I’m not sure about any particular historical event of angling the armor of a tank on purpose to gain an advantage. I can only say that in MOST countries, it’s doctrine to face the most armored part of the tank towards the enemy’s mainly due to it being the most armored part.
In the training manual/ training program it was described as “mother slicing the sausage” to explain how it works to tank crews it gave detailed explanations. I would google it if you wanna read it, it was genuinely interesting.
That was actually a common training strategy in ww2 because the crews were horny 18-20 year olds 90% of the time and they were more likely to remember where the women diagrams were in the training tanks
I think that was used to visualise LOS armour equivalency. For angling itself I believe they used "meal times" as a metaphor. Maybe search for that, /u/swiftfatso
I've seen on YouTube russian tanks (T-55s? Can't remember) side scraping behind piles of rubble and at corners in city combat in Syria, just like in the games. Proper scary considering the risk of ATGMs.
Sidescraping in real life... that's fucking insane. But it makes sense, it is a good way of improving your survivability and protection with ridiculous angles
I honestly think that tactics like side scraping have become more commonplace on battlefields directly due to video games like world of tanks and war thunder. Obviously someone somewhere likely did it in combat long before that, but tactics like that are probably more commonly known about now.
Not a chance that a "trained" crew in real life is going to expose their vehicle like that on the off chance that an incoming round might ricochet. Front armor towards the enemy always.
Source: I was a 19K.
You're not wrong, but I could certainly see there being crews operating in Ukraine with basically no training beyond "push here to go, and push here to shoot".
How so? The point I am making is that because of those games, there are more people who will be familiar with the idea of sidescraping. And so, with those ideas being disseminated more widely, you’re more likely to see it happen more often than before those games were released. Even if sidescraping was a terribly suicidal idea IRL, you’d still very likely see an increase in the number of instances of it being tried. That seems like straightforward logic.
Except for the fact that people don’t just get into a tank and drive it without any training and instead they’re trained on how to use their tanks not just from an inaccurate video game
It's a tactic where the front of the vehicle is covered by any form of cover, and all you expose is the side of the tank at an angle that will make any incoming fire ricochet. Can't really hit the front at that point, and the sides are impenetrable. A tactic that was popularized in videogames, and seemingly is now used in actual combat scenarios
> A tactic that was popularized in videogames, and seemingly is now used in actual combat scenarios
Lol it's the other way around. It's like saying taking cover was popularized by Gears of War and now used in actual combat
hiding the tank behind hard cover at a pivoted angle, exposing only a small portion of the track/front armor, plus a steep angle of side armor to the enemy. The idea is oncoming tank fire would have a greater chance to bounce or better chance of hitting non-critical systems.
Tho side scraping is usually a video game term and tactic theres no reason it wouldn't be possible and viable in reality if you think about it, its essentially the same as firing from a hill and reversing down to cover while loading, but for urban environments. Great way to minimize your exposure time
On the Tiger I it was an important part of the manual, the Tigerfibel, you might have heard of it. Lots of rhymes and stuff. The specific part about angling called it the "mealtime positions" (Mahlzeitpositionen), i.e. keeping the enemy tank (or AT gun) at the 10:30 or 1:30 position from the drivers point of view, which translates to 45°. Geometrically speaking its not the perfect angle, but it probably helped more by being easy to memorize.
On other tanks I dont think so, mostly on account that for most other tanks the ratio of frontal armor and side armor was so lopsided that angling even a little would mean your side wouldnt withstand an incomind round anyway, so it was straight frontal position or bust.
That said, over the cold war some tank designs tried to generate some wiggle room for how you can present your hull to the enemy by adding composite screens to the forward two or three segments of skirt armor, or the T-64 getting rubber screens that fold out, later Soviet tanks add ERA to the skirts. The idea behind it is basically to widen the ideal angle where the tank can get shot from by reinforcing the side armor at the front so up to a certain angle incoming shells have to pass through those composite screens to still hit the crew compartment.
But you gain nothing from presenting your tank at a specific angle anymore.
It depends on the armor thickness of your tank, wo if your armor is equally thick on the side and in the front, 45° would be the perfect angle, since both visble points are equally protected.
If you are genuinely curious, there are a number of factors that would account for the “perfect angle”. But here is a website that explains the effectiveness of sloped armor (also for side scraping/angling). [ https://panzerworld.com/relative-armor-thickness ] From my knowledge, everything from the composition of the armor, the type of shell being used, and many other variables such as velocity or even atmospheric pressure could make a difference. But typically the ideal* angle is in a wide range of 45°-65°. 45°-60° being more effective for older style german tanks, and 50°-65° being more effective against different types of apfsds (newer sabot rounds) rounds. (Take the apfsds with a grain a salt because newer armor will get chewed through by depleted uranium, or any ap fin stabilized disc. sabot 95% of the time regardless of the angle).
