View Single Post
  #9  
Old October 17th, 2013, 04:03 AM

PvtJoker PvtJoker is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 144
Thanks: 12
Thanked 22 Times in 16 Posts
PvtJoker is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Finnish OOB35 Corrections and Suggestions PART 2 -- Units

Quote:
Originally Posted by PvtJoker View Post
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.
An addition to above: I measured the glacis plate slope from images at the Russian Battlefield site and it is no less than 60 degrees (the same as BT-7 and T-34, so really no surprise there). That makes the required penetration path 26mm and so the front hull armor should definitely have Armor Value 3 in the game.

In addition, Russian Battlefield says in the BT-7 article:

Quote:
Броневая защита танка - противопульная, выполненная из броневых катаных листов толщиной 6,10,13,15 и 20мм. Броневая защита машин первых лет выпуска находилась на уровне танка БТ-5.
Which to me, knowing that 15mm plate was used with the BT-5, suggests that it had 15mm in the turret front and sides just like BT-7.

Last edited by PvtJoker; October 17th, 2013 at 04:22 AM.. Reason: Added quote.
Reply With Quote