Jump to content


M110 and M103 hull armor


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

SFC_Storm #61 Posted Oct 09 2011 - 21:49

    Major

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

View Postnublex, on Oct 09 2011 - 08:45, said:

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.

German Panthers were supposed to use RHA Steel, and it wasnt the same at all taking a Panther from 1944 and 1945, the russains tested them and the later models using the same "Steel" was 30% weaker and Ruski tanks constantly had poor metals....To say its the same is insane, even now the carbon count of steel varies greatly...Just saying RHA doesnt mean a thing, esp back then.

Sorry but Metallurgy took a whole new step between 1944 and 1948 we used aluminum way more often and learned great mixing techniques to save weight and keep strength, RHA is not all equal not even close. ALl RHA is, is a type of metal, basically the process in its making not carbon count or certain metallic mixture

Rolled homogeneous armor means rolled steel. Rather than a type of steel it was how it was made.

nublex #62 Posted Oct 10 2011 - 00:03

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17549 battles
  • 2,992
  • Member since:
    01-05-2011
Sure, but all the tanks in the game is treated as if they have the same steel.

The game doesn't model face hardening either.

ramp4ge #63 Posted Oct 10 2011 - 00:06

    Major

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 333 battles
  • 9,868
  • Member since:
    06-16-2010
No they aren't.

Every vehicle has a homogenization stat. Some vehicles are tougher to penetrate despite having the same thickness on the faces.

When the US tree was released, the devs made the claim "Oh, their armor is 20% too strong!" and then they nerf'd the homogenization values of the armor. It was bullcrap, but they did it. Oddly enough, they did the same thing to the German heavies on the Russian server before ours went live.

Dominatus #64 Posted Oct 10 2011 - 00:10

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10311 battles
  • 13,793
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010

View Postramp4ge, on Oct 10 2011 - 00:06, said:

No they aren't.

Every vehicle has a homogenization stat. Some vehicles are tougher to penetrate despite having the same thickness on the faces.

Yeah, we ahve no idea the actual values of the homogenization stats, but we know it exists, and even then just because somebody apparently managed to hack into the game and found out about it.

Gigaton #65 Posted Oct 10 2011 - 06:04

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 872
  • Member since:
    11-11-2010
Ramp4ge, you don't happen to have source stating that US increased the hardness of their armour sometime in mid '50s (ie. for M103 and possibly M48)? Because the M47 tested in Yugoslavia in '60s against various guns (US 90mm, Pak 43, USSR 100mm etc.) had just 210 BHN armour everywhere. That's really soft. If memory serves, T-54 was about 280-290 BHN in comparison (which is pretty ideal hardness for tank armour).

ramp4ge #66 Posted Oct 10 2011 - 06:47

    Major

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 333 battles
  • 9,868
  • Member since:
    06-16-2010
210 BHN was determined to be the ideal hardness vs brittleness for individual plates. It was kept at 210 BHN to prevent cracking and fracturing when hit by HEAT and HESH rounds. T-34 is said to have had really hard steel--350 BHN--and was infamous for the plates fracturing and cracking. T-54 was at 290 BHN and also had issues with the steel's durability.

A milder steel isn't necessarily a worse steel.

That and the M47 was still using WWII metallurgy. It was still basically a Pershing hull with a new cast turret. M47s were phased out pretty quick for the M48, which was a totally new design and much more similar to the M103.

Also, "Armor Basics" by Paul Lakowski states that post-war to present US RHA is between 270-300 BHN, and as high as 450-500 on the Abrams.

SFC_Storm #67 Posted Oct 10 2011 - 09:04

    Major

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

View PostGigaton, on Oct 10 2011 - 06:04, said:

Ramp4ge, you don't happen to have source stating that US increased the hardness of their armour sometime in mid '50s (ie. for M103 and possibly M48)? Because the M47 tested in Yugoslavia in '60s against various guns (US 90mm, Pak 43, USSR 100mm etc.) had just 210 BHN armour everywhere. That's really soft. If memory serves, T-54 was about 280-290 BHN in comparison (which is pretty ideal hardness for tank armour).


