@@glxytoni because you cant say, ok jim aim for the 0.2% of the tank that is flat, you say jim aim at the tank and hope for the best (unless you are really close, then you are fuked either way.
It sounds like it. It could be very potent on a flat angle-but against an oblique target it might not work well and that'll be probably most situations.
@@capthawkeye8010 exactly I've thought about it a bit more since and really what is going to happen is the round is going to act like a lever no matter its length and it is going to follow the angle. With a shorter round and reasonable angle the round will penetrate far enough into the target for it to stabilize and continue onwards but if your round is suddenly twice as long but still the same mass you have doubled the moment arm meaning the same amount of torque from the off angle impact is likely going to cause significantly more deflection possibly to the point of snapping the rod where the halves connect and at the very least cause it to slap the armor partially side on which isn't going to penetrate much.
@@LordOceanus Otoh if you happen to manage a flat hit-the forward shaft of the trailing telescope design will essentially act as a ballistic cap-helping the rod behind it penetrate even further. That'd require some very specific situations and angles that I think would be so rare as to be unwarranted to set space aside for this kind of round. It isn't unheard of-the Germans used to set aside some space in the Panzer III for a special tungsten penetrator round. The round had similar specs as these ones too, best effect was at close range on a flat surface. The special round's performance on an oblique angle was basically similar to the 50mm standard AP round however and for that reason as well as shortages of tungsten the Wehrmacht discontinued it. That was a much smaller round though and space for something like a 120mm round is way more premium.
Interesting concept, but I see at least two drawbacks. First is the changing of the center of gravity/pressure when telescoping which could adversely affect accuracy. Second, where the two sections meet is a weak spot and would form a fulcrum for the penetrator to snap when hitting sloped armor.
I imagine the changing center of gravity could be compensated for with a firing calculation. But yes the weak point probably wouldn’t do well against angled armour.
I feel like the weak point problem could be solved by creating a larger overlap section between the sleeve and the core. It will sacrifice some penetration but will greatly prevent any wobbling of the projectile.
Yes definitely. It would go back immediately on impact make whole thing unnecessary to make l and probably reducing its effectiveness because it's not solid = more energy would go into vibrations etc
The extended part does actually go back in slowly, but the velocity of the tail of the sleeve is only slightly less than its original velocity...there is not enough time for it to decelerate as it erodes so quickly; because of this, the extended part stays mostly extended
@@TuAFFalcon not necessary to make it locking when the whole event is over in milliseconds, not nearly enough time for any part of it to slow down a significant amount. I'm doubtful on the rod extending during flight though, the extra drag of the sleeve would be insignificant especially with the projectile being supersonic forming a sleeve of air around it.
Only thing I see as a problem for this design is the hollowed out tube of tungsten. Tungsten is extremely hard to deal with and could be too fragile to manufacture in that kind of shape in a large number. But if that is sorted, the 25 percent increase in penetration and the potential to defeat 3rd gen era might be the next generation of apfsds
if you've seen these hit angled armour you can see how it doesn't seem to have all that much effect, at least not compared to regular AP. I assume its because of how high the velocity is.
@@Bruno-cb5gk It does, well, not really what op is talking about. Not with a thick piece of rigid material (the video) or tightly packed pieces of rigid material (72 pure steel hull). But when the material is loosely packed, ie maybe era is offset from the based armor at 25cm, or Leo 2 add on module (probably at least 50cm), the rod will experience extreme stress when it goes out of the material. Rod will break apart any weak/en link of the rigid body. In this case, it will likely separate the sleeve from the main rod and cause some unexpected interaction.
@@jintsuubest9331 Its cool experiment for simulation but what about production cost? I would expect it to create more problems and price jump than just switching to 130mm guns with proportionaly bigger standard projectile.
@@Bialy_1 Switching the gun platform is definitely more expensive than switching apfsds design. It's a relatively simple passive mechanism as well. But as the video shows, making thinner projectile improves pen more. Problem is ERA or NERA performance, which is encountered by the telescopic design as well. I would suggest just using a sleeve of soft metal around a thinner core, but no telescoping. Shatter protection.
First telescopic test shown I was already headed towards the comments to suggest flipping that jewel of a projectile around to get deeper penetration. Should have known you had it coming
@@ataphelicopter5734 If both outer and inner halves are of the same volume/mass, the only thing that could perhaps affect accuracy is the shell being longer mid-flight AKA making the fins less effective at stabilising so it would require longer fins. That's something we don't see in this simualtion since the shell is right beside the armor, if it would of been destabilised and had verged off it would of been before way before that distance to armor. Also, the end of the outer section could maybe cause extra drag if its not curved towards the inner part.
Would not the round stay compacted due to vaccum forces? also would like to see the different material and post penetration effects on 120mm DM33 PELE type of round vs Regular APFSDS.
