Tank Angling: Historical or Stupid Game Mechanic?

So, recently I got a comment accusing me of being “a little too invested in playing videos games”, since I mentioned the angling of armor in reference to the penetration values of a gun in my Marder III video. Note that armor angling is the activity of turning the tank or its turret in a way to create an angle towards the enemy that increases the effective armor of one’s tank towards that particular enemy. Nowadays it is practiced mostly by gamers in War Thunder and World of Tanks, but the question is, was this always the case? So, is armor angling an activity invented by gamers or was it actually used by Tankers in World War 2 and later?
Comment
“One sign that a person is a little too invested in playing video games is when in a serious analysis of a real armored vehicle the phrase ‘if the armor is properly angled’ crops up. Real tankers don't worry about that other than having an imaginary ‘this side toward enemy’ sign on their frontal armor. They're a lot more concerned with finding the enemy and getting the first shot off, and real tanks don't instantly respond to keyboard movement commands.” (Comment on Marder III Ausf. H. Video)
Links to WW2Armor:
www.ww2armor.org/
/ ww2armor
/ @ww2armor
Screenshot from War Thunder and modified by vonKickass. Cover Idea: Military Aviation History.
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribes...
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/...
» SOURCES «
D 656/27: Die Tigerfibel. Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen, 1943.
D 655/27: Die Pantherfibel. Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen, 1944.
D 226/4: Merkblatt für die Bekämpfung der schweren englischen Panzerkampfwagen. Heft 4: Flak-Artillerie (Heer und Luftwaffe). Oberkommando des Heeres: Berlin, 1941.
Military Intelligence Division: Tactical and Technical Trends. Number 16. War Department: Washington, D.C., USA, 1943.
Handbuch für Panzerbesatzungen II: Mittlere Panzer. 3., überarbeitete und ergänzte Auflage, Militärverlag der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik: Berlin, German Democratic Republic, 1975.
Handbuch für Panzerbesatzungen I: Mittlere Panzer. 4., überarbeitete Auflage, Militärverlag der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik: Berlin, German Democratic Republic, 1976.
The Chieftain: Myths of American Armor. TankFest Northwest 2015
• Myths of American Armo...
#TankAngling,#HistoricalOrNot,#GameMechanics

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

I certainly have nothing to add to the above. Seems quite thorough. My suspicions are the same as yours: Modern tank side armor is far too vulnerable to modern ammunition types, especially compared to the front. Besides, if you angle to the guy you know about, you may be presenting a flank to the guy you don't know about. Also worth noting is the percentage of tanks killed without knowing it was getting shot at. Can't angle against anything you haven't seen!

[@BDNeon]

Visibility from tanks being what it was. I've played a few games that realistically simulate early 20th century armored warfare and if you're not sticking your head out you're just seeing a tiny cone of the world outside. I suppose though in real life you could just slightly move your head relative to the viewpoint to sweep your vision nearly 180 degrees through those viewports.

[@thomashanson6603]

Oh hello. Just watched the object 704 video. Did not expect to see you here.

[@alphablobmom5521]

Angling creates the trade offs of your silhouette becoming enlarged as well as perhaps making your tracks more vulnerable.

[@hanswang7891]

APFSDS still retains a high penetration value even at 5 degrees impact angle. On tanks with just around 80mm upper side armor and 20mm lower side armor (stats from T-72), even angling 5 degrees towards the enemy will make your side a weakspot, and especially on tanks like T-72 with the autoloader, a side penetration like that might lead to ammunition detonation, resulting in the loss of the tank

[@whitescar2]

I agree fully. My only counter-comment would be for IFVs which have far more homogenous armor layouts (and also fairly similar protection ratings to WWII tanks come to think of it). In an IFV vs IFV fight, with autocannons, mild angling might be beneficial. But that's a very niche situation and it would be far more preferable to use your mobility to not take those hits in the first place.

[@Jimbob7595]

If that guy had angled his comment he might have survived this counter attack.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

lol

[@rayotoxi1509]

Hahah he needs to play more video games xD

[@BigWheel.]

Angling comments is something you hear from someone spending too much time on Microsoft excel, you can't rotate text in any way on youtube.

[@prasyaspaceagency7067]

_I hope this work hehehe_

[@reneteodomiroinjanteguzman2841]

You are a big comment.

[@Stierlitz]

I love how this entire video is basically "OP is an idiot", but with footnotes and a list of primary sources.

[@thesaddestdude3575]

Indeed and yet he was respectfull towards OP which is how it should be, its the mark of proffesion!

[@Wolvenworks]

OP certainly got lawyered at this point

[@looinrims]

OP was an idiot

[@TheArklyte]

OP was more of an excuse to make a video on the topic. If you notice his comment was completely ignored by other people. So unlikely it would have been addressed by itself if he wasn't already thinking about making a video about that.

[@Neptune-or4vm]

@@TheArklyte That may be true, but there's still the creator factor. As a creator, you just think different to responses/comments like those. So yeah, I agree with you, just adding some thoughts to it.

[@merchanttube2036]

"So is armor angling an activity invented by gamers" You're forgetting the Third Reich consisted entirely of gamers

[@mrpeterson17]

That's why they were such sore losers

[@nineviaaware4910]

Gamer Reich

[@alphablobmom5521]

huh?

[@matchesburn]

"You're forgetting the Third Reich consisted entirely of gamers" Hiter ragequit. Wouldn't even face off Stalin in a 1v1 match.

[@canthi109]

@@matchesburn Hittler noob

[@WW2Armor]

Thanks for the shoutout, Bernhard! We miss you!

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Any time! I doubt I can make it this year, hopefully 2023 works out.

[@SkyFlaks]

*Tanks

[@cloudtail]

We used to hate you in the reenacting community (the german side) but apparently, you are getting better keep it up. Dont start blacklisting people from events again.

[@thesaddestdude3575]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Dude this was an awesome video! The whole susage armour thing is the most german thing ever.

[@soonerfrac4611]

It’s always interesting to see a keyboard warrior appropriately sat back down in a polite manner.

[@Krusesensei]

Another aspect: tank angling works best with boxy tanks. Round amor have a good angle from every side - but not a special good one at 'mealtime'

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Great point

[@Alpakinator]

Nevertheless, all tanks with decent side armour should heavily benefit from angling, even if they have round parts, like front od an early IS, or front edges of a cast armour sherman. Those are relatively small weakspots.

[@PAcifisti]

@@Alpakinator Pike nosed tanks get relatively large weakspots from angling - it's often quite large section and it becomes even larger when turned towards the enemy. The Sherman probably did fine angling as its round corner was relatively small.

[@Alpakinator]

Yeah, fair point. I was thinking about ww2 tanks used in combat when writing the comment.

[@SaturnusDK]

Round armour is always completely flat one place no matter what angle you see it from, and therefore is easier to penetrate from any angle. Modern reactive and composite armour types must under no circumstances be angled. They are designed specifically to work optimally when hit at the least impact angle.

[@user-oo8xp2rf1k]

I'm still going to angle my sausages so I can get more mustard on them.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

:D

[@MrGrimsmith]

An interesting and informed rebuttal, courteous as expected from you. It's still a standard thing in modern tanks but engineered in rather than achieved through manouvre. There's also a significant difference in the degree of armour in different areas, as you mentioned. The sloping used nowadays, reinforcement of shot trap areas and overall armour layout as well as the munitions they have to defend against would tend to make the angling approach both unnecessary and counterproductive.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

> An interesting and informed rebuttal, courteous as expected from you. thank you, it was my best Diplomacy roll so far :D

[@brosefmalkovitch3121]

I'd also argue further than modern tanks are designed to simply not take a hit in the first place through having great maneuverability and better visibility and coordination between the crew.

[@TheDoctor1225]

Agreed, and far more than was called for, given the rather snide and insulting way of starting out the initial comment that was being replied to. I've never understood why you can't simply disagree with someone without having to take a superior, sneering attitude - although I suppose the advent of the keyboard warrior (safely anonymous behind their keys) has given rise to that kind of thing, now more than ever.

