tank angling (is it realistic)

[kempe]

hey all,

now, i consider myself a semi expert (sorry if i sound like a dick) on all things to do with infantry. The tactics, storys, equiptment and probably most importantly the weapons.

what i dont know all that much about however is armoured combat, i mean i know the basics and such but yeah. i was thinking, does angling the tank make that much difference in real life? befor i played RO i had no idea that it was so important to angle the tank and simply assumed they generaly pointed their tanks front on to the enemy in order to no expose the weaker armour.

any of the tank experts care to comment?

thanks,
kempe

[Witzig]

Yes it does, if the Bullet comes in at a flat angle it will bounce off, except if you shoot a BA-64 with a Panther . First the shell has to penetrate more Material and depending on the Angle the Tip is not the first part of the Shell to make contact with the Armor.

It was adviced to angle the Tiger Tank whenever possible (even in the Basic Manual for the Tiger Tank). Though the current System is not working as intended, but the fix will come soon, i'd say considering the last remarks from TW we will se the Patch in the next week. But i might be wrong .

If you want i can post a part of the Panther Fibel (manual) which shows off some Penetration Pics (with angles).

[kempe]

yeah buddy thatd be nice, or you could email me the whole thing? :P

so let me get this clear? tank crews were actually trained to angle their tanks?
is this the case in modern day conflicts also?

[EGF_PeeGee]

Thanks Witzig, that's interesting. Apart from being advised, is there any record of testing to see how effective it was?

I can see distinct disadvantages in some circumstances. Imagine for example a Tiger I facing a Sherman or Cromwell at say 500 meters. Why risk exposing any of your track or suspension system when your frontal armour is invulnerable anyway?

[kempe]

yeah, and also, did the rounds bounce like that. i know rifle bullets can riccocet(sp?) quite easily but alot of my shots that bounce in game seem as though they shouldnt have and at least should have gouged a large hole in the armour then fragmented.

[[-project.rattus-]]

Originally Posted by kempe

yeah, and also, did the rounds bounce like that. i know rifle bullets can riccocet(sp?) quite easily but alot of my shots that bounce in game seem as though they shouldnt have and at least should have gouged a large hole in the armour then fragmented.

As already said, the tank penetration is somewhat bugged ATM.

But, as AT rounds were basically solid objects like riflerounds, they do ricochet like bullets.

[Witzig]

Well believe it doesn't make a difference knowdays, considering the heavily sloped Armor on the Front of most Modern Day Tanks, and most can penetrate each other anyway. Well i saw one small snippet of Combat footage where the Tank was angled, though it could have been a practice.

Though one has to keep in Mind that the Tiger/Panther did kill their Enemies at ranges up to 3000m (sometimes though rarely even at 4000m). But at 500m its easier to turn the complete Tiger to engage enemies at those Ranges.

@Kempe
PM your Email and i'll send it to you, its completly in German though *g*

And here the Penetration Examples (b/w Pics of Highspeed Camaera Photos):

[Ron]

Imo i think angling is way over done, if the russian tanks are angled at all their practically invunerable even from distances of under 30 or so meters its annoying and the german tanks with exception of the panther feel like cardboard boxes especially the panzers they have useless armour and their gun cant touch the unstoppable T WHATEVERS If they are angled no matter how close you get.
Of course hopefully the patch will address many of these issues at the very least we should be able to get one shot kills now that the internal damage system will be fixed.

[EGF_PeeGee]

Witzig, could you let us know what the lower panel is describing? I am interested to know what aspect they are considering which places the Churchill below the Sherman, T34 and KV1.

[Witzig]

The Arrow with the markings compares which Tanks can be penetrated, Material Quality, Angle and Thickness are calculated in, and only the thickest and hardest to penetrate Part of the Armor is considered. I guess this might give the Sherman an Edge, though both are way below the Maximum Penetration of the Panther (the max Penetration end at the Tip of the first Arrow). Iirc the Churchill had mostly flat Armor, like the Tiger.

Though we can safely assume this is with the best Ammo avaible for the Panther, and thus its a bit exacgerated. But thats the way those things are done in War, the times the most Lies are spread are: Prior to an Election, During a War and after going Hunting.

