We can all agree that first sloped armor is great for tanks IF they have high quality steel and if they have a powerful gun. Second Simple History's animations are getting better and better
No we all cant, some of us has played War Thunder and some of the armour on the tanks says it cant be pen but in reality they can, so that means we just Gaijin'd
Many concepts are discovered, forgotten, then rediscovered at various points in history. Also the difference between making armor for tank shells vs medivil plate armor and siege tactics is quite large in terms of history and context.
I wouldn't necessarily call this a simple idea,because even though it seems simple in Concept, in order to do it requires a *lot* of design work, as you are needing to make compromises to get the slope to be at a useful angle, which massively cuts down on the interior volume and thus limits what you can have internally. The whole 'sloped Armour is better' thing is actually been known for a long time, at least since the dreadnought battleship era if not even before, but the problem is no one could figure out a way to justify the expenses that sloped armour puts on the interior volume of whatever you are designing, so it wasn't used in many applications until the interwar era designs and the pressure cooker that was WWII
"Just angle the armor, it'll make us win the war!" "OK, where should I put the gunner, half of the barrel, the radio, the driver and half of the other crucial parts?" "In the tank."
@@ThePersonWhoAsks "but the crew won't be able to escape easily!" " that's why we have mass conscription; we lose one crew, 4 more are already being trained!"
There is a thing called a shell trap on some tanks, where the shell can ricochet off an armor plate, and go straight into a flat or weaker area of armor, which the shell can penetrate, which can result in the death of the tank.
Reminder: Sloping tank armour removed interior space. The thickness accounts for both the roof/front. While flat armour can have very thin roofs with much thicker fronts. It's better, but not to the degree people think.
But you have to make flat armor thicker for it to have the same effect as sloped, meaning more weight and less mobility, which is why its hard to find a flat surface in modern tanks, they're all very edgy
@@caralho5237 It doesn’t mean more weight. You need the same amount of metal to enclose a given volume with x mm of armor regardless of how you arrange it.
The T-34 is an excellent example of the advantages and disadvantages, been the disadvantages an extremely cramped interior with few internal storage, also how blind a tank has to be shot at 27 times, also the 37mm was able to eliminate T-34 they destroyed about 2.000 at the beginning of Barbarossa, this due to the extreme tempering of soviet steel which cause spalling in the interior without penetration ending the crew inside.
@@ZayP730 Am not confusing them, in 1941 at the start of Barbarossa russian lost around 20.000 tanks of which 2.300 were T-34s, so they had more than thousands of them, then the 37mm was able to deal with them as I said they lost 2.300 T-34s in 1941 alone.
@@ZayP730 The book "Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century by G.F. Krivosheev , John Erickson, Christine Barnard" made with soviet data from the archives in Moscow in the early 90's.
Warship armor is mostly vertical because it designed to take hits from long distance which already have angled ballistic due to gravity. Angled armor plate in those situations only make it less effective
@@vunguyenxuanhoang7422 there's also the interior armor design or the armor between accessible areas and the exterior armor, from which the armor is spaced and slightly angled down (on heavier warships), as you are correct, they are meant for longer engagements most warship armor is still sloped though if ever so slightly
@@vunguyenxuanhoang7422 Cruisers and battleships often had sloped belt plates to provide additional protection from long range gunfire, the plates were angled outwards by around 20 degrees (Outwards from top to bottom, top being most outward part of plate).
It is a perfect example of sloped armour as it shows its strengths, getting hit 23 times before penetration. And its weaknesses, cramped interior leading to poor visibility and therfore getting hit 23 times.
@@shredder8525 Poor visibility was due to the horrendous optics and periscopes made in Russia at the time due to lacking workforce and materials, not armor sloping.
lets not forget about terrible optics, palcement of the optics inside the tank , glasses of optics cracking when firing the main gun, no commander coupola etc^^
Tbh I was dreading this, as RUclips is often a BS minefield, but this is a pretty good job, 10/10 visually! I like the fact you point out the internal volume aspect, a very big part as volume, weight, dimensions are far more important than the armour mobility firepower trope. And the fact there is no weight saving was nicely covered. The two areas overlooked are that sloped armour is easier to overmatch (the rounds calibre is greater than armours thickness) this still effects the vehicle with sloping, becoming less effective if the rounds calibre overmatches the vertical equivalence of the plate and the larger the round the less effective the sloping is comparatively. The other issue is that sloped plate is considerably less effective on any slope, that is if the vehicle is going down an incline the armours effective thickness is decreased by the same angle and battlefields are not always flat, while vertical armour can only gain loss thickness in the same scenario. Finally, there is edging effect - any opening in a sloped plate, be it a bow MG or in T-34’s case the drivers hatch, has a larger area by default, this increase the amount of area that can be stuck to one side where the metal is weaker. Overall though a very good video, kudos
At 8:42 SImple History mentions how impressed German commanders were with the T-34. Now the part of the reason for this was that it was used as an excuse for German commanders after the war to blame the Russians' technologically advantageous weapons, so NATO can give them advisory jobs. The Germans and everyone else have always realized the advantages of sloped armor since the 12th century, hence why you see walls on forts and castles at an angle, they help to fight cannon balls and other large projectiles. Now many would say the Tiger H1, Panzer 3, and 4 do not have sloped armor, whereas is in fact it did. The front glacis plate is sloped at 10 degrees as this was the most optimal sloping angle without the negatives of slope armor affecting performance too much. Now the reason why the Germans stuck with this angle was because of crew performance. Less angling means more crew comfort, and thus performance. Russian tankers would often get exhausted just from driving to the frontlines before having to fight. Another example would be the original inventor of the T-34 (I forgot his name) whom caught Pneumonia while driving a T-34 to Moscow and died! Although the Sherman did feature sloped armor it was really tall and fat to make up for the negatives of sloped armor, and to fit the big radial engine. Crew performance is especially important when on the offensive and trying to pull off quick decisive strategical operations that would quickly end a front. This was why Hitler refocused his attention from Moscow to Stalingrad where a bunch of oil fields were, realizing they were not able to win a quick victory and have forced themselves into a war of attrition. Now his generals were confused at his decision. There was much bickering among the office and this is where Hitler's surviving Generals after WW2 blamed Hiter and his Schutzstaffel (SS, surprisingly a lot of people don't know what that stands for) for all the mistakes and 'dumb' decisions. A lot people don't give much credit to Hitler. Now enough with me ranting on. I hope you've enjoyed my comment, and see you on Simple History's next of numerous mistakes we shall see in the future.
@@mpcrauzer That mechanic is pretty broken lol, how tf is it possible that a 155 mm HE shell is able to overpressure a Tiger II with a hit in the Upper plate 😅
As a logical next step, it'd be interesting to see a video discussing the evolution of tank ammunition types, starting with the basic High Explosive and Armor Piercing shots and moving into HEAT, various ballistic capped shells and eventually modern shells like APFSDS.
