HistoryNet.com RSS
ArmchairGeneral.com RSS

HistoryNet.com Articles
America's Civil War
American History
Aviation History
Civil War Times
MHQ
Military History
Vietnam
Wild West
World War II

ACG Online
ACG Magazine
Stuff We Like
War College
History News
Tactics 101
Carlo D'Este
Books

ACG Gaming
Boardgames
PC Game Reviews

ACG Network
Contact Us
Our Newsletter
Meet Our Staff
Advertise With Us

Sites We Support
HistoryNet.com
StreamHistory.com
Once A Marine
The Art of Battle
Game Squad
Mil. History Podcast
Russian Army - WW2
Achtung Panzer!
Mil History Online

Go Back   Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History > Historical Events & Eras > World War II > Armor in World War II

Notices and Announcements

Armor in World War II Discuss all aspects & disciplines of World War II Armor here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #271  
Old 24 Mar 12, 15:48
Nick the Noodle's Avatar
Nick the Noodle Nick the Noodle is offline
General of the Forums
Wales
Distinguished Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign 
Greatest Blunders Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign 
Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C SPQR Campaign Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign CWiE 1939-45 Campaign 
 
Real Name: Tin Pot Noodle
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Land of the Red Dragon
Posts: 17,656
Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Just want to point out that is the actual thickness of armour is not 75mm, or close to it, then sloping is going to be far less effective than the new los armour thickness would suggest. This is due to the fact that for most of the war c75mm guns were most common, and when the diameter of the shell greatly exceeds the actual armour thickness, the benefits of slope are reduced or made negligible. This is called overmatching. This is why a theoretically great holepunching 17pdr round bounces off a Panther glacis while a less powerful Soviet 152mm round can do the damage.

Thus the sloping on any side of the M4, T34 or PzIV is going to give a negligible real benefit. Therefore, talking about which tank of the three provides better protection is actually unimportant when it comes down to tank and anti-tank guns of 75mm+, which of course is most of them, at least from 42 onwatds.
__________________
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 24 Mar 12, 16:11
Sleepy Head's Avatar
Sleepy Head Sleepy Head is offline
Banned
United_States
 
Real Name: Jim Lankford
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Williams
Posts: 79
Sleepy Head is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
Just want to point out that is the actual thickness of armour is not 75mm, or close to it, then sloping is going to be far less effective than the new los armour thickness would suggest. This is due to the fact that for most of the war c75mm guns were most common, and when the diameter of the shell greatly exceeds the actual armour thickness, the benefits of slope are reduced or made negligible. This is called overmatching. This is why a theoretically great holepunching 17pdr round bounces off a Panther glacis while a less powerful Soviet 152mm round can do the damage.
Can someone please provide a source other than "Weapons of WWII" for the concept of "overmatching?" Something with some detail and science behind it would go a long way towards getting me to accept it. For example, at what slope does "overmatching" render the effects of slope negligible and visa versa?

Any assistance in this would be very much appreciated.
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 24 Mar 12, 16:39
T. A. Gardner's Avatar
T. A. Gardner T. A. Gardner is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: T. A. Gardner
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 34,911
T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Overmatch occurs in several situations.

The first is when you have a relatively plate sloped at a steep angle. Even though the plate relative to horizontal is geometrically thicker it is still a plate of whatever the actual thickness is. For example a Panther's glacis is 80mm thick. The slope makes it about 140mm with respect to horizontal. But, the plate itself is still only 80mm thick.
What will happen is when an impulsive load (ie., an antitank shot or shell) hits that plate that round has two effects on it:

First it is trying to physically bore a hole through it by displacing the metal in its path. This means it has to displace about 140mm of metal.
The second is that the energy of that shot or shell is being transfered to the plate. If the energy is sufficent through a combination of mass and velocity it may simply shatter the 80mm plate with the slope being irrelevant.

That is essentially what something like a Soviet 152mm round does. It simply smashes the 80mm plate which is insufficently tough enough to resist the impulsive load.

HE adds another twist. An explosive shell, like shot produces an impulsive load on an armor plate. So, the combination of striking energy and the explosion of the shell may be sufficent to shatter the armor plate too.

This last effect is generally overlooked in tactical wargames involving armored vehicles. In most HE is relatively or completely ineffective against AFV. This is completely wrong. HE, particularly "common" or "heavy wall" HE rounds can be devastating against AFV.
A French 75mm firing on any German 1940 AFV in France with just common HE will easily smash its way through the 30mm of armor on the tank. Not only will it do that but the resulting penetration will be far more catastrophic than a hit by say a 2pdr or 47mm AT gun firing solid shot would be.

