Renault FT-17 vs Mark V | Armor Penetration Simulation
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.พ. 2022
- Simulation of Renault FT-17 tank projectile hitting the frontal armor of Mark V tank
37mm AP Mle 1892 (0.5 kg APHE) at 370 m/s
vs
Mark V hull front armor (16mm)
Renault FT-17 tank 37mm SA18 L/21 gun muzzle velocity (APHE) - 388 m/s. 370 m/s refers to a distance of approximately 50 m.
I have not found any relevant schemes, so the elements of the structure are based on the available photos.
Thumbnail picture credit:
@TanksEncyclopediaYT - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Reminds me of when french tanks came to war thunder and a couple of them had ww1 cannons with 18mm of penetration. That was pain
Gaijin was dumb to put anti-infantry tanks like h35 and FCM36 in game, without modernisation of guns (long 37mm) and munitions. Real cannon folder
@@ambravirlebreton They literally had the stats of the long 37mm for 2 years, then with gamewide penetration calculation changed got changed into the shit pen, and were taken away from the reserve rooster(you can unlock them by reaching French rank II tanks now).
remember the tank with a fuse delay longer than the penetration value?
Heh almost spaded all of those crappy tanks. Pain
@@ambravirlebreton it was them committing a bit too much to "realism." In the real world many, many french tanks designed with the newer 37mm in mind ended up being equipped with the old SA 18 from the FT (and sometimes even the FT's turret as well) because the gov't waited until 1937-38 to actually start producing the tanks and guns, even they knew well even before that point that France did not have the manufacturing capability to put out the shit ton of tanks they wanted in a short amount of time (which is why many of their tanks were designed to accept the SA 18 or even the Renault FT turret- they from the start knew that they'd need to reuse the old stuff because there simply would not be enough new stuff to go around).
BTW If you're wondering why they waited so long to start making new stuff, the French gov't was scared of the French Army leading a coup at the time, so they elected to let them design new equipment, but not greenlight the large-scale production, *intentionally gimping their army.*
its amazing how brittle it is, and how flimsily the armour is held together
I mean, that's exactly why this type of armor was never good against high calibers or HE.
or anything above machine gun fire
If you hit the rivets yes
Well what did you expect? These are first generation tanks, tank on tank combat wasn't the design of these machines
The Italians use riveted armor during ww2 because there industry wasn't up to snuff yet
That spray of shrapnel though the gap it created explains the use of the chainmail facemasks the tank crew used
Though mail cannot fully protect high velocity paticles when plate can do the job unless fast enough to cause plate to spall too.
@@Aereto exactly, though i wonder why the joint was not place on the inside, i think that would prevent most of the shrapnel through the gap issue
@@DeltagodAndFriends perhaps mounting and riveted from the outside than inside in a labor intensive assembly line.
@@Aereto that sounds right, might be less protected if the rivet was flipped due to being on the inside
Barely did anything, but I'll bet (from what I've read) those rivets won't hold well against even a contact HE shot.
You notice those particle flying behind the armor, thats a ded Nigel.
@@jintsuubest9331 At that speed and size it wouldn't be enough to kill, maybe not even harm.
Over 100 m/s. One-third the muzzle velocity of shotgun.
@@alanwatts8239 ??? Do you even know what you are talking about?
@@the_burger Yes, i do. Do you?
It’s terrifying to think that any sizable shell [even if it doesn’t penetrate your armored plate] Could potentially trap shot it’s way through the riveted gaps as it deforms and shrapnel into the crew.
It’s not even the rivets breaking off and bouncing around, It’s razor sharp metal fragments slipping their way through your armor.
Probably not razor sharp, but red hot from friction, and traveling fast.
Which is why they come up with chain mail face masks to protect against this type of shrapnel.
@@PilotTed Couldn’t they just put the chain mail behind the gaps?
@@Sha.ll0w Every plate and join is riveted, and vision slits on 26+ft long, 12+ft wide and 8ft+ high riveted box = lotsa chain mail. Just covering 8 guys' faces is easier. Bullet splash (hot lead literally) gets under joins and thru vision slots. It was hell in a iron basket even without the hot lead stinging your bare skin.
Could be worse could be badly heat treated russian tank (most of them) and just get bunch of shrpnel from spawling into your face, without penetration
That is impressive armour performance from Mark V. I was under impression that it is incapable of withstanding anything more than machine gun fire and artillery shrapnel. Here it took a cannon hit like a real champ!
Yes but the hit was on the sloped part of the armour, most part of the tank is flat so i think that the proyectile can pen with ease
Theoretically, the cannon has lower penetration than the German MG 34 7.92mm SmKH projectile
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Lets give the worst shell design award to the French!
@@REgamesplayer It was not even designed to fight other tanks but to fire at MG nests
@@monfortnicolas5448 It is a shell fired from a cannon!
Its strange when you realize tank armor was less than 20mm back then
Yeah, which is somehow more protection than the battle taxis we had (MT-LB & BTR-60) or the Greeks (M113) across the border... and from a cursory lookup, most APCs are still basically rated to resist up to.50cal or 14.5mm... which makes the doctrine of mounted warfare just a spectacular way to get people killed
@@bk109 i mean the alternative way to mounted warfare is to tell troops to march by foot, I'm not sure that's safer in any way
@@andersonrobotics5608 Eh, ironically that's safer (after arriving in battle) than having 13 people in a poorly armoured box, with limited firing arcs and visibility that can be killed by an ATGM from 3-4km's away. After all, if you spread out a bit, you can use every little terrain feature to survive that bit longer and fight longer.
@@bk109 ye , that why they dismount in battle zones. they speed through normal transit using their vehicles though
@@andersonrobotics5608 Not always, lol, at least the doctrine our brain trust had. Basically if we had to attack the Greeks on the Xanthi sector, we were supposed to fight 'mounted', so we retained tactical mobility and speed. Then again, most of our projections were for us to A) be on the defence and B)have an expected effective life expectancy (as a combat unit) of 2-3 hours. I fully concede that either our doctrine was different/wrong... or the brass on our sector decided to skip the training we'd never live to use (in a war) and focus on other stuff like small arms training
Thank you so much for doing my request!
Great work! Pretty clearly shows the issues with riveted armor
I laughed when I saw the tiny dent it made on the other side in the first clip
Goddamn it’s amazing how far tanks have come. That howitzer was terrible lol
Wow! finally, congrats on finding a workaround.
Pretty happy my idead went into the video, kinda feel like and influnecer)))
Oh, yeah, the sheer amount of force would probably stretch those rivets, even if everything was welded together to be airtight.
Also, a request - can you please do a simulation of a small missile (Javelin) detonating above the armor of a tank?
Yeah, we need to see what those Ukrainian Javelins are doing to those T-80s and T-90s
He should include the reactive armor, and maybe the anti javelin cages the Russians are also using. Might be a lot to ask though
If only javs actually reliably hit the roof of a tank instead of slamming into the turret side at an angle
@@commitselfdeletus9070 *detonating above
They're shaped charge proximity explosives.
@@wtel9536 I think you’re confusing them with the Tow-2B, jav has always been impact. Though at least it has tandem I’ll give it that. A simple google search for a javelin cutout will suffice if you don’t believe me
It looks like it's "spraying" the shrapnel through the gap in the plates. It seems unlikely, but would something simillar happen IRL?
100% yes, drivers of these tanks literally wore chainmail masks due to even bullets causing shrapnel/spalling.
Yes, it's the original reason why tankers starting wearing helmets and goggles during WW1, even if the shots didn't penetrate some "lead splash" would slip through the cracks in the riveted armor and cause minor injuries to crewmen nearby, potentially blinding someone if they didn't have goggles.
These simulations are realistic so yes and the other reply’s explain why
@@theflyingfish66 Yeah youtube videos don't usually show it but projectiles literally splatter. Even dust stains from them happen.
T-34s driver hatch had a weird plank under it; it was here to stop the shrapnel from going in the gap between the front plate and the hatch.
