Handy Armor Thickness Calculator

[TyngTech]

Knowing your vehicles plate thickness and angle, you can use these calculators to determine your models armor thickness and thus determine defensive rating.

http://www.panzerworld.net/armourcalculator

A nice primer on the advantages of sloped armor.

http://www.panzerworld.net/relativearmour

[Derek Engelhaupt]

Not to start a heated debate, but do the rules allow for such a calculation?  As I interpret them (and I could be wrong), there is no clause that says what the functional thickness of the armor is based on angle.  The rule is vague in that it states,

1. Each asset will be given a defensive rating based on the maximum frontal armor carried by the asset. 

I understand the concept that sloped armor is actually thicker when put on an angle, but that would also assume that the rounds vector of travel hits the armor in a plane parallel to the horizontal cross section of the vehicle.  There is no mention in the rule that the maximum frontal armor thickness is measured  parallel to the horizontal cross section of the vehicle.   As I see it, maximum armor thickness is measured as the physical thickness of the armor plate.  And I know that Steve made no mention of this as being part of the rule set.  I would just like a clarification because it would affect the types of tanks that people would consider building.  And it would mean that there may have to be a reclassification of some of the tanks that have already been designated.  The other issue would be whether or not the information about tank armor that is readily available is rated as the actual thickness of the armor or the functional thickness of the armor as described above.

Thanks,

Derek

--
You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.com
Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat

[Frank Pittelli]

Indeed, I think you've hit upon the key question. Can we assume that the
incoming projectile will be striking the armor at an angle parallel to
the ground? On one hand, such a simplifying assumption could easily
allow us to our existing simplified approach based on a measurement with
a different simplified approach based on a measurement and an equation.
In the real world, however, the exact angle of attack is influenced by
a vast array of variables, including, but not limited to, the position
of the tank being attacked, the position of the weapon that fired the
projectile, the type of projectile, the range covered by the projectile,
and the spin imparted on the projectile. Each of these variables could
change the calculation ever so slightly resulting in improper
categorization of a combat asset. Since we pride ourselves in
micro-meter degrees of scale, such variables must be fully investigated.

To that end, we will be convening a panel of experts in Gettysburg, PA
June 2-3, 2012 to "discuss" this important technical issue. It could be
the largest panel of experts ever convened in the R/C Tank Combat world,
which could result in a quite lively debate. We are currently
negotiating with various media outlets over the right to broadcast the
debate. All panel participants are encouraged to bring all necessary
materials for the debate. As a two-day debate, there will be plenty of
opportunity for everyone to register their opinion. Should be some
lively Saturday evening discussions during the cookout.

Frank "Debates Are Fun" Pittelli

On 3/6/2012 12:01 PM, Derek Engelhaupt wrote:
> Not to start a heated debate, but do the rules allow for such a
> calculation? As I interpret them (and I could be wrong), there is no
> clause that says what the functional thickness of the armor is based on
> angle. The rule is vague in that it states,
>

> 1. Each asset will be given a *defensive rating* based on the maximum

> <mailto:rctank...@googlegroups.com>

> To unsubscribe, send email to
> rctankcombat...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:rctankcombat%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

[TyngTech]

Derek wrote:

> Not to start a heated debate, but do the rules allow for such a calculation?

They do not disallow it.

> There is no mention in the rule that the maximum frontal armor thickness is measured  parallel to the horizontal cross section of the vehicle.

There is no rule period on how to measure armor thickness.

> As I see it, maximum armor thickness is measured as the physical thickness of the armor plate. 

As I see it, the armor is what's between the shooter and the one being shot at.  In a Hetzer's case, for a shot front dead on at horizontal, this would be 120mm of armor where the projectile impacts and where it exits.  Add five degress for a trajectory, that amount drops to 105mm.

[Derek Engelhaupt]

Hmmm....Is that officially the next battle day?  Let's see...22hr. drive from Ft. Worth.  That's 2798miles round trip divided by 550miles per tank of fuel = 5 fill-ups.  Take those and multiply times 12.5 gallons per fill times $4.00 gallon for diesel = $250 in fuel costs.  Food would probably run at least another $60 for myself over the 4 days of driving.  Plane ticket > $350. IMHO better to fly, but I wonder what the airline would charge me to transport the KV-2?  ;)

Derek

   <mailto:rctankcombat@googlegroups.com>

   To unsubscribe, send email to

   rctankcombat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

   <mailto:rctankcombat%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

   Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat


--
You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat

--
You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

[TyngTech]

Frank wrote:

> Can we assume that the incoming projectile will be striking the armor at an angle parallel to the ground?

In a rating classification system, the answer is yes.  One measurement angle would be chosen to apply to all vehicles.