As an aside, the Germans picked the 80mm plate thickness (note how this is pretty much common as the minimum actual frontal armor on all their AFV by 1944) because it is sufficent to stop a Soviet 76mm round of any sort at normal fighting ranges.

Anyway, getting back to "overmatch." What you need to know is what the plate itself, its acutal thickness, will withstand as an impulsive load. Slope only effects penetration by shot or shell where it is displacing the metal (ie., boring a hole thorugh it) Slope has ZERO to do with withstanding the impulsive load.

This is more clearly shown with battleships. There are numerous cases of heavy battleship rounds hitting opposing warships at very oblique angles to the plate struck. These hits might include striking an armored deck, striking a turret top, etc.
In these cases the armor plate is often only a few inches thick at most while the shell weighs 1000 lbs or more that is striking it. What happens in these cases is that the armor shatters and a gouge is formed. The long narrow grove blows out and the compartments behind are sprayed with fragments. Penetration didn't occur but, the fragments essentially had the same effect.

Queen Mary detonated at Jutland due to this. The Dunkerque at Mers el Kabir had one turret wiped out by it.
Tennessee and Maryland both had turrets taken out at Pearl by it.
There is an excellent chance this effect is what sank Hood.


http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/index_nathan.htm
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 24 Mar 12, 17:47
Sleepy Head's Avatar
Sleepy Head Sleepy Head is offline
Banned
United_States
 
Real Name: Jim Lankford
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Williams
Posts: 79
Sleepy Head is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
Overmatch occurs in several situations.

The first is when you have a relatively plate sloped at a steep angle. Even though the plate relative to horizontal is geometrically thicker it is still a plate of whatever the actual thickness is. For example a Panther's glacis is 80mm thick. The slope makes it about 140mm with respect to horizontal. But, the plate itself is still only 80mm thick.
What will happen is when an impulsive load (ie., an antitank shot or shell) hits that plate that round has two effects on it:

First it is trying to physically bore a hole through it by displacing the metal in its path. This means it has to displace about 140mm of metal.
The second is that the energy of that shot or shell is being transfered to the plate. If the energy is sufficent through a combination of mass and velocity it may simply shatter the 80mm plate with the slope being irrelevant.

That is essentially what something like a Soviet 152mm round does. It simply smashes the 80mm plate which is insufficently tough enough to resist the impulsive load.

HE adds another twist. An explosive shell, like shot produces an impulsive load on an armor plate. So, the combination of striking energy and the explosion of the shell may be sufficent to shatter the armor plate too.

This last effect is generally overlooked in tactical wargames involving armored vehicles. In most HE is relatively or completely ineffective against AFV. This is completely wrong. HE, particularly "common" or "heavy wall" HE rounds can be devastating against AFV.
A French 75mm firing on any German 1940 AFV in France with just common HE will easily smash its way through the 30mm of armor on the tank. Not only will it do that but the resulting penetration will be far more catastrophic than a hit by say a 2pdr or 47mm AT gun firing solid shot would be.

As an aside, the Germans picked the 80mm plate thickness (note how this is pretty much common as the minimum actual frontal armor on all their AFV by 1944) because it is sufficent to stop a Soviet 76mm round of any sort at normal fighting ranges.

Anyway, getting back to "overmatch." What you need to know is what the plate itself, its acutal thickness, will withstand as an impulsive load. Slope only effects penetration by shot or shell where it is displacing the metal (ie., boring a hole thorugh it) Slope has ZERO to do with withstanding the impulsive load.

This is more clearly shown with battleships. There are numerous cases of heavy battleship rounds hitting opposing warships at very oblique angles to the plate struck. These hits might include striking an armored deck, striking a turret top, etc.
In these cases the armor plate is often only a few inches thick at most while the shell weighs 1000 lbs or more that is striking it. What happens in these cases is that the armor shatters and a gouge is formed. The long narrow grove blows out and the compartments behind are sprayed with fragments. Penetration didn't occur but, the fragments essentially had the same effect.

Queen Mary detonated at Jutland due to this. The Dunkerque at Mers el Kabir had one turret wiped out by it.
Tennessee and Maryland both had turrets taken out at Pearl by it.
There is an excellent chance this effect is what sank Hood.


http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/index_nathan.htm
Thank you for taking the time and effort for the detailed explanation.

