Jump to content


1324 mm effective armor thickness


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

Y_O_L_0 #1 Posted 14 March 2016 - 08:08 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 19531 battles
  • 906
  • [FUSED] FUSED
  • Member since:
    12-27-2012

G'Day!

 

I really don't want to bore you with my silly findings, but I was checking spaced armor on Tanks.gg, and I found this:

 

http://imgur.com/JsGKuVm

 

I know we should not shoot spaced armor, but this... 1000 mm armor thickness. It is on the turret of the WZ 111 1-4, no one would shoot the turret of this tank so it really doesn't matter if it's 340 mm thick or 1000 mm thick, it is just weird to see these kind of numbers in a tank that was designed around the 1950's.



PoIestar #2 Posted 14 March 2016 - 08:30 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 31687 battles
  • 4,078
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    05-02-2013
It's only 1 spot... Just avoid that spot and you'll be fine. 

Y_O_L_0 #3 Posted 14 March 2016 - 09:01 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 19531 battles
  • 906
  • [FUSED] FUSED
  • Member since:
    12-27-2012

View PostPolestarBlue, on 14 March 2016 - 07:30 PM, said:

It's only 1 spot... Just avoid that spot and you'll be fine. 

 

Yes, of course, it's not about how to damage the tank, it's about the insane number. 1300 mm is just to high, seems to be weird.

PoIestar #4 Posted 14 March 2016 - 10:59 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 31687 battles
  • 4,078
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    05-02-2013
Hehe I was just kidding, you should avoid the WZ's turret anyway, so if you manage to exactly hit that spot it won't make any difference. It's weird, but nothing major.

K_A #5 Posted 15 March 2016 - 10:47 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 13626 battles
  • 4,665
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-18-2013

Here's one from an IS-3:

 

 

And here's a T30:

 

 

 

I could continue with a whole bunch of high-tier tanks. Funny angles and layers of spaced armour on top of each other will result in some funny figures on a lot of tanks.



UrQuan #6 Posted 15 March 2016 - 12:41 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19411 battles
  • 6,153
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

For insane numbers, go Russian:

 

Obj 260 armor strongpoint

Image found by Waris

 

But as mentioned above, these are hardly an issue as they're tiny spots at crazy angles. 



Y_O_L_0 #7 Posted 15 March 2016 - 03:48 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 19531 battles
  • 906
  • [FUSED] FUSED
  • Member since:
    12-27-2012

I found this, so I returned to this thread:

http://imgur.com/dNJIAvD

2496 mm effective armor....

 

... and then this:

View PostUrQuan, on 15 March 2016 - 11:41 AM, said:

For insane numbers, go Russian:

 

Obj 260 armor strongpoint

Image found by Waris

 

But as mentioned above, these are hardly an issue as they're tiny spots at crazy angles. 

 

What is WG's logic behind the effective armor value?

 

I know these are extreme armor values, but what should we know when we shoot the side of an IS-3? So I tried some calculations:

 

Obj. 260 shown in the picture: 150 mm (space), 60 mm (spaced), 350 mm (normal).

150 x 350 = 52.500

60 x 350 = 21.000

52.500 + 21.000 = 73.500

Which is close to the 70.248 shown in the picture, but then again, the angle of the armor counts as well.

 

I know these numbers make absolutely no difference to our gameplay, but damm, these numbers are very weird.



Y_O_L_0 #8 Posted 15 March 2016 - 03:49 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 19531 battles
  • 906
  • [FUSED] FUSED
  • Member since:
    12-27-2012
By the way, guys, how do you put the image directly into the post, I can only upload the picture to imgur and then put the link here, but I don't know how to upload the picture directly to the WoT forum.

Homer_J #9 Posted 15 March 2016 - 04:10 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 28291 battles
  • 29,509
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostUrQuan, on 15 March 2016 - 11:41 AM, said:

 

But as mentioned above, these are hardly an issue as they're tiny spots at crazy angles. 

 

View PostY_O_L_0, on 14 March 2016 - 07:08 PM, said:

 it is just weird to see these kind of numbers in a tank that was designed around the 1950's.

 

It's not that they were designed with 1000mm thick armour, they were designed to take a hit head on and you are looking at an extreme angle.  It's primary school geometry which gives you the crazy thickness.

PoIestar #10 Posted 15 March 2016 - 04:58 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 31687 battles
  • 4,078
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    05-02-2013

View PostY_O_L_0, on 15 March 2016 - 03:49 PM, said:

By the way, guys, how do you put the image directly into the post, I can only upload the picture to imgur and then put the link here, but I don't know how to upload the picture directly to the WoT forum.

 

Upload to imgur, use the button on the picture I included, paste the image URL into the top bar, click OK, done.



Y_O_L_0 #11 Posted 16 March 2016 - 11:06 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 19531 battles
  • 906
  • [FUSED] FUSED
  • Member since:
    12-27-2012

View PostPolestarBlue, on 15 March 2016 - 03:58 PM, said:

 

 

Upload to imgur, use the button on the picture I included, paste the image URL into the top bar, click OK, done.

 



battletank898 #12 Posted 05 August 2017 - 11:36 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1354 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    03-18-2014

I know this post is 1 year old,but 1.3 m of effective armor is insane.I am just imagining which kind of shell you need to pen that.

 



Panocek #13 Posted 05 August 2017 - 10:49 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29050 battles
  • 12,041
  • Member since:
    05-24-2011

View Postbattletank898, on 05 August 2017 - 12:36 PM, said:

I know this post is 1 year old,but 1.3 m of effective armor is insane.I am just imagining which kind of shell you need to pen that.

 

 

​Modern APDSFS or HEAT could do, but why penetrate small spot with wild line of sight thickness due to sloping?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users