[@MrGrimsmith]

@@TheDoctor1225 For me courtesy in text is the default response. I often disagree but always try to start an informed argument rather than throw snide remarks or rant. I'm equally capable of both, I choose to do otherwise. The keyboard warrior culture? They are not as anonymous as they choose to believe. It generally wouldn't hurt them to be a touch more polite :)

[@MrGrimsmith]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized We know you maxed out INT and WIS, a lucky CHA roll is going to happen *eventually* but eh, I expect to hear reasoned, somewhat Germanic, arguments from you. So with evidence and stuff. You've yet to disappoint me :)

[@TrangleC]

I watched a lot of old Bundeswehr training videos from the late 50s a few years ago and what struck me as most interesting about the tank training material was that they didn't even mention the word "armor" (I mean the German equivalent of course.) once. They teach the drivers to point the front towards the enemy, but not because the armor is thickest there, but to minimize the tank's silhouette and make it the smallest possible target (not just for hitting, but mostly for detection). The "between the lines" message you get from those old training videos is that armor really wasn't something considered a factor in combat. They pretty much dismiss it and treat it at best like some "last ditch", "hail Mary", "might maybe do something after everything else failed" kind of thing. The mentality seems to have been that relying on armor on a tank in combat is like relying on your car's airbag and seat belt to get you from A to B safely, instead of your driving skills.

[@chiefturion7134]

Pretty much the idea was, don't get shot

[@hoanglongnguyeno3173]

This is mostly because during the time of Leonard 1 tank, the technologies of guns and shells were outpacing that of armor materials. So, it was thought that it's impossible for armor to defeat high-penetration shells anyway, so might as well just use minimal armor, improve tank mobility and rely more on stealth-detection instead. This was common thought until the application of composite armor and reactive parts.

[@TrangleC]

@@hoanglongnguyeno3173 Those videos were from the 50s, before the time of the Leopard 1, when the newly formed German "Bundeswehr" was still using American M41, M47 and M48 tanks. Those did not have super thick armor either, of course, but they also didn't face super high penetration weapons yet. At that time, most military forces still considered armor important. They just didn't teach the soldiers to use armor like a tool. Another interesting detail is that the German army never used explosive reactive armor, even though it was invented by a German engineer. I think it was after the "6 Day War" in Israel, that that German guy traveled to the battlefields to examine the effects of modern weapons on wrecked tanks and he found that most had been shot right through, with entry and exit holes. The only exception were those tanks where the projectile hit the ammunition and caused a explosion inside the tank. In those cases there was only a entry hole, but no exit hole. That gave him the idea that you could create that effect outside of the tank and he started developing the first ERA armor. The German army never used it though, because in their Combined Arms Doctrine, mechanized infantry and tanks were supposed to operate very closely together and having exploding armor on the tanks would have been too dangerous for the "Panzergrenadiere".

[@iron_side5674]

Because the Leopard basically didnt really have any effective armor for the times, it fas fast and accurate tho. Also it´s in line with the rules of modern warfare. If you don´t have to be there, don´t be there. If you have to be there, don´t be seen. If you have to be seen, don´t get shot. If you have to get shot, don´t get penetrated. Notice how ACTUAL contact with an enemy and or shell is quite far down the list.

[@TrangleC]

@@iron_side5674 Generally right, but like the previous commenter, you misunderstood that this had nothing to do with the Leopard. I'm talking about the mid- to late 50s, when the German "Bundeswehr" was still using American tanks, about 20 years before the Leopard was introduced. So this mentality to not rely on armor predates the Leopard. The main battle tank of the Bundeswehr at the time was the M48 and despite being classified as a "Medium Tank", it was quite well armored by the standards of the time, better than a Tiger 1. And it didn't face super high penetration weapons yet. So they reasonably could have relied on armor protection to some extend at that time, but they still didn't. If this were about the era of the Leopard 1, which basically had no armor, I would not have found it remarkable or interesting that those training videos treat armor as a non-factor.

[@arc00ta]

I love old manuals and how they describe things in a way that a layman can understand. When I was in the military still I worked on a piece of gear that had its last manual revision in 1946 and it had pictures of little elves in it showing how to do this and that. My favorite part was the first line in the introduction page: "Only skilled men shall perform repairs on this unit".

[@user-njyzcip]

@Erik Johansson M2HB?

[@arc00ta]

@@carlwheezerofsouls3273 no, that’s not what it means at all. They just didn’t cater language to retards back then.

[@looinrims]

“Angling is irrelevant to real tankers” All weapon tests and trials ever: “what is the penetration against an armor plate angled at 30 degrees at what ranges?”

[@Michalinus]

Angling a tank and angled armour are 2 diffrent things. Angling tank is act of turning your tank so enemy can't see your front directly. Test against angled armour were done to compare how rounds will work against construction angles. As tank like t-34 have all sides of the hull angled to increase effective thickness. And as rounds have a drop of thanks to limited muzzle velocity(in WW2 we are talking about 800 m/s for AP and maybe 1200 m/s for APDS/APCR) it could be easier to penetrate angled armour plate at 1000 m.

[@colincampbell767]

As somebody was a 'real tanker' it was relevant - as something not to do. Because this gives the enemy at shot at your thinner side armor. And sabot rounds have tips that dig into the armor, so they won't ricochet when hitting at an angle.

[@looinrims]

@@colincampbell767 not sure I accept the anecdote but to make it pointless anyway we aren’t talking about today we are talking about then

[@TitaniusAnglesmith]

@@colincampbell767 Did you watch the video?

[@shaggings]

@@colincampbell767 obviously in modern tanks it's useless since the side armor is thin enough to get penetrated with an 20mm autocannon, but the video is talking about tanks in the WW2 era...

[@Anglomachian]

Ahh, but I’m an engineer on the USS Enterprise specializing in dilitheum delivery mechanics, and I’m telling you that no tanks could possibly have used rivets to hold them together. That’s just a myth cooked up by people trying to explain why the titanic sank.

[@blackdeath4eternity]

lol

[@PobortzaPl]

Have you met with Steven Seagal, the underwater sniper-pilot during your work?

[@Anglomachian]

@@PobortzaPl oh yeah, I met him when he was undergoing his fifth doctorate in advanced xenobiology.

[@BigWheel.]

You're Geordi LaForge? Tell Picard I says "hi".

[@sandornyemcsok4168]

@Anglomachian yeah, the captain of the Titanic tried to angle the ship, thinking that the impact of the iceberg would be decreased, but he failed.

[@gd88467]

So in summary people who get upset that games model effective angling are wack lol

[@gd88467]

This is also a massive flex by Bernard haha

[@v44n7]

oh i made so much people mad with my tiger 1. People always angle it right on the corner or before it. I angle it slightly after the corner... and my god, you are inpenetrable (expect if they aim to the lower hull adove the tracks, but most people don't aim that when they see a tiger).

[@maxwell120L55]

@@v44n7 I stopped caring about shooting hull on angled tanks like a Tiger, much safer to just shoot that massive and rather fragile muzzle brake and take my time with you afterwards.

[@v44n7]

@@maxwell120L55 i hate your kind so much. Another is to aim for the commander hatch if you are facing a tiger 1-H, for some reason people don't shoot there, maybe is not a good idea if you don't have an explosive round, because taking the commander alone is not enough.

[@whyyoumadbro2370]

@@v44n7 I usually aim for the capula if it's tanks like the tiger. Also maybe rely on my teammates to distract em so that when they turn the turret I can pen it.

[@jconradh]

If that fellow hadn't written his snarky comment, I would not have learned so much! Thank you both!! :)

[@edwardscott3262]

There seems to be a big habit of people to think everyone from the past was stupid. To think there's no way they could have the same knowledge I do. It's such an odd thing but far too common.

