okay so could someone explain to me how the fuck the germans managed to make this thing weigh 57 fucking tons while only having 100 mm of frontal armor, like, even slavs could do fucking better.
Pre-war design. Its armor was good enough for when it first came into service.
>>30074034
because le german engineering is a retarded meme
Pershing had better armor while being much lighter. Germans just couldn't make a good tank.
>>30074034
They were stupid enough not to slope it, thats why
>>30074040
what are you trying to say?
>lol ok the armor is enough lets still make it weigh 57 fucking tons bc whatever it's prewar so we are dumb
>>30074034
A fuck huge gun, room for 5 crew and 92 rounds for the main gun.
>>30074034
Massive tank. 88mm cannon. 12 cyl engine producing 650ish hp in the 1940's. 16 torsion bar suspension system.
I don't know how those fucking germans could be so stupid. Then they made a Tiger II. Retards.
>>30074045
>Pershing
Oh you mean that tank that barely saw combat?
I think the germans could have designed a better tank if they had the luxury of time
Prove is the Leopard 2 is the best tank right now.
this thing had like 120 mm frontal armor and a 122 mm fuckhuge gun and still it weighed only 46 tons. how come "subhuman" slavs manage to do it better than germans, i thought germans were meant to be the smart ones.
even this thing had 100 mm of effective armor and it weighed only 15 tons, i mean seriously, how could they fuck up so bad with the tiger and why the hell is it still praised as the ultimate tank of WW2?
>>30074169
Well its not like they were the ones who started the war or anything.
Oh wait
>>30074169
honestly, designing a tank shouldn't take too long if you aren't stupid.
>>30074247
Tiger used more metal, bigger engine, had a bigger gun, etc. Also the hetzer relied mostly on the slope of it's armor.
>>30074181
>120mm of frontal conscript plates
In all seriousness I have no idea about slav designs. I assume that they vodka treated the steel or something.
>>30074323
sloping does not in general decrease weight. also, the hetzer had quite the nice gun as well.
>>30074045
How many confirmed Pershing kills did the Tiger get?
>>30074352
But it's armor was much less thick. wasn't it something like 50-60mm's sloped to 100-120 effectivity?
Jesus fuck the autism in this thread. Look kids. The tiger came about as a heavy tank design designed to roll with the pz4. As a direct result of it and the panthers raping all the us and Slav medium tanks they built the perishing and IS series respectively. Infact the t-34-85 was intended to defeat the tifer1 but ammo at the time wasnt good enough to penetrate it frontaly at range so crews where told to get up close or flank it
>>30074291
>Engineering is easy
>>30074377
sloped or not, you are still using the same amount of material/mass. likelihood to bounce shots is another discussion tho.
>>30074377
yes but that also means that the plate has to be longer, but sloping will make the armor more effective in some cases, some shells didn't penetrate sloped armor too well.
sloping can reduce weight if you can eliminate useless space and therefore reduce for example the amount of roof or side armor.
another thing that comes to mind is that thinner armor is surely easier to produce.
Russians: 3 different chassis for everything
Americans: 2 different chassis for everything
Germans: moar prototypes
>>30074402
i believe so.
>>30074034
If you just want a tank that's good at killing tanks on only focuses on guns and armor than the jagdtiger was the best in ww2
128mm gun
250mm frontal armor
And it was like 2 mph slower than a Sherman.
>>30074430
Did the germans not recycle old czech tanks into other designs? same for pzI and pzII iirc, used in flakpz and marder designs? There was some attempt to avoid brand new chassis for everything then.
>>30074414
Did you sleep through geometry lessons? More corners = less surface area for the same volume
>>30074448
problem with that is that you don't really need 128mm gun for any tank in ww2 unless we are talking about extreme ranges.
also
>72 tons
>>30074363
that one, from 100 yards and through the coax MG port. the tiger that did the shooting then got stuck and was abandoned
>>30074496
Flat armor autists:
If sloping was so awful and had zero benefit, why does every modern tank have sloped armor?
>>30074469
I don't understand what you are getting at.
Do you mean three dimensionally? With the example of comparing a cube to an infinitely cornered object, a sphere, there will be less surface area per volume?
I noticed you were originally discussing the hetzer. I was just comparing vertical armor to sloped armor, thats all.
>>30074469
yes but horizontal surfaces are usually very thin making the weight savings in that aspect quite small.
>>30074053
>92 rounds for the main gun.
Jesus fucking Christ
>>30074515
Modern tanks have sloped hulls because it's easier to make a sloped front, only 3 connections to make, if it like the chruchill you have 4 commections to make. Sides of modern tanks are straight because it's easiest make it like that.
>>30074607
>Sides of modern tanks are straight because it's easiest make it like that.
it's also more space efficient
>>30074088
It has to do with German Naval design. The thinking back then was that you had 3 variables; range, speed, and armor. You could only design for 2, and the third would suffer.
So they ended up with well armored, long ranged, but slow ships and tanks.
>>30074461
Asking it there cause I lost track of tank forums and related accounts
Was the Porsche Tiger prototype sent into to combat with some mixed platoon like Gruppe Fehrmann and the other one who had in charge Maus the VK4502 prototypes and the Panther with PIV turret?
Or was it the one who saw combat in Eastern Front then it got lost somewhere in the Western Front with the remaining Elefants?
>>30074034
if you've seen it IRL you'd know the answer.
>>30074414
No. Just no.
Draw it on paper and imagine each CM is 100KG of armour.
How can you not understand that sloping reduces weight and interior volume in return for increased straight line armour?
>>30074431
Which is why modern tanks were all designed in 1917, because it was so easy, right?
>>30074034
what are alloys and why didnt the germans have them during wartime
same reason we didnt. steam locomotives delivered during wartime were like 30% heavier becuase we couldnt get lightweight metals to alloy.
when you dont have any molybdenum or bauxite your shit is gonna weigh more, natch.
picture unrelated to post content.
>>30075263
How heavy do you think a new material/alloy panzer would weigh?
>>30075247
In this example horizontal armor compared with sloped armor has;
same volume
same thickness
same mass, supposedly.
>>30074181
You gotta keep in mind that there's usually several compromises when it comes to Russian gear. IIRC, the IS-2 uses two piece ammo for that 122mm and is slow as fuck to reload. I'm also pretty sure it's cramped too. We also know it only has a very limited amount of ammo inside - 28 I think? Plus, it's the newer tank of the two, made specifically to counter the Tiger, so there's that to consider. In comparison, the Tiger has almost 100 rounds of ammo, as >>30074053 pointed out, is the older design, and is - for a tank of the time - fairly roomy/ergonomic.
>>30075263
Personally, I don't think alloying their steel impacted the weight as much as you suggest it would. Though it definitely made their armor more brittle and prone to spalling. I believe that the reason why the German tanks were typically so much heavier is that they generally preferred something roomy for the crew, and could hold a metric fuck-ton of ammo. Which means a bigger tank, and more weight.
>>30074169
>Prove is the Leopard 2 is the best tank right now.
>a tank built 50 years after is proof the original was better
>>30075315
beats me, i just know it would be less if you could use things like chromium-vanadium steel. parts would be made with less mass than having to make it from grey iron or steel
>>30075384
are you pretending to be stupid ?
>>30074034
By having 100mm on all sides as well
>>30075509
Tell me why it is wrong. I'm not trying to troll you or some stupid shit. I'm fine with strangers on the internet thinking I'm retarded. I could be stephen hawking and people would think im retarded on here. I'm just interested in understanding armor design.
>>30075197
It was sent off to the Eastern Front
>>30075601
You made a parallelogram. people don't slope rear armour. The only exception I can think of is panther which has a very minor slope compared to the front. you also made the two examples the same height.
Make a rectangle with a sloped front, i'm sure there is a name for the shape but it don't know it.
>>30075681
Not the guy you replied to, but this is basic geometry.
If you're keeping total area the same, and you do anything to increase the width, you would decrease the height.
>you also made the two examples the same height.
If it wasn't kept to the same height, it wouldn't be covering as much, would it?
Or if it was kept to the same height, but benefited from increased width, then the total area would have increased.
>>30074247
>turretless design weights less than a normal tank
Who could have known?
>>30075681
I dont quite understand your post, and I suspect there was a misunderstanding.
The point of the picture was to prove that a slab of material (not the entire tank, just an armored surface), whether sloped or not, has the same thickness and volume. Just different shape.
>people don't slope rear armour.
??? I don't have rear armor anywhere in the picture. Expand on what you mean with the rear armor please.
>You also made the two examples the same height
Yes. I don't understand this either, because the front armor would have to protect the same height vehicle behind it.
I added some detail to the drawing to help clear some stuff up.
Drawing all this makes me feel really fucking autistic.
>>30075775
Anon I'm sorry, these feelings of 'autism'....Well...They aren't feelings.
>>30075775
You're not autistic.
The "sloped armor increases thickness while decreasing weight" meme has been around for literally decades.
It's perpetuated by people with a really poor grasp of geometry.
It's them who are autistic.
>>3007580775
Great. Now I only feel un-artistic.
So would that mean, besides inner tank configuration, that the only factor deciding whether to have sloped or flat armor is the type of rounds that will be fired at the vehicle?
>>30075834
fucked up the quote number. was responding to >>30075807
>>30075854
>>30075834
Well, having a slope can cause rounds to glace off of armor a bit, depending on the angle.
So yeah, it's basically an interaction between the armor, and what's being fired at it.
That's why modern tank designs have some minor slops in certain areas, or in areas where losing interior space doesn't matter.
But you'll notice that modern tanks are far more boxy like than older designs. That's because sloped armor is only marginally more effective in preventing penetration, and seriously compromises interior space.
>>30075834
Consider a 1/4 thick piece of steel at 90 degrees.
5.56 can penetrate through.
1/4" piece of steel at 45 degrees angle, 5.56 bounces off.
2" piece of steel at 90 degrees. 5.56 directly hits it but does not penetrate.
Which is the heaviest : 2"
Which is the most cost-effective: 1/4" at 45 degrees.
>>30075931
Yes, which is why in WW2, sloped armor was more common.
Modern anti tank rounds are much more resistant to being deflected, from what I understand, and so it seems reasonable to mostly forgo sloped armor in favor of increasing interior space.
>>30075906
http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/MBT122-2012.jpg
http://nationalinterest.org/files/styles/main_image_on_posts/public/main_images/USMC-091121-M-9613D-014.jpg?itok=A3-nKYJi
http://tanknutdave.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/T-14-Armata-Tank-armor.jpg
CERTAINLY NO ANGLES HERE, NO EDGE
top kek
>>30074045
Yeah classic amerifag, if german have time, they can make the better weapons in the world just think about this.
>>30075986
>That's why modern tank designs have some minor slops in certain areas,
>>>or in areas where losing interior space doesn't matter.
Such areas including, but not limited to: the bow, and front of the turret.
>>30075931
If you turned a piece of steel 45 degrees you would reduce the height of it to 1/sqrt2
So, to cover the same height tank, you would have to elongate this "piece of steel". This is where we get the extra mass from. so 1/4inch steel @ 90deg for x length cannot be compared to the same piece of steel merely rotated. That is why in this post >>30075775 you can see I cut the block in half diagonally, to show that it is exactly the same mass.
>please check the new images
Fuck off captcha
>>30075965
The argument is whether sloped armour weighs more or less. Not what is used in modern tanks.
So now you agree that sloped armour is equally effective at correct angles. Can you also agree that 2" of plate weighs more than a 1/4" angled at 45 degrees.
>>30074169
>the Leopard 2 is the best tank right now
No.
>>30074283
C'mon men don't piss me off, just think about the leopard 2, men , yes they started the war, thats mean no luxury of time at least.
>>30076041
I think you've confused me with someone else, because I've been agreeing with what you've just said this whole time.
I'm also
>>30075807
Nobody claims that sloped armor "makes more armor magically appear" as you are implying.
It's all about how the shell strikes a flat vs a sloped surface.
When the shell hits armor, it naturally wants to follow the path of least resistance.
Now, if the shell is coming in from an angle that is perpendicular to the plate, it doesn't have anywhere else to go than directly into (and possibly through) the plating.
When the plate, is angled, then the shells travel path is not only through the armor, but may also follow the angle of the armor, or fail to "bite" the armor, and thus be deflected.
>>30076081
the irony of an anonymous board.
>>30074397
>IS
>built because of the Tiger
IS-2s job was beaking up defensive positions. That it was also able to frontally murder a Tiger with its HE shells (to say nothing of AP) was a happy bonus.
And soviet 85mm was quite capable of tackling Tiger Is frontally - and the upgunning of T-34 was an answer to Panthers and big tank destroyers, decided upon almost two years after the Tiger debuted.
>>30074291
What, are you fucking retard!
So i cant desing a dildo whit lub in 5 minutes??
No way, engineering isn't easy dude just go to every university who teach engeenering and say those words.
>>30074448
>And it was like 2 mph slower than a Sherman.
Yeah. If everything was working as intended. Which happened presumably once a week for a few hours before he damn thing decided to break itself again.
>>30076093
Yes, I said essentially the same thing before.
But also, like I said before, modern rounds are more resistant to being deflected.
So sloped armor is only present in any major way on surfaces where it's most useful, and it doesn't really affect interior space.
Such as the bow and front of the turret, which is why a ton of modern tanks do exactly that.
Sloped in those areas, and square-ish mostly everywhere else.
>>30075263
The Tigers were done being produced before the krauts ran out of proper alloying agents for their armor plate production.
>>30074402
>Germans
your tank is shit
noooo! my tank is god tier yoir tank is shit/thread
pathetic
>>30074181
>the Soviet Union couldn't come up with a match to a pre-war German design until the last year of the war in Europe
>>30075775
>>30076387
Sloped plates allow you to have a thinner plate that is larger in it's length by width face, while retaining the same protection from a flat angled shot at the same width.
It's easier to harden the steel when it's thin, meaning shorter manufacture per steel plate of a given mass
So instead of heat treating a more cube-like block, you treat a wide flat pan of steel. and the slope allows you to be protected just as well per centimeter or inch or whatever height.
The only disadvantage is that shots which come from differently elevated positions are far more likely to penetrate.
For example, Panzer IV climbs hill, ambushes T-34. PzIV hits T-34 with heavily sloped glacis at very unfortunate angle for T-34. Or, T-34 climbing/descending slope, gets hit from an enemy on level position while doing so, again very bad for T-34.
On the other hand, the PzIV is actually at an advantage when the shots are at strange angles. It's why I turn myself about 45 Degrees when using German Tanks in WarThunder, preferably with my rear mostly covered by a rock or building.
Most preferably doing this while aiming at enemies on a hill or in a valley.
Their effective armour thickness is reduced, while mine is increased.
>>30074051
When you're getting pushed back by both the bongs and the slavs and you just declared war on the burgers, you may think that making a super-sized version of an existing tank is good enough for the job.
>>30076355
>IS-2
>merely a match when it outperformed the Tiger in virtually every way
>coming out in the last year of the war
>calling the Tiger a pre-war design when it debuted in 1942
>>30076654
IS-2 had worse rate of fire. Against other tanks, they would have matched up similarly.
>Tiger
Debuted, yes, but the design had been worked on since before the war. It was effectively crashed through after Barbarossa.
>>30076079
I'm just saying if they were such good engineers and could have done the best if given time, why deliberately hamstring themselves by starting a losing war
All these people with autism who are sloping the rear of the tank and making the tanks armour equally thick on all sides.
yes i'm sure you've twigged something that NO ONE has thought about. i'm sure all the sloped front tanks are just a mistake and you with your autistic brains are the one to figure out that slopes somehow don't make the same piece of armour have more LOS thickness.
>>30074034
>German engineering
>>30074448
Wasn't it the Jagdpanther which had the best record?
>>30076654
>merely a match when it outperformed the Tiger in virtually every way
In Russian made tank games.
>>30074034
It has good all-around protection. Best MBT of the war.
Yes, I said MBT. Much closer to an MBT than the heavy tank monstrosities like the KV, SMK, Char B1 etc.
>>30074247
>tiger and why the hell is it still praised as the ultimate tank of WW2?
It's basically a matter of reputation. A heavy tank is going to be considered powerful and deadly when most other tanks on the field are mediums, even if that specific heavy tank is poorly designed.
>>30077207
>muh Russian bias
>>30074578
There were a lot of T 34s to kill.
>>30075086
wat
The Scharnhorst, and Bismarck were both very quick Battleships for their time, and the rest of the German fleet wasn't particularly slow.
The Bismarck and Scharnhorst did have some short comings when to came to firepower though I suppose.
>>30074034
Why didnt they make sloped armor Tigers when the sloped armor meme became the prevalent means of armor? I mean instead of going on to build the Tiger II, why not just slope Tigers and keep producing those?
>>30077251
but all those tanks you mentioned weigh less than the tiger, even the smk.
>>30074045
GuP had alot of Pershings and Chaffee but they were defeated by a Tiger
>>30075633
Are you sure?
For what I understand the prototype or the first Tiger (P) had ballast to simulate weight but the one with the slope on turret roof was indeed the prototype with a working turret and for what I have gathered in the past fenders and stuff were different.
Aka it was more like the Leopon from Girls und Panzer and not the one on your picture
>>30076465
sloping your tank is also effective with tank's that have sloped armor as long as they still follow the basic box shape. also, the problem you described does appear in non sloped tank as well, the weakspot created is smaller though i'll admit.
