CENTURION Mk.3 vs T-54 | 20pdr APDS Armour Piercing Simulation 

Even as someone who really likes the Centurion, the 20 pounder completely gimped the earlier variants. Given that the performance testing proved the 84mm was so inefficient that the British then went on to make the L7, it shows you even the MOD didn't deny it.

This is a very hard question but the T-54 lead to the T-55 that is the most successful tank ever. The centurion was awesome for the time due to it's technological advances but outside the stabilizer and apds it really doesn't have anything special By the early 1950s the T-54A entered service and in 1958 the T-55 entered service, soviets where using HEAT shells as well since the early 50s and they also developed APDS rounds. The centurion kept the 20 pounder until 1968 where the L7 replaced it.

@@Ropetor The T-54 and T-55 were the most *produced* tank ever. They were very crude tanks, though. I would not rate them as the most *successful*, which is a weird and hard to define metric anyways. Also you're completely wrong on the entry date of the L7. The L7 was installed on all new-production centurions from 1959 onwards, not 1968. You might be thinking of the L11 120mm, which entered service in 1966.

@@tigersympathiser2265 I cannot understand why some people seem to think the 20pdr was so awful. *For it's "category" of guns of that calibre and overall mass* (that's important) it had great overall AP performance and a powerful HE round. I suppose you can argue it was too small a calibre for the era and wasn't thinking far enough ahead - but you also shouldn't neglect the desire for a fast firing gun. Considering the long 88 served the Germans to the end as a primary *heavy* gun, and the 20pdr is pretty much superior to the long 88 (way lighter, with better overall AP performance with APDS, and I *think* the more powerful HE round); it doesn't seem unreasonable to slap that gun on all of your medium tanks

You're asking about the 20pdr armed Centurions? As a general design, considering all of the things tanks have to do, I think the Centurion is probably somewhat better and more "balanced" - but in a head-to-head 20pdr Cent vs T-54 1v1 the T-54 has a lot going for it. With the exception of the turret front, it's armour stands a very good chance, and it's gun stands a better chance against the Cent. Though the Cent would very likely get the first shots off with it's overall better crew conditions, optics and fully stabilised gun, which is statistically one of the biggest deciding factors in irl tank engagements.

The denormalization is hard on this one...God bless angled Armor.

Right? Eyeballing it, it penetrated a tad more than 300mm of material!

@@angry_zergling It’s right impressive if it didn’t just parallel the armor.

Technically it's still a penetration, but not a perforation So, colloquially, you're correct, but akchtually you're not quite there yet 🤓

@@tomppeli. we all embrace the 🤓

So the mother of all nato MBT's armament was soviet origin? How the turntables

@@Sevastous What?

@@Sevastous No, they didnt steal soviet tech to devolop their new guns. They just discovered that many soviet tanks had much thicker armor than expected for their weight which is why they decided to upgun their tanks to 105mm instead of 84mm or 90mm.

@@brokenpotato438 OK I understand now. The original comment had a bit unclear about what was inspected

@@Sevastous The T-54 specs included the caliber of the gun, the thickness of the armor, the engine specs, optics, and crew layout. All of that was inspected by the British in the quickest way they can obtain. It is false that the 105mm L7 was copied from the Soviets but it was basically a enlarged 20 pounder.

I wanna see this

@yaboi347 my problem with that video is that the model shows one whole plate, instead of a plate welded ontop of another, increasing its effectiveness in the simulation

@yaboi347 Because with the way that an armour plate is forged, the structure of the steel helps to enhance its strength, however with the (correct me if im wrong) less "armour suitable" steel that was welded to the jumbo, the shell would have an easier time penetrating

@@SwissAdmiral The addon armor on the Jumbo was standard RHA like every tank of it's day. However laminated plates are less effective than single plates because it's not a homogeneous structure.

@@SwissAdmiral The M4A3E2 would have had normal quality armor plate as it was a factory addon by Fisher. However, you are quite right I believe that two plates were usually worse protection than one plate of equal thickness. Though I do wonder if round geometry would come into play as seen in the performance differences between the IS-2 and King Tiger rounds from SY Simulations IS-2 vs Super Pershing and Tiger 2 vs Super Pershing videos respectively. My gut would say no since the plates are flush with each other so it would seem unlikely that the blunt IS-2 round would exhibit the over-yawing like in the video. I would also be very interested in seeing a Panther vs Jumbo video.

It is the charm of angled armor though

I feel like the reason they have a bad reputation among Westerners is that they were mostly used by incompetent Arabic Armies with little training and logistics.

