M113 APC

[nuke11]

Aluminum armor needs to be 3x as thick as it's RHA counter part for the same ballistics capabilities. This is not an exact formula, but will yield a close enough figure.

I believe the front of the M113 is proof against 14.5 mm.

The upper front armor is 38 mm @ 45 degrees and the lower front is 38 mm at 30 degrees.

For a good reference on the M113 family : http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m113.html

[ArmySGT.]

http://www.panzerworld.com/relative-armor-calculator

Frontal armor is 38mm at 45 degrees. Relative to a shot coming in a it is equivalent to almost 50mm of Aluminum.

http://www.panzerworld.com/relative-...r_thickness=35

[ArmySGT.]

M113A3 Hit Tables for the Morrow Project..pdfHit tables for the M113A3

Suitable for adding the M113A3 to

Liberation at Riverton (IMPS vehicle)
Operation Lonestar (1st Cavalry vehicle)

Give me your critique.. I have modified the M60A1 tables from Liberation at Riverton.

In the editing I may have missed changing some percentages or made something either too or less difficult to damage or destroy than is real world true.

Let's make this the best that can be!

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by nuke11

Aluminum armor needs to be 3x as thick as it's RHA counter part for the same ballistics capabilities. This is not an exact formula, but will yield a close enough figure.

I believe the front of the M113 is proof against 14.5 mm.

The upper front armor is 38 mm @ 45 degrees and the lower front is 38 mm at 30 degrees.

For a good reference on the M113 family : http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m113.html

The problem I am having is slope..... the glacis is sloped.

Therefore, the table needs to factor in degree of slope for armor.

Angle increases depth relative to penetration.

[mmartin798]

If we assume that the relative thickness is defined by a line perpendicular to the vertical and the angle is measured from the vertical, then:

Relative Thickness = Actual Thickness / COSINE (Angle from vertical)

38 mm @ 45 deg gives 53.7 mm or 54 mm
38 mm @ 30 deg gives 43.8 mm or 44 mm

[nuke11]

Originally Posted by mmartin798

If we assume that the relative thickness is defined by a line perpendicular to the vertical and the angle is measured from the vertical, then:

Relative Thickness = Actual Thickness / COSINE (Angle from vertical)

38 mm @ 45 deg gives 53.7 mm or 54 mm
38 mm @ 30 deg gives 43.8 mm or 44 mm

For those doing this in Excel the formula is : =38/(COS(RADIANS(45))) = 53.74011537

Excel uses Radians instead of Degrees for COS, it does not do COSD like a calculator.

[ArmySGT.]

Here are the specs as known.

I wish I could find the website again to give the author full credit. M113 known specs.pdf

The armor thickness and angles are given.

This doesn't include various armor bolt additions that make the M113A3 tougher though denying the amphibious capabilities in most cases.

[ArmySGT.]

[LT. Ox]

Is the M113 the Guard is using in the current games the same or is it an upgrade with better armor or any of the " new spaced or reflective stuff"
Just as an aside I spent a lot of time ( as in the term beucoup) riding on top of and behind a bunch of sand bags instead of in the thing or riding as the commander.

[nuke11]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Here are the specs as known.

I wish I could find the website again to give the author full credit. Attachment 3452

The armor thickness and angles are given.

This doesn't include various armor bolt additions that make the M113A3 tougher though denying the amphibious capabilities in most cases.

The website looks like : http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m113.html

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by nuke11

The website looks like : http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m113.html

You're right. I saw that not long after I posted the link was in this thread. I have a bunch of M113 links and data saved in a folder for my eventual write up of hit tables.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by nuke11

For those doing this in Excel the formula is : =38/(COS(RADIANS(45))) = 53.74011537

Excel uses Radians instead of Degrees for COS, it does not do COSD like a calculator.

Updated our favorite spread sheet with the slope VS thickness formula.

morrow_ex.xlsx

Next I will have to come up with a rational way to include the armor material into the formula. For right now the PD can work that out with the tables. Right now I think 1mm Armor plate equals AC 1 and 2.54 cm equals AC 48

Armor Class

Armor Material Cm of Cm of Cm of Cm of
Class Steel Wood Concrete Stone
A Skin - - - -
B Cloth (Heavy) - - - -
C Leather - - - -
1 13mm light - 2.54 .03 -
Plastic
2 13mm Heavy - 5.08 .5 -
Plastic

3 Chain Mail .25 7.62 .76 -
4 3mm Armor plate .34 10.16 1.06 7.62
5 .42 12.7 1.27 8.89
6 Nylon Body Armor .5 15.24 1.52 -
7 Resistweave Cloth .57 17.78 1.79 -
8 6mm Fiberglass .64 20.32 - -
Plate
9 6mm Aluminium .7 22.86 - -
Plate
10 .76 25.4 3.18 16.51
14 Kevlar Vest
15 1.02 34.29 7.62 22.86
16 19mm Lexan - - - -
18 Fiberglass / - - - -
Titanium Plate
19 13mm Aluminium - - - -
20 1.27 55.88 15.24 36.83
21 3mm Boron Carb- - - - -
ide Ceramic
25 1.52 55.88 15.24 36.83
30 1.79 66.04 19.05 43.18
35 3mm Boron/carbon 2.03 78.74 22.86 49.53
Filament plate
40 - 88.9 29.21 55.88
42 2.29 - - -
45 - 99.06 34.29 60.96
48 2.54 - - -
50 - 109.22 39.37 66.04
55 - 121.92 45.72 71.12
60 - 129.54 50.8 76.2
65 3.18 - - -
82 3.81 - - -
90 4.06 190.5 91.44 106.68
100 4.45 - - -
120 5.08 - - -
160 6.35 - - -
200 7.62 - - -
150 8.89 - - -
300 10.16 - - -
350 11.43 - - -
400 12.7 - - -

[ArmySGT.]

Hmmmmmmm I am fumbling drop down lists and hyperlinks across spread sheets.... Haven't been called upon to do that in a long time....

I'll get it...... Here is the current sordid mess..... Ha!

morrow_ex.xlsx

[ArmySGT.]

Ahhhhhhhhh Progress...... Armor material drop down complete.

Next Armor Value drop downs. for Equivalencies of Steel, Wood, Concrete, and Stone.

Then to bring those values together in a formula to create an adjusted armor value solution.

Have to think on that..... I don't do this very often.

morrow_ex.xlsx