A simulation comparing the impact of an AP shell against Rolled Homogeneous Armor and composite armor. 7.62mm AP at 800 m/s. Composite armor - 1mm RHA, 5mm Tungsten Carbide, 7mm RHA
@@glorck7064 I think with small arms that's not really accurate, a very slowed and fragmented round would have trouble going deep into flesh, compared to in a tank where you dont want it to fragment in case of penetration so that you have a chance of not being in the path of the projectile.
Now I think the RHA layer on top was not a good idea. This may help prevent the projectile's nose from immediate shattering, which is already capped, and the projectile has managed to transfer enough energy to 'almost' push the plug out of the backplate.
@@Fish-ub3wn dragon armor used a ceramic tiles though yes very much the same design especially the fracture of the tile. Though dragon armor usually has a layer of kevlar behind it aswell
I was curious about that. My working theory is that it is delaminating from the core once the core hits the armour and decelerates. It really tripped me up because it seemed like the jacket suddenly accelerated like it was being sucked in or something
The composite array here weighs about 80% more than the RHA example shot first. Its not really an apples to apples comparison. He really should have compared the 5mm tungsten carbide +8mm rha to about 18mm of rha (instead of 10mm). Because protection per weight is typically what is designed for
For body armour, areal density is the important factor in dealing with a threat, as being immune to bullets is useless if you can't actually lug the armour around. For instance, in this case the areal density of the 10mm plate is 78.5 kg/m2. But the areal density of the composite plate is around 141kg/m2. So unless you're comparing it to an 18mm plate, then it's not really a proper comparison.
This would be a very good comparison to make. Although, bulk is also a a significant factor. If we could have the same or similar protection with the same mass of body armour,but in a thinner package it would be very nice idk im drunk
Neat, but the air minded engineer in me almost had a heart attack from the weight increase ^^ Now to drop the carbide thickness to as small as possible to handle that 7,62 round, and raise the steel to do the same, and see which ends up lighter.
Agreed. There's also a bit of a hard limit on how heavy you can make body armour and still have it be usable, so he should try to see what combination can get the areal density down the most.
same but substitute the metal with aluminum 7076 and thin it out further. we can pretend a space between the materials is a thick layer of adhesive lol
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 it would be great if you could make yourself some kevlar, uhmwpe, zylon, m5, carbon fiber, carbon nanotube yarn, and boron nitride fibers presets.
Tungsten carbide is tough stuff, but it only shows its full potential when paired with steel or such, as it is pretty brittle. The tungsten carbide dies I used to make, for example, we would heat up a steel shroud until it was glowing, and drop the carbide part inside, then allow it to cool. The carbide then has support from the comparatively soft and flexible tool steel, allowing it to do its work.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to demonstrate? Tungsten carbide is almost twice as dense as steel, so the second armour arrangement is as heavy, per unit of area, as a solid RHA plate 18mm thick. An 18mm thick RHA plate would definitely stop a 7.62mm bullet and would also be much cheaper.
In practice, it's hard to do. If you take a thin back plate, it will bend. Then fixing side WC plates does not make sense. I would have to build a structure with a very large surface area. Of course I could try thicker RHA instead
I find it cool how in the first and second sim, the bullet jacket shears off the main AP core which is slowed down by the armor, while the softer metal is still moving and still gets sent forward splattering the surrounding plate.
I head that around or prior to WW1 British used ship that had layers made od steel, wood, stell and again wood. I was wondering if it is possible for you to simulate penetration of that early composite armour and whether wood helped at all.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 The fibrous structure of it would be a challenge, right? It's very much not an isotropic material, and small differences in grain structure and direction make a big difference. Plus, just simulating structures as small as wood grain would be costly.
I don't know about wood, but in post war experiments, the the US army tested the effect of concrete added to armor and found it to be, for the most part, ineffective against both AP and HEAT rounds. I doubt wood would fair better, at least against AP rounds.
