HETZER vs CROMWELL | 7.5cm Pzgr.39 vs Riveted Layered Plates Armour Piercing Simulation 

Not at all. Recovered bolts through a sherman look similar

In the description they said that the shell was set rigid, on this armor it wouldn’t shatter and very little deformation would happen so it was just wasting computing time to model the small bit of deformation, but unlike what is shown, there actually would be some mild deformation.

However the cap and ballistic cap are no longer existing

U can collect them after battle and use again 😂

@@user-yc1xe1pd1f In fact...In Death Traps, the author, who was an officer in charge of damaged sherman tanks, found a projectile inside a Sherman, and used it to weld into the hole thereby repairing it.

well technically you won't be able to, since we can't exactly imagine what being *dead* feels, at least whoever got shot doesn't have to go through a lot of suffering

I mean, if you're going to go out - might as well go out instantly before you're even aware of it. Better than burning to death or bleeding out slowly, etc.

@@fdenrico9861 if it goes through your chest you will have time to feel that pain

I don't think you'd need to worry about it too much.

I don’t think that there will be any hole. You would probably be cut in half. But you won’t feel it.

Yes...he should make simulation with HE round

@Tired of War italian Tanks too

@Tired of War как и осколками хрупкой брони. Бортовая 15мм броня пробивалась чем угодно. В процессе она крошилась и наносила дополнительные увечья. Лобовая 25 мм броня вела себя схожим образом.

Слышал о таком же что клепки могли становться убойными эллементами

Japanese tank in nutshell :v

By 1944 the 50mm L/60 would be more accurate and interesting

Maybe, but that'll just pen.

The pak 39 had less pen than the kwk40 in the panzer IV and the kwk had slightly less pen than a pak 40 since it was shorted to fit the panzer IV chassis.

Tell that to gaijin

Up front I think riveting would cause the greatest casualties. Is there anywhere I can start looking to run such simulations on my own hardware? Software name, guide link, anything at all. I would like to actually find out.

Quickly dead either way by the looks of it.

At that thickness and angle it would not have made a difference if the armor was welded. This test shows that the armor is inadequate against the projectile regardless of construction method. To illustrate why bolted/riveted armor is inferior to welded armor you should use a lower power projectile like a 3,7cm, 4,5cm or 5cm fired from further away and hitting near the bolt/rivet and compare it to a simulation of the projectile hitting far away from the bolt/rivet and not penetrating. That would show why that construction type is inferior because of damaged bolts/rivets being pushed into the compartment even though the gun would have not piereced the plate otherwise. This simulation is therefore inconclusive in the regards of showcasing inferiority of bolted/riveted designs. In matters of weight riveted designs are always inferior since the construction steel base + armor plate is way inferior to the same weight/thickness in just armor plate. Fun fact: welded armor done cheaply and without expertise can be worse than bolted. If the welder sucks he can ruin the heat treatment of armored plates at the edges where the welds are. Resulting in cracked armor upon striking the plate. If your industry cannot supply capable and knowledgeable welders its easier to stick to casting armor or riveted designs.

I'd love to see a cromwell against 20mm flak - there was a mild-steel cromwell that got lit up by one in Africa, I think Lindybeige has a video about it! That'd be super cool to see, it was a training-tank that accidentally ended up in front-line use, thing kicked ass tho!

@@schullerandreas556 I do not see the posibility for a WW2 era welder to weld a thick plate properly and in the same time not destroy the heat treatment... in fact that i would expect from a crapy wealder, not heat up the plate and end up with crapy weld. Also here the rivets/bolts are huge, the whole problem with rivets on tanks was in case of standard rivet, properly made rivet will be stressed on its own, so hit from 8mm full power MG would break it and then the bolt will be ricocheting inside tank causing damage to everything on its way. Also beause here it looks more like a screw than a rivet there can be not much tension pressent to the whole thing may be much less prone to breaking and acting like separate projectile. i would also sugestt o test this bolt/rivet against high speed AP round from 20mm flak cannon.

That's hellish to imagine what was in his head when it was realised. But I wonder if it had the same engine and if it did, if it was even more mobile.

@@dominikdylewicz3581 yes actually! The tank had always been faster than the other Cromwells. After they discovered it was a training tank, they elected to keep it as they deemed the extra speed was more valuable than the armour, since regular Cromwell armour couldn’t stand up to most German AT guns anyway

The crazier thing about it, they didn't change it out for the proper one when they had the chance

It wasn't a training tank per se, it was preproduction. It had been initially retained for training. Most training at the time was with Covenanters and Centaurs, not Cromwells.

@@pigpig252 that seems a bit unlikely as the standard Cromwell was sufficiently fast its engine had to be regulated to reduce the risk of damage to the suspension. Although perhaps, being lighter, such damage was less likely.

Why. It was designed to support Infrantry not fight tanks 😂 a lot of people seem to forget that. Britain didn't really have tanks that were specifically designed for knocking out other tanks until late in the war when the comet was in development and they equipped shermans with 17 pounder as a stop gap. It did what it was designed to do. The job of a cruiser tank was support not tank killing.

They're all about penetration ! 🙄

And even though it was heavier, speed wasn't necessarily an issue. The Cromwell more suffered from being able to go faster than the suspension could reliably survive cross-country.