It wasnt even close to ideal for the T54, its Armor was notorious for Plates holding and building so mich pressure rather than Giving/Bowing that entire Panels would blow off and crush the crews, also when armor fractures it turns into the worst shrapnel there is.

Softer metal provided much more protection for the rounded shapes of WW2 style tanks.

Only after the T60 and M48 was Metal`s hardness successfully increased and not had plates flying off or splintering.

Gigaton #68 Posted Oct 10 2011 - 14:24

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 872
  • Member since:
    11-11-2010

View PostCmd_Storm, on Oct 10 2011 - 09:04, said:

Softer metal provided much more protection for the rounded shapes of WW2 style tanks.

Be that as it may, in practical testing T-54 glacis proved superior to M47 glacis dispite of them being technically similar.

http://208.84.116.22...opic=18562&st=0

T-54

88mm PaK43 firing AP and HVAP

Fails to penetrate glacis with any kind of ammo even @100m

M47

88mm PaK43 firing AP and HVAP

M39 (PzGr.39?) AP penetrates glacis @ 250m
M54 subcaliber penetrates glacis @ 350m

The fracturing and spalling problems you described above are what I would associate with wartime Soviet tanks (eg. see how armour on T-34 fractures in the tests described in the above link), which commonly had plate hardness of over 400 BHN. The hardness of T-54's armour plates is comparable to that of Tiger I's mantlet (which was about 280 BHN).

mechsftw #69 Posted Oct 10 2011 - 23:00

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22008 battles
  • 748
  • [AYAYA] AYAYA
  • Member since:
    03-11-2011

View Postopposum, on Oct 06 2011 - 03:11, said:

Yes we already know what the hull armor will be, it will be pathetic. Everyone knows the developers will unfairly give the american tanks a disadvantage. It's a proven fact. I have broken down and came to the conclusion many many many moons ago that the american tree is NEVER going to get a tank that can hold its own. The developers are not going to be that fair...... sucks really.
The t32 can hold its own.

thor66 #70 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 02:41

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 41280 battles
  • 477
  • Member since:
    03-14-2011

View Postmechsftw, on Oct 10 2011 - 23:00, said:

The t32 can hold its own.

Hold its own with what? IS3 or IS4, those tanks and anything tier 7 and above can pen front easy. And how many bounces or not pen do 105 get from its poor pentration and accuracy values.

The 105mm needs a big pen buff to put in in line with its counterparts, something in the line of 225mm. 196mm just doesn't cut it when that gun should pen much more than it does.

Mow_Mow #71 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 02:53

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12058 battles
  • 14,881
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010
1vs1 A T32 can trash an IS-3 easy. It shouldn't be a contest at all, really. The IS-3 can't take a T32 in a head on fight. It's all about the low profile and 298mm turret, as well as the great gun depression.

SFC_Storm #72 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 03:23

    Major

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

View PostGigaton, on Oct 10 2011 - 14:24, said:

Be that as it may, in practical testing T-54 glacis proved superior to M47 glacis dispite of them being technically similar.

http://208.84.116.22...opic=18562&st=0

T-54

88mm PaK43 firing AP and HVAP

Fails to penetrate glacis with any kind of ammo even @100m

M47

88mm PaK43 firing AP and HVAP

M39 (PzGr.39?) AP penetrates glacis @ 250m
M54 subcaliber penetrates glacis @ 350m

The fracturing and spalling problems you described above are what I would associate with wartime Soviet tanks (eg. see how armour on T-34 fractures in the tests described in the above link), which commonly had plate hardness of over 400 BHN. The hardness of T-54's armour plates is comparable to that of Tiger I's mantlet (which was about 280 BHN).

This proves nothing sorry

BTW, tests vs "T-54A" glacis and side hull for all guns except 90mm M36 were not done vs actual vehicle but vs equivalent test plate.

from your link and also I know that actual test`s of T54 esp earlier ones were terrible and the US army found it to be a horribly unpredictable tank, and one of the Engineers said it wouldnt have even passed the Trials in the US Army, also the brits thought the same, but the T60 was alot better, hell even the T55/Later 54`s were alot better.

Metalgod_ #73 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 03:39

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18014 battles
  • 2,984
  • Member since:
    09-10-2010
The truth is, this entire subject is a sore spot for many of us who put in a lot of gametime to get a tank that is broken, just look at some of the players on here with RO bans for comments, some of these players are veteran beta testers and have great reps on the forums. My point is that we will not know anything until the beta comes out for the new tank so lets give the Development team a chance to work this out, did it ever occur to anyone that they may want to make for sure they dont do the same thing again? Or "fix" the problem with a band-aid? I for one would prefer a solution to a fix. Just keep your cool, its not worth your rep or your voice you've worked and spent a lot of time (and for some of us, money) on...

SFC_Storm #74 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 06:23

    Major

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

View Postmetalgod, on Oct 11 2011 - 03:39, said:

The truth is, this entire subject is a sore spot for many of us who put in a lot of gametime to get a tank that is broken, just look at some of the players on here with RO bans for comments, some of these players are veteran beta testers and have great reps on the forums. My point is that we will not know anything until the beta comes out for the new tank so lets give the Development team a chance to work this out, did it ever occur to anyone that they may want to make for sure they dont do the same thing again? Or "fix" the problem with a band-aid? I for one would prefer a solution to a fix. Just keep your cool, its not worth your rep or your voice you've worked and spent a lot of time (and for some of us, money) on...


We all hope so...But track records [Not just US heavies but alot of other things have been ignored IE lack of variety of guns compared to Rus, Lack of Comparable tanks in most catagoreys compared to both other races etc]

They have had many chances to either leave the T30 alone or make the M46 the M47 or M48 to make it play against the E50 which really eclipses it in most ways seeing as its front armor is basically Godmode vs the M46 and adding speed and armor to the upgraded Panther 2 [E50 now has same gun but way better accuracy, Godly frontal armor and more top speed] Also there obcession in past always Nerfing [T30 in which was already behind the pack for a T10 and other US`s like Patton losing Accuracy on the move] and always saying "These are real stats" and then giving other tanks like the T54 T55 stats and guns and Armor and Speed.

Predicting the future comes from learning about the past.

I hope to god your right but IMO they will come out weakish.

Also why dont we get 2 sets of Heavies? Or the long 90mm on the M6 similar to the 107mm thats on a T5....Sorry but US is gimped compared to rest, it makes you play more carefully which is why US tankers have good stats but face enemies who are solid tankers and you die.

E50 vs Patton even drivers = 3 wins M46 7 wins E50., E50 pens 100% of time, Patton hits 30% from front and 100% only from sides.
Is4/E75 vs T34 another lol
T30 vs Is7/E100= E100 taking over its role with 3x the Armor and IS7 has its definite attack role..US lacks Hi Tier Heavy Niche, and so they nerf aim accuracy??

Really the Pershing is only top 2 in class and the Panther2 can eat it alive when driven right.

I really hope your right, the T110 is like the E series they basically get to make up stats so IMO it better be a damned beat in some way or another.

Mow_Mow #75 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 09:25

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12058 battles
  • 14,881
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010
I think Patton is more versatile than E-50. E-50 may have a great gun and decent front armor, but the front armor won't stand up to anything serious anyway. The Patton is more maneuverable, can shoot better on the move, still does great damage with its gun, and can aim down very far. It can scout, it can flank, it can hunt, and it can even mop up.

ramp4ge #76 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 09:56

    Major

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 333 battles
  • 9,868
  • Member since:
    06-16-2010
But the Patton can't engage anything over 300 yards away. The gun is fantastic until you look at the .37 accuracy and realize that most of the shots you're going to be taking are going to be putting you in harm's way at the same time. The E-50 can do almost anything the Patton can, and it can snipe. It's armor is worlds better then the Patton's and frontally, it's virtually immune to the T-44 and Pershing.