Honestly I think the rapid decelleration we saw in this conventional round would likely cause the dart to bend and shatter. Kinda like trying to push a straight wire into a concrete wall
@Dejmian I have another interesting scenario you might be interested in simulating: according to soviet testing of a captured Tiger I, the 85mm BR-365K (sharp tipped) shell was found capable of perforating Tiger's driver's plate at up to 700m. Terminal velocity for this shell at this range is 681m/s. Using DeMarre's equation in reverse we get the K coefficent of "2275", significantly less than the value of "2400" used by the soviets to predict the performance of their blunt tipped AP shells. I dont think the answer is "flawed armour" as they've also tested the US 76mm gun and it performed pretty much as expected against this target. I believe this means that by simply changing the nose shape of the shell, it's performance can vary significantly, even when in either case the nose portion of the shell shatters on impact. I would like you to simulate both the BR-365 (blunt nosed) and BR-365K (sharp nosed) striking the Tigers driver plate (102mm/9°) at s.v. of 681m/s. If my intuition is correct, we'll see the BR-365K perforating the plate, while the BR-365 will fail to produce more than a cracked bulge on the back. AFAIK both shells had the same heat treatment applied and differed only in the design of their forward half. You can find the schematics of BR-365K shell online, but I haven't seen such for BR-365. I suppose you could scale down the nose design of the 100mm BR-412B shell, I dont think possible small differences would matter much in this case.
The result should be pretty obvious. Sharp tipped shells eat flat armor for breakfast while blunt shells don't to well against it 🤔 I mean even the Shermans 75mm AP, penetrates the frontal armor with ~600m/s, so the 85mm sharp tipped will be the same with the blunt shell most likely requiring more energy in comparison.
The He-111 bomber (apart from the P2 variant) had a 6mm. RHA plates in the rear of the fuselage, on the rear of the engine nacelles and on the rear of the pilot's seat. These armour plates were to defend against rifle calibre lead ball ammunition, incendiary bullets and (exploding) observer bullets, the latter being devastatingly fatal to aircrew. Rifle calibre aircraft machine guns always included AP bullets negate any aircraft defensive armour.
An impact hard enough to stop the bullet's core while the mantle gets stripped off... that's pretty impressive, I've never seen something like that, even in simulation.
Interesting simulation, but I think it is fair to say that with modern bullets, the West at least has been pushing for entirely lead free designs. I am curious how that is going to effect impacts on armour at an angle.
the second plate tested was 13 mm thick compaired with the first 10 mm plate I know it won't change much but still should be fair and compair the same thing.
At 0:58, notice the crack in the lower hexagon of tungsten carbide were the the lower edge of the top 1mm of RHA ends. Also, notice how the middle hexagon of tungsten carbide is ever-so-slightly displaced horizontally, and the same for the back surface of the 5 mm RHA behind it. It would be nice to see the minimum angles at which an APFSDS would eventually bounce off equal weights (at sufficient respective depths to make the weights equal) of materials like tungsten carbide, silicon carbide, and boron carbide. It would also be nice to see the lesser angles an which an APFSDS would not bounce completely off, but rather dig along the slope of the armor, without penetrating.
Not sure what the second paragraph means. Rod almost never bounce completely off given sufficient length. Even if the rod initially bounce/shatter, some of the rod material will eventually create a sufficient dent.
There was a video that showed progressively oblique slopes of armor, in 1/4 of a degree increments, which show the 2 behaviors I described: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mQHSlZfjbng.html At 83 degrees, the projectile (an APFSDS) did ricochet off. At lesser angles, there was some "digging in" of a trough into the armor, along with some spalling of the atmor's rear surface. The top of the Abrams turret appears to use such extreme angles.
For a given weight dedicated to armor, the thickness would go from thinnest, in the case of tungsten carbide, then thicker for silicon carbide, then thickest for boron carbide.