@@wbertie2604 yeah they had to put speed govenors on certain models to avoid excessive wear on suspension and to prevent throwing track

@@justinkedgetor5949 Sometimes crews took them out, of course! IIRC the Meteor was first tested in a Crusader, and that could do 50mph with it. Reputedly a Cromwell could manage up to 40mph on roads.

@@wbertie2604 I think its hard to get any tracked vehicle to exceed 40mph due to the centrifugal force on the tracks, it becomes very high above 40mph.

@@williamzk9083 there have been a fair few metal link tracked vehicles that can or have achieved it. In WW2 breaking the suspension rather than the track seemed to be the limiting factor, at least based on the British putting governors on Cromwells to limit them to 32mph. Tracks coming off seemed to be the other big issue, but that seemed to be for British cruiser tanks in general. So I'm not sure to what extent other properties of tracks are an issue. Rubber tracked (Kegresse style, as on American WW2 half tracks) seem to work at 50 mph (I've seen it done) although apparently track failure ended up being an issue as they are essentially big rubber bands and rubber ages. Apparently one failed on such a vehicle doing 50 on a motorway in the UK in the 1980s leading to ban on half tracks on that type of road.

"Acccch jaaaaa!!!!" (German Kool-Aid Man in a black panzer outfit)

Half the range and I would still bet on the sloped frontal armour of the Hetzer to stop the Cromwell's round.

is i remember i was not mild steel but rather thiner steel plates

You're welcome, but yeah i forgot to record the velocity plot of the first case (but still got the data) and the strain plot just didn't look interesting in this case. You too though :)

Just imagine a Jagttieger with a 150mm gun. They might get a penetration of the front and the back.

Yep, that's what's shown here, but only a small portion of it

You'd need to model all the rest of the stuff in the turret, like the radio, gun, etc, as there's a lot a shell might hit before the other turret wall.

Aye, that looks like it would come out the other side of the tank.

It had a modified PAK 40, not a KwK 42.

It didn't have the same gun as the panther, it had a pak 39. The jagdpanzer IV/70 had kwk 42 l/70

Yeah, we got that part from the documents whelmy posted on WarThunder forums, but do you have any specific characteristics for this material? From the looks of it, when comparing the simulation results to the photo, this material behaves pretty much like structural steel.

They used IT100 quite often for thinner parts, correct, but I never saw a specific diagram saying the backing at this point was IT100...couldnt find any info on what it was in fact. I initially started with a steel approximate of IT100 but I had to run the model a few times with sequentially lower hardness steel until the petaling matched the picture, this only happened at the strength of structural steel

South African subtree is the reason why the British tech tree isn't bad enough

Really depends, if uts the min space then you need to add more armour and weight. But at a rough guess, 77mm of plate slowed it down by 200m/s. So do the maths, you need around 110mm of armor. Basic trig should solve it. But I am being lazy so say 30degs

Fine did the maths. 65mm at an angle of over 35degs gives you over 110mm of armor

Afaik that was welded and cast, so no frame. Not certain though

Comet tank had a new turret with up to 4in. (102mm) of armour on the front.

37mm for sure, maybe short barrel 50 mm at distance, both where retired from service before the cromwell enterd in service.

Cromwell was supposed to enter service in 1942, where 64/76mm was more common if still weak for a new tank. Uparmoring to 102mm was tested and recommended in 1943 but even though it was feasible to upgrade the tanks in time this was never done.

The same could be said of almost any allied tank. A Sherman's sloped frontal armour, for example, is nearly the match of a Tiger's frontal armour - the difference is that the Sherman's gun will bounce off, while a Tiger's gun will zip through the Sherman in an instant. Almost no allied tank had armour capable of stopping a German high velocity 75mm or 88mm round, etc. Allied tanks would have all been as heavy and slow as the Churchill if they really tried to stop the German guns. Armour was put on to stop basically every other threat...but there was no stopping a 88mm round with your name on it, really.

In real life you almost never ever get a perpendicular hit. Also shells are rarely if ever perfect in their crystalline structure either (neither is the armor). A simulation represents a mathematical ideal situation without the many, many random variables of real life. And after having that reinforced many times such as aircraft engines having failures that didn't show up in modeling leading the FAA to require test flying engines again we keep relearning that. Anyway in relation to WW2. German analysis show that for example it was expected to take 3-5 shots from a Panther's 75mm to knock out a M4. Some of it might be conservative estimates but also the reality that things rarely lined up perfectly in real life. Ultimately what really mattered the most was who spotted who first and who fired first. As reacting to being fired on tends to force errors. An example of such as a 76.2mm anti tank gun crew that effectively knocked out a Tiger II in the battle of the bulge because on coming under fire (And the commander of course not knowing from what) tried to get his vehicle repositioned and it backed into a building which partially collapsed on it making it immobilized and thus abandoned (Tiger II number 105 belonging to s.SS.Pz.Abt. 501 abandoned 18th December 1944 at Stavelot when it got stuck in a building. Source: Schneider)

@@oskar6661 The firefly could kill the tiger and vice verca. It came down to getting the first hit.

7.5cm PzGr.39 was supposed to pass a production acceptance test where it perforates a target of: 100mm thick plate set at 30° at 750m/s, with its explosive cavity intact.

There is also the fact the shell was made rigid, which leaves the shell unable to deform afaik