> Therefore, at this time we must respectfully decline the offer
> to incorporate the Tyng Horizontal Plane Measurement Standard
and the children of the world weep.
--
You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups
Mr. Tyng,
Your request is denied.
The amount of money required to convene a Special Board of Inquiry in
the Bahamas is not warranted at this time. Perhaps the General Board of
Directors will take up the matter during their normal Christmas meeting
in the Cook Islands, if time allows. The of
Gregory wrote:
> It could be done by the horizontal thickness of the frontal armour, that way
> the T-34 would have thicker than 45mm armour (can't be bothered doing the
> maths).
I just did the math. The 45mm plate slanted to the 60 degrees (as on
the front of a T34) works out to 90mm in the ho
Kinetic energy AP rounds are usually direct fire and pretty flat
trajectory. The thinness of top armour isn't usually a problem unti
you venture into the city - or some lucky allied gunner bounces a
round off the underside of your Panther's mantlet straight into the
top of your driver's head - don'
I see , but is this all presuming that all incoming shells follow the
horizon ?
On May 3, 4:09 pm, Pete Arundel wrote:
> As usual, Neil, the reality is quite complicated. Take a tank like the
> Tiger. The nose plate is very thick and nearly vertical as is the
> drivers plate but the plate over
As usual, Neil, the reality is quite complicated. Take a tank like the
Tiger. The nose plate is very thick and nearly vertical as is the
drivers plate but the plate over the drivers legs between the nose and
the drivers plates, the glacis, is almost horizontal and so can be
made much thinner - and
"Well actually due to the increased length of an angled plate over a
vertical one there is little if any weight saving . . ."
if the front of a tank looks like this \ will it use less metal of
the same thinkness to join the same two points than if it was this
shape ¬??
FTF tech department
There is also the fact that the angle will tend to make rounds ricochet.
-Gregory
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 4:48 AM, Pete Arundel wrote:
>
>
> > The slope offers increased armor thickness in the horizontal plane
> > (with less total weight) AND also provides a deflection advantage on
> > incoming r
> The slope offers increased armor thickness in the horizontal plane
> (with less total weight) AND also provides a deflection advantage on
> incoming rounds. 45mm indeed!!
>
Well actually due to the increased length of an angled plate over a
vertical one there is little if any weight saving
Well thats what I get for making an assumption.
I made an "*ss" out of "u" and "umption"
I belive i will be buildng a M4(105) Sherman next. After all, when I
started T076 I built 2 hulls, but shoved one in the shed for my
brother in Afganistan and worked soley on the one.
--
You are currently su
It could be done by the horizontal thickness of the frontal armour, that way
the T-34 would have thicker than 45mm armour (can't be bothered doing the
maths).
-Gregory
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Steve Tyng wrote:
> Only the unenlightened among us would think a T34 only has 45mm
> frontal
Only the unenlightened among us would think a T34 only has 45mm
frontal armor! For wasn't it the T34 that introduced sloped armor?
The slope offers increased armor thickness in the horizontal plane
(with less total weight) AND also provides a deflection advantage on
incoming rounds. 45mm indeed!!
12 matches
Mail list logo
