![]() ![]() Just how fast might something like a tank be able to go if it could without drag tipping it up through the turret?ĭoes the width and length of a tank actually matter? A lot of tanks remain in the 2.5 - 3.5 meter width range while length can vary between 6 meters to 9 meters long. Would that design be impractical or would it be negligible in its performance? I mean, if the main gun already sticks out, then it wouldn't matter much if the turret did as well, right? What about a turret like this one?Īs material science and engine technology improves, we will likely be seeing faster tanks. Likely to make room for the engine compartment but still, wouldn't it be better to move the turret back so that there can be more armor sandwiched in the hull between the front and the crew? Also, does it matter if the turret bustle "sticks out" at the back? An example would be in this design here. So, why is this still a design choice? Is it to shave off weight in the composite armor and trying to make up for the lost armor in sloping? Also, it's likely for a better depression of the gun, but still, does it actually matter that much? Why not go for a full block/square design all around?ĭoes the size and placement of the turret really matter? I've noticed how some of the best tanks have their turret rings placed right at the front hull, like the Leopard 2 or M1A2 Abrams. Since modern ammunition will ignore sloping and "bite" into the armor. To my understanding, sloping is essentially useless in stopping most modern ammunition. Especially to the front hull plates and on the front turret. I've noticed how many new future tank designs still incorporate some degree of sloping to the armor. Slope Multipliers Posts: Tiger vs T-34 vs M4A3E8, Tiger vs M4A3E8 (angled at 45°), Tiger vs Panther vs M4A3E8, T-34 vs Tiger I vs M4A1. YouTubers that run armour penetration simulations ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |