Tiger II 105mm vs IS-7 | 10.5cm KwK L/68 Armor Penetration 

gun could be widely used in the unrealized E-series

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 You may as well say that Space Laser "could have been used in the unrealised Flying Pig series". It's just as useful.

​@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174God, the lower frontal part of the Isa 7 had a thickness of 150mm, not 120, use reliable sites

This was mounted on tiger 2 in war thunder with no elevation angles and poor loader XDXDXDXD

@@LilithFonGyotte You do know that in game it has the standart breech model? IRL the recoil cylinders are under the gun, like on the KwK 44 L/70, not on top or left and right.

IS-3 has also quite good armor and mass for 50 tons. It was produced a lot but anyway HEAT rounds made classic steel armor useless so IS-7 was not so great for future.

ну да че

@@rinaldoman3331 IS-3 was a horrible tank. It had a slow turret, suspension that liked to buckle, shotty armor quality (that often cracked or broke in testing), and both engine and transmission issues.

If you look beyond the propaganda, the Soviet heavy tanks were full of issues, other than being too heavy. The IS7 itself had impressive stats on paper, but was simply, impossible to build without issue at the time. Its suspension had major issues over medium distances, the armor was prone to cracking, tracks kept braking, etc. It is no surprise, and it isn't unknown, as to why the IS 7 didn't get accepted. The fact of the matter is, Heavy tanks died after WWII. There simply wasn't a need for them any more with the major advancement in ammunition like HEAT and APDS, and eventually APFSDS out pacing the advancement of armor, having a faster, lighter tank was more desirable. That, and it was much cheaper and easier to mass produce lighter tanks, and also came with the advantage of them being able to move on most terrain, all of which is why tanks like the T54, 55, 62, and 72 were such popular export tanks. By the late 50s to 60s, the Soviets could have easily built a fully operational IS 7, and even better Heavy tanks, and historically, they did, but it didn't take long for them to drop the concept in favor of light and medium tanks.

@@PilotTed it's mass was the same as Pantera while has 2-3x more protection against AP rounds. The armor broke when powerful guns hit the joints of the sheets, but this problem affected absolutely any tank of that time, and the problem was the seams between the sheets, and not the steel itself. A slow turret is not a problem for a tank, since its task was to break through - that is, to shoot and drive frontally, from the rear it should have been covered by medium and light tanks like the T-34. I remind you that on the T-54 and T-62 the turret was also slow. A weak engine and transmission is a problem.

Так попадание по сути в самую не удачную зону было.

if its infinitely more then you expected 0 damage

@@user-fe7bo5mm1o it did damage there is shrapnel flying into the target plate.

possible

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 that would be so awesome

War Thunder says it’ll go through

SY Simulations already did that

@@rifraf276 really? Can you tell me the date on when the video was made?

if it hits the tank it becomes part of the tank

It's now "our shell"

High velocity add on armor

Cutting edge technology in tank armor. It gets shot and absorbs the fired shell to recover 80% of the armor material that is lost during impact.

who needs a commander anyways

the one who believes that the commander is literally behind the gun chamber:

This assumes that the weld would hold. 😅

It’s a simulation so it would probably include details on the weld.

​@@dalel3608at university I was told that weld can actually be stronger than welded plates

Wdym weakest? It's the thickest part of the tank Ranging form 300mm to 400mm this shell can penetrate the side turret of is7 and side hull

@@xigrushe means because it’s where the 2 plates meet so there is a possibility of the plates splitting apart and also just btw the thickest part of the is-7 armour is the front of the turret granted that these plates are indeed some of the thickest

Maus is not able to penetrate the Is-7 head-on, and also will not penetrate in some places on the sides

Landing a second shot in the same spot durring battle...i guess you should go and buy all the lottery tickets after that :)

@@victorzvyagintsev1325 odds of that are really really low but not impossible not to mention seeing a 105 tiger

Sure, if the Tiger is 10 meter away, with the crew carefully aiming the gun into the same spot, while the IS is patiently waiting for round two.

Second shot to the exact same spot at the armor seem...

@@MrTrool323 even with all the modern tech, gunners still aim for the center of target and hope for the best. Tiger2 had zoom of 3-6x....not exactly optimal to aim for a 105mm spot on a mobile target at any reasonable battle distance.

I think I saw that 5 times already cause a 7.5cm APHE is from any nation

It will stop it even easier

"Shell parking lot" XD

Someday

That's only in war thunder. That game models volumetric armor in such a dogshit way that hitting that corner would mean you have to pen sum of both armor plate thicknesses. Irl, weld joints are the weakest lines on old tanks and seeing it is a soviet tank, it would probably pop the front armor off.

@@yatzeegamingop I do think the way the weld of the frontal section was done is superior to the IS-3 But that's just me going off a hunch Edit: I'm not saying welds aren't weaker, I'm just saying that at least the weld is, at least to me, done in a way better than a comparable tank, like the IS-3

That is probably the single best location the projectile can struck, as the impact angle is very low.

@@tomppeli. It is, the is7 in the tank museum looks better made.

Anf not every projectile is going to hit the thickest part of the frontal arc...

I once made a basic tutorial

Yes

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 thx, appreciate it!

it would quite null, WT has made this myth of APHE being like a granade that explodes inside a tank when in reality it did the same damage as normal solid rounds as the shrapnel of the explosive filled only dispersed in a cone

Man did not answer the question and made wrong statement. In this case, the fuse survived, but the chamber is sufficiently compromised. Including some randomness, it is probably 50/50 we get an explosion. What would it do when it goes boom? Most likely nothing. Explosion will chose the path of least resistance. In this case, the cracked area above the projectile and the rear end . APHE, depend on exit velocity and steel explosive ratio, will have different spread cone, with different density, and different fragment velocity. All those factor are also complicated by the condition of the armor. But overall ahpe will do more damage in an event penetration. However it is also true that aphe will have lower chance of surviving the penetration process. It is a balancing act, just like everything in engineering.

Yee dunno why ppl are now thinking APHE was useless when the Americans and Soviets kept using them in their conventional rounds. Like WT over exaggerates sure, but that doesn't mean it didn't do anything, it did do something, it increased the lethality of the round. It's just that with solid AP, the crew would often bail upon penetration, so effectively kills the tank in probably the same shots as a round from APHE.

@@rougerosso5478 Yes. AP and APHE did about the same damage in terms of sharpnel but than there is also the effect of the explosion inside a closed space. You dont need to be hit and still be killed by the shock wave. I mean just look at german grenades. They were awful outside but inside buildings they were the absolute best thanks to the shock wave bouncing all over the place.

Probably

well I expect it not penning since the entire purpose of the is7 armor profile and thiccness was that the 128 pak 44/80 cant penetrate it frontally. anywhere

​@@allorfh2495it wouldn't penetrate of course the 128 mm did not even pen the 120mm of is3 but I expect the 128 to spall or dent the armor of is7 like on is3

I think it is supposed to show what is coming in from the armor breaking about

the shell did a lot of damage because the armor was slightly inclined, in the case of the upper plate the shell would have bounced and it would have done much less damage to the armor armor would be easily penetrated by most post-war HEATs, it is possible that it would stop light tanks HEAT if it was positioned perfectly frontally

I'll see what I can do

HEAT warheads are quite difficult due to hardware and time requirements

Wasn't first the IS-3 and later the IS-7 specifically designed to counter the 128mm gun tho? I get what you mean though regarding how powerful the 128mm was.

@@HERMETICTELEVISION both is can stop the 128mm with its upper front plate since its has thick armor and very good slope, but not so sure if the shot going to their lower front plate since their lower front plate is flatter

@@quiteunimportantguy401 i agree

@@quiteunimportantguy401it can stop it but driver will be dead and welds fail

u mean changing the cross-sectional plane?

At the front of the swedish STRV tank theres a metal "net" to catch HEAT shells, other than things like that i dont think so

That ain't happening without being absurdly heavy. Full caliber AP would barely be affected by something like that

cage armor works this way against HEAT rounds, against kinetic it wouldn't work

@@laminat0996 I know but instead of cage it's like directly on the armor but designed in a way to be more defensive against all types than just one

Uhhh maybe the ridges on the upper plate of the bmp I guess

I would say 💥

There is a ballistic table and in fact 105mm L/68 is comparable to 128mm L/55

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 I remember it being alittle better than the 128

Ansys

bro it was devolped in 1948 after they defeated the Germans, it's design started in late 1945

Nope, someone measured an existing tank

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 well, double check then, its 3 plates of 150mm its is8 who have 120mm x3

@@MrSupersvyat lol, you double check... there is no source saying 3 x 150mm, even in the diagrams the thickness looks different

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 in the diagrams, the thickness of the plates is different since the upper plate is rotated at an angle of 45 degrees relative to the lower plate. Because of this, it is ~1.4 times thicker in section. Seriously, where did you get the 120mm thickness from? The only place I found it is - "The Online Tank Museum"

@@MrSupersvyat Nvm i was wrong

you can do it and there are vids of that

I do not think so

Welds are weakpoints in real life, but not in war thunder. This is a best case scenario for the 10.5cm.

