Denizen Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 Granted I am being nitpicky, but didn't every M4A2 have an upper hull front positioned at 47 degrees? Where did the 56 degree figure come from? Those 9 extra degrees are making the M4A2's upper hull front hader to penetrate than the T34's, which was not the case historicallly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offtaskagain Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 Originally posted by Denizen: Granted I am being nitpicky, but didn't every M4A2 have an upper hull front positioned at 47 degrees? Where did the 56 degree figure come from? Those 9 extra degrees are making the M4A2's upper hull front hader to penetrate than the T34's, which was not the case historicallly.The M4A2 has 51@56. The M4A2(76)W has 64@47. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiggDogg Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 Deni & Wefer, You guys have waaaaaay too much time on your hands. :eek: Cheers, Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 Grogs, scary huh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 There is also the question of the level of finish on the armor. As was demonstrated by the tests of the Reichs Institute für Emprobeling, armor with a smoother finish (measured in microns) had a greater tendency to riccochet shot fired at it at any range. There is also the question of the coefficient of friction of the paint used. These things do make a difference, you know. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pascal DI FOLCO Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: There is also the question of the level of finish on the armor. As was demonstrated by the tests of the Reichs Institute für Emprobeling, armor with a smoother finish (measured in microns) had a greater tendency to riccochet shot fired at it at any range. There is also the question of the coefficient of friction of the paint used. These things do make a difference, you know. MichaelYes, as well as the amount of dirt or eventual polish applied by the crew... Dirt acted as additional reactive armor, with dried mud stopping even bazooka rounds if there was more than 30 mm of it. OTOH polished clean armor encouraged ricochets, the shells couldn't "cling" on such smooth surface (as you do on a polished floor...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 Good point about the mud, but I have to quibble on the wax issue. I think it would all depend on the hardness of the wax. A soft wax, like beeswax, actually increases the "grip" of the armor plate upon the projectile making penetration more likely. However, a hard finish, such as a good lacquer, would as you suggest increase the tendency of the shot to "skip". As you might suppose, during the final months of the war, the importation of good lacquer ingredients became impossible for the Germans, forcing them to fall back on ersatz replacements such as beeswax. No doubt this contributed significantly to the increase of tank kills recorded by Allied tankers and led to the ultimate downfall of the Third Reich. "For want of a nail...etc." Michael "Show 'em no mercy" Emrys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fly Pusher Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 I had read that the forced workers in the tank factories sometimes purposely pollished the frontal armor plates and glacis horizontally in order to create microscopic imperfections more likely to catch an AT round. Obviously this was very dangerous for them as the pollishing over-seers were quite brutal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSword Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 So when will we see the first foam/soap equipped AVF ? You enter a battle and the first thing you do is hit the "SOAP" Button, then out of well placed vents a very slippery soap/water mix is spewed all over the tank. The enemy will be perplex as all his Uranium Hypervelo rounds will only produce some huge Soap bubbles emerging from the target...frustrating ! After Battle hit the "DRIER" Button and your tank is ready for the victory parade and the Rave afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 I don't think you'd want to do that as the soap bubbles would refract too much light and mess up your camouflage scheme. Better to have a thin film of oil emerge and cover your armor. After the battle, a little solvent could come out the same pores to flush the oil away so that you wouldn't sllip getting in and out. All this stuff would of course have a detrimental environmental impact, but wars are hell on the environment anyway. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Manuel Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 Originally posted by TSword: So when will we see the first foam/soap equipped AVF ? You enter a battle and the first thing you do is hit the "SOAP" Button, then out of well placed vents a very slippery soap/water mix is spewed all over the tank. After Battle hit the "DRIER" Button and your tank is ready for the victory parade and the Rave afterwards. Is that the Ibiza tank?! Rave On... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts