Paul Lakowski Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 I wish to get this game since it comes highly rated but I have a few questions first. Whats the scale? Whats the scope? I'm most interested in armor technology and wonder how the armor values were estimated for this game. What level of protection is estimated for the Tiger 1 front turret [in mm]? What level of protection is estimated for the Tiger 2 glacis [in mm] ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul Lakowski: I wish to get this game since it comes highly rated but I have a few questions first. Whats the scale? Whats the scope? I'm most interested in armor technology and wonder how the armor values were estimated for this game. What level of protection is estimated for the Tiger 1 front turret [in mm]? What level of protection is estimated for the Tiger 2 glacis [in mm] ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Paul, long time since seen you . Scope is Westren Front,following D-day 1944 thru 1945, The armor figures below come from the game unit window, Fionn would be the 1 to talk to on how the modeling was done I'd think. Tiger 1 Turret front = 100/8^ Tiger II Upper hull = 150/50^ Regards, John Waters [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 07-29-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 This is a squad-level simulator, with typical forces between a company and a battalion. The armour values aren't estimated, they're modelled. When a tank is hit, you will be told exactly where it was hit. Everything is there - thickness, angle, shot traps, weak points, open tops, Jimmy taking a pee out of the MG port, etcetera. You want this game. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Weaver Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 Paul, having known you for several years, I can definitely say that this is your game. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 Download the demo! Download the demo! ------------------ It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 Also "Armour qualit" is a factor. Armour quality is a single factorial which is basically a "rolling together" of Brinell Hardness, metallurgical flaw frequency, face-hardening etc and is applied to the armour so, obviously a thick but low quality armour would be less resistant than an equivalent thickness high quality armour. Also, it is worth noting that all hit and penetration calculations are calculated in 3D so the effective thickness of the armour isn't just determined by the sine rule in a single dimension ( usually the vertical). It also is accounted for in the horizontal. Etc etc.. It's all as you'd expect really. Ricochets aren't calculated just on the basis of the armour's slope BUT are calculated on the basis of the incident angle of the aspect of the armour ( taking into account tilt due to ground surface). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Lakowski Posted July 30, 2000 Author Share Posted July 30, 2000 Its good to see John Waters again and thank I got that Email...good info as usual. To the thorny problem of tank armor.Over on the old Tankers Net one Robert Livingston taught us all about just how difficult it 'Really is to model' armor and penetration and I've got hundreds of engineering journals that bear him out . The problem is that as with all such 'proffesional Journals' the more you learn the more questions your left with. My main interest is modern armor tech but its allways been based on the WW-II model. One thing that Robert noted was the 'Free edge effect' this is the weakening off a plate's resistance as you approach a 'free edge'. The Tiger I mantle is a case in point, the actual thickness is 100-200mm on the mantle and 100mm on the turret front. At the very edge of the mantle this is 200mm RHA [ Jentz reports 265-285BHN] plus the main 100mm front turret armor. As you move to the gun the mantle thins to 100mm plus the 100mm front turret and then [around the barrel ] it thicknes again to 200mm where there is no front turret armor behind. Was this modeled at all ? my estimates using modern Long rod penetration studies suggest the weakening of the plate could easly be 70% or less for the whole armor so the armor on the front armor of modern tanks is well over 100cm but is reduced to 85-95cm due to this 'free edge effect' and the actual armor tech involved in each tank design. The Tiger to glacis is a related problem . Robert reported the glacis was only 220 BHN and the MG ports present a 'free edge ' zone ,just as in the turret. So the glacis offers uneven resistance. Has this been modeled? Sorry to ramble:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 Ah, you're talking about the calibre effect are you? The effect where a shot which hits within 2 to 3 shell calibres of the edge of an armour plate often meets 50 to 70% less resistance than if it hit the centre of the armour plate? This would lead to the effect you're suggesting. BTW How's Robert doing these days. It's been a while since I've talked with him. We got together to discuss armour about the time PzC came out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul Lakowski: Its good to see John Waters again and thank I got that Email...good info as usual. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Same here Paul. NP hope it helps some. How is Robert, I have been gone a time, I was suprised Robert hasen't been here yet. Regards, John Waters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Lakowski Posted July 30, 2000 Author Share Posted July 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: Ah, you're talking about the calibre effect are you? The effect where a shot which hits within 2 to 3 shell calibres of the edge of an armour plate often meets 50 to 70% less resistance than if it hit the centre of the armour plate? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Correct, I'm doing an armor review of the American post war T-95 design and after you factor in T/d the only war to get the resistance reported by Hunnicutt is to include the Free edge effect as it effects APFSDS ammo. This suprised me as this effect still reduces armor at ratio's of 20:1 and more and explains why most tank armor is much thicker as you approach the gun embrassure. Looking at the reported vunerablity of the T-34 to 50L60 AP39 ammo ... this can be explained using the "Free edge effect". I noted that the Tiger -1 could be penetrated by 122mm AP ammo at 30° from 500 m range which is impossible if the armor is 200-300mm across the whole mantle. But if you include the Free edge effect and something for the spaced of mantle from main armor it does start to work out.....or so it seems. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This would lead to the effect you're suggesting. BTW How's Robert doing these days. It's been a while since I've talked with him. We got together to discuss armour about the time PzC came out<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> John & Fionn You know I talk to Steve Zaloga more than I talk to Robbert these days He's busy with a new job and house and only occasionally responds to any Emails . I expect he'll surface again sooon,David Honner was after us for pics of 'ductile hole growth and plugging ' etc hope Robert helped cause my stuff is all modern. But really what he needs to do is finish that darn book hes been trying to write for the last few years... then we'd all know alot more:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 Ah, the infamous book . I heard about that too . Still, if he ever does it I'll buy it. We had good fun shooting the breeze on armour way back when. Actually this discussion sparks something I've been toying with in my mind for a while. I'm going to speak generically of course with the usual caveats that details will vary depending on the tank types involved etc. Given that the number of armour plates utilised in a tank's construction is proportional to the squared area of its aspects shouldn't that mean that we are likely to see an over-representation of the edge effect ( since much more of the tank is within the 2 to 3 calibres of an edge of the armour) ? And, as such, isn't it true that it is theoretically BETTER to build a larger tank with medium-scale armour ( but with minimal edge effect) than a smaller tank with thicker armour ( say 20% smaller and 30% thicker armour all round) since the % of the overall ( 360 degree) armour which will be directly affectable by the edge effect will be drastically higher in the smaller tank and THUS ( since the edge effect basically negates armour protection if anything sizable hits) the smaller but thicker skinned tank is actually much more vulnerable than one would think AND much more vulnerable than games would aver. On a related note... Have you noticed how the vast majority of 75mm Sherman penetrations of Panthers and JagdPanthers occur at areas affected by the edge effect? I've seen very few central plate penetrations but have lost count of the number of penetrations within a calbire or two of the edge of the turret or hull. ( Free edge effect isn't accounted for in CM... partially because I couldn't get enough hard data to really make a case for it.. Paul, can I drop you an email to discuss this and get some exchange of info going?) Ps. Always nice to meet another armour fan . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Lakowski Posted July 30, 2000 Author Share Posted July 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: Ah, the infamous book . I heard about that too . Still, if he ever does it I'll buy it. We had good fun shooting the breeze on armour way back when. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually he was quite pessimistic about its chance's last time we spoke:-( <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Actually this discussion sparks something I've been toying with in my mind for a while. I'm going to speak generically of course with the usual caveats that details will vary depending on the tank types involved etc. Given that the number of armour plates utilised in a tank's construction is proportional to the squared area of its aspects shouldn't that mean that we are likely to see an over-representation of the edge effect ( since much more of the tank is within the 2 to 3 calibres of an edge of the armour) ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My understanding is this has to be a 'Free edge', if its supported by the side walls its not free .... to reflect the shock waves. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> On a related note... Have you noticed how the vast majority of 75mm Sherman penetrations of Panthers and JagdPanthers occur at areas affected by the edge effect? I've seen very few central plate penetrations but have lost count of the number of penetrations within a calbire or two of the edge of the turret or hull. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This might be the problem of weld strength as well as free edge....mantle hits and hits near the MG-ports. I know the RMZ has great article on Tiger 2 pounded to death on a test range and the cracking along the weld lines is obvious. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ( Free edge effect isn't accounted for in CM... partially because I couldn't get enough hard data to really make a case for it.. Paul, can I drop you an email to discuss this and get some exchange of info going?) Ps. Always nice to meet another armour fan .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Definately Email me , but again most of my stuff is modern [ there is always 12.7 AP shot test etc but most is APFSDS work]and I need WW-II to link it together. psl@interchange.ubc.ca BTW I did have an idea along the line of your 'idea' relating to the shrinking of the front of modern tank turrets , since ceramic steel targets seem to be much more effected by 'free edge'.But an engineer friend assures me that if its a well, welded box structure the shock waves should be transmitted and distributed around around the turret. I actually thought that the Tiger -2 front turret was the best as it limited the free edge effect to a small area.Since most of the front turret profile is the side turret armor at very sharp angle.But this goes against the previous point so I'm not sure if it applies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 Weld areas: It might be due to that of course but from looking at all the various pictures I've seen little evidence of weld area stress leading to the penetrations. In one case I even saw a 75mm shell which went in the right portion of a turret ( near the rear weld) and came out the rear of the turret. It just ripped a good metre of armour out on both entry and exit. As for the free edge.. Yes, I agree with that but I've always thought that the way the Germans applied their armour in plates gave a little leeway for this effect to be felt even away from free edges. Anyways, enough for now... I'll drop you an email later. " But an engineer friend assures me that if its a well, welded box structure the shock waves should be transmitted and distributed around around the turret." Ah but that was the problem wasn't it? The welding often left a lot to be desired ( not to mention the flakey frontal armour on Panther Gs ( terrible quality control there) ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THumpre Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 Wow, I consider myself a reasonably well-educated hominid but huge chucks of this topic went screaming over my head Facinating stuff though, If you don't mind a non-techie question- does "free edge" hits refer to hits that are on/in areas that are not contiguous, gun ports etc.? Oh, and thank you for one of the first posts in a while that didn't have someone accusing someone else of something ------------------ No matter where you go, there you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 Well, as you know armour is made in segments. Sometimes an entire hull or turret is cast but generally most WW2 tanks had the front, sides and rear of the turrets and hulls made separately and then welded together. At the junctures of these areas we have what is termed a "free edge". Basically it has been found that if a shell hits within about 3 calibres of a free edge that it can penetrate three times as far as it otherwise would ( well, really the armour presents only about 30% of the resistance so the penetration of the shell isn't changed but the resistance of the armour is... OTOH it is easier to understand if I just reference everything to the performance of the shell and ask that people just understand I'm not being 100% accurate but just trying to get the basics across). Anyways,. what this basically means is that if you hit the centre of a Panther's mantlet with a 76 at 300 metres it'll bounce right off or fail to penetrate