This shows how effective the tungsten carbide can be, however the use of tungsten in armour increases the weight of the armour by ALOT and that is probably why we see tungsten carbide added to vehicles as armour and not footsoldiers. My initial thought is that tungsten carbide gets too heavy before it adds enough protection if used by footsoldiers. Expand post to see an exampe with rough calculations i made if tungsten carbide would be used together with steel as bodyarmour. If we're taking an AR500 plate as an example (decimals is rounded so we get two decimals). Plate measurements: Width (w) = 10” (254 mm) Height (h) = 12” (305 mm) Thickness (t) = 0.34" (8.64mm) Weight (mA) = 8.5 lbs (3.86 kg) Density of the steel from the source have to be calculated: ρA = AR500 steel density. ρA = (w*h*t)*(mA/10³) ρA = 5.76 g/mm³. Source for measurements: (www.ar500armor.com/heritage-plate.html) Source also states this specific plate is rated to level 3 which can stop a 7.62x51 M80 NATO Ball (0.308 Winchester) at 2,780 FPS (847.34 m/s) for example. If the remove 4 millimeters (0.16") from the AR500 steel and replace it with tungsten carbide, it would be 3 kg heavier (44% increase) and weigh 6.90 kg. ρT = density of tungsten carbide. ρT = 15.63 g/cm³ (Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten_carbide) We calculate what a 4 mm thick tungsten carbide plate would weigh with the same width and height as the AR500 plate. mT = Weight tungsten carbide. mT = (w*h*t/2)*(ρT/10³). mT = 4843/1000 mT = 4.80 kg (10.58 lbs) Then we calculate the weigh of the AR500 plate with 4 mm steel removed. mA₂ = (w*h*(t-4))*ρA mA₂ = 2060/1000 mA₂ = 2.06 kg (4.54 lbs) Lastly we add the weights of the 4 mm tungsten plate and the 4.86 mm AR500 steel plate. m = mA + mT m = 6.9 kg (15.21 lbs) The result of using the example AR500 plate with 4 mm steel removed and replaced with tungsten carbide of equal thickness is that it would weigh 3 kg (6.61 lbs) or 55% more. To my knowledge (all be it very, very limited) 6.9 kg or 15.21 lbs is very heavy when it comes to bodyarmour, but wether or not the gained protection is outweighing the gained weight i don't know. Someone with more experience and knowledge of what is and isn't an acceptable weight for a foot soldier might prehaps be able to say.
@@XtreeM_FaiL Tungsten carbide is a ceramic, and it's definitely harder than any other lighter and cheaper ceramic you'll find. But they are using other ceramics because they have a much better balance between density, hardness and material cost.
10 mm rha vs 1+7 mm rha+5mm tungsten? Any sense. Steel- about 8t/m3, tungsten- about 19t/m3, so: 1mm rha+5mm tungsten+ 7mm rha You can compare to about 21-23 mm rha
Not the point. The point was to see if the WC would shatter the bullet or the other way around. WC stopped the bullet completely meaning its highly effective as armor.
@@glfan896 Way more effective. Thats the whole point of ceramic and composite armor. Although Im not aware of WC being used in armor. Too expensive and its heavy for what it does. But you can see that in commercial ceramic body armor (generally boron carbide), they are lighter and stop threats that steel of the same weight wouldnt.
@@enb3810 hey man !!!! I found it !!! I found the program! It's called (Ansys) just look it up on youtube there are tons of tutorials!! I kept looking for weeks! I looked everywhere and when i found it i lost your comment so i had to look for you to tell you the name and at last i found you XD
A simulation of 8mm cetme would be cool being a more or less unique long but light weight bullet made of a mostly aluminum body with a copper jacket for long range accuracy to 1000 meters and controllable automatic fire really neat round but always sad to remember how 7.62 nato killed it and .280
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 interesting indeed. Nice work! May I ask how you are able to model the fragmenting ejecta particles like in the first clip using FEM?
I think bottom plate should be made from aluminium or titanium alloy. This can save some weight, but have small negative impact on strength. Front plate, made from 1mm RHA have same role like cap (not ballistic) in ap rounds: prevents shaterring. IMHO better composition will be: 2mm RHA, 5mm tungusten alloy and 5-7mm aluminium/titanium alloy.
Italian 8mm. Breda MMG: Perforatore (AP Tool Steel) = Up to 11mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres. Perforatore Speciale (APCR ) = Up to 16mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres.
would this be able to do a simulation for a thin layer of titanium carbide on top of normal titanium? I'm curious how it would perform despite the lower density.
