STAND-OFF AT CHECKPOINT CHARLIE SIMULATION | T-54 vs M48 | BR-412D Armour Penetration Simulation 

HEAT

against armor, post-ww2 american vehicles usually employed HVAP. i believe the one used on the m48 would be M332A1, if HEAT-FS wasn't available.

HVAP, please.

AP (the general APHE used on the 90mm gun) probably isn't worth to see, the T-54 was a tough nut to crack and the HEAT probably could do the job but as explained we will not see that. So, go for the APCR/HVAP🤓

Pretty sure that APCBC was the standard anti-armor round. I don't think the 90mm HEAT was in use until after the crisis.

finally, nobody decided to rush there, luckily

Considering West Berlin was inside of the GDR territory there would be a hard time to hold it

it's in the middle of GDR territory what do you expect

@@Blitz9H i didn't say otherwise, why are you so defensive

​@@me67galaxylifethis interaction was funny lol

there's more modernizations and 'unofficial', modern rod ammo from other countries

@@ivan5595, of cource. For example, israelian ammo for romanian TR-85

"for it's time" being the keyword here.

​@@4T3hM4kr0nwell analyzed Sherlock.

@@4T3hM4kr0n And yet ruSSia has deployed them to Ukraine. :D

Very sad emotional event for the crew indeed

Emotional event? Start of WWIII would have transcended emotion and could have been an extinction event.

@@teeanahera8949 it's a meme

@@TheOneWayDown it's not funny or clever.

@@teeanahera8949bro can *not* take a joke

At that range it's not really surprising. 100M is essentially point blank range.

The M48's HEAT wouldve done the same to the T54 tho, so

​@@Salamandra40kBut this is just satisfying.

​@@Salamandra40ki don't think in 1961 it was firing heat... Also heat was unreliable at good angles

@@mr.waffentrager4400 "M-456 HEAT-T, Introduced 1961, USA." Yes...they had HEAT for the 90mm in 1961.

Apcr to the front of the turret face still should be able to do the damage but other than that it would be rough

weren't there variants of the m48 in service at the time armed with a 105mm gun?

​@@dennislemasters4339 in 1961, i don't think so. But M60 with 105mm was in production since 1960

​@@dennislemasters4339Nope, it was 1961, the 105mm was just entering service i believe

@@mateuszk3812 At that range HVAP would be very likely to just shatter because of being at almost muzzle velocity and still very hot from the propellant gasses. Also at the turret cheeks right next to the gun the T54 armor is 220mm thick casting(high hardness) and very curved. All the things that HVAP hates to deal with even at normal combat range. At minimum range where the HVAP would still be hot from being fired I think the chances of penetration are zero. APHE and APCBC would be useless. The 90mm gun is equivalent to the german 88mmL56 with coresponding ammo types. Gun against which the T54 had immunity from the front hull+turret at any range. Thing that the soviets test by fireing at the hulls. Only HEAT really is a danger to a T54/55 from 90mm armed M46/47/48 tanks.

"You have failed the turret check" _Turret flies 50 feet in the air in a horrific, violent fireball of ammo cookoff_

when you have no blowout panels@@StarkRaven59

when you use carousel autoloader systems@@StarkRaven59

when you tank is not made using NATO white supremacist technology@@StarkRaven59

God I hate the 90mm.

Yes.. that why heat is used for a lot of weapons. It's big punch at a low velocity.

M318 APBC probably wouldn't go through the turret front but might cause some serious spall. M332 HVAP should sail clean through the turret as long as the angle isn't too extreme. Neither will come close to penetrating the frontal hull plate.

The T-54/55 turret is not 200mm effective, as people believed, it's more like 240 - 320mm effective when viewed directly from the front. Even 90mm HVAP might fail to defeat that.

@@JohnSmith-ix6ts As I heard it, the Yugoslavs found M332 would defeat the turret front out to 750 meters.

Its going to go completely through the tank at 100m.

hit

@@GodKitty677 I wouldn't be so sure, unless you're actually familiar with the numbers involved. Early cold war things were much more even, with the Soviet even having the edge sometimes. Unlike the Western dominance in the late cold war to the present.

@@chrisc1140 You can look it up but be careful. The USA uses a different standard to the ussr. It depends on which round you take. The BR-412D is around ww2 time or just after. It could knock out panthers and tiger 2 tanks. Armour for tanks is mentioned to protect the tank at engagement range. Point blank is a different story. The HVAP rounds are powerful.