BUT if you hit within 20 or 30 cm of the edge of the mantlet ( either top, bottom or side edges) then the shell will actually penetrate through the armour as though the mantlet was only 1/3rd as thick as it really is.. End result... WHERE you hit the target is vitally important. I've seen 75s go through both the side and rear of a Panther's turret and rip both the side and rear turret to pieces. Reason? A free edge hit IMO. Ps. 9 months ago we had discussions of this quality all the time. Things have certainly degraded since then ;( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 Oh BTW Thumpre, To answer your gun port question.. I think hits on vision slits and MG mounts etc would be covered under the "it hit a weak spot" statement. The free edge is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul Lakowski: John & Fionn You know I talk to Steve Zaloga more than I talk to Robbert these days He's busy with a new job and house and only occasionally responds to any Emails . I expect he'll surface again sooon,David Honner was after us for pics of 'ductile hole growth and plugging ' etc hope Robert helped cause my stuff is all modern. But really what he needs to do is finish that darn book hes been trying to write for the last few years... then we'd all know alot more:) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That reminds me I gotta get Steve my new addy etc. Well Paul with all that data Robert has I can see a 12 volume set Regards, John Waters [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 07-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: On a related note... Have you noticed how the vast majority of 75mm Sherman penetrations of Panthers and JagdPanthers occur at areas affected by the edge effect? I've seen very few central plate penetrations but have lost count of the number of penetrations within a calbire or two of the edge of the turret or hull. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good point Fionn, the Soviets found that the 85mm could only penetrate, the Panther's front turret by hitting the 'small flat areas' of the turret front. While a Soviet Study that led to the IS-2 showed that over 60% of their KO'd tanks had been lost to 'front turret' penetrations. On the vulnerability of the T-34-76 to the 5 cm PAK, it wasn't just the T-34 the KV-1 was also vulnerable theirs an book/article that has an part on this and IIRC The Soviet's reported that the KV-1 could no longer roam with impunity near German lines as had become SOP, in the Winter of 41/42 due to the arrival of the new German 5 cm PAK, and its HVAP ammunition. Regards, John Waters [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 07-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THumpre Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 Thanks, Fionn. That's what I thought. Interesting stuff I might add. As far as I can tell, be it Panther or Stuart, it is generally better not to let the "other guy" hit you at all ------------------ No matter where you go, there you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Lakowski Posted July 31, 2000 Author Share Posted July 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: Well, as you know armour is made in segments. Sometimes an entire hull or turret is cast but generally most WW2 tanks had the front, sides and rear of the turrets and hulls made separately and then welded together. At the junctures of these areas we have what is termed a "free edge". Basically it has been found that if a shell hits within about 3 calibres of a free edge that it can penetrate three times as far as it otherwise would ( well, really the armour presents only about 30% of the resistance so the penetration of the shell isn't changed but the resistance of the armour is... OTOH it is easier to understand if I just reference everything to the performance of the shell and ask that people just understand I'm not being 100% accurate but just trying to get the basics across). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK I think we have a different view here.This may be due to the difference between AP & APFSDS. In the APFSDS studies the ratio is Td/Pd [Target diameter over projectile diameter]. The effective resistance VS Semi infinite blocks of Rc 27 [type 4340 steel] is [off the top of my head] <PRE> 1:1--2:1--4:1---8:1---16:1---32:1 0.6--0.65-0.7---0.88---0.95---0.99 For Cermic+RHA target the figures are 0.3--0.5--0.6 --0.7---0.85---0.95** { distance from gun in Meters } threat is 105/120 APDS 1:1--2:1--4:1---8:1---16:1---32:1 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.6-2 threat is 1st Gen APFSDS 0.04 0.07 0.14 0.3 0.55 1.1 threat is 2nd Gen APFSDS 0.025 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 ** Int.J.Impact Engng Vol-17,pp 615-626 </PRE> In any event I had to estimate the armor values for modern tanks on the new Tank Sim "steel Beast" and with this modification and the info on ceramics and layered targets etc, I was able to get pretty close to the published values. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Anyways,. what this basically means is that if you hit the centre of a Panther's mantlet with a 76 at 300 metres it'll bounce right off or fail to penetrate BUT if you hit within 20 or 30 cm of the edge of the mantlet ( either top, bottom or side edges) then the shell will actually penetrate through the armour as though the mantlet was only 1/3rd as thick as it really is.. (<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you include T/d this sounds close but the emphasis is that the mantle in each of these cases is 'unsupported' and thats why its 'free'. In theory the side turret welded to the front turret should have offered the support needed .But as you point out this was a problem with German tanks at first due to the'face hardened armor' which was difficult to weld any way. And in late model tanks due to the poor weldin. Do the Hetzers have 220 BHN steel in the game? How well does it do against 3 inch AP shells? This explains why every one after WW-II went in for cast turrets as this eliminated this problem altogether . Just the same thing happened with the 'MG ports' as these created a weakened zone for the hole glacis ...deminishing as you move away from the 'holes' or 'hatches'. In the modern case I know theres been work on welding that overcomes this and also allows duel hardness plates & ceramic layers to be included in the mix. John , When RObert and I discussed the KV-1 he pointed out the armor was 400 BHN cast and while it offered relative immunity to undermatching shells when struck by 75mm shell [ close to the plate thickness] , the brittle nature of these plates offered less resistance....by how much I can't tell.... But we have the case of the face hardened Panther Glacis penetrated by 122mm AP shots at 2km or more. Which on paper should not have happened.[RMZ source] Any one heard any more on this ? BTW will this 'free edge effect'ever get to CM update or patch? [This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 07-31-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul Lakowski: John , When RObert and I discussed the KV-1 he pointed out the armor was 400 BHN cast and while it offered relative immunity to undermatching shells when struck by 75mm shell [ close to the plate thickness] , the brittle nature of these plates offered less resistance....by how much I can't tell.... But we have the case of the face hardened Panther Glacis penetrated by 122mm AP shots at 2km or more. Which on paper should not have happened.[RMZ source] Any one heard any more on this ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Russians reported that in a live fire with the 122mm gun at Kublinka, that the AP-T round penetrated the Panther A Glacis and exited thru the engine. My problem with this has been their are cases where the 122mm failed vs the Panther glacis in combat, at lower ranges. Russian armor at 400 - 500BHN was very brittle it was very vulnerable to the German long 75mm guns. Below is the BHN data for the T-34-76 Model 1942 from the British report on the T-34-76 42: Glacis - 354 - 400 Pannier side plate (nearside) - 388 - 434 "" " " (offside) - 387 - 398 Upper tail plate (outside) - 400 - 410 " " " (inside) - 389 - 406 Engine cover plate (cast) - 405 - 407 Turret escape hatch (pressing) - 390 Encasement for buffer and recuperator - 416 Gun mantlet - 407 The Sherman actualy had better armor vs overmatching then the T-34 or KV1 due to better materials in construction of the armor Ie, Russian armor tended to crack & break up under repeated hits, while US armor held together vs same calibre penetrations. German armor at 300BHN was about 10% more resistant vs overmatching, then US & UK armor at 200 - 250BHN as well. Another aspect was the published penetration data we have, US & UK results were vs 225BHN plate, and the Russian data was vs 400BHN plate, German tests were vs 300BHN plate. Against German plate at 300BHN results would be lower penetration data, which explains why 90mm APCBC etc, often failed to penetrate the Panther or Tiger 1 even at 500yrds.While German data would be higher vs 225 - 250BHN plate. Robert's data on this was IIRC was taken from the US Watertown Arsenals armor reports on the T-34 & KV1 tanks, I have both reports, that Jim sent me years ago, as well as the Tiger 1 report. I'd also reccomend Paul if you get an intertest in WW2 armor (hopeing you do), you see if Robert can send you all 3 Watertown Arsenal reports as well as the British poldi test reports on the T-34 (which are 10% higher then the US poldi tests)etc, that Robert has, they make very interesting reading. Also for anyone interested below is a list of some excelent refrences from Robert on Penetration, & German armor composition: PENETRATION OF ARMOUR PLATE by US ORDNANCE BOARD, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, March 1950. NTIS call number PB91-127506 