KV-1 vs UP-ARMOURED PANZER IV | BR-350B APHEBC vs 3-Layer Armour | Armour Penetration Simulation 

I wholeheartly agree. A great day out, even with the kids.

+ saumur tank museum

Hi there Your bolts just popped off Is there any significance to the presence of these bolts or do they simply pop off like that realistically Awesome simulation!

Which one?

Hey can u do a sim of a pz4 getting shoot from 2000 meters in the turret by a t-34/85

oh really tell me more

lmao did you call the driver "pilot"

​@@yoonseongdo3303rеtаrd learns about different languages and translations Will you call Russians, who refer to the turret as the "tower", some other stupid shit now?

@@belgianfried well... we aren't using russian language or cyrillic letters right now in this comment....

@@piazeme I never said we were

Better than the whole crew sharing it lol

​@@jammygamer8961oh yeah, absolutely

Duh... That was his breakfast...

Pretty sure this simulation omits any HE filler which was generally intended to exploit partial pen situations like this.

A true partial penetration.

If Hans had hung up a thick leather blacksmithing apron or something there, since kevlar didn't exist yet, over the front, it probably would absorb some spall in that case, definitely if hit from 600+m away instead of 250m which is pretty close range.

@@pex_the_unalivedrunk6785 They had rubber and nylon as materials. Makes me wonder whether rubber between plates would have created an effective NERA.

@@williamzk9083 eh, maybe a bit... but I'm mostly thinking about the interior, where a modern kevlar spall liner would be. Just tacking on something like a leather coat, blacksmith apron, or thick wool blanket to absorb a bit of spall from a not quite penetration might prevent injury to an extent, unless it was really big chunks of hot steel coming through.

@@pex_the_unalivedrunk6785 Leather is probably a good material. I would think about 3cm of it would be needed. The main factor regarding the spall liner I assume is that it does not become a dangerous projectile or spall itself. Even if it does not totally prevent spall it would reduce its spread. Rubber between plates would allow the plates to bend and spread the load while supporting it. Rubber with nylon would possibly make a spall liner. The fiber would absorb energy as it tears.

i wonder if the KV-1 E would stand a chance, it is also an up-armored version of a regular KV-1 but it has more armor added on. So 75mm of front + 35mm add-on armor sloped at an angle of 35° degrees, i think it has a chance to block the shell at at least 500 meters

Last KV-1 was made in 1942 there was such armor on German tanks😂🎉

Not close, the round did send a shotgun birdshot amount of shrapnel.

@@mr.waffentrager4400 driver knockedout

The Panzer IV Ausf. D only had the KwK-37 L/24. So unless the Panzer IV uses a Gr. 38HL-C HEAT shell, it can´t do anything against a KV-1.

He is just a Tankie who despises and hates the Western Allies. When comparing the Soviet Army with the German Army, he shows infinite favoritism, but when comparing the Western Allied Army with the German Army, he reveals the extreme Wehraboo instinct hidden inside. Isn't that a disgusting and hypocritical combination?.

​@@Rider-lo9vtok.

Maybe it's too late for that but yea I'm super curious about that especially whit things like Matilda.

And with the armor being cracked and the final plate having been dented enough to cause spalling, the spalling isn't the only thing the driver is going to eat probably.

1)its APHE it doesnt have a ballistic cap 2) soviet fuzes were most often than not deffective 3) soviet fuzes were incrediby short timed. Most likely this shell would have exploded while mid penetration of the second armor plate and not have reached the third intact if the fuze had been working.

Shear plugging is when it plugs a hole, meaning it knocks out a chunk of metal like a hole punch. It's more commonly used in naval gunnery due to the size of the guns and their brute force literally knocking a full sized chunk of steel out of the armor and it becoming a missile of it's own. Many times a shell would fell to fully penetrate but the plug would still be able to cause a massive amount of damage to the internals behind it even if the shell didn't fully penetrate itself.

Imagine poking a hole in a slice of cheese vs a block of cheese. When the projectile is larger than thickness of the plate (overmatch) plugging tends to occur. Blunt nose projectiles and high hardness / face hardend (brittle) armor enhance this effect. "When armor thickness exceeds steel projectile diameter, shear resistance is sufficient to minimize plug ejection and the projectile must push its way through armor, which requires considerably more energy than shear failure." -Rexford and Livingston

@@Azumazini Is this the same phenomenon as sometimes (misleadingly) referred to as "overmatch"? Like the phenomenon whereby a 15mm plate at 75° provides total protection against heavy MG, but much less than a 50mm plate at normal against something like a 57 or 75mm AP projectile.

If you're interested in more technical details, there's a video by Dejmian XYZ called "How does armor penetration work?" that illustrates the concepts behind shear plugging. Basically when you impart enough energy to the target in a short enough time, some of that energy is converted to heat, and it doesn't have enough time to dissipate through the rest of the material. Hot metal is weaker; the area around the impact shears away and the shot continues forward, causing more shearing and eventually forcing out a "plug" of metal. It's very interesting to note that this plug tends to form at the shortest distance through the armour, so in the case of angled plates, this results in slightly more penetrating power than just taking the straight-line armour thickness.

​@@tiivcnot really. "Overmatch" is when the round is so large and heavy that it crashes through without deflection, or the deflection is not enough to stop the wider part of the round from gripping the edge of the deflection dent/hole and going through.

A single 80mm plate would have resisted penetration better. Hard to say on spalling but likely very little

@@Sapoman2211 You dream, Wehraboo.

@@Rider-lo9vt ? It's established fact that single plates of equivalent thickness are superior to multiple plates. They're just harder to make, which is why uparmored designs tended to be done by additional plates in industrially strained countries but tended to be single plates in others. The rise of spaced armor as a dominant design occurs only after HEAT becomes a major concern.

DEFILADE NOT DEFLATED

Firstly tanks were never inflatable so one cannot be deflated. Secondly, when you say “held of” you really mean held off.

there were inflatable tanks imitations tho

Not really. The 75mm Sherman APCBC round would have easily penetrated the 80mm of frontal armor on the Panzer IV at 250 meters. The Sherman 75mm round could reliably do this out to 450 yards.

​@@chadmysliviec8449i think he meant the armor's performance

Simple answer is plugging is where the shell takes a square or more accurately cylindrical piece of the armor and pushing it through the plate. Maybe think of it like pushing a brick through and out of a brick wall. The 3rd plate is the actual front of the tank.

That how germans installed that armor and you can do nothing about it.

Excluded. Takes up sim time without actual affect

No that's 80mm while tiger is 102mm

Space armor have disadvantage and advantage such as great for stopping shrapnel and further shell but space armor has poor structure while the tiger has pure hardened 100mm it's enough to stop that round and also strong structure it can take many hit before it cracked its own

If your talking about having armour plates designed to move when hit to absorb energy then not really. But a similar concept is actually used in the hull armour of the m1 abrams where a plastic is held between the composite armour plates which absorbs the energy of the shell in the same way

500 would be plenty of room for that 76.2mm to drop like a rock in speed

Meawhile the panther was litteraly cheaper

I'd also like to add the fact that King Tigers were more reliable than Panzer IVs at the end of the war.

Is that true? What made them so expensive? I'd always heard that the Tiger was incredibly expensive but had no idea baout the PzIV

Doesnt sound right to me. A lot what i read is, that the later Pz 4s were around 40-50K, Panthers ~60K and Tigers ~120K $ in todays currency.

Thats not true. The Tiger I was always more expensive than the Panzer IV and required more manhours and resources to build. The Panther tank at the end of the war required more resources and was more expensive than the Panzer IV but required less manhours to build. That is mostly due to the very complicated geometry of the Panzer IVs hull and turret when compared to the Panther tank. The cuts of armor plate had to be exact and there were many more welds at akward angles which required more time. The Panther Hull in comparrison had way less welds and a simpler geometry than the PzIV. Panzer IV 117.000 Reichsmark 2400 manhours(production stopped due to bombing raids) Panzer V 144.000 Reichsmark 2000manhours(in practice more than 4400 due to bombing raids) Panzer VI 300.000 Reichsmark and more than 10.000 manhours(production switched to Tiger II) The germans would have had a "war winning" design with the PanzerIII-IV Einheitswanne combining the torsion bar suspension of the PzIII, a simplified PzIV turret and the Jagdpanzer IVs sloped hull profile. But that was dropped due to the tank not being better by a sufficient margin as to prove superior to allied tanks fielded at the time. The Panther was favored as to maintain "technological superiority".

the back plate is FHA :)

LOL Does the last armor plate shrapnel make you so uncomfortable? Goebbels will be proud of you 🤡.

@@SYsimulationsoh Right. For some reason HHA translated to FHA in my head. So why HHA? Shouldn’t all plates be FHA?

There is no such modification in warthunder (with 2 applique plates and 30mm main hull armor)

Not true. The vast majority of tanks that were penetrated by cannon fire during World War Two were penetrated in the hull, not the turret.

@@chadmysliviec8449 It's the joke of war thunder. I think the uploader or the owner of this channel is also playing this funny game. lots of video in this channel related to that dumb game. have a nice day.

Except the round is triggered on the first plate. There's every resaon to assume it will detonate against the second plate or just before it, reducing the overall penetration performance. The 3rd plate is likely to survive and resist both penetration and explosion.

@@iatsd No. The shells of this series have a detonator that is sensitive to the passage of armor thickness determinations. If the plate is too thin (like the first and second ones), then the projectile will fly by and not explode.

@@Anti_Everything Absolute BS. That's not how fuses work. Fuses are either cap or base armed, although they can physically be almost anywhere in the shell. Russian APHE rounds are cap fused, whereby the deformation of the cap hitting the target triggers the fuse. The *timing* of the fuse is guesstimated at design to run for some 1/100th of a second after the fuse activates - the precise number tries to assume the average engagement range against the average armour thickness + known factors of the detonation cycle and explosive propogation front rates. That means that if the armour the round hits is too thin then it will indeed punch through and possibly be out the other side by the time fuse does its job, or if, in the case here, the armour is spaced then the round may not be past the final armour plate before it goes off. NO FUSE ON THE PLANET is able to determine the thickness of a plate it hits. That's just fantasy. The Germans spaced the plates for EXACTLY the reason to get Russian APHE rounds to detonate early. They didn't do it just for shits and giggles. They looked at what they faced and calculated what would work best within the parameters they had to work with. If you think, as you claim, that 15mm - 30mm plate isn't thick enough to get the round to fuse and start the detonation cycle then you have to explain how those spaced plates are too thin, but the main armour plate that is THE EXACT SAME FVCKING THICKNESS somehow magically is, according to you. This is simple engineering, not fvcking fantasy magic.

@@iatsd You have absolutely no knowledge of the history of tanks and tank ammunition. In the initial period of the war, the Germans began to add screens to their tanks so that the ammunition exploded before breaking through the main armor. In this regard, Soviet designers began to install less sensitive fuses on tank ammunition. Therefore, the ammunition shown in this simulation will only explode on the last main armor. Got it, smart ass. And the thickness of these screens was about 10-15 mm. This is a foil from the world of tanks.

​@@iatsdNot BS, just simple engeneering. The detonator just would not explode after the first penetration, simple as it is.

Actually, it does matter, a lot. The vast majority of tanks that were destroyed by cannon fire in World War Two were hit in the hull, not the turret. The Panzer IV was a relatively small tank and it’s 50mm frontal turret armor was a small target. Yeah, they should have at least bolted or welded on a 20mm armor plate to the turret front of the Panzer IV, but it still would be easily penetrated if hit. The 80mm frontal hull armor of the Panzer IV was good protection from the Sherman 75mm gun past 450 yards and the T-34-76 from about 450 yards, depending on the angle of the impact. The Panzer IVs powerful gun kept the tank very useful, despite more powerful enemy guns near the end of the war such as the Soviet 85mm cannon, American 76mm gun, the British 17 pounder, the powerful American 90mm cannon , and the Soviet 100mm gun. The Panzer IV was able to knock out any tank, though it would need close range shot to destroy an IS-2 or a Pershing.

The Soviet 85mm absolutely did have problems against German armor. It could not penetrate the frontal armor of the Panther or the Jadgpanther, it certainly could not penetrate the frontal armor of the King Tiger. The Soviet 85mm gun certainly was much better than the previous 76.2mm gun, but the Soviet 85mm cannon was only slightly more powerful than the 75mm L/48 cannon on the Panzer IV and Stug III. The dirty Soviet communists had severe problems with their AP rounds shattering on impact with German armor, because communists make absolutely horrible quality weapons.

Well at high distance against panther or tiger or against tiger 2 in frontal battle it have a problems. In other case yea, no problems. First tiger 2 was destroyed by t-34-85.

The 85mm gun could not penetrate the frontal armor of the Panther at any distance except point blank range, and the 85mm gun absolutely could not penetrate the frontal armor of the Tiger 2. The 85mm gun needed to shoot a Tiger 2 in the 80mm side armor or the side of the turret in order to destroy it. Yes, the 85mm gun was good against the common Panzer IV and Stug III, it could penetrate the frontal armor of a Tiger 1 from a decent distance, but the Tiger 1 had a more powerful cannon and better armor, and could destroy T-34-85 from ranges where the 85mm gun could not penetrate the Tiger especially if the Tigers hull was angled properly. The 85mm gun would struggle against the highly sloped 60mm of frontal armor on the Hetzer at combat range, it had 121mm effective armor thickness, better than the Tiger 1 hull armor. The 85mm gun was definitely better than the 76.2 gun. The Soviet 100mm gun that they used on the SU-100 was their best tank gun. It was better than the 122mm Soviet gun. The 100mm gun was very powerful against armor and it fired an HE shell with about 4.87 pounds of high explosive filling, which is very good for a 100mm tank gun. The Soviets eventually used the 100mm gun on their T-55 tank. Even with the T-34 being upgraded with the 85mm gun, the Panzer IV still had a 6:1 kill/death ratio against the T-34. German tank crews were superior to inexperienced low IQ peasant communist tank crews.

@@chadmysliviec8449 Your comment is biased and at the same time unobjective. Why don't you write at the end that you think so, but you don't pretend to be is true?

Everything I wrote is 100% true fact. Not opinion. Maybe in your fantasy you pretend it’s not true. Do you have a soft spot for Soviet communist barbarians, Comrade Ivan?

Do you really think that when better vehicle enters production all of its older counterparts just disappear? KVs were still heavily used in 1943 Leningrad breakthrough, Karelia and even in China against the japs. Use your brain.

What are you even talking about

​@@darklysm8345 He is talking facts , those are late war variants which would likely have to face T-34-85s if not IS-2s .

Tanks produced in 1941 would not vanish from the battlefield.

@@MrChewy97 Nobody said they would vanish , the point is they will serve in lesser extend to front operations if at all . From Operation Bagration (1943) and onwords T-34-85s and IS-2s where massively used for assault operations .

Немецкое корыто и старше , и легче почти в 2 раза . И при этом лоб корпуса как у того же кв .а пушка и вовсе мощнее . Так что кто ещё является корытом ?

Ok russki

​@@darklysm8345 You need to cope harder 😂.

@@warthunderbattl8090 только это поздняя модификация которую не пустили в производство потому как уже пошли т 34-85 и ис 2 , да и толку что лоб усилили, башня и борта остались прежними

@@user-gb6kz6qd3u модификация г у которой лоб 80 мм появилась раньше чем ис 2 и т 34 85 . А КВ до конца войны воевали. И причем тут т 34 85 и ис ? Т 34 85 и пз 4 были в равных условиях . И при этом немец чуть ли не на 10 тонн легче . А возимый боекомплект больше . И мб удивлю броня танка от пушек свыше 76 мм это не самое важное в танке . Отнюдь обычно самый бесполезный параметр .