>>30079068
then why not just have a truck full of ammo a few miles back ready to come and fill you up. or maybe, just maybe, don't make such a goddamn expensive tank and suddenly you have three tanks for the same cost ready to kill some slavs.
>>30075251
because they were so dumb back then :) if i was alive back then i would totally come up with a modern tank straight up :)
>>30074460
They reused anything they could get their hands on.
And I mean anything.
They used ft-17 as trainers, for policing actions and as snow plows for airfields for example.
They armed the atlantic wall with so much different shit that getting appropriate ammo where it was needed was hell on earth.
>>30080830
i wonder what would have happened if they would have had their entire tank forces built around this tank, with of course some other tanks for other roles. seems like such a great design.
>>30076355
the Germans couldn't come up with a match to a pre-war Soviet design (KV) until 1942.
>>30074283
this lvl of clueless
>>30074323
wasnt most of the steel used by russians german? i heard in a documentary or something, where a german veteran said that the russians had bought steel from germany earlier. Not sure, neither do i remember the source
>>30074048
idiot. sloping armour does not increase its thickness efficiency because it actually lowers the cross sectional area it covers. MORON!
>>30079343
Tiger was meant to be a breakthrough tank, not some super armored defender.
With comparable tanks of the same era the single most important element in the crew. Crew space in sloped armored tanks is abysmal, especially as electronic equipment and radios required more space.
>>30075247
stupid fucking idiot, here is the simple proof!
if you take a 1cm by 10cm piece of steel and 'slope' it to 90 degrees then it is now 10cm thick of armour but only covers 1cm vertically of of space
>>30075509
lol this is so ironic
fucking moron repeating memes about sloped armour being revoloutionary, as if tank designers and fucking engineers didnt know basic geometry.
>>30075775
you are correct, sorry the other guy is fucking retarded
>>30074034
They couldn't weld big sloped plates for quite a long time, had to check how are Soviets doing it. By the time Tiger was already almost finished so it got a greenlight.
Obviously building 45-50 tonnes tank in the 40's was on the verge of retardation and 56 was already beyond that so no wonders it was shit.
Not as shameful as the M6, I'm only comforted I'm the knowledge the the TOG was worse and that there were germans who seriously thought the maus was a good idea, just not heavy enough.
>>30074448
>And it was like 2 mph slower than a Sherman.
It also got stuck almost everywhere and there are just several instances when it actually engaged the enemy.
>>30075965
>thinking that modern sloping has anything to do with 'bouncing' rounds
It's because I can have a 3" armor plate, slope it at 12 degrees from horizontal and it becomes nearly 15" effective.
It fucking amazes me how some autist from /k/ went full 'tism mode on wikipedia and now everyone retards legitimately think that flat armor is the greatest thing ever despite decades of tank design saying otherwise.
>>30081186
you are a fucking increadible stupid moron holy fuck
how thick is the armour if you slope a 10cm by 1cm plate at 90 degrees?
now do you understand?
>>30074181
The Tiger had much stronger side and rear armor than the IS.
>>30081186
damm dude you just outsmarted every single geometry expert in the world, and every single german tank engineer out there!!!!
>>30081243
>durrrrrrrr only sloped armor has two dimensions
It's like arguing with a fucking child.
>>30075807
>The "sloped armor increases thickness while decreasing weight" meme has been around for literally decades.
>It's perpetuated by people with a really poor grasp of geometry.
The irony. Stop looking at your retarded building block triangles and think about how a tank is actually put together.
Sloped armor decreases vehicle weight for a given set of external dimensions because it decreases the size of the roof and floor plate.
Tell me which shape has a shorter perimeter.
>>30081253
I guess some autsits on /k/ outsmarted thousands of armor engineers and designers that have been working on armored vehicles for over a century.
>>30081265
no, because we understand that sloped armour is useful because of ideas like:
>>30081262
and increased deflection of ww2 era AP rounds. Not some kind of mystical +2 armour thickness buff because you finally worked out geometry. fuck off
>>30081256
AHAHAHAHAHA
you're being sarcastic right?
>>30081277
>hurrr durrrrrr you only slope armor to deflect rounds!
>look at this post that shits all over me! >>30081262
You're legitimately retarded. Good job.
>>30081303
you're an idiot that's for sure
you still believe that sloping armour adds thickness for free?
>>30081310
see
>>30081262
Tell me which has the a larger perimeter.
>>30081314
you are :
>>30081186
right?
>>30081316
Tell me which has the a larger perimeter and thus would require more material.
>>30074515
>literally no flat armor fag can answer this question
>>30081318
I agree with what he said though, the myth that sloping armour magically adds thickness without decreasing cross section is what I am against. and it is very prevalent, see this guy for an example of a stupid fucking idiot:
>>30081186
>>30081331
Nothing he said was wrong, he never mentioned cross section.
Now tell me why modern armor STILL uses slopes if it's worthless and flat armor is better.
>>30081336
1. many protection schemes dont, especially on the turret
2. for higher chance of redirecting sabots during phase change
>>30081340
>especially on the turret
Your image shows a Leopard 2 which most definitely does use a slope on its turret face on the horizontal axis.
And again, sloping armor still has nothing to do with 'muh ricochets'.
>>30081353
does sloping armour increase its apparent thickness without effecting cross section?
btw this is what modern 'sloped armour' looks like
a modern projectile will not ricochet, but it can be redirected and disturbed when the armour changes materials and air gaps, especially with a slope
>>30074515
>why does every modern tank have sloped armor?