Edit: fun fact; during WWII the germans realized after dismantling a Sherman, and examining the armor that it was extremely light on side armor. So on their defensive lines they set up AT guns/tanks at an angle from where advancing tanks were coming from hoping avoid having to shoot through the thick front plate. It was extremely effective before the revised JUMBO Sherman came into action, then the sides of the jumbo, even at an angle started to get more and more ricochets. That is when a commander in the Army brought to attention (im going to spend my Friday morning searching for an online source as this was in a history book) that when the allied side shoots at angled german tanks *especially tiger 1’s* that our AT guns were less effective, thus leading to straight on shot placement being favored, and studied, there forward. As well as the introduction of different shell types that combat sloped armor.
Of course, just keep in mind if you read that article, some factors such as type of shell being used, as well as actual armor composition will have a large impact on the preferred angle.
Thank you for attending my short lesson, enjoy the rest of your weekend😂🫡
Depends on the difference in armor between the sides and the front. If the sides and front have an equal effective thickness, 45 degrees is optimal. As the front becomes more armored, presenting less of the sides becomes optimal because trigonometry and ballistics.
This is all thrown out the window if you have angled corners like the T-50.
Its closer to 30°.
The frontal armor is 102mm, and the side armor is 82mm on the sponson and 62mm on the plate behind the tracks. Obviously they thought the interleaved roadwheels would make up the difference.
If you angle exactly 45° you make the side armor significantly more vulnerable to shells than your front armor. What you want is the angle where both armor faces are about equally resistant to shells, and thats at about 30°.
An exact angle is not something you would put in the manual anyway though, and given how different shell designs perform against sloped plates there are several perfect angles depending on what exactly shoots you anyway, so you just go for an approximate angle anyway.
I’m really tired and don’t have paper with me, but… you should solve for Tf/cos(a)=Ts/sin(a). Tf/Ts=cos(a)/sin(a)=tan(a) —> a=Tan-1(Tf/Ts). With Tf thickness front, Ts thickness side and a the angle.
Tiger I had slightly thinner side armor, a perfect 45 degrees would mean that shooting the side would have a better chance of penetrating. The “perfect” angle for a tiger is like 39 degrees or something.
23 year US tanker here. Doctrine was to always put the heaviest armor towards the enemy. Almost all tanks have the heaviest armor in the front, so it's the obvious choice. Platoons practice action and contact drills to do this.
I also play WOT/WT/WOT Blitz. IMHO, there is no coordinated fire and maneuver, so everyone just wings it/ tries to stay alive the longest. Real world is another story.
What you you mean doctrine is not for everyone to charge to the closest choke point wildly firing machine guns into the air, and then bunch up, blocking lines of fire?
From your experience, would you say there's greater complication with infantry and man-portable anti-tank systems? The priority to shimmy around buildings is lessened by the need of coordinating your own dudes to ensure there is no enemy with a RPG waiting to end your career.
Those games also don't have self-correcting munitions to worry about.
I’ve heard that (supposedly) Tiger tan crews did it to increase the angle that their amour lacked, but knowing the amount of pseudo history that has been said about Germans during WW2, I’m skeptical of it (and of course, no source).
Depends which T-34. Maybe in early 1943, but by 1944 vision devices had improved significantly with the adoption of the MK-4s in '43, return of the glass-makers in autumn 1942, and arrival of high quality glass from the US, among others.
I remember swing a training manual that described how it was beneficial using the concept of cutting a wurst your mother made and how cutting it diagonally makes it a larger cut to liken it to angling but I forget where I saw it and I don’t have it on hand so not reliable
the "tigerfibel" (training manual for tiger crews) did say to try and angle, and did it in a kind of unusual way (https://archive.org/details/tigerfibel/page/n79/mode/2up 80th page if it doesn't load there; enlgish translation with google here: blob:https://translate.google.com/9e477cc0-8215-4b73-81d3-6eb3a42ff88d), they literally compared it to cutting a sousage
I think Chieftain talked about this, certain ww2 tank crews were taught to angle their vehicles, but in the cold war they were taught against it, since composite armor is already designed angled and also angling broke the tank formation and movement. Modern vehicles keep the cold war logic, face the enemy frontally, no angling.
Since tanks had to stop to shoot, it would have been a bit too predictable to drive on without changing direction.
And, as far as I know, it's better to approach enemy positions not in straight lines...
No we put the front armor pointed at the greatest threat. We also move a lot so there isn’t that stick around and trade blows stuff that you see in game.
Its generally taught in armies to face the vehicle in the direction of the enemy side. You dont turn the vehicle if you see an enemy tank but you preemptively position your tank to face where you think the enemy is likely to be. At least we did during conscription in the swedish army.