Yes, Indian army used them effectively against Pakistan with Pattons (M47,48) (India also operated Centurion too).

gun performance and frontal armor (when taking slope into consideration) shockingly close to a king tiger at half the weight

@@PureFalcon1 imagine if Soviets produced these in 1940.

@@InspiriumESOO It will not change much . Ussr at early war suffered from poor organizations ,poor logistical and unprepared for an suddenly attack. They already have superior equipment over Germany in many aspects like tank,aircraft and artillery. Most of the tank kill of Germany are from Stuka since they quickly gained air superiority after destroy almost all ussr aircraft at air field. T-54 will just die like T-34 under the bomb of Stuka

Id love to do a 32pdr sim but cant find enough info on the projectile designs anywhere

@@SYsimulations Perhaps consider trying to contact a channel called "Armoured Archives". He's done primary source research (going to the relevant archives and whatnot) and has a habit of finding new information that isn't currently on the web. There's a chance he might have that info if we're all lucky. He's done a couple of good videos on the tortoise, though didn't go into details on the rounds hardness, for example; but that could easily be to not alienate the average viewer lol. Though he mentioned things like velocity, and presumably mass

yeah im always about if they want info @@tommeakin1732

the round hemispherical turret is almost ballistically perfect. Unfortunately, it's also terrible for internal space and crew ergonomic.

And would definitely need to change their underwear !

Nice phrasing for it there.

Better having your pants brown than covered in red lmao

@@guilhermelimadesouza3484 bro 💀

Land mine simulation would be amazing but I assume too demanding to simulate.

Most likely fitting as much weight into the penetrator as possible. After all weight = performance.

inb4 a thousand War Thunder fans chime in

@@Tomartyr What do you mean?

@@jackpersales4920 ah my bad actually. I was thinking of the different full caliber variants that are in that game.

@@Tomartyr In war thunder, almost all apds rounds share the normalization/denormalization characteristics, with the only rounds (iirc) having different characteristics against angled armor being the Chieftain's L15A3 and 105mm M728, which both perform better against slopes than other apds.

True but if u angle it should bounce

yes, fractured ones become particles which cant be seen in cross-section view, but theyre still there. Its a very brittle material

blunt ones were used as well which helped a bit, but the material itself is the issue, being too hard and brittle. Tungsten alloy is much tougher

Practically, shape rarely matter. Irl, pointier tip tend to perform better at normal Rounded or blunt tip tend to perform better at an angle. For apds, vast majority of the angle improvement will be coming from core mass and material assume a somewhat appropriate shape (rounded cone tip). More mass = more performance for any given impact velocity. Tungsten alloy instead of carbide will allow erosion base penetration (that allow projectile to deflect less) instead of just shattering and being redirected.

"He's a little confused, but he's got the spirit."

I can kinda answer that one: it's a distinct loud "whumptwang" sound that you can hear over the engine and all the hydraulic motors etc, and you have no idea what it is at first because you've never heard it before. Or at least, that's what a 100mm fin round from a T55 hitting the turret front of a Challenger 1 sounds like. It's wierd how some fvcker shooting at you just makes you annoyed rather than scared.

Against the more flat portions it will go through :)

@@SYsimulations - I figured that. Still want to see it😁😁

APFSDS can do that, especially the ones made of depluran

Because WTs APDS all have the same performance and don’t differentiate between tungsten-carbide penetrators (basically identical to APCR) and later shells using tungsten-alloy. Carbide -> very hard, good against thick vertical armor, bad against sloped and spaced armor Alloy -> soft, ok against vertical plates, much better against sloped and spaced armor Edit: There are Infact a few 105 and 120mm APDS rounds with different sloped modifiers, that behave like tungsten alloy.

Does it matter how it performs in some random f2p game?

@@logitech4873 yes

@@kimjanek646 I highly doubt that. I think you are confusing it with APCR. In WT APCR does have all same multiplier against sloped armor. But APDS absolutely does have different multiplier depending on its material. For example Comets APDS does jackshit against angles but Centurions is a lot better.

@@GordonMusliman What are you talking about? Just look at the stat card. All APDS have the same sloped modifiers. Edit: There are a few exceptions. There’s a bunch of 105 and 120mm APDS shells that behave more similar to tungsten alloy.

