TIGER I vs CHURCHILL Mk.VII | 88mm Pzgr.39 Armour Penetration Simulation 

Keep it up man, love the videos

It scared me to hear a voice for the first time but also i liked it cuz i allways forget to read the text

I personally mute it but it's definitely good to have the audio for the people who do need/want it.

Yes it has definitely improved, liked it very much 👍

The TTS is a great addition. Loved it. 👍🏻

Black Prince in halfway useful numbers might have been the Firefly of the Churchills and certainly an unpleasant experience for German heavies to meet something that could trade punches at range.

@edmondbarrett3968 The Black Prince might have been out of it's element by late war anyway since the long 88 of the Jadgpanther and Tiger II could penetrate a Churchill.

@@alarminglyfastmovingskelet7289 there were very low numbers of those tanks so they don't matter

@@alarminglyfastmovingskelet7289 Not sure how many Jadgpanthers were built and Tiger II, had its own issues. Defenders advantage is probably more relevant since by the time Black Prince could have conceivably seen action the Germans were firmly on the defensive. It would be more the German rank and file Pz IV, Panthers, and even Tiger I that would have found something that could stand and take hits like a KV1 in its glory days to be unpleasant.

You forgot to mention that it had a top speed of 16.9 km/h on road. It was slower than the Maus.

Daaaavid Letterman!

88 likes

@@tarikrandom7535 bruh

Wood is a non monolithic material that has complex behavior that cannot be easily describe with simple curve. The simulation would have no value.

@@jintsuubest9331 Isn't there the same problem for fibreglass as well?

and it's easy as a mute when we don't like it

The softer steel is not spall liner. On warship, the softer steel is the structure steel, with armor steel plate mounted on the structure steel. There are warship that used multi steel layer, but the thinner layer are harder with better mechanical property, and they tend to place on the outside. Cromwell for all intent and purposes is a WW1 tank, thus it used a very similar construction ideology. Load bearing structure steel with armor plate mounted on the structure steel. However by this point, pretty much everyone mastered welding armor plate to a reasonable quality and making armor plate bearing load without destroying it. Will it act as a spall liner if something with ballistic limit of 64mm hit the armor, yes. How often you encounter that exact threat? Practically none. You are better off producing a 70mm good quality mono rha plate. Being lighter and offer superior ballistic protection 99.9999% of the time. Attachment methods doesn't matter. In very technical terms, rivet plate will have more movement thus removing more energy from the projectile but that's purely academic, the ambient temperature will contribute more error to than the mounting method.

@@jintsuubest9331 I never said it was supposed to be a spall liner. I'm well aware of at least the conventional lines on why this was done. I was literally just asking if it would "act as a spall liner" if the 64mm's ballistic limit is reached. I am well aware that a slightly thicker armour plate would offer better resistance, and reduce spall as well, but is there room for some slightly surprising effects of such a soft backing (in comparison with the qualities of the armour plate)? Perhaps. I've seen one other sim on a tank of this construction that showed a distinct lack of spall, when you would otherwise expect a lot (if you watch a lot of these sims). I want to see if that would be replicated.

Layered steels is very interesting, we studied ballistic composites and armour at uni and mixing and matching steels is a fine art.

@@tommeakin1732 Yes, if the ballistic limit is exactly 64mm, then nothing should be flying in the crew compartment. But if the projectile even as much as exceed the ballistic steel layer by a little bit (budging the armor steel layer), we should expect crack and smaller particulate starts to form with the structure steel layer. Anything more is bad news. That's from british study, actual experiment confirmation).

@@jintsuubest9331 well, fingers crossed, we'll see a sim that covers this little subject!

Yeah significant emotional event was funny the first two hundred times we heard it. Have you ever thought of thinking for yourself?

@@ganndeber1621 oh no! I was mildly formulaic in how I phrased a small observation on an interesting but inconsequential internet video. How DARE I be so lazy and creatively bankrupt? What's it to you? It's not like you would recognise or appreciate actual creativity and effort.

@@gustavchambert7072 lo triggered, think for yourself

@@ganndeber1621 indeed. Sad-sack trolls mindlessly repeating "think for yourself" whatever the context, as if it means something IS a particular pet peeve of mine.

yeah it's kinda weird that the sim didn't show that

This is penetration using most standard?

@@jujuteuxOfficial It gets pretty close. It's very hard to get it exactly right, and run to run variance might differ. The simulation might also have a bit too high quality steel compared to what was actually achieved. This hit alone would probably spray the crew with some small shrapnel that could be counted as "penetration" even if the shell never made it inside the vehicle. If the He exploded it might also push some shrapnel in.

@@PAcifisti yup but spalling isn't penetration, there's a reason you get a high explosive filler in there the docs show that it should at least get 40mm or more before stopping

@@jujuteuxOfficial Spalling can also be penetration if there's a hole in armor with chunks flying into the crew. They don't really care if they get taken out by a piece of armor or piece of the shell. Or would you say those T-34 shots that had the entire round ricochet off the armor plate with large chunks of the front plate flying inside the tank at 300m/s not to be counted as "penetration"? Also, explosive filler was never as potent as WT makes it be. It was quite unreliable and only made the frontal cone larger.

I thought it would do a little better since Pzgr39 from the Tiger 1 is usually listed as having around 160-162mm of RHA penetration at that distance (then again it did penetrate so I guess it makes sense).

​@@tigertank1819 they just didnt run the test all the way. It did penetrate. And even if it didnt the armor woukd bresk apart and boun e around in the tank.

@@robertharris6092 I know that, I'm just saying I thought it would be cleaner at that distance.

​@@tigertank1819 it would, if testing was done properly...and not cut off in the middle of perforation.

It would be the opposite for me. 100m is pretty much point blank as far as tank engagement goes, and while the Tiger I certainly doesn't have that great of a gun compared to a KwK 42 or 43, it was still a pretty mean one. But here it doesn't account for splatter and explosive filler anyway, so that Curchill would be done for regardless. But in terms of pure penetration, I'm still surprised of the resilience of the Churchill's armor on that one.

well, if they angled the tank, the tracks would hide all the frontal armour fo the tank anyway!

I don't think thats what happens IRL, it's not warthunder or WOT. Setting aside that tank vs tank warfare was incredibly rare in WW2 let alone seeing a tiger, typically who wins a a tank engagement is the one who see the enemy first so no amount of angling is going to help

​@@axeavierIt is actually in the German manual for the Tiger I though, I know that much.

@@panzerkampfwagenviausf.b2236 and if it still goes through the tracks, the shell would lose a lot of energy and still has to go through an angled front plate, accidental spaced armor huh

@@axeavier yep, that is the case in western front, but not in africa or eastern front where tank vs tank combat are much more common, brits were fighting with the matilda and crusader during africa, i wonder if angling exist in their manual by that time... Though the main threat there is the flak 88 and no amount of angling going to help with that, considering the tanks that are available during that time, mainly crusader, matildas and shermans

haha, it will take a while for everyone to get used to ;)

De hecho los tanques tempranos alemanes como el panzer-38 (checo) era construido con remaches por lo tanto con disparos que NO penetraban hacían que los remaches SALTARAN dentro del tanque generando heridas a los tripulantes

British humor at it`s best; I like it so much!

We are talking about a couple dozen grams of TNT here. 152mm plate wont care.

@@rosbifke it's not 152mm plate thick by the time it's 90% of the way through and visible through the other side... the point is if partial penetration will become complete penetration with the additional simulation of explosive filler.

This is penetration using most standard. But yes, the explosive charge will goes off. Nigel is no more but most other crew would probably made it.

The charge is less than 20 grams of explosive filler of which around 10% is the wax phlegmatising agent, it's about as much as a 20mm MG FF Minengeschoss HE shell which individually isn't that effective against thick steel plates so I imagine being confined inside a significant volume of dense metal the relatively light base fuze section may represent a path of least resistance and will possibly fail first and most of the detonation gases will vent out that path. I might be wrong but I'm under the impression that the explosive filler really just serves to scatter hot chunks of metal around damaging softer components, equipment and cargo and injuring crew the same way a shrapnel shell would.

@@a.t6066 no it will not. As commented before, the point of the filler is to ensure the shell breaks up after penetration, meaning it’s designed to break up the hard casing of the shell. When the charge is buried inside the armour like in the video, it is completely incased in thick steel, except from the side it came in. IF it explodes, it will vent everything outside. The penetration lost by hollowing out the shell to make room for the filler is more than you’d gain if the filler went off.

But the video is prohibited in the UK by order of the King!!

Stopping simulation in the middle of the armour perforation is what wrong with this video.

​@@AKUJIVALDOthis simulation videos are not entirely accurate, a lot of factors could be missing or misrepresented.

I'm no expert but I'm assuming it would take a little more than 200m. That's quite a bit of spall at 100m. If the Churchill was angled maybe.

I think 100 meters is not enough to lose that much energy. Something like 300 meters

@@professionalredneck7920 plus the fuse is going to explode so its gonna be a shotgun blast for the crew

From the little research that I have done, Firing PzGr. 39 (APCBC) the Tiger will penetrate this at 250m Firing PzGr. 40 (APCR) the tiger will penetrate this at 1500m

@@notsureyou They usually count only direct hit for APCR, it's really affected by any slopped hit. This is why they often test at 30 degrees, because direct hits are never a reality

After the explosion of the chamber charge, it will be necessary to clean the tank from scraps of meat and liquids. And only then repair.

Depending on how it was made, the hole would often be cut out and a plug welded in.

