British ww2 tanks

They hoped the raw stubborn nature of the anglo people would be suitable enough to deflect the incoming shell instead.

its harder to give your mate a wank then stir around last night's rations on a sloped tank

>>34550361
Interestingly enough, there is currently a Comet for sale online. Any of you lads want to pool funds for the $440,000 price-tag?

Sloping is a trade off, you get less space inside.

>>34550361
I assume its because tank warfare on the British side didn't get as much "action" and "innovation" as much as the Axis. Facing the T-34 prompted the Wehrmacht to create the Panther tank, which was based on the T-34

>El Alamein, Africa campaign, etc...
I suspect when two sides using the same kind of armour knocking each other out, they would either develop a better gun or just make the armour thicker, or both. When shocked by a combat results (As the Nazis did, maybe innovation would happen

>>34550788
This probably sums it up pretty well. You didn't see the Centurion come out until after the Allies started encountering the Panther.

>>34550805
Except the Brits were fighting a Brutal tank war in Africa from 1941 to 1943 which proceeded up into Italy you fucking goon.

It's mostly because of bizzare British design standards and maximum rail limits that essentially created a maximum width and length their tanks could be (otherwise they'd be unable to transport them). The most ideal shape, unfortunately for ease of construction, most interior space and ease of transport is a god damn box.

If you're asking more specifically about the lack of a sloping frontal armor- British trials (incorrectly) seemed to imply that sloped armor was unreliable. Differing elevations, angles or "low velocity" guns with parabolic arcs could defeat angled armor, while thick homogeneous "plates" (such as on the Churchill series) would be reliable but not optimal at all angles.

File: Sloped_Armour_Diagram_v8.png (14KB, 400x235px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 400x235px

Sloped armor does not grant you any additional thickness if you want to keep the same weight.

>>34550361

Sloped armor has always been a tradeoff:

1. To cover the same surface, you need more mass.
2. To cover the same surface, you need more space.

So you 1. gain weight and 2. lose space (or grow in size, which adds more weight).

And then it only provides a benefit against hits from certain angles, so it can be considered situational.

As for the historical reasons, others anons have provided insight.

File: cromwell.jpg (100KB, 800x420px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 800x420px

>>34550361
Because british tanks were rear engine, Rear driven, so required the use of a control piece for gearing and turning up front. This required the entire casemate to be removed for maintenance.

This also allowed the tank to be lower in comparison.

This is the standard set up today and is easier as everything can be electronic. But in Ww2 for simplicity German and american tanks were rear engine with a shaft driving a gearbox up front with sprocket wheels to the front.
In the M3/M4 series hulls this was easy enough to get to the gearbox design, but in german tanks maintanance sucked.

>>34550361
Because they didn't make any new tanks during the war. All of their tanks were either already in use before the war, or had development started before the war. There was no tank design fielded by Britain that was designed after the war had started.

>>34551834
Crusader
Centaur
Cavalier
Cromwell
Challenger
Comet
Churchill

Now don't be such a retard in future.

File: 1415157961364.jpg (394KB, 870x712px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 870x712px

>>34550788
>the Panther tank, which was based on the T-34
True story tovarish!

>>34551863
Well in his defence the original MkV panzer was intended to be a MKIV hull with panther wheels, but the T34 caused its major redesign, based on the data accumulated from the T34, causing everything to be up specced to at least meet the T34 in some aspect

File: 1313.jpg (194KB, 802x545px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 802x545px

>>34551863
>hurr durr panther wasn't based on t34
>picrelated one of panther's competitors

>>34551863
It is. There's a reason why Panther is not another box tank - unlike the Tiger whereas they already faced T-34s yet still continued with the box design.

>>34551876
>MK=Panzer
What's the logic behind this?
>>34551890
>one of panther's competitors
>>34551893
Copying the shape of the front armor is nowhere enough for you to say:
>the Panther tank, which was based on the T-34

>>34551862
Not that anon but posting this list of mid-war designs still doesn't answer the question of why the lack of sloped armour. Maybe other anon's insights already had them. This anon you replied to only needs to lurk more, as I will do

>>34551918
That anon misused the MK military wording. He is right in using V as the numeral of the tank model, but the correct prefix designation is Panzerkampfwagen or Pzkfw abbreviated. I'm sure you already knew that.

>>34551929
it was answered in >>34551777

>>34551918
Im this >>34550788 anon. To say the Germans came up with the idea of putting on sloped armour out of free will is completely bs; but to say that the Panther was based on the T-34 was a bit of an overstretch too. Not even using the frontal armour shape excuse as i dont think the Wehrmacht ever caught a T-34 (or even if they did, they wouldn't outright copy it as the T-34 didn't turn the tide of the 1941 campaign). But what I can say with certainty is that the T-34 influenced the Panther's design at the very least, and was what forced the Germans to add slope armour on their next design.

Im sorry if my wording of "based on" was misused or misunderstood by you. But this is my actual belief of how the German's tank designs came to be.

>>34551918
>Copying the shape of the front armor is nowhere enough for you to say: >the Panther tank, which was based on the T-34


Then why isn't the Tiger sloped? In the first place, why weren't German tank design adopted sloped armour after the invasion of France? Since the French designed theirs as such. Because they realised it late, that's why the opted the Panther to be different. Also, Germany took an assessment of the T-34 anyway.

Hence you've got designs like this anon posted >>34551890, of which you did not reply well.


Learning from your enemy is nothing to be shamed upon, anon. It's a nature of war.

>>34550361
It's cheaper to manufacture. The British had to produce more tanks to recuperate their losses after Dunkirk and this was the cheapest way. British tanks pre WW2 always had some slopes on them.

File: Smiles.png (9KB, 184x169px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 184x169px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll90l2kWCbM

>>34550361
Because they live on an island. They inherently suck in armour design due to the lack of necessity to develop it.

>>34551862
All of these were on the draing board before the war.

>>34552006
>Then why isn't the Tiger sloped?
But it is, they just didn't slope the part of the front glassis where the vision and machine gun was.

>>34552160
What are you smoking?
Crusader started design in 1939
Centaur specification wasn't put out until 1940, with designs returned in 1941
Cavalier was designed in 1941
Cromwell was designed in 1942
Challenger was designed in 1942
Comet was designed in 1943
Churchill was specified in 1939, re-specified in 1940 and designed in 1940

>>34552165
>But it is, they just didn't slope the part of the front glassis where the vision and machine gun was.

a few degree slope is not relevant enough to thicken its armour even more

>>34552176
Only at first glance

>Crusader
A13 prototype was produced in 1938
Churchill
A20 prototype designed on 1939

The rest are just derivatives, No real hull design work went into them, it's mostly just different engines, smaller hulls and different turrets. Design-wise they're all just different versions of the same tanks given new names.

>>34552245
A13 is not a crusader,
A20 was ditched for A22.

If you're claiming they're just upgrades of the previous models you're a fucking retard, most of the successors had absolutely no parts commonality.

By that claiming the m3 and m4 are the same tank because they use the same hull

>>34552245
If you buy a broom, then after 5 years change the head, then after another 5 years you change the handle.
Is it the same broom you bought 10 years ago?

>>34552265
The A15 was based on the A13
The A22 was based on the A20.

The lineage is very clear. There was no time completely new prototypes and lengthy design work like the Germans did with the Panther. Time was of the essence in designing new tanks. They took old prototypes, tweaked a few things and created new tanks out of it.

>>34552284
If you buy a broom, then after 5 years change the head, then after another 5 years you change the handle.
Is it the same broom you bought 10 years ago?

>>34552265
>>34552270
If you take a Sherman, give it a completely new hull, turret, gun, transmission and an engine cobbled from 5 car engines do you still call it a Sherman? America would, the British would had called it the Shatinator or something.

>>34552295
shermanator sounds so much better
we didn't we do this(even as a joke)

>>34552284
>The A15 was based on the A13
> Going from a 4 road wheel Christie to a 5 road wheel christie helical spring.
> New optics, new layout, new fire control, new turret, new engine, new transmission, new steering system
> Its the same tank

>>34552303
Are we not talking about why the hull had no slopes? The hull shape is basically the same. The rest is modular, and easy to change. Germany and America changed them all the time, and would only merit a letter/version number change, if at all.

>>34552322
see >>34551777 maintenance

>>34550361
Centuries of inbreeding

>>34552284

This is the most retarded thing I've ever read.

>A used some things they learned from B!
>That must mean B=A!

They're completely different tanks.

>>34552358
you can join if you want

>>34552358
>Centuries of inbreeding

That's pretty rich coming from an American/Russian.

I've being to Wisconsin, no cousins after sun down right?

>>34552322

>things with the same general shape are the same thing

>>34552129
But if you pit British's armour against Japan's, which is also an island nation, no doubt the Brits will BTFO Japan's. The question is why?

File: Judas_Priest_British_Steel.jpg (24KB, 443x440px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 443x440px

>>34552552
>The question is why?

>>34552624

actual answer: >>34550383

>>34552552
Because Britain had enemies of comparable technological strength right across a small channel from them.

Japan did not.

>>34552862
I have no idea of china's state during ww2, I assume they had a large army but terrible tech?

>>34552391
I'm from Wisconsin, and no that's not a thing

>>34551777
>Because british tanks were rear engine, Rear driven, so required the use of a control piece for gearing and turning up front. This required the entire casemate to be removed for maintenance.
what the everloving fuck

>>34552295
>turret, gun, transmission
the m4a4 used the standard 75mm turret and never had the 76mm gun. your point still stands, though

File: mr beano.jpg (35KB, 620x347px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 620x347px

>>34553213
Yeah he's right, the controls are more akin to a planes than a tanks because you have to control the steering from the opposite end to where the gearbox is.

Being analogue they required a lot of maintenance to work properly.

American and german tanks simplified this by running the engine through a shaft the center of the tank to the gearbox at the front.

>>34553272
which has nothing to do with armor sloping or not.

>>34553284
yeah well actually it does, as you need room to actually maintain it. In British tanks you can do it from inside the hull. If the armour was sloped there wouldn't be enough room to reach it without significantly heightening or lengthening the hull.

>>34553315
where did you come up with this reasoning?

>>34553335
Various books on the subject matter.

They weren't willing the make the hull dimensions any bigger as they had to be transported on British rail gauges, this allowed them to get them into ports and onto ships within a day of them rolling out of the plant.

You'd notice the same setup on KV series tanks.

Only the soviet T50 used slop Armour and rear drive, but there's little to no information i can find on its maintenance, yet alone combat performance.

Modern tanks get around this through digitization of the drive system.

>>34553397
>Various books on the subject matter.
yes, of course. and that explains why german tank hulls until the panther, and american light tank and combat car hulls were shaped pretty much like british tank hulls despite having the crucial front transmission difference you're claiming. gotcha.

>>34552887
Their terrible TERRIBLE tech and outdated tactics+strategy were the least of it

>The Republic of China was founded in 1912, following the Xinhai Revolution which overthrew the Qing dynasty (1644–1911). However, central authority disintegrated and the Republic's authority succumbed to that of regional warlords. Unifying the nation and repelling imperialism seemed a very remote possibility.[37] Some warlords even aligned themselves with various foreign powers in their battles with each other. For example, the warlord Zhang Zuolin of Manchuria openly cooperated with the Japanese for military and economic assistance.[38]

>>34552270
Depends. Did you name the broom Susie?

>>34555955
I originally named it skrillex, but i was high on ketamine at the time, the name was intended for the mop i was supposed to buy

>>34555999
Then not the same broom, by any standard of geometry or theology. Clearly.

>>34556019
that where you're wrong, it had a mop head, then i replaced it with a shovel handle when i broke the stick

>>34556047
Was this a consensual occurrence, or object rape?

>>34556047
I find your lack of response disturbing, object rapist.

>>34550486
Nope. We could by a squad of T-72's for that a few years back.

File: 00651cda3bf014a578808ecc222da6ad.jpg (85KB, 736x386px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 736x386px

>>34551040
>It's mostly because of bizzare British design standards and maximum rail limits that essentially created a maximum width and length their tanks could be (otherwise they'd be unable to transport them). The most ideal shape, unfortunately for ease of construction, most interior space and ease of transport is a god damn box.
Cool story bro.

>>34556265
A slope that vertical would be insufficient

File: jw star.jpg (6KB, 233x217px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 233x217px

>>34556265
>>34556317
yeah you'd have to bring that slope about half way between the hull front and turret front.

And you wouldn't be able to access the steering lines for maintenance without creating a structural weakness.

Nice try though - one star : you tried

>>34556317
>>34556404
This is just pathetic. Do you have a real argument?

>>34556424
all he has is unreferenced bullshit about muh steering lines

>>34556262
>Doesn't want to do shenanigans in a WW2 tank
Disgusting.

>>34550486
I'd rather have a Centurion for $92k

>>34551863
The Panther was a reaction to, not a German copy of, the T-34. OP is retarded.

>>34550361

because sloping is a meme

also you might want to look again, half of the front of the tank is sloped

>>34556404

>Steering lines.

Worked just fine on the T-34

File: 34.jpg (49KB, 750x336px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 750x336px

>>34556424
>>34556839
> being this knowledgeable

>>34559630
T34 uses clutch breaking, cromwell uses Merritt brown and is much more elaborate

Besides the t34 had to be taken to a repair yard, the cromwell could do it in field

Why did britain use mostly solid shot AP? And why did no one else use APDS?

>>34556265
It's bretty obvious we knew how sloped armour works - you can see the mid glacis is heavily sloped and is thinner. It actually provides around the same thickness as the upper glacis.

It was simply a design choice as what they went with was easier for them.

File: Renault_D2_early_camotests1937.png (130KB, 422x206px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 422x206px

It can be argued the sloped armor idea for German tanks may of also come from the invasion of France. There were engagements when supposedly "weak" French tanks survived due to angled armor. The Germans had complete access and time to design. I really doubt exposure to T-34s would within a few months allow Germans to do a major redesign.

>>34551862
Valentine

>>34561717

For anti-tank?

Because it worked.

>>34563095
But everyone else generally used some type of APHE and such

>>34560755
friend, until you reference this claim from onf of your "various books on the subject," it will continue to be regarded as bullshit

>>34562494
OMG THE GERMANS HAD NO IDEA ABOUT SLOPED ARMOR UNTIL THEY INVADED FRANCE DESPITE USING IT ON ARMORED CARS AND TANKS BEFORE THE INVASION AND IT BEING A THING THROUGHOUT HISTORY IN FORTS AND EARTHWORKS

sloped armor wasn't some magical panacea for tanks. using it or not was a design decision

>>34563342
>sloped armor wasn't some magical panacea for tanks. using it or not was a design decision

Agreed, sloping compromises internal volume. See the T-34.

>>34563118

APHE was an already aging concept based on outdated naval designer thinking. There's a reason countries all started adapting to AP and APDS. Better performance against armor.

The whole "muh APHE" thing is purely an invention mostly stemming from War Thunder, where it's portrayed as god tier nuke rounds for some inexplicable reason, the reality was more akin to "very unreliable fusing, worse armor penetration and increased complexity".

>>34563427
My question is why did no other countries use APDS or just solid shot AP then if it was proven to be more effective against armor?

>>34563447
Why did everyone switch to APDS and AP later thaN britain is what i mean

>>34563447

Some did. The US had plenty of AP rounds in use, look at the HVAP after all.

For others it's mostly just a case that they already had stocks or already were used to making them. Changing your ammo stock design mid way is difficult to do to convert skillsets and training.

The UK had been using AP heavily even before the war, they were used to it.

>>34563388
Depends on where you put the slope. See >>34556265
Where is the lost space?

>>34551671
It helps you to not to face all the kinetic or chemical energy round is delivering, bouncing in other words. Don't tell me brits were knowing a lot by making box tanks fater war they made sloped armored tanks to.

>>34563323
>The Merritt-Brown transmission, so called because it was evolved by Dr H. E. Merritt and built by David Brown Tractors, has been referred to previously as having been fitted to British tanks over a number of years.
It combines the functions of both transmission and steering unit in one lightweight unit and is, at the same time, easy to construct and very efficient. It is in many ways admirably suited for a tank transmission and deserves description...
> The Churchill had a Merritt-Brown 4-speed constant mesh epicyclic gear-box. The steering mechanism, which was part of the gearbox, consisted of two steering drums, either of which could be locked by pressure of its brake shoe. When one of the steering drums was locked the speed of one track was reduced and the speed of the other increased, thus causing the tank to turn. The lower the gear that the tank was in, the sharper the turn. The system generally was called controlled differential steering, and the Churchill was the first British tank to have such a system. One of its real peculiarities was that it allowed the tank to turn on its own axis when in neutral. The turn was particularly sharp and sudden when on a smooth surface, giving rise to a stern warning in the driver's handbook ("do not do it!") and occasionally to much shouting and abuse of the driver when he did it. Although to be fair, it was a very useful capability properly used.

TLDR:
The steering system is part of the gearbox so needs to be maintained.

I'm not even him and i found two sources within a minute.

Stop screaming bullshit when you have were given the opportunity to find and confirm this info for yourself. Because its akin to turning up to class, getting told facts which you're getting told by the teacher, get given homework to find out the information behind the facts. Not doing the homework and turning up next lesson and screaming that the facts are false because you didn't look into it.

Please don't post here again.

>>34553213
These were the same people who created the Valiant. The tank that actively tried to kill it's crew.

>>34553412
He explained his points in a coherent manner. You're just sperging like a tard.

>>34550486
You can buy 10 T34s for that price.

>>34563622
And nowhere in your copy/paste extravagant is it asserted that the design of the front hull is in any way affected. Which is the issue, if you want to at some point try comprehending what's on your screen.

>>34565183
its like having an argument with a tranuqlised brick wall
NO FIT WITHOUT REDESIGN

Fun fact : comet was designed with sloped armour, but the crew visibility decrease was unacceptable for the same level as non sloping armour which could be manufactured quicker

t. 'Cromwell Cruiser Tanks, 1942-1950, David Fletcher & Richard C Harley, 2006'

>>34565682
>NO FIT WITHOUT REDESIGN
yelling it doesn't make it true, senpai. i have never read that the fucking armor layout was affected by the desire to service the driver's controls. also, i have the book you referenced, and nowhere in the section on the comet does it say the comet's front hull was initially sloped.

>>34565095
and his points were bullshit

>>34565095
>coherent
Yet the core of the post is that a sloped glacis reduces space, which it clearly doesn't.

>>34566352
prove it.

>>34563622
>I'm not even him
>Responds to every post with irrelevant walls of text and a "pithy" parting phrase
Sure thing

>>34566416
do you know how IDs work summerfag?

>>34566414
First tell me which point he is trying to make that hasn't already been disproved or is even relevant.

>>34566431
rail gauges, transmissions, ineffective slopes, redesign

it all stacks up

>>34566451
pretty much everything

>>34566414
kek. to summarize this entire retarded conversation:
>anon: british tanks didn't have sloped armor because of the driver's controls
>me: that's bs. show me a reference indicating so.
>anon: *no reference shown* british tanks didn't have sloped armor because of the driver's controls
>me: that's bs
>anon: prove it's bs

File: 126.jpg (167KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1280x720px

>>34565126
>get one great tank
>or get 10 pieces of shit

>>34568352
10 pieces of shit to designate in Berlin, you mean

>>34556262
Both choices are equally useless

>>34551986
The Germans captured numerous T34's and pressed them into service

>>34570027
>The Germans captured numerous *.*'s and pressed them into service

>Muh slopes
Thank god this meme is finally dead with the advent of newer ammunition.

>>34570702
>needing a new type of ammunition to counter slopes

well, that shows how effective they were

>>34570714
>needing a new type of ammunition to counter slopes
yeah, like flat-nosed APCBC

>>34550361
Can't find any resource at hand but these were some manufacturing-related reasons. Germans had more or less the same problem and they fixed it, Brits kind of did, when they made Centurion.

>>34570714
>>needing a new type of ammunition to counter slopes
5.56x45?

>>34551918
>>MK=Panzer
>What's the logic behind this?
Anglo sources generally call them like this and it has internal logic, at least some.

If you have for example:

Panzerkampfwagen V ausf A - it means "Armored fighting vehicle five, revision A" or something in these lines. For somebody used to British military terminology it's easy to turn this into "tank mark 5, variant A".

>>34552887
Horrible. At some point they reintroduced swordsmen as a kind of assault troops.

>>34562494
Sloped armour is very old concept. Like few thousand years old.

File: 1499828172492.gif (46KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x500px

>>34551671
the purpose of sloping is not to give thickness.
its to give deflection.
nigga.