HOW A TINY PIECE OF PLASTIC HELPS DESTROY TANKS | Shaped Charge Armour Piercing Simulation 

Interesting this, but an old book I have (early '70's) states the velocity of the plasma jet as 27,000ft/sec, which converts to over 8,000m/s. What are the variables, or was this book exaggerating?

BTW isn't 'waveguide' more commonly used term? I've never heard of 'wave shaper'.

@@gitfoad8032 That book is correct as shaped charge velocities vary depending on explosive type, cone angle, liner material and thickness, plus some other things. With the right combination 10000m/s can be achieved.

​@@SYsimulations - Cheers. Sounds very mass x velocity.

It could be due to the slightly lesser amount of explosive leading to a smaller tip, or maybe the shaper's shape was slightly off messing the colimation, or tge plastic absorbed too much energy... idk, just guessing, if could be the model too. Charges are designed with a lot of variables in mind and you generally cant plug and play different pieces and expect optimum performance without a redesign...

What fascinates me is how countless articles and even generals display a complete lack of understanding of how it works and how countermeasures to it such as slat armour work.

Me, too. I love that the effect was discovered due to the company's name being imprinted in the explosives. I love it when science is discovered by accident.

Monroe effect

Thanks! Really appreciate it, I just wish HEAT was easier to simulate

@@MaxRavenclaw Oh, and how does it work? Rather, how does it work against the personnel behind the armor. I heard some silly sounding explanations, but I think my own understanding of the effect makes much more sense.

Which is already the point of a shaped charged (replacing potential explosive space with air), but this just takes it another step further lol.

@@RhodokTribesman Yes I'm well aware that there's plenty of examples, and some things are more obvious than others, depending on your working understanding of the physics and the mechanism of action; but this example of removing some explosive mass in favour of an inert piece of plastic, does not come across as obvious to me

@@tommeakin1732 You may have missed my tone haha, Im agreeing with you. Its all pretty damn counterintuitive. I was saying "It's already crazy that replacing explosives with air makes it perform better, but even more wild to remove further explosive and have it perform even better than the previous advancement"

@@RhodokTribesman Apologies...I might have been a bit needlessly defensive there ; - ; I guess I've got used to people leaving dickish comments and it can stop me from giving people the benefit of the doubt.... Not good! I think I also misread your initial reply which doesn't help lol

@@tommeakin1732 No worries, I didn't take it that way haha. Text has it's limitations for sure

Thank you, I once was an inexperienced channel too but have continually tried to improve my models and they can too. I wouldnt say mine is the best though :)

@@SYsimulations easily in the top 3

Most don't explain what happened

Thank you, I really appreciate it and hope you enjoy what is to come

Thank you so much for the kind words, I really appreciate it! I'm glad you like where the channel has gone and I hope to improve it, and my simulations, even more going forward :)

Yeah it's a shame but I thought the principle was still interesting enough to present

@@SYsimulations No worries. You're pretty much the best out of all the "tank simulations" channels out there and I (and many other) enjoy your work very much. Keep it up!

Agree, i love these tank simulations, but does anyone know armor vest simulations similar to that, i would be happy to watch these too

@@dustsans9859 yeah, just saw a demo ranch video with him firing silver tipped .308 ammo(probably AP-I) at some Level 3+ armor plate, wanna see how it works

@@raymartcarreon6069 I know demo ranch, i meant simulations like on this channel

Double shaped charge to defeat re-active armor.😊

With wave shaper should offer more penetration, there's an issue with penetration for both in the simulation unfortunately

no not really

A spherical detonation hits the tip of the cone first, then progresses down the walls. A wave shaper allows the detonation to progress in a cone, and thus "touch" the liner in a more normal angle.

Thanks! Yes, the pressure does go through the plastic as well but its substantially less so isn't visible on the pressure plot

Itd be a balancing act between applying compressive force to the liner and pushing it forward. Id have to go do the maths on it but id reckon the ideal angle was found early on and has been stuck to.

Unfortunately there isnt much available info on such a modern weapon system and the scale of it would be a bit strange for a simulation

Water as a theoretical wave shaper? No benefits. It has a low sound of speed compared to the det. Wave so just performs as a normal wave shaper

Read the annotations. Its not working correctly in the simulation

@@rykehuss3435 oof I didnt see it

Multiple factors contribute to the liner performance -ductility, mass, shape (eg conical, trumpet, halfdome), speed and angle of impact of the detonation wave, grain size and -direction, impurities in the liner etc. As a general concept the young's modulus of the material contributes strongly on the performance. High speed of sound and ductility increase the performance. Soft and malleable materials tend to perform poorly (eg lead, gold) whereas copper performs pretty good and has a good density. However glass is pretty non-ductile and also performs quite good especially if density doped. So nothing too simple here.

jet penetration scales as density^0.5 but the jet speed must be well supersonic in target metal. I expect golden/lead jet to be slower

They don’t need to be ductile. Glass works well.

@@WineScrounger That's very true. Ductility is just one factor. Theoretically you could use anything, even liquid as the liner. They use high-density glass on SCs on oil wells. Glass tends to create quite wide craters compared to the depth.

Depends on what you want. Tantalum is an excellent liner material for deepest penetration because it is heavy, refractory, and super malleable. Want the most damage, make the liner out of depleted uranium. This metal will shear and burns white hot in air at supersonic speed. 🤔

Why would you use kinetic penetrator in that role? At best it would just produce more asteroids. It would be much better to push asteroid with minimal disturbance using something like orion pulse unit (which strikes target with wave of tungsten plasma). Even better rather than striking asteroid itself, attach sail to it and have pulse unit push against sail.

@@voneror because the point is EXACTLY to expel the most possible amount of sheer mass out of asteroid in one direction to change its course into opposite one to said "plume"?

@@TheArklyte I hope I just misunderstand what you are trying to say, because idea that penetrating something or shattering it is great way of pushing it is ridiculous. You could even say that penetration is exact opposite to pushing.

The velocity is higher (but the penetration depth in the simulation is wrong)

It might be that mesh issue you described but there isn't strain related deletion in this simulation. Unfortunate though

I think that would have an effect yes, don't know enough about them though

@SY Simulations ok. Thanks. Too much to ask but off your head top, is there any reading on such things you know that may enlighten on it? Panzerfaust 3 i think has a very large shaper and look like a muffin

Its an error somewhere, the pressure and velocity increase are correct though

Cheap and kinda effective, i dunno

Thanks, I will try to do more shaped charge sims in the future but they're not working properly as mentioned in the description. I would like to provide more information on the subject too :)

Should have read the comment then shouldn't you

Not at all, its used in nearly all ATGM warheads which have proven to be exceptionally effective against even modern MBTs

@@SYsimulations doesnt slat armor obsolete it?*

@@diwajerebation4077 slat armor only really works against certain RPG-7 rockets. The gaps in between the slat need to be something like 60-70% of the diameter of the warhead so that when a warhead passes in between the slats the side wall of the warhead impact the metal. This will crumple and cut into the warhead and, due to the fuze design, short out the fuze or sever the connection to the detonator. The warhead then typically fails to go off. Depending on the design of the slat armor you can expect it to work a good 70-80% of the time if struck from a perpendicular angle. The rest of the time the warhead successfully detonates and the slat armor merely acts as a small amount of spaced armor. Anything other then these specific RPG-7 warheads will not be defeated by slat armor

@@deathdragon2283 didnt know that

Plastic explosives aren't a war crime.

@@Prometheus19853 The 1980 Protocol I to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides: “It is prohibited to use any weapon the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays.” Amendment to Article 1 of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons In 2001, States parties to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons decided to amend Article 1 of the Convention, governing its scope. This amendment states: 1. This Convention and its annexed Protocols shall apply in the situations referred to in Article 2 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the Protection of War Victims, including any situation described in paragraph 4 of Article I of Additional Protocol I to these Conventions. 2. This Convention and its annexed Protocols shall also apply, in addition to situations referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, to situations referred to in Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. This Convention and its annexed Protocols shall not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature, as not being armed conflicts. 3. In case of armed conflicts not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply the prohibitions and restrictions of this Convention and its annexed Protocols

@@liamwartz That's not plastic explosives, nor is it the point of a plastic shelled explosive.

@@liamwartz No fragments of the material are left, yet alone within the body.

@@ThatZenoGuy damn, a person who actually can defeat my arguement

Description

He explains why in his comment if you bothered to read it

afaik, the highest velocities with common explosives is like ~10km per second max. only tiniest particles will exceed that velocity, the jet itself will be below 10km per second.

Sorry ive been busy haha, I've replied now though

@@SYsimulations No worries. :)

y-you sure about that?