[@azurblueknights]

This sort of mentality has always astounded me. The whole, "this thing they did in the past was stupid." But some of the feats of engineering and tactics they used during WW2 are almost mind-boggling. Take a single step into any of the museum warships that exist and this becomes readily apparent. The sheer ingenuity on display that hails from a time where they didn't have hugely automated systems is amazing. If you think modern fire control systems are fascinating, imagine one used during WW2 that was mostly analog.

[@Aim54Delta]

I wonder how much of it is a unique phase in human history. While technological and industrial development has been part of us for thousands of years, it has only been relatively recently that a sort of exponential factoring has occurred to allow us to live in ways fundamentally different from the world even a generation before. I wonder if, in the future, there will be more general awareness that people have always been quite clever and that "there is nothing new under the sun." If being smart is realizing that gravity is a phenomenon to be studied and quantified, wisdom is seeking education so you aren't claiming to have discovered it.

[@georgedang449]

Gamers are right, internet forum warriors are wrong. When playing modern mbts in war thunder, gamers don't bother angling. When playing WWII era tanks the next game 5 minutes later, gamers switch gears and start angling. Gamers go by games with proper physics modeling. Forum warriors go by improper physics modeling inside their heads. Gamers who played Shermans on a properly modeled game know more about Shermans than tank crews of an Abrams who, in fact, know nothing about Shermans, but somehow think apples are oranges. 30 years ago, the army/air force would drool all over today's more realistic simulation games like war thunder/DC, and use them in training with minor adjustments.

[@skussy69]

Can't forget IL2 great battles. The tank game play is probably the best there is. Drive kilometers through woods and fields, possibly get killed in 1 shot or bounce multiple from someone shooting at you from a weird angle.

[@nebuchadnezzer2436]

Fairly sure Steel Beasts is/was used by the US army for training.

[@Stratigoz]

Relax wannabe Michael Wittmann LOL.

[@cericat]

@@skussy69 and you know who was one of the dev teams that made it? Elements of it are still present in War Thunder to give you a hint.

[@patrickpelletier9298]

during 2020, the army was rumored to be among the war thunder flood of new players, to keep crew skills sharp.

[@genericpersonx333]

Hmmm, funny thing is that the US tankers I know generally said that angling the vehicle was NOT a thing they did with malice aforethought, but not for the reason you might think. It was because all the tanks they used, mostly M26, M47, M48, and M60, have continuously curved armor, so the armor was "angled" no matter the angling of the vehicle. If anything, the best angle for the armor was directly forward, because all the curves originated from there and the metal was at its thickest there. The most important "angle" was keeping the turret facing the enemy and throwing as much firepower as possible towards said enemy.

[@donaldhysa4836]

Yeah but angling would still have increased the effective armor by a substantial amount.

[@cameronharris2669]

They mostly used Sherman's?

[@cameronharris2669]

Or is it because the only US tanker accounts are from Pattons and post war tanks because all the Sherman operators got smoked? 🤣

[@donaldhysa4836]

@@cameronharris2669 He is clearly not talking about the WW2 tank operators and no they did not all get smoked.

[@83athom]

​@@donaldhysa4836 Actually no. Again you missed the point; The M48 primarily uses a convex curve across their turrets and hulls, while the M26/M46, M47, and M60 was curved on just the turrets. The armor would always be angled the same amount no matter which way you angled it, however the 'edges' of the curved plates were thinner than the direct front of the plates which means angling would weaken your effective armor as you're presenting the same basic angle but the thickness of that section would be less.

[@prevengeix8551]

The video game developers due tons of research to make the games as realistic as possible. Then they adjust realism to try and keep their target market entertained and paying. Discounting something simply because it's in a video game is ridiculous. Angling would be very tank and condition dependant and assumes you have time to do it and are aware of the enemy. Excellent video.

[@PerfectDeath4]

Also of note, I remember hearing once before that experienced Tank crews might become coordinated enough that the driver could assist a slow turret rotation by turning the hull of the tank. Sure its something that gamers make use of a lot while many tanks either couldn't do it due to controls, communication, or the turret was fast enough so that it wasn't needed.

[@Nick-rg8oz]

yes and it was pretty much for emergency purposes (noticing an enemy tank at their flanks, or coming from the side and the turret is still rotating), but otherwise there was no point in moving the entire tank and making it even harder for the gunner to properly aim and shoot.

[@PerfectDeath4]

@@Nick-rg8oz yup, when I heard about it it was from some experienced tank crew reports about their "oh shit" moments.

[@PerfectDeath4]

@Siberian Snake oh yeah, rpm turret drives sound weird

[@panther7584]

@Siberian Snake That's Tiger B if I remember right, the driver would rev engine to 3000 rpm, thus allowing the gunner to power traverse around 19 deg/second, also allows for precise power traverse so the gunner doesn't need to manual traverse, he can power traverse very slowly. Pretty cool!

[@CommanderNissan]

There’s clearly no way ww2 tankers could come to this conclusion. It’s way too advanced a concept to come up with on the battlefield. Such nuanced thinking is impossible.

[@greg.kasarik]

Tank angling was certainly something I was never taught, or encouraged to do as a Leopard 1 driver, for the Australian Army. One big problem I can see with angling, is that you are inviting a mobility/mission kill, because many hits to the side of the tank would damage the running gear, before impacting the hull. As mentioned in the video, the standard procedure upon attack was to turn the front of the tank towards incoming fire, because that is where the strongest armour is located. Indeed, it is very similar to what properly trained infantry will do under similar circumstances, namely move toward and engage the enemy in order to throw them off balance and regain the initiative. Doing so also makes the gunner's job a bit easier, and scares the living shit out of enemy infantry, who really don't want 40+ tons of metal rushing at them at speed. Depending on terrain, if you've been attacked by an infantry weapon like a Carl Gustav (which is easy to spot, due to the back blast and short range), you'll almost certainly close the distance before the crew have had the opportunity to reload and the tank gunner will have most likely ruined their day with a liberal hosing of coaxial MG3, or even a HE main round, although even sending a chambered sabot downrange would probably be quite terrifying even if it missed. Longer range anti-tank missiles are a different story, as they can target a tank from a very long distance and if properly concealed, be very difficult to spot. So if discretion turns out to be the better part of valour, then the vehicle would retreat in reverse, in order to prevent exposing the sides and rear of the vehicle. Once the vehicle is turret down, the commander can better assess the situation and plan accordingly, because radios and other tanks are a thing and the first thing the crew did upon coming under fire was transmit a contact report. Of course, modern missiles can pull all sorts of stunts, including attacking the top of the tank and under these circumstances angling is pointless because, tanks have very thin top armour and unless you have equally modern defensive systems, you probably died without even knowing you were being attacked. However, I haven't driven a tank for decades, so I'll let someone else discuss the SOP for being attacked by these weapons. However, unlike WW2 German tanks, the Leopard 1A4 has good sloped armour, so it isn't hard to understand why the German WW2 crews might have sought to angle their vehicles, in order to decrease armour penetration, especially as they lacked the benefit of modern stabilization systems that allow fire on the move. Despite what many believe, the Sherman was a good tank, with sloped armour and even the Lees and Stuarts had this advantage, so angling would not have made sense for US tanks. I would be very interested to know if the SOPs for the flat faced British tanks included angling. While I haven't played either of the games mentioned, IRL there are almost always some amazing spots for a driver to achieve a hull down (or mostly so) position, even in what might seem like flat terrain to a civilian. An experienced driver is always looking for these and keeping their vehicle as low in the terrain as possible, while not unduly exposing the flanks. I expect that WW2 drivers would have been doing exactly the same and that achieving this would have been considered preferable to angling the tank, as a hull down position only exposes the turret to incoming fire, providing far more protection. PS. I've been watching your videos for years now, but still have no idea of your name. Could you perhaps introduce yourself at the outset of at least some of your content? Thanks!! :-)

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

> PS. I've been watching your videos for years now, but still have no idea of your name. in the interview videos I always show my name in a "texbox" shortly after introducing the guest. It is Bernhard Kast.

