Jump to content


M110 and M103 hull armor


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
213 replies to this topic

Mow_Mow #41 Posted Oct 08 2011 - 22:06

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12058 battles
  • 14,881
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010

View PostGigaton, on Oct 08 2011 - 21:57, said:

Autobounce due to angle will override overmatch. How else could people ricochet off SU-85B with BL-10.

But arty splash will certainly love M103's arse.

I'm pretty sure they changed it because all the ISU-152 were whining about BL-10 shots bouncing on Leopards. But of course, I could be wrong since my T30 gun bounces on T-34-85s all the time...

Vector03 #42 Posted Oct 08 2011 - 22:15

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 13748 battles
  • 1,599
  • Member since:
    07-28-2010
This will be a fun tank when it comes out in 2017.

SFC_Storm #43 Posted Oct 09 2011 - 00:01

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostTheodore, on Oct 08 2011 - 06:57, said:

http://a.imageshack....sidiofirepo.jpg

And the same number on A1/A2 page.


Whats the source of this? Hannicut?

I have a manual from my Neighbor who was on the M103 Project [He also confirmed] and I agree the Deppresion says -8 degrees for eletric motor only, The Gun has a Electric break [They call bumper] where it stops the electric turret at -8 then you can crank another 6 Degrees, This was for removal of barrel when you pulled out the 4 piece pins holding the Gun in place, but the crews were taught while in defilade to use the extra 4 Degrees constantly was fine, and only to use the last 2 degree`s [Because it was hard on the turret] in absolute emergencies.

That would be cool to be able to fire a few rounds per match using manual Depression.

Like I said I think this tank will surprise people if the Devs make it right, It really was the Father of the Gen 3 Tank and its Armor Principles made it way way more protected than just measuring mm Thickness. Thickness means nothing without a ton of things that factor in 1 being Slope another Geometry of the Plates and how they take force, How strong the welds are, if the Plates overlap etc etc
and from what I know and see, and speaking with one of the designers It was a whole other animal from most the tanks in game with over 400mm of Pen with its Sabot rounds and its perfect round [Weighted Dome design, which we discarded for the Abrams later] it was the pinnacle of tank design at the time, it simply like the navy`s battleships before was outclassed by missiles and thermal warfare, It put out so much heat it lit up 3 miles away with thermal imaging/targeting.

SFC_Storm #44 Posted Oct 09 2011 - 00:11

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostArzoo, on Oct 08 2011 - 08:44, said:

Someone already asked if they were really going to make the hatch the humongous weakspot it looks like, and the response was something to the affect of "it's how the tank was; we can't do anything about it."

I asked Overlord why the IS-4's external fuel tanks seem to be bugged. He told me that they were removed from the hitbox (read: made absolutely invulnerable while still blocking shots) for "gameplay reasons."

Sorry but this is just insane...Im sorry guys but the ydo favor Ruski tanks in alot of ways, Hitboxes arent right at all, T54 and alot of other tanks years as so screwed up they are really T55`s using 60`s engines and 60`s Guns...Lol.

The IS4`s weakspot should be its fuel tanks not extra armor.

ramp4ge #45 Posted Oct 09 2011 - 06:04

    Major

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 333 battles
  • 9,868
  • Member since:
    06-16-2010

Quote

I asked Overlord why the IS-4's external fuel tanks seem to be bugged. He told me that they were removed from the hitbox (read: made absolutely invulnerable while still blocking shots) for "gameplay reasons."

Lool.

God..

Anyway, the thing that I'm most curious about is not the M103's armor thickness, but it's homogenization. Steel in the mid 1950s was arguably much stronger then it was during WWII, so the armor should be more resistant to penetration.

Also, the T110 was apparently one of the first vehicles to use composites and layered armor (Same as the T95, and both T95 and T110's armor technology was carried over to the MBT-70). How are they going to replicate non-metallic armor?

