RC Tank Warfare community hobby forum

RobW wrote:Makes sense to use special steels, and shows how advanced the German armour was. Does also raise the question re armour thickness that are always spoken of - ie how do you compare differing slope and composition for effectiveness? Eg would the KT with similar materials have been mostly immune to the 17pdr?

Slope can be done fairly easily

Tom - in simplistic terms yes by factoring the cos (sin) of the armour slope angle. But does that account for the effects of the metal? Erosive forces are not linearly related to impact angle so are shell impacts?

The effectiveness of sloped armour, both by virtue of it increasing the depth of the armour and increasing the chances of a ricochet, have been the subject of much discussion on the World of Tanks, and War Thunder forums. The poor programmers have to calculate how the armour will behave when hit by any number of different shells from every conceivable angle and distance, and then calculate the damage it will do to the tank and/or crew. Not a job I would envy.

According to rumour there is a a complete 2nd Tiger in the UK at the Shrivenham research facility, though it is stripped down and boxed. The composition of the steel used in them was apparently quite unique, and to this day it is being analysed.

You never really think about how thick 100 millimetres worth of armour is until you see it cut out of the tank.

blimp wrote: found it ! ( not the original link though) 131 wasn't the only Tiger brought back to the UK , the second was put on the range - 17pdr vs PzVI range test the remnants became a 'cutaway' instructional exhibit . B.

Impressive new angle on the topic..but not as eye catching as the fine collection of mammary glands I was presented with, when I clicked on the link (though they were Armoured..!