[@greg.kasarik]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Thanks Bernhard. It is always good to be able to put a name to a face! :-)

[@Etaoinshrdlu69]

@@greg.kasarik Would a Leopard 1 really have the armor to stand up against a kinetic tank round? It might protect against autocannons and rocket launchers but that's it. Also wouldn't driving diagonally toward the enemy be a good idea in a lightly armored vehicle? I guess retreating diagonally would be a bad idea because you would be leaving your smoke screen.

[@stefanb6539]

"the Sherman was a good tank, with sloped armour and even the Lees and Stuarts had this advantage, so angling would not have made sense" That isn't how geometry works. Even if the armour is already angled vertcally by design, angling it horizontally, too, still multiplies the effect. That's why, how mentioned, the Sovjet manuals had instructions for angling T-34s. A structural reason against angling may be the relation between front and side armor. If the side armor is still thinner than the front armor, even if perfectly angled, angling would just expose additional weaknesses.

[@greg.kasarik]

​@@Etaoinshrdlu69 I think that very few modern tanks would be able to withstand modern kinetic rounds, but when the Leopard 1 started design, APDS had only been around for just over a decade and HEAT was a proven, well developed WW2 technology that was perceived as a major threat to all tanks, irrespective of armour. For its time, the Leopard 1 was one of the most well regarded. Remember its design commenced in the late 1950s, when there was considerable debate among tank designers regarding how to apply the lessons of the recent wars (WW2 & Korea) and the potential reality of having to operate on a battlefield in which man portable nuclear weapons, for which there was and still is, no realistic defence apart from GTFO. It was also designed when the 105mm main gun was a big deal (the Soviet T55 having a 100mm barrel and US M48 had a 90mm while British tanks came with a 20 pounder of only 84mm), weapon stabilization was in its infancy, and many of the munitions developed during WW2 were still being improved and worked upon. Gunnery sights were still quite primitive, with both laser range finding and gunnery computers, as we think of them today, not even being a thing in any army. While the Leopard 1 it might have not had as much armour as some other tanks, to call it "lightly armoured" is misleading. It is an MBT, designed to be the tip of the spear and its armour reflects this. Yes, it prioritised mobility and firepower over armour, but every tank in existence has to find a balance between this triad of capabilities. Certainly in the opinion of the Australian Army, it was superior to the M60 then in use with the United States. For example, the shaped charge of the HEAT round was especially feared, although ironically enough, in the late 1980s the Australian Army stopped using them, because, with the advent of composite armour, they ended up being vastly inferior to the Discarding Sabot round, based on the latter's superior penetration and the fact that the HEAT round was far harder to place on target, on account of it having all of the aerodynamic qualities of a brick. But when place in the context of a Cold War battlefield, faced with an enemy using HEAT, mobility is an excellent defence. DS fires flat and fast, with pinpoint accuracy, even with an inexperienced gunner. Compared to DS, HEAT rounds fly slow and high, meaning it takes a considerably better gunner to place them on target, so the more manoeuvrable and faster tank is a far bigger threat, compared with the modern battlefield, where APDS dominates. Fortunately, the Leopard 1 never saw service against other tanks, so it is difficult to judge just how effective it would have been on a Cold War battlefield, but I see no reason that it wouldn't have held its own against tanks of the era. As an aside, we never once used the smoke cannisters during my time as a Leopard Crewman.

[@wtfronsson]

Even if it was complete fantasy, it would still be a good game mechanic. Not a stupid one at all. Easy to understand, and put to use. Especially on the boxy German tanks. Massive effect on power dynamic, players get to actually influence the strength of their own armor, additional rewards for understanding your specific tank model's structure etc. Player feels empowered by knowing he is doing the optimal thing, and listening to enemy shells bounce off the hull is a good time.

[@andrewschliewe6392]

As a former US Army M-1 tank commander, I'll just say this, when we are on the move, there's 2 commands when the enemy is spotted, Contact , and Action . Action Left means the platoon vehicles turn to the left so the tank is facing the enemy. Contact Left is where the vehicles continues moving but the turret traverses to the left. So No, it is not something gamers just made up.

[@MiniDevilDF]

But what you're saying isn't angling the armor at all. You aren't putting the front of your tank at, say, a 15-20 degree angle offset to the enemy position, you're just pointing the general front toward enemy.

[@sharpshooter13ify]

So to summarize: yes this was a tactic practiced by at least the Germans during ww2, no tanks don’t respond instantly, and the tactic fell out of use after ww2 due to tanks having increasingly better technology and more powerful guns.

[@Wolvenworks]

basically, yeah. post WW2 (MBt Gen 1) tanks are generally more focused on firepower and agility due to the introduction of HEAT rounds...and the lack of methods to counter it reliably. by the time we DID (composite armor), we've basically advanced far enough in tank design that the front top glacis is pretty much idiotproof (any Armored Warfare player will know that top glacis on MBTs with actual armor's pretty much mostly bullshit impervious even vs tanks 3-4 tiers above)

[@andrewschliewe6392]

@@Wolvenworks Wrong. I was an M-1 tank Commander. When on the move, there's 2 maneuver commands when the enemy is spotted, Action Left or Contact left. Action left is where the vehicles turn to face the enemy and Contact Left is where just the turret moves to where the enemy has been spotted.

[@Wolvenworks]

@@andrewschliewe6392 and? that's irrelevant, much as it is an amusing insight on tank commanding.

[@andrewschliewe6392]

@@Wolvenworks No I'm saying those commands are at the platoon or even at the company level. And it shows that even today, tankers train to turn their tanks toward the enemy, which you don't think happens.

[@Wolvenworks]

@@andrewschliewe6392 i never mentioned that. i only mentioned that the top front glacis of a current-gen MBT is pretty much nigh-indestructible in most cases. i never said that the tankers never trained to use that advantage. i don't like it when people shove things i don't say into me as if i said it.

[@501Mobius]

"and real tanks don't instantly respond to keyboard movement commands." That is true but computer gamers like to be in control 100% of the time. In the WWII simulation I designed for Matrix games the 80 second turn was broken into two parts. In the first part complete orders could be given to the platoon. In the second part only some changes could be made in the orders. Gamers had a hard time wrapping their brains around how they couldn't redo their battle plans every 40 seconds.

[@polygondwanaland8390]

And it might not be true for much longer, with unmanned combat ground vehicles entering service.

[@stefanb6539]

All Gamers aren't identical. I am getting old, and was never the fastest clicker anyway, so I despise PVP-games that just turn into clicks-per-second fests. Doesn't all have to be turn-based, but if it's real-time I prefer mechanics that reward thought over pure speed.

[@PowermadNavigator]

@@polygondwanaland8390 true, but do keep in mind that we have been hearing that for almost 20 years now and progress is... tbh laughable.

[@lobsterbark]

@@stefanb6539 I find many modern fps games better real time strategy games that most games that call themselves an rts. The genre needs an overhaul.

[@BlackAlpha1]

Wait, wait, wait... You participate in design of Close Combat series? :-O

[@Archangelm127]

The references to mom, sausage, and pinups tells me this was probably written by an actual field soldier, not somebody who fought their whole war from a chair.

[@ummdustry5718]

I mean, Don't tankers also fight the war from a chair? 🤔

[@BigWheel.]

@@ummdustry5718 it's really more like an uncomfortable angled back stool.

[@sandornyemcsok4168]

@Archangel M127 I think the reason was something else: WW2 armies consisted of mass conscripts and especially in the second half almost raw recruits (on the German and Soviet side) have been throwen into the fight with little practice and experience. The wording /common language used in the WW2 German manual intends to make the point clear for an unexperienced rookie. As an official manual I cannot believe it was not written this way on purpose. It must have reviewed and approved before distribution thus surely this wording was considered to be most effective.

[@ret7army]

@@sandornyemcsok4168 while there were lots of conscripts on all sides of that war, the Tiger was given to experienced crews.

