APFSDS FOR A 1940's CANNON | T-55M vs CHIEFTAIN | 100mm 3BM20 Armour Penetration Simulation 

Can you try a 88 mm from germans flak 36 and kwk 43 and the 128 cannon apds and apdsfd ammo. I known this ammo doesnt exist but can you probé It?

​@@brunoscarlatto4679There was experimental APDS ammo for the 128mm and (I think) 88mm, but the issue was that the shells would be moving at such a high velocity that they would shatter on impact instead of punching through the armor. They had to use existing 88mm APHE for the 128mm APDS which is made of steel obviously. The British got around this by using tungsten but the Germans couldn't afford to use much tungsten at that point in the war so they abandoned it

My thoughts too... Almost succeed to go through. Quite impressive gun.

100mm

@@brunoscarlatto4679 I recall Ordinance QF 20pdr is supposed to be ballistically very similar to Pak 43, so you can use APDS-T Mk. 3 as a supplement. Main issue is though, APDS don't go too well with muzzled guns. Apparently muzzle brake causes sabot to detach unevenly, which hurts accuracy pretty badly

Iirc he's tested that. Easy pen

@@thezig2078 was it a turret test?

@@dakotahondalock5621 Nah, upper front hull at 1000 meters

The composite for T-62 was strong against HEAT-FS but not so strong against APFSDS.

T-62M-1 with its BDD composite hull is equivalent to 160mm Steel at 60 degrees 105mm DM23 (M111) defeats 170mm steel at 60 degrees at 2000m

Best looking tank on my opinion, the engine sucks ass though

The engine was reliable by the mk10

@@simonh317 Reliable yes still sucked ass due to low horsepower

@@user-xy4yr5hb1i comparable to a T72 Ural at 750hp.

@@simonh317 Still better because the Ural T-72 weights like 45 long tons while the chieftain weights 55 long tons with a same sized and horsepower engine. Anyway this debate was solved during the Iran Iraq War where cheap Export T-72 mopped the floor with the chieftains

I’m not surprised, the chieftain had a stupid amount of raw steel even by today’s standards

And the fact that cast armour is much stronger than welded as well

@@danielallen839 I though cast was softer than rha?

@@viperlabs7735 it can be it depends how hard you make it the harder the stronger but more likely to crack and cast can distribute the energy of the round over a much larger area so you can make it harder but i could be wrong And yes cheften is dummy thicc in places

Why?because it's not 'Murcan???

Really appreciate it!

Since I have only just found out that's what's used here, do you mind me asking where you got it from? I can't find a proper download anywhere.

considering that Chieftain had about double the frontal protection as Tiger II, no it really didnt held up pretty well... 3BM20 is from 1972, thats 6 years after the full start of Chieftains producton. Meaning that Chieftains armor protection was already obsolete before the UK forces had been fully equipped with it.

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 ammunition and armor technology of this time definitely favoured the ammunition. That said the soviets would have still been using a lot of old t-55s with older ammunition when the chieftain was used in the case of an actual war.

@@enriqueouro9 sure. But the 3BM20 is only one avalible ammunition type of the early 70s for T-55. BK-5M is another. HEAT-FS with an average penetration of about 380mm and an effective range of 1400m. Those will go through chieftains frontal armor too. This round was introduced in 1955. Keep in mind, that while Chieftain MK-3.3 was fitted with a laser rangefinder in 1971, the majority of Chieftains (MK-2 and MK-3´s)were still fitted with the range finding mashinegun and the Laser Rangefinder was only refitted to existing vehicles over the mid 1970´s. Also Chieftain only used passive IR for low light combat (just lke T-55 and T-62)and its optics were very standard for the time. That means, neither Chieftain nor T-55 or T-62 had an target aquisition and fire control system advantage and both sides suffered from limited range for their main gun ammunition and or very clumsy rangefinding and target aquisition prior to the main gun engagement (chieftain had to break cover and reveal its position for rangefinding, wich alerts the enemy forces to your presence, meaning your first hit propabiliity goes into the bin). And as we have seen in the Iran-Irak War, T-55´s and T-62´s were good enough to deal with Chieftains of the same era. And T-72 Export Models slaugthered Chieftain without problem and minimal losses.

@@enriqueouro9 This is litteraly a apfsds for a ww2 cannon...

@@quan-uo5ws it is, which is why it can be defeated by a reasonable homogenous steel armour design.

Actually they were flying shafts with wings

Metal Ballista’s bolt 🤣

Straight through The Chieftain was much more similar in performance and role to the T-64 than the T-54 or T-55

in the front through the crew and out the back

Stuck on the hatch before saying “the tank is on fire”.

