Comments by "" (@TheArklyte) on "Tank Angling: Historical or Stupid Game Mechanic?" video.

OP was more of an excuse to make a video on the topic. If you notice his comment was completely ignored by other people. So unlikely it would have been addressed by itself if he wasn't already thinking about making a video about that.
19
Was mention of angling absent in US manuals because just like Panther M4 had quite vulnerable sides and had to rely on already angled front plate? Compared to earlier generation "boxy" tanks like PzKw.III, IV, KV-1 and Tiger. Even T-34 had extremely angled side armor that was eating away at its potential internal space and which didn't reappear on newer soviet medium tanks. So de facto US simply had no vehicle in service that would benefit from that>no reason to note this observation and teach crews about it. However at the same time I would have expected it to be mentioned in manuals of tank destroyer crews as it would mean a choice at where to shoot at a Tiger.
3
Was mention of angling absent in US manuals because just like Panther M4 had quite vulnerable sides and had to rely on already angled front plate? Compared to earlier generation "boxy" tanks like PzKw.III, IV, KV-1 and Tiger. Even T-34 had extremely angled side armor that was eating away at its potential internal space and which didn't reappear on newer soviet medium tanks. So de facto US simply had no vehicle in service that would benefit from that>no reason to note this observation and teach crews about it. However at the same time I would have expected it to be mentioned in manuals of tank destroyer crews as it would mean a choice at where to shoot at a Tiger.
2
@ridhosamudro2199 I'm too young to argue about generation gap, but I still have no bloody idea what you've said
2
@strakhovandrri сразу с порога лопатой на вентилятор? Смело, одобряю...
1