[Centar]

Originally Posted by kempe

hey all,

now, i consider myself a semi expert (sorry if i sound like a dick) on all things to do with infantry. The tactics, storys, equiptment and probably most importantly the weapons.

what i dont know all that much about however is armoured combat, i mean i know the basics and such but yeah. i was thinking, does angling the tank make that much difference in real life? befor i played RO i had no idea that it was so important to angle the tank and simply assumed they generaly pointed their tanks front on to the enemy in order to no expose the weaker armour.

any of the tank experts care to comment?

thanks,
kempe

The tank damage system in the current build is broken so that it magnifies the effect of angling a tank. This will be fixed for the next release (hopefyll soon to come) and then angling a tank will help, but not to the unrealistic extent as it does now. So just hold tight.

[kempe]

centaur, while we are on the topic of fixing the tanks, i feel it is absolutly critical to get rid of the BF2 style "hitpoint" system. im all for the destruction of guns, killing of individual crew, engine fires, jamming of turrets ect.

[Witzig]

Originally Posted by kempe

centaur, while we are on the topic of fixing the tanks, i feel it is absolutly critical to get rid of the BF2 style "hitpoint" system. im all for the destruction of guns, killing of individual crew, engine fires, jamming of turrets ect.

Well afaik it was not intended to get a Hitpoint based System, this is part of the Bug iirc. Currently implemented in the Armor System (if working as intended) is the Ammo Box, the Engine and the Tracks, they will add more compartementalized Damage Boxes in the future.

[[5thW]Rehakles[TRO]]

somebody was talking about the panther-fibel earlier on...havent seen he posted it yet, so I will do it for tiger and panther...here we go:

tiger-fibel:
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/TIGE...tigerfibel.pdf

panther-fibel
http://www.panther1944.de/Panther/fibel/fibel.htm

thx to [5thW]Skidmark[ITO], who found that for me. Im far too lazy to find it meself..

[Johnny555]

Originally Posted by EGF_PeeGee

Thanks Witzig, that's interesting. Apart from being advised, is there any record of testing to see how effective it was?

I can see distinct disadvantages in some circumstances. Imagine for example a Tiger I facing a Sherman or Cromwell at say 500 meters. Why risk exposing any of your track or suspension system when your frontal armour is invulnerable anyway?

By angling the tank you would actually expose less track to the enemy.

[Centar]

In the real life they almost always pointed the front of the hull against their target, very often even when only facing a single enemy. This is because the increased risk of then being shot in the vurnible flanks by yet hiding enemies was greater than the gained advantage of reduced risk of getting shot by that enemy in front.

[Hyperion2010]

Originally Posted by Centar

In the real life they almost always pointed the front of the hull against their target, very often even when only facing a single enemy. This is because the increased risk of then being shot in the vurnible flanks by yet hiding enemies was greater than the gained advantage of reduced risk of getting shot by that enemy in front.

I get the feeling that this was because they had better training and therefore could get off a well aimed shot that could knock out a tank faster than an untrained russian crew that had no idea where to aim which is not the case in ROO.

[Tak]

It's a case of 'ideal situation' versus 'real world' situation. Tank angle *is* important, and (as shown in the manual, thanks mate! ) was taught. But I highly doubt it was the *first* thing that came to mind when suddenly staring down the barrel of enemy armor.

I suspect (though, since I was not there, cannot say for sure ) that when given preparation time and knowing the direction an advance was coming from, tanks would be more likely to be angled in a support position appropriately. When already engaged in a situation though, the rules would go out the window as it's a matter of survival.


'course, the tanks being a bit bugged at the moment doesn't help at all

[Harry S. Truman]

Originally Posted by kempe

centaur, while we are on the topic of fixing the tanks, i feel it is absolutly critical to get rid of the BF2 style "hitpoint" system. im all for the destruction of guns, killing of individual crew, engine fires, jamming of turrets ect.

There is no 'hitpoint system'. I've had my 'red' tank glance a dozen or more shots before and other times blow up on the next hit. It's either penetrated or not.

[SOAD]

Originally Posted by Harry S. Truman

There is no 'hitpoint system'. I've had my 'red' tank glance a dozen or more shots before and other times blow up on the next hit. It's either penetrated or not.

bug makes it a hit point system. grenades kill tanks. or whatever. fixed in next patch. or so im told. whatever.