.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

War Plan Pacific- Save $7.00
winSPMBT: Main Battle Tank- Save $6.00


Go Back   .com.unity Forums > The Camo Workshop > WinSPWW2 > TO&Es

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 25th, 2020, 04:20 AM

Kiwikkiwik Kiwikkiwik is offline
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 172
Thanks: 8
Thanked 21 Times in 16 Posts
Kiwikkiwik is on a distinguished road
Default Some armour irregularities

All the various M3 Medium Lee tanks, Unit 6 for example have turret front armour of 10. However turret front armour is 51mm at 47 degrees gives effective thickness of 75mm so should be 8 not 10?

According to the book A30 Challenger Tank A Technical History there are 3 models of Challenger tank, game has just one, unit 17, with armour 7 5 4 10 4 4 2. The first 40 Challengers have 63mm thick verticle hull visor plate and 57mm nose plate and 63mm turret nose plate. So this version should have 6 5 4 6 4 4 2. Second version has 102mm cast turret nose, so should be 6 5 4 10 4 4 2 production start date is July 41. Third version has one inch applique armour added to turret cheeks and front of hull for a visor plate of 89mm thickness, see
So should get 9 5 4 10 4 4 2. Glacis remains at 30mm at 70 degrees so effective thickness 88mm. First produced in November 44.

In the book British and American tanks of World War II by Chamberlain and Ellis it says this
"Petard...fitting...Churchill III or IV. 180 Churchills of these marks were converted to AVREs by D-Day" A further 574 were created after D-Day but as far as I can make out these later AVREs also all used Mk III of IV Hulls. So unit 756 is correct as a MK IV AVRE. Unit 556 is also correct but seems to have innapropriate HEAT values. Unit 41 Churchill AVRE armour looks wrong, as its introduction date is pre D-Day so it has to be a MK III or MK IV. same as unit 556 or 756. Unit 41 has 15 12 6 15 12 9 2 which doesn't correspond to any mark of Churchill. Unit 42 Crocodile has the same armour configuration so also looks wrong. Unit 41 Churchill AVRE could be made as the missing Mk III type AVRE with 10 8 5 12 9 8 2 armour. Unit 42 Crocodile is a converted Mk VII but even Mk VII seems wrong, its armour in mm is (in game order) 152 95 95 152 92 51 20 game has 15 10 5 15 10 8 2 so 5 should be 10, 8 should be 5.

British unit 106 Mk VI AA has no turret roof.
There seems to be two different turrets both have an open top without a lid. So same as sdkfz 222 should have top armour value of 0.
Same turret is used on Humber AA Mk I AC. So this unit should have top value of 0 not 1. Game calls this vehicle the Guy AA Mk.I, units 377 and 388. I'm probably missing something but these two units appear to be identical?

Rikugun vol 2 by Ness gives unit 17 Ho-Ni I 25mm front and sides to its Gun casement. Looking at it on
I think the side panels do look to be 25mm thick so turret side armour value probably need to be bigger than the current 1. Casement front looks as though there is another 25 mm plate bolted on giving the correct game front armour value of 5.
Unit 18 Ho-Ni II very likely has the exact same casemate so side armour probably needs to be larger than 1 for this vehicle also.
Unit 18 Ho-Ni III is hard to get a picture of there is one here.
The front looks to have an extra armoured plate bolted on same as the other two, so probably needs 5 front turret value instead of 3 sides if they are 25mm might go to 3 as they do have a slope. Casemate rear is in all likely hood 25mm also, slightly sloped so might go to 3 as well.

Russian units 108, 333 and 336 T20 Komsomolets passengers sit thougholy exposed on top of the vehicle game has them behind armour.

In Soviet OOB BT 5 gets 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 BT-7 gets 3 2 1 2 2 2 1 or (m) 3 2 2 2 2 2 1
In Rumanian service as units 21 Pzkpfw 742(r) or unit 63 Pzkpfw BT-7(r) they get armour values of 2 1 1 2 2 2 1. Should have the same armour values as they have in Soviet service as they are captured.
Pzkpfw 742(r) can I think be either BT 5 or BT 7

Tanks and other AFVs of the Blitzkrieg Era 1939-41 by BT White mentions that the British unit 115 Daimler Dingo, specification only calls for protection of the engine compartment bonnet Other sites sometimes mention that the rear is unarmoured looking at the second picture here
The rear engine panels are quite thin and may possibly be just mild steel.
Towards the end of this second video there are shots of how thick the rear panels are.
So Dingo rear value might be 0.
The companion book, Tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles 1942-45 mentions the Humber scout, British units 290 and 291 have all round 14mm armour, internet confirms this. Game armour is 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 but looking at the armoured plate angles should probably be 2 2 1 1 2 1 1. looking at this walkaround the engine compartment rear panels are also very thin
Canadian unit 115 the Ford version called lynx in game also seems to have the thin rear panels see
Italian and Italian Social Republic unit 490 Lancia Lince is a copy of Daimler with the same armour thicknesses and angles but gets 2 2 2 3 2 3 1 instead of Daimlers 4 1 2 3 1 2 0 looks to have just louvres at the rear so maybe this is an unarmoured rear panel, maybe not. Front hull armour plate in the first picture looks to be about 30mm.
According to most websites Lince maximum armour is 14mm. However Italian armoured and reconnaissance cars by Cappellano gives Front of 30mm, side 12mm and 5mm roof.

German unit 845 SdKfz 231 (8) should have turret front value of 3 is currently 2 verifyable anywhere. Production of this 231 variant began in May 42 so vehicle 384 SdKfz 231 (8) should probably have HF and TF values of 3 3 instead of 2 2. At the risk of getting into trouble. These two vehicles might be rolled into one and generate a free slot? I don't know why one stops and the other one picks up over Christmas 43. Maybe something to do with formations?
Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2020, 05:54 PM

Kiwikkiwik Kiwikkiwik is offline
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 172
Thanks: 8
Thanked 21 Times in 16 Posts
Kiwikkiwik is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Some armour irregularities

US armoured jeep, as seen in the picture the side armour only extends to the two front seats. The entire rest of the side of the vehicle, engine and rear seats are unarmoured. So HS armour should probably be 0 instead of 1. There is sometimes an armoured plate over the radiator but looking at
I'm not sure this plate would be particularily effective, so maybe hull front could be 0 as well.
Same as German 222, British unit 603 Rolls-Royce AC has an open top but gets top armour of 1 instead of 0. Turret is also fixed forward.
Marmon Herrington 607-10 have shields not turrets so turret rear and side values should be 0 not 1.
Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2020, 09:25 AM
DRG's Avatar

DRG DRG is offline
Shrapnel Fanatic
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: GWN
Posts: 10,784
Thanks: 2,515
Thanked 3,986 Times in 1,987 Posts
DRG will become famous soon enough
Default Re: Some armour irregularities

Originally Posted by Kiwikkiwik View Post
At the risk of getting into trouble. These two vehicles might be rolled into one and generate a free slot? I don't know why one stops and the other one picks up over Christmas 43. Maybe something to do with formations?
Maybe look at the ammo loads between 845 and 384 and you'll figure it out ( hint..... sabot )
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DRG For This Useful Post:


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2021, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.