[@sandornyemcsok4168]

@@ret7army ok, after reading so many comments revolving around the same thing, which is that because an official instruction for Tiger I crews has been found , issued in 1943 February, let me be allowed to summarise the hidden statements made: the existence of this document proves that the tank crews absolutely did not know this, not even the experienced ones, despite fighting desperately against the Red Army for 1.5 years, witnessing bouncing shells numerous times off angled armored T-34s. Nobody (!) in the more than a million man Wehrmacht recognised that angling the hull would give extra protection (I guess it is very counter-intuitive as well). And for example while we do know that American tankers tried whatever they could to increase the protection of their Shermans when facing superior opposition (for example attaching track pieces to the side of the tank), the hidden statement here is that the Germans have been very different. The Wehmact soldiers refused to think and read, even the higher ranked officials, like division commanders! I smell blood here. Possibly we just discovered the real reason why Hitler lost the war! The general perception amongst historians is that the Wehrmacht was a highly capable army, but this view now seems to be wrong. Based on these hidden statements we can conclude that the Wehrmacht truly deserves the description of 'Hitler's zombie army' and this could have been a major factor in the loss.....

[@notlistening6499]

"The gun doesn't respond instantly to mouse commands either." Confirmed kill

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

;)

[@cnlbenmc]

It makes sense that angling applies most to WWII Tanks; as tanks got KE and HEAT rounds have FAR better penetration and while frontal composite armor has kept up there simply isn't enough room for that armor in the hull flank (though not necessarily on the turret). Side protection values have generally not increased since WWII and in many cases is thinner without factoring in side skirts, slat/bar armor or ERA Bricks. Whilst those might be effective vs Shaped Charges a APDSFS round won't as even if it's something like Kontact-5 there isn't enough passive armor behind it to stop even a badly degraded KE round from a tank.

[@AldanFerrox]

I mean, many tanks in WW2 already had HEAT rounds. Especially the German ones. The 75mm Pak 40, 75mm KwK 37 and 40 and 88mm KwK 36 and 43 all had HEAT rounds. Even the M3 guns of the Sherman had HEAT shells available (although those were never issued to US tank units). But this was before the principle was properly understood, and those rounds had no distance probes on their noses to prevent richochets.

[@cnlbenmc]

+@@AldanFerrox+ WWII era HEAT rounds were absolute dog shit with pathetic penetration values and before it was even understood that spin imparted by rifling would disrupt a shaped charge's penetration abilities. Proper HEAT-FS (Fin Stabilized) rounds were some years off.

[@l.a.xgunner]

I have a full digital copy of the document Tigerfibel and this I can 100% confirm is true. It's rather interesting how they use culture norms to explain things like this

[@TrueOpinion99]

For the record--as a former infantryman (2010 to 2018) in a light, anti-tank infantry company--we trained to take the most perpendicular shots possible against enemy armor, if we were using direct-strike AT weapons, in order to maximize the probability of penetrating the vehicle's armor. So, even in modern anti-tank training, we train to avoid taking "angled shots" because the risk of not penetrating is significantly higher (even with modern munitions) than taking shots at near perpendicular angles.

[@ThePereubu1710]

I think that was the most polite "slapdown" I've ever watched! Excellent research and fascinating content.

[@woobilicious.]

The "instant response" argument falls apart pretty quickly when most games that simulate accurate armor, simulate the "slow" response of a tank turning speed, or turret, and then in real life you also have a driver and a gunner, so it's a little easier to multi-task, and then if you're going for an ambush you have plenty of time to setup.

[@sealthecenturion2977]

Good old facts, logic, and proper citations. Don't see too many of these arguments in everyday life. Very refreshing.

[@stealthy1223]

OP: "I know more about tanks, you play videogames too much!" Military History: *proves them wrong for 12 minutes straight*

[@somewierdoonline2402]

Honestly the title made me so infuriated because I was like "ITS JUST PHYSICS" but the actual reason for the video being created makes me more relaxed lol Edit: apparently I started a war in the comment section because people don't know how to take things with a grain of salt, angling will always be effective but ONLY when you understand your tank's armor (and the layout of it) as well as the positions of you and the enemy as well as the enemy's penetration. I never listed any tank or situation because of how this is different across tanks and situations.

[@Stratigoz]

Your physics will increase your frontal armour a bit meanwhile you will expose your sides to other enemies and you're gonna be dead. The safest option is to keep the front towards the general direction of enemies to cover all posibilities and that's what the real tankers used to do.

[@-ragingpotato-937]

@@Stratigoz You are literally commenting that under a video where youre shown the Germans encouraged angling to their tank commanders.

[@bucky97]

@@Stratigoz Watch the video before commenting next time

[@ach3909]

@@-ragingpotato-937 They got a point tho. Angling to protect yourself from the target you are currently engaging will give anyone who is further to the left or the right of your current target a flatter profile of the front or side of your vehicle. Now while it being included in the german manuals might be either a testament to their understanding of the concept, or their ignorance of the fact that the target you are engaging right now may not be the only one in the area.

[@shaggings]

@@Stratigoz That depends of the vehicle...an Tiger I when angled perfectly at an enemy (In this case, only a single enemy for the sake of the example) is nearly impossible to penetrate from a long distance with the guns of the time. that would include the 76mm from the newer Shermans, or the 85mm from the T-34 85, however they could still penetrate at closer ranges the side armor behind the tank tracks as that was quite thinly armored at about 62mm.

[@stflaw]

Next, you're going to tell me that a tank can't be repaired instantly with the click of a button.

[@johnfarscape]

I spoke to a member of the Desert rats and they were trained in WW2 while fighting in open desert to keep moving as fast as possible and firing, the sand kicked up by the Cruiser tanks would make them difficult to accurately target. . The sandstorm the created was effectively their protection. .they would never drive straight at the enemy but would always drive at an angle often in a wide flanking maneuver. . It not only made it harder for the enemy to target you due to having to calculate lead but It was common knowledge that a shell that hit straight on would punch an almost clean round hole through the vehicle while if it hit at an angle it would cause a long scrape line, often just bending the armour in and sliding off or part penetrating. . Either way it was always best not to get hit straight on. . It makes sence that if they figured this out in Cruiser tanks very early on in ww2 it would have stayed as general knowledge. When setting up an ambush around a building or obstacle the tank would be positioned at an angle, not only to improve the chance of it bouncing a shot but also if you need to make a fast retreat you only need to go straight backwards and don't have to turn while doing it. . Tankers were taught to only ever expose the minimum amount of your vehicle to be able to effectively shoot the enemy but reduce the target size for them to return fire. . So over a hill using the maximum gun depression, digging in a trench to drive your tank in so only the turret is visible and piling up sand bags and debris and even camouflage was all used. . It makes sence you would use every trick you had learned to improve your chance of survival. . The one main thing from games I have never heard of anyone doing in real life I sidescraping.

[@juanzulu1318]

Short rebutal: Fact: the German Tiger Fibel mentions armour angling and highly advertises it. The quoted comment is therefore easily proven as nonsense.

[@bobsjepanzerkampfwagen4150]

In the book “Wiking” the author (a panther crewmember) also describes how his commander ordered the driver to turn the tank 45 degrees left or right because this improved the protection

[@cobbleturd6978]

@@bobsjepanzerkampfwagen4150 that's interesting because the Panther has significantly weaker side armour while it's frontal armour is significantly stronger, does it mention why 45 degrees, as was it just copying the practice used in Tigers or was there some other reason

[@Краснаяармиясамаясильная-б9ы]

@@cobbleturd6978 nah panther should not do 45...........

[@windsaw151]

​@@cobbleturd6978 Even if they didn't do it correctly, it doesn't mean they didn't do it.

[@ethanmiller2732]

I appreciate that after mentioning the user's comment was in regard to a German vehicle, He IMMEDIATELY brought up two page German document dedicated to angling.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Classic German counter-attack :)

[@ciuyr2510]

of course angling works. Why did the russians bother if not, with the angled armor on the t34? if it works vertical, it can work horizontal as well. It is what causes things to bounce. That comment had zero though processing behind it.

