This needs an explanation and a reference source. These, I think, are points so fundamental and generally accepted that it surprises me that anyone could consider them contentious. Could it also be that you have been focussed too much on modern developments? Deflection is unimportant for modern penetrators but was a major defeat mechanism in early WWII. I partially rewrote the article emphasizing some points that, I believe, are as such not contentious between us, but might not be readily apparent to the average reader. The point I am trying to make with the picture obviously badly, I will work on it further is simply that of trigonometry.
By eliw00d , October 28, in General Discussion Forum. However, when I try to use the equation for 76mm HVAP, I end up with incorrect results when compared to some of the data found here in the forums and elsewhere in the book. I found a post here in the forums where rexford was talking about 76mm HVAP versus Panther lower front hull, and how it had a slope multiplier of 3. Using the equation given in the book, I end up with a slope multiplier of 0. I couldn't find any equations for those in the book, but I may have missed it. I am trying to create a more realistic armour and penetration system for a game, and if there are any other resources besides this book that could help, please let me know! That's not how WW2 ballistics work, they react to slope worse than cosinus.
Not just normalisation, everything to do with armour in this game is just awful. Tanks don't have proper armour or penetration stats, reload times coming from the tooth fairy, movements speeds that the French army would have thought a bit sluggish in and a vulnerability to acrobatic Bazookas jumping off speeding motorbikes. This goes for all the tanks though. It will either go through if powerful enough or just do no damage at all if it has insufficient penetration power. And guess what, even the regular AP round from an IS-2 has mm penetration m.
One of the more famous basic training demonstrations used to be showing off the freshly painted white interior of a tank to trainees and then firing a single pistol round through a hatch and then showing the now-paint-less interior of the tank to the recruits. Meanwhile, the Navy since it operated fighting ships, where a partial penetration with attendant fragmentation would be lost in the large interior volumes of their ships, preferred a complete penetration where the burster charge would function and explode the shell inside the enemy vessel for maximum damage inflicted per shell. It's been referenced a lot over the internet N. Okun ; NavWeaps , but most references are quite confusing in how to apply it. Ironically, Physics for Game Programmers by Grant Palmer, which is one of the last places you'd expect to see it; references it in a way to demystify the application of the formula.