CHIEFTAIN vs T-64A & T-72 Ural | Composite Armour Piercing Simulation | 120mm L15A5 APDS
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.ย. 2024
- The Chieftain and the T-64A represent the most powerful NATO and Soviet tanks from the 1960's, with the T-64 being the first mass produced tank in the World to use composite armour. This was comprised of textolite (similar to fibreglass) sandwiched between two RHA plates in an 80-105-20mm configuration. This same layout was used on the first T-72 tanks.
This textolite layer was mainly to improve protection against HEAT munitions, but at 700m, L15A5 can penetrate around 120mm of RHA at 68°, meaning the textolite, and the spacing it creates, provides a decent amount of additional protection against kinetic threats too. This armour arrangement could effectively resist all kinetic NATO rounds beyond 500m until the adoption of APFSDS in the late 70's.
A simplified fibreglass model was used for the textolite, with the results against L15 matching Soviet reports of the time: thesovietarmou...
Amazing thumbnail art from: @TanksEncyclopediaYT
L15A5 velocity/range: imgur.com/3Qad4WM
L15A5 penetration: pbs.twimg.com/...
Unfortunately the mesh had to be made coarser than normal for me to simulate this in a reasonable amount of time
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.6 (2/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GgeGQOP10RQ/mqdefault.jpg)
This is a best case scenario where the T-64 is completely head on; even a slight angle would prevent perforation completely.
I will try to refine the model and mesh further as an array of this thickness took a long time for my pc to simulate...
Could you try a Tiger 2 Long 88 Vs a Super Pershing's front plates?
@@cezarysztolc6856 good idea! I'd love to see how that spaced armour fairs. Gotta see how accurate war thunder is lol.
I really appreciate the effort you put down making these simulations for us. One question I have is what are the specs of the computer you are using for running these simulations?
So what about the round used by the British challenger in the first gulf War to defeat an export (I believe) T-64 tank making it the longest ranged kill in history?
@@tmac2797 would be cool to see a turret shot aswell
Imagine being the driver, and the core of the round just lands in your lap.
That would burn. Itd still be very hot
@@TheT-90thatstaresintoyoursoul While that is true, I rather take burns to the lap than death.
@@thestig3163 personal preference
It depends if it landed in your lap at a couple of hundred metres per second I suppose.
No it would turn you into paste...
It is really interesting to know how was real capabilities of most powerful tanks of the world, especially in case when they were not involved to some common conflicts, where they could meet each other. Thank you for your job, for sharing it with everyone of us.
well Chieftain was in heavy combat during the Kuwait Invasion and the Iran-Irak war.
In both cases Chieftain got hammered by iraqi T72 and T62 and showed extremly bad performence in more or less every engagement except one on the kuwaiti side.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 never know about it. Interesting fact. Actually, every case is absolutely unique and depends on crew skills, shell penetration capabilities, armouring, angling, reaction time, equipment conditions, even on crew moral factor, so it is almost absolutely unpredictable how the fight will end... At least now we can imagine what will happen if chieftain fire at T64A front plate)) it is also interesting what will happen if we change them roles)
@@Fu-Jhio-Jhitsu during the Iran-Irak War a T72 brigade destroyed a whole iranian Chieftain equipped division.
Iran lost 694 of its 894 Chieftains in combat in this war.
The major problems were extremly unreliable engines, low tactical and strategic maneuverability, insufficient firepower and insufficient armor protection vs "modern" sovjet tanks (we are talking about tanks from the same time period as chieftain).
Kuwaiti Chieftains shared a similar fate. Only one Battalion achieved local sucess in beating back an iraki advance, but overall it was an operational loss for the kuwaitis.
Chieftain was, in the end, just a beefed up Tiger II, when you look at it from the viewpoint of technology.
The armor was thicker and the gun better, but overall it had similar power to weight ratio, its targeting systems and rangefinder was not really that advanced over the Tiger II ones, The gun was good vs T55´s but only okayish vs T62 or T64 in their early versions, from the 1970´s onwards its APDS was completely obsolete and L23 APFSDS for the L11 was only introduced in the 1985. Prior to that, they continued to use their extremly obsolete L15 APDS.
Chieftain would have been more of a hindrance to NATO forces in Europe than anything.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 very interesting! Thank you for that information! I need to investigate this conflict more
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 The Chieftain wasn't that much worse than the T64/72. During the Iran-Iraq war, it was only a tactical advantage for the Iraqis tanks in a devensive position to be dug-in the ground with ony the turret showing. The Iranians were very bad with using tank formations. They didn't even use any reconnaissance to reccon the advancing path to be assaulted. They simply drove blindly in a straight line on a street in the middle of a desert and got ambushed by the Iraqi dug-in tanks from the mountains and hills where they could ambush the Iranian chieftains from the sides. Most of the Chieftains were destroyed form flanking side hits while driving on a street in straight line formation, while the Iraqi tanks had the advantage of being in cover by hills and mountains. The Iranians didn't even see it coming. It was very poor leadership and tactics of the Iranians that led to this disastrous outcome. The Iraqis simply had better advantage of defensive tactics and better leadership in the armored warfare role (using Soviet defensive tactics)
The British army would have used the chieftains much more effectively in Europe, with lots of reconnaissance and overall much better tactics than the iraianians. But of course it still wouldn't have changed the huge deficit in numbers, as the Soviets had 10 times more tanks than the NATO, so they would still be superior over western Europe in the 1970's. Until the NATO started producing newer equipment and technology in the 1980's, which made things much more equal on the battlefield. The NATO had better equipment in the 1980's, while the Soviets had worse equipment but therefore more numbers, so it was a typical quality vs quantity thing, but at least it gave the NATO better chances to confront the Soviets than compared to the 1970's and 1960's before.
In 1991 as the cold war was ending and the Soviet Union dissolved, the Iraqis used the same old defensive tactics, but this time it proved painfully obsolete against the Superpower USA which had the most advanced high tech military and air superiority at that time, which completely deleted the entire iraqi army in a matter of days...
Tiger II 88mm vs T-44 upper front glacis. Neither of the 88mm could penetrate it, so I think it would be interesting to see.
By soviet archives and testing 8.8cm KwK-43 easily penetrate T-44 UFP and Turret that's why T-44 didn't participate in WW2 and made transition into T-54.
@@rinaldoman3331 That's not the reason why T-44 didn't participate in WW2. The reason is that the Soviet tank crews were just used to T-34s, and because there wasn't really need for a new medium tank.
@@user-fx9rw7xc1e and T-44 wasn't a problem solver cause even 75mm Panther Gun could penetrate T-44.
@@rinaldoman3331 Glacis would be fully imunte, and a good part of turret could be penetrated only at very short range by 75/70.
@patrick wright 88/71 could penetrate T-44 glacis under 400m.
Honestly watching these has really ruined war thunder for me
Why? These aren't at all accurate enough simulations to be used for anything other than show. Neither is War Thunder to be fair, but still. This is a visual spectacle, that is all.
@@linusorm What? These are insanely accurate, have you seen the other videos where he shows comparison shots to real life test shots?
@@linusorm you clearly havent seen the video where Dejmian XYZ Simulations compares the simulation to photos of live tests. theyre identical
@@sleepyguardian1962 I have, and they can only be viewed as reliable when compared to actual data. You wouldn't be able to rely on the statistics provided by simulations alone. You need real life data to confirm the simulation. Because the simulation can be flawed. The simulation doesn't take every conceivable factor into account.
SY Simulation has even admitted that his simulations aren't perfect (I.E: not 100% accurate) and therefore you can't actually rely on them..
Simulations are:
garbage in, garbage out
They're only as useful as their assumptions and need to be constantly cross referenced with real life tests to be usable.
Not that they aren't cool and some of them are really handy for explaining stuff that's not super intuitive and hard to describe with words but I feel like some people see "computer physics simulation" and assume its the word of god.
@@linusorm I mean tons of industries rely on simulations to verify if a structure is safe. They usually just have a safety factor to account for "real life" but often the Sims are pretty accurate, especially when it's as relatively simple as an impact from a shell on a material.