8:00 I wouldn't particularly call that instance a good example for how good the t34 or its armor was. I mean 1st of the fact that the crew didn't notice over 20 shots hitting their tank or better from where they got fired at from speaks books. And 2nd that particular t34 was reported to be unfit for continued service as the armor spalling inside (caused by the insanely high hardening to 600 brinell) and the low quality welds caused so much damage to the integrity of the hull and parts inside the tank that it had to be scrapped 8:25 And because of the the high hardness of the steel, it became incredibly brittle causing aforementioned spalling and weld cracks from small things like 37mm ap or in 1 insanely stupid instance by a volley of 20mm he fire from a desperate AA crew. Wich more often than not caused the tank to be knocked out, the crew to be knocked unconscious or to be evacuated. All of this can be seen from books like "soviet causalities and combat losses in the 20th century" in Wich for one over 2000 t34s were lost in the 1st year of Barbarossa alone and 60% of all t34 being lost to the (conventional) pz3 (not StuG or stuff like that just pz3)
"the tanks of oepration barbarossa" By Kavalerschik also show it brilliantly. Even a "perfect" T34 would have weak spots against 37mm pak apparently. But due to.... the very qualitfy manufacturing those areas icnreased. and Yeah spalling. He worked pretty good
@@guppiapfeljustleopardthing8756 the first thing is another book about tanks, written by an engineer The second Part is abiut Metallurgy. To make the T34 Plater hoe they are you need to first Producer them. There the soviets made them super Brittle. Then kn order to construct the tank they sometimes needed to bend some plates. To do that they heated them, making anything even worse. As a resukt in some areas even the 37mm had a chance of penetratoon
I have been playing War Thunder for like a little over a month now and the penetration system in it is just really detailed, sloped and straight armor platings Make a huge difference when your under enemy tank fire. and you yourself also have to find ways to penetrate the enemy tanks armor by studying which historical weakness each tank in the game has. im still learning a lot from the games penetration system.
I thought this video was going to be a very simple one, extolling the capacity of sloped armour to deflect shells and increase relative armour depth. I was happily surprised. Well done.
@@ecurb10 the very first tank fielded has sloped armor. The first German tank fielded has a "pike nose" like the later IS series tanks. There are dozens of tanks with sloped armor that were all around well before the T34. Designers knew this, and DID implement it when they felt it necessary.
@@jurassicturtle3666 Yes I agree that this was known and used before. I'm just mystified as to why then didn't they implement it with ALL their Panzers (except the Panther)? Yes there were some others, but with German (and British) tanks it seems to be the exception rather than the rule. "...and DID implement it when they felt it necessary" - well, whenever is it NOT necessary???
@@ecurb10 I think it's a bit of a hindsight issue. Many early British tanks had sloped armor, but the armor was so thin because of the intended purposes of the vehicles that in practice it didn't make a difference. Granted, British armor doctrine was terrible and was completely exposed in North Africa, but still they were designed with sloped armor. As for other vehicles, and now I'm not an engineer myself, but I'd hazard a guess that there were many instances where things like structural integrity and interior dimensional space were simply prioritized. Or perhaps they were afraid of shot traps? Or maybe they didn't properly value armor protection as designers and not crewmen. But still, the root of the issue is that a LOT of tanks had sloped armor long before the T-34. The opening scenes in this video even depict the BT series tanks, based off of the Christie designs, which again feature sloped armor in the front. I believe the T-34 gets the credit it does because it just so happened to be the right amount of armor at the right slope in the right period of the war to result in something like 20+ shots deflecting off of them.
Another thing to consider is the quality of the steel if you have terrible quality steel sloped armour will do very little to help that why t 34 with sloped armour suffered so much because the quality of the steel was terrible And 50 mm cannon could penetrate t 34 armour
oml thank you! on paper the 50mm couldnt pen the t34, but in reality it would just crack the armor and litterally break the tank, or actually penetrate it because it was not made up to quality. meanwhile a 75mm or an 88mm will fucking crack a t34 open like a can of beans
Nyet T-34s can defeat all US Abrams tanks cause they're made of Stalinium, greatest metal. T-34 made to fly once and destroy all German 8th army but only stop as Mishka ran out of Vodka.
People wonder why the steel quality for vast majority of T-34s built during 1942-1945 were terrible.With the German invasion of USSR,Soviets lost more than half of their entire steel industry(located in Ukraine),including the plants that produced their highest quality steel and metal alloys.
Sloped armor also had some issues which is why it wasn't utilized very often and still isn't very commonly utilized in tank design, namely that it damaged the amount of space available in the tank, often damaging crew efficiency and operations of the tank. This is especially true of the T34, which simply did not have enough room and really damages its operations long-term as such.
And about that Pak 37 incident, the T-34 didn’t even notice during those 21 times that it had been fired upon and when it finally noticed they moved to run it over and missed because they couldn’t see out sights, and the reason the Pak 37 didn’t kill the T-34 was because at that time it was inadequate to what all that Allie’s we’re fielding, including the M4 Sherman
8:10 /// I heard about this story. It later turned out that it was a KW-1, not a T-34. The Germans often confused the two vehicles and wrote something different in their reports than was actually the case. This is how the indestructible T-34 was created. In fact, the Germans had more problems with the British Matilda than with the T-34, which, when hit in the front plate from most German guns, welds broke and even without a puncture the tank was destroyed.
People think that the T34 was cheap, effective and able to bounce shells. Yes, it was notable for having sloped armour, but it was an expensive design made cheapy
I’d not say it was expensive,sure early models were expensive but with the war went on unit cost decreased significantly and became comparable with that of a Panzer 2 or early Panzer 3s.Also the amount of man-hours it takes to build one.
Great work!!! Keep up the hard work!!! Can't wait to see the next one!!! For your next one can you do the history of Maybe Star Wars maybe like that or maybe even how the Godfather was made? If that's ok of course? It's a movie now showing how it was made. It looks pretty cool! Also maybe you can do the battle of Berlin maybe or Stalingrad or maybe the Civil War maybe? Also maybe the Medal of Honor as well? That'd be cool and awesome and see the beginning history through the modern day of the Medal of Honor and also include the story of the Great Locomotive chase and also the escapees getting the Medal of Honor as well! I hope you like my ideas and will do it!!
Sloped armor doesn't save on weight except in a minor way, basically by reducing the interior space and the need for more rooftop armor. The video correctly points out that an angled armor plate weighs as much as a vertical plate of the same LOS thickness covering the same LOS area. Sloped armor does increase chances of deflections, but on the other hand, it also increases the changes of penetration by overmatch. Overmatch is a phenomenon where a shell has a chance to burst through a plate at any angle as long as the nominal thickness (not LOS thickness) is less than the shell diameter. So vertical armor, with thicker plates, resists overmatch better. This was illustrated by data collected from Sherman hits. The early Shermans had a front glacis sloped at 57°. On occasion, a shell would penetrate which should not have been able to (due to overmatch). Later Shermans had the armor angle more vertical at 47° but had thicker plates to compensate. The LOS thickness was about the same, yet these mysterious overmatch penetrations were reduced. It was only after the war that the effect was discovered. Nowadays, sloped armor has fallen out of favor. Modern long rod projectiles have a very low chance to deflect on anything other than extremely angled armor (like over 70°) and the loss of useful interior space with armor that sloped isn't worth it. So modern tanks generally have vertical armor, or mildly sloped armor, on all surfaces except for the front glacis. This is about the only area of the tank where extreme slopes are possible so we see relatively thin plates sloped at angles of 70° or more. Sides are generally vertical to allow for a very wide turret ring and thus a very big gun. Turrets tend to be nearly vertical on the sides and only slightly sloped on the front. Rear armor tends to be vertical as well. The exception used to be the soviet tanks such as the T-55 or T-62 with their "frying pan" turrets, but more modern turrets, like the T-90, have more vertical armor (with angled plates for mounting ERA on the outside)
Some of the WW2 designs with sloped armor had inadvertently introduced Shot traps like the KV tanks and the M26 Pershing. Basically, the sloped armor would deflect a shot into a concave part of the tank design where the shot might still have enough kinetic energy to go in. I guess this is still better than not sloping and have the shot go in the first place it hits. And only shots at certain angles would be deflected that way.
