why didn't the tiger I have sloped armor?
>>29724466
Because the germans over thought the inside without thinking about the practicalities. Imagine if the US had the localized land to manufacture tanks and the firearms that the germans had? Literally the reason why the m4 was so great was because how easy repairs where, how easy it was to escape from, and how reliable they were.
>>29724466
Because like Flat-Earthers, Teutonic physics cant into curves or circles
>>29724466
Because they needed a heavy tank fast and decided the best thing to do was make a really fat Panzer IV and throw a flak gun in the turret.
It worked pretty well, all told, but the Krauts didn't have the economic power to make as many as they needed.
>>29724466
Because the Germans were confident in their steel and their hardening
>>29724560
what makes it so hard to design a sloped design?
>>29724599
Rather, how its easier to build a box then a trapezoid.
>>29724599
Harder and longer manufacturing i guess.
>>29724599
Having to give up internal space to accommodate it when just putting a thicker slab of plate serves much the same purpose.
Also, that design was already in the works before the Panther's development started.
>>29724466
Because sloped armor is not the be-all-end-all of tank design and defines "good or shit".
They required the tank to resist "X". The design brief would have specified this.
They built a tank to resist "X". Design was approved because it met the brief.
How they get to their required protection is by that point irrelevant. So long as it did it. No-one in the day it was being done knew what would be required in the future or not, so they designed to match what they predicted. Same with every nation.
>>29724641
But sloped armor was. Literally look at the hetzer and the m4.
>>29724592
yeah but with sloped armor you can reduce weight and the tiger was notorious for its weight problems
>>29724640
in front the the driver there is like half a meter of useless space that could have been used for sloping.
They slope the tank, not the armor. Rotate the tank 30 degrees against a frontal threat and the effective armor approaches 20cm RHA
![[muffled main battle tank in the distance].png](https://i.imgur.com/Z0OZKXd.png "[muffled main battle tank in the distance].png")
>>29724801
This anon gets it.
>>29724728
It'd take a bit more than that to add sloping to one of those. It would have also taken a complete redesign to accommodate sloping, see the Panther.
>>29724526
Brit tonks were un-sloped all the way up to the end of and for a few years after the war.
>>29724801
but if it was already sloped you could double slope it
>>29724466
They angled it in combat so it was just as effective while still having more inside space.
>>29727550
But it had excess internal space, also, what do you do when that pesky t34 sneaks up on you?
>>29724909
you don't REALLY think a panther is an MBT do you?
>>29724989
Yeah, and expose the non-sloped side armour? Great idea!
>>29730233
Laugh because the commander literally cannot see you due to his inferior viewports and having to work as a loader, does not know where to look due to not having a radio, and is going around in circles because everyone who knew how to drive a tank was summarily executed for cowardice a week before at Stalin's orders.
In about an hour when another hundred t34's come you're pretty fucked though, one's bound to eventually bump into you.
Sloped armour doesn't decrease weight.
But the front of the Tiger would have benefitted from sloped armour because it would have made construction easier because there are less angles that way and that could have led to improved armor.
Front of the tiger isn't 100% flat.
Side armour being sloped doesn't bring advantages.
>>29731261
It does decrease it a bit, the roof and floor armor amount can be reduced while retaining the same volume inside the tank, also, there is a possibility to bounce a shell.
>>29724466
Kwk..... 36
>>29731328
Not a large difference.
>there is a possibility to bounce a shell.
With modern long rod penetrators that's no longer relevant.
Modern tanks using perforated armour try to deform the penetrators instead of deflecting them because slope doesn't work very well against long rods.
Slope is used when it simplifies the production process.
>>29731261
>But the front of the Tiger would have benefitted from sloped armour because it would have made construction easier
Tiger 2 was made. Lengthened do to lack of crew space.
>>29731345
2 entirely different tanks.
Besides the front plate(s) of the Tiger 2 was simpler than the Tiger's front
And a longer hull isn't hard compared to needing numerous plates to make the Tiger 1 front.
>>29724599
gotta figure out a way to let the driver be able sit in a position that makes sense while also being able to see, keep in mind that its not like they used the kind of optics normal tanks have now
older tanks basically had a window with a sliding door
>>29724667
the hetzer was designed 3 years after the tiger
>>29731342
>Not a large difference.
Its a huge difference, since amount side armor is also decreased. Sloped armor decreases internal volume, therefore, decreases weight. Also, in many cases sloped armor helps to distribute weight better, most tanks are a bit overweight in the front.
>>29731375
Yes, just like all modern tanks have sloped side armour.
The Tiger was a Frankenstein tank that fused more than one project into one.
>>29731342
I'm fairly certain long rod penetratora are not relevant when we are talking about the tiger I
>>29731342
I'm fairly certain long rod penetrators are not relevant when we are talking about the tiger I
>>29731375
>most tanks are a bit overweight in the front
They're overweight at the front because that's where the heaviest armor is and because the turret is typically closer to the front because of the engine at the rear.
And decreased internal volume is pretty bad for crew comfort and crew morale
Why is everything that the Germans make so Over-engineered?
>>29724728
>>29724667
>>29724599
>>29724466
Mate they just done goofed. Everyone agrees they done goofed.
You're telling us they did X when they should've done Y. We all know that. The people you should really speak to are the people who designed it.
So go and jump in your little faggot time machine and have a nice trip.
>>29731482
But i thought the germans were meant to br the smart ones.
>>29724466
Because kraut engineering is overrated.
>>29724728
>slope = less weight
sloped armor does absolutely nothing to reduce weight.
Angling it means you need a significantly longer piece of metal that weighs exactly the same amount.
The only benefit to a slope is occasional deflections and ricochets.
You don't get any extra thickness for a weight of steel.
You don't need less weight for the same height.
fuck someone else already answered
>>29731261
>>29731328
>it does decrease it a bit
not at all, The roof and floor of the square-front tank save the same amount of weight.
The only weight difference is the non-existent one in the front armor.
If you make a sloped armor out of the same amount of metal that's equally thick from front shots (example A) then it gains ZERO thickness (example B, exact same height, same material, same thickness at every point)
The ONLY additional thickness from rotating is at the middle, whereas the front armor would have huge weak spots at top and bottom if extra metal is not added (example C)
If extra metal is added to both sides of the front (marked in red on example C) then you get the exact same thickness as if you used that much extra metal on the front plate of a flat tank.
You can do the math or use drafting software, it's 100% proven and objective fucking fact that you gain zero extra material no matter what rotation transformation you do on an object.
All you do by twisting it is leave weakspots at the front-top and front-bottom.
In WW2 tanks had APHE a-plenty so they'd toss em right through those red thinner areas on the FRONT of the tank (not the roof or floor)
>>29731482
>go and jump in your little faggot time machine and have a nice trip.
kek
>>29730773
it is not like the tigers side armor was sloped
>>29730271
>he tries to correct others
>yet he cannot tell Panthers and Panzer III apart
laughingwhores.jpg
>>29730773
what do you mean?
>sloping does nothing u guise! That's why all modern tanks are boxes and nobody ever made domed turrets that are sloped from every direction!
Every fucking time all because an autist went crazy on wikipedia and people don't understand what the point of sloping is.
>>29724466
because it was shit and the t-34 and sherman were better tanks
>>29731777
but anon, look at this drawing i made, same amount of material in both and yet, in the bottom one there is more space inside.
>>29732061
similarly, this is how i would have designed a turret if i was an engineer working on tanks back then.
>>29724466
>>29724506
>>29724526
>>29724560
>>29724592
>>29724599
>>29724627
>>29724630
>>29724640
>>29724641
>>29724667
>>29724728
>>29724801
Jesus Christ, way to over complicate a simple answer.
Both the Tiger I and the T-34 came out at roughly the same time, in 1942 and 1941 respectively. They were being produced at that period of time, and Sloped armor was a *relatively* new concept at the time.
TL;DR: Tiger tanks were designed before the idea to build sloped armor was common.
>>29732164
angling your armor isn't rocket science and the t-34 wasn't the first tank to use angled armor.
>>29732164
>Sloped armor was a *relatively* new
hahah fuck off and stay there. its old as fuck.
slopes make shit bigger than they have to be, and germans didnt see the need for it.
biggest advantage of slopes is that you can make a tank of simpler shapes
>>29732029
whew! almost got me there friendo :^)
>>29732178
>angling your armor isn't rocket science and the t-34 wasn't the first tank to use angled armor.
Being the first tank to use angled armor wasn't the point, the T-34 proved it as a workable concept.
>>29732179
>slopes make shit bigger than they have to be, and germans didnt see the need for it.
Explain the existence of the late war tanks, that were designed after 1942, the Panther, and the Tiger II which utilized angled armor.
>>29732179
I'm omitting tank destroyers and self-propelled artillery such as the Hetzer and Jagdpanzer by the way.
>>29732226
>Explain the existence of the late war tanks, that were designed after 1942, the Panther, and the Tiger II which utilized angled armor.
production. they could shit out panthers and tiger two much faster than tiger 1 and pz3/4
also bettet protection against the newer enemy guns
>>29732128
Brits and Germans both used turrets like that
>>29732179
who cares if slopes make shit a bit bigger? i mean sure it's not as effective use of limited space as possible that's why we don't see the sides sloped in modern tanks. but like who the fuck cares if your tank ends up being 0.5 meters longer for the same inside volume, especially when you can reduce the weight a bit.
>>29732220
Why would you need heavy armour when you can evade all projectiles with superior speed?
>>29732379
i know of the crusader tank but which German tank had a turret like that?
>>29732434
Ostwind
Technically a tank, right?
>>29732485
yeah i guess, although they probably chose the design for the same reasons you would choose it for an actual tank it kinda feels odd to speak of it in this context.
>>29732242
>I'm omitting things that make me wrong
Go kill yourself.
>>29732179
>biggest advantage of slopes is that you can make a tank of simpler shapes
No. No it's not. You lackwit.It makes armor functionally thicker from head on without making it actually thicker when measured from a perpendicular view.
>>29732399
>reduce the weight
M4: 30 tonnes
Tiger 1:54 tonnes
Guess which lighter tank matched same frontal armour effectiveness as the heavier tank
>>29732220
Hes not wrong newfriend ',:)
>>29724466
Because they wanted you to suffer until tier 8
>>29732164
>le T-34 was the first of its kind meme
Here is your (You)
>>29724599
Bad ergonomics. Tanks with sloped armor are unconfortable.
>>29724466
Because the lack of right angles triggers German autism and OCD.
>>29731444
Autism.
>>29724466
"Slavs don't have anything above 76mm!"
- the entire German high command
>>29731777
>All you do by twisting it is leave weakspots at the front-top and front-bottom.
Fucking kids
>>29733132
>>29724466
>why didn't the tiger I have sloped armor?
Because it was not designed with that idea.
>>29733132
that post is fucking retarded, it does not take into account the huge increase in space inside shape, if it would be made so that both shapes have same amount of space inside them the angled one would weigh a lot less.
>>29733170
why not?
>>29733200
It simply was not.
Just look at all other german designs from that time, flat armor and few areas that are sloped.
>>29733190
Prove it.
The sloped one would still weight more.
>>29733242
if you have only one angle their weight will be equal.
>>29732995
>le T-34 was the first of its kind meme
>Implying I said it was.
My point is,
there doesn't seem to be a period in history before 1941 where sloped armored tanks were deployed in large numbers, against German forces, enough to be noteworthy, for them to have reason to adopt sloped armor to their tanks.
>>29724466
The Germans were not very practically minded engineers.
>>29733207
yeah but why?
>>29733425
>for them to have reason to adopt sloped armor to their tanks
sloped armor wasnt adopted because the enemy used it. it was because the enemy got better guns
>>29733425
yeah but the tiger could be made a lot simpler with sloped armor.
>>29732778
>tiny bunker 20 tonnes
>m4 30 tonnes
guess which has more protection.
ypu're comparing apples and oranges. cooooompletely different doctrine
>>29732275
>production. they could shit out panthers and tiger two much faster than tiger 1 and pz3/4
also bettet protection against the newer enemy guns
Let me clarify this conversation.
Sloped armor concept, whether been around or not, was not a popular concept nor proven/battle tested extensively before 1941 by the Germans.
>you say germans didnt see the need for it."
I state, that the introduction of the T-34 results in the adoption of this technology to future tanks. Requesting the reason for the existence of several late war tanks which are now designed with sloped armor, most notably the Tiger II.
>you tell me convenient production reasons and better protection.
1. It is less convenient to shit out different tanks and retool factories for new tanks.
2. This "better protection" involves angled armor, which are from tank designs after 1942.
TL;DR:
>1941 germans see tanks with sloped armor
>1942 germans have no tanks with sloped armor, and begin designing tanks with sloped armor.
>1943~ German tanks now have sloped armor.
>>29733381
>both turrets have same amount of space but the non-angled one has more roof making it more heavy.
So you are saying they have the same amount of red pixels?
>if you have only one angle their weight will be equal.
What
>>29732700
>I'm pretending to be retarded
I'm omitting the fact that those tanks aren't main battle tanks, to be *specific* not because they remove anything from my argument: Of which German tanks after 1942 began having sloped armor which those tank destroyers also prove.
>>29733530
>1940 germans fight sloped armored french tanks
>everyone still uses shitty guns, pz3/4 is adequate
>1941 germany rape russia, they still use shitty guns
>1942 russia is getting their shit together and pz3/4 are evenly matched
>1943 germany is starting to get fucked, need shitloads of better tanks. pz3/4 is showing their limits. panthers arrive.
>>29733454
>>29733468
Which is why the Germans began producing tanks with angled armor. They saw it, thought it was a good idea, copied it, and you have these new tank designs all of which don't just happen to have been designed and produced after 1941 and the first encounter with the T-34.
>sloped armor wasnt adopted because the enemy used it. it was because the enemy got better guns
The enemy having better guns IS A REASON to adopt sloped armor to their tanks.
>>29733609
The germans were already developing a tank to replace the panzer 3 and 4 before they entered russia, it was just that it was going slow since they were not having any problems.
After 1941 when they meet T-34 and the KV-1 which have a gun which can destroy a panzer 3 and 4 at ranges it could not then they started to speed up the development of next generation of german tanks that would ensure german armor superiority for the following years.
Turned out that the replacing tanks were good but not good enough to win the war.
>>29733609
>1940 germans fight sloped armored french tanks
very little tank combat compared to eastern front.
>1943 panthers arrive.
The design was finalized in September 1942, which involved captured T-34s, copying the sloped armor design.
I might mention that the Panther project started in 1938, but all designs changed radically after 1941 to appear like the T-34 to that finalized design and prototype version that began to appear in 1943.
>>29733654
Did you read the same books that I did?
>>29733624
everybody knew the benefits of sloped armor in ww1. french made tanks employing it before ww2, and actually in ww1.
there was not a NEED to make sloped armor tanks before the better guns arrived, the germans didnt see the t-34 and thought "oh what a good idea, lets copy it" they went. "the enemy guns are capable of penetrating our tanks at long range, and the doctrine supports tanks in offensive spearhead roles. lets use this old design to get a tad more protection out of the armor, while at the same time make production of homogenous solid armor plates and assembly of tanks much easier.
the t-34 did nothing new, and they employed sloped armor because of german high velocity guns which was a NEED
a NEED that the germans didnt have untill later in the war
>>29733689
eh maybe?
>>29733538
see in my picture the plates are sloped in both directions or something idk how to say it correctly but if you have only one slope angle the weight will be same compared to non-sloped and the volume will be same as well.
>>29733696
>NEED
>NEED
>NEED
why do americans write like this :DD
>>29733728
>volume will be same as well.
no
The sloped will have more
Also I love how you like shottraps
>>29733696
>and they employed sloped armor because of german high velocity guns
No it was to make it immune against 37 and 45mm fire.
If they knew about german high velocity 75mm would be common then the T-34 would have 60 or 75mm thick armor.
>>29733749
its engineering terms
>>29732403
Why would you need superior speed when you can just burst in flames after driving on an AT mine?
>>29733791
the 37mm is a german high velocity AT gun
>>29733754
yes shot traps are a potential problem
>>29724466
more volume at same size and mass
smaller plates are less vunerable to spalling from non-penetrating hits
Also, it was plain enough. 100mm thick plate was enough to stop 85mm round at the time, even if it was ideal hit from 500m, while Tiger could nuke any tank from any practical range. And I don't think 76mm could penetrate it at any range at all.
What's more Tiger was stop-gap design, meant to be avaliable as fast as possible, before more advanced designs enter production. Main reason it got KwK 36 instead of KwK 43, was because existing 88mm already killed every known Ivan with no issues, while waiting for KwK 43 would delay production for about 6 months, it would take to adapt gun amass ammunition, while KwK 36 used same ammunition as 88mm Flak, so tank could be used immediately.
>>29732164
German posting at its finest.
>>29733710
hahaha. I'm you from the past or future. Whatever your fancy.
>>29732164
Production of T-34 started in 1940.
Tank was avaliable for production earlier, but command insisted they need more T-26 and BT series, rather than something as expensive (for Soviet standards) as T-34. They wised up after their light tanks got buttraped in Finland.
"German engineering" became a meme after the Kaiser resigned.
>>29733696
>>29733791
Now, if I were going to specifically guess the intentions of the Germans, in 1941-1942 I would concede that the reason for adopting the armor 1941 onwards is for protection against high velocity shells, but When I looked through the design documents(of Post 1942 angled armored, german tanks) and manifests(of captured T-34 tanks) We're looking at a good 6-9 months of these T-34s being inspected and taken apart, and the drastic changes in designs during this period, so while I agree that protection may be the reason for the adoption of the idea, I have reason to believe that the idea itself was considered from the captured models just lying around in warehouses.
>>29733927
I'm not a refugee.
>>29733897
look at the pic that was already posted
>>29732061
>>29733972
I stated "that period of time."
Either way, it was around 1941 where the Germans encountered these tanks, drove some home, and pulled out the design concepts.
>>29732061
>>29732128
It didn't work well for the Panther turret.
>>29734180
what do you mean?
>>29734195
The first Panther versions had gun mantlets with a shape similar to your drawings. The lower "chin" was a shot trap and the allies made use of it by aiming for it and penetrate the roof of the hull.
>>29734266
Don't forget that flaw was also on the Tiger II (P).
>>29734266
there are ways around it though.
>>29734311
Porsche was a fucking dunce at designing tanks.
>>29734352
Later models fixed of course look at photos of different Panther versions and you will see the difference.
>>29733838
Woops I tought you ment the long 75mm for some reason, sorry.
>>29734081
The Vk.30.02 was a superior copy to the T-34 and would have been better then the Panther.
>>29733850
ay yo hol up hol up hol up.
Have you been counting how many pixels each turret design have?
>>29734468
i got the grid up on paint, the text in the picture is correct
>>29734109
it's also larger, to achieve same volume
>>29734311
Those turrets were early design that was rejected. 50 existing turrets ended up used simply because they were done, while production turrets were delayed.
>>29734468
The Vk.30.02 was designated in April 1942.
within the time period I allotted.
>>29724466
although it was flat the majority of armor it faced couln't damage it. If you angle it towards enemy you still get decent sloping
>>29734481
length doesn't really matter, width does though.
>>29730271
please define what an MBT means in today's context.
now see how that applies to the panther
faggot.
>>29734586
except more side to cover in armor. It's not much, but neither gain from sloped armor is, when you're not facing enemy commonly using HVAP.
85mm APBC would penetrate 102 mm of test steel at 1 km with straight-on hit and 85 mm when hit angle was 30 degree. Nice protection gain, huh? Well, not exactly, because 85 mm at 30 degree is 98 mm in LOS. So protection gain from using thinner, sloped plate, instead of vertical one, is barely 4 mm.
>>29733485
Guess which one has wheels, and engine, and a fuel tank?
>>29733538
What he's saying is that both have the same amount of white pixels in the area enveloped by the red pixels. This means both turret designs have equal usable space.
However, the angled turret has less red pixels, so less weight overall.
>>29724989
double slope
>kek.jpg
lets elaborate how to triple slope that shit
was designed to defeat slopes
>>29737050
>also shown
>excessively high anal penetration resulting in lower ass paralysis
>>29724466
Because sheer thickness is a quality of its own. Since armor resistance is mainly determined by the ratio between armor thickness and projectile diameter (T/d). The T/d relationship regarding armor penetration demonstrates that the more the thickness of the armor plate overmatches the diameter of any incoming armor piercing round, the harder it is for the projectile to achieve a penetration. On the other side, the greater the diameter of the incoming projectile relatively to the thickness of the armor plate which it strikes, the greater the probability of penetration. This explains why the side armor of the Tiger I, being 80 mm thick, was so difficult to be penetrated at combat ranges by most Allied anti-tank and tank guns, whose calibers were overmatched by the thickness of the Tiger I armor.
>>29732164
>Sloped armor was a *relatively* new concept at the time.
>>29733530
>1942 germans have no tanks with sloped armor
>>29733530
>1942 germans have no tanks with sloped armor
.
sloped armor is for fags
>>29732128
a hit on the bottom of the turret sloped like that has a high chance of ricochet down into the crew compartment, or jamming the turret. there is a reason that design has been abandoned.
>>29733132
oh hey you saved my picture from a year ago back when I proved sloping is bullshit on any weight or thickness basis. Didn't have the image on this new pc.
