The deformation rate is relationated in how the forces are distibuted on the frame, the rounded shape distribute better the force around a larger area
in the hull, so the deformation is lower
This applies only based on two conditions:
1. The wall thickness remains the same in all dimensions of the curve. Such cannot be true in a 30-40 ton tank.
2. The curve is complete to transfer force around both sides of the impact sheer angle.
One of the reasons why it is so easy to pop a T-55/72 turret off (other than the idiotic policy of cased round stowage inside) is that the curvilinear
turret top meets a squared off ring race and _even if_ the round does not penetrate, the impact force translates straight down across rim of the
turret wall into the hull mount.
Now, look at a nominally 'straight' (slab sided) armor panel as being the best way to generate -space- behind the front face. And realize that the
level of protection provided is a function of BOTH the hardness of the strike panel AND the rigidity of it's mount to the rest of the armor system
(floor, roof, rear anchor point).
If the area behind this front panel looks like a right or isosceles triangle with the hypotenuse acting as a stiffener based on focusing impact force
through a lateral 'tripod' effect. Then the amount that the strike plate can yield in the plane of the impact as a function of total MJ force
(creating the initial moment transfer of penetration energy) is a function of how much that focussing of energy to a point is SECURED from shifting
by the horizontal frame also coming back and likely EBW'd to a secondary turret floor well ahead of the crew compartment.
Now, whether you fill the rest of the void beside/between the frames with more tilted panels to further absorb/deflect or frange a long rod or
chemical stream. Or go to some kind of exotic ceramic laminate to provide a gas:fluid diffusion that sheers it, the fact remains that if the tank
turret looks like this-
CREW AREA |_L or S_/_\
The VOLUME described by the Laminate or Spaced armor section ahead of the crew compartment is going to be _vastly_ denser, stiffer and _better
protected_ than an armor array that looks like a simple frying pan upside down ala-
but again also depends with the angle -in the case of the sloped armour-, like the comparation between the leoA5-6 and the M1, the sharped armour of
the leo have an effective angle to turn part of the vector force into tangential compression -i mean tangential over the armour-
It appears you understand the basics of shaping geometry on energy transfer (though I'll be danged if I'm going to potentially deflect even a
partial penetrator rod down through the front hull roof over the driver) but what you fail to 'get' is that an M-1 or similar vehicle has, not one
but likely Two Or More compartmentalized armor vessels. Albeit these only cover the frontal arc; they still provide an effectively MASSIVELY thicker
protection to direct fire than any rounded protection system.
The likely irony being that, while it is fully possible to mold ceramics to the inside of a curved surface (like thermos glass around the inside of an
aluminum tube), securing them there against impact and interior spalling is (let alone repairing them after) is probably just short of impossible. So
that, where the brittle ceramic material derives NO benefit from shaping (one way or the other) it is BETTER for the impact energy to be transfered as
directly as possible to multiple 'baffles' if you will of layered or spaced armor laminates set up as simple sequential strike plates behind the DU
or Steel front.
i.e. the notion that a rounded form offers better kinetic 'deflection' may be exactly the opposite of the theory the tank designer is working
In any case, the argument must remain that to get effective (deep) armor, you have to have the spall and/or fluid compression buildup void space
inside a _regular_ shape to provide adequate energy depletion before a final interior wall and spall liners is hit.
The question then being whether you first want to try to stop the penetration from happening at all by mounting the hardest tensile material you can
to the most rigid floor-to-roof stiffening frame before you exercise any secondary internal material/layering/spaced defense strategy.
And here too, it just doesn't make sense to reinforce the egg with angle iron since you not only haven't got the volume. But you are also
localizing stress at two points on the INTERIOR (weak) wall to do so.
The materials have nothing to do with the shape, you see a huge quantify of angles and compossed angles in tanks
simply physics, guys, simply physics
Simple Physics are why Iraq and Kuwait were littered with dead Russian Tanks in 1991.
I don't /care/ if these were 'export models' or 'badly crewed and commanded'. The simple fact is that the _basic configurations_ are largely the
same between home use and foreign military sale versions and thus 'no matter what materials' (as in dolly'd armor addon packages welded to the
OUTER front face of a space limited turret) are used, it was the thru-and-thru capabilities of the long rods that could and did kill tanks behind
berms or even behind other tanks that highlighted a major deficiency in the design inherent to an inability to shatter the round at the front face or
SLOW IT prior to penetrating the crew compartment.
Until and unless you can get your industry to fabricate _just one_ testbed gun that generates the same bore pressures and MJ muzzle energy as the M256
with a DU round (currently better than even the Leo2A6 for total energy at 2,000m). FIRE THAT TUBE at a frying pan tank with 'equivalent RHA' to a
similar design that uses vertical laminate/spaced armor with a hard tungsten or DU face plate, and _show_ that the former turret design survives
better at equvalent weight; you will never convince anybody that you know how to do anything but produce mass quantities of tracked coffins.
And THAT sir is a lesson in 'simple economics'. Them's as sell crap, no matter how cheap, don't do so for very long once higher grade
alternatives are avavailable.