Why don't we use pike noses on our tanks anymore?

Then it'd be the spaced armour and ceramics getting shit done, while the pike nose just makes shit more expensive to manufacture.

How retarded can you be? The slope increases the thickness for the same weight. it ALL adds up.

My friend if it was expensive to produce in , USSR would not have done it

Composite armor works better at less oblique angles.

> How retarded can you be? The slope increases the thickness for the same weight. it ALL adds up.

> How retarded can you be? The boiling water sterilizes the wound and cleans out debris. it ALL adds up.

> How retarded can you be? Most people don’t get enough salt in their diets anyway. it ALL adds up.

Well... Technically you could. But a pike nose already sacrifices a lot of internal volume that could be filled with ammunition or fuel. You're technically already looking at modern day NERA, which uses angled plates already, but for a different purpose. pic related.

I assume you asked the question in OP post because of some experience in a tank game that shall not be named where you're probably fighting using APDS or APCBC or similar. Those shells don't tend to normalize as well as APFS. Hence the main strength of a pike nose- to bounce incoming shots is kind of thrown away when countering advanced APFS munitions. The thing with modern NERA plates is the fact they're usually already angled to maximize the effective thickness of an individual plate when the plate is designed to bulge in the direction of flight of the incoming shot. Combined with the fact a lot of NERA plates are already angles at 45 degrees to the frontal axis to maximize the volumetric thickness of the plate.
It's kind of complicated to explain, so I suggest reading up on Sovietarmorblog's page on the T-72's armor if you want an in-depth explanation as to how NERA works. I think after reading it, you'll understand why pike noses are only really practical to increase volumetric thickness of the NERA, rather than increase chance of completely saying fuck you to any APFS round that penetrates.

It also decreases internal volume. Combined with it is a matter of diminishing returns.

>The slope increases the thickness for the same weight.
you only have a weigh saving if you thin out your armor to compensate for a longer plate
but sloped armor has nearly no benefit against long rod penetrators, so the thinning will make it counter-productive
ceramic armor is better when unsloped as well, since sloping it causes a larger more ragged hole, making it less able to take multiple hits, while being too brittle for it to benefit from increased LoS thickness

you will see pike noses mounted facing downwards, the V-shaped hull, to deflect mines though

Same user, felt i needed to add this for m'visual aids

Attached: ePgAxLD.jpg (1037x778, 97K)

>The slope increases the thickness for the same weight.
Only if the shape you want to armour lends itself to the armour on top being sloped. If you're just looking at a vertical expanse then the shortest path to cover that is a straight vertical plate. Start angling that plate and the plate must be longer to cover the entire vertical distance. If you keep the effective thickness the same then the weight saving from that and the extra weight from the longer plate will cancel out exactly. Angling where it doesn't make sense also tends to make for horrible ergonomics inside, especially if you try to avoid the "weight savings cancel out" by leaning the plate inwards to remove a bit of roof. Which doesn't really do much for the weight anyway, since the roof armour is much thinner.

They did it, back when all these spaced armours and ceramics weren't a thing.
They did it, back when APFSDS wasn't a thing.
You know, all the shit that people are beating you over the head with as the reasons why the pike nose ain't around any more.
In short, they did it back when there was a fucking reason to do it. And since there was a fucking reason for it, they did cough up the dough. Because even the USSR could spend a bit to get better shit at time,s otherwise there wouldn't have been any IS3 to begin with, just a bunch more t34, which in turn would have been a simple box shape. Just cutting rectangular plates is easy. Cutting more complex shaped one, which often need the cuts themselves to be angled away from pure vertical (relative to a plate flat on the ground) is harder, and a puzzle like the IS3 nose will make you notice any deviations from perfect in a hurry when you try to put it together.

>boiling water doesn’t heal burn wounds
>of course not but it all adds up
I've heard that with scalds, it's actually good to put it near the source of heat initially, so the burn doesn't have a rapid temperature change.

>salt can’t replace sugar in a cookie recipe
>of course not but it all adds up
Adding a pinch of salt is quite common in baking, as it does contribute to the sweetness.

NOT SO SMART NOW ARE YA

why do all modern tanks still have sloped front plate? ha -- idoit

They don't.

Attached: gdzkH7W.jpg (800x450, 90K)

It kills interior space while only marginally improving the vertical slope.

Slope is a decreasing returns issue. After about 60 degrees from perpendicular you end up costing more than just increasing armor thickness. Eventually, you're not bouncing shots away from the tank but into other parts of the tank.

We need to go deeper.

Attached: 9.jpg (999x309, 90K)

Solutions in designing. Solutions in manufacturing. Solutions in protection.

Attached: 9.jpg (999x175, 58K)

A weapon to surpass Metal Gear...

