10mm Armor Plate vs 160mm Concrete ft. tungsten carbide penetrator | Armor Penetration Simulation 

Lol, maybe

183 mm Harden concreate at 1870 m/s ?

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Try depleted uranium cannon balls at 2000/ms vs Leopard 2A5 turret face

It would definitely be interesting at 8km/sec.

​@@pikaachoo3888isecond this majestic sugestion

Facts

Sub calibre rounds travel very fast and have a tendency to crack or shatter on impact

Seems completely unrealistic tbh. A .50 cal AP round stays together through half inch IRL.

@@johnnycab8986 If you want to compare small calibers, I once posted an x-ray of a 14.5mm AP, tungsten carbide, in the community tab. I'm afraid it turned into a thousand pieces after passing through the thin (5mm?) plate. It must also be said that hardened steel cores can also shatter. It's a matter of the shock the projectile experiences. If it lost most of its energy during penetration, it's no wonder it won't break. I won't guess without details.

tungtein carbide is very, very hard, which means it cannot compress or deform to absorb shock, like steel would

The harder a material is, the more likely it is to shatter when stressed. At least in most cases. Softer things will deform rather than break at their max stress levels.

It's not that small, i'd say the bulge is average at worst

Bad news bud...

E X P L I C I T D Y N A M I C S

y'know what bulge privileges removed.

What the fucking hell.

Yes, and the one on the left is described as producing a small bulge xD

That's hella long penetrator

@@joten70 [notices bulge] uwu I'm ashamed of myself for even saying that as a joke.

@@Treblaineyou should be

German tungsten was of dubious quality late in the war.

Tungsten carbide is relatively brittle, most early APDS rounds suffered similar problems

@@puff7145 you think it's inertia effect then?

@@feedbackzaloop This is an obvious case, because the steel casing under the influence of the armor gains torque, uncomfortably bending the penetrator. For less obvious situations: In the case of sloped armor, the tip of the penetrator bends up and then down, which again favors breakage. Apart from that. The time until the rear of the penetrator notices resistance is finite. This creates a tensile stress between the front and back area.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 funny how obvious and less obvious cases are swapped for us. As per "time until the rear of the penetrator notices resistance", with speed of sound in WC of over 6 km/s it is indeed very finite, but nothing your model couldn't catch. But from frame by frame replay it indeed looks rather that cracks appear due to penetrator bending. Anyways, much appreciated for food for thought!

my gaijin moment: 270mm apds (centurion 1) failed to pen isu-122 90mm armor

the cancer of war thunder: gaijin, aphe, and stalinium

_lovingly strokes T-10M APHEBC_

Spaced armor obstructs viewports, hatches and maintenance, as well as increasing physical dimensions of the tank, making it harder to transport etc. I'm guessing most simply didn't think it was worth the effort

​@@puff7145 It doesn't obstruct anything, you simply make a plate with an opening for those viewports. The only negative would be an increase in size, but it wouldn't be as significant as the side skirts of German tanks. Transportation wouldn't be an issue either, since they should be easily removable. As far as I know no major nation even thought about addon replaceable armor. They were either making brand new vehicles with thicker plates or they simply accepted that the armor protection of their medium tanks would remain mediocre for the duration of the war. It wasn't until the late cold war that we started seeing spaced armor made specifically to shatter and redirect enemy shells.

@@johnhighway7399 It complicates manufacturing, welding plates was one of the biggest bottlenecks in tank production. WW2 was a numbers game

They had considerably less effect on full-caliber rounds, which were overwhelmingly more common in use

@@kireta21 This. Spaced armor is useless against ap rounds, which is what you are going to see 90% of the time. Panzer IV G had spaced armor on the hull front, 30+50mm, and on the later H model it was made into a face hardened single 80mm plate because thats more effective against full calibre AP rounds.

I gave the weight of both armors in the video

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174I totally missed it. That’s a substantial difference in weight. Cool sim!

With APCR it is to be expected. It already performs terribly against angles, add to that how spaced armor can shatter, damage the core, or deform it, and you get something like this. However this type of armor will be nigh useless against an actual full bore AP round.

