T-34-85 vs HETZER | 85mm BR-365K vs Jagdpanzer 38 | Armour Penetration Simulation 

Hey what engine do you use to make these simulations? I would love to make my own

But shouldn't the chamber projectile explode after breaking through?

also BR365A has more penetration at corners

thing is that your simulations don't take into account the explosive filler inside the shells. and, yes, it does change the results a lot, because as you may MAYBE know, most explosives are not as rigid or anywhere close as rigid as the metals used in tank shells. they also don't take into account the HE fuse or "trigger", which would eventually detonate the ammo even if it didn't reach the other side of the armor. your videos are fine in general, but it does provide some short of "misinformation".

maybe a chain track and safe

hahah yep

"If you strike me down I will become more powerful than you can ever immagine."

More effective spalling*

soviet engineering lol

It's neat how it almost deflects the round. A more gentle angle definitely would've done the job.

I would say at 250m the 76 might still have a chance

definitely!

@@ZayP730 Its 120mm LOS thickness, that's hard to punch through by a weapon which cannot penetrate 80mm flat armor.

@@ThatZenoGuy you dont need to fully penetrate armor to do damage and it also depends on the angle it would be hit at

​@@ZayP730 Against the UFP? No

A couple videos back, SY did a late Cold War APFSDS rod, and it didn't deviate, giving maximum results. The tip breaking off is a very bad thing for rods. The physics for one type of ammo usually doesn't translate, and seemingly counterintuitive developments increases pen like telescoping rods. I highly recommend the game Gunner, Heat PC as it does quick and dirty version of SY sim's. You will be surprised what doesn't penetrates due to critical angles and how Textolite/angle HEAT defences work. The BMP 1 is surprisingly durable, from certain angles. Naturally tank like Abrams the protection is top secret, it is modelled as a "Special armour array". It also shows the channels "Spall, crew dead" is such an annoying meme as location of the hit is far more important than simple penetration. Dart flies through tank hitting nothing of importance.

@@oohhboy-funhouse it will disintegrate which will mince the crew of the target

The real problem with using APFSDS on such thin armour is that it will poke 2 holes with minimal spalling in a very tight cone and that's pretty much it. Not all fragments are equal either. It's why HEAT is use against thin armour like APC/IFV. There are plenty of real life examples of hits by EFP or APFSDS with the crew perfectly fine despite the meme of "Spalling" especially in thin skin. If your APFSDS is disintegrating after entering a space, you are doing it wrong. Earlier video has an APFSDS wreaked by spaced armour. Disrupting the rod is how active/ERA can provide protection.

Interesting

Good idea, explaining the difference between army, navy and protection criteria as well

@@SYsimulations Yeah, and also how you could have a hit that's officially "not a penetration" but still rather deadly to the crew inside, say armor 10-20mm thicker than the official pen spec and not fulfilling the requirements but still throwing lots of spall / fragments into the crew compartment. Well this simulation is a good example of that too

the soviets didnt have the metallurgy required to make harder projectiles, thats why they had to increase calibre to achieve the same pentration as german or american counterparts (mostly german) plugging vs ductile hole penetration

@@Simon-vv3kl Why just German and US?

@@tommeakin1732 sorry, i forgot to include the british

@@Simon-vv3kl actually Germany used a lot of France's metallurgy for these rounds, as the country had superior foundry back then. Under occupation, germany made sure factories for theses worked 24/7

@@Simon-vv3kl The German PzGr39 proved superior to the American and British rounds, with exceptional performance against most targets.

For tanks of the Second World War, this is the most working distance.

With a shot like that, it doesn't matter where they sit. Everything and people and equipment would be cut.

@@dimushka383 Depends on the vehicle. A Tiger has enough space for people to survive. Otto Carius almost died many times even in a Panzer 38 but it didn't hurt him really bad

@@thiagorodrigues5211 Have you seen the simulation? This is not a through penetration, this is a penetration with a cloud of fragments. Everything inside the tank will be cut.

