T-62 vs CHIEFTAIN - THE END OF SLOPED ARMOUR | 115mm 3BM3 APFSDS Armour Piercing Simulation 

It will be erased by artillery much sooner. WP had huge numbers.

Your initial demonstration had 85mm, i am guessing that is upper hull? Chieftain had a beast of a turret.

How about HESH vs the T62?

@@babalonkie 85mm angled would be upper plate for sure

Thanks for doing the sim.

Bruh a rifle gun? The iron class were bouncing cannonballs left right and center and you want to see them up against rifles?

@@Phantom-bh5ru Rifled cannons rather than the classic smoothbore cannons like the Napoleon.

Ooo

YES mf, ngl, I'm kinda tired of all the videos of far more modern tanks. Seeing more VERY early wwii, wwi, or even previous wars weaponry would be a good change of pace

@Skip Thank you couldn't remember the names of the different Rifled cannons

Video not reflecting reality There is 3 deferent armour materials in that area.

@@vaninec Make a better video

@@stevenglikin3219 I don't make fake videos 🤣☝️

@@vaninec Then make a real one

@@stevenglikin3219 what he said is a criticism, so why would you respond with make a better video?

Great idea tbh

105mm would perhaps be more interesting, it was a more common round for that gun and i dont think it'd stand a chance against a 125mm heat anyway.

Wasn't there some soviet composite armour that was basically that? The two layers of steel were about equal thickness like spaced armour with a "silicate" filler.

I'd be curious to know that too. I've often heard that most improvised armour such as sandbags, concrete, logs etc, is largely worthless against HEAT warheads because anything that isn't actual hardened steel *armour* will get cut through like it's butter. But I haven't seen much testing to verify this and I've seen things like a tank in the Philippines successfully using stacks of corrugated cardboard to eat an RPG.

@@TamrenStarshadow they did testing against sandbags and I think they measured the penetration of RPG-2 warhead in FEET. I think the magic happens when you have layers of different material. Like how a sandwich of aluminium between 2 layers of steel protects better than the same weight of just steel or just aluminium. Like steel is really good at breaking up a penetrator but the steel itself holds the penetrator together in the channel, a layer that has just enough resistance to accelerate breakup but not confine the penetrator is more effective

lightly armoured targets wont produce alot of spalling tho

@@Shrekfromthehitmovieshrek better than a "non pen" or "ricochet"

He already did that with I think either the conqueror's or the chieftains 120mm APDS and the 9mm of the BMP's UFP was surprisingly effective, though it didn't prevent penetration

@@rifraf276 your thinking of dejman xyz not this guy….

@@Candyman-Elite-Thunder Same difference, not like their results would differ any

It was an unfortunate severe emotional event

I bet David Fletchers moustache could.

Nicholas Moran CAN deflect an APSFDS with his bare hands. The only reason *this* Chieftain was penetrated was because it was not, in fact, actually Nicholas Moran.

Thats kinda a hard test since the Chieftain turret is a very complex shape, the armour will vary a lot depending where you hit. It also doesn't help that the exact thickness of the turret varied from tank to tank.

T-62 and T-55 HEAT would penetrate anyways, the APFSDS of T-62 from 72 onwards

i dont know about this statment " seeing as Chieftain would have been fighting the majority of occasions from hull down" as it would be fighting on the European plain

@@MrRjizz overall the majority of Chieftains wouldnt fight at all, because they broke down before they got to the fight in the first place

I didn't know that the Chieftain was male...

Ah yes male

It is definitely not a mere 150mm lmao. More like 220.

No U

@@PAUL-ESNEED its the side part. The pnly part whit 240mm is the front around the gun mantlet wich is flat

To be fair iranians employed chieftans in reverse. Driving close to prepared possition rather than sniping from far away from prepared possitions. Hull down far away chieftan would be much harder nut to crack.

@@petrsukenik9266 no it wouldn't as even the turret armor could be penned, hence the stillbrew armor package.

@@4T3hM4kr0n it could but iranians didnt use chieftans properly. At high range armor most likely would still be able to deflect some shots.

@@petrsukenik9266 no, it still penned hence the armor package that was introduced as a RESULT of the iran-iraq war. You should know better than to split hairs.

@@petrsukenik9266 doesn't matter

If the war was able to last that long Germany would be fielding the maus

@@Phantom-bh5ru Maus would probably not be fielded anyway, because by then they realised how straining on logistics it would be; but the E-100 had a chance, and the Standardpanzer project (E-50) would probably start entering production and it could have anywhere from 100 to 150mm of frontal armor at steep angle.

@@Phantom-bh5ru Maus Probably would have smashed through a bridge and got stuck on the way to battle lmao

yes, but at the same time, sovjet ammunition did not stay on a level of 1963 but advanced also. At the time Chieftain got stillbrew armor (1985) T-62 was relegated to second line duty in infantry brigades, while the main line duty was done by T-64BV, T-72BV and T-80BV. All had 125mm guns, all were capable of firing gun launched ATGM with around 500mm penetration HEAT, all could use 3bm46 Mango APFSDS, wich would still easily penetrate Chieftain + Stillbrew Armor on ranges beyond Chieftains & Challengers ability to effectively return fire. Developements of Armor and Ammunition do not happen in a vaccuum where the other side does not progress.

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Worlds longest range direct fire tank on tank kill is a Challenger 1 in the Gulf War, Feb 26th 1991 @ 3600meters using an L23A1.

@@simonh317 well it was not a first shot kill, it was the third shot after 2 range in shots

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 2 shots and the first was a HESH round still loaded from the previous night, fired to clear the chamber for the FIN round used for the kill. Challenger 1 had both TOGS and the MK84 sight along with MRS and Laser.

@@simonh317 the laser sight was out of range, they fired 3 fin rounds. They gave interviews later and clearly stated that

Что такое ПКП? ПСП - предел сквозного пробития ПТП - предел тыльной прочности А ПКП?

@@isaacisaev5861 это предел кондиционного пробития(по смыслу близко к ПТП, но немного стандарты отличаются)

Ok, but the T-62 is 50m away, behind the Chieftain. You know, the way they were designed to fight.

@@Borsuk3344 what ?

@@Malakin0 Apparently T-62s have magic teleporting technology that puts them behind Chieftains I guess ????

@@Malakin0 I suppose he wants to imply that Soviet tank doctrine relies on encirclement rather than line combat

@@Borsuk3344 lol

Indeed, sloped armor makes the inside of the tank more cramped which means it can carry less shells, ie. be less effective.

@@glandhound yep, sloped armor makes tanks less effective, which is why all countries stopped using it after ww2

@@comrade-princesscelestia4907 Lol who stopped used it? Even the modern Abrams have a 38 mm slopped plate between the lower plate and the turret. Not to mention the russian tanks

​@@comrade-princesscelestia4907 I regretly to inform you that every tank, APC, IFV, after WW2, all of them, still using slope armor. Even with the multi layered armor was arrange to "slope" shape as well. 🤷‍♂️

3BM26 is light years ahead

Thank you again for the support! means a lot :D

consider, that Chieftain at that time was considered to be the heaviest armored western MBT in service (and is defeated by Ammunition that entered service a few years earlier)

yep, armor doesn't matter, that's why the leopard 2 didn't increase armor compared to the leopard 1, and why the abrams is only armored against small arms...

@@comrade-princesscelestia4907 броня абрамса ток от стрелкового оружия? Надеюсь ты так шутишь😦

​@@comrade-princesscelestia4907 Stop spreading bullshit information like that. :).

​@@АзатизЧебоксарэто был сарказм

the classification of tanks back then was somewhat arbitrary anyway, so changing to MBT was just an indicator of doctrinal shift

The T62 is not a MBT, the M60 is. By the time the M60A1 entered service the M103 heavy tank was out

@@markcorrigan3930 it was out, but compare Conqueror and Chieftain or T-10M and T-64. Now try to do the same with M103 and M60(which came AFTER both Chieftain and T-64). You see the problem?

What makes an MBT what it is are the characteristics of the tank, not what other tanks are in service alongside it. If the classification depended on other tanks being in service alongside them than the M1 Abrams is not an MBT due to the concurrent existence of M551 Sheridan, M8 Buford, and the new MPF vehicle. The first tank to exhibit the characteristics of an MBT, even though it was never classified as such was the US M4A3(75)W HVSS Sherman. A Main Battle Tank is an well rounded tank capable of performing all missions that armor must perform. The wide track, improved suspension Sherman had sufficient ground pressure and power to weight ratio take on the reconnaissance and cavalry roles of the Stuart and Chaffee while performing all other roles a tank performs. This was not done in general practice to my knowledge but the tank had the capability.

