Tank Angling: Historical or Stupid Game Mechanic? 

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!

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

Panzer Gunner, by Bruno Friesen, pg. 72: "..for us, it would very likely be a matter of firing the main gun with its barrel over one of the front corners of our Panzer IV because that method added the advantage of slope to our vertical front amour and to the vertical armor of one side of our hull. Understandably, neither the driver nor the radio operator liked that technique because of the likelihood that one or the other's hatch cover would be obstructed by the gun barrel."

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

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

Thanks for the shoutout, Bernhard! We miss you!

Yeah, tanker that also got an engineering degree here, Angling is no longer done on modern MBTs because: A)Most if not all of the armor is concentrated at the front of the tanks. NERA elements take up a lot of volume. You dont have that kind of space in the dimension of the width of the tank if you want to keep it road/tunnel size. The armor on the side is A LOT weaker. B) Adding to the prior point, APFSDS and modern HEAT with proper distance rod(the funny stick on top of HEAT shells) do not ricochet because of critical angles. So what gamers call an "auto-bounce" doesnt happen anymore because the angle of impact for an automatic ricochet needs to be absurdly flat. Something like 10°. So the shells always start the penetration process and "bite" into the armor. After that, the normal penetration process occurs. And because the armor on the side(~100mm equivalent) is laughable when compared to the front (~1000mm RHA equivalent) no amount of angling will give the sides any meaningfull protection from enemy tank gun fire of 100mm calibre or above when exposed. The only angling you could do without exposing to much side is like maybe 5°? But achieving that kind of angling when an accurate shot is ranged and fired in a matter of seconds, thanks to laser rangerfinders and ballistic computers, is superhuman reflexes, battlefield awareness and would take a driver that is basically a hivemind with his TC and machine. All that for what? 5° that increase your chances to a point where its makes just an academic difference.

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'

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.

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

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.

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".

Speculation on why angling appears less in American sources even during WW2: I suggest this may be related to their armor layout. The Tiger is infamously (near-)vertically constructed on all sides, with the side armor being 80% of the front armor. Even little angling bears little risk and notable reward. The T-34 has a decreased angle on the side-armor, but it does still have a constructional angle and an even better 89% of the frontal thickness, partially making up for the more oblique angle. This again has little risk of showing a vulnerability, whilst improving the overall protection should the crew choose to angle. The M4 meanwhile had flat sides which were additionally only between 60 and 75% of the frontal armor's raw thickness, depending on the variant (excluding the Jumbo variants). The amount of angling that could be done before it becomes more of a liability to the tank in question is going to be less. Higher risk, fewer rewards. It would be interesting to see whether this can also be observed in manuals for the Tiger II and especially the Panther, due to them sharing those design characteristics of a much thinner, flat side in combination with an angled front. At least that's my take on why the practice doesn't appear to have been as common with US forces even at that time.

I'm still not quite sold on the prospect of tank angling. I mean, I know some of them can float and traverse on water, but do you really need that much firepower just to go fishing?

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

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

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.

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.

“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?”

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.

Everything is more clear with sausages

Aw man! I thought this would be about fishing with tanks! Disappointed. 😕

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!! :-)

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I think another reason is because for a very long time modern rounds would overpenetrate the armor of MBTs that angling for a few percent more armor won't do much, if he's firing a round that will go through two of your tanks.

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

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.

WT is great at teaching you this. It's why you won't find anyone intentionally angling at top tier other than side scrapping.

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

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

Oh man, I've been waiting for this topic for years: well done!!! I was considering becoming a patron for the Chieftain to discuss this very topic. It would be interesting if angling was used irl, it seems like panzer crew memoirs would be one of the few available sources.

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.

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.

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.

Excellent Repost! Always love your videos, & the gentle humour in them that some might miss 🙂

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.

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.

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

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!

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

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

This was a good one. Thanks for covering this. I read in more than place, especially in the Polish and French campaign's, that German crews were told to angle there tanks.

Brilliant content! For several years now, I was hoping MH(n)V or 'The Chieftain' would take on the merits-or real life application, if any-of tank crews angling their armor.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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!

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

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.

2:15- 2:23 lol Also, I don't know why people had a problem with this concept in the first place. It's common sense. You take a boxy shape made of steel (Tiger 1 hull) and you angle it, the effectiveness of the armor will increase.

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!

As always thank you for sharing new information to us

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...

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

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.

Without finishing the video: I remember Otto Carius writing about armor angling in his book "Tigers in the mud".

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

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.

Great stuff, I also love that you play Steel Division

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

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.

My stepfather Sgt. Roy Dais was a six pounder crew commander with the South Saskatchewan Regiment he told me that the best shot they could make was where the turret met the hull, If aimed right a shot would permanently jam the turret making it near impossible for the tank to make accurate shots.. miss you dad…

Incidentally, Bernhard, in addition to the fact that your content is incredibly (dare i say perfectly) accurate, I really like your German to English translations. Literally, they are exactly correct, transmitting both the information from the source language, and matching the usage of the target language.

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

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.

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

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.

This was a very interesting video. Thank you for another very educational video. ; )

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.

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

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

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.

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."

"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."

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

In the case of the Cold War-era Warsaw Pact documents, the composites seem to generally only be on the turret and glacis, perhaps due to their bulk. e.g., the T-72 has an estimated ~400mm of effective frontal protection but the sides are just 80mm of steel, so there's the mentioned issue of not having strong side armor to work with.

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.

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.

I have heard of and seen some training pages of a tiger manual or something of the sorts where the tank is presented as a 4 leaf clover where the corners of the tank are the leafs and the tankers were instructed in the pamphlet or page that they should always keep the side of the tank with the leaf facing the enemy.

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.

"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!"

Another 2 cents to put in on why angling would be inappropriate for modern MBTs: the proportions of the different elements that make up the side cross section are different, and in most cases it’s almost entirely running gear. When combined with the very high power of modern high velocity weapons, I think this would likely increase the chances of being mobility killed even if the underlying hull is strong enough to deflect the round

The sausage example was a simple easy to understand effective armor. Thank you for finding that information.

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.

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.

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

This video has really opened up a lot of new ideas for me. And really helps further my idea of disliking modern tank battles (game or real life). I learned a lot of new history today, and honestly, I feel like I can play war thunder more now with thinking much more of where I can functionally turn my tank, since I just kind of guess and die horribly.

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 !!