Every modern tank also has flat armour, look at the turrets of an Abrams, Leo, Leclerc, Challenger etc
>inb4 someone starts talking about composite blocks looking sloped
>>30081262
this depends on if you conveniently have a component that fits in a weird sloped shape (like a angled driver in the hull for example) for many things (especially turrets) flat armour is still better even in this aspect
>>30074181
The IS-2 was a good tank, but its primary role wasn't to go out and directly engage German heavies, it was mainly infantry support and utilized to break through heavy defenses and let hordes of T-34s through said gaps. That said its big gun could and would fuck up anything it came across tank-wise, but it was very hampers by a slow rate of fire (the 122mm gun was a field gun put in a tank) and the fact that it didn't carry a whole lot of ammo. The IS line was meant for a very specific purpose, which they kinda tries to expand with the IS-3 but that's a different story.
>>30074448
It was also fuckhueg and had a lot of maintenance issues. Beast of a gun though, but it came a bit too late in the war to make a difference. If they had some for the more open stretches of Eastern Europe they would've done some serious damage, but like most German designs it was too little too late.
>>30080727
>using GuP as a reference to actual tank combat
>ever
>>30081372
>btw this is what modern 'sloped armour' looks like
No, that's the Merkava's solution which, depending upon the model, uses perforated armor, or a more complex NERA spaced armor design. To call it as anything like a typical armor configuration is absurd and shows an almost willful ignorance of basic armor layout since the 80s.
Also your filename is absolutely atrocious and you should feel bad because of it.
>>30081403
wrong wrong wrong, most composite armour uses this style of sloped stacks of plates. example #2 leopard 2a5 onward composite armour. #3 merkava armour addon #5 type 10 armour addon
and yes I am aware of perforated steel, this introduces phase changes through the perforations (which are put in at an angle lol)
>>30076441
People have to operate inside your shapes anon
>>30074034
>explain to me how the fuck the germans managed to make this thing weigh 57 fucking tons while only having 100 mm of frontal armor
Frontal transmission adding half a meter of height, crew compartment extending into the sponsons, filled with like 90 rounds of ammo, asinine interleaved running wheels.
The overall dimensions were very large and it didn't seem to be much of a concern to the designers- clearly the ability to operate without resupply for a long period of time was important as the sponson ammo storage probably added something like 5 tons of armor plate alone- and for what? 100mm of frontal armor was enough for the time, though in hindsight it seems quite shortsighted since the Germans must have known it wouldn't take the Allies long to field a weapon capable of penetrating it.
Comparing it to the IS-2 isn't really fair since by that time designers had a much better sense of priorities in vehicle design. Later vehicles like the IS-4 made huge sacrifices to the size of the fighting compartment to achieve so much armor in such a light package.
>>30080701
Yet the Tiger was more maneuverable than all of them.
even the t-72 uses sloped gapped ceramic plates btw LOL
and I am pretty sure the abrams does as well, but looking for an image of a busted open iraqi abrams now
>>30075384
You've actually reduced the actual thickness while conserving the apparent thickness.
>>30081514
yes, because other wise you would need more material to cover the vertical area you mong
im really sorry to be so rude actually, they practically teach this myth in school now
>>30081413
>most composite armour uses this style of sloped stacks of plates.
Prove it then. You made the claim.
>leopard 2a5
It has a hollow wedge on the front, the main armor package is most definitely not like that unless you have some kind of evidence to prove otherwise.
>>30081598
god do you seriously expect me to spoon feed you very rare pictures of composite armour packages, I think most people can safetly say that you are misinformed and wrong and I am right and informed on this topic
>>30081611
So you're saying you do not have any evidence to prove yourself right and confirm your claim?
>>30081611
>god do you seriously expect me to spoon feed you
I seriously expect you to prove your position instead of crying that you're being asked to prove it.
>>30081614
I'm saying I'm right and this is getting boring, but if you want one picture look at this: >>30081431
here is a busted open abrams
again, gapped composite plates
how many more proofs do you need for gods sake!
I take it you give up and I win and was right all along?
how does it feel to be utterly physically and sexually dominated by a cute anime girl??
>>30074169
>I think the germans could have
>>30076019
>if german have time
The Germans had the most time to prepare of any of the combatants, as they were the ones planning on starting shit, yet they still pissed all kinda resources on a bewildering array of different AFVs.
>>30081530
Mostly because it's not a myth. For the most part you're suffering from misconceptions, namely how you want to reduce profile to begin with and how you believe that the length isn't an important axis
Yes, we're trading profile for thickness. No, we don't care.
>>30081033
>>30081022
sloping does not reduce weight in the manner many people think it would that because you can have thinner armor the whole tank would weigh less, this of course is not the case.
but when you think about it, you can have the same amount of internal volume with smaller amount of roof required in some sloped armor designs
here's a pic showing what i'm trying to say and as i said, it doesn't apply to every situation.
another thing is that some shells penetrate sloped armor badly and therefore there needs to be less of it, this doesn't apply to every situation either.
>>30081025
sloped armor doesn't automatically mean that there will be less crew space, also, there is a lot of useless space in front of the driver in the tiger.
they could have simply replaced the upper front plate that is completely vertical with a sloped on without doing too many modifications to the tank.
>>30081142
why would that be?
>>30081514
actual thickness isn't the important thing when combat happens mainly on the vertical.
>>30081928
Hitler planned to start the war at 1945, not 1939. The naval expansion plan is the biggest proof of that.
>>30082051
Horizontal, you mean. As in from the horizon.
>>30082115
yes of course :DD those two are so easy to mix when your first language isn't english
>>30075775
Math ain’t my strong suit and I don’t have a paint program (macfag) but as far as the amount of armor or length of the armor plate, it seems to me that sloped armor (as in the Tiger II) would require less material then the separate vertical AND horizontal armor plates used on the Tiger I.
For example; if the vertical “windshield” portion of a Tiger I was 12” high and the horizontal “hood” portion” was 36” long, we’re talking about 48” total length of armor.
But with a single piece sloped armor plate as with the Tiger II, this would amount to... something less than 48” and thus use less material, while at the same time having much greater effective (Line-Of-Sight) thickness.
Now you could say; “but the Tiger I’s “hood” is made of thinner armor, so uses less material and thus weighs less” and I supposed you’d be right, but it wouldn’t be that much less and whatever weight savings are gained, are more than off-set by the greatly decreased protection of the vertical “windshield” part.
>>30080847
> ruin any photo with a huge ass display stand...
op here, here's tank design i drew for WW2 time-period, what do you guys think? it's just a very basic drawing highlighting the basic shape of the tank. also, lets keep the hatred to a minimum please, if you feel like you can't get your point across please draw a picture or something.
>>30081262
so, we take your tanks, then put PEOPLE, AMMO, TRANSMISSION IN IT. I didn't put gun and breech in because that would mean adding a turret to your dumb shit drawing.
now look how cramped the angled armoured tank is. The only way to make it viable for non-russian crew is make them fuck huge like Panther or King Tiger or tiny and cramped like T-34 or T-44 or T-54.
That's all there is to it. with angled you either lose survivability or crew comfort. real life isn't video games, so those thing matter a lot for combat effectiveness.
>>30082394
shot death trap
>>30082426
>That's all there is to it. with angled you either lose survivability or crew comfort.
This is what flat armor autists ACTUALLY BELIEVE
>>30082168
OK, I got a paint program and this is what I mean;
Less material is being used with a single sloped plate then two separate horizontal and vertical plates and the line-of-sight thickness and thus level of protection, is increased.
sloped > vertical
prove how you can have an angled armour tank with ww2 tech that combines high survivability/comfort and a low profile.
for my examples of survivable and angled armour tanks, I'll use the Panther, the Centurion, the Sherman and the King Tiger.
all of which have large profiles.
for the other examples, the T-34, T-44, T-54, T-62. All of which have low profile, small size (and cramped crew).
>>30074461
>Porsche makes a hundred tanks before the competition even is decided
>After it gets cancelled they have to convert them into Ferdinands in order not to interfere with KwK 36 supply
This was the shit that killed nazi procurement
>>30082523
meant to quote >>30082455
>>30082449
where?
here's a better image, i reduced the angle on the lower plate so the driver fits in there better.
>>30082551
the good news about this design is that my scope rail mounts right on top
>>30082479
the amount of side armor would need to be increased to cover that gap. the horizontal part is very thick in the tiger though so that might make up for the additional side armor.
here's my suggestion, there is a lot of useless space, like 0.5 m in front of the driver in the tiger tank.
>>30082561
i'm not sure what you mean.
>>30082538
>WWII technology was incapable of making a seat and having the driver in a reclined position
>>30082523
This is nonsense, just take a look at this pic; >>30082479
How is sloping the front superstructure armor hindering the crew's comfort in any way?
And in fact, sloping the armor provides greater protection due to the increased line-of-sight thickness with the added benefit of encouraging shot deflection.
>>30082580
>here's my suggestion, there is a lot of useless space, like 0.5 m in front of the driver in the tiger tank.
Sure, I'm just proposing the cheapest and easiest fix for the existing design and the same applies to the Panzer I, II, III and IV as well as the British Churchill, Cromwell and other designs, all which could have been designed with sloped frontal armor with minimal effort.
>>30082523
panther, sherman and the king tiger all the drive shaft going through the middle of the tank in the floor.
how much weight would filling up that gap with RHA will add? the roof of the small roof there is 60mm.
is this a super-pershing kind of thing you are suggesting with just spaced armour? is that "plate" going to be 100mm thick as well?
>>30075263
If you were to start driving without turning the system off would the ciws just spin and shoot at everything?
>>30082845
No.
>>30082426
>correlation means causation
>>30082426
>>30082523
Nice goal post shifting, we were talking about weight. But since you mention interior space, of course you are losing interior some interior space.
>The only way to make it viable for non-russian crew is make them fuck huge like Panther or King Tiger or tiny and cramped like T-34 or T-44 or T-54.
Or you could just design a proper transmission linkage instead of running a drive shaft down the length of your tank like a moron.
Or you could just reduce ammunition capacity since it's not 1916 anymore.
Or you could get rid of the retarded bow gunner that's literally just an extra casualty "for free".
Or you could just organize the interior more efficiently, so the gunner doesn't need space to access the majority of the ammunition that you've put in the sponsons.
Or you could enlarge it in another dimension.
Or you could just accept that a tank isn't the most useful place for someone that's 6'4".
>Leopard 1 (2.39 m)
>AMX 30 (2.28 m)
The M1 Abrams is literally the same height as the T-34 (2.45 m) you retarded boxtank apologist.
>>30082594
you've drawn a cross-section of 1913 picatinny rail.
re:shot trap, the bit where the bottom of the turret angles in meets an angled-in part of the hull, which is going to both form a weak point in the armor AND direct shells toward that same weak point either by deflection or full-blown fragmentation.
>>30074034
get ready for the naziboo/pol autists butthurt retard rants
>>30074397
t world of tanks expert
>>30081262
>Making the tank smaller makes it lighter!
No shit?
>>30083036
>>30082950
Holy shit that's some massive BTFO
If I was a General, I'd rather have a bunch of Shermans or T-34s.
If I was a tanker, I'd rather be in a Tiger.
>>30075086
>slow ships and tanks
>and tanks
Tiger II had better offroad mobility than a Panzer IV.
>>30075086
Day/k/are pls; the Tiger had more than adequate tactical mobility between its number of roadwheels and ground pressure
>>30081514
yes, we get it
>>30081186
That's not how it works. Go lurk on Tanknets armor scientific forums and learn yourself good.
There have been two main drivers for highly sloped glacis plates - reclining drivers where the form factor makes more sense and long, subcaliber penetrators. Long subcaliber penetrators require increasingly great obliquities to to snap. Otherwise, you need a very large volume of armor to stop -- with the Leopard 2 pre-wedges being a great example thereof.
>>30083522
>That's not how it works.
