Battleship Yamato vs IS-7 | Simulation 

"we failed to penetrate their armor, enemy destroyed!"

Yamato: "We didn't penetrate their armor!" IS-7: *Literally separated in pieces with its entire fore-plate crushed*

People look at this and think "Wow the IS-7 could totally survive a hit from the Yamato" The armor, attached to a hypothetical immovable object, could potentially deflect a 460mm round at an extreme angle. That does not translate to a real world IS-7 just having a gash in it. IRL The tank is not an immovable object with invincible structure supporting its front glacis. A 60 or 70 ton vehicle does not have the structure required to dissipate the energy of a 460mm shell. The glacis plate would be caved in and every single weld on the tank broken. No one is surviving that. We know that 16 inch shells are able to crack and destroy the structure supporting turrets and barbettes with nearly 500mm of steel armor from post naval battle damage reports. If 16 and 18 inch shells are able to destroy the supporting structure of a 400 ton turret or 2000 ton barbette on a capital ship, how dumb do you have to be to think a 70 ton tank could take a hit to the glacis and shrug it off without being caved in like a tin can. Penetration doesn't matter. Energy transfer to the tank would be far too much for any bit of its structure to withstand. Capital ships had trouble compensating for the sheer energy transfer with equipment that weighed 10 times as much as this vehicle.

It would be interesting to see the effect on the structure of the tank - the adjacent plates & even how it shifts the tank, from that sort of sheer mass-velocity impact. I imagine that's far more complicated to model tho'.

WW1 Idea - can you make 37mm AP round from Renault FT against the frontal armour of Mark V or the german A7V, please?

Those shrapnel chunks must've been as big as the crews heads. Also the fact that the shell is probably alot heavier than the gun on the IS-2. Edit: Someone pointed out the fact that the gun is, infact, heavier than the round.

IDK why so many people are trying to say that the IS-7 would be anything less than obliterated. Even with all the "Delayed fuse" crap, the fact the the front plate is now rocketing into the tank at ~400m/s is enough to render the entire crew dead. These battleship shells have enough energy to rip the boilers from a 2700 to Fletcher class destroyer from their mountings and out the side of the ship. The IS-7 may not be in a million pieces, but it is far beyond being repaired, much less surviving. Even discounting all explosive and shrapnel, the sheer concussive force from the impact has killed the crew. There should be no question that the IS-7 is completely destroyed, just how many pieces it is in.

A 1,5 ton projectile bouncing off... STALINIUM CONFIRMED.

It's incredible how strong these armour plates are. Sure, the tank is destroyed, no doubt about that. But the fact that the plate can deflect a shell of that size is amazing.

Keep in mind that hms Rodney fired at 3 tigers with its 16 inch guns and while it didn't get a direct hit, the blast was enough to flip 56 tons of tank over. So to the people believing this can be survived, you have a better chance using the duck and cover tactic for nuclear bombs than surviving a direct hit with a 18 inch shell.

I want to point out that just because the shell didn't go clean through like a hot knife to butter doesn't mean it didn't just kill the whole crew. Shrapnel and the explosion afterwords would have decimated the whole tank.

Finally a relevant simulation, i have always been wondering what would a battleship cannon do to a tank

I'd be interested to see a simulation representing the overmatch mechanic in shells against armor. My suggestion would be 10mm RHS, 80°, tested against 30-37mm, 57mm and 75mm ammunitions of any choice.

The shell bounced off, but the armor flew inwards and shattered everything inside.

I'd like to see a Yamato surface detonated HE shell simulation. As multiple real world tests have shown tanks generally fare poorly against HE 155mm and up. Things tend to get blown apart.

Comrade: Commander we bounced the Shell! Commander: Yes... but at what cost? *Whips bits of driver off uniform*

Cool to see the plate deflect in the simulation at this angle, but I'm pretty sure I'm real life the weight of that she'll at that speed would shatter the tanks structural integrity, plus the explosive filler would be like a 100+Lb bomb hitting the armor directly. Which would kill the tank too

so the shell ricocheted but still destroyed the IS-7s left front plate completely. In the future could you test the E-100's upper front hull against a battleship weapon?

