Sloped armour earlier

Pretty poor photograph but T-34 with transmission on deck ...
T-34_M40-abandoned-px800.jpg

And another ...
t34_szaloga4.jpg

And finally a diagram
T-34%201940%20Welded%20Right_small.jpg
 

amphibulous

Banned
My argument was merely that eventually a big enough upgrade an equipment can win a war

This is true by definition (because of the meaning of "enough".) However, this does not mean that "enough" was possible in the context of WW2 for the Germans. I.e. you have mistaken the definition of a set with proof that an entity must belong to it...
 

amphibulous

Banned
What's the counter to multiple executor class star destroyers

If they are German ones, the schvartz:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjVatNQr-GM

Really: this is silly. Germany's opponents could not have countered "Executors" because the technology required would be impossibly advanced. WHICH ALSO APPLIES TO BUILDING THEM. That there is a ridiculous fantasy case where the German's opponents could not counter does not prove anything about the real world. I think you are attempting a reduction to absurdity argument, but you don't understand how one works. What you are attempting to now is like trying to persuade Woody Allen to box Mike Tyson on the grounds that he could win if a dragon appeared to help him.
 
Last edited:
This is true by definition (because of the meaning of "enough".) However, this does not mean that "enough" was possible in the context of WW2 for the Germans. I.e. you have mistaken the definition of a set with proof that an entity must belong to it...

Sorry could you that last bit in English? I play too many sports like rugby and lacrosse to have many brain cells left. And for going to the extreme in my arguments, I get that from my Dad. Still Spitfires trying to take out the TIE fighters. With the TIE bombers, the Battle of Britain would be over very quickly :D
 

amphibulous

Banned
Sorry could you that last bit in English? I play too many sports like rugby

Rugby English??? No.

But what people are saying here is that there is no non-ASB tactical/equipment based change that the Nazis could have made that would have won the war for them. Certainly not after WW2 started.

You have to remember that the German invasion of Russia was predicated on the belief the Russian military strength was something like half what it actually was, and that once the Germans invaded Russia they were isolated from the rest of the world's natural resources - the Russian rail link had been their only way past the British blockade, and the region they had conquered was deficient in food and key raw materials. This is an appalling strategic position; their only real hope was that one or more of their enemies would sicken at the butcher's bill or make a serious mistake.
 
Sloped armour's benefits assume a certain relationship between the attacker's gun and the armour hit. If the gun is higher then the effective slope is reduced. If it is only slightly sloped then it will turn the shell into the armour rather than glance it off.

Sloped armour looks 'cool' but takes up more space which means more armour area so the weight may not reduce even if you believe you can use thinner armour.

The lowest weight comes from installing eveything in the smallest possible box only using sloped armour where the slope can be into unused space in the box. Hence it's use on glacis plates and turret fronts.

A prime example is the Valentine tank that could carry effective armour on a small and low powered chassis by using a box tailored around the crew and power pack and letting the tracks etc. stand out from this box.

So earlier sloped armour would make a difference only if it were employed selectively. Soviet T34 replacements only really kept sloped armour fro the front. The slope on the turrets was due to the employment of cast armour allowing the turret walls to slope into otherwise unused space.
 

sharlin

Banned
But that assumes that Nazi Germany exists in a vacuum, and that it's opponents make no effort to develop new technologies to counter it's developments.

Julian don't be cruel and pop the naziwank with such things like reality now.
 
I think the sloped armour earlier is a neat possibility, but honestly it will probably just make Russia suffer more during the initial phase of Barbarossa. Russia will still come back to whip Berlin into place but it might delay things for a few months (though if there are more forces intact it might encourage Hitler to gamble more and result in bungling that causes the war to end *earlier*). France will still fall but the overall results will not change much.
 
What if the Nazis developed sloped armour for tanks in 1937- 1838 in time for the invasion of Poland.

What knock on effects would it have if the Nazis had sloped armour earlier and how much would this affect the invasion of Russia and other Battles.

Not sure it would make a big difference. The Germans overran Poland in 4-5 weeks and France in 6 weeks and had victories in N Africa right up until mid 1942 with the tanks they had. I don't think earlier sloped armour would win any of the battles they OTL lost.

If the Germans have sloped armour by 1938 then France and Britain and of course the USSR would know about it and look at their options. The British 6 pounder AT was already under development by 1939 and would have entered service in 1940 if it hadn't been for Dunkirk.

So the British would introduce the 6 pounder earlier and phase out the 2 pounder and look into developing their own sloped armour tanks if the army chiefs see an advantage.

The German panzers are still getting stuck by the 1941 Soviet winter no matter what armour they have.
 
Pretty poor photograph but T-34 with transmission on deck ...
T-34_M40-abandoned-px800.jpg


Well, hard to say if it was there just in case, or it was some evacuation attempt of demaged tank with transmission from other strapped to its deck to save truck space. Deffinitelly canon seems to be damaged.
 
I think the sloped armour earlier is a neat possibility, but honestly it will probably just make Russia suffer more during the initial phase of Barbarossa. Russia will still come back to whip Berlin into place but it might delay things for a few months (though if there are more forces intact it might encourage Hitler to gamble more and result in bungling that causes the war to end *earlier*). France will still fall but the overall results will not change much.
Doubtful the Soviets had plan for high power 107mm guns which will be sufficient for any tanks the Germans will throw at them. If the Soviets see German tanks with sloped armor they might build the KV-3.
 
A tank's primary job is not to fight tanks; it is a manoeuvre weapon. I.e. its job is to get through a whole in the enemy lines (probably made by arty and infantry) and to smash the rear areas and force the enemy to retreat from prepared positions - to force infantry out where artillery can kill it.

Thus the M4 Sherman, an excellent exploitation tank, with excellent reliability, and a great 75mm to use against infantry

The M3/M5 Stuart, a fast scout tank to find those areas

But the M6 Heavy Tank, needed for the initial Breakthru, when no hole was present, wasn't produced. P-47s and 155mm LongToms can only do so much.

And TDs were to do the fighting against other Tanks, independent of the Divisions CCA or CCB. Sometimes they were in the right place to act in that role.

A US AD was used like a Nazi Kampfgruppe, but without breakthru Panzer Company like the Tiger, and Sturmgeschütz assault gun Battalions.

That why even Patton had trouble with areas like Metz. Wrong tools.
 
Top