Here is my problem. I have read several fairly serious works on military ballistics, and have yet to see the term "overmatch." I was hoping someone could point me to a specific, "professional" source that describes this effect so I could quench my curiosity and verify that "overmatch" is an important aspect of armor penetration.
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 24 Mar 12, 18:12
T. A. Gardner's Avatar
T. A. Gardner T. A. Gardner is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: T. A. Gardner
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 34,911
T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
While they don't call it "overmatch" this article explains the principle pretty well. They use the term "implusive load." Overmatch would simply be an impulsive load far greater than the ultimate yield strength of the plate.

http://publications.drdo.gov.in/gsdl...30.dir/doc.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 24 Mar 12, 23:27
panther3485's Avatar
panther3485 panther3485 is online now
ACG Forums - Field Marshal
Australia
Distinguished Service Award - 2nd Award ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon Most Decisive Battle Campaign, 2008 
Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Greatest Blunders Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II 
Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C Model Forum Group Build (Multiple) 
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: Paul
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 29,043
panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutched View Post
One did not need Jumbo-esque solutions. The new shape sort of already existed on the M 10. I am only saying that with these two givens a better
Sherman could have been envisaged at a relatively early stage. A quick fag packet calculation would put the weight w/o clever design somewhere within the 35 metric tonnes. So not quite Jumbo, but still a good armour protetion at around 35 mm material thickness front, back and sides, at this point totally ignoring the physical and ballistic effects of the sloping.
As for the turret ring issue: Let the turret overhang. It did so on many designs including the Panther but also on the earlier Panhard armoured car.
I roped in the Israeli and possibly could have roped in the Yugoslavs as well to point out that the unlikely options can exsist if one wants to.

Ed.
So now we've finally seen why the Jumbo solution could not reasonably have been applied across the board, we are moving on to the basic design of the M4 and how it should have been 'better' in the first place?

That's a totally different argument.

OK, I'll play the game. Perhaps we should put ourselves in the shoes of the American designers and planners in 1940-41; do a thorough appraisal of the resources, progressive development and information they had at their disposal during that time; appreciate the urgency with which they were required to come up with a viable solution that could also be quickly produced in large numbers; and then take a reality pill.

On the other hand, with our rose-coloured hindsight glasses on, I suppose we might argue that they should have had a dazzling stroke of prescient genius; been able to see the ghastly shortcomings of the M4 and how massive a disadvantage these would be by 1944; and come up with a design that incorporated all the advantages of the T-34 but without the disadvantages; and then got that design underway in production in massive numbers across the USA in the same very short time, harnessing the existing industrial and conceptual base? Essentially, this would of course involve scrapping the designs they had developed over the preceding decade or so and starting virtually from scratch. Now, that wouldn't take any extra development time, and wouldn't delay their ability to put the new medium into production, would it?

Remember also that from the American PoV, the M4 Medium at the time of its design and initial fielding was regarded as the best medium tank in the World and indeed, the initial users in late 1942 seem to have agreed with that. Somehow though, apparently, back in 1940-41 the Americans are supposed to have clairvoyantly foreseen that their best medium tank in the World, not yet even in production, would become (allegedly) significantly inferior less than 20 months after its first combat fielding? And the 'fundamental design flaws' behind the reasons why this alleged condition would be so?

Rosy hindsight is wonderful, Ed, but not necessarily realistic.
__________________
"England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

Last edited by panther3485; 24 Mar 12 at 23:50..
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 24 Mar 12, 23:48
Sleepy Head's Avatar
Sleepy Head Sleepy Head is offline
Banned
United_States
 
Real Name: Jim Lankford
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Williams
Posts: 79
Sleepy Head is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
While they don't call it "overmatch" this article explains the principle pretty well. They use the term "implusive load." Overmatch would simply be an impulsive load far greater than the ultimate yield strength of the plate.

http://publications.drdo.gov.in/gsdl...30.dir/doc.pdf
Thank you for providing the interesting article.

After taking some time to digest it, I have arrived at the following.

According to the article, “Impulse Loading of Armour by High Explosive Squash Head Munition,” impulse loading creates a transient wave which produces the phenomena known as scabbing or spalling. Spalling has been well known for a very long time, but “the impulse loading or armour has not been reported in a detailed and organized manner, and only fragmentary reports have appeared in the literature.” This alone suggests the overmatch definition lacks sufficient detail or organization to be reliable.