>>29733190
You're the fucking retarded one. There's no space gained by sloping armor, space is actually lost because the triangle is not efficient space for human bodies at all.
That's why nobody who isn't retarded would accept a non-square room in a house unless it's in the attic where no one is going to be spending any time.
Taking away space for a russian shape means worse conditions for the crew, longer reload times, more poor visibility, more slow crew swaps if someone wanted to replace a wounded crewmember, and longer escape time if people are trying to escape alive from a wounded tank.
Russian lives aren't worth anything so they can go with a design that puts crew at risk.
>>29732128
in addition to your turret being a shot trap that bounces shots down into the top of your hull-roof and destroys your tank (which requires even thicker roof armor to stop, increasing weight)
You're also increasing weight because the sides of the tank are not open, you've stretched it forward on front and back, that "extra" room takes extra wall material on the sides, which has to be thicker than roof material on the boxy tank, as more shots come from the sides than from the top of a tank.
No actual weight savings.
No actual room benefit per weight.
>>29724466
That didn't have the chinese helping them with it.
Good grief. I feel like nobody in this thread understands the nightmarish nature of the German armaments industry at this time.
Development of the Tiger as we know it started in 1938 and it had a similar overall layout to the Panzer IV but with torsion bar suspension and interleaved roadwheels. Pic related.
Over time the design proposals got progressively heavier - initially it was supposed to weigh 35 tons, then 40 tons, then 50 tons, as Hitler and the army brass kept piling on demands for bigger guns and heavier armor to keep pace with foreign development.
After encountering the T-34 and KV-1 in Russia in 1941, instead of restarting the entire program they basically went WELL FUCK LET'S JUST MAKE IT BIGGER. An 88mm gun because the FlaK 36 was the only gun that could effectively destroy a KV-1 at long range and 100mm frontal armor because that was plenty to bounce 76mm guns at combat range (i.e. greater than 500m). The Tiger was mathematically better than anything the Russians had in 1942, but this was arrived at by basically kludging together a design that was already 4 years old and just blowing up its dimensions. This led to complications and an almost immediate need for a heavy tank with a more modern armor scheme (see Tiger II).
>>29740822
After examining T-34s and realizing how sloped armor plate gives you greater effective thickness for the same overall weight, the Germans restarted development of a new medium tank that was supposed to basically be like the T-34. Sloped armor, 75mm antitank gun, weight under 40 tons, even has the turret way in the front of the hull (pic related again).
Except, again, the Army leadership and Hitler kept wanting to make it "more better" - more armor, bigger gun, and a more conventional turret and engine layout as to what German industry was familiar with. So this response to the T-34 ends up being this monstrous thing called the Panther that weighed as much as the Tiger was *originally* supposed to weigh and was the size of a bus.
So, tl;dr, it's because the German designers were trying to engineer their way out of self-imposed problems created by having no coherent design aesthetic and trying to accomplish too much too fast.
>>29740909
Meanwhile, a year later the Russians shit out a tank with a totally superior armor layout, a bigger gun, and drastically lower weight that actually had strategic mobility.
The difference there is that the Commies picked a few things they wanted their tank to be good at and everything else was an afterthought. Less flexible in terms of tactical usage, but more than enough for what it was intended to do.
>>29740965
>the Russians shit out a tank with a totally superior armor layout, a bigger gun, and drastically lower weight
Also featuring: no turret basket, under thirty rounds of stored ammunition, pitiful rate of fire, poor reliability, miserable crew conditions and the "what were they thinking" rear-facing turret MG.
I like the IS-2 but you could just as easily point to it as being how not to design a tank.
>>29732164
>new concept
THE FUCKING FT-17 HAD IT YOU IGNORANT FUCKING HOMOSEXUAL.
>>29724466
it didnt need to be sloped because almost all shells that where fired from tanks are at an angle and a streight edge acts as a slope anyways
>>29740822
>old design that the Germans just made bigger
Heh, sounds like the same thing they did with the Bismarck and the H-class Battleship designs.
>>29741151
Turret basket was sacrificed in order to make the tank's overall profile lower and to save weight.
The tank only carried 30 rounds because of how enormous the ammunition was. Although apparently in typical disregard for safety a lot of crews stuffed even more shells in by doubling them up on the floor.
