Conqueror vs IS-7 | APDS | Armor Penetration Simulation 

at least the entire hull wouldnt fall apart

If deflect means explode inward towards the crew and jam the shell into the bottom turret then sure

Even after deflection the tank would go boom after detonation.

@@moosiemoose1337 They actually did a yamato shell vs IS-7 and the shell actually bounced. Of course, the front plate caved inwards

@@TheT-90thatstaresintoyoursoul Not taking into account the explosives. lol

[Sad Maus noises in the distance]

Emmmm...... We still add a crap ton of armor. Leo 1 is the exception, not the norm. And it is not like Leo 1 abandons all armor all together. The vehicle is design to deflect scj warhead of it's time (which suck at dealing at angle above 60°).

@@jintsuubest9331 Well, the tanks still had armor, just not "immune to enemy tank fire frontally" levels of armor like the engineers tried to achieve in WW2.

@@jintsuubest9331 wtf is SCJ warhead

@@SirNyanPanda That's never the goal of any armor design. Armor design is always, we have a list of expected threats, we want to design the armor to defeat x threats at y condition, and we have such and such constraints. If the armor achieve the specification, it is reasonable to expect it can also defeat the lesser threats from the list. If we can achieve the design goal without blowing pass the constraint, what is the next higher threat and what level of immunity can we achieve with more armor without blowing pass the constraint. Sherman for example, cast hull probably can defeat 5cm most of the time. But making it to defeat 7.5cm/43 does not seems too outrageous. Sherman then is build to immune to that threat to some degree.

It's still impressive how good the gun and ammo were designed

It was designed for the IS-3 not the 7.

The IS-7 wan not known about until much later, the conqueror was a response to the IS-3 in the win parade in Berlin

@The Bear who tf are you even responding too here lmao

@@sergiokv5711 actually, no. the conqueror was a response to the t-54, during the hungarian revolution, a t-54 was stormed through a wall at a western power embassy, and they took their pretty darn time to fully inspect the vehicle before handing it back to the USSR. though, the centurion was made for fighting german tanks, it got up gunned way ahead of schedule when the russians showed off their is-3.

Probably

What is impressive s the shot is mostly intact which means whatever it hits inside at even a 'low' velocity' is going to get very affected-terminated

@@Cragified a 12 Lb cannon ball will take your legg of. even when the speed is so low you can se it comming your way. their are historical record of soldiers trying to kick them. with bad results. so 300m/s should de more then enough.

Conqueror APDS is said to have 420mm of flat pen. The highest for any APDS in the world. The gun was too powerful for its time.

@@bananabatsy3708 The highest is M103 APDS, over 500mm penetration

Unlikely. Sherman own 75 is ineffective against it's hull, and it fire ap at a higher velocity. And Japanese source are hard to come by. If you can find a properly translated verifiable schematic, he might do it.

@@jintsuubest9331 The type 3 has a velocity of 680m/s, hes talking about the Chi Nu's gun not the Chi ha

Yeah, I was about to comment. The Chi-Nu had a longer cannon barrel and a muzzle brake, so logically it would have had a greater muzzle velocity than the Sherman's.

Believe or not the its surprisingly a very reliable tank when it was tested

@@user-it3xy2cw1t Keep in mind the tested IS-7 was a custom one. Test vehicles are usually better performing than their mass-production equivalents, although the IS-7 was far to expensive to ever get to that stage.

@@ZETH_27 and too heavy

Father of all modern kinetic penetrators

Really satisfying to look at.

Yeah, pretty much the only part that can be penetrated 😄

People also need to keep in mind that this is Soviet prototype that was so bad that it did not entered production... so few mm off and Is-7 would break on its own before even meeting the enemmy tank...

​@@Bialy_1 actually no, the is7 was quite reliable during testings . The main problem was it was too expensive and heavy to transport by trains to be practical at the time so they never adapted it into service

@@tantainguyen4290 Expensiveness of weapon can be compensate by the effectiveness of it. The problem ultimately is the infrastructure of ussr is limited to, iirc 55 tons freight. But there is also a "do we really need it" problem since 3 t55 can arguably do more than 1 is7 at any given time and soldier are very expendable from the perspective of ussr high command.

@@tantainguyen4290 one thing to keep in mind is that a prototype often will function very well due to being fine tuned, but that performance can have trouble translating to a production version because that level of attention is extremely expensive and not reasonable when mass production starts.

I believe those have been proven to be partly false and the only evidence of those shells' existence suggests that they were saboted HE rounds (not AP) to extend the height at which Flak guns could shoot

@@DerpyTurtle0762 There is a paper about them being used in tests

They were testing 12,8/8,8 sabot for the Pak44 too

?

Think he means like a sphere, cylinder or cube shaped impactor

@@jack504 a cube was what I meant, yes

He only add some of the result can be ambiguous due to increase of sim time. The result is obvious in this sim.