Beginning with the definition of overmatch from the website cited in a previous post, http://www.weaponsofwwii.com/armour-...ary-metallurgy, I see the following.

When the thickness of the armour plate is less than the diameter of the shot fired at it, the shot is said to overmatch the armour plate. When a shot overmatch the plate, the stress on the steel increases. For flat-nosed low-energy shots, this can result in a plug being punched from the armour plate by the shot, rather than the shot pushing through the plate. Especially hard armour plates are likely to plug formation when overmatched. (WAL 710/492)

For this reason, overmatching shots will be significantly more likely to penetrate an armour plate than a matching or undermatching shot than the increase in shot size alone would indicate.


Please note there is no mention of spalling (scabbing), projectile mass, striking velocity, angle of attack, the type of explosive round, the amount of the explosive charge (if any), or any direct, clear reference to high explosives or solid shot. Only one constant is mentioned, the diameter of the projectile must be greater than the thickness of the armor plate. There are also references to “flat nosed low energy shots” and “plug formation” when “especially hard armour plates are overmatched,” but no specific mention of any type of projectile other than “shot.”

The impulse loading article contains several important differences, some of which are significant. Mass (charge to mass ratio), length of projectile to diameter, striking velocity, angle of attack, type of explosive round, and the amount of explosive charge are all referenced as relevant factors, none of which are mentioned in the overmatch definition. Also, the authors were investigating the impulse loading effect of a specific type of high explosive round, not shot as referenced in the overmatching.

This all leads to a singular conclusion. The overmatch definition is missing a large amount of vital information regarding mass, striking velocity, angle of attack, length of projectile to diameter, etc, all of which are critical factors in any attempt to describe (define) the terminal ballistics of projectiles against armor. Barring the appearance of a detailed, complete definition, overmatching has to be viewed as unsubstantiated.
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 25 Mar 12, 00:09
panther3485's Avatar
panther3485 panther3485 is online now
ACG Forums - Field Marshal
Australia
Distinguished Service Award - 2nd Award ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon Most Decisive Battle Campaign, 2008 
Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Greatest Blunders Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II 
Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C Model Forum Group Build (Multiple) 
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: Paul
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 29,043
panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleepy Head View Post
Thank you for providing the interesting article.

After taking some time to digest it, I have arrived at the following.

According to the article, “Impulse Loading of Armour by High Explosive Squash Head Munition,” impulse loading creates a transient wave which produces the phenomena known as scabbing or spalling. Spalling has been well known for a very long time, but “the impulse loading or armour has not been reported in a detailed and organized manner, and only fragmentary reports have appeared in the literature.” This alone suggests the overmatch definition lacks sufficient detail or organization to be reliable.

Beginning with the definition of overmatch from the website cited in a previous post, http://www.weaponsofwwii.com/armour-...ary-metallurgy, I see the following.

When the thickness of the armour plate is less than the diameter of the shot fired at it, the shot is said to overmatch the armour plate. When a shot overmatch the plate, the stress on the steel increases. For flat-nosed low-energy shots, this can result in a plug being punched from the armour plate by the shot, rather than the shot pushing through the plate. Especially hard armour plates are likely to plug formation when overmatched. (WAL 710/492)

For this reason, overmatching shots will be significantly more likely to penetrate an armour plate than a matching or undermatching shot than the increase in shot size alone would indicate.

Please note there is no mention of spalling (scabbing), projectile mass, striking velocity, angle of attack, the type of explosive round, the amount of the explosive charge (if any), or any direct, clear reference to high explosives or solid shot. Only one constant is mentioned, the diameter of the projectile must be greater than the thickness of the armor plate. There are also references to “flat nosed low energy shots” and “plug formation” when “especially hard armour plates are overmatched,” but no specific mention of any type of projectile other than “shot.”

The impulse loading article contains several important differences, some of which are significant. Mass (charge to mass ratio), length of projectile to diameter, striking velocity, angle of attack, type of explosive round, and the amount of explosive charge are all referenced as relevant factors, none of which are mentioned in the overmatch definition. Also, the authors were investigating the impulse loading effect of a specific type of high explosive round, not shot as referenced in the overmatching.

