Video games receive financial backing by the Russian Military Historical Society.I don't think war thunder's russian game devs are fascist but the russian buffs are pretty ridiculous.-
https://www.gamersglobal.de/news/77442/ ... zuschussen
Video games receive financial backing by the Russian Military Historical Society.I don't think war thunder's russian game devs are fascist but the russian buffs are pretty ridiculous.-
The most annoying buffs are the ones which aren't even sourced. IIRC German munitions (and only German munitions) get less effectiveness on slopes despite latewar German shells being specifically designed to be able to tolerate slopes. Meanwhile Russian 76mm short barreled can outperform the L/48 75mm against slopes...Grrr.
So even the 20mm sides should be expected to withstand threats a 20mm plate typically would resist? Interesting.critical mass wrote: ↑07 Sep 2021, 11:59There is no evidence for passing of armor plate -any thickness- below specifications.
Only pilot models were sometimes fitted with unhardened steel plates and for this very reason declared unfit for combat.
That's...A Ferdinand hull I think?
Yes, since this is the most recent thread where Ferdinand was discussed I opted to post this here instead of reviving some early 2000s thread.
I am having a bit of difficulty believing these numbers, it would mean the entire tank would have had to have been taken apart and welded back together with brand new custom plates.Peasant wrote: ↑22 Dec 2021, 16:48Be sure to open the image twice, first this one and then another from the image hosting site, the original is very high res, the numbers should be readable fairly well.
Well, the single biggest discrepancy I see is the lower side thickness, 40mm instead of 80, even less than lower side armor of Tiger I. The driver's plate and sloped front are not 100+100mm(200) but 85mm base thickness + 105mm addon armour(190). The two rear plates are 60 and 70mm instead of both being 80. The lower nose is also 70mm thick. Other plates have their expected thickness (within manufacturing tolerances).
edit: I don't believe this is an issue with measurement accuracy, its accurate to the nearest millimetre, enough to discern that there is a difference between 82mm and 85mm thick plates on this vehicle.
I'd like to second this question. Would be really interested in reading more about this.Peasant wrote: ↑02 Apr 2021, 17:14You are making an Interesting point here. Are you suggesting that failure by plug ejection is somehow beneficial for the armour at high obliquity? Perhaps accelerating the ejected plug robs the shell of some it's velocity vector component directed towards the armor and turns it away from it's path? Just making a wild guess, I haven't seem much research done on this topic. Although I know that the optimum hardness level for the plate increases for a given T/D ratio as the obliquity increases between 0 and 45°, not sure if this relationship holds up at even higher obliquity.With RHA armor plating, the amount of damage entering a vehicle can be quiete small until a calibre sized hole is formed through plastic deformation or, preferably, plug ejection.
I've seen sources saying the lower side armor of Ferdinand was 60mm though, which would make sense given the Tiger (P)'s hull.Yoozername wrote: ↑27 Dec 2021, 12:25I remember a thread I had with mobius in matrix website. Basically, the Original Porsche Tigers had the same specs as Henschel Tigers. So, lower hull side armor 60 mm. They OBVIOUSLY had major rework on the structure as far as ...everything above?