Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.

View Poll Results: Opinion about the Churchill.

Voters
42. You may not vote on this poll
  • Very good tank, the finest in british RTRs.

    7 16.67%
  • Good but only in the MTO.

    16 38.10%
  • Mediocre, too slow and undergunned.

    18 42.86%
  • The worst piece of garbage ever imposed to a Royal tank regiment.

    2 4.76%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678
Results 106 to 113 of 113

Thread: Churchill Infantry Tank.

  1. #106
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,304

    Default Re: Churchill Infantry Tank.

    Ask, and you shall receive..

    The formula for homogeneous armor penetration is "T = (K)[(0.5)(W/g)V^2]^p", where "T" is the thickness of plate barely penetrated (by whatever definition of "penetration" you want to use), "K" is a constant (a "catch-all" that changes with projectile nose shape, projectile size, projectile damage, definition of "penetration," plate type, and obliquity angle of impact), "W" is the projectile's total weight, "g" is the acceleration of gravity to change weight to mass (inertial resistance) (NOTE: "g" factor is not needed if the weight is in KILOGRAMS, which is already a measure of "mass" and has the "g" division built-in), "V" is the striking velocity, and "p" is a constant--usually between 0.5 and 1.00--that raises the entire projectile total kinetic energy value "KE = (0.5)(W/g)V^2" to a single power as a unit (p does NOT change with projectile properties (other than nose shape), plate type, or obliquity angle, though). Both K and p are good for only a limited range of plate thicknesses, with up to 5 combinations of K and p needed to handle the entire thickness range from paper-thin plate to bank-vault-door thickness for some projectile designs even with no projectile damage. Note that in this formula the two terms W and V^2 are of equal importance, as in any true KE-dependent penetration formula.

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,087

    Default Re: Churchill Infantry Tank.

    Quote Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
    Ask, and you shall receive..

    The formula for homogeneous armor penetration is "T = (K)[(0.5)(W/g)V^2]^p", where "T" is the thickness of plate barely penetrated (by whatever definition of "penetration" you want to use), "K" is a constant (a "catch-all" that changes with projectile nose shape, projectile size, projectile damage, definition of "penetration," plate type, and obliquity angle of impact), "W" is the projectile's total weight, "g" is the acceleration of gravity to change weight to mass (inertial resistance) (NOTE: "g" factor is not needed if the weight is in KILOGRAMS, which is already a measure of "mass" and has the "g" division built-in), "V" is the striking velocity, and "p" is a constant--usually between 0.5 and 1.00--that raises the entire projectile total kinetic energy value "KE = (0.5)(W/g)V^2" to a single power as a unit (p does NOT change with projectile properties (other than nose shape), plate type, or obliquity angle, though). Both K and p are good for only a limited range of plate thicknesses, with up to 5 combinations of K and p needed to handle the entire thickness range from paper-thin plate to bank-vault-door thickness for some projectile designs even with no projectile damage. Note that in this formula the two terms W and V^2 are of equal importance, as in any true KE-dependent penetration formula.
    May many Good Blessings arrive upon thee, TG my friend.
    The above is a rollicking good companion piece to the Face-Hardened Plate precedor.

    Again, I --managed-- to comprehend it, withal that I lack our friend Panzerknacer's expertise in the topic.

    On a serious note, though: I can but ponder the amount of toil devoted by metallurgists of all combatant nations in WW2, attempting to formulate armours that gave their crews a little bit better hope of survival over that of the opposing crews.

    Which, if it can be said to have had a stand-out feature beyond the fortuitous virtue of the adaptable chassis, the Churchill Tank did possess in reasonable degree. The vehicle could, and frequently did, absorb punishing damage in combat that nonetheless allowed its' crew to survive.
    In truth, very few other British tanks can claim the same, the Matilda (II) being the possible exception.

    Warm, Kind, and Respectful Regards TG my friend, Uyraell.

    "Honi-Soit Qui Mal'Y Pense." :
    "Ill unto he who ill of it thinks."
    Edward III, Rex Britania, AD1348.

    "Wenn Schon, denn schon."
    "Be It Done, Best be It Be Done Well."
    Known German adage.

