![HBB84809[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fX3fv3t.jpg "HBB84809[1].jpg")
Why didn't the Germans slope the shells?
Why didn't your mom have any children that lived?
>>30081419
>sloped shells
I can't even begin to imagine what that would look like.
>I don't even have a child's grasp of aerodynamics, and what is rifling?
The post
>>30081508
>>30081419
Like this?
>>30081419
Why didn't your mother straighten the hanger?
>>30081628
Rekt
>>30081628
Weak genes, weak mind.
>>30081419
If you mean *hulls*, as in tank hulls, the reason is that it's tough and there is a major trade-off in terms of less internal space.
> Somewhat harder to manufacture & assemble
> Harder to mount things like the engine, transmission, etc.
> More cramped inside for the crew
> Less space for ammo & fuel (you'll note the Russian tanks often had external supplementary fuel tanks)
> Need an even wider body to support the same diameter turret ring
> Portion of hull below tracks usually can't be sloped anyways
etc.
I'm not saying they SHOULDN'T have sloped the hulls, but those are the reasons maybe why they didn't. Watch some of those "Inside The Chieftain's Hatch" videos on YouTube and compare the insides of Russian vs German tanks and you'll get a feel for what sloping does to a WW2 tank.
>>30081607
That shell isn't even sloped the right way for penetration
>>30081607
I had a chuckle.
>>30081419
They did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APCBC
APC
>A cap of softer metal was attached to the tip of an AP (solid) round. The purpose of this cap was many-fold. The cap transferred energy from the tip of the shell to the sides of the projectile, thereby helping to reduce shattering. In addition, the cap appeared to improve penetration of sloped armor by deforming, spreading and “sticking” to the armor on impact and thereby reducing the tendency of the shell to deflect at an angle.
APCBC
>add a ballistic cap around the penetrating cap for better aerodynamics
When a soft cap stops the round from ricocheting, then all benefit of sloped armor disappears.
The same height of tank with sloped front has to have a longer angled plate because of rotation, so it's either thinner armor (to keep same weight with a longer piece of metal) or it's exactly heavier by however much additional protection is provided.
Now, capped-AP and capped-APHE weren't 100% reliable at stopping ricochets, so it did provide Some benefit in certain cases, while sacrificing interior space for crew/ammo/reloading, but sloped armor is vastly overblown by slav subhumans propaganda.
Early german anti-tank ammo was subpar because hitler was a fucking idiot. They still had numbers of tanks thinking 20mm and 37mm were good main armaments for far too long.
Soon as germany got WW2-era anti-tank firepower, angling didn't do shit for russia.
>The 75 mm (2.95 in) KwK 40 L/43 gun on the Panzer IV could penetrate a T-34 at a variety of impact angles beyond 1,000 m range and up to 1,600 m
An early german or russian tank (panzer I/II, T26,etc.) was simply too under-gunned and too under-armored (by total armor weight)
Russia simply did a better job than Hitler of mass producing the new gen of tank when prev gen was obsolete.
Where hitler, ever the logistics fuckup, only had 135 upgunned Pzr IV for the summer offensive. The design was there to ass-rape sloped T34, but the numbers were not built