If possible, the hole will be cut to easy to work shape. Then they will cut a piece of stock armor. Then they will weld it back. Due to armor having very specific heat treatment and stuff, the welding need extra careful process compare to say the leg of your desk. If the damage is structural or too much effort, it will be salvaged for parts. How do we know the plug hole is as good as factory produce steel? Pray whoever did your repair is competent.

according to pictures showing holes in 88mm diameter the shell had sung: you say stop , and Isay no,no,no (:-)

In this specific case, unlikely, since the head is stuck in the plate, majority of the explosion and subsequent spalling would be vented outwards

Ansys

It should be noted that the Churchill came significantly later than the KVs and as such Germany already had the weaponry to deal with it, however this only applies to the earlier variants. The Mk.VII and had much thicker armor than the earlier variants, and as we can see in this video, most German AT weapons were ineffective against it from the frontal arc, and the side armor was among the thickest of any tank produced in the war. A better comparison for the KV would be the Matilda II, which the Germans did have issues dealing with early on in the North African theatre.

This was about the earlier Mk III/IV variant iirc. The tanks they got were from that horrible shingle beach on Dieppe with lots of small stones. This damaged the tracks on the Churchills they tested. The Germans were impressed with the hill-climbing capability of the Churchill as it could climb sloped they deemed impossible for tanks. That's about as much as i remember from a video i watched by MHV/MHNV , might be the same one you watched

Those are the reports regarding the Mk. IV variant. The Mk. VIII variant, specially in its AVRE and Crocodile modifications, was notorious among german troops. So much so that the jerries simply surrendered once they saw these machines.

At a guess injuries from spalling fragments, if really unlucky the spall could start a fire and burn the tank out

yes, think of those chunks as shotgun slugs

You do realise the AVRE's only difference was the spigot mortar💀

​@@idontlikecommunists9677 Better deaf as Beethoven than no penetrations.

@@cristsan4171 the AVRE still wouldn't have stopped it

Ls-dyna

in this situation? basically the same. if you mean generally, then most likely better than the churchills.

@@o-hogameplay185 It would've been worse by a huge margin. The Black Prince was even worse than the Tiger II in terms of "soft stats", AND had cripplingly low mobility on top of it. It was something like 20 tons overweight and could barely manage 12mph on flat ground, completely ruining the advantage the early Churchills held on rough terrain.

@@Prometheus19853 i was talking about mainly the gun performance on the BP, because it is clearly better than the short 75mm

@@o-hogameplay185 Since the video talks about the poor 75 mm performance, I mean that with a 17 pounder it would definitely be more than a threat to Tigers and Panthers

Powerful vs armor but weak vs structures and infantry because 17 pdr have small HE shell capacity ( weaker than 75mm gun ) !!!

Пач?

​@@user-ps7zu5qk4zтаблица бронепробиваемости этим снарядом... Должен пробить.

And engine. Churchill only had about 350-400 hp

🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓

@@logical128 how did it help the British?

Most tank combats happened around 500 meters

the tiger was a heavy breakthrough tank tho and as the guy above me pointed out tank combat ranges during the western front were not above 1000m

@@thiagorodrigues5211 tiger said no to you, nashorn too ... plus you words are wrong ... modern tanks can shoot mountain to mountain, km ... because HEATFS are not cinetic shells ...

​@@RealNotallGaming Just read the book from Otto Carius. The main way He deployed his tank platoon was by breaking through enemy lines so the area could be captured. A tank on offensive has the biggest disadvantage of not knowing where the shots are coming from. He often says how he feared Anti-Tank guns more than tanks for he had to be out of the cuppola to see the shell coming so he could have an idea of where the enemy would be. Anti Tank guns can be easily camouflaged and fire several times before being spotted. And again, according to him, most tank losses weren't frontal hits. The front is just 25% of the tank. Otto Carius always said that a commander who doesn't expose himself is at minimum mediocre. And we're talking about WWII, not modern tanks. This is why I said happened, not happen. Today's tanks have range designation with laser. Even back then a Tiger II would rarely engage any target at such range, the first deployments of Tiger IIs during WWII were reported to be engaing T-34s at around 100 meters. A heavy tank is not made to sit and wait, that's the role of tank destroyers

@@thiagorodrigues5211 yes in part i agree with you but WW2 German tanks are pretty much all snipers who has heavier armor who is glass cannon but as in naval history and even infantry (see the arc in history) ... everything is range. whoever has the greatest range has the advantage. it is no coincidence that a Tiger made a kill at 2800m, which says a lot about the range of the cannon ... why get close? the only excuse, the shortage of ammunition and therefore not being able to fire "control" shots the 88mm was feared precisely because it had a greater range

At the same time, the 6 pounder cleaves right through Tiger's UPF at 600 meters

OK i agree if you will stop cying (:-)