The E-50's very flexible. It's got a great gun, it's well protected and it's very mobile. There's nothing seriously wrong with it. No glaring weaknesses. Patton's glaring weaknesses are it's relative lack of protection and it's inaccurate gun, and T-54's weaknesses are it's lack of DPM and alpha. E-50 is well protected, it's fast, it's got an accurate gun that hits hard and has a good reload..

Not saying any of the tier 9s are better then the others, since all three of them are extremely efficient at killing eachother and most other things they come across, but E-50's an extremely potent enemy.

I want the M103, but I'm really curious to see if they'll replicate the T110's composite armor in some way, shape or form.

I'm also curious to see what they do with the copula on the M103 and the T110. Huge, glaring weaknesses on the turret. Recently, Overlord told us that they made the decision to remove the IS-4's external fuel tanks from the hitbox for "gameplay reasons", making a vehicle that's already difficult to penetrate even more difficult to penetrate. I'm curious to see if the M103 and T110 will be allotted such luxuries as having their weaknesses deleted, or if that's only allotted to vehicles carrying a red star...

Seriously the amounts of buffs the IS-4 gets despite it already being mosnterously OP is just laughable.

Arzoo #77 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 10:24

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6061 battles
  • 1,780
  • [SF-G] SF-G
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011
The IS-4 was monstrously OP back when the competition was the T34 and VK. Now that they're removing the T34 (finally) in a few months and have added the E75 it's clear that the IS-4 is just the only tank performing up to tier 9 par and the rest just sucked.

M103's commander hatch on the upgraded turret is a lot better than the stock one; it doesn't look much worse than some other tank's hatches. The T110's is definitely a problem though.

djuice1701 #78 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 10:49

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 8149 battles
  • 887
  • Member since:
    09-15-2010
The role of a M103 & T110 is to support your other tanks, it's not a main line heavy assault tank like the Maus or E-100, so you should be at a decent range in which they have a very low chance to actually target and hit your cupola. It wouldn't really be a weak spot unless you play it like a brawler aka T32.

JDCollie #79 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 10:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 10347 battles
  • 3,287
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View Postthor66, on Oct 11 2011 - 02:41, said:

Hold its own with what? IS3 or IS4, those tanks and anything tier 7 and above can pen front easy. And how many bounces or not pen do 105 get from its poor pentration and accuracy values.

The 105mm needs a big pen buff to put in in line with its counterparts, something in the line of 225mm. 196mm just doesn't cut it when that gun should pen much more than it does.

I agree the gun needs a penetration buff, but saying that the T32 can't hold its own is ridiculous.  


Also, I have to ask, why on earth do you have over eight hundred battles in an M6?  :blink:  I mean, I'm not knocking that or anything, but wow, that is serious dedication right there.

SFC_Storm #80 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 18:45

    Major

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

View Postdjuice1701, on Oct 11 2011 - 10:49, said:

The role of a M103 & T110 is to support your other tanks, it's not a main line heavy assault tank like the Maus or E-100, so you should be at a decent range in which they have a very low chance to actually target and hit your cupola. It wouldn't really be a weak spot unless you play it like a brawler aka T32.

Why is this its role? Who said?

I know we all say US are support but why? They wernt support only tanks in RL....Make the Ruskis support tanks and us the Lightning fast attackers with great armor for once.

If anything the T110 was an all out attack tank with great experimental armor based on one of the best attackers ever the M60, with away bigger gun, for all intents and purpses it was the 1st Abrams, Designed with heavy Armor that was lightweight, and small structure with a previously heavies Gun that could pen anything in game easily....Thats a shark not a support tank.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users