@@josephahner3031 did you mean Panzer III? A supposedly cavalry tank that ended up being too similar to his own fire support brother to the point they could have been used interchangeably? Or maybe french Somua 35, a french cavalry tank that started development as part of armored car program, but ended up being a different kind of a beast? And why specifically simp for version of M4 with Hortsmann suspension?

You mean like the stillbrew armour protection package ;)

@@simonh317 Yep thats it.

I know it’s late but I wanted to add something lol. The monitor wasn’t actually firing with half charges, it was discovered later that the guns she was equipped with could withstand much higher pressure than first thought. (The us had had a lot of trouble with guns exploding due to bad manufacturing in those days, so the designer played it safe.) The Virginia on the other hand virtually only carried explosive shells, as she was designed to face wooden ships, so any shells that actually hit more or less scratched the monitors paint. Truly an awful matchup😂

@@petterteignesse5486 Oh, thanks for the correction! A book I had said the guns were only used with half charges, but civil war sources can be iffy sometimes lol

@@thefunfactman6098 You could say they were using half charges, they just didnt know it xD

Wasn't she also supposed to utilize 15 inch cannons but ended up with 11 inchers?

@@zacharypurdue4584 don’t exactly remember if it was 15 inchers, but yeah she should have had a stronger armament. Just like with the powder use American artillery designers were scared of designing anything too “ambitious” because a lot of American guns kept blowing up around that time

A chipmunk at light speed against the battleship Yamato. I go home now.....

@@cleemccarthy1022 Light speed? Isnt that realistic. Out of a Cannon.

O.K. Just half of light speed..

Stop dreaming. The Chieftain had 250 LOS armor in both the turret front and front hull

460 is stupid amounts. Chieftain is widely known having up to ~ 250 mm protection.

Did you saw the overlay drawing? That's official documentation.

Swiss cheese

This advantage held until the early 1980s. Before that, American Armoured divisions had to hold back T-72s, T-64s and T-80s with nothing more than the M60 Patton! It was bleak for NATO until Abrams/Challenger/Leo 2 came into service.

Ask the Americans lol. They decide to just slope it slightly since their engine was over performing.

I'm insinuating that sloped armour could no longer be relied upon for an MBT (although it is still more efficient than vertical).

Ever notice tanks after this like the Abrams just became boxy again?

It's ansys :)

@@SYsimulations So which product do you use? I went on their website and they have dozens of simulation products

...

@@spyous7884 Better stick to Sprocket when you can't figure out the right suites from the webpage.

It wasn't much less accurate than the 105mm L7 at those ranges. It got better when they started installing laser rangefinders on them.

Brittle hardened steel

thats the composite on the turret armor, this simulation is a shot against the the front of the tank, not the turret

@@4T3hM4kr0n seems a little strange to have composite armour on the turret along - can’t think the drivers were too happy about that!

Yes, there are quite a few images of fin marks on real life penetrations, but it only happens when steel fins are used (aluminium ones are too soft to leave a mark on steel armour)

Abrams hull barely hold up against m735 at over 1000m. Spaced array should be easy since I think he has better spec than xyz and have a lower resolution.

Whats the theory? That it will go through? I guess I could do the abrams but i definitely don't have a better spec pc Jintsuu...which is why I use lower resolution I've got textolite working properly now but dont have the pc power to do the T72B to a high enough standard currently.

@@SYsimulations if my information, and estimates are correct, it should just barely resist m774 at muzzle velocity. Jintsuu, don't take any of the penetration stuff from warthunder seriously, there are a lot of errors with certain darts in that game.

@@Mathosalpha At no point I say wt. Why would anyone use a game for actual discussion. Even steel beast is no good for this. US army requirement says hull need to stop xm578?e4 (forget the actual number, but is equivalent to xm735) at 1200m. After many testing and design, the actual distance is closer to 1400m (mainly due to weight reason and compromise the turret armor is obviously a bad idea). xm735 then has a shorter penetrator than the service m735, which has a weaker penetrator than m774. US own report also say they know xm1 armor is not sufficient to denfed against 125 at combat range (over 1500m). So in what universe can xm1 stop m774?

@@SYsimulations My bad. I thought the lower resolution allow for a higher turn around time while giving good enough result.

Sloped armor was not introduced on the T-34, its not even the first mass produced tank with it.

@@Kurogumo - sure it was. I'm not talking about experiments and theories, but the first actually successful product that showed the world that it works and became example to others. Kind of like Tesla not being the first EV, but certainly the one that turned automotive industry around.

@@SuperIv7 Have you ever seen the front of one of the early British heavies? You know, the Mark I through V or so? They're all sloped apart from the raised driver's cab. And they made a couple thousand of them. Not exactly an experiment or theory. People knew sloping armor worked long before the tank was even an idea, and were putting it to use on ships, and before that, fortresses even. The word "glacis" even comes from the term for the sloped earth embankment in front of fortress walls. The only reason some people think of sloped armor on the T-34 as "revolutionary" is because there was a brief period between WWI and WWII where people were using slightly less sloped, but thicker, armor on tanks, because having full-length sloped plates that thick was at the time prohibitively heavy and/or difficult to produce/assemble. That and the all-around sloped armor of the T-34, which wasn't really adopted en mass by anyone else, and even the Soviets dropped a decade or so later.

@@SuperIv7 you ever see a Renault FT-17? Sloped armor.

@@Kurogumo Sloped armor is not a just steel plate set at an angle, it's the manufacturing process of the glacis and the front lower plate. Cast, rolled, welded. T-34 is the first mass produced tank that was specifically designed with sloped glacis, design process which required development of specialized manufacturing tooling.

its not, slope still increases effective thicknes of the armor when at around 60 degrees its renders as x2.

@@iMost067 oh I'm well away of how it works. But with modern penetrators you have to use composite armours and era to stop them. The amount of just steel amour you'd need even at a 60° angle would be too heavy for modern tanks.

There is no APFSDS ammunition in wot

It's the same LOS armor thickness

1800m is "max range" of the 115mm apfsds. but i guess longer ranges are possible, but the hit propability goes down significantly.

chieftain is anything but modern. that tank is from the late 50´s and entered service in the mid to late 60´s as an obsolete anachronism

We saw in the two Iraq wars. The Abrams only really needed one shot to take out a T-62 or T-72.

They might as well have been sending a land rover with a shotgun wielding farmer leaning out of the window against those.

Ur wait will be over in about a month

@@SYsimulations sweet.

Soon ;)

It's the same LOS armor

yes it could but only before chieftain had turret armor addon in the late 80s

yes T-62 could penetrate Chieftain on range. Firing BK-4M HEAT-FS, T-62 could penetrate chieftains turret face at 2000m

Potentially, yes. There were plans to add nera to the chieftain

@@SYsimulations nice! It look to me like it was close to not penetrating if there is more material

@@SYsimulations sorry to bother but a question. What would be the minimum angle of this 85mm plate for 115mm gun to not achieve penetration? 72 degrees is evidently not enough but how much more is needed?

The IDF only ever received a handful of Chieftain tanks and never used them operationally. The only British tank still in service in 1973 with the IDF would have been the older Centurion.

Not older, Centurion with the 105 mm gun and I think the M48 engine

@@josephahner3031 Centurion, you’re right 👍

@@markcorrigan3930 the centurion is most definitely older than the Chieftain in terms of overall design.

Because they were attempting to advance along a narrow road next to the Suez Canal, flanked on three sides by Israelis. It was a desperate action. T-62s decimated Chieftains in the Iran-Iraq War (not that the Chieftain was even used in 73 by the IDF)

Feel free to email me at mmsjsmy@gmail.com

Конечно, вон сколько всего внутрь пролетело, причём почти не потеряв скорости

POV: you knew nothing about tanks before the conflict in Ukraine

Last time someone did that a supernova was born

Muzzle velocity yes, but not at 1000m

@@SYsimulations ohh mybad

Any service model; the hull armour never changed

@@SYsimulations Thanks

The projectile’s velocity during impact is shown. “Distance fired” isn’t a parameter that this simulation directly considers.

A range of 1000m is stated at the beginning

@@SYsimulations thank you sir!