Wwii ballistics armor and gunnery full#
Wwii ballistics armor and gunnery code#

Щ‚Ш§Щ„ШЁ:WWIIGermanAFVs Ш®Ш·ШЈ Щ„Щ€Ш§ ЩЃЩЉ Щ€ШШЇШ©:Subject_bar Ш№Щ„Щ‰ Ш§Щ„ШіШ·Ш± 1: Please use mw.html instead of Module:HtmlBuilder.

Tiger and Tiger II sections from Handbook on German Military Forces.

Tiger survivors вЂ“ PDF, Surviving Tiger Tanks.

'Under The Tiger's Skin' вЂ“ June 1945 Popular Science.

Article, 'New German Heavy Tank' from U.S. Question: WWII Ballistics: Armor & Gunnery Post by Tarrif, 21:20 I just found my old copy of 'WWII Ballistics: Armor & Gunnery' by Lorrin Rexford Bird and Robert Livingston (Overmatch Press 2001) which is held in fairly high regard for its penetration data.

Tiger I Information Center вЂ“ Comprehensive website about the Tiger I.

Bovington Tank Museum Tiger and Restoration.

Bird, Lorrin Rexford Livingston, Robert D.

Armored Champion: The Top Tanks of World War II. The cannon on a tank is vital in any battle particularly when there are other tanks on the battlefield. Sledgehammers: Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Tank Battalions in World War II. Wwii Ballistics Armor And Gunnerybaldcirclekidz.

Spielberger, Walter & Doyle, Hilary (2007).

Armor and BloodВ : the Battle of Kursk, the turning point of World War II. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books originally published 1998 by J.J. Panzerkampfwagen IV medium tankВ : 1936 вЂ“ 1945. Combat History of German Tiger Tank Battalion 503.

Lochmann, Franz-Wilhelm Rubbel, Alfred (2000).

CS1 maint: ref=harv ( link) CS1 maint: unrecognized language ( link) Germany's Tiger Tanks: Tiger I & IIВ : Combat Tactics. Panzertruppen 2: The Complete Guide to the Creation & Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force 1943вЂ“1945. Pershing: A History of the Medium Tank T20 Series. Panzer Leader (Reissue edition, 2001 ed.). Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press. Colossus RebornВ : the Red Army at WarВ : 1941вЂ“1943. Tigers in the Mud вЂ“ The Combat Career of German Panzer Commander Otto Carius. The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II. World War II Ballistics вЂ“ Armor and Gunnery.

Michael Wittmann and the Waffen SS Tiger Commanders of the Leibstandarte in WWII, Vol. What we're probably not seeing is the velocity / charge stack for each set of rounds. So less than LOS even, nowhere near the 1.6x mm suggested by WW2B. The dip at 45В° suggest less force is needed to go through an x mm plate than through a 1.41x mm plate at 0В°. The curve having a dip at 45-degrees makes sense, because you'd expect that the thicker the steel and the more slope, the less penetration.

Wwii ballistics armor and gunnery full#

What I think they're looking at there is partial versus full penetrations.ДЇ seems to show the force needed, or the velocity needed to penetrate.ДЄnything above 1 is a full penetration that maybe tumbled?ДЄbove 1? F seems to be numbered in tens of thousands. Well, yes, why would it give us the thickness? We can determine the thickness from the provided e/d (T/D ratio) given the shell used (3'). It's just the ratio thickness of the hole and the penetrator. Not sure where else to ask.ДЇ (e/d,0) doesn't give us the thickness of the RHA (rolled homogenous armor the standard used for armor testing and production). 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. But Fig.2 from AD309986 suggests that with these parameters, the plate would perform worse than the equivalent thickness at 0В°, so somewhere under 1.41. A rough estimate based on the WW2B charts suggests a modifier of around 1.6 instead. LOS for 45В° would be 1.41 times the thickness at 0В°. I took one example, a T/D ratio of 0.5 and 45В°. Here's a chart I took from it with some comments by me: EDIT: chart context It looks at the penetrative capabilities of the 3' M79 AP projectile against various T/D ratios and slopes.

Wwii ballistics armor and gunnery code#

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. These two charts from WW2B defined a lot of my assumptions for a while: 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 60В° could offer up to 300mm worth of protection instead of just 200mm). The M72 was replaced by the 6.63 kg (14.62 lb) M61 armor-piercing ballistic capped high explosive with tracer (APCBC-HE-T) shell. Hopefully this isn't too technical a question for this sub.