Sloped Armor and Modern AT Rounds

[Guest jaja]

Is sloping the armor of a tank a good design feature anymore considering modern AT rounds characteristics?

[This message has been edited by jaja (edited 02-23-2001).]

[Carter]

Sloping is designed to do 2 things:

1) Increase the thickness of armor versus a certain direction.

2) Increase the chance of a ricochet.

I'm not an expert at modern anti-armor rounds versus sloping, but I can speculate.

HEAT round _could_ be made to rotate, using the precurser probe, to a more favorable angle on sloped armor. The rear charge would then have a more direct shot through armor. I've never heard of this being done, but I think its possible.

Kinetic-energy rounds might constructed so that they are more likely to dig into armor instead of just bouncing off.

But I don't see kinetic-energy rounds changing direction much to increase penetration. You have to remember that these weapons rely heavily on velocity. If their direction is changed, they should lose velocity and therefore lose penetration.

Elasticity might allow them to change direction a little bit. But SABOT rounds, which are very long and thin, can easily snap. If they snap, their penetration goes down considerably.

[Web]

This kinda stuff gets discussed at www.tanknet.org so I reccomend you check that sight out for the really long answer, but to simply rehash what was mentioned there a slope of 40 degrees provides a 1.31 slope multiplier to armor thickness. A slope of 35 degrees provides a 1.22 slope multiplier to armor thickness (that's based on sines and cosines, which I don't want to go into). Sounds like a good bonus to me.

------------------

-Jackson

[Guest jaja]

EVERYBODY LOVES SINES AND COSINES ETC. UNDERSTAND? GOOD!

If you have two equelly sized hunks of metal and shape on into a 0@ plate and one into a x@ plate, they will have the same equivalent thickness from the front [i found this out with some trigonometry (is there anything it can't do?)].

In WWII one recieved a great benifit from sloped armor (things would ricochet), but modern rounds may make sloped armor useless. At certin angles (not of the shell, but of the firer) the equivalent thickness of the armor of a sloped piece is reduced, but the equivalent thickness of a 0@ piece is always increased.

[Mike Robel]

Modern KE rounds would rather penetrate then bounce. The actual penetrator, which is acuatlly sorta blunt shaped, has a bearing on the front of it and a "wobble cap" on the front of that. The sharp nose of the round is actually a wind screen.

When the round hits the target, the wobble cap is deflected up which deflects the penetrator down. While a bounce or a miss is still possible, this scheme is designed to lesson the chance of such an action.

[JunoReactor]

Jaja, the reason 0 degree armor will always be increased is that its the minimum possible!

[Guest jaja]

Correct. To protect a certin area of tank, though just as much 0 degree slope is needed as any other slope to get the same thickness (taking into account the slope) from a direct, head-on shot.

[This message has been edited by jaja (edited 03-01-2001).]

[Embar]

Yes, but...

To take an example discussed in another thread, the glacis plate of the M1Awhatever is sloped at 80 degrees. According to what I've seen and heard - not very reliable sources, admittedly! - it is about 50mm thick... but the slope means that a head-on hit will "percieve" it as being closer to 300mm thick (and then the fuel tank immediately behind the glacis is designed to provide further protection by breaking up long-rods and shaped-charge jets. Unfortunately the driver isn't protected by the fuel tank.)

So why not use a vertical plate some 300mm thick instead of a heavily sloped plate 50mm thick?

Because the vertical plate would leave the entire area above the driver and fuel tank completely unprotected (unless you put another lots of lbs of armour plate to cover the gap)! The heavily sloped plate can be penetrated by specialized top-attack munitions, but it stops any small-arms rounds or shell fragments from above as well as from the front; a vertical plate wouldn't.

(Oh, BTW - hello, everyone. Rude of me to intrude without an introduction :-/ I'm a newbie to TacOps... well, that's about it really Great game, but you already knew *that*!)

Kind regards,

Embar

[(temporary)]

...but then you lose internal volume by your calculations. Sloping still provides more bottom line protection (today), though.