okay so one unknown, polish language wordpress site says it should be ‘uniform’ even though to achieve that that would require the removal of the entire front of the tank, considering the front of the m6 even without the machine gun yoke is not uniform at all
2 Likes
Great you used an random polish webside missquoting it’s source to cherrypick your claim…
“To provide a protection equivalent to 7 1/2 inces of vertical armour”
3 Likes
why the wrong page, based on R. Hunnicutt, Firepower: History of American Heavy Tanks, 1988
R. J. Icks, The M6 Heavy and M26 Pershing, 1971
This is literally from that book… The polish page simply missunderstood the book or a translation issue.
So what’s with the tank? One 191mm plate, or two plates of different thickness?
Nothing it already archives the protection, keep in mind that the protection analysis already shows a vertical equivalent protection, which is literally what the book refers to.
yes, but at one point, and then it is less than 190
it is effective angulation 171 mm, where is 191mm?
Again equivalent protection doesnt mean that the sum of the actual normal thickness of the plates is equal to 190mm just that it offers 190 mm of protection accouting for the construction angle… a t34’s hull an aquivalent protection is 90mm but the hull is only 45mm thick.
ok thx Nowel