”captain you killed a child” *MISSION COMPLETED, NICE JOB*

Wow, surprising to see a 46cm shell ricoched. But there is some internal spalling. Now do the 128mm VS IS-7. VERY nice as always

Igor: Our Tank gets hit by a 46 cm Shell. Dimitri: Nice Joke Bro.

Jesus. The entire plate collapsed and the projectile itself would probably hit the turret and either penetrate it or severely damage the turret ring. Edit: I actually wonder if the direct hit to the turret could rip it off...

another great video, keep up the good work

Please make more WW2 Armor Videos, German vs Allied Tanks and Battleship vs King Tiger etc. I love your vids. 🙃😀

I'd expand the computational domain because I'd say that the boundaries condition are non-fisical due to the extreme forces exerted. Very cool experiment though, I love your simulations!

Man, there are a lot of dumb people here that seem to think the crew would survive and the tank would not be a total loss. The kinetic energy from this shell would be roughly the equivalent of a 76 ton object (~another IS-7) hitting the tank at 216 KPH (~136MPH). The force of the impact alone, besides sending a huge slabs of steel into the interior at 200 m/s as the simulation shows, would likely break the necks/skulls/bodies of the crew inside as they were thrown about. Add on top of that an explosive detonating probably less than

I didn't expect this AT ALL. I thought it'd just punch straight through. Damn..

To be fair the simulation has chosen an impact angle that makes for higher survival chance, the shell would be plunging at a far steeper angle than shown making it far more likely to penetrate than ricochet

The question is, what state would the crew be in? Chunky salsa, smooth salsa, tomato ketchup or tomato soup? I'm going to say smooth salsa if the HE filler didn't go off, or a thick ketchup if the HE did detonate.

I wonder if in this case an uncapped shell might do better - it seems like the softer steel on the shell nose is actually helping it be deflected at that degree of angle. Seems to be similar to a potential deck hit at close to medium range - we know historically that ~6 inch plates on battleship decks would provide protection inside of 10-15km against Battleship shells even though in that case the plate is much larger although the thickness is similar. I wonder what range that impact angle shown (15-20 degrees?) would occur at when hitting horizontal armor?

Your videos are fantastic....can you have a metal plated hand sticking it's middle finger up, going into a steel plate going 1 (or 10) km/s? THANKS!

And here I was hoping that he had modeled a wave motion gun. >_>

The momentum transfer would throw the IS7 back at 60 kph if it could hold together. Which it would not. The turret would 100% be blown off the hull

Thanks! The next time I’m in my Yamato, I’ll know exactly what I need to do to destroy an IS7

The coolest simulation I've ever seen!!!

Wait ten seconds for the driver replacement

Not sure what is scarier: Knowing how thick that armor plate is and how big the round must be. Or how that massive round gets deflected. Or how it still destroys that armor plate like butter. It reminded me of some video of some shooting range, where they fired a 155mm gun at a bunch of watermelons and the shell actually got deflected after just ~6 melons. I don't actually know if they even found the round afterwards, cause it got deflected upwards

Could you do another animation with the shell coming more from above? I think battleships rarely hit their target with the shell pointing straight forward. It would be interesting to see the difference with some alternate trajectories.

Would the bursting charge have gone off? I love the cap separating after deflection. Thank you very much for making these!

So that's how strong the IS-7's armor is when it gets hit by an 460mm shell! Its actually really impressive.

You know, when i clicked this one i didnt know what I expected, but it definitely wasn't this.

The shot of the strain on the back at 0:13 looks so cool ngl

TC: "We aight?" *Driver peers through new passenger window* "Yeah we aight."

