#Ronson lighter sherman how to

The Chieftain mentioned armor thickness during his discussion of вЂњMyth 8: Sherman Was a Death TrapвЂќ. The two main reasons for sloping armor are two (1) increase its effective thickness, and (2) increase the likelihood of causing incoming rounds to glance off. I will limit my discussion of Sherman versus Tiger I armor to four topics: I now see that designing tank armor is just as difficult as designing battleship armor. Years ago, I spent some time reading articles on how battleship armor was designed (see the excellent work by Okun). Armor Evaluation CriteriaД®valuating armor protection is complex process. Note that some tanks specify this angle measured from horizontal вЂ“ you have to check. Slope ( Оё) The angle of the armor plate measured relative to vertical. Normal Thickness ( П„ N) The thickness of a tankвЂ™s armor normal to its surface. Line of Sight Thickness ( П„ LOS) The horizontal thickness of a tankвЂ™s armor, which increases as the armor is sloped (see Figure 2). The Sherman, with 2 inches (50 mm) of frontal armor, was overmatched against 75 mm and 88 mm armor.

#Ronson lighter sherman how to

There are many online discussions on how to model this effect ( example). I have not been able to find a definitive description of overmatch, but it appears to be related to shock. Armor Overmatch This is a complex topic, but as the diameter of a shell nears the thickness of the armor, the armor provides less protection than you would predict based on its thickness. This process generally provides protection superior to that of an equivalent thickness of cast armor. Rolled Homogeneous Armor As the name states, rolled armor is formed through a rolling process. Unfortunately, cast armor provides less protection than an equivalent thickness of rolled armor. As such, it allows for high-rates of production. ДЇigure 2: Good Lecture on American Armor During WW2.Дefinitions Cast Homogeneous Armor As the name states, cast armor is formed in a mold. The lecturer does an exceptional job describing the complex managerial context of US armored forces during WW2. Background Video That Motivated This PostДЇigure 2 shows the Youtube video that got me thinking. We can thank the gaming community for bringing so many of these facts about WW2 weapons into light. In response to an excellent response from a reader of my blog, I will also look at how the armor was constructed and how a ShermanвЂ™s armor had a much more difficult attack to resist than the Tiger I did. Since the Sherman is listed as having 2 inches of frontal armor, I thought it would be interesting to examine his statement more closely to understand the reasoning behind the 3.6 inch statement. Specifically, he states that the Sherman had an equivalent frontal armor thickness of 3.6 inches compared to that of a Tiger IвЂ™s 4.4 inches (see the video below, about 34 minutes in). While he addressed each of the concerns that I listed above, in this post I will limit my focus to his statement that the sloped frontal armor on the M4 Sherman was actually comparable to the unsloped frontal armor of a Tiger I. This weekend, I saw a Youtube video by a gentleman, with the handle вЂњThe ChieftainвЂќ, who works for as a researcher and he had a completely different take on the M4 Sherman than I had heard before.

the M4 should have been replaced earlier by the M26 Pershing.

The comments I heard about the M4 can be summarized as: Most of what I read or heard was quite disparaging ( example) about the M4 Sherman Tank (Figure 1). One of these fathers, Alvin Weese, was an Army veteran who was very specific about his WW2 service by saying that he had вЂњserved under PattonвЂќ and you could clearly see his pride in having been a soldier in PattonвЂ™s 3 rd Army.ДЄs a boy, AlvinвЂ™s comments about вЂњ Old Blood and GutsвЂќ got me curious about the American use of armor during WW2. When I was a boy, most of the fathers in my neighborhood had served in WW2. Figure 1: Front Armor Angle on Sherman is Angled at 56В°.