​@@GodKitty677huge (and incorrect) assumption about the HVAP going all the way through a T-55 lol

on the early versions of the M60 the armor wasn't very different from that.

​@@BrenoAgmLYe, the turret was practically the same but the hull was much better, then the m60a1 came out which made a far better turret and reinforced the hull even more.

@@gavinlightfoot5521 yes, that's a lot of true, but im saying the turret because ov the comment i was responding and the video in question.

@@BrenoAgmL -- but they did have the M68 105mm main gun . . . American tank design in the 50's and 60's, looking back from an historical perspective, seems very haphazard, a lot of trial and error, false starts, and improvisation, trying to keep up with advances in Soviet tank design. So, yeah, it was a mad scramble to get what the US could into the field as fast as possible, and then make changes in production as various new concepts matured. Wars tend to start as "come as you are" affairs, not necessarily as you'd like to be. Which is how out-matched M48s faced off against T-55s at Checkpoint Charlie.

@@Supersean0001 You are correct, but the M-60s were not yet ready to be sent to Europe at the time of the crisis, and even though in the 60s, the M48 was still capable, being able to shoot down the tanks used at that distance in an eventual war, and even if the M-60 was superior and more important, it wasn't ready to be sent, not in quantity enought, and it wasn't T-55s that were Charlie, it was T-54s, much more limited but armed with the same cannon and the same armor.

Do you happen to know if the m48s at the time used either AP, APCR or HEAT? He wants to simulate the other side of the coin but doesnt know what to use

​@@ar0568from the way he's wording it, I think he was on the Soviet side

@@captmoha3787 Getting to Berlin from West Germany involved crossing the border into Soviet controlled East Germany, then driving into the Allied controlled West Berlin. From there you could visit the West Berlin/East Berlin checkpoint.

@@ar0568 Can't help, I was Air Force working on F-4's.

>310 BHN I'm sure this value is incorrect. MIL-A-11356B (1953) spec for thick cast armor (3,75in. - 7in. included) give the acceptable range of BHN as: 217 - 269.

Hi, interesting, as what I found suggested a lower hardness, but as you say, at this range it wouldnt make too much of a difference. And no, the JC damage model I use for CHA is slightly different, I attempt to capture the porosity and microvoids through a reduction in the elongation limit

Если это катанная или литая сталь то дополнильная защита сводилась к минимуму, если он из композитного материала то мог бы дать защиту небольшую

That would be like a cannonball through paper, they had pretty much no hope.

@@nickellison2785 yes, but i would love to see how it looks, in the british tank museum is one with sayed holes.

Yes, I have it, but I wont give it to you because I hate anime. :P

It would easily penetrate

Definitely the soviets. It wouldn’t even be fair, an M48 would have pretty much no hope against a T-54 at that close range.

At that range, whoever fired first.

​@@Guy_GuyGuy No. Just based on armour vulnerability profiles: The Americans in this scenario had probably a 20% Chance per gun of disabling the Soviet tanks. Meanwhile every Soviet shell that hit an American tank was probably about 80% chance of disabling their foe.

Even if the m48 won Berlin was very deep into soviet territory they would eventually lose either way

@@m1821Z not true, the m48s wouldve been shooting HEAT rounds which would've easily gone thru a T-54. Whoever shot first is winning.

Yea, HEAT was seen as the future of AT weaponry at the time because of how much more powerful they were compared to kinetic. But they also started to realize how easy it was to stop chemical energy rounds in comparison to kinetic. Thus spaced armor, composite and eventually ERA become common so they started going back to kinetic and developing better apds rounds that then evolved into apfsds as the potential for those was much higher.

Если по вам стреляют Кумулятивными боеприпасами или ПТУР то скорее всего он мог бы спасти вам жизнь

From the front, I doubt the 90mm gun could do anything to a T-54. The Soviet tank was better in pretty much every respect, it was smaller, had a better gun, was much, MUCH better armoured, and the only thing the M48 would really win out in would be crew comfort. NATO only got a gun able to penetrate the frontal armour when the British captured a T-54 during the Hungarian uprising, and they managed to measure the frontal armour and developed the 105mm L7 gun in response. When Centurions and M48s were fitted with those it would be a bit more even.

@@nickellison2785 No my friend, the 90mm wasn't that week, yes its AP and APCR was inefficient at this angle, but at this point, almost, all the M48s were armed with 90mm HEAT-FS ammunition, which was very capable and was more penetration than the Russian AP.

​@@nickellison2785the only two things the m48 did better was fire control system and gun depression, in this case gun depression doesn't really matter.

@@gavinlightfoot5521I also don’t think a better fire control system is going to provide much of an advantage when you’re close enough that you could hit the enemy tank by throwing the projectile

At this range: M318A1 AP might not defeat the armor but could disable some more sensitive components. M332 HVAP would sail right through the T-54 turret front as long as it's somewhat near the center. M431 HEAT (possibly limited quantity in service) would have no issue with any portion of the armor, though the fuze may cause delayed detonation at impact angles of more than ~73° A situation like this standoff would give time for the crew to ready (&aim) their best shot on both sides so it'd be more like who fires and hits first.

When the round comes into contact with the armor, because of the angle the bottom part of the round hits the armor first while the top doesnt which pushes the round to rotate anti clockwise. But at the end of the armor its the opposite where the bottom of the round is free from armor while the top still has to resist pushing through the steel which causes it to rotate clockwise

Net Force = mass X acceleration.

No, it's the fuze. It would have been destroyed, so ne explosion.

Well, in WT it goes right through.

Nato still using rifled cannon in 1960 While the soviets using smothbore cannon

​@@IzakSemrdoiiThe D-10 was also rifled

@@idontlikecommunists9677 t62 cannon was not

M48s armor was not that good so full caliber AP was enough against its armor. Meawhile T-54 was immune to 90mm full caliber AP shells so the americans resorted to HEATFS (which had pretty bad fuses so there was a chance to just bounce off the highly sloped soviet armor instead of detonating. Its also why they used HVAP since it had no fusing issues and was more accurate)

I don’t believe they had any of those in Berlin.

The US has oftentimes had troops with a "die in place" mission. (Once upon a time I was a tanker in the 11th ACR in the Fulda Gap; the not-too-funny joke about our mission was that we were a speed bump for the Soviet 8th Guards Tank Army.) Our troops get killed, and the folks back home get spun up, and the war's on. Most of our adversaries were smarter than to cross the line and start killing Americans. Doesn't always seem to work though (such as in Mogadishu . . . )

If only, then the t54s would be screwed, but you also wouldn't advance very far with the version 1 M103 and its 80 mile range.

​ @gavinlightfoot5521 The Berlin brigades are essentially starting off in a last stand, so they wont be traveling far besides milking the situation to burn as many Soviets as possible. I would be much more concerned about the Centurions [maneuver tanks] having 50% less range than you. Even so, the point of the M103 wasn't as the maneuver warfare tank. They got into power positions and policed the line of battle usually from the second line unless they pulled the goalie to break some teeth. Originally the T43 was meant for Korea to do what the Pershings did at Pusan, but win way harder against IS-2/3/4/8. Not that you would need to seal club so hard anyway. Everyone saying the M48 is screwed, doesn't understand the T-54 is seconds from disaster itself. Kremlin Thunder has messed so much up on purpose that the T-54 has this really queer wank wafting around it since all people do is wiki corn pone and cock joust meta. Seriously, imagine loading M82 shot for this. Brains as smooth as Zamboni ice... It's 1961, the armor of the T-54 is not a mystery, there should be plenty M431 shell in stock after many years of production, for no less than the most precarious and symbolic post to maintain in the world, hosting units that aren't second rate. The HEAT-FS will upper-plate them all day if they don't just chuck one into the gunner's face; the HVAP will not fail to paste their gunner at the range it has all 321mm of penetration. If the crews hold off on loading their guns until the 11x quarrel turns to dead people, guess who also loads first by a decisive margin. *Unloading a loaded tank gun of unfired ordinance is an issue which is why you don't load unless it is time.

*Т-54

Thanks! Most feedback has been positive r.e the voiceover, but I've kept the text in the top right for anyone who wants to mute it and then its the same format as previously

Don't watch it then

Doesn't mean that much to me, but I think it's little quiet at the max volume of youtube player.

@@Mystyfoot Oddly hostile reply for no reason

@@awsomeness100000 Lol, such a gentle one. Probably you used to see hostility, i don't mind it anyway. You said you don't like how this dude making videois - i adviced you to not watch his videos (since you see this "weird and creepy") without any additional words. That's it.

Smartest RU-vid commenter

No? The best apfsds invented so far can only penetrate ~1000mm of RHA at best not over 300 meters of the best modern composite armor

Pretty sure you can put ~1000mm of solid steel in front of your tank and it would be protected from almost all modern APFSDS rounds. You need composites because they can be way more effective against HEAT.

What schizophrenic gave you this idea lmfao

you're completely wrong lmao