In wot be like; Commander:OH NO YAMATO IS READY TO SHO- driver:**very deady sounds** Commander:im.........not dead? Loader:ready to shoot sir

"The red army is the strongest" starts playing*

Isn't that the front armor plate? If so then the turret would make a nice stop for the deflected 1.5 ton shell. Would be interresting to see that as well.

This is so satisfying, big ass BB shell bounces while still causing an obscene amount of damage to the plate.

Its amazing how the IS 7 armor deflect that 46 cm naval gun shell.

Impressive how the immovable plate stood against that shell. I guess if it was a real tank though the tank would go flying :D.

Could you simulate like an engine block or whould that take too much time? It whould be nice to see the effect of these projectiles on the mechanics of a veicle

I stand in awe at how, while absolutely fucked over by the sheer kinetic energy, the armor still managed to ricochet the shell

Funny how my favourite battleship shell is going against my favourite tank armour. Very impressive.

A 46 CENTIMETER shells vs a 150 MILIMETER plate. I wonder who would win?

I am curious. I really am not familiar with the boundary limits of the model. If the armor was modeled as a bigger plate, would the shell cave in more of the armor plate?

Could you test some large tank guns and howitzers against Battleship armour?

If Yamato ever bombarded an IS-7, the shell would land slightly from above, reducing the impact angle.

Wow that shell could not penetrate stalinum

I'm only a level 7 armchair general with a +3 buff to my rage mana.... This has to melt the is7 after it crushes the forplate... It never ceases to amaze these videos especially how strong newer Russian apfsds is... Keep up the vids bro

the shell didn't even go through cuz of the angle yet it just deleted the armor. it's pretty cool watching shells with such mass hit armor

In this simulation the ends of the plate fail and are snapped off, would that have happened if the other pieces of armor were simulated? For example, the back "wall" of the armor piece isn't supported in this and bends inwards, it wouldn't have been able to do that if there was a plate behind it, the right side of the plate also fails, but this time I wonder if it would have failed, not because there is a piece missing, but because the tank would have been moved, the energy would be transfered to the rest of the tank and the suspension system, here it snaps off but I feel it does that only because the outter edge was magically pinned in place in the simulation, with a full tank it would have moved the entire hull and the stresses at the edge would have been much lower

would be interesting to see the rest of the projectile hitting the turret

Is 7 stood like Stalin himself.

46cm Type 91 (1460 kg APCBC projectile) shoots is 7's frontal armor its bounce but the armor is got a big O hole is 7's S-70 130mm HESH shells shoots on yamatos conning tower (the half of the crew died).

It's incredible trying to imagine something so powerful it bounces off of 17cm angled armour and still penetrates it through raw force.

now here’s a question though, does this simulation only regard the ballistics of the shell? Wouldn’t the shear force of the blast annihilate the armor?

King Tiger 8,8 cm KwK 43 vs Pershing Front Armor 17 pdr vs King Tiger Front Armor

Omg thank you so much !!

It would be nice to see what happens with the shell once it's ricocheted off the glacis. Presumably it's going to take out the turret?

You do know that the japnese shells are different and that their ability for their windsheild to be broken off upon impact on water (so that the shell blast would damage the target despite not hitting it) actually gives the shell a much better grip on surfaces at angles. Besides the shell would most likely have been an HE and it wouldn’t need to hit anywhere on the tank to kill it

So do You want me to belive that 18" Shell fired from Yamato Battleship wouldn' disintegrate a tank. Seems legit.

is the armor held in place, or is the inertia of the tank considered, allowing the shell to push the armor back in space?

Some heavy duty spalling with those hits.

Verified oof moment

Are you _really_ trying to tell me a tank could bounce an almost 2m long and 1'460kg heavy shell coming in at 690 m/s like that? 🤔 Aaaanyway... Dora/Schwerer Gustav 80cm Shell is next, I guess? 😉

Can you make a video testing an average 7.92x57mm round from an MG34 against the 15mm front plate of a T-26?