@@dercraven3161 there is no bleed element on it and the telescoping effect would not occure until after the sabot had been seperated outside of the barrel, so i dont think that is possible either
Depleted Uranium long rod penetrators are self sharpening and don't form a "mushroom" at the front like tungsten but rather a point due to the pyrophoricity properties of depleted uranium
This is one of those channels that makes me love youtube. Did I ever look for this? No (well I mean I searched 'sy simulations apfsds' after seeing another one of your vids but you get my point). Does this stimulate my brain? Absolutely.
Makes sense... Frontal part is wider, so it creates wider cavity. Once it is expended, the more narrow part enters an already prepared cavity, thus making its job easier; less resistance from material
Something interesting to try out with 500 mm length projectile: 3 steel sheets 10mm each clamped together at 60-65 degree angle, with the plates being able to move (separately) like a cm upon impact. After that there's 3 variations, a 1000 mm, 500 mm or 200 mm of free space ending in a flat witness block (or angled at 35 degrees, whichever is preferred). Simulating the approximate wedge armour for the Leopard 2A5, though the composition of it's add-on armour is still largely unknown, it just looks like 3 plates with that approximate thickness on the pictures (ignoring the other plate inside that doesn't really cover the whole cheek). It would be nice to see if that would have any effect compared to not having such a wedge. EDIT: From the pictures I've come to believe it's more likely a 3 layered system with the first two being wedge shell itself. Being approx. 10 mm steel - 5 mm rubber/ceramics - 10 steel, then 20mm of free space and then the same configuration of 10-5-10, all that is angled at 60-65 degrees. Then there's approx a meter space within which the rod touches one more plate that is angled in a different direction. Being about the same 10-5-10 approx. composition but angled horizontally between 40 and 70 degrees. This third layer would sit like a triangle inside the wedge, so the incoming projectile might interact with one (in the middle of the free space) or multible such plates (in the beginning and end), depending on where it hits. It might be quite difficult to model because the plates are angled in different directions.
What keeps the telescopic rod from collapsing at impact? I.e if it extends due to inertia (or som other mechanism during launch) I'm curious what kind of locking mechanism can withstand the forces on impact without allowing it to collapse to its original length again
What stopes the tailing part of the projectile from sliding back into the "piston cavity" at the point of impact. Shouldn't the projectile slide back into it's retracted State In both cases (hollow cinder part at front or back of the projectile)? Since the extension of the projectile is caused mainly by air drag, impact of the front part of the projectile should slow it considerably enough so the rear part catches up. I'm interested if it actually works, or if is it just simplification for simulation sake :D. Great vid anyway, keep it up!
As long as the front part keeps moving at around the initial velocity by the time it’s eroded away, the rear part won’t have any reason to slide forwards. If the front part stopped right after hitting armor, the rear would slide forwards.
The issue is that you are thinking of it like a solid projectile. At these velocities, the materials act more like a liquid. There simply isn't much slowing down, as the force required to be transferred to change the velocity of the rod quick enough for we to see the front slow down relative to the rear, is far beyond the force the material can handle.
The telescope is free to slide back into the sleeve, but the tail of the sleeve stays close to its original velocity, so it only slightly slides back inside...the parts are modelled separately and with a low coefficient of friction so theres nothing stopping them from sliding back together, but there isnt enough time for it to decelerate so it doesnt
Looks awesome. I wonder what the sabot should be like especially for the trailing telescoping version, to be able to clamp the trailing part in place when firing.
Wow fascinating I’ve never heard of (or imagined) a telescopic sabot. Curious about the real world effectiveness as mentioned in the video that “a higher detail model that examines whether the trailing core really goes into the sleeve” upon impact (I’m no expert but my gut says it wouldn’t) Great video as always
I'm very curious how this performs against more complex arrays + ERA. I could see the sheathing getting crushed/fractured, but I'm unsure how much that would translate to the rod in the rear. It may make sense to make that interface as weak as possible, thereby having a super long break off tip sort of like what M829A3 has. Also what material did you use for the sheathing? In that case it might make sense to have a high strength steel. This is great work! I see you are getting closer to making an idealized future APFSDS. It would also be super interesting to see a hypothetical future armor design (glacis, turret, and hull/turret sides) and see how the future and present APFSDS does against. In this scenario, we would just allocate a certain amount of areal density and thickness that could be used. I would be happy to help out with that! I know it's NREA all the way down in recent designs, but I've been seeing some papers suggest that using at the front and rear to initiate heat jet breakup/completely fracture a damaged long rod is much more mass efficient than NREA arrays. Especially with nano ceramics these days. I believe the reason they aren't being used in current tanks is due to low ceramic quality when the armor packages were updated and higher costs. But the T-80U did use some ceramics (not the quartz filler stuff). Shoot me an email if you think coming up with a next gen armor layout would be fun! You should have it from the previous email.