Dang, it's amazing to see how much tanks have advanced over the years.
very happy to see a ww1 simulation! I'd love to see the FT-17 get hit on the driver's hatch
driver hatch was the same plate thinkness as all the rest from the tank
The request was really worthed for such results
I'll suggest again on simulating a Reverse Bullet from a rifle and how it could do damage to a Mark 1/Mark 3 tank. I want to know if it penetrates or just spalls the armor.
Ok
I've read a report on a Mk IV shot so many times with machine-guns that it was silver bright new shiny steel all over.
@@gitfoad8032 German HMG (MG 08) could even devestate the Mark V tanks
I read about a British WW1 tank commander who wondered why the gunners weren't firing. Turned out the sponson armour hadn't been treated properly, and the MG bullets went straight through.
@@FrankJmClarke - that's what 'inspector' Knox promised when I accused him of criminal conspiracy to cover-up murder. DL, UK.
A lot better than I would have expected, I would have guessed at popping a rivet head at least from the impact point.
That was really interesting, not remotely what i expected.
Now if the impact force on the armor had been enough would the simulation have shown the riveting spalling off, as it was prone to do?
Can you make reversed K bullets against it?
Ok
Thank you, sir. I've been waiting for this
Ah yes - this is what we've been asking for
Thanks
You could say this is quite rivetting
Can you do one where the bolts are hit. They said that if the rivets are hit, the bolts become projectiles that could injure the crew. Can you show where the rivets are hit by an explosive round
Good vid! Can you make Another with the shell dissabling the ribbets? (Excuse my poor english)
Good to see the 'splash' between the joints which caused so many injuries to the early tank crews
after some time, did the tank crews use face masks to protect from shards
Yes in the beginning tank crews were supplied with a face mask. Thin slots to look through in the metal eyepieces and chain mail to protect the lower part of the face. Found to be impractical and soon discarded. An extremely rare item today
*radio static* "That one bounced!"
Surprisingly effective, though I suppose WW1 tanks were designed to resist MG fire and low-velocity artillery shells.
Interesting
that is a tough 16mm 😳
What about more powerful shots? Maybe Kwk 38 vs medium tank M3's sloped frontal plate, mm?
In the moddel, what were the rivets made out of? Were they also made out of rolled homogenous armor or were they made out of structural steel?
Structural steel
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 T92 HMC please vs a maus or big German cat please I beg.
0:14 Bully McFT-17: _"Gonna put some __-dirt-__ hot metal fragments in your eye."_ _"Stings, doesn't it?"_
The first angle is just priceless😂
Could you do a British WW1 era howitzer HE shell vs the 30mm frontal armor of the German K-Wagon?
That spall.
Oof, that ‘dust’ that gets under the rivets into the tank I’m guessing would be red hot and melt whatever crewman was there. Nasty
How about adding a shot that hits the plate that holds the rivets or a rivet directly? Guess it would turn the inside part of the rivet into a projectile in its own right.
Oooo, what about a sim to see if hitting a rivet sends the other side like a bullet inside the tank?
Impressive stuff. This is the Mark V which is much tougher than the Mark I which could be penetrated by Maxim 7.92 AP rounds.
The Mle 1892 37mm was only made to penetrate torpedo boats and light cover, the hardened Mk V armour is proof against it. Of course at that time they couldn't weld that sort of metal so rivets was the only option.
The Puteaux SA 18 was a vehicle version of the Canon d'Infanterie de 37 modèle 1916 TRP which was used against pill boxes and MG nests, usually only protected by about 8mm of armour. The Canon d'Infanterie de 37 modèle 1916 TRP was itself a scaled down version of the famous Canon de 75 modèle 1897 "French '75".
-Commander, what was that sound?
-It was sound of British engineering, my friend.
would this simulate the rivets popping too I think one of them disconected
Can you do some more riveted armor please
It’s pretty intriguing see those particles slipping through the rivet plate to the inside, it has shotgun velocity, I don’t know if it’s enough to kill, butt it’ll probably injure or blind someone.
