> > The T-34 Wikipedia page has a table showing various configurations > throughout WW-II and it shows "20-70mm" of armor for the 1943 T-34 > version and "20-90mm" of armor for the T-34-85. >
I don't recall Wikipedia being around at the time or if it was, being considered a reliable data source, but since you bring it up. The current T-34 page states the following: "The T-34 was one of the most heavily armoured tanks in the world in 1941. Good armour thickness was enhanced by the sloped armour<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloped_armour> shape, which provided protection in excess of what armour thickness alone would indicate." Sounds impressive but the fact is the T-34 has a hull front plate armor thickness of only 45 to 47mm which doesn't get you four hit points when the slope is ignored. To get around this at the time, we decided to accept turret armor thickness for ratings classification (up to that point it was assumed hull armor thickness was to be used). I'd like to point out, particularly with the cast turrets, armor thickness is rarely documented and when it is, is very subjective at best. IMO, it's a datum that should have never been allowed, but instead, the horizontal measurement should have been adopted. I've of course have moved beyond this concept in proposing the classification system based on model length, thus decoupling ratings from real-world measurements all-together. Steve -- -- You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. To post a message, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R/C Tank Combat" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
