Conqueror vs E100 side | tungsten carbide APDS 

Yeah, the round is high hardness tungsten so it shattered on the outer layer. Cool to see it in motion though :)

Nope. High-velocity fragments hit the actual hull side and caused spalling. @@quitreadingmyname7615

About +130mm at this angle to completely stop the conqueror's APDS.

These are just the side skirts btw, the crew would prb have more armor inside protecting them from the stallings. That won’t stop the crew from experiencing shockwaves and deafness from the impact though.

@@boijames3253 this is the skirt and side armor combined thats all the armor the crew had no spall liners or additional internal layers existed

@@Constance_tinople My bad, I forgot the side skirts is the curved portion. Additionally, the turret basket may get a bit damaged as well.

in this program the cross-sectional view is very buggy

What kind of program?​@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174

kinetic energy, people often forget that shattering does not disappear the core, it only changes its form.

And it adds a ton of weight to the vehicle due to the 75mm thickness

@@LordEladan not like they cared about weight while building this anyway

there is a small crack in the inner part of the armor and that is where the few fragments came from

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 I see, thanks for clearing that up

​@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174Unrealistic , the armour must be out of glass to create shrapnel from that little hit . Just fragments of that APDS round hit that plate , penetrated not even 50% .

@@5co756 What does "light hit" mean? People believe that Soviet "big" guns caused spalling of German armor. Do you think that a cloud of several kilograms of tungsten at enormous speeds will transfer less energy to the armor?

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 You said it right , people believe this . 😅 And the biggest junk of metal thumbling around that hit the plate was at about 350m/s , not really at enormous speeds . I'm surprised it made it that far , but the spalling is just unreal . There's a short 75mm AP round heavier and faster than this tungsten fragment btw .

if it hit the less angled skirt part it would probably break into maybe few big pieces, but there are also tracks lower down.

From what I remember primary UK documents also rate the gun in the 400mm range when it comes to flat plates, so I think it might be plausible.

I think so and it could be checked, but I need a target with 450mm of armor

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 can't you just make a block of that thickness?

@@o-hogameplay185 there will be no fun. Conqueror vs armor block? I was thinking about some kind of battleship

There's a part of the Obj. 279's turret which is 460mm thick CHA, If i'm not mistaken it's below the trunion or next to it, and it's kinda flat.

Possibly but I would have to spend several hours at the computer to make track model

The E100 upf is untouchable by any tank kinetic weapon until the first Abrams and Leo2.

The core hasn't evaporated, what you see are just larger fragments.

The M103 also had a prototype APDS, but it was abandoned. AP has no such problems with spaced armor.

​@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174Could you maybe do this (m103 ap vs e100) next please?

@@toshibami I I could if the idea is liked

​@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174i like it!

Early APDS simply could not handle sloped armor.

Ansys

Probability of hitting E-100 sized target by B-17s would be negligible. You'd need entire strategic bomber force to get rid of one tank. They went through it with casemates in Normandy already, it doesn't really work.

​@@czwarty7878bunker? Or casemates?

@@AKUJIVALDO casemate, bunker, whatever. Typical reinforced fire position casemate (a reinforced concrete bunker for a 50-75mm cannon) would be roughly the size of E-100 tank. The tests USAAF did showed they'd need to employ entire huge B-17 unit to have a chance of a *single* bomb actually hitting one such bunker, and it wouldn't exactly be a guaranteed kill. And we're talking about just some random stationary casemate position on Omaha, not a superheavy tank that moves around and has a platoon of Wirbelwinds linked to it at all times. Whether E-100 would be a profitable choice to employ tactically can be debatable, but it definitely wouldn't be an easy target for aircrafts like people like to imagine, that's for sure. If you're interested more in that bombers vs bunkers topic search for "US WWII Bombers" channel here on RU-vid, they have a great video about these tests of using B-17 for bunker busting in Normandy

@Slight- sure, but they're even more vulnerable to AA and still inaccurate. 1-2% chance of hit (not even a kill) with a single SAP rocket per mission. Again requiring an entire squadron with multiple missions to have any chance of damaging the tank Air superiority was more useful for starving enemy units by destroying trucks, trains, staff cars and disrupting transports than actually killing tanks

@Slight- Lmao, bombing a single tank was pretty much impossible, let alone one as tough as an E-100.

in Wot everything is bouncing off the chieftain turret even though it should go through

From an engineering perspective both are braindead and conceptually two of the worst tank designs in history

@@outrageoussharpie4107 The execution of the brain dead tank that is the E-100 is better than the maus. Especially considering Porsche wanting to use a hybrid system to move the tank which not only increases mass but makes use of expensive and uncommon copper. While the E-100 used a conventional drive system and its suspension system was intended to be shared across many designs. And the E-100 gave better levels of protection for at least 40 tons less mass (Unless your shooting the rear)

meanwhile the IS-7 that came out 2 years later with half the mass, 3x the speed, much better armor, and a comparable gun that was semi autoloaded: *nice try*

@@jammygamer8961 120+ tonnes is still an absurd weight for a tank, it's logistically and strategically idiotic, there's a reason noone else ever bothered with a tank that big and it isn't German ingenuity Real engineering is about designing something to be effective within sensible constraints; the Maus and E-100 are when the engineers pretend there are no constraints.

@@outrageoussharpie4107 Yes

Lol why 30

It could penetrate IS-7 turret with an ease, so definitely no.

Putting a crap ton of steel on a tank that isn't going to go anywhere or accomplish anything isn't ingenuity

ok @@outrageoussharpie4107