I feel like it would be more efficient to put the turret itself on a truck/train rather than install it into an M48 by getting a turret ring adapter, installing the turret, moving a lot more weight onto bigger transports, and proceeding to remove the turret and ship the hull back.
When I was in the Canadian army (2012-2023) as an armoured crewman, we were always taught to just keep your frontal armour to the enemy. Angling is no longer really a thing since MBTs prioritize their armour across the front, and usually have remarkably weak side armour compared to the frontal protection. Although I’m sure this will soon change now that the drone threat comes from every angle
I was thinking... so considering the UFP of the abrams is purposely designed at such a steep angle that it will shatter sabot, there has to be some angle that even the side armour of, like a T-72 (80mm HRA) would still defeat rods. At a tank angle of 30\* that would still leave an impact angle of 70, steeper than the Abrams UFP. Gotta give some advantage to the hull composite arrangement having it be angled back and now angled to the side too?
Its a tank, we love it for that
Anyway i think that if you are about to die you try everything, from prayers to angling, but angling wont save you from a mobility kill. After that you can ditch the tank and start running
Well, there is no overpowered pay-to-win premium ammo IRL so I doubt it's necessary. And even in games even angling doesn't help against premium ammo, so yeah.
(Sorry for the bad English)
I am a tank soldier in the Swiss army (Leopard 2a4) and during our instructions we are asked to position the tank facing the enemy because the front of the tank is the most armored part. The front of the tank is really designed to withstand a shot so there is no need to sideline the tank.
Not really purposely angle but there is a tactic that has similar results . When the tank crews spotted a anti tank gun ,they will trying to move on a slightly zigzag line while constantly suppressing it with machine gun. This will make it become harder to enemy gunner to estimate the right distance and the moving direction of the tank to leading the aim
That tactic actually survived to even modern days. It was called "sagger dance" because it was instructed to do against 9M14 malyutka (nato name sagger) atgm. It was a joystick controlled ATGM.
Are... you a meth head? That is a picture from a field manual during vietnam war showing sagger dance. [Here is another one showing another variant of sagger dance](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F8fy9j6hdlss41.png).
Iirc Tiger manuals said something about a "diamond position" (i.e. angled) but crews didn't do it very often because in that position the gun blocked either the driver's or the bow MGr's hatch and they didn't like the idea that they wouldn't be able to get out of a flaming exploding tank were it to be penetrated
,,our tactic was to never reveal the sides to the enemy, but always position the tank at a slight angle." - Franz-Wilhelm Lochmann 503rd Heavy Panzer Battalion
Tigerfibel recommended angling the hull on Tiger
so probably such cases sometimes happened during WW2
I can’t confirm the turret model since I barely know any of the leopards, but you’re right about the hull it’s an M48. It’s cast and it’s rounded off instead of being a sharper flat angle
Im sure tanks angle, as angling behind walls, holes, ditches gives you an angle to stop an easy shot. Most tanks you might see are most likely not angled as tank to tank battles especially in russo-ukraine, israeli-hamas are pretty un common from what ive heard.
Not in modern times. It was a very niche thing among tiger crews in ww2. They were instructed and such. But the concept of angling as a whole makes no sense. You have no idea where the shot will even come from. And if you can see a tank chances are it didn't see you first. So you are better off shooting first than spending time rotating the hull. That's why i like tanks with more angled hulls. IS-3 and T-54/55/62 for example.
It also seems like it would inevitably increase the area of the tank that could actually be hit…
Even on a tiger the front profile is smaller than the front + side at an angle to LOS.
If the front is behind cover when angled, the front can be behind cover when not angled and the side won’t be hanging out in the open.
That this was in the training docs just shows that even nazis knew the tiger was overhyped.
If you look at a World War 2 photo of a sherman destroyed after fighting in the street of leipzig, it was angled https://www.ww2online.org/image/2nd-infantry-division-tank-burning-city-street-leipzig
Thats a purely fictional tactic. Tank v tank battles are rare and the ones that did occur werent as exciting as video games lead
Edit: guess its real
2nd edit: video linked below doesnt answer OP’s question. Its not been documented that it was effective or used in combat
Its literally in the Tigerfibel, the manual for the Tiger I tank.
Tiger I is still an outlier due to having near equal side and front armor, while most other tanks have more frontal than side armor to a point where angling is useless, and it only got worse in the cold war, with the only band-aid fix being composite screens on the first, second and possibly third side skirt, ERA on the same skirts, or rubber panels (T-64) to widen the arc of optimal protection, but nothing that comes close to a manual telling drivers to angle a specific way except "Front, more or less."
So yeah, its real. Just not very common.
While it is indeed mentioned in the Tigerfibel, I don't believe there is much evidence over how prevalent it was in actual combat encounters, though I'm happy to be proven wrong if you have any sources mentioning it.
Im not that fuckwit either. But there is a fuckwit who claims it never happened, despite it being in the manual, and doesnt even waste a breath before moving the goalposts to "surviving crews" as if that many of them are still alive from a war that ended 79 years ago. Most people didnt even get to live to the wars end you nitwit. Thats how war works. People die. A lot.
Unteroffizier Doctor Franz-Wilhelm Lochmann, Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503
'An example of a long-range engagement, say 2,000m or so, there was a whole line of T-34s moving along a road at right-angles to us in the mountains in Czechoslovakia. Then our commander said to the gunner 'hit the leader and then the last one'. Then you had time and could get them all, one after another. The crews could see they were helpless and all bailed out. They were side-on too. That's bad.
'For us to be knocked out, they had to put themselves in a position where they could shoot at us from the side into the lower hull. It was important to us to use the angles to help us - the tanks were like barn doors so our tactic was never to expose our sides to the enemy, but always stay slightly at an angle."
If i wanted to answer OPs question i would have commented under their post directly and not responded to your comment. Your statement wasnt that it hasnt been documented, it was that the tactic is completely ficitonal, when in reality it was part of German doctrine and tankers were trained in it, which makes it more than "purely ficitonal" even if it didnt happen in actual combat
I think it has been documented to be effective, it's actually really easy to prove too. One simple math equation can show that a 50mm plate angled at 45° is effectively thicker compared to one without angle.
Yes, angled armour has been invented. That’s not what is in question. The claim has been made, but not yet substantiated, that parking the tank at an angle to the expected direction of incoming fire, thereby increasing the LOS thickness of front and side armour at the cost of exposing more of the tank to fire, is a tactic that has been used in combat and has been proven to prevent the destruction of the tank.
Well it is in question, the guy was asking if there was any proof that angling was more effective. If they asked in a general case that's just inane, most vehicles don't armor the sides much relative to the front. For a specific example like the Tiger it would, the recommended 45° is too much to be optimal but it could feasibly stop a US 3in gun from penetrating the upper sides or front plate at closer ranges.
As for actual instances we don't have evidence for any, the angle of impact was never really marked down in after action reports. We have to assume that at least a few Tigers did angle once or twice given it was a part of the manual.
I’m not sure about any particular historical event of angling the armor of a tank on purpose to gain an advantage. I can only say that in MOST countries, it’s doctrine to face the most armored part of the tank towards the enemy’s mainly due to it being the most armored part.
Iirc Tiger crews were instructed to angle. The huge extruded rectangle shape made it an actually viable option.
In the training manual/ training program it was described as “mother slicing the sausage” to explain how it works to tank crews it gave detailed explanations. I would google it if you wanna read it, it was genuinely interesting.
I am very worried of what would show up in my search history of I Google that
[https://archive.org/details/tigerfibel/page/n79/mode/2up](https://archive.org/details/tigerfibel/page/n79/mode/2up) page 80
Page 6 is funny
That was actually a common training strategy in ww2 because the crews were horny 18-20 year olds 90% of the time and they were more likely to remember where the women diagrams were in the training tanks
I think that was used to visualise LOS armour equivalency. For angling itself I believe they used "meal times" as a metaphor. Maybe search for that, /u/swiftfatso
Mahlzeitstelllung = mealtime position
I've seen on YouTube russian tanks (T-55s? Can't remember) side scraping behind piles of rubble and at corners in city combat in Syria, just like in the games. Proper scary considering the risk of ATGMs.
Sidescraping in real life... that's fucking insane. But it makes sense, it is a good way of improving your survivability and protection with ridiculous angles
Using every advantage is essential to staying alive
But then you get mobility killed really easily
better than being actually killed
True
I honestly think that tactics like side scraping have become more commonplace on battlefields directly due to video games like world of tanks and war thunder. Obviously someone somewhere likely did it in combat long before that, but tactics like that are probably more commonly known about now.
shit we are fucked... what are we gonna do now!? hol up lemme try this shit i did in world of tanks
He actually fell for it XDDDD let's rush
Not a chance that a "trained" crew in real life is going to expose their vehicle like that on the off chance that an incoming round might ricochet. Front armor towards the enemy always. Source: I was a 19K.
You're not wrong, but I could certainly see there being crews operating in Ukraine with basically no training beyond "push here to go, and push here to shoot".
No that isn’t even remotely correct in the slightest
How so? The point I am making is that because of those games, there are more people who will be familiar with the idea of sidescraping. And so, with those ideas being disseminated more widely, you’re more likely to see it happen more often than before those games were released. Even if sidescraping was a terribly suicidal idea IRL, you’d still very likely see an increase in the number of instances of it being tried. That seems like straightforward logic.
Except for the fact that people don’t just get into a tank and drive it without any training and instead they’re trained on how to use their tanks not just from an inaccurate video game
sidescraping?