Wouldnt the tail of the apfsds just slam back into it as soon as it hits the armor? Since it just extends due. to the drag on the fins, unless theres some kind of lock that would survive that kinda impact
Definitely an interesting idea. The obvious issue with the telescopic design is the strength when coming up against other more modern factors such as ERA and APS systems. Perhaps if a stronger material was lining the inside as well as with the telescoping part there would be an improvement to the strength. The question then would become one of cost. Would it be worth making more expensive rounds rather than changing the gun for a bigger one.
Tungsten monolith with a large meplat (core diameter) under the ballistic cap. The large flat meplat is commonly used in elephant bullets to promote straight line penetration. My thinking is it may help normalize the penetration angle on highly sloped armor.
If you measure penetration in projectile calibers (T/D) you will note that the penetration of the 30-cal-length thin projectile fired at the much higher muzzle velocity is even greater than when just noted in mm. It seems that the striking velocity, not the weight, is the most important factor here. This is also true of face-hardened Krupp-Cemented-type 20th-Century battleships naval side armor, with increasing the weight of a shell having a given kinetic energy is much less effective than keeping the weight the same and upping the velocity to give the same KE total. The thicker the hard face, the weaker the armor becomes as shell diameter increases relative scaling), however, so increasing the weight by making the shell wider for a given total KE value is also better for penetration. RHA reacts differently to impacts, of course.
Very cool idea. In-flight stability and accuracy? Unknown/questionable? And probably would be very expensive to manufacture. Would love to see a more detailed animation :)
How long would it take for the trailing section to extend? Like would it be more effective at long range than short range due to the distance required to make it extend? Also, when it hits a slope, wouldn't the hollow part collapse, reducing penetration? This is a very interesting topic, great video!
That trailer round was just confusing as hell. Never seen a telescoping device extend backwards (core). Usually like my Dyson vacuum parts it gets smaller as it extends forward not larger (unless I do it backwards?...)
Now do a model of a segmented rod. If you like those results, change the segments to aluminum and the strike face to Nitrogen gas to simulate atmospheric entry onto a moon like Titan. Ergo the use of long rod penetration data might be extremely useful in lowering the cost of planetary exploration 😁
Interesting idea.. I wonder how much the air trapped within the hollow tube will dampen & slow the solid core…. Just a thought that came to me & now I really gotta know the answer.
Request: Can you do a video simulating the leo 2a7 turrent armour, the triangulated spaced RHA vs Sabot Rod. I think it would be neat to see how the spacing disrupts the different lengthed rods from 500mm to 750mm
Wondering if the telescoping apfsds might have the benefit of detonating any reactive armor so the main body is less effected by the explosive force....???
If it were backward, would it have more penetration? Since the bigger sleeve might create a hole for the core to go through. Edit: I didn't watch the whole video
this kind of assumes that wont be bucking and etc. I dont know at this speeds what would happen, but did you look into that? also, a bit of angling of the round or the armor might mean much
Think about and analyze the following. A projectile is fired at a target. The core of the projectile is a spent uranium tipped tungsten penetrator. The penetrator is backed by a cup that contains an explosive. The cup is not attached to the penetrator but has a mild pressed connection. Once the projectile hits a target an explosive accelerator is triggered accelerating the penatrator into the target. The cup that adds area to accelerate the penetrator forces the penetrator forward but is not attached so does not add drag to the penetrator. Allowing the penatrator to continue to deeply penetrate the target. Tungsten adds mass and rigidity while the spent uranium tip reduces the nuclear pollution of a full spent uranium rod but enables penetration as it remains sharp in penetration and does not mush like tungsten tends to.
@@N4CR I mean that while tungsten is more dense, DU breaks off on contact differently. So it's better to have DU in contact area, but have the rear of the rod made out of tungsten to increase its overall mass. Yes/no?
@@SYsimulations YET for some reason the US department of the Army decided it was necessary to include a locking mechanism: patents.google.com/patent/US7036434B1/en?q=F42B14%2f061
I doubt the projectile would extend in flight, the fins just wouldn't have enough drag to Force the two apart, with friction, air displacement, and the whole flight lasting a very short time
The mini Sabot realy made a dent in the monolith. Along with how the tail extension created a cavity for the Sabot to travel alittle farther. Would like to see this how this type of round works against a modern german tank(2019+current) Or maybe a M1A2sep3+(2016+current)
What happens to the material (penetrator and armor) displaced from the cavity? Does the surrounding material get a lot denser? Why doesn't the surrounding material rebound back into the cavity or push the surrounding armor outward?
What about the effects of a "double tap"-- two half-sized APFSDS projectiles hitting the same spot, one a couple of miliseconds after the other? Doubt it'd change much for homogenous armour but could be interesting to see how it'd sim vs ERA, NERA and APS systems.
