Quote:
Originally Posted by Pibwl
Of course, if we change armour, these tanks should be first modified in the Soviet OOB. However, as for BT-5, Russian Bronyekollektsya 1/1996 about BT-2/BT-5 indicates armour 13 mm at hull front, without special mention on its lower nose hull plate (which was very small and difficult to hit, BTW). A nose was well sloped indeed (apart from a driver's hatch), but is it enough to make armour 3 out of 13mm?
Sides were vertical 13mm, so it's up to choice if it is 1 or 2 in game terms. Rear hull was 10mm indeed.
Also 13mm is given for turret front and sides (not excluding rear).
|
Russian Battlefield:
http://www.battlefield.ru/bt5/strani...tvo-tanka.html
Confirms that both 13mm and 15mm plate was used on BT-5, but unfortunately does not detail where. It does say that the driver's plate was 20mm thick and the upper part of the lower hull was actually 40mm. No mention about turret front being thicker, so probably that is incorrect at Jaeger Platoon site.
All in all I am still thinking Armor Value 3 for the front hull. 2.5 would probably be closer to the "truth", but since we can't have that, 3 it should be. I am also considering the fact that highly sloped armor will very often make small projectiles like ATR bullets ricochet, which increases the practical protection over the penetration path required to punch a hole through the armor. On the other hand we do know that the Lahti ATR was effective against the BT-5 even through frontal armor, but I have no data about the combat record of the Maroszek wz. 35 or the PzB 39 against the BT-5, although both were still used by the Germans in summer 1941.