"armor Angling"

[Fritz]

 

In quotes for a reason. So in WoT this is a common "tactic" to make your armor harder to penetrate. Basically increase the slope of your armor. But I cannot think of reading or hearing about a single instance of this being done in real life. Anybody can think of any examples or really no tanker ever thought of it or thought it would make any sense or had a chance to try it etc. I can think of many reasons why it wouldn't work in real combat but still I am curious that I've never come across a single mention considering that there was so much tank action in WW2 and there are examples of the most bizarre stuff happening.

[bojan]

Tigerfibel (SP?) has it as one of tactics.

[Harold Jones]

Here are the pages that describe angling the tiger to increase armor thickness http://i42.tinypic.com/2mys1lw.jpg and http://www.esatclear.ie/~godot/85.jpg Here's the whole thing you can page through http://www.alanhamby.com/tigerfibel.shtml scroll to the bottom of the page to get to it.

[Mobius]

Panzer Gunner by Bruno Friesen. The PZ IV H placed their gun over one corner of the front hull or the other. He mentions that the hull gunner or the driver didn't like it over their hatch because it would interfere with their quick exit.

[BLAH]

From a defensive position anything to increase your survivability would be prudent, Though basic hull down and concealment would be more than enough, in addition to having your hull orientated in a way to move to your next position as quickly as possible.

 

Not getting hit seemed to be the biggest form of not dying in WW2.

[pikachu]

Here are the pages that describe angling the tiger to increase armor thickness http://i42.tinypic.com/2mys1lw.jpg and http://www.esatclear.ie/~godot/85.jpg Here's the whole thing you can page through http://www.alanhamby.com/tigerfibel.shtml scroll to the bottom of the page to get to it.

 

Otto Carius mentioned using this tactic in Tigers in the Mud. He also said it worked well against Soviet AP.

[BabyOlifant]

Biggest reason I could see for it not being practical historically would be that most WWII tanks could not turn on the spot. For instance, Shermans, I am given to understand, could only turn about a single, wide radius, which would hinder the kind of in place maneuvering you would need to deliberately angle your armor in this way.

 

Tigers would have no problem with it, though.

[Ken Estes]

Does not seem to have passed to postwar. In the M48s it was not necessary, owing to the elliptical hull/turret design, and all that was taught was to face the target. You never know where the 'others' are anyway, especially the one that hits you. Before meeting the enemy, gun tubes would normally be oriented variously according to flanks and possible enemy positions.

 

Once engaged, I think the driver's situational awareness becomes so little and the TC so busy that any continuing notion of angling becomes OBE.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Ken Estes

[mnm]

Donald Featherstone mentioned the tactic in use in one of his desert warfare books.

[pikachu]

Does not seem to have passed to postwar. In the M48s it was not necessary, owing to the elliptical hull/turret design, and all that was taught was to face the target. You never know where the 'others' are anyway, especially the one that hits you. Before meeting the enemy, gun tubes would normally be oriented variously according to flanks and possible enemy positions.

 

Once engaged, I think the driver's situational awareness becomes so little and the TC so busy that any continuing notion of angling becomes OBE.

 

Actually, Carius mentioned that this tactic was mostly used against static AT emplacements, not other tanks. IIRC in the chapter where he talked about angling the tank, he was busy playing whackamole against Soviet AT crews that kept burrowing through a dirt wall of some sort overnight so that in the morning he'd have to hunt down their new holes and snipe them. In the same battle when the Soviet tanks charged the Tigers stopped caring about angles and just looked for good hull down positions.

[Max H]

Does not seem to have passed to postwar. In the M48s it was not necessary, owing to the elliptical hull/turret design, and all that was taught was to face the target. You never know where the 'others' are anyway, especially the one that hits you. Before meeting the enemy, gun tubes would normally be oriented variously according to flanks and possible enemy positions.

 

Once engaged, I think the driver's situational awareness becomes so little and the TC so busy that any continuing notion of angling becomes OBE.

 

 

Post war guns had advanced enough that even well sloped side armour was of marginal use against the weapons available, so angling isn't a good idea even with something like the centurion or T-55. Tiger 1 is one of the best tanks for this kind of angling because of the all-round armour layout

[Marek Tucan]

You could do good with KV and angling probably as well.

 

Post WWII side armor was generally too weak to do any significant angling, heck even with tiger II the angle would be negligible.

[Ken Estes]

I don't think angling works in anything but WOT. Same as shooting the cupola and other ways to play the stats.