Me seeing the first Telescopic APFSDS: "Why not just reverse the core and sleeve so that the larger sleeve would hit first and create bigger hole, then the following core would punch through the remaining armor?" Me seeing the Trailing-Telescopic APFSDS: "Damn, I was right all along."
Are you modelling the hoop strength of the outer tube? It does not seem to be. The lateral tensile strain on the outer wall should be some cosign of the deceleration force, which... is quite high.
I doubt this would do much, the penetration of the sleeve is probably greatly overestimated. Might be useful for detonating ERA before the penetrator hits.
@Donot see this use just have to use abaqus explicit and follow TH-cam tutorials and look at scientific papers...its not an easy software to use though
militaries around the world are probably doing all the testing just like this guy is, if they find out what works best they'd definitely keep it classified
Always wondered why they dont do APFSDS rounds with some sort of explosive penetrator in the rear, so the rod makes partial penetration and then the explosive penetrator can finish the job? Or maybe I just dont know shit about tanks and ballistics.
Any other unique APFSDS designs you want tested?
e.g. PELE, jacketed, segmented...
How about a piano wire hitting something at APFSDS velocity?
Segmented!
Maybe a tapered design?
A composite design like 3bm22 would be interesting to see in angled vs normal penetration comparison.
Segmented - PELE on the front, classic rod on the rear
Never even heard of telescoping APFSDS so this was extremely cool.
That's because it doesn't really exist. Hasn't ever been tested in real life.
Keep finding you again xD
Do we just have the same preference over what we see or just coincidence
@@danielaryo5120 Yea, probably same interests and preferences. Or at least overlapping ones.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 or Google just forces you both into the same cage.
@@Trump-a-Tron Are you gonna tell us how Google is controlled by CCP next?
I feel like the major loss in the rigidity of the projectile would cause the round to struggle against angles
i mean why not have this for flat angles and thicc tungsten for sharp angles kekw
@@glxytoni because you cant say, ok jim aim for the 0.2% of the tank that is flat, you say jim aim at the tank and hope for the best (unless you are really close, then you are fuked either way.
It sounds like it. It could be very potent on a flat angle-but against an oblique target it might not work well and that'll be probably most situations.
@@capthawkeye8010 exactly I've thought about it a bit more since and really what is going to happen is the round is going to act like a lever no matter its length and it is going to follow the angle. With a shorter round and reasonable angle the round will penetrate far enough into the target for it to stabilize and continue onwards but if your round is suddenly twice as long but still the same mass you have doubled the moment arm meaning the same amount of torque from the off angle impact is likely going to cause significantly more deflection possibly to the point of snapping the rod where the halves connect and at the very least cause it to slap the armor partially side on which isn't going to penetrate much.
@@LordOceanus Otoh if you happen to manage a flat hit-the forward shaft of the trailing telescope design will essentially act as a ballistic cap-helping the rod behind it penetrate even further. That'd require some very specific situations and angles that I think would be so rare as to be unwarranted to set space aside for this kind of round.
It isn't unheard of-the Germans used to set aside some space in the Panzer III for a special tungsten penetrator round. The round had similar specs as these ones too, best effect was at close range on a flat surface. The special round's performance on an oblique angle was basically similar to the 50mm standard AP round however and for that reason as well as shortages of tungsten the Wehrmacht discontinued it. That was a much smaller round though and space for something like a 120mm round is way more premium.
Interesting concept, but I see at least two drawbacks. First is the changing of the center of gravity/pressure when telescoping which could adversely affect accuracy. Second, where the two sections meet is a weak spot and would form a fulcrum for the penetrator to snap when hitting sloped armor.
I imagine the changing center of gravity could be compensated for with a firing calculation. But yes the weak point probably wouldn’t do well against angled armour.
@@antman2826 sure ? th-cam.com/video/MQCTTSWdrBI/w-d-xo.html
I feel like the weak point problem could be solved by creating a larger overlap section between the sleeve and the core. It will sacrifice some penetration but will greatly prevent any wobbling of the projectile.
also maybe costs
at these speeds and with metal, snapping isnt a problem.
Wow really cool. Would be very helpful interesting to see how nera affects them
I thought when the rod hits the plate the extended part would go back in since the main tube would be slower
Yes definitely. It would go back immediately on impact make whole thing unnecessary to make l and probably reducing its effectiveness because it's not solid = more energy would go into vibrations etc
The extended part does actually go back in slowly, but the velocity of the tail of the sleeve is only slightly less than its original velocity...there is not enough time for it to decelerate as it erodes so quickly; because of this, the extended part stays mostly extended
@@SYsimulations it makes sense from this perspective
@@SYsimulations Can have some locking design to stop it going back at all as well. I am not sure how it will hold up though.
@@TuAFFalcon not necessary to make it locking when the whole event is over in milliseconds, not nearly enough time for any part of it to slow down a significant amount. I'm doubtful on the rod extending during flight though, the extra drag of the sleeve would be insignificant especially with the projectile being supersonic forming a sleeve of air around it.
