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?
