is, but I certainly would LOVE to own one! I think it is the COOLEST tank ever made smile.gif Yes, I think it is even cooler than German WWII armor. Just looks so dang lethal!

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, the S-Tank.. I think we Irish should have gotten some second-hand from the Swedes. They are being withdrawn, if I recall, in favour of the Leopard 2s.

Whilst most would call it a tank destroyer, I seem to recall that there was some reason that it ended up qualifying as a tank. An excellent design if you ask me though, even for something 30+ years old. 60 degree or better sloped armor, defensive strakes at the very front to detonate ATGMs before it hits the main face, an <extremely> low silhouette.. Bearing in mind that the vehicle is tiny, weighs in at over 40 tons and has not turret or turret mechanisms to bother with, you can imagine that the armor is thick. Some claim it is the best-protected tank in the world, including Abrams. (I would put my money on Challenger 2 though) And it can be driven and fought by a single man if required. It is also quite nimble.

Downsides... The main one has to be the 105mm gun. It just lacks the modern hitting power required to deal with later T-72s and on that a 120mm gun has. And, of course, fire-on-the-move is an impossibility.

DWH

Manic Moran

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Downsides... The main one has to be the 105mm gun. It just lacks the modern hitting power required to deal with later T-72s and on that a 120mm gun has. And, of course, fire-on-the-move is an impossibility.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC this is the reason the Swedish army turned in their S-tanks and (can you believe it!) Centurions about 5 yrs ago. Now we use Leo 2 Imps (the LeClerc broke down in the cold weather smile.gif, and the Abrams were too expensive).

Cormand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input Trooper. We've been using the Leo's for ages here in Norway too. I'm afraid I think the original Leo is getting a bit dated now but I've heard plans of buying new Leo2. Saw a homepage or a forum somewhere which argued with great convincibility why the Leo2 would be the best tank in the world. I don't know anything about that myself though. Anyone know enough of modern tanks to give us your opinions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...