Tips

Please take your time and read the blog rules

Apr 9, 2013

Digging Deeper (1) - appendix

by Thor_Hammerschlag

updated


We probably had a great discussion on the forum after I posted "Digging Deeper (1) - Shell Normalization". But there was also a lot of confusion. I came to the conclusion, that there are a lot of misleading sources on the web, mostly written by people who are simple not deep enough in the theme of armor penetration.

For anybody who is interested - I added on the end of my article (link is above) a FAQ, which covers most of the confusing parts. Feel free to post a comment or ask me something.

What I posted were values based on tests, these tests were summed up in graphs and then again proven by combat data. That is the basic idea and the really great thing about "WWII Ballistics- Armor and Gunnery".



At the end of this summery I would like to show you page 92 of [1]. The British BIOS engineers support my conclusion of armor penetration - mechanics and thus also the way of "normalization" I concluded.
Have a look at the first picture, you can see here that the way a projectile goes trough armor is more than armor/cos(angle) suggests - in other words, positive normalization.






Sources:
[1] B.I.O.S. Final Report No. 1343 ITEM No. 2  GERMAN STEEL ARMOUR PIERCING PROJECTILES AND THEORY OF PENETRATION; Page 92


20 comments:

  1. i? missleading? than? proofen? summery? Thats? learn English first please.

    Babs out!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't be asinine. Or stupid. Learn to be flexible....

      DM

      Delete
    2. Stop trolling first please
      Semmelrogge22 EU

      Delete
    3. Geez Babs, there are politer ways to convey criticism of someone else's language skills <.<

      Delete
    4. My point is not subtle because of all the errors and bad sentences I found the article very hard to read, which completely diminishes the point the author is trying to make. Honestly, I think an article like this greatly lowers the quality of this blog.

      I suggest the articles to be properly edited before they are published, but I think that was clear from my first comment.

      Babs out!

      Delete
    5. Hell, I make mistakes and typos too... must have something to do with the fact I am not English... hurrrrrr durrrr. I still believe Thor knows what he's talking about, if the typos are that huge a problem, then just skip it.

      Delete
    6. I'd have to agree in part with Babs though...
      Please copy-pasta articles in to Word first to see if you made any typos.

      Delete
    7. "Please copy-spaghetti..."

      Please do not take it personally, but here you suggest something you clearly do not do yourself :-), unless you meant the slang "copypasta".

      I am also somewhat sensitive about typos and other stuff like "proofen", but the man put together some info in his free time, so there is no reason to be finicky about his writing. At least as far as the typos do not change the meaning and info value. Compared to other horrid things people (paid to do their job properly) do to English (and other languages) on the web...

      Delete
  2. Learn politeness before you comment. Is there any of that where the intent was not clear? I certainly understood it, not sure what your problem is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This picture is confirmed by one of the screenshots that was posted in the comments section of your first draft. It showed cross sectional cuts of two different penetrating shots on armored plates. One of them was an APDS shot though. At least one of those cross sections had the same kind of funny sort of sigmoid, not straight or simple curved profile.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was of course talking about these:
      http://s007.radikal.ru/i301/1104/33/fb64e6acd3fe.jpg
      http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6545/30ichuka.jpg

      Delete
    2. "One of them was an APDS shot though." Actually it is not known. The one that posted these pictures only says "in fact both most probably show a penetration by a APDS", I'll point out the "most probably". There isn't even a source from which they were taken and so there is really no information on them and as I said one of them may as well be penetrated by an APDSFS shell.
      So remember guys when you post something, back it up with source, the more reliable source the better, otherwise you are just expressing your own opinion.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't understand why do you keep posting data of testing with pointy tipped shells when it has been said that WG simply chose to model all shells as flat capped, which act like this.

    https://worldoftanks.com/dcont/fb/qna_threads/3.png

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not?
      Only because WG made the game arcadish and not historical in all aspects (which is really fine for me) does not mean such articles about the real facts aren't interesting for some people. Or?

      Delete
  6. http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/v9kb3/

    Interesting program about explosions with a nice demo with shaped charges at 43mins in.
    BTW at 15mins in...I built something similar in my back garden and fired potatoes from it :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, very nice indeed!
      "Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK only"

      Ok, could try to search for it on youtube.

      Delete
  7. On the subject of penetration, there is nice pics on WWII era Pantherfibel!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigerfibel
    http://www.panther1944.de/en/sdkfz-171-pzkpfwg-panther/panther-manuals/panther-fibel.html

    Page 15. Most interesting is 45 degrees, where projectile first turns upwards, then downwards. Hard to say about exact effectiveness of normalization. Hole is ugly and unclean, extra energy is spent. Still, shorter route is eventually found.

    (I'm new poster just making this quick note)

    ReplyDelete
  8. sorry for the language errors. update

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.