That's exactly how it works. Sloping armor increases total effective armor, you can cry about irrelevant shit like MUH RECLINING DRIVERS or MUH RICCOCHETS or even MUH SNAPPING PENETRATORS and other nonsense, but at the day the simple trigonometry of it doesn't change.
If your penetrator can only go through 300mm , and your 76mm plate is inclined at 12 degrees from horizontal, that penetrator is not going through.
>>30083470
Hey, I only posted that once.
Ever
>>30074045
>meme
the "german engineering is a meme"meme
>>30081386
The fronts are all sloped.
>>30082027
Welding was new technique and USSR along with the US were the top technological powerhouses when it came to it. Germany kinda struggled with it(they did acknowledge the advantages of sloped armour as it's not some modern technique - it remembers medieval age).
The weight thing... I'll explain it like that. T-14 the newest Russian MBT weights 48 tonnes. Still less than Tiger. There's a very good reason for it.
>>30082523
>all of which have large profiles.
They're all just few inches taller than T-34(outside of KT).
The "large profile" is mostly related to crossing side slopes, not protection by itself.
Also "King Tiger" provided huge survivability for their crews because they were largely abandoned/broken before the combat started. They've had the same side armour as Tiger, and this was easily penetrable. They also shared hydraulic turret propulsion(Germany didn't have much copper) which(the hydraulic fluid) was flammable as hell. Shoot it on its side and you have bunch of toasted krauts.
>>30083597
At 12-degrees, your penetrator is snapping fampai.
I like how you ignore the pre-slope Leo 2
>>30083017
so a shell that couldn't penetrate the turret would somehow penetrate the hull, what are you smoking dude?
>>30083771
the front's are sloped because it's easier to build it like that, only 3 connections to make when you have a sloped design, if the design was like, say, churchills you would need 4 connection spots.
>>30083748
>muh rockets
They've literally didn't make anything worth mentioning but rockets.
Radars? British were better.
Jets? British had it at around the same time as Germans, however low operational ranges made them useless for offensive operations.
Computers? British.
Tanks? Americans.
Warships? Americans and British to some degree.
Airplanes? Americans.
Cars? Americans
APC's? British(UC)
Artillery? All 3 major allied powers had something worth mentioning(Americans had good, well trained coordination with the rest of their troops and good functional guns, British had their super-fast-firing and super-accurate 20 pdr's, Russians had heavy and rocket artillery), Germans started the war with outdated artillery and it never really changed.
Firearms? Americans and Russians did better. Germans had "muh MG34/42" which were literal definition of spraying and praying - the accuracy was simply poor as fuck, all bark no bite.
"German engineering" has two flagships - poison gas during WW1 and rocketry during WW2. WOOOOOW.
>>30083907
>Computers? British.
British later Americans*
>>30075086
This just simply isn't true. The German high seas fleet was faster than most due to the design limits during rearmament. German tank designs had excellent mobility both on and off road. The only issue with German tanks was the fact they were labor intensive as fuck to make and very finiky in the field, necessitating constant repairs
>>30083907
>switch out "Americans" for "Germans"
You should really read a book instead of watching the history channel.
also:
>Germans had "muh MG34/42" which were literal definition of spraying and praying
>clearly never shot a mg42
ignorant faggot.
>>30083877
Why did the LEO 2A4 have a flat front and the LEO 2A5 has a sloped turret front?
>>30083927
>German tank designs had excellent mobility both on and off road.
Interleaved roadwheels.
Aka it's all great and it drives off road like charm and suddenly SNAP
the track goes off
In fact Panther(and I believe Tiger 2 too) had ability to pivot in place. That's great seeing as they've had slow turret traverse - right?
French and Belgians leave no doubts. Panthers had tendency to throw tracks when doing it. In fact German field manuals mention the same - don't do it unless you absolutely have to.
>>30083958
>You should really read a book instead of watching the history channel.
History channels are all "muh deathtraps Germany pro" m8.
>>30083974
>channels are
channel is*
>>30083841
There was never a 'pre slope' Leopard 2. Look at the very first Leopard, it's sloped on the frontal hull and its turret is sloped horizontally.
>>30083973
i don't know, probably something to do with the armor layout. the outside shape really doesn't tell much when it comes to composite armor.
>>30083974
the same problems persist in modern tanks as well desu, it's not suggested that you do a neutral turn. the dirt and mud will go between the wheel and the track.
>>30083974
>Panthers had tendency to throw tracks when doing it.
All tanks have.
Allied tanks did not even have the feature.
So what you are saying is the German tanks sucked because they would break down when they did something they were not supposed to do while the Allies weren't even able to do the same.
Moot point.
>>30083996
Have you taken a look at the A5 Leopard 2. It's frontal turret relies primarily on horizontal volume volume rather than trigonometric effective-thickness increasing measures.
Note the "primarily"
>>30083974
>History channels are all "muh deathtraps Germany pro" m8.
I hate wehraboos as much as anyone, but the Germans did have some pretty good small arms development going on. People love to talk up the MG42 a lot for their rate of fire but what made it actually significant was it's relatively light weight and ergonomics. It also had an excellent quick change barrel system and was inexpensive to manufacture. These factors allowed for the development of infantry tactics centered around a mobile and heavy base of fire that was pretty much unmatched at the time. The stupidly high ROF is probably the worst aspect of the gun.
The FG42 is pretty cool too and largely underappreciated, though the Stg 44 is pretty overrated.
>>30084061
>Have you taken a look at the A5 Leopard 2.
Yes. Now explain how it's hollow armor wedges somehow make it so that there was ever a 'pre slope' Leopard 2.
>>30084072
That was a typo, I meant to say pre-A5 Leo 2. However, that should have been evident from the context
>>30084072
>What is leopard 2A4?
>>30084080
I know, the point is there was still NEVER a Leopard 2 variant without sloped armor.
>>30084098
Glacis is still sloped, turret sloped horizontally.
>>30084118
>primarily
>>30084171
Irrelevant when you're blatantly wrong in the post that started it all >>30083522
>>30074247
it's only praised as the ultimate tank of the war by people who are both 100% wrong and also retarded.
>flat armor vs sloped
assuming two tanks of the dimensions with armor plates of the same thickness:
flat armor gives more interior space, smaller plates, and therefore lighter weight. sloped plates give better protection, but make the interior smaller and mean you need bigger plates. Of course, being better protection, it also means you can make the plates thinner, counteracting the biggest drawback.
In the end, sloped is better. Hence why the majority of tanks had sloped armor of some form, even in WWII.
>>30075384
this picture is good. It shows that achieving the same horizontal armor thickness, it requires a thinner plate, but it's a longer plate.
>>30075775
also a good pic. shows clearly that comparing flat plates and sloped plates of the same penetration thickness, the sloped one is a longer plate but thinner, and has less interior space.
>>30077251
it was a heavy tank. It was considered a heavy tank, it was used as a heavy tank, and it performed like a heavy tank. It simply didn't have the mobility to be considered an MBT. Stop that nonsense.
>>30080847
the jp38 had terrible crew visibility, extremely cramped, etc. Useful little vehicle, but hardly a war-winner. the StuG III was much better.
>>30082394
go google the british crusader tank.
>>30082950
tfw those weird inter-war tanks like the M2 Medium had 7 .30 cal MGs lol
>>30084063
yeah, they had some cool stuff with small arms, but the thing is, nothing that wasn't also equally revolutionary in other countries. I mean, bolt action and semi-auto rifles were being used by all countries. Russia, the US, and the UK all had pretty good automatic rifles that formed a more mobile and less ammo-intensive squad automatic support weapon. the MG-42 was a pretty damn great suppressive squad MG. All the countries had pretty similar SMGs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloped_armour#The_principle_of_sloped_armour
just posting a general link addressed to no one in particular, I haven't been following this thread very closely.
>>30075760
?
>>30084241
>go google the british crusader tank.
go google it yourself, and you will see it has a lot of very thin and horizontal armor in the front, very easy to penetrate
>the StuG III was much better.
the stug had 50 mm or 80 mm of armor depending on the model which is less than what the hetzer had, also, it weighed about 8 tons more than the hetzer, cost a lot more as well i'm sure. crew ergonomics were hardly any better as well. also
>not wanting to be in a small steamy hot box with 3 other muscular young men.
>>30076921
But the belic conflict was very close in this days, c'mon men just try to use your brains one last time, this don't hurt, the time was the most terrible enemy for the germans, but at least they can do tghe better of themselves.
>>30077285
I agree whit you, bro.
>>30075384
Men, your autism is awesome.
>>30075760
What? c'mon lazy ass, you need go to the shcool again men.
>>30081262
Your autism make me sick!!
>>30085674
He's right though.
>>30085625
Sarcasm does not carry into text well.
>>30082530
Nah, it was just a symptom of it. German fighters were even worse about that sort of thing because every factory made their own version of things.
>>30083460
The Panzer IV was German too you absolute pancake.
>>30083597
fucking moron holy shit please STOP
>>30074034
Uh 100mm armor on turret, sides, and front.
>>30080847
I hate to ruin your boner for the hetzer, anon, but..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4JVBp2JOgE
>>30087153
wait what the hell is he talking about, he has mixed up the loader and commander positions completely. also, the visibility problems could be easily solved with a few more periscopes which were not needed for the position it was used historically.
>>30087425
As he said in the comments, the right rear seat is the commanders position despite some claims otherwise, both the comms and hatch were there which are both the domain of the commander, also the breech was too far away to load from the rear.
>>30076471
>pushed back by both the bongs
Woah there Winston, don't pretend you were anything more than a glorified dock
>>30087483
>Woah there Winston, don't pretend you were anything more than a glorified dock
>>30087106
100mm to 140mm across the front, 80mm on the sides and rear.
>>30087153
He's something like six foot four, anything he says concerning ergonomics is pretty close to completely invalid.
Look how "tanker sized" crewmen look near it compared to him.
While I don't think the 38t is the super weapon WOT kiddies claim it is, it is still a fantastic use of limited industrial facilities.
>>30087473
all google pictures i can find feature the radio system on the left side. also, most of the ammo in the vehicle is on the right, easily accessible if the gunner is sitting on the right, the recoil guard is on the left side indicating that the loader is on the right side, even the breech opening lever is on the right side.
>>30087564
Did you watch the video? This was all covered, no point trying to argue with someone who knows shit on /k/, the guy studies tanks as a paid job, argue with him.
>>30083973
The wedges in the front a detachable, underneath that is still the standard Leopard 2A4 turret.
They can't stop any kind of AP ammunition, their purpose is to add space armor against HEAT and yaw sabot before they make contact with the heavy turret armor
>>30087564
> a model
vs
> the actual fucking vehicle itself
Which one should we trust?
>>30087595
don't you dare appear to higher authority on me, the stupidest tactic ever.
if the loader is on the left why didn't they flip the gun 90% to the left, this way the recoil guard is out of the way and the loader has easier access to the gun.
>>30087628
go to google right now, google "hetzer interior" that is what i did, every single picture is like the one i posted, so i would indeed trust that model more.
>>30087639
I didn't "appear" to shit, I said take it up with him, he's been in and around more tanks than just about anyone, gets paid to fly around the world and do exactly that. You can talk about google all you want, doesn't mean I'm going to believe a random on /k/ over a guy who studies tank history as a profession.
>>30087564
He's probably right, so far the only photos I've seen featuring the scissors binoculars has them mounted on the rear right of the vehicle.
I don't think they'd be much use to the loader.
>>30074034
>even slavs could do fucking better.
Did they have 80mm side armor like the Tiger 1?
>plebs still not realizing sheer thickness of armor and projectile diameter have a relation
>>30083973
It did not.
The front of the turret was sloped on the horizontal axis you fucking mong
>>30089866
>>30089874