Only thing I see as a problem for this design is the hollowed out tube of tungsten. Tungsten is extremely hard to deal with and could be too fragile to manufacture in that kind of shape in a large number. But if that is sorted, the 25 percent increase in penetration and the potential to defeat 3rd gen era might be the next generation of apfsds
Just use different materials. DU forward tube, tungsten rear rod. Maybe make separate piercing tip from tungsten and place it on DU tip.
Yes there’s a few solutions like changing the material to depleted uranium or something less brittle than tungsten or overall redesigning this concept
Friend: "hey you want Tapas?"
Me: "no, I want TAPFSDS"
Now this is an interesting concept
That test came completely opposite to my expectations. Good work dude, hope to see more test against angled targets.
your content is top notch! i really like that you link the references.
would de tailing design not be compromised by bending stresses of the rod generated angled armor ?
if you've seen these hit angled armour you can see how it doesn't seem to have all that much effect, at least not compared to regular AP. I assume its because of how high the velocity is.
@@Bruno-cb5gk
It does, well, not really what op is talking about. Not with a thick piece of rigid material (the video) or tightly packed pieces of rigid material (72 pure steel hull).
But when the material is loosely packed, ie maybe era is offset from the based armor at 25cm, or Leo 2 add on module (probably at least 50cm), the rod will experience extreme stress when it goes out of the material.
Rod will break apart any weak/en link of the rigid body. In this case, it will likely separate the sleeve from the main rod and cause some unexpected interaction.
@@jintsuubest9331 Its cool experiment for simulation but what about production cost? I would expect it to create more problems and price jump than just switching to 130mm guns with proportionaly bigger standard projectile.
@@Bialy_1 Switching the gun platform is definitely more expensive than switching apfsds design. It's a relatively simple passive mechanism as well. But as the video shows, making thinner projectile improves pen more. Problem is ERA or NERA performance, which is encountered by the telescopic design as well. I would suggest just using a sleeve of soft metal around a thinner core, but no telescoping. Shatter protection.
@@jintsuubest9331 yeah, well spaced armour and ERA is a different situation
First telescopic test shown I was already headed towards the comments to suggest flipping that jewel of a projectile around to get deeper penetration. Should have known you had it coming
I wonder if the accuracy of such a round would be acceptable for the increased terminal performance?
you dont have any idea of what you are saying and you wouldn't understand the answer anyway
I’d imagine the accuracy wouldn’t decrease too poorly, though it depends on how the final centre-of-mass to centre-of-pressure comes out to
@@ataphelicopter5734 If both outer and inner halves are of the same volume/mass, the only thing that could perhaps affect accuracy is the shell being longer mid-flight AKA making the fins less effective at stabilising so it would require longer fins. That's something we don't see in this simualtion since the shell is right beside the armor, if it would of been destabilised and had verged off it would of been before way before that distance to armor. Also, the end of the outer section could maybe cause extra drag if its not curved towards the inner part.
@@krusokat If you did you wouldn't be here acting like this
@@VenerhiaStellarvore
Wouldn't a longer projectile be more stable?
11k subs already. Ready for lift off my friend!
Would not the round stay compacted due to vaccum forces?
also would like to see the different material and post penetration effects on 120mm DM33 PELE type of round vs Regular APFSDS.
There’s probably a small hole in the sleeve to allow air to enter
@@mocmeo9356 with the speed of the round and the shock cone infront, i dont think that is viable but i could be wrong
@@evilreddog just have the propellant in the shell fill that vacuum, as easy as that
@@dercraven3161 there is no bleed element on it and the telescoping effect would not occure until after the sabot had been seperated outside of the barrel, so i dont think that is possible either
@@dercraven3161 no that doesn't work
And I learned something! But how would you secure the inner core for firing?
Depleted Uranium long rod penetrators are self sharpening and don't form a "mushroom" at the front like tungsten but rather a point due to the pyrophoricity properties of depleted uranium
Russian 125mm apfsds ammunition manufatures be taking notes now for their max length problem
Doesnt work IRL due to ballistic issues. Its a "good on paper" design
This is one of those channels that makes me love youtube. Did I ever look for this? No (well I mean I searched 'sy simulations apfsds' after seeing another one of your vids but you get my point). Does this stimulate my brain? Absolutely.
Makes sense... Frontal part is wider, so it creates wider cavity. Once it is expended, the more narrow part enters an already prepared cavity, thus making its job easier; less resistance from material
Love to see this against Spaced armour
Something interesting to try out with 500 mm length projectile: 3 steel sheets 10mm each clamped together at 60-65 degree angle, with the plates being able to move (separately) like a cm upon impact. After that there's 3 variations, a 1000 mm, 500 mm or 200 mm of free space ending in a flat witness block (or angled at 35 degrees, whichever is preferred). Simulating the approximate wedge armour for the Leopard 2A5, though the composition of it's add-on armour is still largely unknown, it just looks like 3 plates with that approximate thickness on the pictures (ignoring the other plate inside that doesn't really cover the whole cheek). It would be nice to see if that would have any effect compared to not having such a wedge.