This all leads to a singular conclusion. The overmatch definition is missing a large amount of vital information regarding mass, striking velocity, angle of attack, length of projectile to diameter, etc, all of which are critical factors in any attempt to describe (define) the terminal ballistics of projectiles against armor. Barring the appearance of a detailed, complete definition, overmatching has to be viewed as unsubstantiated.
I think the basic message here is that sloped armour starts to become less effective against over-matching shot. Very much less effective if the level of over-match is substantial. That should not really be a surprise, of course. The precise degree and effects of the fall in protection factor that could normally be expected from the slope angle also depend on a number of variables as you have correctly pointed out.

To appreciate this properly, it's also important to fully understand the benefits of sloping armour in situations where the shot striking it does not over-match. Generally speaking in these cases, at least as far as most WW2 munitions are concerned, there is a considerable benefit provided the degree of slope is substantial enough and the shot arrives at a near-horizontal angle. It is after the point of over-match that the degree of difference (or benefit, if you like) derived from said sloping begins to sharply decline; until we reach the point where the sloping confers little to no significant benefit compared to the protection that would be offered by a plate that is vertical.
__________________
"England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 25 Mar 12, 01:21
Sleepy Head's Avatar
Sleepy Head Sleepy Head is offline
Banned
United_States
 
Real Name: Jim Lankford
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Williams
Posts: 79
Sleepy Head is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by panther3485 View Post
I think the basic message here is that sloped armour starts to become less effective against over-matching shot. Very much less effective if the level of over-match is substantial. That should not really be a surprise, of course. The precise degree and effects of the fall in protection factor that could normally be expected from the slope angle also depend on a number of variables as you have correctly pointed out.

To appreciate this properly, it's also important to fully understand the benefits of sloping armour in situations where the shot striking it does not over-match. Generally speaking in these cases, at least as far as most WW2 munitions are concerned, there is a considerable benefit provided the degree of slope is substantial enough and the shot arrives at a near-horizontal angle. It is after the point of over-match that the degree of difference (or benefit, if you like) derived from said sloping begins to sharply decline; until we reach the point where the sloping confers little to no significant benefit compared to the protection that would be offered by a plate that is vertical.
Thank you for the additional explanation.

I understand the concept.

Here’s my problem. I cannot locate a single formula for armor penetration that does not take mass, striking velocity, angle of attack, etc., into account. The definition of overmatch, as written, cannot be expressed mathematically, and that means there is something very wrong with it. What, for example, is the minimum striking velocity and mass which will allow an overmatching shot to penetrate the target armor? According to the definition there is none.
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 25 Mar 12, 09:15
Carl Schwamberg's Avatar
Carl Schwamberg Carl Schwamberg is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,419
Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800]
Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800]
Quote:
Originally Posted by panther3485 View Post
OK, I'll play the game. Perhaps we should put ourselves in the shoes of the American designers and planners in 1940-41; do a thorough appraisal of the resources, progressive development and information they had at their disposal during that time; appreciate the urgency with which they were required to come up with a viable solution that could also be quickly produced in large numbers; and then take a reality pill.
If you go back to your copy of Zalogas or Hunnicutts books of the M26 Pershing tank you will see that actually occured in 1942. The tank designers in the Ordnance Dept took a large ammont of data collected by US Army tank engineers from the Africa battlefield and information from the British and wrote up specifications for a completly new tank hull Those specs were translated into the prototypes for the T20, T22, T23, T25, & T26. Those were all completed at leasurely pace by mid 1943. While a lot of people in the ordnance dept were ethusiastic about the new hull, the broader concensus across the US Army was the M4 hull was mostly satisfactory. Any defects could be corrected by changes during production far more efficiently than with placing a new hull design in production.

Only limited production of the T23 (250 vehicals) was approved in 1943, and limited production of the T26 was approved in mid 1944.

This hull design remained the basis for US medium tanks through the M60 series.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

  #281  
Old 25 Mar 12, 09:26
Carl Schwamberg's Avatar
Carl Schwamberg Carl Schwamberg is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,419
Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800]
Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

Thus the sloping on any side of the M4, T34 or PzIV is going to give a negligible real benefit. Therefore, talking about which tank of the three provides better protection is actually unimportant when it comes down to tank and anti-tank guns of 75mm+, which of course is most of them, at least from 42 onwatds.
My take is high velocity 75mm or larger projectile were the minority of side hits on tanks. Perhaps someone has some reliable data for this, but my reading strongly suggests the majority of hits on tanks were either smaller caliber than 75mm or larger but lower velocity projectiles.

