Face Hardened Armour

[chuckfourth]

Hi Popski,
Thanks for your interest.
I have a couple of points
If you look at my table or possibly Tarrifs original you will see that the Russians, Americans and British all had guns that fired shells that were better at penetrating FHA and guns that fired shells that were better at penetrating RA. So there wouldnt be much point in making different armour types for different fronts every front was the same in this regard. Also from the Italian campaign onwards Hitler (much to the consternation of his generals) was in the Habit of moving whole corps from one front to the other which would cause further trouble.
Also
Im not suggesting a change in penetration values but a change in armour values, ie plates of FHA gets +1.
Best Regards Chuck.

[noxious]

Many tanks had FH armour, often those with thinner armour like the US M3 halftrack. There is also differences in armour hardnees without FH. Some being very hard and some being very soft. Different ammunition will react differently to different RHA hardness as it will to FH.

Also, why should tank benefit in game against all guns when FH only gave benefit to some ammunition fired by the same gun?
6-pdr British gun firing APCBC penetrated more FH than RHA but same gun firing AP penetrated more RHA than FH. Why should British gun be punished?

I think you play the wrong game. Play the matrix game, that has much more complicated penetration program that will make you happy.

Nox

[pdoktar]

Isn´t rolled homogenous armor a basic given armor thickness value? As there are not softer and harder RHA but only RHA as a universal penetration quotient? So laying harder and softer materials after each other in a given pattern would constitute a RHA value.

So RHA has only one hardness when it is calculated as a universal armor thickness of RHA of given plate thickness and materials.

[chuckfourth]

Hi Nox
You ask
"Also, why should tank benefit in game against all guns when FH only gave benefit to some ammunition fired by the same gun?"

As you correctly point out most FH armour is thin, in the roughly first half of the war before the advent of the ammunition types and calibres that had improved penetration against FH armour. Giving FH armour +1 doesnt disadvantage any guns.
As the shells and calibres that have improved penetration values against FH armour begin to appear, in the vast majority of cases the penetration value of the weapon is so much greater than what the thin FH armour defence value is, it hardly matters +1 or not, while against the remaining, majority of shells/calibres modeling becomes more accurate with +1.
But to answer you question specifically,
because
Currently all FH armour is disadvantaged against most regular ammunition types. This is incorrect. As Ive tried to explain above it is less incorrect to give FH armour +1 than to give it the same value of RHA, which is also "wrong" because against most ammunition types FHA performs better than RHA.
For your example,
"6-pdr British gun firing APCBC penetrated more FH than RHA but same gun firing AP penetrated more RHA than FH. Why should British gun be punished?"
I would ask
Why should the 6 pdr AP shell be given bonus penetration against FH armour as currently modeled?

Best Regards Chuck