As am ex-artillery officer I say the scattering of round particles is know as ''fragments'. 'Shrapnel' was a specific term used to describe the bullets that were placed in early airburst shells in WW1.
Though the Soviets did use slope armor, they were not the first. But they were the first to use it extensively and it proved to work all the way through the war for the Soviets. Overall very good video of slope armor on Soviet tanks.
@Duy Đinh i mean sherman has slops but isnt incredible crammed like the t34 crusader is crammed with no slopes too even the panther was apparently crammed with slops those broke down all the time like the t34 too
@@Shenaniganator101 The Loss was due to crew training and tank doctrine ,and production quality and cheap design shortcuts to produce the tanks faster and cheaper, not due to slope armor.
@@Shenaniganator101 Also the fact that the metal treatment in the Soviet Union or Tank manufacturing was too high of a temperature so it made the metal brittle, sending spalling into the crew despite no penetration, thus making slope armor somewhat redundant on many tanks.
Very good job fellows!! Congratulations! Actually, the advantages of slopes were already known in the high middle ages as we see in armour and castle tower designs.
8:11 acording to other sources, the tank crew didn’t even realize they were being shot at, and upon the turret jamming, tried to run over the AT gun. The driver missed
From a purely horizontal perspective, sloped armor is really the same thickness as a much shorter, 90 degree vertical piece of the same overall weight. If you use the cosign of 45 degrees say, you've got a much longer piece of armor plate by about 1.4 times the length of the vertical piece to achieve the same horizontal thickness. It's when you get into overhead protection that you might gain some protection for the same weight, but only directly relating to the thickness of the top plating. Plunging fire would actually give the advantage back to the 90 degree verticle armor.
It's strange the way people often point at Soviet WW2 tanks as the first appearance of sloped armour, as though they've never looked at any earlier tanks...
"its armour was groundbreaking", no, its just the most well known, other nations had trialled similar ideas but decided it wasnt worth losing "something" while doing it, be it engine space, crew space, crew members, hull machineguns (more complex to make one for a sloping hull to a good level). The Russians on the other hand decided it "would do" as a basic design, but the actual design they wanted to build had to be halted due to the war.
The tank overall was ground breaking. I mean, these were mass produced and fought literally on the front lines in the east through differing environments that were mostly harsh. Russians are very known for their slope armour in general.
@@h0lynut They were mass produced because they were what was at hand. The tank literally killed its own creator lol. Retooling for a brand new tank takes a lot of time and effort which is why the British lagged behind on guns and tank development (losing everyting in France caused a backlog in demand). Russians are "known" for it because its a meme in history channel, other nations had been using it from the 20s, but were never serious about another war so never really mass produced vehicles or were knocked out too quickly to be well known (like France).
@@mitchverr9330 honestly you just sound a bit anti russian based on how you use your words. My prior statement still stands as i do believe the tank was quite good despite the situation in the USSR and these very tanks are what marched all the way to Berlin.
@@parttimecripple so i agree compared the german engineering, the t34 tank was at a disadvantage. However, one ought to know the tiger 1 was a heavy tank whereas the t34 a medium. Like i said, despite the disadvantages, the t34 was really an exceptional tank that got the job done.
@@h0lynut It isnt anti russian, its a simple fact lol. Its got a mythos around it due to the history channel/Germans "needing" an excuse as to why they lost to the Russians etc. Its effectively the Russian version of the Ronson myth around the Sherman. It speaks more to the bravery of the poor buggers put in the damn thing, having to go to war in a vehicle which had a massive crew death rate compared to pretty much any other vehicle.
"That saved many lives" *looks at the t-34* *armor cracked because of the high hardness of the steel, meaning that 50% of the total ammount of dead T-34 crew members happened because of the armor cracking and spalling*
Y’all really out here thinking the t34 invented sloping when literally everyone knew about the effects since the 1500s, but chose not to use it cause it made for terrible ergonomics.
@@The7Reaper I was referring to the comments calling the t34s sloped armour a straight upgrade to all other tanks at the time without realizing that it has disadvantages and saying all other tanks without sloped armour suffered as an effect
Eh, it depends on the tank design. For example, the sloped armor of the T-34 made it difficult to escape in a hurry. Meaning, if a fire broke out, you’d likely be caught in the ensuing explosion. Having greater crew space is why the M4 Sherman, despite having an 80% burn rate, had an 80% crew survival rate. That helped a lot, as these crews later went on to become better tankers, and formed more tank aces. Something which was uncommon in Russian tanks of the war.
The idea of sloped armor has existed since the medieval era (i think). Some castles have sloped walls as it helps with artillery for the same reasons named in the video.
What people never add is that AP has a harder time piercing angled plates even if the thickness is identical. If the relative thickness is 30mm, but one is 15mm at 60 degrees, the round will more easily pen the unangled plate as the force is used more efficiently. Nobody ever mentions this very important factor.
"A Tiger, drinks fuel like it's beer." And by the way, when you look at the German tanks of that time including the atmosphere in general, it gives you a different feeling..
Dreadnoughts, armored trains and some early tanks like A7V: sloped armor? Angled plates? Nope, never heard of them. What? _Nope, history says T-34 invented basic geometry, haven't you heard?_
@@fishyfish6050 1)learn to read. Sloped armor predates ANY tanks. Short of Da Vinci one if you want to stretch the definitions and reality a bit:D Which also had it, hmm... 2)learn to read french. Char 2C or FCM F1 is what french would call even a remote analogue of "heavy tank". B1 was battle tank, it was a medium tank. Same as Chrurchill, which was an infantry tank ie another type of medium tank. Assault, infantry, cruiser, cavalry, fire support. Medium tanks have classifications, they have specialization. Heavy tanks don't. Because they (almost) never cut corners neither on price, nor on cost.
@@TheArklyte s35 had an all-around sloped armor and the benefits of sloped armor had already been known since the medieval era with the Talus Fortification. They sloped the castle wall to deflect cannon ball so stop thinking that the t34 invented sloped armor.
@@rickastley4050 trolling doesn't count as rickroll, sorry to break it to you. I know you're trying, but best you're able to do is be annoying and showcase how you guys can't even read the comment you're "answering" to -_-
You must made more warfear tech vidéos becouse thay are good explianed and presanted compered to other chanles .... thanks for for the video ceep on the good work 🤝🤝👍
Tanks that were sloped made the compromises of having heavier weight and smaller crew compartments. The T-34 series have very good sloped armor but is notorious for its discomfort and cramped interior. It can also explain the differences in comfort to, let’s say, a tiger tank. The crew space and comfort was significantly better than most allied tanks which can explain as a reason why tiger tanks preformed better on battlefields than most allied tanks (other reasons are like better cannons, crew experts, etc).
5:01 There are a lot of maps, but you can't choose the ones you play on. The matchmaker does that, picking a random map of the current map pool (which isn't all the maps). Also "using models and vehicle characteristics from history" is a nice meme at this point of the game. If you want historically more accurate tanks, you shouldn't play World of Tanks but War Thunder instead.
War thunder isn't even close to historically accurate with their tanks lol. Shermans are slower than the Panther A Jumbos outrun normal Shermans, The T77 shot on the 90mm, a shot specifically designed to kill panthers, can't kill panthers. British not having APDS on their firefly. I could go on.
They got to a limit where, in theory, you could make a tank with a massive engine and really, really thick armour but logistically there's a maximum size and weight that's feasible.
Not true, the british 2 pndr anti tank gun produced 2,600 F/S while the german 3.7cm KwK 36 L/45 (the weapons on the Matilda II and Panzer III, which clashed regularly and were designed at similar times) only had 2,500 F/S and immensely less armour penetration to boot, despite what im sure War Thunder tells you.
Man it's crazy how a new armor is made and is practically invulnerable for a while and then someone makes a new weapon that makes it no longer perfect armor and you have to improve the armor again and it keeps happening again and again
The fact he didn’t even bother to talk about Panther is insane.Probably the most overshadowed German tank of the war.Strange since it had some significant advantages over Tiger.I wish Germans put some of their legendary tank commanders into this tank too.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Some people spend their entire lives pursuing romance instead of pursuing the one thing that really matters. Sloped tank armor.
Y E S
Yes
Cast armor is better
Unless it’s Russian, then no amount of slope can save you
XD
We can all agree that first sloped armor is great for tanks IF they have high quality steel and if they have a powerful gun. Second Simple History's animations are getting better and better
no they're not
@@lurtzy_ possibly the only person with a sigma male pfp I haven’t agreed with.
@Don't read profile photo ok dude
@@fluffehpancakes1102 fortnite balls
No we all cant, some of us has played War Thunder and some of the armour on the tanks says it cant be pen but in reality they can, so that means we just Gaijin'd
Actually, the advantages of slopes were already known in the high middle ages as we see in armour and castle tower designs.
Thanks I just wanted to comment this.
lazerpig pals?
Many concepts are discovered, forgotten, then rediscovered at various points in history. Also the difference between making armor for tank shells vs medivil plate armor and siege tactics is quite large in terms of history and context.
@@NeutralGuyDoubleZero remember the analog machine from the ancient?
lazerpig?
I wouldn't necessarily call this a simple idea,because even though it seems simple in Concept, in order to do it requires a *lot* of design work, as you are needing to make compromises to get the slope to be at a useful angle, which massively cuts down on the interior volume and thus limits what you can have internally.
The whole 'sloped Armour is better' thing is actually been known for a long time, at least since the dreadnought battleship era if not even before, but the problem is no one could figure out a way to justify the expenses that sloped armour puts on the interior volume of whatever you are designing, so it wasn't used in many applications until the interwar era designs and the pressure cooker that was WWII
i've never seen anyone call a war a pressure cooker
Y-day I woke up, went to toilet and while I was sitting there I came to same consideration
@@random_potato2549 the term is used quite often when it comes to describing tech advances as a result of war.
"Just angle the armor, it'll make us win the war!"
"OK, where should I put the gunner, half of the barrel, the radio, the driver and half of the other crucial parts?"
"In the tank."
@@ThePersonWhoAsks "but the crew won't be able to escape easily!"
" that's why we have mass conscription; we lose one crew, 4 more are already being trained!"
The animation is getting better and better every new video comes out
No ,no it's not
Same with their ability to bullshit and steal other peoples content and prove points that got disproven a million and one times already
@@Shenaniganator101 salty
true been here since 2018
@@Erwin_Von_Heidenheim yes it has
There is a thing called a shell trap on some tanks, where the shell can ricochet off an armor plate, and go straight into a flat or weaker area of armor, which the shell can penetrate, which can result in the death of the tank.
This should bé couled (designer erer)not a shell Trap 🤣🤣🤣
Not anymore.
@@اسكندرفكار the official term is a shot trap
@@the_burger it could be possible on leopard 2s, assuming the shell hits the correct area
@@eaststarling7805 its not a Trap for thé shot its a good Luck for the shot
Fun fact: due to several factors, the protection of sloped armor increases sharply at around 55°.
Huh! 55° isn’t what comes to mind quickest (I mean it’s always 30, 45, 90, 180, or 360 that’s usually talked about in angles)
@@ritagasper1958 the likelihood of a round being deflected rather than being stopped rises, so less energy is exerted into the armor.
Yes, but the nice factor of the armor maxes at 69°
@@kyleplatter8954 ofc a kyle would say this
Another fun fact, shells do not penertrat on line of sight but angle down before resuming horizontal flight on exit. It still helps though.
Reminder:
Sloping tank armour removed interior space.
The thickness accounts for both the roof/front. While flat armour can have very thin roofs with much thicker fronts.
It's better, but not to the degree people think.
So more like a sidegrade than an upgrade
He should make a cold war weapons
thats a reason why the panther is a rather big tank. The germans didnt wanted to trade too much interior space
But you have to make flat armor thicker for it to have the same effect as sloped, meaning more weight and less mobility, which is why its hard to find a flat surface in modern tanks, they're all very edgy
@@caralho5237 It doesn’t mean more weight. You need the same amount of metal to enclose a given volume with x mm of armor regardless of how you arrange it.
The T-34 is an excellent example of the advantages and disadvantages, been the disadvantages an extremely cramped interior with few internal storage, also how blind a tank has to be shot at 27 times, also the 37mm was able to eliminate T-34 they destroyed about 2.000 at the beginning of Barbarossa, this due to the extreme tempering of soviet steel which cause spalling in the interior without penetration ending the crew inside.
I was looking for the extreme tempering comment
@@ZayP730 Am not confusing them, in 1941 at the start of Barbarossa russian lost around 20.000 tanks of which 2.300 were T-34s, so they had more than thousands of them, then the 37mm was able to deal with them as I said they lost 2.300 T-34s in 1941 alone.
@@ZayP730 The book "Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century by G.F. Krivosheev , John Erickson, Christine Barnard" made with soviet data from the archives in Moscow in the early 90's.
@@viceralman8450 Numbers look exaggerating. Soviets had T-34 which was effective against the initial Pz-iii and Pz-iv with short barrel.
@@livingroomtheatre174 So the soviets exaggerated their own loses sure.
7:20 the first tank to use sloped armor on all sides was the FCM 36, before the T 34.
its sloped armor covered even the suspension
I’m seriously impressed with how much smoother and detailed your animations have become. This must have taken a lot of effort…thank you for doing it!
“When I’m doubt, turn it a few degrees to the side”
-Sloped Armor engineer, probably
animations getting better each video!
@@recitationtohear no
Yes
If life has taught me something, enemy attacks will always penetrate and mine will always fail.
No matter how in favor the stats are 😂
Why are we so weak?
Bro you good?
War thunder player?
@@digitaal_boog It goes the same in WoT and WT. The difference? You die in one shot in WT.
I think some warship armor, as discussed by Drachinifiel, is also sloped.
Let's be honest we all enjoyed this video by having this.
*ruclips.net/video/vn8WdvkmTGs/видео.html*
Warship armor is mostly vertical because it designed to take hits from long distance which already have angled ballistic due to gravity. Angled armor plate in those situations only make it less effective
@@vunguyenxuanhoang7422 there's also the interior armor design or the armor between accessible areas and the exterior armor, from which the armor is spaced and slightly angled down (on heavier warships), as you are correct, they are meant for longer engagements
most warship armor is still sloped though if ever so slightly
CSS Virginia
@@vunguyenxuanhoang7422
Cruisers and battleships often had sloped belt plates to provide additional protection from long range gunfire, the plates were angled outwards by around 20 degrees (Outwards from top to bottom, top being most outward part of plate).
The fact that a T-34 let itself get hit 23 times by a getman anti tank gun speaks volumes to how blind T-34s made there crews
It is a perfect example of sloped armour as it shows its strengths, getting hit 23 times before penetration. And its weaknesses, cramped interior leading to poor visibility and therfore getting hit 23 times.
@@shredder8525 Poor visibility was due to the horrendous optics and periscopes made in Russia at the time due to lacking workforce and materials, not armor sloping.
@@shredder8525 no that had more to do with poor Soviet quality when it comes to optics more than anything
That has nothing remotely to do with blindness. What’s with all you idiots always saying “dude muh blind” in the comments here?
lets not forget about terrible optics, palcement of the optics inside the tank , glasses of optics cracking when firing the main gun, no commander coupola etc^^
The technical explanations in this video are making this one of my favorites by Simple History!
Tbh I was dreading this, as RUclips is often a BS minefield, but this is a pretty good job, 10/10 visually! I like the fact you point out the internal volume aspect, a very big part as volume, weight, dimensions are far more important than the armour mobility firepower trope. And the fact there is no weight saving was nicely covered. The two areas overlooked are that sloped armour is easier to overmatch (the rounds calibre is greater than armours thickness) this still effects the vehicle with sloping, becoming less effective if the rounds calibre overmatches the vertical equivalence of the plate and the larger the round the less effective the sloping is comparatively.
The other issue is that sloped plate is considerably less effective on any slope, that is if the vehicle is going down an incline the armours effective thickness is decreased by the same angle and battlefields are not always flat, while vertical armour can only gain loss thickness in the same scenario. Finally, there is edging effect - any opening in a sloped plate, be it a bow MG or in T-34’s case the drivers hatch, has a larger area by default, this increase the amount of area that can be stuck to one side where the metal is weaker.
Overall though a very good video, kudos
At 8:42 SImple History mentions how impressed German commanders were with the T-34. Now the part of the reason for this was that it was used as an excuse for German commanders after the war to blame the Russians' technologically advantageous weapons, so NATO can give them advisory jobs. The Germans and everyone else have always realized the advantages of sloped armor since the 12th century, hence why you see walls on forts and castles at an angle, they help to fight cannon balls and other large projectiles.
Now many would say the Tiger H1, Panzer 3, and 4 do not have sloped armor, whereas is in fact it did. The front glacis plate is sloped at 10 degrees as this was the most optimal sloping angle without the negatives of slope armor affecting performance too much. Now the reason why the Germans stuck with this angle was because of crew performance. Less angling means more crew comfort, and thus performance. Russian tankers would often get exhausted just from driving to the frontlines before having to fight. Another example would be the original inventor of the T-34 (I forgot his name) whom caught Pneumonia while driving a T-34 to Moscow and died! Although the Sherman did feature sloped armor it was really tall and fat to make up for the negatives of sloped armor, and to fit the big radial engine. Crew performance is especially important when on the offensive and trying to pull off quick decisive strategical operations that would quickly end a front.
This was why Hitler refocused his attention from Moscow to Stalingrad where a bunch of oil fields were, realizing they were not able to win a quick victory and have forced themselves into a war of attrition. Now his generals were confused at his decision. There was much bickering among the office and this is where Hitler's surviving Generals after WW2 blamed Hiter and his Schutzstaffel (SS, surprisingly a lot of people don't know what that stands for) for all the mistakes and 'dumb' decisions. A lot people don't give much credit to Hitler.
Now enough with me ranting on. I hope you've enjoyed my comment, and see you on Simple History's next of numerous mistakes we shall see in the future.
bro your like one step away from falling into wehraboo territory chill out
Warthunder: **you get knocked out when the enemy shoots your radio antenna**
OvErPrEsIoN
@@mpcrauzer That mechanic is pretty broken lol, how tf is it possible that a 155 mm HE shell is able to overpressure a Tiger II with a hit in the Upper plate 😅
As a logical next step, it'd be interesting to see a video discussing the evolution of tank ammunition types, starting with the basic High Explosive and Armor Piercing shots and moving into HEAT, various ballistic capped shells and eventually modern shells like APFSDS.
That should be:
-HE (High Explosive)
-AP (Armor Piercing)
-APHE (Armor Piercing High Explosive)
-APHEBC (Armor Piercing High Explosive Ballistic Capped)
-APCR (Armor Piercing Composite Rigid)
-HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank)
-APDS(Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot)
-HESH (High Explosive Squash Head)
-HEATFS (High Explosive Anti Tank Fin Stabilized)
-APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot)
@@waifuhunter9815 "hey jerry look at this new round i made"
"sir what will it be called"
as it shows the guy mashing the keyboard
@@waifuhunter9815 You missing a Lot of Shell types, and AT Guided and non-guided missiles
8:00 I wouldn't particularly call that instance a good example for how good the t34 or its armor was.
I mean 1st of the fact that the crew didn't notice over 20 shots hitting their tank or better from where they got fired at from speaks books.
And 2nd that particular t34 was reported to be unfit for continued service as the armor spalling inside (caused by the insanely high hardening to 600 brinell) and the low quality welds caused so much damage to the integrity of the hull and parts inside the tank that it had to be scrapped
8:25
And because of the the high hardness of the steel, it became incredibly brittle causing aforementioned spalling and weld cracks from small things like 37mm ap or in 1 insanely stupid instance by a volley of 20mm he fire from a desperate AA crew.
Wich more often than not caused the tank to be knocked out, the crew to be knocked unconscious or to be evacuated.
All of this can be seen from books like "soviet causalities and combat losses in the 20th century" in Wich for one over 2000 t34s were lost in the 1st year of Barbarossa alone and 60% of all t34 being lost to the (conventional) pz3 (not StuG or stuff like that just pz3)
"the tanks of oepration barbarossa" By Kavalerschik also show it brilliantly.
Even a "perfect" T34 would have weak spots against 37mm pak apparently. But due to.... the very qualitfy manufacturing those areas icnreased. and Yeah spalling. He worked pretty good
@@tizi087 I don't understand your point.
Just so I get this correct, could you please elaborate further?
@@guppiapfeljustleopardthing8756 the first thing is another book about tanks, written by an engineer
The second Part is abiut Metallurgy. To make the T34 Plater hoe they are you need to first Producer them. There the soviets made them super Brittle. Then kn order to construct the tank they sometimes needed to bend some plates. To do that they heated them, making anything even worse. As a resukt in some areas even the 37mm had a chance of penetratoon
I have been playing War Thunder for like a little over a month now and the penetration system in it is just really detailed, sloped and straight armor platings Make a huge difference when your under enemy tank fire. and you yourself also have to find ways to penetrate the enemy tanks armor by studying which historical weakness each tank in the game has. im still learning a lot from the games penetration system.
Play germany and you wont have to aim for weakspots
war thunder is all about angling
@@caralho5237 чет у меня не получается на моем Т-IV F2
meanwhile WoT: *health bar*
@@karantikoo9302 shooting the copula which it won't hurt the entire tank but in wot it gets blown up lol
Any channel that educates people like simple history and kurzgesagt deserves praise.
I thought this video was going to be a very simple one, extolling the capacity of sloped armour to deflect shells and increase relative armour depth. I was happily surprised. Well done.
"we didn't even scratch it!"
"It didn't go through!"
"That one bounced!"
9:41 That Tiger 1H's hull machine gunner is causing friendly fire
Sloping was used way before, especially in forts after the mass introduction of cannons.
Which makes you wonder why they didn't apply it to tanks from the start....to ALL tanks.
@@ecurb10 the very first tank fielded has sloped armor. The first German tank fielded has a "pike nose" like the later IS series tanks. There are dozens of tanks with sloped armor that were all around well before the T34.
Designers knew this, and DID implement it when they felt it necessary.
@@jurassicturtle3666 Yes I agree that this was known and used before. I'm just mystified as to why then didn't they implement it with ALL their Panzers (except the Panther)?
Yes there were some others, but with German (and British) tanks it seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
"...and DID implement it when they felt it necessary" - well, whenever is it NOT necessary???
@@ecurb10 I think it's a bit of a hindsight issue. Many early British tanks had sloped armor, but the armor was so thin because of the intended purposes of the vehicles that in practice it didn't make a difference. Granted, British armor doctrine was terrible and was completely exposed in North Africa, but still they were designed with sloped armor.
As for other vehicles, and now I'm not an engineer myself, but I'd hazard a guess that there were many instances where things like structural integrity and interior dimensional space were simply prioritized. Or perhaps they were afraid of shot traps? Or maybe they didn't properly value armor protection as designers and not crewmen. But still, the root of the issue is that a LOT of tanks had sloped armor long before the T-34. The opening scenes in this video even depict the BT series tanks, based off of the Christie designs, which again feature sloped armor in the front.
I believe the T-34 gets the credit it does because it just so happened to be the right amount of armor at the right slope in the right period of the war to result in something like 20+ shots deflecting off of them.
@@ecurb10
Because it has major engineering, ergonomic, and other issues when on tanks.
Loved this video! I was interested in the shapes and contours of tanks. Awesome video! Keep them coming!
Another thing to consider is the quality of the steel if you have terrible quality steel sloped armour will do very little to help that why t 34 with sloped armour suffered so much because the quality of the steel was terrible
And 50 mm cannon could penetrate t 34 armour
It's like they get sort of the facts right, but leave out ALOT of important stuff.
oml thank you! on paper the 50mm couldnt pen the t34, but in reality it would just crack the armor and litterally break the tank, or actually penetrate it because it was not made up to quality. meanwhile a 75mm or an 88mm will fucking crack a t34 open like a can of beans
Nyet T-34s can defeat all US Abrams tanks cause they're made of Stalinium, greatest metal. T-34 made to fly once and destroy all German 8th army but only stop as Mishka ran out of Vodka.
Thank god people who actually do there research
People wonder why the steel quality for vast majority of T-34s built during 1942-1945 were terrible.With the German invasion of USSR,Soviets lost more than half of their entire steel industry(located in Ukraine),including the plants that produced their highest quality steel and metal alloys.
Finally simple history put an IS2 in one of the animations and they nailed it.
Ikr
Sloped armor also had some issues which is why it wasn't utilized very often and still isn't very commonly utilized in tank design, namely that it damaged the amount of space available in the tank, often damaging crew efficiency and operations of the tank. This is especially true of the T34, which simply did not have enough room and really damages its operations long-term as such.
0:24 no, there was alot and I mean alot of sceptics for the tank when it first was made and saw action
And about that Pak 37 incident, the T-34 didn’t even notice during those 21 times that it had been fired upon and when it finally noticed they moved to run it over and missed because they couldn’t see out sights, and the reason the Pak 37 didn’t kill the T-34 was because at that time it was inadequate to what all that Allie’s we’re fielding, including the M4 Sherman
8:10 /// I heard about this story. It later turned out that it was a KW-1, not a T-34. The Germans often confused the two vehicles and wrote something different in their reports than was actually the case. This is how the indestructible T-34 was created.
In fact, the Germans had more problems with the British Matilda than with the T-34, which, when hit in the front plate from most German guns, welds broke and even without a puncture the tank was destroyed.
Please do a video on the battle of Delville wood. As a South African it would be truly amazing to see our troops remembered on this channel.
Thank you
People think that the T34 was cheap, effective and able to bounce shells. Yes, it was notable for having sloped armour, but it was an expensive design made cheapy
I’d not say it was expensive,sure early models were expensive but with the war went on unit cost decreased significantly and became comparable with that of a Panzer 2 or early Panzer 3s.Also the amount of man-hours it takes to build one.
Sloped Spaced armor is one real contender, a feature of protection that even beats Heat rounds
Great work!!! Keep up the hard work!!! Can't wait to see the next one!!! For your next one can you do the history of Maybe Star Wars maybe like that or maybe even how the Godfather was made? If that's ok of course? It's a movie now showing how it was made. It looks pretty cool! Also maybe you can do the battle of Berlin maybe or Stalingrad or maybe the Civil War maybe? Also maybe the Medal of Honor as well? That'd be cool and awesome and see the beginning history through the modern day of the Medal of Honor and also include the story of the Great Locomotive chase and also the escapees getting the Medal of Honor as well! I hope you like my ideas and will do it!!
Sloped armor doesn't save on weight except in a minor way, basically by reducing the interior space and the need for more rooftop armor. The video correctly points out that an angled armor plate weighs as much as a vertical plate of the same LOS thickness covering the same LOS area.