[@therandomheretek5403]

I suspect the comment meant that due to uncertainty regarding the enemy's position and due to how much of pain it was to get a WW2 tank to turn accurately , angling was technically possible but never used in practice.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

sloped armor is something different to angling, angling the tank means actively positioning the tank in an angle towards the enemy.

[@chrisjones6736]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized But the effect is the same surely? Given a WW2 tank had to halt to fire main gun effectively it would be a very quick thing to halt at an angle to the most immediate threat.

[@ciuyr2510]

​@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized yes it`s much harder to do in reality under fire, tanks not Gaijin style responsive. turret crank..... More like pre-angling, in ambush would be used. Tiger crew had booklets showing the most efficient angles. I`m sure they used those angles in offensive ways as well..

[@hungryhedgehog4201]

Real tankers drive towards eachother in predefined lines only, you are only allowed to shoot at tanks directily infront of you. If you shoot at a tank in a different line they immediately execute you.

[@colincampbell767]

Actually - tank platoon tactics are for the tanks on the right to shoot at the enemy tanks on the left and vice versa. This is so you're engaging the thinner armor on the sides of the enemy tanks. 'Angling' a tank simply gives the enemy a shot at your thinner armor.

[@hungryhedgehog4201]

@@colincampbell767 no that would mean they attack at an angel which is clearly only a videogame thing

[@TheTrueNorth11]

Not all tanks had thinner side armour than frontal armour.

[@lunatic_nebula9542]

@@TheTrueNorth11 what

[@TheTrueNorth11]

@@lunatic_nebula9542 English not your first language I guess?

[@spiraling6980]

Otto Carious discussed angling his Tiger in his book Tigers in the Mud.

[@creesed9041]

Dude made a video to basically say “stfu” absolute balls on this man

[@colincampbell767]

One of the standard tank platoon tactics is 'crossing fire.' The tanks on the right fire on the enemy tanks to the left and vice versa. This is to take advantage of the fact that the side armor is less on the sides and even angling won't do any good. If an enemy tank had decided to show me the side of his - that's where my gunner would have put the reticle. And since the early 1980's tank fire control systems can put a main gun round within 30 inches of the aim point. If you're going to take a hit, you want to ensure that it hits the thickest part of your armor.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

ahh yes, I remember seeing that years ago in an FM or book for the US Army, completely forgot about that.

[@TringmotionCoUk]

Let's be honest US armour was pretty skinny until the Pershing in relative terms. For me, it's "I'm an engineer.... " Proper engineers won't challenge someone on a subject they are not a specialist...

[@schullerandreas556]

Thats objectively wrong. The shermans armor was more than adequate compared to its peers. Contrary to popular belief the US tanks were rather lacking in the gun department of their tanks not protection. From the front a M4 Sherman(welded hull) is better protected than T34s, PzIVs and PzIIIs in all their variants. The cast ones I would consider weaker because of the inferior properties of cast armor compared to rolled and some funny angles around the drivers hatches and above the sprockets. The myth that the americans had bad armor stems from the fact that the germans had ridiculously high velocity and high penetration guns on their tanks compared to the allies in the same weight class. Its not even a race between the F32, M3 and KwK40. The KwK 40 is more comparable to the 76mm M1A1gun on later shermans. So its not that the americans didnt have good armor compared to everybody else. Its more that the americans didnt have armor good enough to stand up to the high power guns they were facing.

[@commanderkei9537]

@@schullerandreas556 a Sherman’s armor is only good in the most optimal of circumstances. It was great when it was introduced, but all the weird angles and slopes plus the weak side armor gave it plenty of weak spots to get hit. I think it’s an exaggeration to say that a Sherman was as well armored as a tiger (to the person below you)

[@T4nkcommander]

@@schullerandreas556 It isn't objectively wrong when most of your enemy's tanks and AA guns can penetrate your front armor at will.

[@TringmotionCoUk]

Ha , well you are all wrong-as you are not to know how my twisted brain works. My post was a bit tongue in cheek as this was about gamers in the video The real answer is about doctrine on the battle field and how each country saw it's forces applied. There's nothing wrong with a Sherman, apart from the tactics used in North Africa were originally wrong. They treated them like horses and lost them like the charge of the light brigade. The comment about engineers applies to myself on this post as I am not a military technology expert, so I am sending myself up in my own post.....

[@lenorevanalstine1219]

also some of the earlier shermans had rounded cornered cast hulls and angling could actualy present a small are on that corner that was actualy thinner then you have the lower hull side armor being lower from the tracks down by a pretty decent amount an issue that never got seen to in the m4 line at all

[@klepper00]

I remember seeing a documentary and a German Tanker in North Africa was saying how they would angle their tanks .

[@calessel3139]

I think that's where the Germans developed the tactic.

[@lobsterbark]

It's one of the places it would be most useful. The terrain was open enough with few places to hide, meaning you would actually have time to do something like that. You could also be more certain of the direction of the enemy because there would be fewer places for them to hide and approach from slightly different angles.

[@tankenjoyer9175]

i think you could also do that angling better if you are on a cover, you cover your side armor and take all the advantage of the hull angling @@lobsterbark

[@GaMeRfReAkLIVE]

I think our "friend" who left the comment may be a modern tanker or at least a more modern tanker. Its the modern doctrine to see and shoot first and most people neglect to think of history

[@kirotheavenger60]

Another factor is, of course, the enemy is unlikely to be driving directly towards or besides you if they don't know you're there - so you're likely to be hitting them slightly off-angle anyways. I believe it was standard practice in German penetration guides to assume the tank was at a 30 degree secondary angle as a sort of average for combat conditions.

[@sweet3186]

I must say I'm very pleasatnly supprised by the quality of this video. I randomly found this video and the title looked interresting. Your overall presentation was great.

[@semicooperative7188]

So, as tanks moved forward the disparity between side and front armor seem to have grown pretty dramatically. What's interesting is that as you go up the War Thunder ground tech tree, angling is less important. At top tier, angling is basically suicide both due to the pace of the fight and how easily most rounds can go through side plates, in fact it's kind of the best way to kill Russian MBTs is basically shooting the front idler if they're angled because it goes straight through to the ammo carousel.

[@femboygamingyt9824]

not many tank history videos like these make me hungry, but this one did with all the talk about food

[@stevew6138]

I own about 300 hours of German war newsreel footage with a great number of those hours shot on the Eastern Front. There are a great number of hours featuring Panzers, and yes, the "angle" position is used quite a lot. However, I did notice more often than not, it was used in a hasty defense situation. Such as engaging the enemy encountered during a road march or while maneuvering. But, 300 hours of a 6-year war is a very small sample.

[@megasalexandros6400]

Would you be willing to share the footage or perhaps say how you can get that kind of film?

[@lick816]

Was there any specific source you used for this footage? It would be pretty cool to see these reels

[@stevew6138]

@@megasalexandros6400 BTW, was my first reply to you last night taken down?

[@megasalexandros6400]

@@stevew6138 I didn't receive any reply last night, nor do I see one :(

[@stevew6138]

@@megasalexandros6400 My reply had a link to a site with WWII videos from all points of view, but with a heavy bias toward Germany. Maybe someone saw this and flagged it. Bummer. Have a good one.

[@lukycharms9970]

Serious props to you for handling it far more politely than I would have. lol whoever made that comment just got absolutely dunked on hahahaha.

[@Jorqell]

"I've driven cars for 25 years, and let me tell you, I've never hand-cranked a car, or seen anyone hand-crank a car! Real drivers never used a stupid thing like a crank on their Model T Fords, I'm an expert about this subject, hand cranks are just a myth created by the gullible. Real drivers just started their cars and drove away!"

[@hansvonmannschaft9062]

When you began mentioning the (very funny) Tiger manual that used sausages as examples, you immediatly reminded me of when I saw a Panther manual, and the part where it explained how to aim at a moving target, it used circus references and drawings. I'm pretty sure you must've seen or read a Panther manual and definitely remember those funny ways of making things simpler for the tankers. Cheers, fantastic video, thank you!