And it would have been even more effective had it not been parallel to the armor. Had it been a little thinner but further inclined it would have twisted the projectile more.

Thx, Ansys

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 LS-DYNA module? I'm doing a mechanical engineering tesis about pistol calibres and it's kevlar penetration capabilities. So any information about the software you use would be greately appreciated!

@@LORDFERROK100 explicit dynamics

„Shell Shattered“

Damn look at that 0:52 😂

no?

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174Might be interesting :)

this is an ultra poor arrangement, putting the concrete aside, the rubber provides no support, and without support the ceramic will shatter without providing any resistance.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 I didn't really give it much thought. If you could, could you optimize the scenario but still involving using the main idea of having concrete as part of a composite array?

A better layout would be 55mm steel + 35mm ceramic + 35mm steel+ 5mm air (empty space) + 35mm ceramic + 50mm steel, sloped at 68° This layout is from the T-80U obr.1989, used on the hull's upper front plate. And lastly in my opinion, the concrete even in this configuration as a replacement for ceramic, would perform quite badly, probably worse than Textolite.

@@levilastun829 But what if you ADD concrete instead of remplacing something?

at any angle, I guess

Don't you mean "at the expense of sectional density"? Because WW2 era cores had density of around 15,6g/cm^3 while the later alloy cores around 14,7g/cm^3.

@@peasant8246 my bad

Mostly because it doesn't work well against full-caliber AP, and composite armor schemes work much better than merely spaced armor for a given weight and mass

@@williamnixon3994 would it even matter if it didn't give extra protection full-caliber AP if the base armor itself would stop full-caliber projectile? APCR or APDS was so much more effective and so much more common in the Cold War.

@@Treblaine It's extra weight, and tanks already had a hell of a time not having trouble with their power trains, engines, and suspensions from excess weight, and it's extra bulk reducing how many tanks you could ship around

two simulations earlier, the plate is without additional protection

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 i shall watch it then

Two simulations earlier

the program won't be able to handle the speed of light

The program probably couldn't simulate that at all, and it definitely couldn't simulate it accurately. If something was going near the speed of light, it wouldn't really be a solid object like a bullet or tank projectile. Every atom in the bullet would have so much kinetic energy that the energy binding one atom to another would basically not exist, so it would just be a collection of particles all traveling in roughly the same direction. It also wouldn't "hit" the plate in the same way that one solid object hits another. The bullet particles would pass through, in between and into the particles of the plate, causing them both to self destruct. Not the objects mind you, the particles themselves would be destroyed, breaking down into exotic sub atomic particles and releasing all of the energy that the bullet particles had in a blast of X-rays and light that would rival a large nuclear bomb in destructiveness.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Didn't you already crash it with a relativistic projectile once?

Google "relativistic baseball"

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 How about the speed of a cannon shot like the Hellcat?

Also depends on the boxes themselves. Not all steel is created equal. Though, from what I'm seeing, Enigmas actually were crude multi-layered steel composite with rubber backing on most of them. So, _only_ about as sad as you originally thought, I'd say.

There was no concrete or cement in the T-55 "Enigma". The addon armor modules held spaced steel plates with rubber inbetween them.

What material is it, sorry for my ignorance? How much is that material worth?

Ansys

a little, it certainly wouldn't fall apart like that

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 From what I've heard it helps prevent compression of the concrete. Even better if it hits the rebar itself. But I could be wrong though which is why I asked. Thanks for the answer! :)

@@freedomisntfreeffs Concrete copes well with compressive stresses, but practically does not bear tensile loads, reinforcement helps in this matter.

Millimeter, about 1/32 of an inch.

10mm is about 0.4 inches.

Hard to say, nobody uses inches

just that the composite has more plates of differend hardness and angle

Until Tungsten Alloys get added into the picture, whereupon they cut through spaced armor like a hot knife through butter

Well, it's roughly equivalent in protection, isn't it!?

What bias are we even talking about here?

Is this the single most braindead comment in this channel's history?