Originally posted by slim10:
Its really a well-designed turret for the merk but as GW showed, the relatively flatter face wasn't exactly a disadvantage for the M1...
And that's because the M1 uses a different armour base (ceramic faced composite) as opposed to the Merk 1 (spaced steel). Different armour materials utilise different mechanisms which influences how the armour face is to be laid out.
And it is still sloped in the vertical, despite your rather cryptic comment that chobham don't need slope.
Anyway, the reason why I pursued the Merkava angle (and the pictures) was because of this comment ...
The L2A6 turret uses the same angled merkava design (all mks) that presents an angle no matter which way a ground level target approaches.
No matter which way a ground level target approaches?
The L2A6 is slab sided. It is only angled at the frontal arc.
The Merk Mk1, 2 and early 3 are also slab sided and optimised for a frontal engagement.
As it is, I'm still curious as to some of your claims which you haven't really answered ...
Depending on which M1 series u are refering to, they used different types of armor. The initial M1 tanks used steel armor if I recall correctly. Chobham / Burlington only came into the picture in the M1A1-onwards.
Last I recall, Chobham was still largely classified. But if i do not get it wrong, it is essentially layered composites encased by steel or DU (HA variant). The layering of the composites are at different slant angles such that penetrator rounds have to contend with the way those composites as it penetrates from layer to layer.
The M1's armor frontal armor surface is also sloped. Sloping it improves the already formidable ability to shrug off hits.
It handled KE rounds well, but it revealed some problems against shape charged warheads in the 2nd Gulf War. Pictures of the penetration (non-frontal) floated around tanknet forums for a bit, but later disappeared. Hehe, or maybe I just didn't follow up.
Besides the L2A4, and the Tiger tank, I don't recall any other tanks that do not incorporate a sloped turret design. Later versions, L2A5-A6 turret designs introduced the sloped armor to improve protection from frontal shots. A new armor package for the L2A4 will bring up the L2A4s frontal protection up to par with the A5 and A6s.
I think there is a need to define what exactly one means by sloped armour. All tanks have a degree of slope in its armour. Even in a flat faced 90 degree plate, it is still sloped if the facing is different from the shooter's angle.
If one expects every angle to be similar before recognising similarity, then no turret is ever the same for different tanks and arguing this point is an exercise in futility. There will always be something different.
As to design flaw, still haven't read anything that suggests the L2A4 had a design flaw.
Originally posted by slim10:I think there is a need to define what exactly one means by sloped armour. All tanks have a degree of slope in its armour. Even in a flat faced 90 degree plate, it is still sloped if the facing is different from the shooter's angle.
If one expects every angle to be similar before recognising similarity, then no turret is ever the same for different tanks and arguing this point is an exercise in futility. There will always be something different.
Fair enough. Although I take the view that armour packages are mostly designed to optimise defeat from a frontal aspect. Especially for a turret, the point of reference is 0deg since you'd expect your turret to be facing the highest threat directly. You don't swing your turret 15deg off to take the hit and then align it back to shoot the threat.
THe armour package will still perform well enough at odd angles to the optimised angles but the performance degradation is dependant on the nature of the armour composition and the penetrator mechanics.
So if we're going to be talking about slope, there's no point trying to sideline off into endless permutations of off-angles/elevations. Let's just talk about a direct 0deg engagement shall we?
As to design flaw, still haven't read anything that suggests the L2A4 had a design flaw.
I don't know if this statement is aimed at me. I was just posting a anecdote of the Greek test since S-cat asked for any other reports.
But if I were to pursue the issue further ... would you consider the ammo loading hatch, which was later sealed shut and then removed from later batches altogether, to be a design flaw?
Hmm, the Euro Leopards have a design flaw...
Haha Germany sold thousands of flawed leopards !
It's just a minor flaw. hardly consequential