In what scenario would it be firing straight on? The shell would come in in a downward arc and go straight in, explode, and turn it inside out.

Me seeing it deflect: wow, the is7 sure is tough! Then seeing the chunk of missing armour afterwards: ... I sure hope the crew is rated to stop spall fragments

So although a gaping scar was caused in this plate,would the tank be hit with enough force to knock the tank over or push it back etc etc? And would the crew inside just be like jelly? I also understand that fragments and spalling and just the straight shock would kill crew too? Is she shell an explosive one? Just curious how the tank would fair.

Would you consider doing a video on the 45mm 20k Cannon?

There is a clip online of a 155mm? HE round bouncing off the roof of a Lada so impact angle can make a big difference.

I'm not too familiar with naval guns, so forgive me if this is a stupid question, but would a hit at this angle be unable to detonate the explosive charge? I understand the purpose of the simulation as well as how difficult it would be to simulate the explosion and its effect on the armor, but that would be a very interesting thing to see. That is, to see how the explosion affects the damaged section of armor immediately after impact and whether the explosive force is directed inwardly from outside of the hull (since the projectile is detonating outside the tank) or if any of that force goes in through the breached armor and is directed outwardly from the inside of the tank. Thanks for the video!

"Ricochet" WE HAVEN'T NAILED HIM!

Nice simulation

Can you make one where there is a track over the armor plate just how it is in real life?

We’re assuming the friction of such a mass at such a velocity isn’t going to just take the tank and fling it some other direction. Instead, the tank is firmly planted for the duration of contact with the round.

What program are you using to simulate that kind of stuff?

Can you do shaped-charged explosivr effect on armor? Like HEAT amunitions etc

Gave what's left of the driver a nice new viewing port

"Just a scratch, Ivan! Keep driving!"

That's at least a hundred kilo chunk of armor launched inside the crew compartment at a waay more than desireable velocity. Driver is mush, turret crew could be considered lucky to have their legs torn off, and there's no telling what else it might fuck up inside.

Are you able to simulate what the shell does after it hits the hull? or is that too much to render.

A 15" shell from HMS Warspite hit the front plate on a (german) coastal battery during the Normandy campaign. The armoured turret face it hit was most likely near upright, but still a good thickness. Both barrels were blown out the back of their emplacement. A Yamato shell hitting ANY tank will turn said tank into bits of metal putty most likely. Did a large naval shell ever glance off metal as thin as in the video, in real life? Does anyone know?

Not to complain, but could we get a simulation of a more downward angle? A battleship shell is more likely to be lobbed at a land target rather than a direct-fire shot.

In addition to the caveat that this doesn't model the effect of the shock of the impact on the vehicle as a whole, remember that naval AP shells have sizeable bursting charges.

Reminds me the case of British Battle cruiser shot the French one somewhere in North Africa - the projectile has ricocheted then after the hit of roof of main caliber turret (and the projectile was found in kilometers away on the beach - all happened in port area) Maybe to simulate those case too?

Can you please make this shell impacting a maus front top hull armor at an angle?

I'd like to see a test of a large and very unarmored vehicle (say the big flat sides of the German FlaRakRad SPAA truck) against a battleship shell to see if less armor might give it a better chance. My thoughts are that it will over-penetrate without dumping enough energy into the vehicle to rip it apart.

Completely ignoring the fact that the transference of force alone would cause the front of the tank to peel like the barrel of Elmer Fudd's gun, I'd like to bring up the shockwaves and sounds created from the impact. The sheer force of the shockwave would likely cause the people inside the tank to be squished to paste. Even if the people inside were somehow immortal the sound created by this would likely cause your eardrums to explode... violently. If I'm wrong one this, I really would like to hear what would really happen, but from where I'm sitting this seems pretty likely.

Would the ricochet at that location still have deflected the shell onto the turret?

The amount of people here who don’t know what kinetic energy is is staggering