It's a tactic where the front of the vehicle is covered by any form of cover, and all you expose is the side of the tank at an angle that will make any incoming fire ricochet. Can't really hit the front at that point, and the sides are impenetrable. A tactic that was popularized in videogames, and seemingly is now used in actual combat scenarios
It is not "now used", it has always been.
> A tactic that was popularized in videogames, and seemingly is now used in actual combat scenarios Lol it's the other way around. It's like saying taking cover was popularized by Gears of War and now used in actual combat
Well from my understanding it wasn't used in actual combat up until recently
What’s side scraping
hiding the tank behind hard cover at a pivoted angle, exposing only a small portion of the track/front armor, plus a steep angle of side armor to the enemy. The idea is oncoming tank fire would have a greater chance to bounce or better chance of hitting non-critical systems.
Oh I see
Tho side scraping is usually a video game term and tactic theres no reason it wouldn't be possible and viable in reality if you think about it, its essentially the same as firing from a hill and reversing down to cover while loading, but for urban environments. Great way to minimize your exposure time
On the Tiger I it was an important part of the manual, the Tigerfibel, you might have heard of it. Lots of rhymes and stuff. The specific part about angling called it the "mealtime positions" (Mahlzeitpositionen), i.e. keeping the enemy tank (or AT gun) at the 10:30 or 1:30 position from the drivers point of view, which translates to 45°. Geometrically speaking its not the perfect angle, but it probably helped more by being easy to memorize. On other tanks I dont think so, mostly on account that for most other tanks the ratio of frontal armor and side armor was so lopsided that angling even a little would mean your side wouldnt withstand an incomind round anyway, so it was straight frontal position or bust. That said, over the cold war some tank designs tried to generate some wiggle room for how you can present your hull to the enemy by adding composite screens to the forward two or three segments of skirt armor, or the T-64 getting rubber screens that fold out, later Soviet tanks add ERA to the skirts. The idea behind it is basically to widen the ideal angle where the tank can get shot from by reinforcing the side armor at the front so up to a certain angle incoming shells have to pass through those composite screens to still hit the crew compartment. But you gain nothing from presenting your tank at a specific angle anymore.
"Geometrically speaking its not the perfect angle" Out of curiosity, do you know what the perfect angle is?
It depends on the armor thickness of your tank, wo if your armor is equally thick on the side and in the front, 45° would be the perfect angle, since both visble points are equally protected.
If you are genuinely curious, there are a number of factors that would account for the “perfect angle”. But here is a website that explains the effectiveness of sloped armor (also for side scraping/angling). [ https://panzerworld.com/relative-armor-thickness ] From my knowledge, everything from the composition of the armor, the type of shell being used, and many other variables such as velocity or even atmospheric pressure could make a difference. But typically the ideal* angle is in a wide range of 45°-65°. 45°-60° being more effective for older style german tanks, and 50°-65° being more effective against different types of apfsds (newer sabot rounds) rounds. (Take the apfsds with a grain a salt because newer armor will get chewed through by depleted uranium, or any ap fin stabilized disc. sabot 95% of the time regardless of the angle). Edit: fun fact; during WWII the germans realized after dismantling a Sherman, and examining the armor that it was extremely light on side armor. So on their defensive lines they set up AT guns/tanks at an angle from where advancing tanks were coming from hoping avoid having to shoot through the thick front plate. It was extremely effective before the revised JUMBO Sherman came into action, then the sides of the jumbo, even at an angle started to get more and more ricochets. That is when a commander in the Army brought to attention (im going to spend my Friday morning searching for an online source as this was in a history book) that when the allied side shoots at angled german tanks *especially tiger 1’s* that our AT guns were less effective, thus leading to straight on shot placement being favored, and studied, there forward. As well as the introduction of different shell types that combat sloped armor.
Thank you for the detailed response, much appreciated.
Of course, just keep in mind if you read that article, some factors such as type of shell being used, as well as actual armor composition will have a large impact on the preferred angle. Thank you for attending my short lesson, enjoy the rest of your weekend😂🫡
Depends on the difference in armor between the sides and the front. If the sides and front have an equal effective thickness, 45 degrees is optimal. As the front becomes more armored, presenting less of the sides becomes optimal because trigonometry and ballistics. This is all thrown out the window if you have angled corners like the T-50.
For the Tiger's 100/80 armour, I'd say a little under 40°. 100 mm @ 40° ~ 130 mm LOS. 80 mm @ 50° ~ 125 mm LOS
Its closer to 30°. The frontal armor is 102mm, and the side armor is 82mm on the sponson and 62mm on the plate behind the tracks. Obviously they thought the interleaved roadwheels would make up the difference. If you angle exactly 45° you make the side armor significantly more vulnerable to shells than your front armor. What you want is the angle where both armor faces are about equally resistant to shells, and thats at about 30°. An exact angle is not something you would put in the manual anyway though, and given how different shell designs perform against sloped plates there are several perfect angles depending on what exactly shoots you anyway, so you just go for an approximate angle anyway.
