Why did the Germans never slope the armor on the Pz. IV on a production model?

Panzer IV suspension was always overloaded, particularly in the front. Upgraded main armament likely compounded that overloading, and this might have precluded other weight gains such as op is suggesting.

i was sort of joking but it was a good tank and not a meme

this, the gun was bobbing around even when staionary because when they upgunned it it made the front too heavy

Except sloped armor reduces, not increases, weight.

No it wasn't.

the panther when it was actually working was clearly a better tank than the sherman

>Except sloped armor reduces, not increases, weight.
It does? How does it do that, and in particular how does it do that in Panzer IV?

seriously, do you F5 the archives searching for the term "Panther" so you can post your meme statistics over and over again?
It took you 8 minutes this time, congratz

Then why is it unable to get the first shot off in well over 75% of the combat cases, (Shooting first almost always leads to victory), despite having thicker armor and a heavier gun? And that's just in direct tank to tank comparison, what the Panther was primarily designed for; it was far worse as an infantry support vehicle, or in exploitation roles, since it had a far lower operational/strategic mobility.

>How does it do that

Covers the same area with less material without a reduction in effective thickness.

fake news, its well known that western tankers suffered from tiger fright and called any pzIV's or big german tanks tigers or panthers

You're telling me that the geometry of armor plating affects the effective thickness of the armor in combat. Yes, we all know that is theoretically true.

However, I didn't ask you whether or not a piece of armor plating would have more effective thickness with a sloped geometry, I asked you whether sloping the armor plating would increase the weight of Panzer IV. To determine this, we'd have to understand the structural elements of the Panzer, and whether these would be impacted.

Also, we'd have to analyze the right MG position and whether it would be affected and require additional weight gains, if it could be moved at all.

The driver's side position would also be affected, viewport would now be jacked up. This requires analysis.

But mostly, it's about the basic structure of the tank. Just mouthing "sloped armor is more effective" isn't answering the important questions, or even asking them.

I'm just answering your question about the front plate. If you can answer those others then by all means.

It was the best at tearing apart its own transmission.

No, you didn't answer my question, but you don't appear to understand the discussion, so carry on.

>I am literally asking you why something didn't happen not telling you to do it
Meanwhile:
>"Now I'm asking you what specifically"
Who's the brainlet? You are.

It's called a clarification. Because if he's asking me to prove something he clearly thinks I'm affirming not asking.

>It's called a clarification
Oh is that right asshole? Then why am I arguing for no reason and shitting up this thread with antagonistic posts like these?

Now that's a sweet doodle.

Because you're an insecure pos that needs to prove to anonymous people on the internet that he isn't a fucking failure.

Srsly. It's a simple question. Wtf was up with the design that made sloping the frontal armor impossible or not worth it?

not him, nobody said it was impossible it would require a redesign and halt production

>it would require a redesign
Well yes this is initially why I got upset because it's stating the obvious (changing the design would require engineers to redesign something) without actually answering the question.

It's effectively a non-answer. Hence why I clarified and asked specifically what in the design inhibits this or makes it too complicated.

I could go further and give examples of vehicles based on the pz IV chassis that were effectively quite different some might even consider those redesigning. This however would just go around in a circle as the end point, "what, specifically, in the design of the pz IV made the addition of a sloped frontal plate difficult or problematic enough to never be adopted?", the same.

only the best for Veeky Forums

that's what the panther was for

>but the panther did literally nothing

exactly

Wouldn't just sloping the armor of an existing tank e easier than designing an entirely new tank?

the panther was more than just sloping the armor

/2 they wanted a bigger gun as well

That's basically what this was

No, you've just shifted the weight of the upper glacis from over the first suspension wheel to right behind the drive wheel.

>Wouldn't just sloping the armor of an existing tank e easier than designing an entirely new tank?

nigger we're talking about german manufacturing and over-engineering autism

do you really think they're going to make easy for themselves

You've redesigned the upper armor plate to slope. Ceiling armor is not very thick, most of the mass in armor plating is anything that faces forward, like the sloped or vertical armor. To keep the same line-of-sight thickness, the sloped armor might be thinner, but also extends over a longer area, meaning mass of the armor plates is approximately the same. Center of mass of the armor will be in the center of the plate. Because the plate has been stretched forward, so has the center of gravity of the plate. Keep in mind this is the primary armor of the tank, and has significant mass, especially in uparmored versions.

>shitposting
>an argument about an unrelated tank
>guessing
>doodle
>critique of said doodle
>no one answers OP's question

this is why more people go to reddit

why don't you

>nobody answers OPs question
Because they thought 30/50/80mm of protection is good enough, and better protection is more weight on an already taxed suspension and transmission.
Because sloping the armor wasn't originally done to increase protection directly. If you just slope armor, without wanting to lose space, armor has to cover bigger area, which weight-wise is pretty much the same as if you up-armored original plate.
Sloping was primarily done because AP shell/shot hitting at an angle makes bounce more probable.
So sure, you could've done that for Pz. III and IV, but that would require making modifications to production, and it would also mean problems because center of gravity would move and it would tax suspension more. Later versions of Pz. IV had problems with front suspension anyway, due to bigger gun.
In any case, they used sloped armor for Panther, which was supposed to replace Pz. IV, and which was built in quite big numbers.

>be completely outnumbered and outproduced
>try to create better and better vehicles to utilize the limited vehicle crews you have access to
>your designs end up being flawed
>oh i know, we should have just kept producing panzer IV while every other nation continued to advance technologically and dwarf us economically

Germany totally could have won if they only made pzIV and outnumbered 1 to 5 by t-34s

What about oil though?

I'm not really trying to make a definitive claim here but its always seemed stupid to me when people act like germany was somehow "wrong" for trying to create miracle weapons. They NEEDED a miracle weapon.

...

>slightly changing one tank and not developing better tanks like panther and tiger would make Germany win
>every German tank ever was actually destroyed only by Soviet tanks and not artillery\aircraft\molotov cocktails\landmines\anti-tank rifles\list goes on

He's making fun of the idea that spamming Panzer IVs or STuGs would somehow have an effect on the outcome of the war since Germany was hopelessly outproduced anyways.

pardon, I visited /pol/ recently and I'm still recovering from arguing with stormfags