Attached: 9.jpg (998x20, 11K)

Finally... face the fury of the Machine God!

Attached: 9.jpg (996x9, 5K)

careful
too much sloping has a very "steep" cost

A one-dimensional tank?

Attached: Huh.jpg (177x284, 4K)

30th post best post

>Why don't we use pike noses on our tanks anymore?

The pike only helps protecting against ballistic projectiles coming _directly_ from front; against shit coming from sides it makes penetration by older type shells significantly easier.

I think the idea kinda expired after WW2 kind of tank battles became next to impossible to be repeated

Attached: consider_the_following.png (680x383, 413K)

the theoretical best shape would actually be a sphere, the wedge and the pike are both ways to better approximate a sphere, hence why the T-55 and patton series both had hemispherical turreta which are even closer to a sphere than a pike

but the long rod penetrator made thin , sloped armor useless, so tanks went back to being blocky, with slopes reserved for non-ceramic bits

and yes, you actually lose slope when angled with a pike
a wedge becomes tougher when angled whereas a pike becomes more vulnerable

Whats the difference between APFS and APDS? They seem like the same thing to me, so why is APFS able to kill more armor?

The angle doesn't look normalized in that pic, could you explain what's supposed to happen?

APDSFS are longer and can penetrate deeper due to greater sectional density.

>the theoretical best shape would actually be a sphere

WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP SAYING THIS?!

A sphere might have the best interior space to surface area ratio but it offers a perpendicular shot to ALL ASPECTS. Tank armor is biased to the front anyway so you end up loosing out on frontal armor thickness to weight.

Also, most modern tanks have slopes. At the very least the glacis plate for all 3rd gen tanks are at steep angles.

I've never seen APFS without a DS somewhere in there. I've heard of APDS where they had a sabot'd round without fins but those didn't last long.

That honestly doesn't look like normalizing. I mean, you've prevented a bounce on a sharp angle but you're still penetrating the armor at a sharp angle. I'd say that's less that 10 degrees of normalization.

Notice how the inside part of that plate is splattered downwards? That's the round normalizing.

Also, modern sabot rounds are rated to go through over 2 feet of steel.

They definitely were a thing, some even rivalled the performance of early Soviet APFSDS.

Attached: L52A3.jpg (1000x500, 139K)

At least post a tank that's actually exist.

Attached: T-10.jpg (1920x940, 685K)

Attached: object 775.jpg (1024x405, 94K)

Impractical as it is, a modern Pike-nose would be fucking boner inducing.

Attached: T62Stand1_V.png (1920x1080, 1.11M)

looks more modern then armata. i bet it could take on abrahms.

That's where weight becomes an issue. Not to mention how much you're overthinking this. If you did a pike nose under a pike nose that also gets very costly to manufacture plus it would be near impossible to repair properly

it still held up in the early 60s
but it made obsolete by ATGMs, APFSDSs and the newly introduced composite armour

Attached: 1512688798623.jpg (768x1024, 141K)

while MBTs no longer have them, a few IFVs and APCs have some variant of it like the V-hull facing downwards to deflect mines
they generally dont have ceramic armor and they arent expecting a hit from long rods but they have a ton of danger from bombs and IEDs

>Lights up active IR to find a target
>gets shut down immedietely because Abrams have passive systems

Game?

MGS V : TPP

>I've heard of APDS where they had a sabot'd round without fins but those didn't last long.
the old 17-pdr had it
guns with 100mm and above started getting APFSDS all the time though

ERA and ceramic plates are the norm now, angling actually doesn't help anymore.

What about the armor type that the turret front on Leopard 2a5 and newer's have?
The sloped turret frontal armor is actually mostly hollow inside, but filled with armor plates in all weird angles. I've heard that the differently angle'd plates will break the penetrating rod.
AFTER the sloped armor comes the normal tank armor that you can see in Leopard 2a4

How'd they solve the stability issue, then? I mean, I know early Sabots were so bad that they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. I can't even imagine a round with even less accuracy.

Yes, but that's not a whole lot of normalization. Certainly not enough to counter the effect of sloped armor. Hell, you could coax more normalization out of a shaped charge.

I figured but that still leaves the question of APFS. I mean, how do you fit in fins without a sabot.

Ramming prow?

Made them longer, thinner and fun stablilised.

I play Warthunder, I have extensive knowledge on tank munitions and ballistic performance

You hapen to have a ballistics table for DM53A1 fired from L/55 that shows different ballistic values for computer and their effect on the accuarcy of the projectile?

I'd make fun but WT does a lot of research and puts in a lot of detail.

That was specific to the 17pdr where early rounds suffered sabot separation issues.
This was fixed post war and the 105mm APDS for the M68 had a dispersion of 0.19-0.21 mil