We know from real fire events during the Irak-Iran War (1980-1988) that the Chieftain could only penetrate de frontal armout of the iraqi T-72 (Ural, M, M1) at ranges of below 900m, this also means that back then the iranian Chieftains didn´t have APFSDS (aka sabot aka arrow) ammo at their disposal. Great simulation, thanks.
The british also didnt get L23 APFSDS for the L11 prior to 85 and were stuck with the APDS from 65 till then.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Yes, that´s quite a bad situation for Challenger-1 crews
No, it could be penetrated on turret by 115mm APFSDS. It could be also penetrated by any type of tank/ATG HEAT ammo, including 85mm on the most parts of the frontal projection.
Kuwaiti's Chieftains firing APDS made easy work of Iraqi T72s.
They use export T72 and the iraqi tanks from soviet production did really well against iranian tank from British production
Would be interesting to see now the T-64A's 125mm against the strongest part of the chieftain's turret!
It should pen it without major issues, as some reports before the Stillbrew armor was created and used on Chieftain Mk10 models🧐
I'm with you, hope we can see that!
Hot knife, meet butter
@@johnyricco1220 depends on time period.. early steel APFSDS would struggle against it...
@@JaM-R2TR4 T-62 with steel APFSDS (probably the 3BM4 round, the "cheap" version of the 3BM3 without the tail tungsten carbide penetrator) proved to be enough powerful to pierce the turret armor on various Iranian Chieftain tanks, since those were the most common round type exported to Iraq (same for the 125mm).
Also the Chieftain turret armor was made by cast steel and not rolled steel, which have less protection against such high velocity rounds (and an irregular thickness in many points since the shape is not so regular).
A good reading on these rounds it's Tankograd blog spot, with detailed infos and data on T-62 as a whole tank and every major part (armor, gun, engine, ammo, etc.).
Chieftain had, prior to MK10 version with stillbrew introduced in 1985, a frontal turret protection of about 350mm RHA, while 125mm and the 115mm gun had both ammunition since the mid to late 60´s that was capable of perforating (full penetration) it on ranges beyond 1500m, from 72 onwards up to 2000m, following ammunition only increased pentration until 85, while chieftain only gained 20mm spaced steel armor on the turret and hull front.
Chieftain was designed as heavy armored MBT but was remarkably thinly armored in comparison.
T62 has only 100mm less armor for example, T64 had better armor protection.
This is shown pretty well in the Iran-Irak war, where T62´s and T72´s of the iraki army mopped the floor with iranian Chieftains without difficulties.
And T62 also could use its gun launched atgm on standoff distance to destroy chieftain
Can't believe I'm rooting for some pieces of steel more than I do for some flat characters in modern TV series.
ofcaurse you would, these pieces of steel are sloped and thus less flat than modern TV characters.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Brilliant comment!
the people who crafted these pieces of steel put in a lot more work and passion than the creator of modern TV series. Passion and hard work pays off.
pieces of steel are way more interesting than the tv characters!
"A simplified fibreglass model was used for the textolite" - that part might be a problem tbh. Soviet armor grate glass-textolite was not that simple. To the level Warshaw Pact countries couldn't repeat it at the level of quality original soviet one provided.
Agreed, but there arent good material parameters for that afaik
I highly doubt the outcome would be wildly different than hardened, thick fiberglass. Unless, of course, you also believe in Stalinium.
What is "Warshaw?"
@@HanSolo__ Warsaw
@@CyberneticArgumentCreator strawmaning does not become you.
you're effectively saying: ''i don't think DU inserts makes that mutch of a difference. unless, of course, you also believe in freedomium''
Now make the future versions the T-80B whit increased back layer (60-105-45) and compare to this one whit 16mm high hardned plate on top.
You k ow T80B isnt being used by russia right its no longer being touched
@@maple2860 What
@@maple2860 T-80BVM in Russian army at the moment
@@benderrodrigez5814 T-80U still in front line service as well.
@@maple2860 t80 is not produced, but is still in service and is being modernized
88 mm KwK 43 King Tiger Main Gun vs T-55 Armor
This is so far on par (if not the same results) of studies and data found on some text and blog i have readed.
I should check out again Tankograd (blog spot) and their articles, under the part on the T-72 Ural, to be sure.
