CONCRETE ARMOR vs APCR | Tiger I vs M26 Pershing Simulation 

When every department of every branch is asking for 'more steel', someone has to be told they can't have as much steel as they want.

I could imagine it would be easier to pour the concrete in the field than strap on more plates

It makes sense that they’d have spare concrete but not steel plates, but again the concrete adds a shit load of weight with like what? 70% effectiveness compared to normal steel?

@@inkycat191 more like 10%

@@tedarcher9120 eh, it's proto NERA, and the disruption to the projectile potentially could improve the overall effectiveness of the armour behind

concrete* Cement is part of the mixture but the heavy part of concrete is the aggregate.

Omg 😂

true...and there will be more shells coming.

The dust would be least of my concerns as the pershing's crew

Its not effective because if you got shot by an 8.8 that means the enemy knows your range exactly, specialy with that concrete flying everywhere I'd just bail out of the tank either way

The actual type of concrete being used makes a huge difference. The US military has several very special blends and some of them are absurdly tough.

Unfortunately, wiper/sprayers for the viewports/periscopes weren't invented until a decade later 💀

Penetration

Käännä kielelle englanti = Good :DDD

Made me laugh

@@JV-sk5rl vittu :D

Haha ebin :D

around 16cm thick concrete on the whole front of the M26 would be around 2t extra weight on the front. considering that M26 was already at its limit for its transmission and suspension.... not the best idea.

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Granted it did stop the penetration. Without the concrete it did create enough damage to fragment on the other side.

@@Punisher9419 we can bet on it, that on the inside still spalling would happen with the concrete addon. you dont have to perforate to create spalling, impacting or penetrating into the armor can be enough. the more sensible choice would have been a 1.5-2cm stand off plate 10-20cm ahead of the main armor. that would absorb alot energy and induce a tumble

​​@@zhufortheimpaler4041I don't think a penetration this shallow would cause much spalling of note in armor of this hardness. Maybe some but I would be VERY surprised if it would be going fast enough to cause any kind of serious injury

@@signs80 spalling appears even with the round shattering on impact

I'm pretty sure that's what older dreadnought-type battleships used, rolled-cemented armor

@@theforerunnerreclaimer And the killdozer too

Ansys

That is because "normalization", whatever it actually suppose to means, is largely a myth. Concrete will help, like every bit will help. It is just that concrete has like probably 10% mass efficiency when compare to steel.

depends on the type of projectile used.

The issue with concrete armour is mass vs usefulness. It's not useless when it comes to additional protection. It's just harms transmission and suspension in the process.

​@yaboi347 The most common way I see "normalization" being described is somehow the projectile will turn into the normal of the armor, hence the normal in normalization. This almost never happen irl. What you describe is just how ricochet works, albeit rather poorly. The whole hardness thing. In this interaction, the concrete and the projectile most likely has a similar hardness, with the steel being the much softer. Beside, the same penetrator also yaw upward even when there is no concrete. What gives? The later part you quote is just how ricochet works. When reading the entire post in context, OP describe how concrete can apply uneven load on the penetrator because it is a non uniform material. When a penetrator is made out of material with low resistance against bendy and twisty type load generated by the concrete, the penetrator can fail (crack in this case). Since the energy of cracking the penetrator comes from the penetrator, the energy is now not spent on moving along the armor. The end result is just standard ricochet occurring, where the penetrator does not posses enough energy to push through the armor fast enough before it get deflected. Now, where did so called normalization comes into paly?

Dunno, but nobody would ever make concrete body armor just because of how heavy it would be and you'd still get fuckall protection

sand is very unfriendly to this modeling method

Good question, I have always observed that as well. They cannot just scrap the entire tank, that would be hugely wasteful.

In this certain case the penetrating projectille filled up the hole itself. What they would do is removing the bakelit/ soft steel end caps (Light blue) and would fill up the remaining hole with welding rods.

​@@venator5 Bakelit is like early plastic , they don't used that on shells . And welding on armored plates is deadly , they have to change the whole front plate if the damage is deep enough . Welding would bring too much heat in and change the hardness of the plate .

How much in front?

@ukuskota4106 I was honestly thinking "just welded on top," like the concrete in the example. Though there's already a community post asking for opinions on a 10mm plate, so I'm guessing there's already something planned.

You'd want to space the 20mm steel plate out about 6-8 inches(152-203mm) away from the main plate...then fill the gap with old Nokia 3310 Cell Phones....but they wouldn't exist for another 55 years, so you would also need a time machine.

+

Except it’s against tungsten ammo that wasn’t very common in WW2. It just adds unnecessary weight. Could have done the same with using spare tracks that need to be kept on the vehicle anyway.

@@venator5 No way it would weigh 16t. 😂 Maybe 1,6 😉

Is sand better than concrete as a armor?

@@venator5 Are you crazy? That would not weight 16,5 tons, a concrete layer in the front of the sherman for example would weight at max 800kg.

@@igormsh14bidevisualizacoes45 Concrete is somewhere around 2g to 2.5g /cm^3. That translated into 2000kg to 2500kg /m^3. While far from 16ton, it will be more than 800kg. Also, suggesting the weight increase will be of negligible amount is untrue. Official us army test report. They tested, track, sandbag, logs, process lumber, concrete, etc. They stated track is the most useful one per weight compare to the rest. Sandbag and lumber in general provide little to no effect. Concrete will provide meaningful performance increase only when applied in sufficient thickness, with the size and ratio of the aggregate also making a difference. For the sake of the discussion, we will only expand on the conclusion of the concrete bit. The amount of concrete that will make a difference will put strain the suspension and the transmission is not design to handle. The service interval will greatly decrease. From a mechanical stand point, it is a rather stupid idea. However, from a morale standpoint, assuming the logistic can keep up, it is well worth the trade off.

It is in fact used in some NERA arrays. I think it is too brittle so its not that widely used.

@@GordonMusliman cost would be the other reason

plus all that dust is going to obscure the tanks vision

Always screwing around 😊

It does look like a willy fulfilling it's purpose yes.

the German anti tank pen¡s was a big thing back then

You *really* need to get laid.

everything is given, you just need to click on the description

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 sorry I missed this ✌️

as you can see in the thumbnail photo, Pershing drives around with concrete and doesn't complain

Is sand better than concrete?

@@drsm7947no

you have a photo in the thumbnail, there is a gap in the concrete on the hook, you can measure...

Judging by your other comments im gonna guess you’re another slow wheraboo

Can't, Tiger II broke down on the way and was abandoned

@@thezig2078 Oh so it's like the russian "army"

@@OIFIIIOIF-VET exactly