    "Until you have looked into a veteran's eyes and actually seen it,
    you'll never fully understand."
    ^Uyraell^

    "Aligaes : Amore vel Ira." :
    "^Winged Ones^ : Love or Wrath."

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,304

    Default Re: Churchill Infantry Tank.

    Face hardened armor is best against solid shot, and HE shell, but once HEAT ,and Sabot munitions became standard for basic load items F.H. armor was no longer a benefit, and not worth the extra cost of producing it. Then it was homogeneious armor. This armor while tough, and resilient, allowed passage of an incoming strike without flying apart in shards, and shivers.(well, to a point anyway) And it reduced the spalling effect of HESH, and HEP munitions (again, to a point.) Since it was not possible to defeat these munitions, the best hope lay in reducing their secondary mischief. The idea being to hopefully preserve as many of the crew as possible.
    Part of the face hardened problem was by what method is the hardening accomplished. one can roll out a higher carbon plate, (the property of hardness is a function of carbon content, and its distribution within the grain structure of the metal.) or one can carburize the surface of a plate of lower carbon steel to achieve a similar result. Although carburizing may result in a less stable transition from the hard layer to the tougher supporting metal beneath it.

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,087

    Default Re: Churchill Infantry Tank.

    Which raises an interesting thought, TG my friend.
    Does layering various combinations of face-hardened and,homogenous plate, possibly admixed with various ceramic and rare metal compounds actually achieve the benefits the process suggests, despite its' complexities?

    What I have in mind here, is the difficulty inherent in achieving a uniform bonding between the layers, and then having said bond maintain under the pressure of repeated strikes to the outermost plate.

    The Churchill never had such issues, of course, it being that most were mongrelised by ad-hoc plating being added either in factory or in the field workshops, and thus only the relative strength of the welding involved remained relevant to the uniformity of bond between layers.

    Kind and Respectful Regards TG My friend, Uyraell.

    "Honi-Soit Qui Mal'Y Pense." :
    "Ill unto he who ill of it thinks."
    Edward III, Rex Britania, AD1348.

    "Wenn Schon, denn schon."
    "Be It Done, Best be It Be Done Well."
    Known German adage.

    "Until you have looked into a veteran's eyes and actually seen it,
    you'll never fully understand."
    ^Uyraell^

    "Aligaes : Amore vel Ira." :
    "^Winged Ones^ : Love or Wrath."

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,304

    Default Re: Churchill Infantry Tank.

    As far as ceramic components being used in armor that would be something relevant to Chobham armor of which I know nothing of substance. The M1-a1 uses Chobham, and the Bradley fighting vehicle uses some manner of muti layer composite armor. Having layered metallic armor gives the benefit of a kinetic projectile having to break, and penetrate each individual layer of steel while attempting to retain sufficient energy to pass into the Hull, or turret and cause damage and casualties. Its the same as shooting through a wood plank, Vs. a phone book, or body armor. Each layer absorbs energy from the projectile, and subjects it to torsional, and compressive stresses. Then the next, and the next. Having a space between layers can impose enough stress on a projectile to break it up, and it then loses its mass, and energy. (along the lines of light passing through glass.)
    The term" hardened layer" in my last post means that in a single plate, only a certain depth of the steel has been hardened, the rest of the plate is normal. As distinct from 2 or more layers of plate one over the other. Also, for your enjoyment, a pic of a 4" (100mm for you Metricans out there,) target plate converted for ventilation.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	4-in armor plate.jpg 
Views:	416 
Size:	211.4 KB 
ID:	4748  

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,087

    Default Re: Churchill Infantry Tank.