The 120mm APDS was not enough to be a serious threat when T-64A rolled out in the field, this shows how and why and it's highly reliable on the British concerns.
Sub right now, as i'm reading both on the Chieftain and Challenger 1 development, i found this very interesting🤓
Might need to quote this in a school project to demonstrate the advantages that T64 have. Good simulation
Iirc this is the tank that was deployed with its own team of factory mechanics and engineers as the suspension (1/2 torsion bar) and other parts were constantly breaking. first soviet tank with an autoloader. its other drawback was the expense, it was very expensive at the time. the T-72 replaced it.
Great looking sim and analysis as always. Love your videos.
it would be very interesting to see what effect HEAT rounds would have on the same armor array
I'd imagine the composite armor would have more of an effect on HEAT than APDS
Chieftain and T-64a were the first true main battle tanks.
Not really. The Centurion and T-55 were technically the first for NATO and the Warsaw Pact
@@josevictorionunez9312 well neither were considered good enough to drop heavy tanks atogether. Only T64 and chieftans did it.
What specific fiberglass did you use? In Russian language, the material that is used in the T-64A is called стеклотекстолит (glass textolite)
Could we see a simulation of the T-80U’s hull vs the Abram’s M829 APFSDS round?
Thats easy. Bounce.
Great simulation once more! Is the composite material considered isotropic?
No, it does have anisotropic properties like true fibreglass however the failure criteria has been simplified to fail at a certain strain in any direction
That core does a really good job going through, kinda
That core and spalling was still traveling at just over 100 m/sec according to the velocity plot. Plenty enough for the driver and legs of the turret crew to have an intense emotional experience.
17 pdr Sherman Firefly Main Gun vs 150 mm King Tiger Armor
I think it was 180mm, could be wrong
@@legaroojack1251 the gun mantlet was 185 mm the front armor 150 mm
@@legaroojack1251 thats turret front
@@StevieSantosia sorry I though you meant the turret, yeah that's 150m.
@@legaroojack1251 the turret front is 185 and the hull is 150
700m is pretty short range actually. According to some sources, L15A4/A5 could pose a threat to T-72 and T-64A only at 1000m and closer
its pretty short ranged when you realise the Chieftain's ranging machine gun was effective up to 1800yards in the early 70s and up to 2500 yards in the late 70s.
I thought the ranging gun was for hesh rounds? Although correct me if I’m wrong.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 yeah but when you consider that even T72A models hat enough frontal protection that the latest iterations of L15 APDS had only 20mm "wiggleroom" for penetration under optimal conditions wich would be immediatly be lost at a 30° angle to the side or via range. Chieftain had to get so close, because APDS looses effective penetration really quickly over distance. Much faster than APFSDS.
On the other hand, T72´s 125mm gun, T62´s 116mm and even T55 100mm rifled could reliably engage and penetrate Chieftain on ranges up to 2000m or more firing their APFSDS and HEAT.
The main problems with Chieftain is that it was already at introduction obsolete. The armor layout was not modern (just a massive slab of cast steel), the maingun and ammunition, wich was also obsolete at introduction in 61 (The gun is still used by Challenger 2.... that says a lot about british tank design), the extremly late introduction of APFSDS in 85 (about 25 years after the sovjets introduced smoothbore and APFSDS), wich was then also outdated/obsolete at introdution, as sovjet MBT gained more frontal protection and the L23 was only capable of reliably penetrating sovjet MBT versions of the A series, while the current versions were the B series with ERA and better armor, underpowered and unreliable Engine, a fricking ranging mashinegun? Everybody else used Coincidence Rancefinders since the mit 40´s.
This channel is always very interesting and a nice way to be entertained while learning accurate performance of tanks we know and love :)
It's crazy to see that it looks like it might have slowed down or stopped but its still just chugging right on through! I wonder what it would look like in real time, whether it would be understandable or too quick to tell.
Considering the projectile impacts at 1325 m/s in the simulation the entire event will be over in some hundredth of a second. You won't even know what happened before there's debris flying around.
Great job, friend! Follow your work with pleasure.