FaustianQ #46 Posted Oct 09 2011 - 06:08

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18720 battles
  • 7,726
  • Member since:
    07-13-2010

View Postramp4ge, on Oct 09 2011 - 06:04, said:

Also, the T110 was apparently one of the first vehicles to use composites and layered armor (Same as the T95, and both T95 and T110's armor technology was carried over to the MBT-70). How are they going to replicate non-metallic armor?

The exact opposite way in which the T28 and T95 are extremely vulnerable to HE.

SFC_Storm #47 Posted Oct 09 2011 - 06:13

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View Postramp4ge, on Oct 09 2011 - 06:04, said:

Lool.

God..

Anyway, the thing that I'm most curious about is not the M103's armor thickness, but it's homogenization. Steel in the mid 1950s was arguably much stronger then it was during WWII, so the armor should be more resistant to penetration.

Also, the T110 was apparently one of the first vehicles to use composites and layered armor (Same as the T95, and both T95 and T110's armor technology was carried over to the MBT-70). How are they going to replicate non-metallic armor?

Steel being better is just 1 thing, more though it was Design of Seam Welds and how the Kinetic energy was displaced.

They made the M103 to disperse energy very well and the entire tank absorbed DMG rather than a panel coming and crushing the crew or melting or shattering and turning into a claymore mine.

Its the same as kevlar the new vests are way lighter and thinner and yet they protect 1.5 times better, why? Because they disperse the energy over a way wider area so they leave less DMG to the Person in the vest where as the old Silk vests used to stop bullets but break ribs and rupture livers and spleens...Same concept, also the US focus`s gases after being pinned out of vents where as older German/Rus/US tanks got turrets blown off very very often.

Armor isnt just thickness esp not anymore.

Arzoo #48 Posted Oct 09 2011 - 06:54

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6061 battles
  • 1,780
  • [SF-G] SF-G
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011
Armor isn't all about thickness in the real world. In World of Tanks they've made it abundantly clear that the only thing that matters is thickness and the angle at which you hit it.

PHOENIX_ONE #49 Posted Oct 09 2011 - 07:11

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 222 battles
  • 441
  • [MIA] MIA
  • Member since:
    03-09-2011

View PostMow_Mow, on Oct 08 2011 - 17:29, said:

Currently heavies have 51mm. A freak bounce can still happen at extreme angles. But with 25mm the overmatching mechanic (if shell size > 3x armor, guaranteed penetration regardless of angle) will apply.

I think the most important thing of driving M103 will be find something to protect the butt :Smile-hiding:

SFC_Storm #50 Posted Oct 09 2011 - 07:57

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostArzoo, on Oct 09 2011 - 06:54, said:

Armor isn't all about thickness in the real world. In World of Tanks they've made it abundantly clear that the only thing that matters is thickness and the angle at which you hit it.


They must have meant thats all that calculates, but they need to thicken Armor values to adjust for modern Parts/Styles of Welding/Materials/Adv in engineering etc they cheat on years of parts on tanks T54/IS4/105mm in Panther2 Etc but they cant make tweak armor values to be more realistic?

nublex #51 Posted Oct 09 2011 - 08:45

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17549 battles
  • 2,992
  • Member since:
    01-05-2011
Quick look in wiki it said M103 use RHA steel...same stuff as WWII tanks.

Maybe they are more carefully controlled....but they are the same for all tanks in game.

There is no penal buckling in this game, in fact it seems a lot of tank absorb shots with their either body.....if M103 isn't a computer assist design, there is no reason why late WWII tanks doesn't do it either.

Internal spalling is why spall liner exist....except in equipment we get in game is more like filled space armour, or so by looking the icon.

T110's composite armour is applique.

ramp4ge #52 Posted Oct 09 2011 - 09:28

    Major

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 333 battles
  • 9,868
  • Member since:
    06-16-2010
Apparently the armor on the T95 and T110 was siliceous-cored. The way they did it was fusing a layer of silica glass between two RHA plates. The idea was that the silica glass between the two RHA plates had the stopping power of 2x the steel it was fused between.