@@doobs5342 The weld certainly is, but you can see the round somehow magically strikes at an agle that has it running through the thickest run of armour possible on the vehicle. It's a common theme with the channel operator: rounds are always "tested" in a manner that favours Russian equipment. He's well known for it. Gets quite frothy when it's mentioned too, so clearly realsies he's known for it.

@@iatsd Mr. specialist, the upper plate is 3 times stronger than the zone shown in the simulation

@@iatsd had the round hit the lower or upper front plate the shell would begin to turn parallel to the armor and end up losing more energy and being forced to go against more armor. the shell going almost straight into the vehicle was the best case scenario. nobody can make everyone happy since some want to see others unhappy

Meds

account everything you want

Ansys

The 100 mm cannon was not fired. 88 mm does not penetrate into the front part. There was just a defect in the welded joints of one of the hulls involved in the tests. When hit, the welds cracked.

@@ИльяШевченко-щ4фOr the welds were just bad. Alot of tanks died to bad welds.

same

this is the löwe's gun, so probably not unless it were much closer or firing at the side

@@Querulouss lowe gun is 120mm not a 105

@@nateyolo9827 source? the only designs i know of had 105s and 88s

@@Querulouss yes the lowe tank is the king tiger big brother and it armed with a 120mm gun

@@nateyolo9827german used 12,8cm not 12cm

something similar will appear

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Love you brother, thank you for the contribution to the tank community, And I wanna ask what you think about Leopard 2pso side nera Because i have seen someone talk about it,which says it can provide 600 mm to 700 mm for ke at 60 ° And 850mm ce at 90°

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 and can you simulate what exact the angel needed for side skirt relikt to defeat dm53?

because the shell would go beyond the cross-sectional plane

it was measured on a real tank

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Wow, where can I read about this?

Read? Only on unreliable, superficial sites. This 12 cm lower plate thickness spread from Nicholas Moran's video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Hoecf7ovrRM.html He says: "Lower front slope, according to the reference materials I had in front of me, 10 cm. But, actually looking at it with a measuring device, we came in about 11,5-12 depending on the tickness of the weld." There are several problems with this: 1. We don't know what his "reference materials", there is no information about this. Before this video, you can't find information anywhere that the thickness of lower plate is 10 or 12 cm, only 15 cm. His "reference materials" questionable, for example he says before the upper plate angle is 65°. This is a comulate angle. But in real the upper plate angles only 58° from vertical and 40-45° from the center line of the tank. If you calculate the effective thickness with these angles, then the result calculate back to a single angle, then you get 65°. These simulations also show that it does not matter whether something is initially 65° or just 58° + 40-45°. In this armour scheme show the correct thikness and angles: ibb.co/s5W3RCp (Source of image: техника и вооружение 2017/no2, this is a very thorough monthly magazine, but in russian language, it's a pain to translate with technical phrases...) 2. He say "thickness of the weld". So it is 11.5-12 cm thick at the welding seam, not the complete plate, only by welding. In this type of welding, the lower plate supports and positions the upper plate, so under the welding, the lower plate must be thicker than where the two plates are connected. This can be seen in the armour scheme picture what i linked: top of the lower plate thinner as below. It is also in this video, it looks very good from 0:00 to 0:06, but the thickness is incorrect. 3. If the lower plate is only 10 or 12 cm, then they probably would have been penetrated in the tests, the 12,8 cm and 130 mm guns at close distances. But we know that this did not happen. They could not penetrate anywhere, at any distance. My opinion: the lower plate thickness 15 cm. Where the two plate connecting for welding, there the lower front plate only 11,5-12 cm. I hope my poor english was understandable and i was able to help.@@ИльяШевченко-щ4ф

@@pirosleopard6237 Thank you for the detailed answer. The author of the video talked about real measurements and did it so condescendingly that I thought I had missed some famous news. My searches led me to "The Online Tank Museum", but in all the sources referenced in the article there is nothing about 120 mm. If the only source of his knowledge about armor is a video that says that the distance to the weld was measured, then this is very stupid. The author of the video about the interaction of the projectile and armor demonstrates unacceptable incompetence and ignorance (in fact, this can be said about other authors of similar videos).

​@@pirosleopard6237interesting.

if it was planned for Tiger II, it was probably planned for E75 too

this is the least sloping part

what bs

Cast steel is 1/4 worse than regular armor steel

@@lionknight1849 most of the hulls were made of rolled steel, writing that everything was made of casting is absurd

Is-3 not 7

And other jokes you can tell yourself when watching history channel at 3 am.

Lol what? It wouldn't have even fit in the KT's original turret wasting even more resources for the Germans with the limited time they had left.

Yeah maybe in 1939 but not in 1944...

@@Kwisss It would fit, but there was a problem with fitting the second loader. For the Soviets, this was not a problem in the IS-2

Yeah, all 5 of them ;-)