Rate my stupidity

Okay i'll admit this is some pretty high grade autism.

>>33937988
I'm aware, but could you please give me some feedback

>>33938029
>Armor too heavy, would slow down the tank extremly, therefore it would be easier to hit
>way to large turret, therefore easier to hit (the top above the cannon is completely obsolte for example)
>ugly as fuck
>more

>>33937853
That picture is autism incarnate.

But otherwise I think you would have shit internal space

>>33938602
I considered the space issue, but I looked at soviet tank design and didn't think it would be too huge a problem if they could make their tanks work.

>>33938593
>Armor too heavy
Didn't the Tiger II have heavier armor?
>would slow down the tank extremely
I intended it to be theoretically paired with a heavy tank chassis and power plant so this didn't seem like a problem.

>>33938622
It is less than ideal. They dumped the tiny T34 turret as soon as possible IIRC. Look at T34-85 for a more reasonable internal dimensions.

>>33938814
I was referring more to things like the T-55, T-72 and such.

File: strv_103c.jpg (40KB, 480x230px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 480x230px

>>33937853

Someone already thought about that.

Since the whole point of it is making slopes for the sake of sloping armor, you have to give it a low profile, but to do that you would have to decrease the heigh of the whole structure, resulting in a fixed gun, and now that everything is at the same level, why don't you simply add a very smooth slope in the front and be done with it?

Then you have this next french amphious tank...

File: SLOPED_ARMOR_ANYONE-e.jpg (16KB, 256x197px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 256x197px

So as you can see, "sloped autism" has been a thing since WWI and seems to be still going on. Maybe we will stop when we just put tracks on pyramids or something.

>>33938943
I never have seen anyone say the name of that tank and image search doesn't come up with anything useful, would you be so kind as to tell me?

>>33938877
Which are dome shaped, not triangular. Very different internal volume considerations

A circle is the most efficient shape for having as much volume as possible for a given perimeter.