How do the angles work?

[CombinedArms]

I always get confused about this: when a tank is facing up hill or downhill, how does that affect the angles with which they're struck by opposing AP fire--and thus the penetration effects?

If a flat-fronted Churchill or Jumbo, say, is firing uphill against a steeply sloped German TD, does that in effect reverse the usual angle advantage? It seems to me the Churchill picks up the angle of the hill (maybe 30 to 40 degrees), making it that much less vulnerable, while the sloped German vehicle loses that many degrees. This would tend to make many German TDs far more vulnerable, since much of their resistance to AP fire comes from their angled armor. Have I got that right?

In general this would tend to mean that flat-fronted Allied tanks should attack uphill when possible and that steeply sloped Axis vehicles should avoid firing downhill. If a sloped Axis vehicle fires uphill, does it get even more of a bonus?

[gredeker]

I believe you're correct, but I think some of your to/from actions in the last paragraph are reversed. For example, a Hetzer should avoid engaging targets that are substantially higher than it, due to the decreased relative angle of their glacis.

However, the important thing to remember is to always try and seek hull-down status with German armor in this situation. The same angle that makes your turret and upper hull front angle more effective makes your _lower_ hull front _less_ effective. I can't tell you the number of times I've moved a Panther or Hetzer a few meters too far forward, then lost it to a lower hull penetration...

[ February 08, 2002, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: redeker ]

[Redwolf]

You have that reversed. The Churchill on the hil firing on a TH in the valley gets the advantage. When the Churchill fires, it gets the advantage of reducing the angle of the front plate on that IV/70 sucker. When the Churchill gets fired on, it gets an extra angle bonus on his already thick armor[*].

CMBO's angle resolution is not quite as complicated as people sometimes think. There is always a horizontal angle which is determined from the facing of the target tank (and nothing else for horizontal). And there is a vertical angle which is the angle of the plate, added or subtracted to by the height difference of the unit's positions (and nothing else for vertical). Those two angles which are always 90 degrees to each other are then combined with a simple angle addition.

I am not sure whether CMBO take the angle of a falling projectile (from even-height shooter and target) into account, anyone knows?

[*] this part of why the British thought they did not need to tangle with sloped armor for a long time, some of them thought that in the field you always get angles from the situation, and if you angle yourself, you might even make it worse. See the forward side of a King Tiger turret, which is more vulnerable to fire from 10 or 2 o'clock than a sqaure turret would have been. Practice proved the angle-advocates right, but it doesn't go without saying.

[Conscript Bagger]

Originally posted by redwolf:

CMBO's angle resolution is not quite as complicated as people sometimes think. There is always a horizontal angle which is determined from the facing of the target tank (and nothing else for horizontal). And there is a vertical angle which is the angle of the plate, added or subtracted to by the height difference of the unit's positions (and nothing else for vertical). Those two angles which are always 90 degrees to each other are then combined with a simple angle addition.

So if I understand your description correctly, it makes no difference to vertical armor angle if the AFV is on a slope with an extreme nose-high or nose-down attitude?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Offwhite:

So if I understand your description correctly, it makes no difference to vertical armor angle if the AFV is on a slope with an extreme nose-high or nose-down attitude?

Ups, you are right, I'm missing one item.

I can't try it out right now, but I think the vertical position has two components:

- the relative height of shooter and target, which builds an angle

- and the standing of the target, as you say nose-up/down, which is directly added to the angle

- [and then the target vehicle armor plate angle]

Don't quote me on this, I have to try it out later.

Being high on the hill can backfire, e.g. for a Panther with its belley which is even thin with its angle, not to speak of someone shooting from below.

[Blackcat]

In general this would tend to mean that flat-fronted Allied tanks should attack uphill when possible and that steeply sloped Axis vehicles should avoid firing downhill. If a sloped Axis vehicle fires uphill, does it get even more of a bonus?

If you would just care to move your Churchills and Cromwells forward a tad you will find your answer!

Cheers

[Dschugaschwili]

I think redwolf has it right.

Basically the rules are:

- If you're being fired at, everything that increases the angle of impact on your own armor plates is good.

- If you're firing at anything, everything that decreases the angle of impact on the enemy armor plates is good.

Keep in mind that the armor slopes for most lower hull plates are actually negative.

Dschugaschwili

[apex]

Slope is calculated net. In a game a week ago I really learned to appreciate this attention to detail. My Jagpanzer IV (60mm at 50 degrees) was in a hull down position, and it was pointing slightly upwards, (maybe 3 or 4 degrees incline). 150 meters frontally ahead was a polish Firefly, on the lower flat terrain. In the resulting shootout, the Firefly ricocheted three hits off the JgPz's armor, to my surprise at the time. It was only then that I calculated and figured out 55 degrees plus 4 degrees incline plus the lower position had to be a net of a little more than 60 degrees, and since the 17lb gun has 62mm penetration at 60 degrees and 100 meters ...

apex