Тёмный

APFSDS 3BM-42 (Penetration Depth Comparison) | Armor Penetration Simulation 

Military Simulation Lab
Подписаться 8 тыс.
Просмотров 33 тыс.
50% 1

#APFSDS #3BM42 #Mango #Military #armor #piercing #simulation #dynamics #impact #combat
This video includes the comparison study for penetration depth vs projectile input speed (1000, 1500, 2000 m/s). The result shows that the penetration depth is almost linearly proportional to the input speed.
From WIKIPEDIA (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour-...)
Armor-piercing discarding sabot (APDS) was initially the main design of the kinetic energy (KE) penetrator. The logical progression was to make the shot longer and thinner to concentrate the kinetic energy in a smaller area. However, a long, thin rod is aerodynamically unstable; it tends to tumble in flight and is less accurate. Traditionally, rounds were given stability in flight from the rifling of the gun barrel, which imparts a spin to the round. Up to a certain limit, this is effective, but once the projectile's length is more than six or seven times its diameter, rifling becomes less effective. Adding fins like the fletching of an arrow to the base gives the round stability.
The spin from standard rifling decreases the performance of these rounds (rifling diverts some of the linear kinetic energy to rotational kinetic energy, thus decreasing the round's velocity and impact energy), and very high rotation on a fin-stabilized projectile can dramatically increase aerodynamic drag, further reducing impact velocity. For these reasons, armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) projectiles are generally fired from smoothbore guns, a practice that has been taken up for tank guns by China, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, France, Germany, Pakistan, Turkey, Russia, and the United States. Nevertheless, in the early development of APFSDS ammunition, existing rifled barrel cannons were used, (and are still in use), such as the 105 mm M68/M68E1 cannon mounted on the M60/A1/A3 main battle tank or the British 120 mm Royal Ordnance L30 of the Challenger 2 tank. To reduce the spin rate when using a rifled barrel, a "slip obturator", (slip obturation ring), is incorporated that allows the high pressure propellant gasses to seal, yet not transfer the total spin rate of the rifling into the projectile. The projectile still exits the barrel with some residual spinning, but at an acceptably low rate. In addition, some spin rate is beneficial to a fin-stabilized projectile, averaging out aerodynamic imbalances and improving accuracy. Even smooth-bore fired APFSDS projectiles incorporate fins that are slightly canted to provide some spin rate during flight; and very low twist rifled barrels have also been developed for the express purpose of firing APFSDS ammunition.

Наука

Опубликовано:

 

22 апр 2022

Поделиться:

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист
Посмотреть позже
Комментарии : 38   
@JoakimfromAnka
@JoakimfromAnka 2 года назад
This kind of video is very interesting! Even if the parameters are off, these kind of comparisons are great. I hope to see more in the future.
@elliotsmith102
@elliotsmith102 2 года назад
Nice that you included the sabot!
@militarysimulationlab
@militarysimulationlab 2 года назад
Thanks :D I’m also preparing the video to see how penetration performance is degraded when sabots fail to discard.
@elliotsmith102
@elliotsmith102 2 года назад
@@militarysimulationlab interesting!
@diegotarses9460
@diegotarses9460 2 года назад
By the fórmula e=(m*v^2)/2, the increase in the velocity increases the energy quadratically.
@militarysimulationlab
@militarysimulationlab 2 года назад
Yes. I think the energy absorded by plastic deformation and fracture is also quadratically increased like strain energy in spring= 0.5*k*x^2.
@diegotarses9460
@diegotarses9460 2 года назад
@@militarysimulationlab this is the reason that the germans increase the speed on their guns, not the caliber.
@diegotarses9460
@diegotarses9460 2 года назад
@@militarysimulationlab the soviets did the opposit, increasing the caliber instead of the velocity. I think its because the lack of skills.
@morgus9892
@morgus9892 11 месяцев назад
​@@diegotarses9460What do you even mean? Conventional munitions are limited by a hard 1800m/s muzzle velocity "cap" (which russians have reached in the 70s with their short slug APFSDS) German APFSDS just like every other one focuses on rod length first muzzle velocity second and since in their eyes they "maxed out" their rod length with DM53 only the muzzle velocity was left to improve upon. Which is completely stupid as Israeli, French, Japanese and American APFSDS all feature longer rods in their designs with similar (lower for DU rounds for US) or even higher velocities.
@loadout3727
@loadout3727 5 месяцев назад
@@morgus9892 Well as you are able to see the DM rounds are still more than competitive to other NATO rounds and international rounds, also mentioning the fact that the DM rods are already pretty long with 750mm and the M829A2 with a lenght of estimated 780mm
@user-dv7hq2rh4g
@user-dv7hq2rh4g 2 года назад
Damn, I wouldn't have thought the difference was this dramatic!
@KennyT187
@KennyT187 2 года назад
Nice work, but some of your parameters are off because irl the Mango can penetrate 500-650mm RHA at 2000 meters depending on the penetrator with velocity less than 1700 m/s. Also it has 2-part tungsten penetrator but maybe that overcomplicates the simulation. Maybe your steel model has too much density or your tungsten model not enough density?
@militarysimulationlab
@militarysimulationlab 2 года назад
Thank you for your nice comment. You mean the penetration depth in the simulation seems lower than its official performance. The reason may be beacuse I gave it quite higher strength than RHA material. I’d like to recommend this one for the accuracy of the simulation: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-22KeWJBs9hk.html
@KennyT187
@KennyT187 2 года назад
@@militarysimulationlab Okay then :-) so it's more like high hardness tool steel or such.. still seems oddly low pen values for tungsten but don't know then :p
@xxdamirxx564
@xxdamirxx564 Год назад
it is from diamond
@photonicemitter9227
@photonicemitter9227 Год назад
That penetration that you said, arnt they from russian sousces ? So you beleave a propaganda machine ))
@tranvasily8139
@tranvasily8139 Год назад
Y​​ou are an example of western propaganda. Please use your brain for thinking, stop talking like a radio.
@Boomchacle
@Boomchacle 2 года назад
I don't feel like penetration depth scales linearly with velocity for a long rod penetrator. What happens if you do this with a spherical object?
@militarysimulationlab
@militarysimulationlab 2 года назад
Thank you for your comment. Let me try a spherical object soon. You can also see the relation (speed vs performance) in this website: www.longrods.ch/perfcalc.php.
@Boomchacle
@Boomchacle 2 года назад
@@militarysimulationlab On that equation, a 500 mm long dart should go through around 200 mm of armor at 1000 m/s. At 1.5 km/s it goes through 400 mm of armor, and at 2 km/s it goes through 600 mm of armor. It seems to stop getting any higher around 4 km/s, although I doubt any tank gun could get a projectile to that speed. It is surprisingly linear but I feel like it's a lot higher than your results.
@militarysimulationlab
@militarysimulationlab 2 года назад
I think that’s because 3BM-42 has different dimensions with the default values of the calculator I sent you. BTW, I applied steel armor rather than RHA armor in this simulation. If you want to see how realistic simulation is, I recommend this one: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-22KeWJBs9hk.html.
@Boomchacle
@Boomchacle 2 года назад
@@militarysimulationlab I just don't understand how a tungsten penetrator that long can get less than 100 mm of penetration against steel at 1000 m/s without shattering or otherwise deforming.
@imanol12345
@imanol12345 Год назад
wait, do I hear flood escape music?
@svetpolitikeratovaioruzja4695
@svetpolitikeratovaioruzja4695 2 года назад
Which simulator you use ?
@militarysimulationlab
@militarysimulationlab 2 года назад
Usually Abaqus or Ansys.
@svetpolitikeratovaioruzja4695
@svetpolitikeratovaioruzja4695 2 года назад
@@militarysimulationlab in your opinion, which one is better for this purposes ?? or which one is easier to learn Thanks
@militarysimulationlab
@militarysimulationlab 2 года назад
Abaqus because there are already so many documents and tutorials online.
@petrkdn8224
@petrkdn8224 2 года назад
@@militarysimulationlab does Abaqus have limits on the free versions? i had trouble with Ansys because i kept hitting the 128k part limit, id like to see what Abaqus has
@militarysimulationlab
@militarysimulationlab 2 года назад
@@petrkdn8224 ABAQUS trial version has a limitation (up to 1000 nodes). edu.3ds.com/en/software/abaqus-student-edition
@petterlarsson7257
@petterlarsson7257 Год назад
Wow how does a 500 m/s speed increase decuple the damage
@Maverick966
@Maverick966 Год назад
Because a 50% increase in muzzle velocity doubles the kinetic energy while 100% speed increase quadruples the kinetic energy.
@MAZEMIND
@MAZEMIND 2 года назад
🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳
@Phantom-bh5ru
@Phantom-bh5ru Год назад
hmm i think something is wrong. the mango should def be able to pen 400mm of rha
@panziemnior9549
@panziemnior9549 2 года назад
But why to even include sabot?
@militarysimulationlab
@militarysimulationlab 2 года назад
Hi. It’s just for a little more realistic simulation.
@hssilic3794
@hssilic3794 2 года назад
Где то в 13 раз больше проникновение, энергии всего больше в 4 раза
Далее
GOLD MAKES THE BEST APFSDS?????
1:43
Просмотров 92 тыс.
World Record Tunnel Glide 🪂
00:19
Просмотров 22 млн
🤔
00:28
Просмотров 276 тыс.
40 Most Powerful Main Battle Tank Comparision 3D
12:55
Просмотров 788 тыс.
How Do APFSDS Rounds Work?
1:00
Просмотров 2,6 млн
Choose a phone for your mom
0:20
Просмотров 7 млн
iPhone 15 Pro в реальной жизни
24:07
Просмотров 408 тыс.
Choose a phone for your mom
0:20
Просмотров 7 млн