You sure it is not compressed used tea leaves

Chuck Norris would shrug it off as just another day at the office:-)

Not really since the t62s are not used in frontline combat

@@Sveta7 That doesn't mean they can't end up in an unforeseen situation.

@@kamilszadkowski8864 It's highly unlikely, also Ukraine is probably almost out of any tanks which makes this scenario even less likely.

More like 3bm-28 if you’re talking about current “circumstances.”

:p

Nope. Both m58 and the is7 130 beats this from an energy perspective.

@@jintsuubest9331 isn’t this the same gun as the m58? Also, the is7 was never fielded and was just a prototype.

@@OCofthe3 Is7 gun did not fielded as a tank gun but it is fielded as naval armament. Some of conqueror onboard sub system never works as intended, same with m103. In contrast, is7 is completely ready, it is just that Soviet infastructure cannot support a 60 ton monster. And the whole 130 is pretty pointless when improve 122 is right around the corner. Energy makes no sense with the gun only. It has no energy. It is the projectile with the gun system that we can derive energy. With that metric, M58 with M358 produce the highest energy, followed by t10 122 with BR-472. Also M58 and L11 doesn't even have the same barrel length... How are they the same gun? Firearm caliber is the least significant part of any weapon system when comparing their similarities, M58 is mostly a US domestic rnd that integrate some of Brits effort.

Since kinetic energy calculated with 1/2 * mass * (velocity)² it really depends on the velocity...

@@mrcorn4581 if you look at modern guns, they have nowhere near the power of this gun and the m58 which this is based on. IIRC, this gun makes over 9 million ft/lbs, where the 120mm Rheinmetall was something like 6million with the apfsds. I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong. A good rule of thumb for judging energy is just to look at the case size. The powder contains all the energy, and if the case is huge like these are, they are going to have a lot of power.

240-250 would be flat areas under mantlet

@@IvanBaturaChannel ну с его наклонами там будет как раз таки 240-289мм т.к. пусть толщина лба башни 220мм под углом в 51 градус (считаем по формуле Пр=Т/соs(90-a) Где Пр - приведенная толщина Т- толщина плиты а- угол наклона Пр= 220/(соs90-51)= 220/cos49= 335мм

He use real world schematic to do pixel measurement magic (or other people pixel measurement) Unless you can provide anything better, this is the best we got. You can email him your pixel measurement comes up with a different result. With the methodology and stuff of course.

I’m assuming they basically cast the hole with steel of the same quality as well as heat treating

Define "destroy". But it ranges from patching the hole, to scrapping it for useful component, to call in a helo and light it up.

This turret is down , you need a new one . The whole structure is broken , a repair makes no sense .

You could weld up the hole, assuming no cracking or other failures of the entire plate. Basic process would be to grind the hole to a 45 degree bevel all around, and insert a plug of metal to fill the opening in the middle. Welding can then be used to fill in the beveled part. It's unlikely that the welded section would match the performance of the original armour, and there would be an additional loss of properties around the welded repair due to the heat of welding affecting the temper of the steel. However, this might still be preferable to scrapping the whole tank, if (as is usually the case) they are a resource in short supply. Alternatively, if the tank is of welded construction the entire damaged plate can be removed and replaced by a new one, using the same welding process used to build the tank originally.

On a turret, the turret would be replaced. On the hull it would be scrapped unless you're desperate for vehicles.

Yeah pretty much. That mechanism is more how apfsds works

It's a matter of the type of material. The Soviets used small tungsten carbide cores in some APFSDS and these could survive the entire penetration process.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Recently another youtuber made an APFSDS simulation using a solid diamond penetrator and it worked ridiculously well compared to the other ones in terms of lack of erosion. However I feel like his actual simulation was fairly inaccurate. Would you be able to create a long rod APFSDS made out of a super hard crystalline material at around 1800 m/s just to see if being ridiculously hard actually makes it better?

@@Boomchacle A non-eroding penetrator will always outperform an equivalent eroding one. So it's plausible.

@@peasant8246 I feel like it would have just shattered though

Almost no tank has spall liner. I think you meant witness plate. But there is no point if the result is clear.

30-60 h usually, I7-10850, 32GB RAM

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 purely CPU or can GPU(s) help?

@@AKAtheA CPU It is possible to use the GPU for acceleration, but there must be special versions

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Would this render faster if you had more cores, or does the program only use one?

@@Kypsie more cores

APDS from conqueror has around 360mm penetration ability, so it wont be such a big difference

Ansys

Its would not penetrate, 88mm APCBC from the KwK43 would fail, and its have more penetration than the 90mm M82 APCBC, even the 128mm APCBC from the Pak44 would likely fail too, but the kinetic energy might be enough to destory it, tough it would go trough the lower plate maybe.

@@k_balu-8104 cool. knew all of this. still want to see what kind of damage it would do to the armor plate.