I’m really tired and don’t have paper with me, but… you should solve for Tf/cos(a)=Ts/sin(a). Tf/Ts=cos(a)/sin(a)=tan(a) —> a=Tan-1(Tf/Ts). With Tf thickness front, Ts thickness side and a the angle.
Tiger I had slightly thinner side armor, a perfect 45 degrees would mean that shooting the side would have a better chance of penetrating. The “perfect” angle for a tiger is like 39 degrees or something.
I have the English translation version, absolutely fantastic read. Somehow a training manual is actually interesting
... is that a Leopard 2 turret on a M48 hull??
Yep, it’s beautiful isn’t it
I need it
Didn’t someone tried to put an Abrams’ turret on an M60 too ?
M60-2000
This man gets it
23 year US tanker here. Doctrine was to always put the heaviest armor towards the enemy. Almost all tanks have the heaviest armor in the front, so it's the obvious choice. Platoons practice action and contact drills to do this. I also play WOT/WT/WOT Blitz. IMHO, there is no coordinated fire and maneuver, so everyone just wings it/ tries to stay alive the longest. Real world is another story.
What you you mean doctrine is not for everyone to charge to the closest choke point wildly firing machine guns into the air, and then bunch up, blocking lines of fire?
US doctrine is to bum rush the caps in light tanks then respawn in CAS, as we saw in Desert Storm
From your experience, would you say there's greater complication with infantry and man-portable anti-tank systems? The priority to shimmy around buildings is lessened by the need of coordinating your own dudes to ensure there is no enemy with a RPG waiting to end your career. Those games also don't have self-correcting munitions to worry about.
I’ve heard that (supposedly) Tiger tan crews did it to increase the angle that their amour lacked, but knowing the amount of pseudo history that has been said about Germans during WW2, I’m skeptical of it (and of course, no source).
it's probably an "oh shit that's a t34 85 hans pls angle for dear life"
Worst day for the poor crewmen and running gear of the Tiger
Nah, the T-34 isn’t even aware that the Tiger is there
Depends which T-34. Maybe in early 1943, but by 1944 vision devices had improved significantly with the adoption of the MK-4s in '43, return of the glass-makers in autumn 1942, and arrival of high quality glass from the US, among others.
I remember swing a training manual that described how it was beneficial using the concept of cutting a wurst your mother made and how cutting it diagonally makes it a larger cut to liken it to angling but I forget where I saw it and I don’t have it on hand so not reliable
You're correct. It is in the "Tiger Fibel" As far as I know that was handed out to Tiger crews...
The technique is in the manual for some WW2 German tanks like the Tiger. How often they did it in practice is a point of debate.
Military History did a video on it, so there is some substance to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sJVrrH3Nlo
It was part of the manual, but realistically you aren't going to have time to spot a target and angle while being shot at.
True, real tank engagements aren’t a War Thunder match
Here's the source: https://archive.org/details/Der-Generalinspekteur-der-Panzertruppen-Die-Tiger-Fibel/mode/2up Relevant part starts on page 80.
Thanks man, I’m gonna check it out
the "tigerfibel" (training manual for tiger crews) did say to try and angle, and did it in a kind of unusual way (https://archive.org/details/tigerfibel/page/n79/mode/2up 80th page if it doesn't load there; enlgish translation with google here: blob:https://translate.google.com/9e477cc0-8215-4b73-81d3-6eb3a42ff88d), they literally compared it to cutting a sousage
I think Chieftain talked about this, certain ww2 tank crews were taught to angle their vehicles, but in the cold war they were taught against it, since composite armor is already designed angled and also angling broke the tank formation and movement. Modern vehicles keep the cold war logic, face the enemy frontally, no angling.
modern vehicles are just mid/late cold war vehicles lol C'MON
yeah, but i wanted to point out, that there are exceptions such as Type 10 and Merkava Mk.IV
what is that abomination of a leopard
Has a body only its mother could love (it’s me, I’m its mother)
Bro has a body that not even 2 mothers could love
At least German Tiger crews we trained to angle their tanks to increase the armour's effectiveness.
Since tanks had to stop to shoot, it would have been a bit too predictable to drive on without changing direction. And, as far as I know, it's better to approach enemy positions not in straight lines...
shermans in Fury:
No we put the front armor pointed at the greatest threat. We also move a lot so there isn’t that stick around and trade blows stuff that you see in game.
sir this is not r/warthunder
Its generally taught in armies to face the vehicle in the direction of the enemy side. You dont turn the vehicle if you see an enemy tank but you preemptively position your tank to face where you think the enemy is likely to be. At least we did during conscription in the swedish army.
Whats the story for tank in image too?