Armor was woefully outdated at a time, even M60 often critisized for outdated armor was better. T-55 and T-62 hull armor was 100mm 290 BHN RHA steel angled at 60 degree. Turret could get thicker if you hit it at bad angle. Ah yes, Chieftain also had HESH that could blast through easily but, same as HEAT rounds, at normal ranges kinetics would still be preffered due to better velocity and flatter trajectory, producing more hits.

Cute comment, considering the right analogy to the scenario in the video would be T-64A vs Centurion.

Thank you!

So theoretically, at 2000 m, an angled King Tiger has the possibility to tank an APFSDS

@@justsomehaatonpassingby4488 Yes cuz it’s just a steel apfsds

@@janflorovic5880 by any chance, do you have the same table for 3BM25 ?

@@user-xn2zd7bl1u 3BM-25 is too obscure and it’s penetration can’t be calculated since it’s composite apfsds round. Essentially it’s a 3BM-20 which is a 380mm long steel rod but they changed the first 60mm into heavy tungsten alloy followed by 320mm long steel rod. The 3BM20 carbide core tip was changed for a bigger one, since it’s identical to the one found in 3BM22

Depends what era and what APDSFS.

Well steel armor in the 80s will get you only so far. Ironically, the T-72 was regarded in the iran iraq war as a legendary powerful tank, with its composite armor.

Iranian chieftains lacked composite armour addons.

​@@sturmgeschutze3070no Chieftain variant stand a chance

​@@quan-uo5wswhat you mean with ironically?

@@bastikolaski8111 Composite armour improved the chieftain’s armour significantly, even being able to stop just about any dart of the time.

Much lower velocity though

@@kimjanek646 And ? It's a HEAT round, velocity doesn't affect penetration. T55 can also fire ATGM with 750mm of penetration.

What do you mean and? It's lower velocity greatly reduces its effective range and accurarcy.

@@kimjanek646 Not that much in the era of fire control systems

Why?

the gun the t54 uses the D10-T started development near the end of ww2

@@samargrewal929 ah I see in the video it says t 54 entering service but I guess it was a mistake

No but prototype was being made in 1948 IIRC

You do realise that Stillbrew fielding started in 1985?) It was nowhere even remotely the strongest armor for that time

@@gargean1671 of course it was extremely Strong. More strong the Russian Armor or German Armor even US Armor at the Time. And it was given to the Chieftain in the Mid 1980. The Armor provided Protection until the T72 got the 3BM42 round. But everything below it was able to defeat. So German Tanks with Armor got Penetrated from the 3BM42 too in the Hull Parts especially the Leo2A4 we don't need to talk about the Abrams we all know that you can destroy an Abrams with a Rock and a Stick in this time cause it was like a Better sherman. Fun fact it still is. 😂. But anyways the Stelbrew Armor is extremely strong. Even the Later British Armor is even stronger it gave enough reasons why British Armor is the Strongest that's a fact. Even if you not like this you can't change it.

Username checks out.

any other fantasy tanks you want to ask for while you're at it? something from Warhammer 40k perhaps?

at 0 degrees, yes, but that effectiveness falls sharply at angles as the WC slug is dislodged. Just look at 3BM15 vs 3BM9, at 0 degrees theres a huge improvement, but at 60degrees theyre basically the same

As SY says, long rod APFSDS will penetrate more armor at an angle, but short rod style acts a lot more like APCR

​@@SYsimulations, this shell was specially designed to combat modern Western armored vehicles at that time, and was adopted. Therefore, it fully meets the requirements imposed on it

@@user-mt8rr3jk6qWell evidently not

​@@sturmgeschutze3070he is right

1960s chieftain would beat the shitty T-55s Russia is resorting to.

​@@sturmgeschutze3070no. Chieftain stand 0 chance even against early T72 variant

@@bastikolaski8111 Depends on the variant. I expect the post-Mk.10 with stillbrew would be pretty evenly matched.

Что толку, во первых там основное средство поражения мины и ПТРК. Во вторых Чифы разве что в музеях остались. Но украм поставили Челленджеры (развитие Чифтена). Впрочем, там и современники Чифтена светятся постоянно. Т-55, Т-62, старые модификации Т-72 (эти вроде уже пропали), и вот ожидается дебют Лео1. Видимо последняя большая война с использованием советского и натовского барахла.

​@@sturmgeschutze3070ага 55 будет ждать пока это 60 тонна д***** его возьмёт в прицел?😂😂😂

Yep, to use them for drone corrected beyond line of sight fire support, and they are doing just that, while ukronazis are in their usual position; bent over on the knees BEGGING for freebies.