90 mm Pershing Main gun vs 150 mm King Tiger Armor
... really
You want a gun with 180mm of penetration to go up against a tigers front plate that is 150 with and effective thickness of 250-300
Do a test of .50 BMG or the Soviet 12.7mm, or 14.5mm rounds against the front armour of an M113.
How close would they need to be to penetrate?
500m with AP - 100% penetrations, from a real life fire on the target range.
One side, or both sides?
@@tomk3732 Front
Vietnam war show m113 can be penetrate by 12.7mm apc rd.
T-64A was vastly superior tank to Chieftain . When both were introduced. T-64A had much better armor package capable of stopping across frontal arc rounds from Chieftain at over 1500m reliably (except weak point). Chieftain , on the other hand had no reasonable chance of stopping fire from T-64A at 1500m i.e. almost no rounds for Chieftain would penetrate T-64A from the front while almost every round from T-64A would penetrate Chieftain .
Also T-64A had better sensors later on.
Check killing ratio
@@vladimirnaydenov8563 well, the "downgraded" T72A and M of the irakis killed about 600 Chieftains, while only losing about 100 T72´s in the Iran-Irak War.
Chieftain hull down with its superior FCS would make short work of T64/72 as was seen in Kuwait.
Я служил танкистом на Т-64А в Украине. 1975-1977гг.
Brit began to introduced apds fs rd for 120mm tank gun in the mid 70s.before that even the chiefstain 120mm apds rd has little chance of penetrating t64/72 frontal armour.
How about the T-55 Enigma's turret NERA module vs 1943 era AP rounds? Curious to see what "cost-effective/cheap" burster plate armor would hold up against mid-WWII AP projectiles and how effective it would be.
What type of ansys do you use? Because on there website there are multiple types of software for differnat physics sims, I would like to get into this kinda stuff but I’m not sure which one is the best for penetration test
It's probably been asked before, but I'd like to see a comparison between multiple plates of armor compared to a single plate of the same thickness.
For example, the Pz. IV G's hull front armor was upgrades by adding 30mm to the existing 50mm. The H model used a single 80mm plate instead.
That's interesting...
The driver when the armor in front of him is suddenly closer: 😳
Would an explosive payload have had a detrimental effect on the shots performance? I imagine that it would have detonated less than halfway in and just disintegrated the remaining shell and preventing further penetration.
explosve payloads reduce shell strength and density, reducing penetration even ignoring the explosive fuse going off early.
most sub calibre rounds don't have explosive filler
Now do the other way around, T64/72 vs. Chieftain UFP and Turret!
clean penetration.
T62 and 72 killed hundreds of chieftains in the 80´s in the Iran-Irak war
What for, we know it will go right through.
I wish you could give us some kind of demonstration on the internal damage with each of these. To the internals of the tank and the crew....
If there's any hot metal that breaches the fighting compartment, the crew are likely toast.
@@jerichom11x I mean. It depends on the speed. If its barely even moving at like a few tens of of m/s vs hundreds and the size of it. A small peble/metal dust I can't do much besides give some burns.
You see it even here. It does perforate. But its barely even moving and "Minimal damage to tank and crew" is stated
@@jerry250ify If that piece hits crew in vital area - read head, whole body, upper parts of legs - that crew is dead or completely incapacitated. No variations.
@@gargean1671 Still though, 1/3 crew incapacitated means you have 2 folks who might still live to fight another day
I know I'm new to your site, but how and where do you get your research and stats to make these
videos so that they are accurate ? I like the visuals but want to know the facts also, this is Y-tube i'm sure you can understand what I mean !! Lol Sgt, Semper Fi
The research on armour and projectiles are from technical drawings and documents which i often show at the beginning of the video or link in the description. The material models are developed from scientific paper parameters but adjusted to perform more realistically. These are then compared to real world results to make them as accurate as possible
@@SYsimulations Great, Tank you for the fast reply and information ! Semper Fi
Don't mean to spam but I am once again requesting the 45mm 20-K cannon
Very very good, thank you by going down the cold war composite tank armor.
In an actual war scenario, wouldn’t the chieftains be firing from hills, so the angle of impact would be less and thus increase perforation? Or would the elevation difference not matter?
That's assuming everything would go according to plan. They'd almost certainly be firing at an angle however, which would all but nullify any advantage that'd bring.
