If sloped armor is such a big improvement over non-sloped, why was the frontal armor of Leopard 2's turret completely unsloped?
Also, general MBT thread is anyone's down
Gotta agree that the Tiger I is sexy in her own way, but thanks for the info
>They keep doing it.
Yes, yes we do.
Penetrator rods made them pointless. After the A4, Leopards are equipped with a removable sloped front/spaced armor kit.
Because the armor protection was sufficent?
And only the turret is flat, the hull is sloped.
Nah, has more to do with how the sabot tip and core is designed.
Sloped armor is only beneficial when expected fire is going to be coming from a single plane. For example most tanks are expected to be fighting other tanks so their frontal armor is sloped as to help deal with shots coming from ground level primarily from other tanks. When dealing with top attack or ATGMs that sloped armor doesn't accomplish much and other considerations such as profile and armor composition might be more important than conventional tank warfare.
Ayyy everyone's wrong I can help.
Basically, ceramic / composite armor works best when the incoming attack hits squarely perpendicular on its surface(at least the stuff developed by the west). So the traditional sloped tank turrets and muh curves became obsolete.
I dont think anyone has built a tank expected to get hit from all directions (dont count the maus please).
Even if you did not have sloped armor you are still fucked when top attack munitons hit you.
>Long rod penetrators basically removed the advantages of sloped armour
this is the real answer, the rest of you are retarded.
also, modern tank armor isn't just one layer of metal. it's a whole series of different materials in different shapes. pic related, this is what the inside of the 2A6's outer turret armor looks like, just as an example.
when you're looking at a modern tank's exterior, you're not looking at armor. you're looking at the thin exterior layer that conceals the real armor beneath.
here is a view of part of the M1's turret armor, as another example.
it depends on what it hits...
this is like asking what happens when a person is shot. if you get shot in the finger you're going to lose that finger. if you get shot in the head you might be totally fine. it's not a question that has a simple answer.
That's because >>28898170 is spot-on with his comment. What defeats those sloped-RHA-killing penetrator rods is a classified sandwich of different armor layers which contains ceramic plates. Much like ballistic plates that go on your body the ceramic armor in vehicles does suffer from the same effects and is only rated for one hit per plate. So this means every round smaller than the intended "I will fucking wreck your shit" giant APFSDS that come screaming in at high velocity is a threat to that plate and will damage it's capability.
These rounds, however, are still subject to ballistic theory and sloped armor still works on them. As seen in this post here >>28898225 this layering is multi-part, so small arms, heavy machine guns, anti-tank rifles, autocannons, and your occasional older rocket will all be subject to the initial sloped armor that protects the actual strong, but fragile armor meant to stop tank rounds.
Slab-sided tanks have these layers too (hopefully) but they forego the advantages of sloped armor and instead it's usually a matter of interior space. If you look at the M1's turret, it's actually enormous and around 20% of that area is actually sloped armor and dead space to help defend against HEAT warheads.
NERA is nothing new.
The T-90A uses ceramic inserts since it's turret allows for it and better area coverd by said ceramics. (One of the reasons why welded turret are better then cast turrets if we ignore that cast steel is 10-5% weaker then RHA steel of the same thickness.)
Well it's not hard. The concept's been around since the 1940's when the Germans figured out to uparmor their Panzer IVs.
The Armata definitely has spaced armor, the Russians have had tanks with it for awhile, along with China. Actually China had recently exported a version of their main tank at the time (Type 79) to Iraq and they watched their primary rival's tank (the M1 Abrams) completely fucking smash their tanks in open combat. They realized their entire tank doctrine was actually obsolete bullshit and then ditched it all, the Type 96 is the product of these efforts. It's more than just a passing emulation of Western tanks, it has all the features too.
That said, it's not their latest, they have the Type 99A which is fielded by elite tank units and is likely to be equally as armored as the M1A2 with TUSK.
>Or maybe the germans just have a fetish for boxy tanks.
Yeah, what's the deal with that? Silly Germans.
Basically what they said.
You just need to keep in mind that with modern ammunition, it's impossible to stop the projectile outright, so modern armor focuses on literally abrading or otherwise breaking it down over several layers. That's done best when hit head on. Because of this, external slope basically reduces the effectiveness of modern armors despite the increase in line of sight thickness. Plus, from what I understand, normalization from a sloped plate will also have the sabot fly sideways through the compartment.
Gets nasty in there, fast.
What >>28898373 posted is really important as well. By having a boxy design, we have more space to put more armor, and further maximize protection by having all the sloping be internal and directly integrated with the various layers. It's why tanks like the T-90 are always seen with ERA; their composite armor is fundamentally inferior due to having an external slope rather than an internal slope.
In a way, we never did stop sloping our armor.
Oh shit. I just realized something. With so many internally sloping plates, the projectile's normalization is increased, but far sooner, right? This would lead to the long rod penetrator smashing into the spaced armor sideways, shattering it, while a mono-block slope would just let it pass through and wreck shit.
Sloped armor does not improve protection for a given weight/volume.
-Sloping armor does not actually improve protection by weight for a given volume being protected.
-If you are unable to manufacture high quality steel of the desired thickness.
-Highly sloped armor can cause kinetic penetrators to bounce or HEAT to fail to fuze.
-Depending on the composition, 'composite' armor could function better while flat.
-APFSDS round will 'dig in' and self correct, negating some of a slopes angle.
Have you everd heard about something called NERA? The side armor of the M1 abrams turret or the Leopard 2 frontal turret wedge armor are NERA.
Your talk about the T-90 made me chuckle a little.
>If sloped armor is such a big improvement over non-sloped
It's really not, except for in specific circumstances where it's geometrically more favorable to have the armor sloped or in situations where your factory can't into fabrication with proportionately thicker plates (or composite armor, as it were).
I have, but...I gotta come clean. I often forget about it, which negatively alters my understanding of armor and is reflected in my T-90 comment. Western designs don't have it stand out as much. With the Abrams for an example, it's incredibly discreet and practically a part of the tank itself. Unless you really look for it, you won't see it. Even with the Leopard 2, the modules look like an extension of the tank itself.
About the leopard 2. We wont know if it got NERA armor inside the actual armor unless it gets battle damaged.
We know for sure that the T-72B got NERA armor. Since it got damaged and we got a picture of it.
And the T-90A is a better version of the T-72B.
Though I agree we won't find out for sure until we see the Leopards get smacked, well, we sure that's Non-Energetic Reactive Armor in the T-72B? I hate to admit it, but they all sort of look the same. How do we even tell?
Wasn't the soviets the one who used that armor technology first?
>is3 side armor wasn't just one sheet of steel it had spaced armor over the heavily sloped armor on the sides.
Because the T-72 ural, T-72/M, T-72A/M1 uses Thick RHA plate. 105mm fiberglass and then somewhat thinner steel backplate combination.
And that this picture was taken during the Tank biathlon 2015. And they used T-72B's and one T-72B smacked something to hard at fullspeed.
And then the T-72 Ural, T-72, T-72A hull.
Oh wait, it's T-72 URAL then T-72A and then where they welded 16mm high hardness steel on it.
Also, T-72A and T-72M1 got pretty much the same armor. Including the 16mm high hardness steel which can be seen here near the tow hooks.
>If sloped armor is such a big improvement over non-sloped, why was the frontal armor of Leopard 2's turret completely unsloped?
ceramic armor doesnt work as well as alloys do when sloped. the closer to 90 degrees a penetrator hits ceramic, the better
>Wonder if Russia & China have copied this in the newer tanks.
Russians had NERA bulging layers like those since the T-72B.
>Not likely. The Russian answer seems to be "just slap more ERA on it," though the Amata looks like it took notes from the Merkava.
thus the ignorant spake. The frontal hull armor looks nothing like the Merkava's. Hilariously though you actually think the Russians just relied on ERA when in fact they were the ones that are really into multi-layer protection. They got much thicker armor with much better composites(weight and cost-savings from not having to armor the unmanned turret to the degree and scope of a manned one helped here a lot); better integrated ERA with spotless coverage and best angling against most threats; a hardkill and softkill suite that allows interception of APFSDS for the former, and no-selling of most guided threats for the latter and both giving the crew a target for rapid extermination before it could even fire a second shot; reduced sigs in the IR,radar, and visual ranges; and most important of all, total and complete separation of the crew from the ammunition and fuel- the two things that actually kill the entire tank and its crew when set off by penetration.
Ukie t-64 bulat. If hit the explosion has a tendency to blow out the front right side hull panel.
>Cool, so now Russia has something that can beat an M60A3.
nigga pls. are you even trying? rub some brain cells at least before you post- shits leaking through your nose from rot due to lack of use...
even accounting for the fact that military trials evaluators don't give out points a la saturday night's talent show, Leopard 2s weren't as hot in the armor department as you think it is. In terms of protection I'd say the Abrams has a much better turret as it actually doesn't have the glaring huge housing for the gunner's sight carving a huge chunk out of the frontal turret array. This wouldn't be corrected until the 2A5 and by then the majority of the Leo 2 tank fleet in existence then and today have the weakspot- which even modern upgrades don't seem to correct either.
It's quite interesting that the Dorchester armor layout it often a flaw point in trials for the Challenger and Abrams.
Too much focused on HEAT - everyone who tested it for domestic tank designs went with something else like Germany or France.
>They do, indeed.
do they also sit in swiveling chairs facing away from the tanks and they push a button if they like what they are hearing? seems like an awful way to pick what would likely be the most important capital system in ground warfare next to arty...
>And your butthurt is delicious.
why tank you, that was last night's chicken curry takeout mixed with some mild diarrhea btw, if you are curious about the taste.
Sweden tank trials result
(the lower the better)
>armor wasn't just one sheet of steel it had s
the IS3's "spaced" armor was nothing more than sheet metal tool storage on the sides. There's literally pictures of the tool storage rusted clean through like an old Ford truck body
And just what was Chinese armor doctrine pre Desert Storm exactly? You can't honestly expect me to believe that the Chinese were stupid enough to think that their upgraded T-54 knock offs were worth anything. Surely the Chinks didn't believe this, right?
Against APFSDS, only your thickest layer of armor counts. If it's hard enough to damage the penetrator, the odds are in your favor.
APFSDS will chew through a metre of steel or ceramics if it has the energy.