Slow RoF was considered acceptable since just about anything you were facing could be destroyed with one or two shots, and moreover with such a limited ammunition supply you'd run out even faster if you could cram them in there harder.
Interior of the IS-2 is actually roomy by Soviet standards, especially compared to the T-34-85 and the later IS-3/T-55 which had a more cramped turret. The driver even had a chair that reclined, whereas on the T-34 you had to drive hunched over forward.
The rear-facing MG in the turret + the fixed MG in the front hull were required by the Army due to stupidity and a fixation with being able to shoot backwards. On the postwar IS-2s the rear MG was removed and replaced with an extra ventilator to help dissipate smoke from the turret more quickly.
>>29741151
>not understanding the concept of a heavy tank
go read a book
>>29741151
The IS-2 was originally intended as a bunker busting breakthrough badboy wasn't it?
>Here is one more thing I’ve just remembered and want to share with you. According to some interviews from your website which I’ve read, it turns out that our T-34 is a bad tank. The guns of the German heavy panzers allegedly pierced through it. But for all my time at the front I do not remember any such holes in the frontal armor. It would tear a piece of armor off but wouldn’t pierce it. It could pierce anywhere else: in the side, in the rear all the time, but not the frontal armor. I repeat, not a single case.
http://iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/kalinenok-marat-alexandrovich/
>>29741624
More like a "kill everything in front of it" tank. The 122mm A-19 corps gun was chosen because it was the biggest cannon they could cram in the turret. Other than the heaviest parts of a Tiger II, a hit from that could reliably destroy or incapacitate just about any other tank, and it was very effective for destroying fortifications and emplacements as well as infantry in the open as well. The downside, of course, is a slow rate of fire, this and high fuel consumption being why IS-2s were used for breakthrough operations while the T-34 soldiered on as the main front-wide tank.
>>29740414
>all the space inside a tank is used to store human bodies.
>>29742114
>>29742114
Whaaat theeee fuuuuuuuck
>>29742114
>>29742144
>>29742177
looks like someone lost 300 pounds too fast
>>29740126
>considering Leonardo's designs equivalent to tanks designs of 1940+
>>29740288
>>29740299
>Showing tankettes that have sloped front designs as most regular tankettes did.
yet none designed with the purpose of dealing with high velocity shells at 45% angle standard. By that consideration, it would be that everyone else was using sloped armor and the germans were lagging behind in technology.
whew lad.
>>29733381
Bottom one makes it very easy for shots to deflect downwards through the roof. It was a problem for Panthers for the exact same reason.
>>29743232
There are ways to deal with that problem.
>>29731342
Can confirm this. The asian girl i've been fucking is living proof that slopes cant handle long rods
>>29743688
like top armor thick enough to stop deflected round? That would add weight.
>>29743219
>yet none designed with the purpose of dealing with high velocity shells at 45% angle standard. By that consideration, it would be that everyone else was using sloped armor and the germans were lagging behind in technology.
>whew lad.
the were really light so sloping the armor was necessary for adequate protection, unlike the pz3/4 at the time.
stop jerking off to the t34 so much, sloped armor was nothing new, and it was used to deflect projectiles in ww1
>>29731375
>Its a huge difference
no, because modern penetrators pierce sloped armor as if it was thick vertical armor, there's no penetration loss for hit angle. And I'm not sure about newest APFSDS, but early Soviet ones pierced sloped armor better than vertical, because of cap design. 3BM-4 was quoted to pierce 250mm RHA at 1km when vertical and 135mm RHA (270mm LOS) when sloped as 60 degree from vertical, which was the most common angle for glacis plate in post-war tanks.
>since amount side armor is also decreased
If you want to decrease size of side plate, you will need sacrifice internal volume which is never good thing to do.
Also modern tanks have very thin side armor, compared to front, so that little decrease of side armor doesn't matter much to overall weight of armor.
>Sloped armor decreases internal volume, therefore, decreases weight
making tank smaller decreases both volume and weight, but decreasing weight does NOT directly decreases volume, nor the other way around.
>>29743758
Of course it's nothing new, my point, that remains the same, T-34 provided proof of concept, leading to influencing heavier adoption.
>stop jerking off to the t34 so much
You seem to think I care for the tank, and not the events that transpired in the sequence of logistics that resulted in history that brings me to these conclusions.
>>29743756
like making the tank as wide as the turret or like in the t34 just angling the sides downwards, in the front i would probably just do what the germans did with the panther.
