T-62 vs M60A1 | 115mm 3BM6 APFSDS vs CHA | Armour Piercing Simulation 

For some period of time, they use the exact same rod iirc. Just different velocity.

The rifled 100 would also decrease penetration as well because of the dispersion of velocity

Hahaha glad you enjoyed it!

I find SABOW's modeling of armor & damage strange. There's very little spalling and the front hull of T-62 and M60A1 are largely immune to any shells, even the powerful 3BK4 HEAT-FS.

Good suggestion, thanks!

@@SYsimulations another one - what happened when an APFSDS round lost fin or two and start drifting/hitting target a bit sideways?

Might get ur chance soon. Russia just moved a bunch of them from the far east facility, heading west.

@@killer3000ad "Trust me bro" TM

@@Leantenant we saw T-54s/T-55s used as VBIEDs and used as field gun fortifications.

Yes, the combination of powerful smoothbore guns and Western tanks not having composite armor until the end of 1970s allowed to use simpler and cheaper ammunition.

Not simpler. Steel rod required their own complete different production line compare to standard full caliber steel ap.

@@jintsuubest9331 Simpler than APDS/APFSDS with tungsten or uranium based cores.

Not match, exceed. There were no TC APDS that could compare even to 3BM4, and only 120mm TA ADPS was more or less comparable.

@@jintsuubest9331 Not exactly. Steel rods were made of grades which are used to produce axles and drive shafts.

That's the problem with producing projectiles in a socialist state. They are lazy/patient from waiting around in long bread lines.

M60 is full of ammo, it would exploade brutally

had us in the first half

Yellow loader :(

You bastard, I actually felt myself getting angry reading that until the last line

He does indeed!

@paullakowski2509 We had man loaders, not an autoloader. He said even a great crew slows down after five shots since a 105 is way heavier than it looks and in a cramped space its very tough work.

​@@paullakowski2509 what source did you use in the t62 reload speed?

Thanks! Sorry about the scale, I don't think it can be increased in the solver unfortunately, but for velocity plots, i always put the upper limit at the velocity given at the beginning of the video

@@SYsimulations Is there data on the post penetration velocity of either/both the shell and spall fragments? As I am viewing these on an iPad the most I can tell is that there are what are likely important data points displayed in the upper left of the screen. It seems to me that information would give us more ability to visualize the probable lethality of the effect.

Just shows how obsolete the chalky 2 is. The Soviets really paved the way with tank design

Probably for HESH. But for modern warfare, HESH is very obsolete comparing to even HE

I just chose to mix it up a but because simple plates at 60° get a bit boring (hence the t62 turret drive).

DM63 which is a licensed M426 is a round from 2000s so it really isn't old

It's not going to make it, just look at his video called "LEOPARD 2A4 vs T-72B (1985) | 120mm DM33 APFSDS Armour Piercing Simulation". I don't care how much better the newer 105mm ammo is, it's not going through what the 120mm did not when the T-72B3 has added kontakt-5 ERA. Sure, there are some gaps in the ERA and some other weak points frontally that it could pen, but a head on shot, not a chance.

Could penetrate weaker spot or from the sides/ rear but not from the front turret cheeks.... there is a reason these tanks were out of service (plus many others).

@@skitidet4302 not true. more modern penetrators handle layered armor better. design of penetrator matters and might provide quite a difference.. like for example soviet BM32 vs BM42.. Mango is weaker on paper, but its a bit better against layered and sloped armor.. I'm not saying DM63 will penetrate T72B3 frontally with ease, but it might do quite well against quite large frontal area which is weaker than many think..

@@skitidet4302 besides, not many people realize, how damaging deflected APFSDS penetrator actually is.. those splinters will "spray" the tank damaging whatever they hit.. and they have quite a good energy to damage optics, destroy ERA blocks etc.. getting hit is not a joke.. even if round doesnt penetrate.. real life is different from a game..

Id imagine the issues reduced, but it's impossible to remove them completely in a casting. Unfortunately the material model type used cant really account for grain structure differences, but the damage constants are adjusted for cast armour, making it more brittle in the simulation

Playing WT is pain in general

Not designed for apfsds, the 115mm smoothbore is superior for anything that isnt solid AP. Even the HE shell for the 115mm is better.

Fuck no, that's a rifled gun. Not designed to be used with APFSDS.

@@ZigaZagu being rifled isnt exactly a problem for apfsds, its more of a general design issue. All 105 gun are rifled, challengers 1 and 2s use rifled 120s, soviet 100mm was rifled.

I think it would be a slightly more powerful 100mm when it comes to power. Look for the shell 3BM7 for reference. It also depends if the 122mm gun gets modified, such is the case of the M62 which has better shells.

A bit late, but anyway. APFSDS rounds are used to break through thick armor and dont have enough omph to make a lot of spall/shrapnel, while a AP round does. Before the introduction of metal armor around 1850(-ish) ships were protected just with wood. The reason big shells were used on ships was to create a hole big enough to flood the ship as fast as possible- a lot of holes - a lot of water coming through, the bigger the hole- the better, as its harder to plug a 6 inch (150mm) hole then it is for a 1 inch (APFSDS's width). Now the accuracy problem. The more guns the ship had, the higher the chances of one of them actually hitting its target- afaik even 1 hit with a 6-icher below the waterline is way better then 30 1-incers the can get plugged with a thumb. Range may increase, i dont really know about that part all too much tho TL:DR- They could increase accuracy(though aiming a big cannon would be a pain in the ass) and range, but wouldn't have the omph to do a lot of damage post-pen

115mm APFSDS at 1600m/s should not ricochet off the M-60 glacis. Is there a compounded angle on the M-60 glacis?

Im not certain either but I would assume is has to do with their experience in casting previous designs, but choosing a flat upper plate due to its effectiveness increasing across the frontal arc (rather than decreasing with a rounded design), keeping it cast would also remove the need for welds, which can often crack or fail after multiple impacts

americans cast hulls for 2 main reasons, they could more efficiently armor the hull from frontal impacts. im not sure if youve played games like world of tanks or war thunder but it is true that the rounded hull is a pain in the ass if you dont hit it right. and by casting it in a rounded way they could afford to shave off some steel from some areas while retaining the same protection level, the casting is thickest on the "nose" and tapers off as the angle increases, which saves a lot of weight. major concern for any tank.

Probably would do worse, because they used cast steel as it could be moulded in shapes of superior ballistic performance. Ie you don't get rounded RHA.

2km shoot

why?

The whole crew and tank will be destroyed by the shock wave

Yeah theres not that much but would still be horrific for the crew, its interesting to see that the exit cavity is smaller for steel apfsds than tungsten, but makes sense considering the brittle steel wont mushroom out over a wider area like WHA

@SY Simulations could the exit cavity be larger if the core is segmented but of varying material? Such a tungsten rod segment behind a steel rod segment?

To allow visual of the tracer in the rear.

M60A1 didnt use apfsds.

@@manueldelbusto725 The M60A1 RISE kit did.

@@MacSalterson that's a much later variant but yeah. M735 if I recall correctly.

@@manueldelbusto725 The M60A1 RISE Passive was introduced in 1977. The base M60A1 was type specified in 1961. M735 was the first American APFSDS round to enter service. It could technically be fired out of all M68 guns, but the improved ballistic drive introduced on the M68E1 gun (present on the RISE and the M60A3) made it so M735 could be fired accurately.

​@@MacSalterson Thats a huge difference time wise, M60A1 could have been fighting T64s with M728 apds as its best ammo.

Guys, I think it's trying to communicate.

Чел, ты знаешь английский? Если бы знал название видео тогда не писал бы этот дурацкий коммент

@@КириллИванов-ш7е я заебался вам вдуплять олени, что их танки не лудьше наших

@@СальниковАндрей-я7т Чел, там т-62 стреляет в м-ку. Так что здесь ты олень

1986 3BM36 'Kamerger' DU-based APFSDS.

Though there are rumors new ones are being developed recently.

That would be BM-36 developed by end of Cold War. In theory is should be able to penetrate armor of non-DU M1A1 at typical combat distance of 2000m. Might be even good idea for video.

@@Postoronniy i think it should get simulated

@@kireta21 that is damn strong

Most probably not. Even though It might seem like most of the penetrator has been deterioated, there is still a good chunk of it left going at high speeds. The spall that would have produced from the pentration would also cause more damage(It has not been showed in the simulation). Most probably all the crew will die/ be injured. The tank would 100% be rendered inoperable.

Ammunition is stored right next to driver in M60s. Kaboom.

There's a lot of spalling, while that would certainly kill the driver, the rest of the crew might be seriously wounded(getting your legs sprayed by small chunks of metal moving at huge speed and also being hot is no joke after all), which can result in the death of the whole crew. Not to mention that this spalling might be able to just blow up the ammunition inside the tank.

"only"

Any penetration of crew compartment is good enough, really. Tank isn't much of a threat after its crew bails out.

Agree, I think that be good. Many countries still use m60a3 and modernisation of it

@@gotrefer6183 America has some in storage. it would have to be modernised to fight. Look at Turkish models.

Почему? Тут танк Т-62 стрелял по пиндосскому и прекрасно его пробил. Даже с 2000 м.

Кац@пы на таких дровах, хотят в Украине против Леопардов переть 😂😆😄

@@King-eb7pb переименуйся в Клоун 68

Не вижу проблемы, снаряд времен 60ых пробил танк времен 60ых, или у вас снаряды должны насквозь проходить?

@@King-eb7pb Недоумок, больше половины заявленных к передаче леопардов это леопард 1, у которых лоб тоньше чем у тяжелых танков 2-ой мировой.