GERMAN TANK ARMOR by the British Intelligence Objectives Sub-committee(BIOS) 1946. This is held in the Tank Museum Library at Bovington, England. EFFECTS OF IMPACT AND EXPLOSION, by the Office of Scientific Research and Development, et al, 1946. Available from the NTIS under call number AD 221 586. The NTIS has a report which is an index of all the reports from the DRC (National Defense Research Committee) which can be obtained under the call number AD-221610. Regards, John Waters [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 07-31-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Shaw Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 That's the reason I bought this game, because there were people like this out there who thought of these things so that I could get good answers to my three questions: 1. Did I hit him? 2. Did I pop him? 3. Did I kill him? Wow, I think my head hurts Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanW Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 Since this seems to be a relative gathering of experts, I'll toss my question out. Dredging up my school days, it was my understanding that BHN was a function of how the metal was quenched. Wouldn't the subsequent welding operations of the German tank designs result in the parent material being significantly softer, in an annealed condition, rather then the initial hardness from the as quenched condition? For the next ten days I'm still in my role as structural analyst, and these kind of discussions really float my boat. Dan W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Lakowski Posted August 1, 2000 Author Share Posted August 1, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: The Russians reported that in a live fire with the 122mm gun at Kublinka, that the AP-T round penetrated the Panther A Glacis and exited thru the engine. My problem with this has been their are cases where the 122mm failed vs the Panther glacis in combat, at lower ranges. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I might be able to help here , the Panthers tested at Kublinka were captured at Kursk and the first production run of Panthers featured 'Face hardened glacis' when later models featured 250-300BHN plate[?]. Thus when struck by overmatching 122mm AP shot they would shatter. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Russian armor at 400 - 500BHN was very brittle it was very vulnerable to the German long 75mm guns. Below is the BHN data for the T-34-76 Model 1942 from the British report on the T-34-76 42: Glacis - 354 - 400 Pannier side plate (nearside) - 388 - 434 "" " " (offside) - 387 - 398 Upper tail plate (outside) - 400 - 410 " " " (inside) - 389 - 406 Engine cover plate (cast) - 405 - 407 Turret escape hatch (pressing) - 390 Encasement for buffer and recuperator - 416 Gun mantlet - 407 The Sherman actualy had better armor vs overmatching then the T-34 or KV1 due to better materials in construction of the armor Ie, Russian armor tended to crack & break up under repeated hits, while US armor held together vs same calibre penetrations. German armor at 300BHN was about 10% more resistant vs overmatching, then US & UK armor at 200 - 250BHN as well. Another aspect was the published penetration data we have, US & UK results were vs 225BHN plate, and the Russian data was vs 400BHN plate, German tests were vs 300BHN plate. Against German plate at 300BHN results would be lower penetration data, which explains why 90mm APCBC etc, often failed to penetrate the Panther or Tiger 1 even at 500yrds.While German data would be higher vs 225 - 250BHN plate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again I might be able to help; Its been well know that WW-II ballistic Limit values for western tanks is based on the 50% mark. That means a projectile is marked a penetration value at the point when 50% of all projectiles fired completely penetrate the target plate. According to Valera Potapov on RMZ the standard Russian mark is 75% which means that if you reference them to the same mark [normalize] they get better penetration. Valera showed me some great data on the Russian WW-II guns at http://www.history.enjoy.ru/guns/defin_4.html <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I'd also reccomend Paul if you get an intertest in WW2 armor (hopeing you do), you see if Robert can send you all 3 Watertown Arsenal reports as well as the British poldi test reports on the T-34 (which are 10% higher then the US poldi tests)etc, that Robert has, they make very interesting reading. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I always was interested in WW-II BTW great data I can see you've not been idle, I always wondered what happened to you after you dropped off the 'Tankers Net' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted August 1, 2000 Share Posted August 1, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul Lakowski: Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts