Modern armour design

Perhaps advancements in projectile technologies have nullified any advantages previously held by sloping the armor.
If you think about it, no matter how much you slope the armor, you can still attack it straight on if your projectile and it's delivery system is clever enough.

Cobham armor doesn't bend well, thats the reason M-1s, Challengers and Leopards are box like. Thats the easy way of telling it. A little on-line research will give you the unclassified info. Russians use ceramic inserts which is easier to work with and if you look at the evolution of Russian MBT up to the T-80 and T-90. Russian engineer's look to improve on an design rather than start at square one. Hope my brief non techincal answer helps.

I must add that most anti tank missle used today are "smart" style weapons.
The Milan for instance is a pop up and hit missle.
It flys to the target and around 50 feet away it "pops up" and comes straight down on top of the target .(usually the turret)
Where the armor is the thinnest.
Most modern countrys have this type of weapon.
So sloping armor is not real effective against this type of attack.
We have also learned recently that RPG's are still an effective weapon against armor if the conditions are right.
So I think the designers are back to the drawing board trying to figure that one out.

I would say that tanks like the the M1 and the Challenger still have sloped armour. Both the front of the hull and the turret have very sharp angles. Also look at the new Turret on the Leopard 2 A5 very pointy. Sure the sides are boxy. But Tanks have allways had better armour at the front. I also agree with what the others have said about modern antie tank weapons. role of the Tank these days is more escort duty and a glorified APC. The day of the tank is coming to an end. Still has it uses for sure but in a more limited role.

My Uncle drove an M-48 in the 50's and he saw a model of an M-1 Abrams I was building,and said"That's one hell of a shot trap on that thing".He was referring to the space between the bottom of the turret and the top of the hull.Tanks from his era were designed to avoid this.I don't understand how the Abrams designers could overlook this.

>>My Uncle drove an M-48 in the 50's and he saw a model of an M-1 Abrams I was building,and said"That's one hell of a shot trap on that thing".He was referring to the space between the bottom of the turret and the top of the hull.Tanks from his era were designed to avoid this.I don't understand how the Abrams designers could overlook this.<<

You know, that was my question as well, I see tons of new armour designs with shot traps, I'm guessing that the designers have figured a way to overcome this, but who knows?

I think the odds of getting a shot in to that space during battle would be lucky at best.
A moving target ,in battle,and it has most likly seen you first.

The israelis have used the ball and chain armor to cover spaces like that on the back of the Merkava's though.

I have not read much about the development of modern armor, but I did take a class a couple semesters ago, that analyzed the composition, and molecular structure of materials. So, I will add my two cents, or more like a guess.

When you cast metal, you cant get the same strength out of the material, as when you pound it into slabs. Steel is strongest when you heat, pound, cool, then reheat, pound, cool, and repeat the steps several times. It is virtually impossible to achieve a high quality of steel when casting. So the conclusion that I have is that the US and other “smart” countries use slab construction because ultimately they want a higher quality of steel protecting their tankers. This is also why the Germans used this type of construction on their tanks in WWII.

Just my thought, correct me at any time.

Also, I can see how the Cobham armor would also affect construction.