EDIT: From the pictures I've come to believe it's more likely a 3 layered system with the first two being wedge shell itself. Being approx. 10 mm steel - 5 mm rubber/ceramics - 10 steel, then 20mm of free space and then the same configuration of 10-5-10, all that is angled at 60-65 degrees. Then there's approx a meter space within which the rod touches one more plate that is angled in a different direction. Being about the same 10-5-10 approx. composition but angled horizontally between 40 and 70 degrees. This third layer would sit like a triangle inside the wedge, so the incoming projectile might interact with one (in the middle of the free space) or multible such plates (in the beginning and end), depending on where it hits. It might be quite difficult to model because the plates are angled in different directions.
What keeps the telescopic rod from collapsing at impact? I.e if it extends due to inertia (or som other mechanism during launch) I'm curious what kind of locking mechanism can withstand the forces on impact without allowing it to collapse to its original length again
What stopes the tailing part of the projectile from sliding back into the "piston cavity" at the point of impact. Shouldn't the projectile slide back into it's retracted State In both cases (hollow cinder part at front or back of the projectile)? Since the extension of the projectile is caused mainly by air drag, impact of the front part of the projectile should slow it considerably enough so the rear part catches up. I'm interested if it actually works, or if is it just simplification for simulation sake :D. Great vid anyway, keep it up!
I have the same question, so I'm replying to get notified of you get an answer
Seconded
As long as the front part keeps moving at around the initial velocity by the time it’s eroded away, the rear part won’t have any reason to slide forwards. If the front part stopped right after hitting armor, the rear would slide forwards.
The issue is that you are thinking of it like a solid projectile. At these velocities, the materials act more like a liquid.
There simply isn't much slowing down, as the force required to be transferred to change the velocity of the rod quick enough for we to see the front slow down relative to the rear, is far beyond the force the material can handle.
The telescope is free to slide back into the sleeve, but the tail of the sleeve stays close to its original velocity, so it only slightly slides back inside...the parts are modelled separately and with a low coefficient of friction so theres nothing stopping them from sliding back together, but there isnt enough time for it to decelerate so it doesnt
Looks awesome. I wonder what the sabot should be like especially for the trailing telescoping version, to be able to clamp the trailing part in place when firing.
Wow fascinating I’ve never heard of (or imagined) a telescopic sabot. Curious about the real world effectiveness as mentioned in the video that “a higher detail model that examines whether the trailing core really goes into the sleeve” upon impact (I’m no expert but my gut says it wouldn’t)
Great video as always
I'm very curious how this performs against more complex arrays + ERA. I could see the sheathing getting crushed/fractured, but I'm unsure how much that would translate to the rod in the rear. It may make sense to make that interface as weak as possible, thereby having a super long break off tip sort of like what M829A3 has.
Also what material did you use for the sheathing? In that case it might make sense to have a high strength steel.
This is great work! I see you are getting closer to making an idealized future APFSDS. It would also be super interesting to see a hypothetical future armor design (glacis, turret, and hull/turret sides) and see how the future and present APFSDS does against. In this scenario, we would just allocate a certain amount of areal density and thickness that could be used. I would be happy to help out with that!
I know it's NREA all the way down in recent designs, but I've been seeing some papers suggest that using at the front and rear to initiate heat jet breakup/completely fracture a damaged long rod is much more mass efficient than NREA arrays. Especially with nano ceramics these days. I believe the reason they aren't being used in current tanks is due to low ceramic quality when the armor packages were updated and higher costs. But the T-80U did use some ceramics (not the quartz filler stuff).
Shoot me an email if you think coming up with a next gen armor layout would be fun! You should have it from the previous email.
Can you try to simulate the empty turret extension of Leopard 2A5?
Do you have the schematic of Leo 2 turret extension? You just answered your question.
Why would you need a schematic when there a picture of the inside of it.
Its just a hollow extension over the a4 turret
Better than war thunder analysis of projectiles
Wouldnt the tail of the apfsds just slam back into it as soon as it hits the armor? Since it just extends due. to the drag on the fins, unless theres some kind of lock that would survive that kinda impact
Is this a real prototype or entirely your own invention? Very very impressive and worth zillion dollars' military contracts tho
Some designs are presented in this pdf apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA387329.pdf, although it's from 2001.
Any plans on conducting a more detailed simulation of the trailing telescopic apfsds? I'd be very interested
At some point, yes
I wonder if leading telescoping APFSDS would work better if the front part was PELE? Then the cavity would be wider to allow the rest to fit through.