[@Jairion]

In the case that "Tigers in the mud" is accurate, Otto Carius did angle his Tiger on purpose and to good effect.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

Otto Karius in "Tigers in the mud" mentioned that he was"obsessed" with angling his Tiger.

[@thebigone6071]

You’re the best ever Bernhard!!! I hope I’m just like you when I’m super old!!!!

[@jimmiller5600]

So harsh.

[@M1017242]

This is why scholars are interesting, their reaction to faulty statements are gold.

[@hoodoo2001]

I read a manual on the German MG 08 machine gun. Originally they were set up to fire obliquely in a cross fire so as to be protected against fire directly to the trench front.

[@ZergrushEddie]

As a non-military person, I absolutely adore the "make it as simple as possible" approach of military literature. The American MRE has diagrams for properly angling the package for most effective heating and the diagram has an arrow that stats "a rock or something", as well as the claymore's "this side toward enemy." This video shows the 1940's German take on the same thing. How do you explain that an angled shot as to dig through more metal? Well you talk about mother chopping sausage! It is quite a beautiful thing to imagine incredibly smart people trying to make something accessible for the dumbest person in the tank core, and the effectiveness elegance is truly impressive

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

yeah, since I served as a conscript, there is also the aspect that one is generally quite tired in the military and since it is an occupation that in many regards can be quite deadly even outside of combat, it makes even more sense. The Claymore's caption makes probably the must sense, cause if you setup that thing in a hurry or in "blurry" state, it shouldn't be up to a slip of judgement.

[@heinerheise703]

"Real tankers drive only in one direction rather slowly because all crew members rather lookout for the enemy, while no one watches the road or try to remember on which side the imaginay sign was."

[@SodaPopin5ki]

Gamers have been angling tanks before War Thunder and World of Tanks. I remember building a custom map for the Red Orchestra mod (2006) for Unreal Tournament, where I had each WWII tank at incremental angles so I could determine what it took to penetrate.

[@calumdeighton]

Again. Video gamers. Proving they know more about stuff that regular know it all. Found this very interesting and just makes me feel that bit better about stuff. I do angle my tanks armour in War Thunder whenever I can. But most often I'm being aggressive and trying to get on the flanks. Fact: Flat sided armour is much easier to pen than slopped armour.

[@azureprophet]

The OP just suffered from EMOTIONAL DAMAGE.

[@CssHDmonster]

BRO, did u just say ''the process of angling is visualized using 2 sausages'' AND NOT SHOW IT?! i know this channel is not visualized but youre the worst

[@DERP_Squad]

One might even say the wurst.

[@kokofan50]

I think you mean the wurst.

[@joearnold6881]

@@DERP_Squad nonono. Don’t say that. He’s knock the wurst

[@BlazingSun46]

He can’t show picture from German archive, it’s their policy.

[@hamishneilson7140]

Another excellent video with excellent sources! I just ordered the translated Tiger-fibel from The Tank Museum because of this. A little expensive for me as a student right now, but glad to be able to support that fantastic museum. They also have the Panther-fibel, but I'll have to get that once I'm done the Tiger one. As for the modern armour angling point, I know from my training that we always just went front towards the enemy, no angling. The explanation I was given for it is that modern MBT armour is simply so thick at the front from composites and sloping, and relatively thin at the sides, that it's just safer to take your chances trusting the armour than risking a hot through the exposed side.

[@blakewinter1657]

The Tigerfibel also illustrates this with its 'flower' drawing of the ranges at which the Tiger is susceptible to T-34 fire. You can see that from a corner, the distance is much less.

[@allangibson2408]

Until you get a shell into the corner - the welds are inherently weak (welds (at best) are 80% the strength of the parent material). That’s why a lot of tank restoration projects have a pile of flat plates to start with when rebuilding German tanks - the welds failed when they exploded.

[@ronniefarnsworth6465]

I'm in my late 60s now, My uncle was a US Army WWll Tanker in M4 Shermans of different from 1943' to 1945' and yes they very much used Angling and everything else, Logs, sandbags and foliage to help themselves to stay alive !!

[@andrewhendrix2297]

Common sense tells me that in war, when every single small advantage could be the difference between you seeing the sun set or not, if it was determined that shifting your tank could potentially, even slightly, increase the chance of round deflection or stoppage, you were not a very good or experienced commander if you didn't order it so. It could be argued that even if the commander somehow instantly knew that the actual act of angling would not meaningfully help in that instance against his particular opponent, the immeasurable but somewhat substantial placebo effect of the crew feeling a slight resolve; that they've done that tiny bit extra to maximize their defense and should focus fully on target acquisition and volume of fire; could be the difference and would be worth the attempt. In my humble opinion, of course.

[@majfauxpas]

Near Volgograd, former Stalingrad, tank hull-down positions which can be seen in historical photos are angled at 45 degrees to the road they are defending.

[@Etaoinshrdlu69]

This would be more effective on the defense. On the offense the goal would be to get an effective shot off as fast as possible.

[@nickdubil90]

Well, that seemed to be the German armored experience, by and large, in the mid to late war. It is kind of curious that the field manual was written before then.

[@88porpoise]

@@nickdubil90 I think it is more likely one of many neat ideas that they developed in theory but never was too useful in practice. Even on the defensive you would need to know where the enemy is coming from and face a threat only from one direction. In reality you would likely have multiple tanks coming spread far enough apart that you would just expose your side to one of them. If you tried to angle towards another one.

[@kireta21]

If you're on defense, you know where fire will come from, and your flanks are (hopefully) secured by friendly forces. If you're on offense, fire can come from everywhere but friendly lines, including left and right of enemy you engage, so angling may potentially expose your side armor to some concealed AT gun you don't know about.

[@Etaoinshrdlu69]

@@nickdubil90 I guess it only works if you know where the enemy is. It could work offensively I guess but only if you know where the enemy is. Usually whoever gets the first shot off wins. Also less relative nowadays with stabilizers and mbts having all armor at the front.

[@88porpoise]

@@kireta21 Unless you are in some very specific circumstances, even on the defence you don't know precisely enough which direction fire will come from to properly angle your armour to resist it. And in all likelihood it will come from multiple directions.

[@ibfreely8952]

I come back to your channel after a few years off and I'm pleased to hear that you've kept the accent💪

[@captianmorgan7627]

The turns of phrase you get in other languages is always fascinating. 2:49 "But if you stand around a corner and let yourself be pushed at an angle, then it is 13 cm thick."

[@ArturdeSousaRocha]

"Real tanks don't respond immediately to Maus commands."

[@tamakaze712]

Im here just to read the comment, but such research from old document are also nice to know. danke !

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@LeCharles07]

I always just figured that modern guns and ammo had made tank angle rather irrelevant when it comes to penetration. That was just my hunch and I really never thought much into it. In interviews about 73 easting and other armored engagements of The Gulf War people never mention angling it's all rather Nelsonian; going straight at them, pew pewing the whole time. I also imagine that a pile of dirt is a better prepared position than a slightly angled tank but, again, just a hunch.

[@ChaplainDMK]

It's more the armour design to my knowledge. Composite armour doesn't really gain much effectiveness when angled

[@lizijie98]

@@ChaplainDMK Umm they do. That's why when you look at the front of a modern MBT it's angled and not flat. The problem with angling to show side armor is that modern MBTs pretty much follow the "all or nothing" doctrine so you are meant to point your front directly at the enemy.

[@ChaplainDMK]

@@lizijie98 Notice I said composite armor. A lot of the armor on modern MBTs is still regular armor steel angled to extreme levels, but turret fronts and parts of the front glacis are more ofen than not composite armor. Composite armor doesn't really gain much from angling since, as far as I understand, the thing that makes compsoite armor function is the way the different materials itneract to stop the projectile. If it's angled it wont really do much because the slight difference in the thickness of each individual element is pretty insignificant to a dart munition that can penetrate around 1 meter of armor steel. For comparison, the entire length of an Abrams tank is 8 meters. Like for example the Leopard 2s turret front is in fact completely flat, the newer versions only have hollow steel pieces fitted in front to improve protection against ATGMs, but the actual armor is completely flat.