@@bones-fe3gy other than a dent, nothing else

Both of the material you mentioned is not one type of material. And I do not believe technical specifications of them in a rod format exist.

I would have to check if a realistic result is achievable.

A diamond penetrator?

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 It'll definitely push the limits. Hardness is obviously max and tensile strength of 225 GPa for toughness assuming perfect lattice structure. 27mm dia /627mm length. I'd expect a full pass through. Let us know if theoretical max has too many variables to entertain the idea.

Presume initial velocity, final velocity, calculate difference in energy, then estimate mass of affected metal, (cylinder of steel of appropriate diameter), and head coefficient.

WC does not erode like W/DU alloy. WC will experience surface erosion and shattering.

@@jintsuubest9331 thanks for the explanation, this is very interesting

frontal turret

More. War Thunder pen stats are made up.

Is7 turret crew are separated by a huge breech. We know from WW2 that breech is very effective at keeping whatever stuff on oneside isolated from the other side even with explosive projectile.

@@jintsuubest9331 that's why I'm saying that hit on the left cheek would hit the gunner and the crewman behind him and the projectile is big and fast enough to bounce all over the place

@@ME262MKI "Bounce all over the places" is not magic. Most of the big enough pieces will either pierce the turret floor, goes in the engine compartment, or the autoloader. The less energetic pieces will get stuck in Dimitri or Boris, the various control boxes of stuff, the various optics, the munition lying around, etc. As I said before, even with explosive munition, cases of wiping out an entire turret crew with the projectile alone is rare.

@@jintsuubest9331 never said the entire crew, i said the projectile can kill all the crew in the turret, obviously the driver would be safe if no ammo in the turret gets hit and the loader at the other side of the turret has a chance of survival

Maybe

for example, in the royal tiger, with an identical number of millimeters but with a lower angle of inclination of about 280 mm of armor in the forehead of the body, respectively, in the IS 7 this figure will be even higher due to the large angles

Impressive but fake

It's a turret shot with less then negligible horizontal impact angle so it can't bounce, it can shatter though or give you non-pen message

The M735 was made in 1978 while the T-64s was around mid 60s to early 70s.

@@divinesan7786 T-64 didnt enter service till late 60s and initial T-64 had weaker composite armor than the T-64A

@@danb4900 T-64 was set in production betweetn 1963-1967. The model of T64 and T-64A have pretty much the same armor, only different was the main gun (115mm vs 125mm)

Both 76 and 75 can punch throught a 3 inch mid hardness that at 60. 76 at close to point blank range and 75 at extended range.

I would have to look at the model. It was probably 70-75 mm

Well, a right-on hit would leave nothing from the tank

@@k_balu-8104 not necesserely tank armor. A tank would be pulverized obviously.

@@matteo964 i am pretty sure it would, its 800mm and out 4800kg its 700kg High Explosive, it can make a 10m deep and wide crater, it had AP too, it could go trough 1 meter steel, 7 meters of reinforced concrete and 10 meters of normal concrete, a T-34 would get completely destroyed regardless which type of it gets send on its head

@@k_balu-8104 7m of concrete is probably a massive lowball. I remember i read somewhere that, during the Sevastopol battle, an AP shell destroyed an ammo magazine under 30m of concrete.

@@matteo964 that was after 7-9 hits, not just the first

Yes, anyone who passed middle school algebra understands that volume is cubic.

@@CyberneticArgumentCreator Square cube law makes everything more difficult.

The video would be about 0,001s long, much shorter than a single frame in this video.

@@peasant8246 fair point I guess.

Someone has already asked about it so it will probably appear soon

IS-7 doesn't shoot here, and even if it did, it doesn't mean it couldn't penetrate with a good hit, so what you're writing is nonsense and extreme stupidity.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Did you know that the Soviets put a dog in the driver's seat for an IS-7 armor test and shot the same area on the front of the vehicle three times with a 130mm main gun and the dog survived without being penetrated?

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 In addition, the turret of the IS-7 is a mixture of titanium and is stiffer than the front of the car body.

@@Cristiano----- which car? w😂😂😂😂😂

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 not car tank body

That's what he did mostly. He did some of those occasionally because of viewer request.

Tungsten carbide is brittle. Even if the armor stopped the projectile, it would not be reusable.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Isn't brittle material highly susceptible to formation of plug?

@@jintsuubest9331 Yes

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 That answers that then, I suppose you also don’t want your expensive tank cracking the first time it goes over a bump! Thanks

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Pure or clean tungsten is'nt that brittle , or every tungsten AP round would break into 1000 pieces after a hit . The density is a little higher than lead , so a tank made out of tungsten would be super heavy and super expensive .

Судя по тому, что, кусок пробивший броню, имел скорость 400 м/с - ничего хорошего не стоит ожидать

In late 50s, the tank guns developed so high, that people realised that big crap of armor can stop a APDS or HEAT at all.