As it shows the shell is turning into the armor.
Absolutely not.
If the round had turned like your animation shows, there wouldn't be a perfect straight cut in the lower part of the "penetration tunnel" from the entry point.
The upper part of the entry point in bent because in the first centimeters of travel, the armor left above was very thin, the friction with the shell was propably enough to soften the metal, and the velocity force of the shell did the rest.
Talking about the exit point yes, the shell turned, but simply because it didn't encounter any resistance below, while there was still something to go through above.
Something that would also be interesting to know is what kind of shell did this hole.
BTW:
“normalization” gets higher values with a greater shell diameter (that means more mass per mm²). In other words: Small calibers are worse against sloped armor.
That means angle has less effect on the penetration of large calibre shells(large compare to the thickness of plate it penetrates). That's why a 75mm or 88mm AP should penetrate an APC even it's hit on 10 degree.
You didn't understand the article I think. Yes, he says that larger calibers are more effective than smaller ones, but NOT that the deflection effect doesn't exist with bigger shells.
In other words, there's an actual effect INCREASING the armor effectiveness with sharp slopes whatever the caliber (a positive one, the OPPOSITE of your normalization theory), BUT this effect decreases with shell size.