Then do tell me where in this graph, which you quoted, said turret armour is better protected then the rest if you are not saying RHAe?
View attachment 942273
You use a graphic that listed RHAe as your reference point that tanks in that bit are better protected than the rest. Which is first of all, again, not what we had talk about, and second of all, it did not related to what we are talking about. Again, if tanks are better protected by certain angle at that particular point, then there
ALWAYS exist an angle that were LEAST protected by the same point if the entry angle are different.
And still you are too stupid to realise why they use sloped armour in that part of the tank, which I had already explained but you nonchalantly burst it off as "It's obvious captain obvious comment" without even realise why I put that on, you don't have enough space to work in that area, that's why the armour is sloped, and that's what RHAe implied, because sloped armour will always be smaller in thickness, that's why you put it on a slope, otherwise you would have used spaced composited armour instead of slope. Again, if you read the leaked document between the line, you know that the frontal hull is around 60-80 degree slope, yet it offer 650-750 RHAe, you then look at the turret, it's on a 30 degree slope, ad it offer 1000 RHAe. That tells you that part of turret armour is at least half as thin as the hull armour. But you would not have a clue on that now don't ya?
That's your mistake, instead of owning up to it like a grown man, you ride it thru like a monkey.
THIS POST ONLY SHOW THAT YOU KNOW THE SQUARE ROOT OF JACK SHIT ABOUT TANKS. I do not expect this post of mind will be explained or refuted by any technicality from you, but what I do expect is name calling and personal insult from you.