 

Facing and angling procedures do not take of other RL factors of terrain into account, such as different elevation of tgt and shooter, slope of ground for each and so forth.

[sunday]

Of course, engagement distances are way higher IRL, and you do not find tanks sniping around corners, neither.

[Mobius]

I don't think angling works in anything but WOT. Same as shooting the cupola and other ways to play the stats.

 

Facing and angling procedures do not take of other RL factors of terrain into account, such as different elevation of tgt and shooter, slope of ground for each and so forth.

Angling works in many games. It works in the game I worked on. Since it isn't a first person shooter the player can't micro manage every one of his tanks. Plus it incorporated range estimation along with dispersion so being able to pick out weak spots isn't part of the game.

[Max H]

Of course, engagement distances are way higher IRL, and you do not find tanks sniping around corners, neither.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99oXQFm7ad4

Plenty other videos show tanks and armed pickups reversing until they have LoS on their target round a corner, then driving forward to bug out after shooting (a part this tank seems to have missed). Ok, I admit I am grasping at straws somewhat

[sunday]

 

Of course, engagement distances are way higher IRL, and you do not find tanks sniping around corners, neither.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99oXQFm7ad4

Plenty other videos show tanks and armed pickups reversing until they have LoS on their target round a corner, then driving forward to bug out after shooting (a part this tank seems to have missed). Ok, I admit I am grasping at straws somewhat

 

 

Heck! Those are Syrian rebels that probably learnt armoured combat playing World of Tanks. And did not go beyond the noob level - one should never expose his engine to enemy fire. Good way to get tracked and burned. And they are not angling!

 

Muppets... :P

 

That situation differs dramatically from the experience of a fine officer, distinguished member of this Grate Sight, who tanked for Sam and was paided a bonus, that played Steel Beasts in his native Ireland before crewing one of those majestic machines of war called M1 Abrams. I culd go on and on.

Edited October 20, 2013 by sunday

[tankerwanabe]

I guess that angling is another temporary field adjustment to compensate for weakness in the design. In the case of the Tiger I, it was to remedy the inefficient armor layout. But it's funny that that a field soldier like Otto knew more about it than tank designers.

[Fritz]

Panzer Gunner by Bruno Friesen. The PZ IV H placed their gun over one corner of the front hull or the other. He mentions that the hull gunner or the driver didn't like it over their hatch because it would interfere with their quick exit.

 

That's curious, with the Pz IV it would have to be a very conservative angling since the side armour is basically transparent. It would work best with Tiger as it's side armour is almost as thick as the front.

[demosthenes]

I guess that angling is another temporary field adjustment to compensate for weakness in the design. In the case of the Tiger I, it was to remedy the inefficient armor layout. But it's funny that that a field soldier like Otto knew more about it than tank designers.

 

He and everyone else who bothered to read the tigerfibel:

 

[cbo]

Biggest reason I could see for it not being practical historically would be that most WWII tanks could not turn on the spot. For instance, Shermans, I am given to understand, could only turn about a single, wide radius, which would hinder the kind of in place maneuvering you would need to deliberately angle your armor in this way.

 

Tigers would have no problem with it, though.

 

Wouldn't be an issue with a Sherman or any other tank - just a jerk on the steering lever when you are in position. Seems that some people think that Shermans were barely steerable and had to be offloaded at railheads pointing at Berlin or they would end up in the Atlantic...

[tankerwanabe]

Btw I think that Otto was merely explaining why the Tiger I was more survivable, even when taking a side hit. I don't think that he intentionally angled his tank. At the time the front mantle on the Tigers was shell proof. Not only was it thick, the quality of steel used was world class. And from the front there were little weak spots.

 

Besides, angling the tank assumes that you know exactly where the enemy is and that he's not mobile. If the enemy is mobile, he can always change position to take a flank shot.

[Arminius]

IMHO the correct angle for improving Armor is not 45°, but around 20 or 30° from Head on.

 

Which results in a slight Angle on ( hopefully thick ) frontal Armour, and large Angle on thinner side Armour.

 

But if there are MORE enemy Tanks around, you don´t need to "angle", somebody will get an angled shot at you, anyway.

 

Hermann

[tankerwanabe]

That does make more sense. But I wonder whether they angled it to improve armor, or just to align the hull in case they need to immediately move by merely stepping on the gas instead of pivoting then moving if they were facing their target. This is consistent with a shoot & scoot tactic.

[APF]

The tiger fible definitely talks about angling as a way to improve armor thickness.

Now wether this was intended already in the design of the vehcle, or added afterwards after the first front experiences were made - now thats everybodys guess.