What is the angle of the half sloped armour blocks? And their pointier equivalents?
I dont mean to standard cube or the 45° sloped version
As the title says, I've been playing around with protection analysis a bit and found out a few funky parts.
according to protection analysis, the t34 frontal glacis have 100mms of effective armour (same as tiger frontal armour!), the panther have 180 mms of fontal effective armour (compared to historical 130mm), and the IS3 and konigstiger have a ridiculous around THREE HUNDRED millimeters of effective frontal armour! some part of IS3 or KT even hit FIVE HUNDRED FOOKING MILIMETERS!
worst of all, its not even consistent with the old armour scheme viewer! according to that, panthers have the historical 130mm effective thickness of frontal glacis and Kms have about 220-230 effective frontal glacis.
can anyone tell me what's wrong? why is sloped armour so overpowered in protection analysis???
I mean, I know this is science-fiction, but sloped armour developed relatively quickly in terms of tank design - spaced armor even quicker. In Battletech, the only mech I know with sloped armour intended in the design is the Marauder. Everything else feels like large thicc flat plates of steel
Atlas, Trebuchet, Shadowhawk - it feels like any sloped armour is just a side effect of other design factors.
And what about spaced armour? The just having a plate of armor separated by a meter or so from the main plate to premptively dissipate Missiles and Lasers?
I don't have any knowledge of how armour penetrating works other than War Thunder or WoT, since none of these are actual information, I want to listen to some of you folks who knows how these work.
Was sloped armour this powerful? Could you really bounce a long 88 shell off of a T-34 or bounce an 122mm shell of of a Panther just because they were heavily sloped?
Until the Panther Tank at least.
Simple question: does angling you tank achieve the same bounce effect as sloped armour?
i.e.: if you angle a tiger at 45 degrees does it have the same bounce as a tank straight on with a 45 degree armour slope?
Edit: I'm more curious if they work the same from a technical standpoint or if they are separate functions. Is there a specific function for sloped armour, or is it just computed as angled.
The idea of sloped armour is very old, as soon as gunpowder made traditional fort design defunct most modern forts had an earth glacis with which to deflect cannon fire. This idea of sloped armour was also used in military fields such as ironclads. Why did it largely take until the introduction of the T-34 with its sloped armour for militaries to adopt sloped armour protection on their AFVs?
Obviously this doesnt apply to all tanks but alot seem to have very flat turret faces (IE leopard 2 a4, m1 abrams angled although not that much, type 10, ect), any idea to the reason behind this design? is it just a cover for internal sloping?
That statement is from the patch notes.
Any hard numbers on how it became "more efficient"?
Hopefully this isn't too technical a question for this sub. I've been following the math in WW2 Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery for a while now, particularly that for slope multipliers and how against certain T/D ratios, some sloped armour plates offered significantly more effective protection that LOS would imply (for example, 100mm at 60° could offer up to 300mm worth of protection instead of just 200mm). These two charts from WW2B defined a lot of my assumptions for a while:
https://i.imgur.com/8UayU3W.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/v9RN9PE.jpg
However, I've since been show a declassified study on slope multipliers done by the US army (I assume at around the time of the war or shortly after, its code is AD309986 for whoever is interested) and it contradicts WW2B. It looks at the penetrative capabilities of the 3" M79 AP projectile against various T/D ratios and slopes. Here's a chart I took from it with some comments by me: https://i.imgur.com/2LzyeYa.png EDIT: chart context
I took one example, a T/D ratio of 0.5 and 45°. LOS for 45° would be 1.41 times the thickness at 0°. A rough estimate based on the WW2B charts suggests a modifier of around 1.6 instead. But Fig.2 from AD309986 suggests that with these parameters, the plate would perform worse than the equivalent thickness at 0°, so somewhere under 1.41.
I'm not sure what to make of this, so I'm hoping that maybe someone here has researched the topic a bit more and can help me understand it better. Not sure where else to ask.