@@dimushka383 Did you read Otto Carius book? That's exactly what happened to those czech tanks

@@dimushka383 Otto Carius even mentions that the worst wasn't the shell but the amount of spalling from the brittle armor.

Obviously. that everyone will die. and en only the front. Armor probitta, fragments scattered throughout the volume.

I think the Hetzer could kill the T-34-85 and it was much lower and smaller target, chances are the Hetzer gets off the first shot. The Hetzer would be safe at 500m and if it was sideways just 10 degrees would likely be safe.

@@williamzk9083 I calculate about 1000 meters or a little less each AFV taking the other out. I'm not sure angling would help due to the Hetzer's bad side armor, and the T-34/85 can play that game better than the Hetzer. While the Hetzer might indeed get the first shot, the T-34/85's rounded mantlet would be a tough target for the Pak40 (or should be if modeled correctly). The thinner hull could be more easily penetrated out to like 1000 meters (based on normalized Aberdeen data). Soviet data showed more T-34/85s were in fact lost to hull hits than by turret hits, as the hull by 1945 was just too thin---which was why the "T-34/85M" was contemplated, which upped the hull armor from 45 mm to 65 mm, 70 mm, or 75 mm. Prototypes were built and they looked promising, passing mobility tests, but by this time the uparmored T-34/85M was competing with the T-44 project, so nothing ended up being done. I think that was a mistake, as a T-34/85M with even a 65 mm hull would have been an extremely tough target for the ubiquitous 75 mm PaK40, which was really the most likely gun it would ever face.

The last moment in their life. The result is much worse than just breaking through.

I remember several years ago when that might have been moderately funny.

I think the effect would be negligible personally

It would shred a man

Nope, the velocity drop would counteract any benefits from the drop

The vast majority of SY's sims are at tank's version of point-blank, so it's no surprise there are so many penetrations. The set-ups favour the attacker a lot.

No penetration from the front for sure.

Aside from shot-traps and potential weld-breakage, not going to penetrate.

It's not a question of if SY can. An early video did HESH. Chemical energy rounds(HEAT/HESH/HE) are rarely done as fluid dynamics require too much compute. SY lowers the resolution a lot, monolithic plates, deletes material, skips the HE filler to keep compute time reasonable.

Good effect up to like 700 m after which it has trouble in case the tank is angled

The shell itself seemed to lose its kinetic energy, but the spalling armor would have been like a huge shotgun on the crew.

@@jackmoorehead2036 Right, so I would think 20mm of steel a 6 inches away would stop it, based on this sim.

@@Cruor34 Increasing the thickness of the armour by 20mm would be even more effective.

@@peasant8246 Isn't spaced armor pretty much always better? That is what I have seen in these sims. Pretty much the only downside is it takes up more space.

@@Cruor34 Depends entirely on the projectile you're trying to stop, and the thickness of the armor already.

US data tells us that Sheman's 75mm gun cant defeat 100mm thick armour plate and I'm pretty sure they mean average RHA.

@@peasant8246 Hunnicut's chart has most 75 mm AP and APC rounds penetrate between 60 mm to 73 mm of 30 degree face-hardened armour at 500 yards. Maybe they might penetrate the Hetzer under 200? HVAP would have been 116 mm at 500, but with very limited availability from September 1944 only (only for 76 mm I think, and apparently only given to TDs!). One of the rarely mentioned aspects of HVAP was its accuracy was dreadful. So what it could do on paper was not that great in reality. I did read the US 76 mm AP round out-performed the Russian 85 mm by a significant margin, which surprised me, as the 85 mm is similar in gun ballistics to the Tiger I's 88 (similar to Flak 18), both having about 800-850 m/s. The Tiger I round must have been much better... Tiger II was 1000 to 1100 m/s, and had supposedly the same penetration at 2 km than the Tiger I did at 0(!)... The Panther gun was only slightly better than the Tiger I, so if this is true, the Tiger II was really a massive step up.

60mm @60° has a Line of Sight thickness of 120mm, the Tiger I had 102mm @9° which is a LoS thickness of 103mm. The Tiger also didn't have face hardening and was RHA as well. 120mm>103mm, and that's just LoS, slope modifiers will make it even more effective

@@SYsimulations From what I remember reading in one WWII test (possibly German?), sloping increases effectiveness until the shell diameter gets close to the plate's thickness (at or over 80-90%), at which point the plate sloping quickly loses its effectiveness, to the point the plate becomes no more, or less effective than at 0 degrees. I vaguely remember some shearing effect being mentioned... Here I will quote a post on Reddit mentioning a possible similar effect in a US test (not sure): "However, I've since been show a declassified study on slope multipliers done by the US Army (I assume at around the time of the war or shortly after, its code is AD309986 for whoever is interested) and it contradicts WW2B. It looks at the penetrative capabilities of the 3" M79 AP projectile against various T/D ratios and slopes. Here's a chart I took from it with some comments by me: i.imgur.com/2LzyeYa.png (EDIT: chart context: M is projectile mass in pounds, v is limit velocity to pass fully through the plate, o is obliquity to flight, e is plate thickness and d projectile diameter in inches.) I took one example, a T/D ratio of 0.5 and 45°. LOS for 45° would be 1.41 times the thickness at 0°. A rough estimate based on the WW2B charts suggests a modifier of around 1.6 instead. But Fig.2 from AD309986 suggests that with these parameters, the plate would perform worse than the equivalent thickness at 0°, so somewhere under 1.41."

​@@wrathofatlantis2316 Quite right. But here we are talking about a 60mm plate at 60° against a 76mm shell (T/D ratio of 0,79). As you can see from the chart as the T/D ratio gets over 0,5 the effective thickness at 60° obliquity becomes greater than that of equivalent LoS thickness at 0°, so we can be quite sure that the resistance of Hetzer's UFP against 76mm APCBC shells will be higher than 120mm/0°, perhaps somewhere around 140mm/0°. Such target is outside the penetration capabilities of the US 76mm gun credited with penetration of 5in.(127mm)/0° at 100yards (Terminal Ballistics Vol.III).

That would be a boring Video 😂 Jagdtiger or long 88 vs t72 or t90 would be cooler

​@@futuristic_steezy it would bounce easily but it would be so fun to watch

in light of recent events ? ;)

NO

Hetzer gets armor layout perfectly right, though. Since it's a defensive vehicle, hanging out in rear or laying in ambush, it only needs enough armor on sides and rear to protect its crew from artillery blindly pounding into your side of no-mans land.

Not at all, the designers aren't that flippant or follow some universal doctrine. There are plenty that are designed with thick armour like the American T28, Elephant, jeagar tiger/panther. The sim doesn't take into account of how the tank is used like how hull down can reach critical angles causing deflection of the shell, as well as being fired point-blank, usually against later systems like the T34/85. SY sims heavily favour the attacker too much, although it is understandable. For some TD/SPG fast reverse gear is the primary protection, some having less armour to reverse faster.

@@oohhboy-funhouse,Yes, there were such self-propelled guns as the ISU-152 or Ferdinand, but the tactics of using such machines are very different from the tank

@@user-mt8rr3jk6q It might be pedantic, but don't use the word "Always" especially if it is blatantly false.

Yes 🤣

too computationally demanding unfortunately

Explosive warhead would likely fail in a pentration like this

@@SYsimulations the fuse has another different sensitivity (the moment of explosion upon penetration)

@@terranoduster as steve said it wouldnt trigger because the projectile broke apart

What for, there are 2 decades of development between them.

@@Postoronniy 0 decades between of use.

@jansenart0 My point is it will easily penetrate. Why waste time and computing resources on it?

@@Postoronniy I feel like you don't know that because you haven't seen it.

120mm goes through the T-55 like a knife through butter.