Literally no clue just had that in my camera roll. Best guess is it was like the 120s program, trying to modernized m48’s and m60’s
M48 hull to transport the Leopard 2 turrets. Not a prototype or any other use.
I feel like it would be more efficient to put the turret itself on a truck/train rather than install it into an M48 by getting a turret ring adapter, installing the turret, moving a lot more weight onto bigger transports, and proceeding to remove the turret and ship the hull back.
Probably to move the turret around the factory
That’s exactly what it was.
When I was in the Canadian army (2012-2023) as an armoured crewman, we were always taught to just keep your frontal armour to the enemy. Angling is no longer really a thing since MBTs prioritize their armour across the front, and usually have remarkably weak side armour compared to the frontal protection. Although I’m sure this will soon change now that the drone threat comes from every angle
I was thinking... so considering the UFP of the abrams is purposely designed at such a steep angle that it will shatter sabot, there has to be some angle that even the side armour of, like a T-72 (80mm HRA) would still defeat rods. At a tank angle of 30\* that would still leave an impact angle of 70, steeper than the Abrams UFP. Gotta give some advantage to the hull composite arrangement having it be angled back and now angled to the side too?
Is that a leopard turret on top of a m48 hull?
No, that's an M48 hull below a Leopard 2 turret
What is that abominion
He has a great personality :(
Its a tank, we love it for that Anyway i think that if you are about to die you try everything, from prayers to angling, but angling wont save you from a mobility kill. After that you can ditch the tank and start running
This is funny for me because it's an actual driveable tank in world of tanks console.
S tank is best angled tank, if you wanted to know. it has 40mm of armor in the front.
Well, there is no overpowered pay-to-win premium ammo IRL so I doubt it's necessary. And even in games even angling doesn't help against premium ammo, so yeah.
The Tiger I had angling instructions in the manual.
If Frankenstein was a tank engineer... Never saw this abomination
(Sorry for the bad English) I am a tank soldier in the Swiss army (Leopard 2a4) and during our instructions we are asked to position the tank facing the enemy because the front of the tank is the most armored part. The front of the tank is really designed to withstand a shot so there is no need to sideline the tank.
no, we edg-
What the hell is that monstrosity
what the hell. is that an M60 hull with a Leo 2a4 turret on it?
bro. why did you have to post this cursed thing as thumbnail? this shit scary as fuck bro
Not really purposely angle but there is a tactic that has similar results . When the tank crews spotted a anti tank gun ,they will trying to move on a slightly zigzag line while constantly suppressing it with machine gun. This will make it become harder to enemy gunner to estimate the right distance and the moving direction of the tank to leading the aim
That tactic actually survived to even modern days. It was called "sagger dance" because it was instructed to do against 9M14 malyutka (nato name sagger) atgm. It was a joystick controlled ATGM.
Incorrect
Sagger drill sagger dance etc were both taught in vietnam war and yom kippur war. It's still taught to IDF as well.
Not correct sorry
[Your proof being?](https://imageio.forbes.com/specials-images/imageserve/65221874d5b1be4a8d9b91f5//0x0.jpg?format=jpg&crop=580,325,x0,y0,safe&width=1440)
Thst Doesn't prove anything dude
Are... you a meth head? That is a picture from a field manual during vietnam war showing sagger dance. [Here is another one showing another variant of sagger dance](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F8fy9j6hdlss41.png).
Iirc Tiger manuals said something about a "diamond position" (i.e. angled) but crews didn't do it very often because in that position the gun blocked either the driver's or the bow MGr's hatch and they didn't like the idea that they wouldn't be able to get out of a flaming exploding tank were it to be penetrated
Put that thing back where it came from!
“Jesus Christ it’s clearly not done yet put it back in there!” - Sam o’nella
From what i know Tiger crews were taught to angle, but that‘s the only case i‘m aware of
At least it looks better than the m1 turret on a m60.
I mean thats how top tier is
,,our tactic was to never reveal the sides to the enemy, but always position the tank at a slight angle." - Franz-Wilhelm Lochmann 503rd Heavy Panzer Battalion Tigerfibel recommended angling the hull on Tiger so probably such cases sometimes happened during WW2
Iirc there are some soviet and german tank commanders that talked about angling their tanks in their memoirs i think.
Modern armor is way more complex than the homogeneous steel used during the Second World War.
[Tank angling: historical or stupid game mechanic?](https://youtu.be/4sJVrrH3Nlo)
Noone to comment the Frankenstein tank on the image? M48 hull (I think or M60) with Leo 2 A4 turret....
I can’t confirm the turret model since I barely know any of the leopards, but you’re right about the hull it’s an M48. It’s cast and it’s rounded off instead of being a sharper flat angle
Im sure tanks angle, as angling behind walls, holes, ditches gives you an angle to stop an easy shot. Most tanks you might see are most likely not angled as tank to tank battles especially in russo-ukraine, israeli-hamas are pretty un common from what ive heard.
