Sirchby

super pershing
Was T26E1-1 Super Pershing auxiliary armor completely made of standard boiler plate instead of some "special" boiler plate?

37 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Sirchby said:

So, in term of Super Pershing's boiler armor effectiveness compared to solid armor plate?

 

Is it underperforming a lot?

<shrugs>

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2017 at 2:16 PM, Sirchby said:

So, in term of Super Pershing's boiler armor effectiveness compared to solid armor plate?

 

Is it underperforming a lot?

Well it performs worse than aluminium, which seems very iffy to me. 

 

Comparing modern pressure vessel steel of the thickness used in the Super Pershing, it has an UTS of 460MPa, compared to RHA which has a UTS of 923MPa (According to alternatewars dot com, so take it with a grain of salt, but it's a ball park at least) 

Not sure exactly how you would go about converting that into effective thickness, but I would think UTS would be the most useful number for it, considering it deals with the deformation of steel. 

So from those numbers, you could see how they would get this 0.45 modifier, but you'd need someone smarter than me to give you a solid answer. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sirchby said:

So, technically, it should have an armor modifier of?

Well, my guess would be not much better than it is now, if at all. 

Slightly better than aluminium maybe, so around 0.5 or 0.55 modifier perhaps. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, ArthurWood said:

Sad thing is even if concrete data is found about the plates, any fix will never happen.

 

fixed

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nope said:

 

fixed

pretty much...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

better now than never right? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This table from American tests of the 75mm guns at Aberdeen pretty much confirms the absolute uselessness of regular steel as armour against conventional kinetic energy projectiles.

Note, that there are no figures for HEAT, which might mean Whelmy's source might be some good bug report material to get different penetration figures for kinetic and chemical energy shells on the same armour.

This also puts into question whether or not regular steel was also hard enough to cause a premature detonation of APHE, especially if looking at German fuses.

ghR8rxt.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheLeadHead said:

This table from American tests of the 75mm guns at Aberdeen pretty much confirms the absolute uselessness of regular steel as armour against conventional kinetic energy projectiles.

Note, that there are no figures for HEAT, which might mean Whelmy's source might be some good bug report material to get different penetration figures for kinetic and chemical energy shells on the same armour.

This also puts into question whether or not regular steel was also hard enough to cause a premature detonation of APHE, especially if looking at German fuses.

ghR8rxt.jpg

 

Interesting.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, TheLeadHead said:

This table from American tests of the 75mm guns at Aberdeen pretty much confirms the absolute uselessness of regular steel as armour against conventional kinetic energy projectiles.

Note, that there are no figures for HEAT, which might mean Whelmy's source might be some good bug report material to get different penetration figures for kinetic and chemical energy shells on the same armour.

This also puts into question whether or not regular steel was also hard enough to cause a premature detonation of APHE, especially if looking at German fuses.

ghR8rxt.jpg

Interesting to see how concrete makes better protection than steel.
I guess there's a reason tank armour has very specific names than just "steel"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.