I love telescoping-anything and this idea of extendable projectile design would open a whole can of worms lol, at least to me.
Definitely an interesting idea. The obvious issue with the telescopic design is the strength when coming up against other more modern factors such as ERA and APS systems. Perhaps if a stronger material was lining the inside as well as with the telescoping part there would be an improvement to the strength. The question then would become one of cost. Would it be worth making more expensive rounds rather than changing the gun for a bigger one.
The slender round is so good because its going so fast. Realistically, the cannon only shoots a projectile so fast before it cant go any faster.
man this stuff is amazing, got a patreon page or something?
Tungsten monolith with a large meplat (core diameter) under the ballistic cap. The large flat meplat is commonly used in elephant bullets to promote straight line penetration. My thinking is it may help normalize the penetration angle on highly sloped armor.
x-ray category for tank nerds
It seems that the benefit of the trailing telescope design is that on penetration the forward shaft essentially serves as a ballistic cap.
Coolest shit in the universe. Such a simple mechanical idea going so far.
If you measure penetration in projectile calibers (T/D) you will note that the penetration of the 30-cal-length thin projectile fired at the much higher muzzle velocity is even greater than when just noted in mm. It seems that the striking velocity, not the weight, is the most important factor here. This is also true of face-hardened Krupp-Cemented-type 20th-Century battleships naval side armor, with increasing the weight of a shell having a given kinetic energy is much less effective than keeping the weight the same and upping the velocity to give the same KE total. The thicker the hard face, the weaker the armor becomes as shell diameter increases relative scaling), however, so increasing the weight by making the shell wider for a given total KE value is also better for penetration. RHA reacts differently to impacts, of course.
Trailing telescopis APFSDS can be used to make APHEFSDS, insane tech, no?
Cool stuff!
Very cool idea.
In-flight stability and accuracy? Unknown/questionable? And probably would be very expensive to manufacture.
Would love to see a more detailed animation :)
How long would it take for the trailing section to extend? Like would it be more effective at long range than short range due to the distance required to make it extend? Also, when it hits a slope, wouldn't the hollow part collapse, reducing penetration?
This is a very interesting topic, great video!
That trailer round was just confusing as hell. Never seen a telescoping device extend backwards (core). Usually like my Dyson vacuum parts it gets smaller as it extends forward not larger (unless I do it backwards?...)
Now do a model of a segmented rod. If you like those results, change the segments to aluminum and the strike face to Nitrogen gas to simulate atmospheric entry onto a moon like Titan. Ergo the use of long rod penetration data might be extremely useful in lowering the cost of planetary exploration 😁
Interesting idea.. I wonder how much the air trapped within the hollow tube will dampen & slow the solid core…. Just a thought that came to me & now I really gotta know the answer.
Request: Can you do a video simulating the leo 2a7 turrent armour, the triangulated spaced RHA vs Sabot Rod.
I think it would be neat to see how the spacing disrupts the different lengthed rods from 500mm to 750mm
Wondering if the telescoping apfsds might have the benefit of detonating any reactive armor so the main body is less effected by the explosive force....???
I want to see the segmented telescoptic version: the half-half :)
You gonna make more simulations about the telescoping apfsds?
What will be the case when the projectile hits an angled block
Americans: "Shut up and take my money!"
It doesnt have any depleted uranium so no
@@banegas0411 We can fix that.
Add sum white phosphorus, just in case...
I'm actually curious if the telescopic design can give better flight performance and, overall, better accuracy?
If it were backward, would it have more penetration? Since the bigger sleeve might create a hole for the core to go through.
Edit: I didn't watch the whole video
this kind of assumes that wont be bucking and etc. I dont know at this speeds what would happen, but did you look into that? also, a bit of angling of the round or the armor might mean much
Think about and analyze the following. A projectile is fired at a target. The core of the projectile is a spent uranium tipped tungsten penetrator. The penetrator is backed by a cup that contains an explosive. The cup is not attached to the penetrator but has a mild pressed connection. Once the projectile hits a target an explosive accelerator is triggered accelerating the penatrator into the target. The cup that adds area to accelerate the penetrator forces the penetrator forward but is not attached so does not add drag to the penetrator. Allowing the penatrator to continue to deeply penetrate the target. Tungsten adds mass and rigidity while the spent uranium tip reduces the nuclear pollution of a full spent uranium rod but enables penetration as it remains sharp in penetration and does not mush like tungsten tends to.
That's just HEAT but worse... You're wasting mass that could be part of the penetrator to effectively shoot the projectile a second time
That's one really neat idea. Wonder if it can be done with bullets.
Have you tried hybrid DU/tungsten(lengthwise) penetrator? Will it mushroom out when the penetration reaches material switch?
They are pretty tough I've held a fired DU penetrator before and it was barely bent on the fins.. (was a miss obviously). Desert Storm era..
@@N4CR I mean that while tungsten is more dense, DU breaks off on contact differently. So it's better to have DU in contact area, but have the rear of the rod made out of tungsten to increase its overall mass. Yes/no?
Unrealistic, the thin core would slam right back into the sleeve when the sleeve hits the target due to the sleeve slowing down before the thin core
The impact event is so short that the sleeve barely slows down as the nose erodes...so the core doesn't have time to collapse
@@SYsimulations YET for some reason the US department of the Army decided it was necessary to include a locking mechanism: patents.google.com/patent/US7036434B1/en?q=F42B14%2f061
Was this simulation performed using Ls-dyna?
So like the "sleeve" is extended mid flight or right out the barrel? And by any other mechanism or by seer force of the round leaving the barrel?
I doubt the projectile would extend in flight, the fins just wouldn't have enough drag to Force the two apart, with friction, air displacement, and the whole flight lasting a very short time
I would imagine APS would be very effective against this, but the idea is strikingly simple yet seemingly effective
Future APFSDS
The mini Sabot realy made a dent in the monolith. Along with how the tail extension created a cavity for the Sabot to travel alittle farther.
Would like to see this how this type of round works against a modern german tank(2019+current) Or maybe a M1A2sep3+(2016+current)
Super interesting! Would 1740m/s for DM63 from a L55 have any significant improvement of performance?.
Thanks, and yes, that round would still penetrate more than any shown here
Could you simulate the telescopic ones against composite armor?
I wonder how effective it would be having a sleeve made of tungsten while having a thinner core made of depleted uranium for the telescoping apfsds
Why would you even do this?
Honestly, depleted uranium doesn’t present much of a better material in terms of penetration, so it likely wouldn’t help much
What happens to the material (penetrator and armor) displaced from the cavity? Does the surrounding material get a lot denser? Why doesn't the surrounding material rebound back into the cavity or push the surrounding armor outward?
What happens for the spend material. It isn't ejected from the cavity, nor does it turn to thin air
What about the effects of a "double tap"-- two half-sized APFSDS projectiles hitting the same spot, one a couple of miliseconds after the other? Doubt it'd change much for homogenous armour but could be interesting to see how it'd sim vs ERA, NERA and APS systems.
@Donot see this Pls send. I'm interested.
@Donot see this Please send me this software too. I'm interested to see what you are using.
Me seeing the first Telescopic APFSDS: "Why not just reverse the core and sleeve so that the larger sleeve would hit first and create bigger hole, then the following core would punch through the remaining armor?"
Me seeing the Trailing-Telescopic APFSDS: "Damn, I was right all along."
Very interesting.
How do you do these simulations? Is there just a software you can plug values into and press render?
Are you modelling the hoop strength of the outer tube? It does not seem to be. The lateral tensile strain on the outer wall should be some cosign of the deceleration force, which... is quite high.
I doubt this would do much, the penetration of the sleeve is probably greatly overestimated. Might be useful for detonating ERA before the penetrator hits.
I guess there's a fine balance between length and density here. If velocities are the same that is.
Netflix: are you still watching?
Random daughter:
cool Projectile
This seems like it would be more prone to deflection but angled armor or era
Isnt the armour just gonna fill in the gap left by the core?
Do the simulations actually model the aerodynamics accurately?
wouldn't the telescopic part just get pushed back into the tube on impact?
I thought the telescoping APFSDS is related to CTA(Cased Telescopic Ammunition).
Is this ANSYS or any other software???
@Donot see this thanks bro ...
@Donot see this is it better than Ansys
@@harunabd7247 i haven't tried ansys but i believe its more user friendly than abaqus
@@SYsimulations 👍
@Donot see this use just have to use abaqus explicit and follow TH-cam tutorials and look at scientific papers...its not an easy software to use though
Wouldn't angles, ERA/NERA and APS have a greater effect on a longer rod?
militaries around the world are probably doing all the testing just like this guy is, if they find out what works best they'd definitely keep it classified
Can you do double apfsds that is connected inside of the barrel? Two apfsds + charge connected after loading.
Why doesn't the tail slide back forward when the front impacts?
This would solve a lot of problems for tanks using the carousel autoloader. Combine this with that German non-sensitive propellant...
Do you have simulations of HEAT rounds? I can't find
Always wondered why they dont do APFSDS rounds with some sort of explosive penetrator in the rear, so the rod makes partial penetration and then the explosive penetrator can finish the job?
Or maybe I just dont know shit about tanks and ballistics.
Can you do simulation of behavior of a stock price based on historic data
Did this simulate the interior core being free moving, or locked in place at the end of the tube?
free moving; it can slide back insode but the tube doesnt decellerate much
wouldnt ERA displace the shaft of the projectile so that it would also take the telescopic fin with it?
This might be useful for the leopard 2 A5 and A6 spaced armor of it's turret.
"Step tank, what are you doing?"