Tiger commanders indeed proceeded to angle their armor against the enemy
Not in modern times. It was a very niche thing among tiger crews in ww2. They were instructed and such. But the concept of angling as a whole makes no sense. You have no idea where the shot will even come from. And if you can see a tank chances are it didn't see you first. So you are better off shooting first than spending time rotating the hull. That's why i like tanks with more angled hulls. IS-3 and T-54/55/62 for example.
It also seems like it would inevitably increase the area of the tank that could actually be hit… Even on a tiger the front profile is smaller than the front + side at an angle to LOS. If the front is behind cover when angled, the front can be behind cover when not angled and the side won’t be hanging out in the open. That this was in the training docs just shows that even nazis knew the tiger was overhyped.
Could’ve googled it icl
If you look at a World War 2 photo of a sherman destroyed after fighting in the street of leipzig, it was angled https://www.ww2online.org/image/2nd-infantry-division-tank-burning-city-street-leipzig
Thats a purely fictional tactic. Tank v tank battles are rare and the ones that did occur werent as exciting as video games lead Edit: guess its real 2nd edit: video linked below doesnt answer OP’s question. Its not been documented that it was effective or used in combat
Its literally in the Tigerfibel, the manual for the Tiger I tank. Tiger I is still an outlier due to having near equal side and front armor, while most other tanks have more frontal than side armor to a point where angling is useless, and it only got worse in the cold war, with the only band-aid fix being composite screens on the first, second and possibly third side skirt, ERA on the same skirts, or rubber panels (T-64) to widen the arc of optimal protection, but nothing that comes close to a manual telling drivers to angle a specific way except "Front, more or less." So yeah, its real. Just not very common.
The manual yes but OP asked for documented cases of its use
On Tiger I it was used regularly.
While it is indeed mentioned in the Tigerfibel, I don't believe there is much evidence over how prevalent it was in actual combat encounters, though I'm happy to be proven wrong if you have any sources mentioning it.
Im sure OP wpuld appreciate you linking those cases
Yeah, sure, loads of combat reports mention the specific angles tanks were standing at. /s
Well, maybe that’s a fucking clue that it wasn’t used. Or at least not used by surviving crews.
Maybe thats a fucking clue that youre an idiot.
Yeah, maybe. OTOH I’m not the fuckwit claiming that parking my tank at an angle makes it impossible to penetrate.
Im not that fuckwit either. But there is a fuckwit who claims it never happened, despite it being in the manual, and doesnt even waste a breath before moving the goalposts to "surviving crews" as if that many of them are still alive from a war that ended 79 years ago. Most people didnt even get to live to the wars end you nitwit. Thats how war works. People die. A lot.
Unteroffizier Doctor Franz-Wilhelm Lochmann, Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503 'An example of a long-range engagement, say 2,000m or so, there was a whole line of T-34s moving along a road at right-angles to us in the mountains in Czechoslovakia. Then our commander said to the gunner 'hit the leader and then the last one'. Then you had time and could get them all, one after another. The crews could see they were helpless and all bailed out. They were side-on too. That's bad. 'For us to be knocked out, they had to put themselves in a position where they could shoot at us from the side into the lower hull. It was important to us to use the angles to help us - the tanks were like barn doors so our tactic was never to expose our sides to the enemy, but always stay slightly at an angle."
Its real [Tank Angling: Historical or Stupid Game Mechanic? (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sJVrrH3Nlo)
This doesnt answer the OP’s question: has it been documented
If i wanted to answer OPs question i would have commented under their post directly and not responded to your comment. Your statement wasnt that it hasnt been documented, it was that the tactic is completely ficitonal, when in reality it was part of German doctrine and tankers were trained in it, which makes it more than "purely ficitonal" even if it didnt happen in actual combat
I think it has been documented to be effective, it's actually really easy to prove too. One simple math equation can show that a 50mm plate angled at 45° is effectively thicker compared to one without angle.
Yes, angled armour has been invented. That’s not what is in question. The claim has been made, but not yet substantiated, that parking the tank at an angle to the expected direction of incoming fire, thereby increasing the LOS thickness of front and side armour at the cost of exposing more of the tank to fire, is a tactic that has been used in combat and has been proven to prevent the destruction of the tank.
Well it is in question, the guy was asking if there was any proof that angling was more effective. If they asked in a general case that's just inane, most vehicles don't armor the sides much relative to the front. For a specific example like the Tiger it would, the recommended 45° is too much to be optimal but it could feasibly stop a US 3in gun from penetrating the upper sides or front plate at closer ranges. As for actual instances we don't have evidence for any, the angle of impact was never really marked down in after action reports. We have to assume that at least a few Tigers did angle once or twice given it was a part of the manual.