Jump to content


Armor - Ballistics

Armor ballistics 90 mm fantasy

  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

fixento_1 #1 Posted Sep 30 2021 - 02:00

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 1549 battles
  • 12
  • [RAID-] RAID-
  • Member since:
    05-06-2015

The 90 mm on the M48 could penetrate 15 inches of vertical armor at 30 yards.  M48 had 7 inches of armor on front body, 4.3 inches on the gun shield or 8.7 at 60 degrees and 3 inches on the sides.   It weighted 52 tons, combat loaded, yet in the game the ninety guns rounds are bouncing off other tanks side and rear on the body and turret’s armor.    I fired the 90 on M48A1 and saw the results of the AP rounds penetrate 10 inches of sloped armor at 1000 yards.   For these tanks, real or someone’s dream, to have armor thick enough to repel an AP round from a 90 mm every direction, these pill boxes must weigh over 150 tons and would not be very mobile.

Taking multiple hits in not realistic, but necessary for the game.  However, AP rounds bouncing off tanks sides and rear without reactive armor if pure Hollywood [edited].     It makes the games teams uneven to the point of 0 to 15 loses in some cases.   The team winning the game determine will be determined by who has the most pill boxes on tracks.

If the intent was to make the players investment determine the winner, World of Tanks has accomplished that objective.   I think they should reevaluate the game making it more competitive based on something beside unrealistic armor.  

 

I want to add I hit one of the moving pill boxes 37 times with the 90mm AP within 800 yards, in the front, sides, turret, track and not once was there any penetration,   8 were critical hits, spalling,  so the armor must be 11 to 12 inches thick, making the tank weigh over 200 tons and impossible amount  for any mobile tank that can rock on it suspension.  There are no ballistics coupled with physics in this game.   The the investment determines the penetration of the gun and the strength of the armor.  


Edited by fixento_1, Oct 02 2021 - 20:29.


Markd73 #2 Posted Sep 30 2021 - 02:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 36671 battles
  • 9,939
  • [2M8TA] 2M8TA
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011
You are expecting realism from a game that has magic kits that revive dead crew members, tanks have HP and you can fix a track in seconds without getting out of your tank?

ArmorStorm #3 Posted Sep 30 2021 - 02:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 42603 battles
  • 10,306
  • [F__R] F__R
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011
ROFL!  Based on armor?!  Armor is the LEAST useful thing in this game, premium ammo shreds armor!  If you are bouncing shots, either you have a really bad gun, don’t know when to use premium ammo or just don’t know where to shoot your opponents.  There are a few outliers, but generally stated you want to avoid shots because armor is mostly imaginary. 

Projectile_Misfired #4 Posted Sep 30 2021 - 02:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 39482 battles
  • 6,687
  • Member since:
    05-30-2012

View Postfixento_1, on Sep 30 2021 - 01:00, said:

The 90 mm on the M48 could penetrate 15 inches of vertical armor at 30 yards.  M48 had 7 inches of armor on front body, 4.3 inches on the gun shield or 8.7 at 60 degrees and 3 inches on the sides.   It weighted 52 tons, combat loaded, yet in the game the ninety guns rounds are bouncing off other tanks side and rear on the body and turret’s armor.    I fired the 90 on M48A1 and saw the results of the AP rounds penetrate 10 inches of sloped armor at 1000 yards.   For these tanks, real or someone’s dream, to have armor thick enough to repel an AP round from a 90 mm every direction, these pill boxes must weigh over 150 tons and would not be very mobile.

Taking multiple hits in not realistic, but necessary for the game.  However, AP rounds bouncing off tanks sides and rear without reactive armor if pure Hollywood [edited].     It makes the games teams uneven to the point of 0 to 15 loses in some cases.   The team winning the game determine will be determined by who has the most pill boxes on tracks.

If the intent was to make the players investment determine the winner, World of Tanks has accomplished that objective.   I think they should reevaluate the game making it more competitive based on something beside unrealistic armor.  

 

Wait....so you're going to totally skip over the part where a player can insta-repair their Tracks with a push of a button....and go with this?

 



Draschel #5 Posted Sep 30 2021 - 05:38

    Captain

  • Players
  • 2074 battles
  • 1,491
  • Member since:
    04-01-2020

Armor rarely is what it is, in these seen and used tests. Case in point, RHMA, rolled homogenous monolithic armor, is a singular fashioned or entirely seamed (not laminated) plate. Rolled homogenous armor, is extremely heavy, and not entirely efficient for its heavy weight. For example, RHMA doesn't protect too well at all,  VS chemical HEAT jet which is ignited then forcefully propelled forward at blazing speed, sheering armor. It doesn't protect too well against physical emanated shock either, like putty HESH detonating causing vibration and inner spall. Simply put, RHMA is old and obsolete, but a good standard. A control, for testing purposes. 