[@lizijie98]

@@ChaplainDMK Yet on the other hand, many MBTs do feature angled turrets and glacis plates. Composite armor designs are internally angled, but tanks like the Abrams still feature an extremely angled upper glacis because modern APFSDS still ricochet at extreme angles. At the end of the day, it's still one of those "better have it than not" moments in warfare. Many helmets don't stop rifle rounds, yet soldiers wear them anyways because when your life is on the line any bit of additional protection helps.

[@ChaplainDMK]

@@lizijie98 Upper glacis of the Abrams is not composite, that's why it's angled so much. It's only 70ish milimiters of armor steel. Composite armor is only in the turret cheeks and lower front plate.

[@grognard23]

Well, however snide the original comment, I am glad it was made as I had never thought to ask such a question. Thankfully, Bernhard was able to come up with an answer supported by documentation. Outstanding!

[@dfjab]

this is SO interesting! I never really thought they'd actually use angling IRL because of what the commentor said, a vehicle doesn't really respond in real life as it does in a game. I legit did not know they actually even considered this in tank manuals.

[@basfinnis]

Didn't some of the German manuals say to turn your tank into a diamond?

[@siener]

"Video games have it so it can't be real" I think this is similar to the so called "Tiffany problem" experienced by authors of historical fiction. Use that name in a story set in the middle ages and people will say it's an idiosyncrasy, but in actual fact the name has existed since the 12th century.

[@DaHitch]

I love this: - KZbinr *makes video* - Keyboard warrior: "lol you dumb" - KZbinr, who is also a historian: "Well actually no, and here's why: ..., sources in the description"

[@dela_v8227]

This is the most formal proper argument I've seen

[@braedynhoward3644]

Angling in modern combat is useless. Facing full front is most practical. World war 2 however, was very different. Angling could actually save you from being penetrated in certain situations.

[@looinrims]

Oh shit the internet commenter told everyone the REAL way to fight

[@braedynhoward3644]

@@looinrims Excuse me?

[@looinrims]

@@braedynhoward3644 did I stutter?

[@braedynhoward3644]

@@looinrims idk what you are trying to say

[@Andyxyliusify]

It's impossible to argue with someone who throws a tiger tank manual at you with out serious blunt force injury caused by sausage 😂

[@charlesdexterward7781]

Let's say you were in a tank covering a road in an urban area. You're sure the enemy will be approaching you from that road. You have to orient some part of your tank toward the road. Since your choice is either A) the corner for some extra angling benefit, or B) LOL wh0 cARes Math neRd!!, you may as well choose the former.

[@colincampbell767]

What you do is find a location where you are behind something that's thick enough to block enemy fire. Then creep forward so that the only thing sticking over the berm is your sights. When the enemy is sighted the gunner lays the reticle on the target, fires the laser rangefinder and then the TC orders the tank to move forward until the gun is barely over the berm. Then the tank takes one or two shots then backs down and moves (while under cover) to another firing position. In a tank-on-tank engagement the tank that sees the other tank first generally shoots first - and the tank that shoots first generally wins that fight. So, you do not want to be easy to see.

[@83cable]

Wow! I didn’t realise this angling stuff was actually part of info to tank crews in ww2. I am a video game player and thought this was only a game thing or more contemporary warfare concept. Amazing stuff.

[@88porpoise]

I suspect that the angling of tanks in combat was more of a great idea that tended to be not used much in practice as there were too many other concerns to worry about it.

[@scratchy996]

If an antitank gun is shooting at you, all other concerns go away, and you start angling your tank. I bet experienced drivers did it instinctively, and Tigers were only given to experienced crews.

[@88porpoise]

@@scratchy996 If an anti-tank gun is shooting at you, there are probably other anti-tank weapons getting ready to fire and you are looking to move to a position safe from the fire. Your gunner is also probably trying to aim and shoot, which you during about with your facing won't help. I am sure it did happen. But I would wager it wasn't the norm.

[@Bird_Dog00]

I would expect this to be used when being able to prepare for an engagement. When you know that enemy tanks are aproaching and from where, you would if possible angle your tank this way and then wait for them. It may also be used when approching an enemy strong point with known laylout. For example, the tank is tasked with taking out a bunker and the commander did a recon on foot, so he can then guide his driver to approach in a way that angles the tank.

[@tomconnors9126]

After being a tank commander on M60A1, M60A3, M1, and M1A1, I never was taught or considered angling my armor, even in combat. I was focused on identifying the target, issuing an accurate fire command, and shooting first, whether stationary or moving. Angling armor never entered that process and probably would have slowed down getting off the first shot for a kill.

[@chicuongvu1806]

Well by the look of those tank, the enginner has done the angling for u and who am i to say but if u can fire first then is armor needed

[@tomconnors9126]

You are right sir. The armor was laminated Chobam armor. The only chance for a T72M was to hit the side of the M1 with very little chance of penetration. We were often dealing with multiple Iraqi tanks at night. We could see them through our thermal sites, but they could not see us. We could begin our engagements at 1800 meters and they didn’t really have a chance. Thank you for your comment. All the best.

[@HanSolo__]

"In every case, put your Leopard 2A4 turret frontal plating at the closest to 90° angle possible (to the line of fire.) This way, you will not only obtain the turret's frontal armor at 90 degrees in horizontal but at the vertical axis as well. Any deviation from this principle will lead to the easy ejection of the eroded shrapnel of APFSDS dart material from the perforated armor. As a result, free and deep penetration of the composite (special) armor. opposite to clog and stuck of the penetrator in the flat frontal armor mass."

[@aaronsalmon270]

This is quite possibly the best mic drop I have seen in a long time.

[@jonwingfieldhill6143]

As Mr Paul Harrell says if you're 50% right you're a 100% wrong, I'm always intrigued by videos that cover people trolling on a subject and getting shut down.

[@PobortzaPl]

Hey, nice to meet another Paul Harrell watcher!

[@JaegersB_ttplug]

This is the video form of saying “checkmate”

[@chemiker494]

Angling may be a tactic used by Tiger crews, not the ones riding tanks who's armour is already angled, like T-34 or Panther

[@BigWheel.]

It would still benefit them actually because as long as you're not showing any flat spots, that would otherwise be angled. All you're doing is crating a more complex surface for the shell to penetrate. If you're like me, and have little models of a T34 or panther lying around, pick one up and turn it a little to see for yourself.

[@chriswegman738]

Sloped armor and deflection angles are a very real thing. Especially against older, kinetic munitions.

[@thrall1342]

Reminds of people's tendency to "look at the past with the ignorance of the present" (Thomas Sowell), meaning: if tankers today don't care about angling much that doesn't mean that tankers in WW2 thought the same.

Thumps up for the content and especially for the "voice" in the Chieftain quote :)

[@Gorbyrev]

Check the field manual wurst :)

[@lennykazlauskas1101]

The YT algorithm put this vid in my in box, I assume because i am into 'war history', projectiles of all kinds, and the like. I am not a gamer at all. So I just want to tell you this was very interesting. Cheers.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Thank you!

[@34wotb]

Glad I was recommended this video! As a World of Tanks player I am very familiar with armor angling, but I've always wondered if it was a real tactic or not. Great video and thanks for doing the research!

[@smyrnamarauder1328]

İ miss old axis vs allies matchmaking in war thunder so i could feel like real tiger commander

[@ha_ur_dead6675]

Could try Sim GB.

[@fenfrostpaws2000]

@@ha_ur_dead6675 you get charged SL just to spawn into a match of SB, fuck that lol

[@yonneye2427]

@@fenfrostpaws2000 It is usually not much more than the repair cost that you would have to pay in RB anyway. (Unless you’re a god that never dies once)

[@ha_ur_dead6675]

@@fenfrostpaws2000 that’s air sim not ground sim.