A second factor here is strikes are seldom perpendicular in the other plane as well. The strike is likely to be at a significant angle in the horizontal plane as well. Angled armor from the vertical compunds the angle of the projectile strike
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 25 Mar 12, 09:38
Carl Schwamberg's Avatar
Carl Schwamberg Carl Schwamberg is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,419
Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800]
Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800] Carl Schwamberg gives and gets respect [800]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleepy Head View Post
Here’s my problem. I cannot locate a single formula for armor penetration that does not take mass, striking velocity, angle of attack, etc., into account. The definition of overmatch, as written, cannot be expressed mathematically, and that means there is something very wrong with it. What, for example, is the minimum striking velocity and mass which will allow an overmatching shot to penetrate the target armor? According to the definition there is none.
I've been told many years ago the data and formulas are locked away & marked 'Secret'. That came from some US Marine tankers I served with back in the 1980s so maybe it is correct maybe not. I can say the projectile effects data I used for planning artillery attacks was classified Secret and kept out of public view.

While I am fairly confident the overmatching thing does exist I suspect its effect varies widely with the angle of strike and the type of projectile. Take a look at the published theory behind the AP Balistic Cap type projectiles, the blunt nosed type with the tear away sharp pointed nose cone for a illustration of the projectile design.
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 25 Mar 12, 09:49
dutched's Avatar
dutched dutched is offline
Lieutenant General
Pirate
5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Here there be tigers
Posts: 3,383
dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200] dutched is walking in the light [200]
Quote:
Originally Posted by panther3485 View Post
So now we've finally seen why the Jumbo solution could not reasonably have been applied across the board, we are moving on to the basic design of the M4 and how it should have been 'better' in the first place?

That's a totally different argument.
I wrote this before:
The new shape sort of already existed on the M 10. I am only saying that with these two givens a better Sherman could have been envisaged at a relatively early stage.
What is the problem with it? This is in 1942.

Quote:
Originally Posted by panther3485 View Post
OK, I'll play the game. Perhaps we should put ourselves in the shoes of the American designers and planners in 1940-41; do a thorough appraisal of the resources, progressive development and information they had at their disposal during that time; appreciate the urgency with which they were required to come up with a viable solution that could also be quickly produced in large numbers; and then take a reality pill.
I wrote this before:
To be honest the question arises why the Sherman hull was not re-designed before it went into production as it hull is basically the M3 hull with a re-done front bit.
Of course it was expedient to do so, not having to re-invest in rigs and jigs.
Let's not dwell too much on it, it has been discussed here at ACG before.

There is no need for a pil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by panther3485 View Post
On the other hand, with our rose-coloured hindsight glasses on, I suppose we might argue that they should have had a dazzling stroke of prescient genius; been able to see the ghastly shortcomings of the M4 and how massive a disadvantage these would be by 1944; and come up with a design that incorporated all the advantages of the T-34 but without the disadvantages; and then got that design underway in production in massive numbers across the USA in the same very short time, harnessing the existing industrial and conceptual base? Essentially, this would of course involve scrapping the designs they had developed over the preceding decade or so and starting virtually from scratch. Now, that wouldn't take any extra development time, and wouldn't delay their ability to put the new medium into production, would it?

Remember also that from the American PoV, the M4 Medium at the time of its design and initial fielding was regarded as the best medium tank in the World and indeed, the initial users in late 1942 seem to have agreed with that. Somehow though, apparently, back in 1940-41 the Americans are supposed to have clairvoyantly foreseen that their best medium tank in the World, not yet even in production, would become (allegedly) significantly inferior less than 20 months after its first combat fielding? And the 'fundamental design flaws' behind the reasons why this alleged condition would be so?

Rosy hindsight is wonderful, Ed, but not necessarily realistic.
Hang on here matey this was the topic:

I wrote this before in my 2nd post on the tread topic:
Having looked at all that has been said, it would have been just as easy or even easier to build a better protected Sherman at that point in time instead of an idea of adopting the T-34 box and adding US bits to it. Something of a non starter by the sound of it.

The rest was just an expansion on the theoritical situation. Jumbos, sloping etc.
When the hypothetical situation comes under fire, one puts in some hypothetical solutions forward and considerations why these were put forward forward.
Next you know, someone likes to point out not possible, furthermore uses some flawed counter argumentation.
So what if-ing, I forward reasoned considered argumentation to the point under discussion.
Only to be told at the end I have to do a reality check.
Now that is salty.
Please go back to step one.