 

M318A1 90mm AP round, pretty common in post war, cold war, nato countries adopting the 90mm gun, could penetrate nearly 200mm RHMA @ 0'' incident angle, @ 25m. While this seems thick, it does not include armor perforation performance against angled targets. Targets with spaced armor profiles, for deflecting/degrading performance. Laminates, for deflecting/degrading performance. And of course ranged degradation, @ 1,500m that 90mm AP shot drops to not even 150mm, losing 1/4 its pen. By the T-62 tank, the Soviets were already incorporating lainates into turret cavity and front upper glacis, bolstering a tanks resilience. That is why the 60s was quick to introduce and up-gun tanks to 105mm and 120mm guns. The 90 was not enough.

 

 



stalkervision #6 Posted Sep 30 2021 - 08:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 90345 battles
  • 10,414
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View Postfixento_1, on Sep 29 2021 - 20:00, said:

The 90 mm on the M48 could penetrate 15 inches of vertical armor at 30 yards.  M48 had 7 inches of armor on front body, 4.3 inches on the gun shield or 8.7 at 60 degrees and 3 inches on the sides.   It weighted 52 tons, combat loaded, yet in the game the ninety guns rounds are bouncing off other tanks side and rear on the body and turret’s armor.    I fired the 90 on M48A1 and saw the results of the AP rounds penetrate 10 inches of sloped armor at 1000 yards.   For these tanks, real or someone’s dream, to have armor thick enough to repel an AP round from a 90 mm every direction, these pill boxes must weigh over 150 tons and would not be very mobile.

Taking multiple hits in not realistic, but necessary for the game.  However, AP rounds bouncing off tanks sides and rear without reactive armor if pure Hollywood [edited].     It makes the games teams uneven to the point of 0 to 15 loses in some cases.   The team winning the game determine will be determined by who has the most pill boxes on tracks.

If the intent was to make the players investment determine the winner, World of Tanks has accomplished that objective.   I think they should reevaluate the game making it more competitive based on something beside unrealistic armor.  

That is why WG put arty in the game. Now that the whiners got their way and arty is pretty useless they got their wish.



Baron_Von_Krieg #7 Posted Sep 30 2021 - 14:59

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29500 battles
  • 1,219
  • [ARIET] ARIET
  • Member since:
    11-04-2013
Isn't reactive armor only effective ( mainly ) against HEAT type rounds ? 

Draschel #8 Posted Oct 01 2021 - 03:55

    Captain

  • Players
  • 2074 battles
  • 1,491
  • Member since:
    04-01-2020

View PostBaron_Von_Krieg, on Sep 30 2021 - 14:59, said:

Isn't reactive armor only effective ( mainly ) against HEAT type rounds ? 

 

No.  Commonly misunderstood.

 

Initial generation,  1960s reactive armor was/is useless against kinetic penetrators

Subsequent generation, (2,3,4) reactive armor have varying effectiveness against both kinetic and thermal expansion attack

 

For example, Chinese FY-4 reactive armor,  Russian and Ukraine reactive armors like afghanit, relikt, Nozh proclaim very decent performance against kinetic attack, not just HEAT. There are videos of this out there, Nozh being able to help in addition with tank base armor, defeat 3rd gen APDS darts coming from tanks like Leclerc, Leopard 2. 

 

I am pretty sure Britain too, their Ajax, Warrior, and Challenger II enhanced and future armor packages, have exterior ERA modules that influence any major threat type. 

 

 

 



Baron_Von_Krieg #9 Posted Oct 02 2021 - 03:57

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29500 battles
  • 1,219
  • [ARIET] ARIET
  • Member since:
    11-04-2013

View PostDraschel, on Sep 30 2021 - 21:55, said:

 

No.  Commonly misunderstood.

 

Initial generation,  1960s reactive armor was/is useless against kinetic penetrators

Subsequent generation, (2,3,4) reactive armor have varying effectiveness against both kinetic and thermal expansion attack

 

For example, Chinese FY-4 reactive armor,  Russian and Ukraine reactive armors like afghanit, relikt, Nozh proclaim very decent performance against kinetic attack, not just HEAT. There are videos of this out there, Nozh being able to help in addition with tank base armor, defeat 3rd gen APDS darts coming from tanks like Leclerc, Leopard 2. 

 

I am pretty sure Britain too, their Ajax, Warrior, and Challenger II enhanced and future armor packages, have exterior ERA modules that influence any major threat type. 

 

 

 

I'd never heard this before . Thanks for the info . :) 



Draschel #10 Posted Oct 02 2021 - 05:53

    Captain

  • Players
  • 2074 battles
  • 1,491
  • Member since:
    04-01-2020

View PostBaron_Von_Krieg, on Oct 02 2021 - 03:57, said:

I'd never heard this before . Thanks for the info . 

 

Knowledge is power. Plenty of sourced material on things like Nozh.

 







Also tagged with Armor, ballistics, 90 mm, fantasy

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users