Ding ding ding! Thats correct, its why tank crews would wear helmet and chainmail masks. And also part of the reason for why riveted armour fell out of fashion
@@thepoglin8479 Makes sense, didn’t really know why they wore chainmail face coverings makes more sense now!
@@thepoglin8479 riveted armour was still use during ww2 on some tanks, for example the french tank B1b who did resists at all 1940 german tanks, but some soviet tanks did use riveted plates up to end the war and riveted plates was use up to end the war on light armored vehicles
@@leneanderthalien early british tanks used riveted armour as there werent enough welders who knew how to make normal armour
Could you make this but with the German 5.7mm gun of the A7V firing at it
Ого. Клас. Топове відео. Не думав що у вас навіть таке порівняння є. Думав 37мм. Рено проб'є броню Марка
Хоча дивлюсь в основному по сучасній бронетехніці. Актуально в нинішній війні в Україні!
Shows the danger of Riveted armor nice
Could you do an RPG-7 shaped charge on an armor plate simulation?
You should make Mark V and FT vs the Tankgewehr :)
Lol thats a change of pace compared to other sims on this channel XD
Wow, I always thought the old timey armor they had wasn't actually good enough for other tank/cannon rounds. Clearly the very next shot would break the rivets, but still, I thought it would eat right through.
Well even then. Theres a reason riveted armour isnt used anymore
@@thepoglin8479 yeah I know. I just thought the steel quality itself wouldn't be strong enough. That bullets was really all it was rated for. If I'm not mistaken, the steel used is worse then modern tool steel. Nothing to do with the rivets, even tho those are bad
What about NLAW or Javelin against russian T-72B3?
Are you making these in ls dyna? If so can you make a tutorial for how to model these!?
Autodyn solver, in explicit Dynamics. I made few tutorials
Hey Dejmian, I have an idea for a video, if you will.
Some time ago (I think in 1998), near an Italian town of Cavalese, EA-6B, US jet clipped a cablecar line and 20 people died. Maybe you can recreate the event? A jet's wing hitting a thick steel cable on which the car was moving? I know it's not an 'orthodox' video, but nevertheless interesting. I have no idea why a jet didn't lose it's wing, those cables are massive.
And many thanks for your work, I'm watching every video with interest!
Odds are the cablecar is already under optimal tension, while the airframe has its own situational tension before it yields.
@@Aereto I was looking for detailed info, but found nothing. Was the line cut? Or it just got pushed hard enough to make the car fall? How was the wing? Did it have any structural deformation even though it was not broken?
That's what I wanted to learn :)
@@TheRedSkullx I don't see an aluminium wing spar cutting those cables. I've seen cables in person sectioned for German cable cars, they are as thick as your wrist (50mm) and have a breaking strain of 261,000 tonnes.
There is no way in gods green earth and aluminium wing spar is cutting that cable, it's why they used cable balloons in WW2.
Secondly it's same BS as WTC. tens of 54" box frame with inches of steel on all sides.. yeah nope.
@@N4CR5 Okay, so what do you think happened?
@@TheRedSkullx From what i remember the wing did sustain damage, in the form of a deformation/hole after the impact, but the damage wasn't critical enough to destroy the surface controls or just tear the whole thing apart
pls 130mm s-70 vs maus
Woaw
Could you do a simulation of russian cope cages against a tandem shape charge?
Can you do HESH vs Abrams turret ring
Bong!! You got a little dent lol 😆
Was expecting to see sheered rivet heads flying around the crew compartment.
Dejmian when it comes to KE simulations: UNLIMITED POWEEER
Dejmian when CE simulation: I am too weak
Hey, how about the reversed. It's interesting to see how the effect since it really used by german soldier
did not have anti tank weapons, only 13mm "panzer rifles", but they efficiency was limited
What about FT-17 vs A7V German tank?
wow, the mark 1 held up very well, I'm surprised
Can you simulate IS-2 shell against Tiger 2 front armour?
He already did check his other videos.
A little bit of spall liner and the boys will be fine. A slightly more energetic impact would definitely yield different results though.