    Quote Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
    As far as ceramic components being used in armor that would be something relevant to Chobham armor of which I know nothing of substance. The M1-a1 uses Chobham, and the Bradley fighting vehicle uses some manner of muti layer composite armor. Having layered metallic armor gives the benefit of a kinetic projectile having to break, and penetrate each individual layer of steel while attempting to retain sufficient energy to pass into the Hull, or turret and cause damage and casualties. Its the same as shooting through a wood plank, Vs. a phone book, or body armor. Each layer absorbs energy from the projectile, and subjects it to torsional, and compressive stresses. Then the next, and the next. Having a space between layers can impose enough stress on a projectile to break it up, and it then loses its mass, and energy. (along the lines of light passing through glass.)
    The term" hardened layer" in my last post means that in a single plate, only a certain depth of the steel has been hardened, the rest of the plate is normal. As distinct from 2 or more layers of plate one over the other. Also, for your enjoyment, a pic of a 4" (100mm for you Metricans out there,) target plate converted for ventilation.
    Many Thanks TG my friend, my understanding of armour has somewhat improved.

    The ventilated 100mm plate is an interesting, if somewhat thought-provoking objet-d'art.

    One would hope to not be within auditory range when the various impacts of that plate took place.

    Warm, Kind, and Respectful Regards TG my friend, Uyraell.

    "Honi-Soit Qui Mal'Y Pense." :
    "Ill unto he who ill of it thinks."
    Edward III, Rex Britania, AD1348.

    "Wenn Schon, denn schon."
    "Be It Done, Best be It Be Done Well."
    Known German adage.

    "Until you have looked into a veteran's eyes and actually seen it,
    you'll never fully understand."
    ^Uyraell^

    "Aligaes : Amore vel Ira." :
    "^Winged Ones^ : Love or Wrath."

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,304

    Default Re: Churchill Infantry Tank.

    I found some High Brow discussions of the metallurgy of armor, just a cut and paste. Note: BHN stands for Brinnell Harness Number. There are several different scales for measuring hardness, the more familiar are Rockwell
    Brinell
    Vickers
    Knoop
    Shore
    Mohs Mostly used in mineralogy
    Barcol

    Subject: Griddling that armor
    From: Robert Livingston
    Date: 8/20/98 7:00:01 PM

    If by griddling you mean marking by filing, the answer is that the harder
    types of armor will resist files and the softer types will not. US WWII
    armor was of the softer type, about 250 BHN, while most other nations
    used harder steel. Files are usually case hardened high carbon steel,
    and should cut armor up to 375 BHN or so. Russian tank armor was at
    400-450 BHN during the later stages of the war; the 1941 and '42 KV was
    around 250. German armor started the war very hard, then lost hardness
    as thickness and production quantities increased. The Germans used
    face-hardened armor at first, with file-resisting hardness, then dropped
    the face hardening and relied on the core hardness of 250-300 BHN,
    similar to US tank armor. Late-war German armor on the front of a
    Jagdpanther was measured at about 200 BHN, as was Hetzer side armor. The
    Elefants were measured in the low 200's after capture by the Russians, as
    early as 1943. These are the softest examples of German armor I can
    recall. I would expect easy filing on them, and maybe easy griddling,
    too.

    Generally, hard armor is expected to break up attacking projectiles,
    which it can do when it is thicker than the diameter of the projectile.
    Soft armor is best at absorbing projectile impact through slower
    deceleration. The switch from the earlier face-hardened or
    hard-all-the-way-through steel came about when the major combatants
    introduced penetrating caps on their ammo, which protected against
    shatter when hitting hard surfaces. These caps were so effective that
    the FH armor resisted less well than softer homogeneous armor.

    Armor under 375 BHN is called Machineable, which means that it can be cut
    with normal machine-shop cutting tools. The harder it gets, the more
    often you have to sharpen the tools, until you get to a hardness which
    resists cutting completely. Tungsten carbide has been used to cut the
    harder steels without excessive resharpening. By the same token, TC was
    (is) used for armor-penetrating projectiles; during WWII there was
    constant tension in Germany between those who thought it should be
    reserved for the machining of steel and those who thought it should be
    used on the battlefield for the penetration of armor.

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama, U.S.A.
    Posts
    27

    Default Re: Churchill Infantry Tank.

    Impressive as usual, tankgeezer. I am often awestruck by the knowledge available on this forum. Glad I joined.
    Now, about the Churchill. On this thread, many have derided it, and many have lauded it. So as not to be redundant, I stand on the side of admirers. Way to go, Britts!

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •