Tank Turret Shapes

Title is slightly misleading, I'm thinking of tank armour in general, really.

What Sumer said to me while critiquing my Sh99 really made me think:

If counter-sloping is getting to be as good an idea as sloped armour is, or was, and since APFSDS now performs better against sloped armour than a flat surface, what kind of (manned) turret would provide good ballistic protection in this age of armoured warfare?

And what new lessons are there to learn?

Lesson number 1: Your enemy will not be using only one type of ammunition against you.

Gun-pod?

You can't beat them for head on protection. Except maybe turret-less.

Okay. And back to the main question.

Okay. And back to the main question.

I think you missed my point.

Today, turret shape is dictated by a number of factors:

1. Front profile and side profile. Smaller front profiles usually require larger (longer) side profiles.

2. "Heavy armor" volume. That is the surface area of the turret that is heavily armored. As you require more protection, the volume that requires that protection must necessarily be smaller (the M1's armored volume on the front of the turret is actually smaller than the M60's for example).

3. As a result of the above, usually they try to maximize armored depth through sloping, which is one of the advantages to the "wedge" which the Leopard 2A5 introduced (source: Rolf Hilmes).

There are several unconventional turret styles which exist in concept, and have been used on NS. For example, the Lince uses a flat turret style, using a moving mantlet, which provides ammunition loading problems with the gun is depressed, but was seen as a good trade-off for the Lince (which, since I am obviously too lazy to ever write-up the Nakíl 2 I will just use the Lince to complement the Nakíl 1A2NG fleet).

For the most part, people here are stuck with conventional turret styles unless they do the research on other possibilities and accurately take into consideration the trade-offs.

Okay. And back to the main question.

.......





He's saying that optimizing your tank against a single type of ammunition will almost necessarily require a sacrifice against another type of ammunition, as well as create problems from indirect fire, missiles, et cetera.

And it's cheap as fuck to develop a new form of ammo, compared to rearmoring all of your tanks.

EDIT: and I imagine that, as armor demands get higher and weight issues get more acute, armor will necessarily become more and more integral to the structure, which will cause..... problems..... when repairing/rearmoring.

It's actually the opposite.

Yes, but I'm still designing the Sh92 and 99. I have not used them ICly, this is not an upgrade or rearmouring process.

And turrets still have to be designed. A ballistically-shaped turret is not a revolutionary new idea; I am simply wondering what would be the best ideas today.