The insane hardness of wolfram-carbide is traded off for its immense brittleness. Remember the hierarchy of materials: Plastic cuts skin, aluminum cuts plastic, steel cuts aluminium, HSS cuts steel, wolfram-carbide cuts HSS and finally diamond seems to cut just about everything*. *Insert all the exemptions here.
Except there is corundum before diamond, which is 9 on hardness scale where diamond is 10. Extremely brittle though. You can easily break it by throwing two rocks in a champaigne bottle and shaking it vigorously.
It just occurred to me that some simple sound effects could be pretty fun way of conveying information, like the speed of a few points of the projectile. A simple sine wave at 400 hz could be 100% velocity, and then lowering it as the speed decreases. You could even play with amplitude later on if people don't hate it 😅
Could you do a ballistic gel simulation with the following specs? Projectile specs: Sears-haack body Length - 44.19 mm Diameter - 6mm Weight - 11.613 grams Material - tungsten carbide Target: Ballistic gel 30x30x30 cm
I have a question, If a plate of steel is divided in two horizontaly, with the upper half being more soft than the down one, and a shell hit the part where they met, how do the shell react?
7.62 steel core AP at 1000 m/s would by interesting, as if it has been fired from a .30-378 Weatherby, the most powerful .30 cal catridge. Designed for anti-material use originally.
Any chance of comparing RHA to a lightweight composite like boron carbide or silicon nitride? Those materials look very promising for vehicle armor and body armor.
Could you give me the program or application you use for these videos, as well as the bone and other models? I want to do some experiments for my school project. Thanks
First you compare 10 mm of steel to 13 mm of composite. Second WC is twice more dense then steel, meaning that second plate is almost twice as heavy. In case of comparison of vehicle armour it would be good to compare armours of the same weight.
What if simulate armor of next scheme: 2mm tungsten carbide + 10mm of aluminum alloy ? Or other schemes "Very hard face + light backing. Both weight less than RHA of the same area " Tungsten + titanium Tungsten + FRP Tungsten +cabron RHA+FRP Spinel+ FRP
can you share the material properties of your RHA? i want to do some testing and have already followed your tutorial but the results are far different from what your simulations show it would be great if you can post a screenshot or an image
Yes, but RHA should act this way if it's not part of composed plates any harder RHA would crack throughout its entire thickness. RHA in modern armored vehicles makes sense if it's backing the hard outer layers or compositions. It kinda "catches" the impact stopped at early stages. Also, the steel core in such penetrating ammo is made out of material with properties close to tool steel and its temperature processing is focused on high hardness.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Yes, but on the other hand german WW2 RHA specs called for about 415 - 475BHN for plates 5 to 15mm thick, mostly for halftracks and armoured cars. British one was similar. The 15mm side armour of a Czech Pz.38(t) captured by soviets was made from homogeneus plate of very high hardness, 500+ BHN. Why did you choose the US spec for this simulation over the alternatives? Is simulating very high hardness materials is more difficult?
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Not to mention that a harder RHA plate in the first simulation might be enough to shatter the penetrator, preventing it from penetrating at all. I've seen it in some .50cal tests, where a slight increase of plate hardness by 50 Brinell points makes the ballistic limit jump upwards by 400fps.
Wait. That's 7.62mm with a mild steel core? A: Which 7.62mm? B: I have several doubts about angled RHA at 3/8" thick not stopping it. AR500 (which is not as good at ballistic protection, but still pretty damn good) steel at that thickness will stop 7.62x54R light ball (which is steel core) at any distance at a 90 degree impact angle. Something might be off in this simulation.
The simulation looks really cool, however isn't really a fair comparison, since the tungsten carbide composite armor is about 80% heavier (per unit area) than the pure RHA. It would be more fair to compare this composite armor to 18mm RHA, instead of 10mm, since then both would have equal weight. Would this bullet penetrate 18mm RHA?
Strange simulation. Standard 7.62 with speed from 700 to 750 m/s cannot penetrate 10 mm armor from distance above 200 m. Especially with contact angle different from 90 d.