Probably catastrophic. The earlier in tank designs you go, the more it's a case of "just steel". And, well, there are more than enough sources from WW2 and korean war that describe crews being completely fucked and shell shocked after non pen hits, coming out of their tanks with bleeding ears, not knowing who or where they are. The sheer kinetic energy transfer also fucks shit up, not just people. Even a modern tank, and, maybe especially a modern tank, could be hit, get no pen, but still have to be repaired significantly because just the sheer force of impact carries enough vibration to fuck up a lot of internal components.

Yea, I don't know what the other person is smoking, but it is some really really lotent stuff. So, in conclusion, for vast majority of the projectile and vehicle, as long as there is no penetration, the crew will be fine. Loud sound? Sure. But enough to cause permanent damage? No chance. It is simple math and how physics of energy. Added to that is air being really bad medium to transfer energy when and compressible. Hell, even a worse case scenario of 15cm class he impacting your vehicle. US did a test and find out if it is impacting the front hull top slope, then outside of a loud banging sound, and maybe damage barrel, most of the thing will be fine. Yes, you need to recalibrate stuff but nothing major. Especially with how modern penetrator and armor works, most of the energy is spent on eroding and ejecting the penetrator and armor material. There aren't gonna be much left to vibrate or shake up the crew.

*BONK*

Most tank crew wearing ear protection, some don't, i think it's might give a crew ringing ear but that's about it.

Pakitsan vs India experience suggests that the M48 will usually fail to pen, while the T55 will both pen and cause the M48 to explode through hydraulic fires and shock setting off the ammunition.

King tiger goes bye bye

@@iain-duncan i dont think so, if youre thinking about apds- it wasnt used much because wasnt reliable

@namelamus much shallower angle should allow the apds to work

Oh look, it's the German supremacist guy who's either suggesting scenarios that validate his emotions, or celebrating something German 🤨

@@iain-duncan If you actually read the report, then this can be a very interesting match up.

Lmao! Why not against T-34 or BT-7? Knowing that 2A5 was developed after germans tested T-80 ammunition against frontal armor of 2A4 and results were very poor for 2A4.

WT's "realism" is laughable. It can not be taken as a reference with reality. It is a game, nothing else.

Yet the same shell can't pierce the t-44 in game. Love the consistency.

@@Bojan_Kavedzic Ah but what are the alternatives? This is a legitimate question, open to everyone, what good tank sims are on the market at the moment? Multiplayer is an optional component here, but would be nice to have. Thanks in advance to anyone who answers!

@@Bojan_Kavedzic APDS normalises so hard in WT that it basically ignores sloped armour. Playing T-54 is just pure suffering until you get T-55. T-54 is a decent tank, but lack of stabilizer, long reload compared to other nations, and high repair cost makes it so hard to get some profit. High repair cost can't be justified if you can be killed very easily.

Every time I watch a WT video I get further away from ever wanting to play. That is pure suffering and f2p which is an instant NOPE. I end up playing GuP dream tank match, very realistic.

It uses tungsten.

Production of the T-54 in the Soviet Union almost ended in 1957. 1948 - 593. From 1950 - more than a thousand every year until 1953. From 1953 to 1957 - 2 thousand every year. A total of 16.7k was produced before 1959.

No HESH for 20pdr. Also, none used HESH as main anti-armor round, it is too slow for any kind of longer range engagement and is also erratic in performances (any kind of non-optimal hit, or the hit on equipment on tank might degrade performances significantly).

HESH is never the main at warhead for anyone outside of handheld/recoiless tube application.

@@jintsuubest9331 Even there everyone except Brits prefered HEAT, despite having HESH in inventory. HESH is just "unpredictable", way more than other anti-tank rounds.

@@Twitchy1 How is 87/60/1000 able to penetrate 100/60?

@@jintsuubest9331 AFAIK Israeli Centurions were using it in the 1973 war.

I know right, you will be task with the job of asking around gdls, KMW, and bae lna. While try not getting lock up by various intelligence agency.

PT-91 vs TM-62

@Yaboi Just a friendly reminder that for projectile armor interaction analysis purpose, they can often be consider as the same thing. In fact, many apcr and apds share the same exact core, only difference being them having a different impact velocity at any given range.

@Yaboi Emm, please read what your wrote and think about that. US 76, British 17pdr, 77mm, all use the same core for their respective act and apds. And guess what, they all achieve the same performance at the same velocity. You know, same core at same velocity means same energy, same weight, same geometry, and same interactions?

Rather hohol supporters had their daily dose of butthurt, innit? So funny how westerners lived in a fairy tale of their military superiority, yet now you all trying to pass the privelege of supplying the hohols with your "superior" tanks to each other.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ю. Ю. 112Ю Ю 112Ю