SHOOTING THE SAME SPOT UNTIL IT GOES THROUGH | Bofors vs KV-1 Multiple Impact Armour Piercing Sim 

Dispersion would be also higher. I am saying this as former BMP-2 motorifles platoon commander and operator of zu-23-2

lol dispersion and recoil were not accounted at all there is no way round hit like this

@@soldierbreakneck771 Recoil? You can just increase the delay between shots.

Please do: GBU-57 MOP (30000lb bomb, 5300lb explosive), vs. the bunker from Top Gun Maverick (about 30ft of concrete). (just the penetration (an explosion like that will wipe out the bunker if it gets through...)

@@NK-qn6pq Be advised that you would need several supercomputers to calculate the penetration of 10(!!!!) meters of solid concrete.

Proceed to mag dump an innocent KV1 with a whole battery of bofors 40mm

"Guns.And if it's not enough,use more guns"

Literally just McRee fanned a Bofors to a KV1

"More Dakka"

'When violence doesn't work you are not using enough of it." mfs when their dad beats them up every day but it still doesn't work

You mean where it hits the point of the pike shaped armor? That would be interesting to see the shell split into three (hopefully).

The Armor will divide the shell in 3 slices like a banana !

@@mr.waffentrager4400 in a real scenario the is-3 would be the thing splitting lmao

@@charlieyes4946 some 1945 models maybe!

That would be interesting.

Water will put a hole in a rock given enough time, I’m sure a 20mm can get through 75mm of steel given enough ammo and time lol

Can we get 22lr vs Maus

@@Tod357 Over 300.000 rounds I'm guessing

the problem to hit same spot, since tank usually moves and shoot back

@@tsugumorihoney2288 I posed the question purely as an interesting thought experiment that would be interesting to see simulated. Like no way it could ever happen in real life, but as a hypothetical…

Yes man, some 25mm APFSDS-T vs Chobam or other spaced armours.

perhaps a bradley vs t90

@@eli_grim0432 the t90 wasn't penned as far as I know, bradley used explosive ammo to blind its optics instead

Aged well

I'd love to see how many 40mm Bofors rounds it'd take to go through the front of the Churchill VII's 152mm of armour. Literally mroe than 3 times the diameter of the rounds (almost 4x)

Meatballs are Italian, originally Chinese. Get better material.

@@InspiriumESOO IKEA meatballs. IKEA is Swedish. Bofors is Swedish. Hence, it's an IKEA meatball launcher.

@@InspiriumESOO um, meatballs existed in Europe long before Europeans were familiar with the Chinese you are thinking of Pasta noodles. meatballs are literally just a wad of meat and bread crumbs.

That's something I'll be doing at some point :)

Watch this video on the cv9040 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-gGj_ioyZaIk.html

It has over 100mm of armor,so technically you need 3 40mm shots to penetrate it,not to mention it's slightly sloped

@@vietnguyenhoang5795 What? The rounds don't have 40mm of penetration, they are 40mm in diameter.

@@vietnguyenhoang5795 additionally this is just the early version of KV-1 so it has just 75mm of armor, like the video says.

That's how kolobanov win !

@@dti1312 And you don't just add pen values up either. There's diminishing returns

Agreed

Maybe one day :)

though the dispersion at ranges tank fights usually occur would make hitting the exact same spot multiple times almost impossible

Except it is not.

@@spextahd5673 For Russian guns maybe

Thanks, its ansys :)

There is no information on the rod design afaik.

The R3 is just going to be more frustrating to deal with.

Yeah that's not going to be very fun when hitting the same spot is easy

Heating is definitely present, but it is likely not a particularly large factor of penetration. At such high velocities, the line between heat and kinetic energy is rather blurry since the heat energy is traveling through the armor material slower than the projectile at the time of impact. It would be kind of like smashing an ice cube with a red hot hammer. Sure, the hammer is red hot and could melt the ice, but it's also a hammer, so the ice gets scattered all over the room before any melting actually takes place. An armor plate would almost certainly be mechanically destroyed before it could absorb enough thermal energy to start negatively impacting the steel's integrity.

I'd say it's quite possible, due to the fire rate of the L60 and poor visibility of the tank crew, it would be impossible to locate where they were being fired upon and reposition and return fire before the armor was broken through.

Localized heating is exactly why we see steel armor fail the way they did. In general, 2 caliber distance away from point of impact is enough to be consider undamaged armor.

The cavity of the shell is filled with the extending portion of the rod until it is fired, so it only becomes a cavity after leaving the muzzle. Unless you've got some really fast combat engineers who can fill it up mid flight, there's no way to add explosive filler to it. Even if it was filled, as the rod penetrates, it is eroded away, so your filler would never get the chance to detonate since it would be destroyed or dispersed in the act of penetrating the armor.

@@resurgam_b7 not if there were a penetrator cap that was long enough to withstand disintegration until the rest of the shell catches up. also since it's a discarding sabot shell, the discarding pieces could be placed around the shell in such a way that it remains partially extended until it leaves the barrel

There werent any nice models/images of the basic version unfortunately...well spotted though

Hits like these were incredibly loud inside the vehicle, they would not be able to communicate under constant fire. Let's also not forget the absolute moral damage something like this would cause when you see the dent in your tank becomming larger and large from something as small as an AA gun.

@@ZETH_27 yep, big knock to their head is pretty dangerous. Disturbing their focus and environmental awareness

It would crack like an Egg, given enough Velocity and Mass hitting it

I just imagine the server going 1000 degrees celsius trying to calculate every penetration at 3k+ battles at the same time

The server hamsters would get stroke and coma at the same time

@@commanderwayan we’ll call it comastroke and and of course don’t forget the part where it all bursts into flames

@@jnicholaswildcat absolutely!

@@commanderwayan can’t disagree though, that it would certainly make the game a lot more equal, especially against tanks that generally can’t be penned

Propably around 5, since large part of the round will be deflected

Even with HE alone there were cases of Panther and Tiger crews bailing out and bleeding from the ears

@@f00koff42 It didn't penetrate the armor,the shockwave made their ears bleed.

Probably gonna take about 2 or 3 shots with the Tiger,since its armor is unsloped.For the Jadgtiger,I think you must take at least 7 shots on the same spot,the thing was tankier with sloped armor

@@vietnguyenhoang5795 he is talking about tiger 2 not tiger 1

They are autoloaded

it´s full auto as Bofors 40mm L/60 is a Anti aircraft gun.

I believe they are added to the magazine/feed chute in 4 round clips and then the gun automatically loads and fires them.

from what i have seen in videos of crews operating one in a AC-130. they are using the old school manual 5 round clip loading. Using gravity to feed the gun. Think they went that route to save on weight not to mention they fire the gun only in a few bursts so fully automatic loading is not needed in the first place. Think the first autoloaded gun they have is the 25mm chaingun

@@chris-zt7eo They were not autoloaded. They were manually loaded into the gun by the gunners(in reality loaders) via clips, just like how they were loaded in the 40s on naval ships.

Most I have seen and read have just been to ignore dents. Maybe place applique armor over it or fill it if its such a concern. If a penetration happened, it gets plugged with a filler material. its going to be a weak spot but its so small its unlikely to get bit twice. If the entire plate failed, odds are your tank is totaled due to it also serving as a structural component. But if its still otherwise fine, I guess you can cut the plate and weld a new one on. Once again, worse than the original. Or scrap it and cannibalize it for spare parts. Modern tanks can get its composite inserts replaced if its not a full penetration.

@@neurofiedyamato8763 Thank you so much for such an extensive answer! :)

Depends on the construction and the nature of the damage, if it was an earlier riveted-plate design with the armour riveted onto an underlying chassis and that chassis wasn't busted you could drill all the rivets out and replace the entire plate, or if it was an all welded hull and the surrounding hull plates weren't wrecked by the same damage you could possibly cut the busted of the plates out and replace them by welding in a new one but that kind of cutting, welding and manipulating the hull would require dedicated equipment and repair crews and might require sending the hull back to the factory or a better equipped repair facility. If the integrity of the plate and it's welds are mostly fine and the missing armour material isn't part of a mount for some equipment and the back-face deformation isn't displacing internal equipment or jamming a hatch or door shut then you could probably just add some filler or cover it with applique to improve crew morale as mentioned above, and as mentioned above if the plates have torn at the welded joints the structural integrity of the chassis might be fucked. It really depends on where, what and how. A practically speaking a relatively small non-penetrating dent displacing armour material enough to jam the driver's hatch shut or damaging the mount for an optical sight or periscope might be more of a problem practically than a small penetration

Sure, it's possible, but why? Why would you want to do that when you could just give it a cannon that'll do the job in 1 hit?

Not realistic. The chances that your shots will be able to hit the exact same snot is so fucking low. Even if you try to shoot them one after the other if the enemy tank turns or moves even slightly they won’t hit the same armor and the recoil of the gun will mean it definitely won’t hit the same spot not to mention guns are not 100% accurate so at any longer distance the shots will deviate from their flight path. There is a reason tanks do not aim for weak spots but center mass because if they don’t they might not even hit their target.

Yes but why though when you have IFVs and SPAAGs that already have autocannons? MBTs need to be able to deal with heavy targets like bunkers, trenches and other obstacles like walls which an autocannon burst isn't going to crack as easily.

BMP-T is actually close to what you're searching for. It's a T-72 hull fitted with autocannon.

In a test environment.

Because a single round from a 57mm+ gun can do the same.

I doubt that was modeled in the game. That would need way to much computing power.

Most engagements happen at >1km, so hitting the same spot is virtually impossible

Tanks aren't always used to destroy other tanks. Tanks in ww2 were used for clearing line for infantry to move in, destroy pillboxes and fortifications. 40mm HE is not enough for destroying pillboxes and fortifications

they tried that but not with a heavy tank, the Nimrod 40M is a good example as it was intended to be a general purpose tank for engaging other tanks, infantry and aircraft but the penetration was deemed too poor to reliably take out anything other than light tanks from a distance greater than around 400 meters which is suicidal close for engaging a medium or heavy tank. Also Heavy tanks were designed to engaged defensive positions typically and as such they wanted as large of a gun caliber as possible for the intended role which is why you typically saw something 75mm or larger on heavy tanks. prime examples being 122 and 152 mm guns on the soviet assault guns and heavy tanks. the US played with the idea of using 105mm and 155mm guns on top of the 90mm guns. The Germans were mostly concerned with dealing with other tanks and the 88mm was treated like it was magic so they stuck with that and the British would never really use anything bigger than about 94mm on a tank during ww2.

Not feasible unless you have a death wish. Just use an ATGM if you want to kill a tank.

From the front, it would not be particularly likely, side on, it would depend on what tank is being targeted, but the IFV might have a better chance. We'll ignore for a moment that modern tanks have armor that is much more resistant to penetration than the RHA of the KV-1. Even if both the gun platform and the target were stationary, it would be a difficult feat to land multiple consecutive shots in one hole. Under battlefield conditions, it would be functionally impossible. That's not to say it couldn't happen, chaos works both ways and what is impossible to do on purpose could happen by chance, but I wouldn't bet the safety of my crew and passengers on that chance. Getting back to armor, it again depends on the MBT being fired at, but most modern tanks have frontal armor kinetic RHA equivalents in the hundreds of millimeters. Meaning that shooting kinetic projectiles at it (like 20-40mm autocannon shells) would be like shooting at a steel plate 2, 3, or 4 times as thick as depicted in this video. You'd need dozens of rounds to land in the same hole in order to potentially make it through. Any tank that sits around and lets you shoot it for long enough to do that deserves to be destroyed just out of shame. Especially since their gun could almost certainly destroy the IFV in a single hit.

@@resurgam_b7 Makes sense. Though 1 thing to note is that modern 30-40mm apfsds have much higher penetration than the Bofors L/60. So you wouldn't need dozens of round hitting the same hole, however unlikely that'd be. I have another question. How feasible would a super rapid-fire (eg. >1000 rpm) autocannon be in mission killing tanks (eg. by destroying modules on the tank)? The 30mm GAU-8 is vaunted for that purpose. Could a rapid fire AC on a ground vehicle do the same? Thanks for the reply!

@@2020Twenty Yes if you watch aircraft weapon test videos knockouts can occur via optics/etc disabled from low calibre stuff, or tracks. You can kill or severely compromise a barrel with a good hit from a 25mm. Check this video watch?v=irn_74oXfUg

Nope. That's Just About Impossible, Considering That the M-163 Would Have to get So Close to T-72, And Then Shoot It 1000 Times Without Being Fired at....