What means 'Rounded'?

[Scipio]

Several tanks show in some cases instead of an armor slope 'rounded'. What does it mean? Which effect has it? Why isn't it in the manual?

[Mud]

I don't yet have CMBB, but I'd figure that it means that the armor presents a curved surface (like... hm, a Panther G gun mantlet?) rather than a single flat plate. Hence, it's more complicated than having just a single angle for that facing.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Mud:

I don't yet have CMBB, but I'd figure that it means that the armor presents a curved surface (like... hm, a Panther G gun mantlet?) rather than a single flat plate. Hence, it's more complicated than having just a single angle for that facing.

Ehm...yes, but what effect has it?

[Dowarisch]

Taken from the M1 Tank Platoon manual

Sloped & Rounded Armor: Since the famous T-34 (first produced in 1941) tanks have used sloped armor to increase the effective thickness of their armor, not to mention encouraging ricochets. One of the first remedies for HEAT warheads was to further change the shape of armor plate. Instead of using flat plates, during the 1950s new tank hulls and turrets were cast in rounded shapes. Rounded armor increased the chance of rounds bouncing off, or at the least causing the HEAT gas jet to strike the armor at an angle, so the jet would bleed off into the open air, rather than burning through the armor. Of course, a dead-on HEAT hit remained fatal.

[Moon]

In a nutshell: it means that even a tiny difference in impact angle can the difference between penetration or ricochet for example.

[Scipio]

So, is 'Rounded' an advantage or not? It was maybe only an accident this time, but I have noticed in a battle that my T-34 die like flies when they get frontal turret hits, and then bounced of three hits on the weaker armored turret side .

[Snarker]

Rounded armor is an advantage. Draw a circle. Then draw a series of parallel lines so they hit the circle. These line represent in coming shells. Only one line can actually hit the circle "square on". That line is the diameter of the circle if you continued it through to the other side. All the other lines hitting the circle are in effect hitting sloped armor of varying angles.

[Sergei]

But, doesn't a round surface also mean that it is possible to draw a perpendicular line from any direction, while with a straight surface you can achieve that just from one angle?

[AnonymousOxide]

I'm confused. All I can picture right now is the early Panther front turret "swivel". It is curved perfectly at half a circle (look at it from the side), but it's not an advantage because it creates a 50/50 change for a round to either fling off into the sky, or fling right into the top hull below the swivel. It's a shot trap.

And I really don't have a clue what you just described Snarker... seriously.

[AnonymousOxide]

Originally posted by Snarker:

Rounded armor is an advantage. Draw a circle. Then draw a series of parallel lines so they hit the circle. These line represent in coming shells. Only one line can actually hit the circle "square on". That line is the diameter of the circle if you continued it through to the other side. All the other lines hitting the circle are in effect hitting sloped armor of varying angles.

Oh wait, yeah I see, I knew that. You made it really complicated though.

[AnonymousOxide]

Since the topic is armor, I got some questions: What is "plus" armor? (example: One of the Panzer IV's has 50+30 armor on its front upper-hull) Does that represent face-hardened armor? :confused: And if not, how do I know what tanks are face-hardened, and which ones are standard?

[Lindan]

Originally posted by AnonymousOxide:

Since the topic is armor, I got some questions: What is "plus" armor? (example: One of the Panzer IV's has 50+30 armor on its front upper-hull) Does that represent face-hardened armor? :confused: And if not, how do I know what tanks are face-hardened, and which ones are standard?

It means "50mm armor plate + 30mm bolted/glued/taped/whatever to it". (50+30=80) special significance when both plates are face-hardened. (50+30 effectively >= 80mm in some circumstances)

For more details ask Rexford...

[Tanaka]

Decided to dig this one up, to give it a 2nd shot...

Originally posted by Dowarisch:

Taken from the M1 Tank Platoon manual

... One of the first remedies for HEAT warheads was to further change the shape of armor plate. Instead of using flat plates, during the 1950s new tank hulls and turrets were cast in rounded shapes. Rounded armor increased the chance of rounds bouncing off, or at the least causing the HEAT gas jet to strike the armor at an angle, so the jet would bleed off into the open air, rather than burning through the armor. Of course, a dead-on HEAT hit remained fatal.

Ok, this I can easily understand has an improvement, but…

Originally posted by AnonymousOxide:

[QB]...All I can picture right now is the early Panther front turret "swivel". It is curved perfectly at half a circle (look at it from the side), but it's not an advantage because it creates a 50/50 change for a round to either fling off into the sky, or fling right into the top hull below the swivel. It's a shot trap...

Because of this, regarding kinetic energy projectiles, I can’t see it has an overall improvement… unless we are talking about including battlefield weapon changes in the 50’s (a bigger predominance of C charges danger) and metal armor improvement.

Also I notice that if the tank has its turret not aligned with the hull (more then 30º) the shots would not be deflected to the top armour, but to the side armor or the ground.

Has I see it, it’s all about engagement doctrines (non head on combat, 30º “going by”) and probabilities… for sure not an “easy cut”.

Originally posted by Moon:

In a nutshell: it means that even a tiny difference in impact angle can the difference between penetration or ricochet for example.

Ok, does CM take it “all” into account? If it does, I will be even more amazed with the details that you guys put into the game… and will open an all-new debate regarding tank battles in CM, specially regarding Panzer V doctrine

[Tarquelne]

For more details ask Rexford... [/QB]

Gosh, guys. This has all been covered before. Is there, like, some reason you can't hang out here all the time or obsessively search through past topics, or something?

FYI - Some of the info might be in the CMBO forum.

[Col Deadmarsh]

In a nutshell: it means that even a tiny difference in impact angle can the difference between penetration or ricochet

Is this against any charge? Or just shaped charges? I'm not sure what I'm saying but I think you get the point.