Rivets are quite strong.
Just a question: but was the tension of installation of the rivets simulated. Typically when you use rivets in the construction of anything, it is done in a way where the rivets are clamping down between the two plates they are sandwiching.
rivets, bolts, welds technically. Even the rolled plates themselves would have internal stresses.
@@Tuning3434 that’s true, however bolts and rivets are more of a purposeful application of internal stresses. Ignoring that would be a gross misinterpretation of what is happening, especially if you were trying to see if any of the rivets were to pop.
Has anybody simulated M103s M358 shot against IS-3 pike/turret? Curious as to the effect since that was going to be the intended target.
What about 75mm he shell vs renault ft17 frontal armor?
Thought I'd see rivet bits flying.
Now Im actually curious about armor and penetration for the A7V and Saint Chamond
the st Chamond was LESS armored (11,5mm at main armor) as the Renault FT (16mm at main armor)
so even tho the plate stays together the shrapnells could still potentially kill someone from the inside on that small gap
No APCRDSBCHEAT back then??
Jagtiger goes brrr.
Iirc small arms fire was able to get between the seams of those plates.
Was this hit too weak to pop the rivets? (And is that possible to be modeled)
Yes and no. The rivets had a very low speed and it would take ages for them to pop out over the simulation timescale.
I'd like to see this with a modern shell.
can we see 2a3 kondensator vs maus?
Could you do the reversed bullet Germans use against tanks ?
did only have 13mm panzer rifles , similar to the actual 12,7mm (cal50) anti material rifles, but they efficiency was low...
So, that's a few popped rivets then? Dangerous things.
no pen but some inside spalling. make sense to wear some fragmentation protection when being under the tank
But what happens if that shot is placed between the panels?
Whats interesting is that France was still using the FT-17 gun in 1940. They just took them of decomisioned FT-17s put them on the new tank.
The bolt on brackets flex a bit, a kind of NERA.
i'd like to see more of these WW1 tank simulations, they're definitely boring due to how thin the armor is but its interesting to see
can we get a sim of a T-72BU getting hit with a javelin from the top
bonk!
The FT guns were not meant to penetrate armor. Some FTs were MG-armed and some were gun-armed. They were meant to be deployed in vast numbers as infantry support against enemy infantry.
true, there where no tanks to fight because the germans did not have tanks in ww1, except a very small number of extreme bulky tanks with very low efficiency
@@leneanderthalien The early english tanks were also a danger to themselves and generally terrible for their own crews.
Could you do this armor versus 6pdr roundshot?
Er, a high-velocity cannonball?
doest exists in ww1
@@leneanderthalien I know that. But I'd still like to see it.
Can you test M735 APFSDS Vs Chieftain Mark 5 turret?
Straight through, next.
Bonk
Who's knockin?
No filler detonation ?
I've heard that in WWII a rivetted tank appeared and they had already loaded a 75mm HE before spotting it. They thus shot it at the tank in order to be able to load AP. However, the tank got killed by the HE...
thats more likely the HE pushing the rivets into the tank and basically turning them into small bullets, not like whats shown here
@@desertdesmond6736 if I remember correctly, the armour plates fell off after the hit making it an obvious kill even at a distance.
Would be interesting to see a british QF 6 pounder 6 cwt Mk I or a german 5.7 cm Maxim-Nordenfelt again their counterpart.
Can u make this.. but plane armor
Hmm, thought it might do more. Amazing the power of even common rifle calibers. I load my 30/06 with 150 grain/9.7 g pointed soft point bullets to a measured 3000 fps/1340 m/s, and at 50m this will fully perforate 1/2" / 13mm deck plate with a 90 degree strike. AP in this caliber is terrifyingly effective at its intended job... Full penetration of .375"/9.5mm, AR500 steel @ 50 meters, and just barely misses penetrating .5"/13mm AR500 steel. Same bullet will fully perforate 1" mild steel.
Was it an armor piercing projectile or an explosive one?
armor piercing did not exists in ww1: this was explosive rounds , anti personel and to destroy light concrete fortifications