Cheers,

Ed

What about the threat itself? Are you a dispensary
(I could not help myself )
__________________
The repetition of affirmations leads to belief. Once that belief becomes a deep conviction, you better wake up and look at the facts.

Last edited by dutched; 25 Mar 12 at 10:22..
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 25 Mar 12, 10:09
panther3485's Avatar
panther3485 panther3485 is online now
ACG Forums - Field Marshal
Australia
Distinguished Service Award - 2nd Award ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon Most Decisive Battle Campaign, 2008 
Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Greatest Blunders Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II 
Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C Model Forum Group Build (Multiple) 
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: Paul
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 29,043
panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
If you go back to your copy of Zalogas or Hunnicutts books of the M26 Pershing tank you will see that actually occured in 1942. The tank designers in the Ordnance Dept took a large ammont of data collected by US Army tank engineers from the Africa battlefield and information from the British and wrote up specifications for a completly new tank hull Those specs were translated into the prototypes for the T20, T22, T23, T25, & T26. Those were all completed at leasurely pace by mid 1943. While a lot of people in the ordnance dept were ethusiastic about the new hull, the broader concensus across the US Army was the M4 hull was mostly satisfactory. Any defects could be corrected by changes during production far more efficiently than with placing a new hull design in production.

Only limited production of the T23 (250 vehicals) was approved in 1943, and limited production of the T26 was approved in mid 1944.

This hull design remained the basis for US medium tanks through the M60 series.
Indeed; the main point being that in order to have a viable medium tank with turret-mounted 75mm gun in action by 1942, they pretty much had to go with what they could develop quickly over the 1940-41 period, heavily based on their work so far. Time later, to dwell on completely new designs. And as you say during 1942-43, the M4 Medium was deemed to be satisfactory so there was little impetus at that stage to put something completely new into production. IIRC it's really only from 1944 that any genuine urgency comes into the equation and even then it is not universally appreciated. It is easy to look back with the benefit of hindsight and say, "woulda, coulda, shoulda" but putting ourselves into the context of the time, and what was known and understood by the people involved, is more useful I think.
__________________
"England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 25 Mar 12, 10:19
panther3485's Avatar
panther3485 panther3485 is online now
ACG Forums - Field Marshal
Australia
Distinguished Service Award - 2nd Award ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon Most Decisive Battle Campaign, 2008 
Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Greatest Blunders Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II 
Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C Model Forum Group Build (Multiple) 
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: Paul
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 29,043
panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] panther3485 has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutched View Post
I wrote this before:
The new shape sort of already existed on the M 10. I am only saying that with these two givens a better Sherman could have been envisaged at a relatively early stage.
What is the problem with it? This is in 1942.



I wrote this before:
To be honest the question arises why the Sherman hull was not re-designed before it went into production as it hull is basically the M3 hull with a re-done front bit.
Of course it was expedient to do so, not having to re-invest in rigs and jigs.
Let's not dwell too much on it, it has been discussed here at ACG before.
There is no need for a pil.


Hang on here matey this was the topic:

I wrote this before in my 2nd post on the tread topic:
Having looked at all that has been said, it would have been just as easy or even easier to build a better protected Sherman at that point in time instead of an idea of adopting the T-34 box and adding US bits to it. Something of a non starter by the sound of it.

The rest was just an expansion on the theoritical situation. Jumbos, sloping etc.
When the hypothetical situation comes under fire, one puts in some hypothetical solutions forward.
Next you know, someone likes to point out not possible.
So what if-ing, I forward reasoned considerations to the discussion.
Only to be told at the end I have to do a reality check.
Now that is salty.
Please go back to step one.

Cheers,

Ed

What about the threat itself? Are you a dispensary
(I could not help myself )
Yeah, I know what was said before. I'm gonna try to keep my reply simple this time: It's just that what you are suggesting would, IMO, have involved an ability to foresee things that to my mind we cannot reasonably expect the M4 designers to have foreseen the relative future importance of, at the time the crucial design work was being done (1940-41). This is the essence of my position (see my reply to Carl Schwamberg). I realize some will assert that they should have been more 'forward thinking' or something like that, but IMO that is unrealistic given all the circumstances back then. I just don't see it striking a chord of reality. Hence the pill comment. No offence intended.
__________________
"England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

Last edited by panther3485; 25 Mar 12 at 10:24..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Please bookmark this thread if you enjoyed it!


Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:52.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.