[PaulS]

you have excellent example in nature look ot the round shape of egg and try to squeeze it in your hand and compare used force with thickness of eggshell

[Nidan1]

The Early Panthers had a "rounded" gun mantlet which actually was a detriment because certain hits in that area were deflected "down" into the thinner armor of the top surfaces of the tank.

Russian tank design from the late '40s thru the '90s featured sloped armor on the base surfaces and a rounded "egg like" shaped turret. This design allowed for a lower sillouette for the tank, (a design feature for tanks operating in the plains of Europe) but proved woefully inadequate for the desert where most tank battles have taken place in the late 20th century. Because of the rounded shape of late model Soviet tanks, they could not "hull down" effectively in the open desert because the design restricted how far the main gun could be depressed.

As an example, take a look a the M1A1 tank, do you see any "rounded" armor?

The point I am trying to make is that the Sovs maintained a similar tank design throughout the 60s 70s 80s and 90s, base on lessens learned in Europe during WWII. IMHO they never learned from lessons in modern warefare in the middle east as their t-55s t-62s t-72s etc were turned into scrap metal.

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by PaulS:

you have excellent example in nature look ot the round shape of egg and try to squeeze it in your hand and compare used force with thickness of eggshell

And still you can easily penetrate the egg with a needle.

[Tanaka]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

The Early Panthers had a "rounded" gun mantlet which actually was a detriment because certain hits in that area were deflected "down" into the thinner armor of the top surfaces of the tank...

Yes, but in game all Panzer V have “curved” has slope… T-34, Panzer V, SU-85 and so on, I can easily see a “curved” gun mantlet, and has it occupies most of the front turret, I can also “see” a “curved” slope.

Now, for instances, on a JgPz 38t, the front gun mantlet takes at maximum 40% of the front upper hull structure, how can the slope be “curved”? This last “cuved” affects the JgPz 38t has much has it affects the Panzer V?

This is just an example why, in my view, there is a need to know precisely what implications, in game terms, “curved” has a slope means.

As it stands, a “curved” slope t34 front turret, means in practical terms a 0º slope turret, has at a first and simple approach there is a 50/50 chance of a “good” deflection or a “bad” deflection.

[Silvio Manuel]

sounds like one for BFC

[Renaud]

Tanaka,

This is why 'shot trap' is modeled for some vehicles such as the panther, in which the 'rounded' turret front creates a vulnerability. Not all panthers have a rounded mantlet. The later ones have a sloped mantlet to eliminate the shot trap. The T34 is different from the panther in that if a shot is deflected downward, it's not as likely to impact a top surface as you can see is the case with the panther (in game terms, the 'top' armor). With the T34, it looks like a downward directed turret front ricochet will bounce down onto the sloped upper hull front, or laterally off to the side. I don't know how if the engine actually does it this way, but this is what I gather from simply looking at the models and the armor ratings. If I remember correctly, the T35/85 has a 'shot trap' because it has a huge curved mantlet that extends way out over the hull front, creating more of a problem.

In short, it can be ascertained from looking at the models and putting 2-and-2 together, what 'rounded' means.

Ren

Er, I see you're saying there's both 'curved' and 'rounded' ratings, where curved is used by panther (iirc). The difference seems to be that 'rounded' describes the narrow teardrop shape of the T34 which would produce more harmless lateral or upward rather than downward ricochets I would think.

[ October 25, 2002, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

[Bruno Weiss]

...all this scientific hoodoo, the answer's simple. Rounded means it ain't square!

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

Russian tank design from the late '40s thru the '90s featured sloped armor on the base surfaces and a rounded "egg like" shaped turret. This design allowed for a lower sillouette for the tank, (a design feature for tanks operating in the plains of Europe) but proved woefully inadequate for the desert where most tank battles have taken place in the late 20th century. Because of the rounded shape of late model Soviet tanks, they could not "hull down" effectively in the open desert because the design restricted how far the main gun could be depressed.

As an example, take a look a the M1A1 tank, do you see any "rounded" armor?

I think you are confusing several things here. The Soviet post war tanks had rounded turrets because it was felt that was ballistically a better shape. They had lower silhouettes too, because they thought that would be a good idea also. But the two are not necessarily connected. They could have retained the rounded turret shape, but just raised the roof a few inches. This would have permitted greater gun depression and allowed greater flexibility in firing from hull-down positions. That they failed to do this proved to be a serious design fault.

The reason that the Abrams has no rounded armor is that when it was designed, the Chobham armor could not be manufactured economically if at all in such shapes.

Michael

[Doodlebug]

Read the thread title and thought Scipio was talking about my stomach. Read his comments and realised he meant tank armour. Read Moon's comments and realised I was probably right all along.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Nidan1:

Russian tank design from the late '40s thru the '90s featured sloped armor on the base surfaces and a rounded "egg like" shaped turret. This design allowed for a lower sillouette for the tank, (a design feature for tanks operating in the plains of Europe) but proved woefully inadequate for the desert where most tank battles have taken place in the late 20th century. Because of the rounded shape of late model Soviet tanks, they could not "hull down" effectively in the open desert because the design restricted how far the main gun could be depressed.

As an example, take a look a the M1A1 tank, do you see any "rounded" armor?

I think you are confusing several things here. The Soviet post war tanks had rounded turrets because it was felt that was ballistically a better shape. They had lower silhouettes too, because they thought that would be a good idea also. But the two are not necessarily connected. They could have retained the rounded turret shape, but just raised the roof a few inches. This would have permitted greater gun depression and allowed greater flexibility in firing from hull-down positions. That they failed to do this proved to be a serious design fault.

The reason that the Abrams has no rounded armor is that when it was designed, the Chobham armor could not be manufactured economically if at all in such shapes.

Michael</font>