Sloped armor does increase chances of deflections, but on the other hand, it also increases the changes of penetration by overmatch. Overmatch is a phenomenon where a shell has a chance to burst through a plate at any angle as long as the nominal thickness (not LOS thickness) is less than the shell diameter. So vertical armor, with thicker plates, resists overmatch better. This was illustrated by data collected from Sherman hits. The early Shermans had a front glacis sloped at 57°. On occasion, a shell would penetrate which should not have been able to (due to overmatch). Later Shermans had the armor angle more vertical at 47° but had thicker plates to compensate. The LOS thickness was about the same, yet these mysterious overmatch penetrations were reduced. It was only after the war that the effect was discovered.
Nowadays, sloped armor has fallen out of favor. Modern long rod projectiles have a very low chance to deflect on anything other than extremely angled armor (like over 70°) and the loss of useful interior space with armor that sloped isn't worth it. So modern tanks generally have vertical armor, or mildly sloped armor, on all surfaces except for the front glacis. This is about the only area of the tank where extreme slopes are possible so we see relatively thin plates sloped at angles of 70° or more. Sides are generally vertical to allow for a very wide turret ring and thus a very big gun. Turrets tend to be nearly vertical on the sides and only slightly sloped on the front. Rear armor tends to be vertical as well. The exception used to be the soviet tanks such as the T-55 or T-62 with their "frying pan" turrets, but more modern turrets, like the T-90, have more vertical armor (with angled plates for mounting ERA on the outside)
Some of the WW2 designs with sloped armor had inadvertently introduced Shot traps like the KV tanks and the M26 Pershing. Basically, the sloped armor would deflect a shot into a concave part of the tank design where the shot might still have enough kinetic energy to go in. I guess this is still better than not sloping and have the shot go in the first place it hits. And only shots at certain angles would be deflected that way.
0:40 *intro of video*
Train in background: *STOP SLIPPIN ME WHEEEELS!!!!!*
As am ex-artillery officer I say the scattering of round particles is know as ''fragments'. 'Shrapnel' was a specific term used to describe the bullets that were placed in early airburst shells in WW1.
Though the Soviets did use slope armor, they were not the first. But they were the first to use it extensively and it proved to work all the way through the war for the Soviets. Overall very good video of slope armor on Soviet tanks.
Its why they had the biggest losses in tanks too
Because u know everything russia did worked
@Duy Đinh i mean sherman has slops but isnt incredible crammed like the t34 crusader is crammed with no slopes too even the panther was apparently crammed with slops those broke down all the time like the t34 too
@@Shenaniganator101 The Loss was due to crew training and tank doctrine ,and production quality and cheap design shortcuts to produce the tanks faster and cheaper, not due to slope armor.
@@Shenaniganator101 Also the fact that the metal treatment in the Soviet Union or Tank manufacturing was too high of a temperature so it made the metal brittle, sending spalling into the crew despite no penetration, thus making slope armor somewhat redundant on many tanks.
@@Shenaniganator101 the most produced has to be the most loss ofc
Very good job fellows!! Congratulations!
Actually, the advantages of slopes were already known in the high middle ages as we see in armour and castle tower designs.
8:11 acording to other sources, the tank crew didn’t even realize they were being shot at, and upon the turret jamming, tried to run over the AT gun. The driver missed
The animation is really improving!
(especially if you watch the older videos....)
From a purely horizontal perspective, sloped armor is really the same thickness as a much shorter, 90 degree vertical piece of the same overall weight. If you use the cosign of 45 degrees say, you've got a much longer piece of armor plate by about 1.4 times the length of the vertical piece to achieve the same horizontal thickness. It's when you get into overhead protection that you might gain some protection for the same weight, but only directly relating to the thickness of the top plating. Plunging fire would actually give the advantage back to the 90 degree verticle armor.
This was awesome great job expecting a video on composite armors next!
My favorite simple history narrator!
It's strange the way people often point at Soviet WW2 tanks as the first appearance of sloped armour, as though they've never looked at any earlier tanks...
You should make a game with this animations bro this one is so good I would definitely play it
Te animations are getting sooo good, you are doing an awesome work !
9:08 there is a mistake in tiger II H model. MG port in the hull should be on the right side, not the left.
Bro. Relax.
Don’t be that guy. Nobody likes that kind of guy.
This is a history lesson and also a math lesson combined into one video
While also being interesting, something both lessons normally fail at.
physics
"its armour was groundbreaking", no, its just the most well known, other nations had trialled similar ideas but decided it wasnt worth losing "something" while doing it, be it engine space, crew space, crew members, hull machineguns (more complex to make one for a sloping hull to a good level). The Russians on the other hand decided it "would do" as a basic design, but the actual design they wanted to build had to be halted due to the war.
The tank overall was ground breaking. I mean, these were mass produced and fought literally on the front lines in the east through differing environments that were mostly harsh. Russians are very known for their slope armour in general.
@@h0lynut They were mass produced because they were what was at hand. The tank literally killed its own creator lol. Retooling for a brand new tank takes a lot of time and effort which is why the British lagged behind on guns and tank development (losing everyting in France caused a backlog in demand).
Russians are "known" for it because its a meme in history channel, other nations had been using it from the 20s, but were never serious about another war so never really mass produced vehicles or were knocked out too quickly to be well known (like France).
@@mitchverr9330 honestly you just sound a bit anti russian based on how you use your words. My prior statement still stands as i do believe the tank was quite good despite the situation in the USSR and these very tanks are what marched all the way to Berlin.
@@parttimecripple so i agree compared the german engineering, the t34 tank was at a disadvantage. However, one ought to know the tiger 1 was a heavy tank whereas the t34 a medium. Like i said, despite the disadvantages, the t34 was really an exceptional tank that got the job done.
@@h0lynut It isnt anti russian, its a simple fact lol. Its got a mythos around it due to the history channel/Germans "needing" an excuse as to why they lost to the Russians etc. Its effectively the Russian version of the Ronson myth around the Sherman.
It speaks more to the bravery of the poor buggers put in the damn thing, having to go to war in a vehicle which had a massive crew death rate compared to pretty much any other vehicle.
"That saved many lives"
*looks at the t-34*
*armor cracked because of the high hardness of the steel, meaning that 50% of the total ammount of dead T-34 crew members happened because of the armor cracking and spalling*
By 1942 most of the t34s were destroyed by panzer 3s
@@fishyfish6050 yep
Long barrel panzer 4 dint appeared until what, 1942?
And tiger apeared in around mid of 1942 iirc
@@tinchorb1340 the long barreled panzer 4 came like early to mid 1942 but there wasnt alot of them still when they first entered battle
@@tinchorb1340 the tiger appeared late 1942 in leningrad from what i know
@@fishyfish6050 yes, i know it appeared in leningrad
But i dont remeber if it was mid or late 1942
Y’all really out here thinking the t34 invented sloping when literally everyone knew about the effects since the 1500s, but chose not to use it cause it made for terrible ergonomics.
You really out here not watching the whole video before you comment because they literally mention the Leonardo da Vinci tank
@@The7Reaper I was referring to the comments calling the t34s sloped armour a straight upgrade to all other tanks at the time without realizing that it has disadvantages and saying all other tanks without sloped armour suffered as an effect
Eh, it depends on the tank design. For example, the sloped armor of the T-34 made it difficult to escape in a hurry. Meaning, if a fire broke out, you’d likely be caught in the ensuing explosion. Having greater crew space is why the M4 Sherman, despite having an 80% burn rate, had an 80% crew survival rate. That helped a lot, as these crews later went on to become better tankers, and formed more tank aces. Something which was uncommon in Russian tanks of the war.
Depends on which Shermans your talking about.
Finally!!! Slopped armor!!
The power of angles has never been stronger
Germans: no I don’t think I will
Fax
*Maus has joined the chat*
German tanks only had 10 too 20mm sloped armor but still the armor was very thick on most german tanks
The idea of sloped armor has existed since the medieval era (i think). Some castles have sloped walls as it helps with artillery for the same reasons named in the video.
also the knight armor bulge help deflect armor shots or early handcannons
There were tanks with sloped armour before the t-34...
What people never add is that AP has a harder time piercing angled plates even if the thickness is identical.
If the relative thickness is 30mm, but one is 15mm at 60 degrees, the round will more easily pen the unangled plate as the force is used more efficiently. Nobody ever mentions this very important factor.
This explains why the early war German tanks looked so much different compared to those produced after 1942.
"A Tiger, drinks fuel like it's beer."
And by the way, when you look at the German tanks of that time including the atmosphere in general, it gives you a different feeling..
Dreadnoughts, armored trains and some early tanks like A7V: sloped armor? Angled plates? Nope, never heard of them. What? _Nope, history says T-34 invented basic geometry, haven't you heard?_
The french somua s35 and b1 heavy tank had sloped armour before the russians
@@fishyfish6050 1)learn to read. Sloped armor predates ANY tanks. Short of Da Vinci one if you want to stretch the definitions and reality a bit:D Which also had it, hmm...
2)learn to read french. Char 2C or FCM F1 is what french would call even a remote analogue of "heavy tank". B1 was battle tank, it was a medium tank. Same as Chrurchill, which was an infantry tank ie another type of medium tank. Assault, infantry, cruiser, cavalry, fire support. Medium tanks have classifications, they have specialization. Heavy tanks don't. Because they (almost) never cut corners neither on price, nor on cost.
@@TheArklyte s35 had an all-around sloped armor and the benefits of sloped armor had already been known since the medieval era with the Talus Fortification. They sloped the castle wall to deflect cannon ball so stop thinking that the t34 invented sloped armor.
@@rickastley4050 trolling doesn't count as rickroll, sorry to break it to you. I know you're trying, but best you're able to do is be annoying and showcase how you guys can't even read the comment you're "answering" to -_-
You didn't actually watch the video, did you?
This is prolly the best channel on RUclips wait it is the best channel .
It's fine to have an opinion but I think there's better options
4:49 i think it's a better sponsorship war thinder for angled armor since they don't use healt bars and use science
Wow. Great explanation
Great video! Could you cover spalling and shell types next?
This is so cool. The animations are awesome
War Thunder easy win
The ending bit reminds me of this quote:
"I prefer the sound of bullets flying over the sound of silence!"
- By George who could that be?
You must made more warfear tech vidéos becouse thay are good explianed and presanted compered to other chanles .... thanks for for the video ceep on the good work 🤝🤝👍
Tanks that were sloped made the compromises of having heavier weight and smaller crew compartments. The T-34 series have very good sloped armor but is notorious for its discomfort and cramped interior. It can also explain the differences in comfort to, let’s say, a tiger tank. The crew space and comfort was significantly better than most allied tanks which can explain as a reason why tiger tanks preformed better on battlefields than most allied tanks (other reasons are like better cannons, crew experts, etc).
Yep,Tiger was a huge rectangle box with a ton of space for the crew.
5:01 There are a lot of maps, but you can't choose the ones you play on. The matchmaker does that, picking a random map of the current map pool (which isn't all the maps).
Also "using models and vehicle characteristics from history" is a nice meme at this point of the game. If you want historically more accurate tanks, you shouldn't play World of Tanks but War Thunder instead.
War thunder isn't even close to historically accurate with their tanks lol.
Shermans are slower than the Panther A
Jumbos outrun normal Shermans,
The T77 shot on the 90mm, a shot specifically designed to kill panthers, can't kill panthers.
British not having APDS on their firefly.
I could go on.
Chất lượng, Sỹ Luân chắc thích bản Cover này lắm này! Chúc mừng em cùng toàn thể Ekip F. Studio
We have to remember that this feature to tanks saved many lives but Also ended many more on the receiving end of the barrel
and
They got to a limit where, in theory, you could make a tank with a massive engine and really, really thick armour but logistically there's a maximum size and weight that's feasible.
Short barrel gun = less velocity and range
This lesson was learned the hard way
Not true, the british 2 pndr anti tank gun produced 2,600 F/S while the german 3.7cm KwK 36 L/45 (the weapons on the Matilda II and Panzer III, which clashed regularly and were designed at similar times) only had 2,500 F/S and immensely less armour penetration to boot, despite what im sure War Thunder tells you.
Fricking mortars dude
I love your channel keep up the great stuff!!
In the T34, I believe it was the sloped armor of the hull that reduced the diameter and hence the volume of the turret.
Great Physics lesson at the beginning! And great video overall!
T34 was a very good tank, after 1942 improvements in the tank were made and military had improved.
T34 is an American heavy tank
Most sane Commieboo i encountered to this day.
Well T-34 did it’s job,but it was far from being a great tank.
fun fact: sloped armor has been used since the renaissance when it was used on castle walls to deflect cannonballs
Sloped armor. No problem for anyone who knows the sacred equation of y = mx + b
Never thought I’d get a physics lesson out of this channel :)
Sloped Armour: How I lose every game of War Thunder
Love the videos!
It took me 50 years of studying WW 2 to realize that the Panther was just a German T-34, with its sloped frontal armor.
except it was expensive af to build
@@fluffehpancakes1102 not really, near the end of the war the panther was about as expensive as the pz4
@@yellowcrayonkid i think that it was easy to producea panther than a panzer 4
@@tinchorb1340 and harder to repair than a pz 4
@@xahmadx6442 well
By late war
Panzer 4 production stopped
So, it might have been harder to find spare parts
Man it's crazy how a new armor is made and is practically invulnerable for a while and then someone makes a new weapon that makes it no longer perfect armor and you have to improve the armor again and it keeps happening again and again
What is the background music playing at around the 10:00 minute mark?
Ya same , any clue?
Animation quality is very good 👍 👌
>sloped armor saving many lifes
>shows t34 tank, that killed most of it's crew with its own armor
My favorite kind of sloped armor is the kind that deflects incoming shells right into shot traps or weak spots. >:)
Okay so pause the video @0:18 and tell me the armour on the front of the first British tank isn't sloped lol
Play world of tanks with this tip in mind all the time. It’s a must.
7:32 yeaaaa if steel wasn;t so brittle that 50mm apcbc didnt turn into hesh round...
The fact he didn’t even bother to talk about Panther is insane.Probably the most overshadowed German tank of the war.Strange since it had some significant advantages over Tiger.I wish Germans put some of their legendary tank commanders into this tank too.
Overshadowed? Nah man the Panzer III is even more overshadowed