What happened to sloped armor?

>>31561401
oh boy it's a sloped armor bait thread, haven't seen one of those in a while

Sloped armour is worthless against APFSDS so composite is what matters now

If you could look inside the frontal armor cavities of modern tanks, you would see stacks of sloped plates with air gaps between them.

File: Leopard 2A4_2.jpg (626KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

626KB, 1280x960px

>>31561437
What this guy said.

Sloped is great against high explosive shells.

But with kinetic penetration rounds, it's pointless.

>>31561401
Normalization happened.

what has more internal area vs surface area

a cube or a pyamid?

>>31561437
>>31561459

Wouldn't the slope make APFSDS more likely to ricochet off the side of the tank?

File: SptaeB2.jpg (218KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 800x600px

>>31561401
OP, sloped plates never went away. They are just hidden inside block-shaped armor modules usually. As this guy said >>31561456


>>31561437
>>31561459
>>31561729
Shut the fuck up children

>>31562834
>Wouldn't the slope make APFSDS more likely to ricochet off the side of the tank?
Only if the armor was harder than the dart which it isn't.

>>31563029
Seeing as most nations use Tungsten darts.. couldn't one give a tank a tungsten top layer on the armor?

>>31563127
Theoretically, however, a tungsten armored tank of sufficient thickness (even accounting for slope) would be obscenely heavy, requiring a larger engine, requiring a larger fuel tank, requiring more armor, ext, ect.

File: m1_abrams_tank_by_voodookr.jpg (30KB, 900x448px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 900x448px

slope is still good against APFSDS you just need the angle to be extreme enough

this is my idea for the next abrams that has increase slope angle to defeat modern APSFDSDS

>>31563281
Science needs to get up on this shit man, it will change everything

>>31563262
Or just a long S-tank style machine with a insane slope..

>>31563029
riccochet or fracture is the goal.

it can actually can and will cause ricochet or deflection depending on the angle. just as a car windshield will cause a bullet to deflect up.

I think the real reason that you dont see armor sloped quite so aggressively is that the steeper the slope the less usable space you have inside the structure. at an extreme angle you are either left with a tiny space for the crew ammo and equipment or a huge tank (bigger slower target)

Chobham prefers to be unsloped, so less of the ceramics are shattered.

Then you hang highly sloped bits onto your box-shaped turret, because they don't get much in the way there, so you can get some of the sloping effects too. And, you know, greatly spaced armour since that is in itself a good thing too.

>>31563029
Hardness is irrelevant for AFPSDS, at those speeds of impact metal does not perform in the usual way, density is what matters. The do not ricochet anyway.

File: 6q2_H9fIlZ6geDmNWzC8HDpFflS0zHfM8Jm_l1a2LmE.jpg (34KB, 370x277px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 370x277px

>>31565017
the ridiculously high angle and hardness you would need to deflect a modern LRP is impractical. the aim of modern composites is to absorb to defeat, not deflect, discounting APS systems that yaw or damage LRP's

>>31565036
> Talks about chobham
> Chobham is so secret that they have a screening process for REME tank techs working on challenger 1 hulls.
> Challenger 2 dorchester even more so. Irish? Fuck off to warrior tank tech unit!

File: post_43_1083970693_thumb_1_1260792776.jpg (35KB, 450x468px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 450x468px

>>31562834
No.

File: AP.png (298KB, 620x427px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 620x427px

>>31566284
There was this too in the wild.

>>31563001
>Some tanks have composite armor at an angle
>This means sloped armor is still relevant

Hahahaha

Composite can stil defeat regular HEAT right? They weren't just made for apfsds rounds?

>>31561437
>>31562834
>>31563029

Not quite. You just need very extreme angles to snap LRPs. Read some papers instead of talking about things you don't know about.

>>31565017

It does work very nicely for a reclining driver.

>>31568000
There are a variety of composite armor mechanisms which work together in different ways to defeat both shaped charge and KE rounds while using less mass than RHA for the same level of protection.

There's no one single method that does everything: hence "composite"

>>31565141
>the ridiculously high angle and hardness
why not use transparent aluminium plates?

Pretty simple; many of us in NATO (and possibly Russia) have now put a lot of focus on crew comfort. Just take the T-34 for example. Sloped everywhere for better armor, but so dreadfully cramped inside that they put a height limit for tankers during the war.

>>31568273
Isn't there a height limit for US tankers now?

>>31561456
>thread still continued after this post

>>31563001
Pot calling the kettle black.