Arzoo #53 Posted Oct 09 2011 - 13:03

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6061 battles
  • 1,780
  • [SF-G] SF-G
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011
The T110 is the only tank that I would entertain the slightest hope of advanced armor construction being accurately represented on, primarily because there isn't a real-life model they want to follow that had a specific armor thickness on it; odds are OK that they'll just give it higher thickness to represent the better armor.

The idea of the T95's armor being made even better is laughable; they'd have to balance it with like 3 km/h speed.

Of course you can always ask Overlord about it in the Q&A thread. You could even just ask if he can give a guesstimate on what the T110's frontal armor will be... surely they're at least far enough in developing it that they can give a rough guess...

nublex #54 Posted Oct 09 2011 - 13:12

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17549 battles
  • 2,992
  • Member since:
    01-05-2011
Different T95 dude; the one ramp4ge talk about is a M60-2000 made in 60's.

Arzoo #55 Posted Oct 09 2011 - 13:32

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6061 battles
  • 1,780
  • [SF-G] SF-G
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011

View Postnublex, on Oct 09 2011 - 13:12, said:

Different T95 dude; the one ramp4ge talk about is a M60-2000 made in 60's.

My bad. I assumed he was referring to only tanks that are or will be in-game.

FaustianQ #56 Posted Oct 09 2011 - 14:29

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18720 battles
  • 7,726
  • Member since:
    07-13-2010

View Postnublex, on Oct 09 2011 - 13:12, said:

Different T95 dude; the one ramp4ge talk about is a M60-2000 made in 60's.

The T95 medium tank was developed during the mid 50's, and has little relation to virtually any other tank as far as I am aware other then the M48/T54.

nublex #57 Posted Oct 09 2011 - 14:54

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17549 battles
  • 2,992
  • Member since:
    01-05-2011
The project terminated in 1960.....close enough :P

M60's turret is developed from T95; but M60 doesn't get as much gadgets until it got upgraded.

ramp4ge #58 Posted Oct 09 2011 - 18:56

    Major

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 333 battles
  • 9,868
  • Member since:
    06-16-2010
T95 and T110 were part of the same project for a new heavy and a new medium tank, similar to the M103/M48/M41 project of the previous generation. T110 and T95 both shared the same armor scheme, but when both projects fell thru, the armor scheme was later carried over to the MBT-70.

Posted Image

For Arzoo. Definitely not talking about the T95 that's in the game.

the_moidart #59 Posted Oct 09 2011 - 19:14

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 30486 battles
  • 2,160
  • Member since:
    10-22-2010

View Postopposum, on Oct 06 2011 - 15:28, said:

yep, just more proof the russians are going to screw us over AGAIN

How is that? Blame US tank designers, if you need to blame someone. The horrendous-for-tier-9 127mm is based on the real production tank.

VirgilHilts #60 Posted Oct 09 2011 - 19:26

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16650 battles
  • 3,417
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010

View Postthe_moidart, on Oct 09 2011 - 19:14, said:

How is that? Blame US tank designers, if you need to blame someone. The horrendous-for-tier-9 127mm is based on the real production tank.


The U.S. tank designers did not say "we'll make this tank with mediocre armor, since it is only a prototype based on a previous hull, and in 65 years, we'll force some Belarus game designers to put it in their game at tier IX where it'll be outclassed."

The T29/T30/T34 tanks were all just prototypes, all built on the same hull, no one told WoT and wargaming they had to put them in the game, or what tiers they had to place them in.

Hell, for that matter, the developers, since they put a cannon on the T32 it never had, could have left the 105MM on the T34 and put it in tier VIII, and put the 120MM on the T32 and put it in at tier IX. Or, they could have gimped rate of fire to 5.0 RPM on the 120MM at tier VIII on the T34, and let the T32 use it at tier IX at the same specs the T34 has it now.

The developers chose which tank to place in which tier. Tank designers who are long since dead and buried had nothing to do with what tier the tanks are on in WoT.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users