> On one hand, such a simplifying assumption could easily allow us to our existing simplified approach based on a measurement with a different simplified approach based on a measurement and an equation.

The first hand is exclusive to sloped designs, the second hand is inclusive of all designs.

> To that end, we will be convening a panel of experts in Gettysburg, PA June 2-3, 2012 to "discuss" this important technical issue.

I look forward to the discussions.

[Doug Conn]

I hope we never implement a rule like this. I’d prefer we move in the other direction – toward even simpler ratings. Give every tank the same offensive and defensive capabilities and there would be no potential loop holes for any vehicle to sneak through. Plus, it would encourage an even greater variety of vehicles on the field.

 

-          Doug

--

You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.com

[Neil Rochford]

"Give every tank the same offensive and defensive capabilities and there would be no potential loop holes for any vehicle to sneak through"

Im all for simpler rules but I think that would have people building mainly small tanks, 

small tanks are less expensive, easier to move and store.

Neil R

 

[Phil]

The idea was to have 3 classes of tank- heavy, medium & light. Small
tanks are easier to build and carry, and less easy to hit cos they are
smaller, but big ones are generally faster and carry full-size
paintballs and mmore ammo. Seems logical to me, and means that a
modern Scorpion can fight a WWII Pzkw II or a WWI FT17 on equal terms.

Phil

[Dave D.]

I see that the RCTC semi-anual armor thickness rating debate is heating up nicely!!

 

Where do I begin... LOL.

 

Dave D.

----- Original Message -----

From: TyngTech

To: rctank...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 11:37 AM

Subject: [TANKS] Handy Armor Thickness Calculator

--

[Dave D.]

Hey Steve,

 

I just tried that armor thickness calculator that you mentioned.

 

Not bad!! 

 

I had calc'd the armor thickness on the Jagdpanther last year, using a protractor, ruler, poor eyesight and what limited brain capacity I have left...

 

(got to give the Pitelli's some ammunition...LOL)

 

I was spot on on two of the three calculations I made (side and rear, 57 and 44 respectively). 

 

I came up with 145 for the front, while the calculator came up with 139.475 ...

 

Can't win 'em all.

 

Let the armor rating wars begin!!!

[TyngTech]

No rule implementation required.  Tanks are designed to resist fire from a horizontal plane so that's how to measure them.  Nothing in the rules that says otherwise.  From this day forward, I consider Joe's Hetzer a four hit tank.

Steve

[TyngTech]

This discussion isn't about re-writing the rules.  I was just pointing out a handy calculator to determine armor thickness.

If we do want to freshen the rules a bit, my two cents:

Three vehicle classifications.  Heavy, medium, light.  Classification determined by model length (as built), doesn't matter what tank was modeled.  Each classification would have a minimum/maximum size, a maximum speed, ammo load, and hit points.  Heavy’s would be slower than meds, meds slower than lights.  Heavy’s have more hit points and ammo load than meds, meds have more hit points and ammo load than lights.  This scheme removes all scale issues completely and maintains three vehicle classifications.  If someone wants to build a two foot tiger, fine, but it’s classified a light.  If someone wants to build a five foot Stuart, it gets a heavy designation.

[Derek Engelhaupt]

Which is why I stated I didn't want to start a debate over it, but Steve sucked me in... :)  I like Steve's idea, but I kinda like the 1/6th scale rule.  Just so the sizes of the tanks are fairly relative to each other.  That's just me though.

Derek

--

[Aaron]

I like the current rules. I see no need to change them.

However, if we were to start all over and make rule anew.... I would
support a Heavy/Medium/Light system. Any vehicle built less than 1:6
would be demoted down one class. Anything built 1:5 or larger would be
promoted one class.
Heavys - 4/40 - Tiger I, WWII Mark V, M1A1 Abrams
Mediums - 3/30 - M4A3 Sherman, T-34-85, Cromwell
Lights - 2/20 - PanzerII , FT-17, M5 Stuart
Tankettes - 1/10 - AH-IV, Ford 3-Ton, Carden Loyd Mark VI

I dont know about speed limits. Might be more trouble than they are
worth. But if they were to be imposed they might be regulated like
this.
Heavys - 4mph
Mediums - 5mph
Lights - 6mph
Tankettes - unlimited

Have the ruling body of the Pittelli Triumvirate make a list and
decide what is a heavy and what is a light, on a case by case basis if
necessary. "All T-34s from this point on shall be known as mediums,
and all Hetzers shall be known as lights. And so it shall be!" If some
one dont like it then they can send in a petition to have it's status
changed. "All T-34s shall hereto be known a heavys!(probably because
of something Tying said)". That way there is some contenuity to the
whole system and less of this "power gaming" and "loophole finding"

Just my 83 cents worth

Aaron F
SCAB