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
i? missleading? than? proofen? summery? Thats? learn English first please.
ReplyDeleteBabs out!
Don't be asinine. Or stupid. Learn to be flexible....
DeleteDM
Stop trolling first please
DeleteSemmelrogge22 EU
Geez Babs, there are politer ways to convey criticism of someone else's language skills <.<
DeleteMy 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.
DeleteI suggest the articles to be properly edited before they are published, but I think that was clear from my first comment.
Babs out!
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.
DeleteI'd have to agree in part with Babs though...
DeletePlease copy-pasta articles in to Word first to see if you made any typos.
"Please copy-spaghetti..."
DeletePlease 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...
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.
ReplyDeleteGood article!
ReplyDeleteThis 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"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.
DeleteSo 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.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeletehttps://worldoftanks.com/dcont/fb/qna_threads/3.png
Why not?
DeleteOnly 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?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/v9kb3/
ReplyDeleteInteresting 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
Yes, very nice indeed!
Delete"Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK only"
Ok, could try to search for it on youtube.
sorry for the language errors. update
ReplyDelete