Yes potentially, but like michal said, the tanks probably wouldn't be head on anyway
you mean in the north german plains?
i live there and i can tell you, that the highest elevation for dozens of kilometers is 150m. The Lüneburger Heide, Calenberger Land and the region east of Hannover in direction of Braunschweig and Wolfsburg are flat as a pan.
you will have the occasional "dune" in the Heide but thats it.
you will have to face the enemy on the same elevation as you.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 damn fr? I dont live in europe so I wouldnt know. I just heard that the immensely angled turret of british MBTs is to be used hull down on a slope, so I assumed the slope is a hill or something like that
@@ar0568 the doctrine I believe for the Chieftain was to use prepared positions, whether digging down into the ground or scooping the ground into a mound/berm. Fire a few rounds then fall back to another prepared position undercover of ATGM's, Artillery and Air support. The British were stationed in North Germany, and as mentioned is relatively flat as opposed to Southern Germany at the Fulda Gap which was one of the US deployment areas.
why is textolite being backed by such a thin layer of steel?
686 meters for tanks of that generation is almost point blank. In such situations, it is not the thickness of the armor that decides, but the weight of the steel eggs of the crew.
yeah but on ranges above that, chieftain could not reliably do shit to T64A and T72A.
While both on the other hand could penetrate the thickest part of Chieftains armor on ranges up to 2000+ meters.
The UK only introduced APFSDS in 85 and then it had not enough penetration to reliably penetrate T72BW, T64BW and T80BW, wich were the standart of the 80´s but only the A models, wich were from the late 60´s and early 70´s. So about 15 years late and already obsolete at introduction. Sounds kind of familiar
thats why spall liner is so important
Could you try a 2 cm Panzergranatpatrone 151 L'spur ohne Zerleger (20mm AP-T round from an MG151) simated at close range against the side armor of an American light tank like an M24 Chaffee?
Makes one wonder how M1 ended up with 105mm several years after both Chieftain and T-64 and it took even more time to reprimand that.
Because by that point penetrator design had improved to minimise the performance deficit of the 105mm caliber. M774 is a different beast to earlier 120mm APDS from the Chieftain, mainly in terms of angled performance than anything else, which is relevant here.
@@AdotLOM that's quite an interesting backwards logic with use of foresight. Yeah, I guess it's perfectly in Pentagon style to do it this way:D
What I mean is that developing penetrator for 120mm is much cheaper and more promising then limiting dimensions and a design of the tank to smaller gun and by doing so greatly sabotaging it further modernization potential.
@@AdotLOM Was still inadequate tho, especially against T-64Bs and T-80Bs.
@@TheArklyte I'd imagine it's because that's what they had the most of at the time and it could do the job it needed to in the early 80's. When all of a sudden it was decided that the US could only "win" the cold war by outspending the Soviets, developments to ammunition and the adoption of the rheinmettal 120mm became3the way forward, and the M1 turret was assumingly made to accommodate a 120mm gun from the onset and we can see that has worked out just fine
@@hjorturerlend well, hence why they put the 120mm in it with the A1. Like I said, the 105mm is what they had at the time the Abrams was introduced.
Do you have an E-mail that I can send I rough idea to? I was just wondering if you guys would be able to evaluate the effectiveness of my idea compared to an equal thickness standard armour package with comparisons to relative weight size and protection?
Imagine being a tank driver in a T-64 and a kilogram of 100+ degrees APDS slug falls on your balls. I think it is safe to say there is minimal crew damage.
Minimal crew damage, maximum birth control!🤣
minimal crew damage, but very high damage to the driver's future generation.
Yellow Crew Color
But the question everyone wants to know... is there anything than can penetrate a Nokia?
No
This does not bode well for chieftains in Combat Mission Cold War when the module releases
T-72 Ural vs M111
M111 vs T-72A turret front
Great job !
This visual error destroyed the whole simulation video.
I feel sorry for you, you hard worked for that and then so a useless visual error.
Im sad 😭😭😭
Its frustrating, but I cant find anything on how to fix it...I think its an issue with this version of the software
@@SYsimulations i love your simulations and always give thumbs up before i view the vids, i hope in the next vids this error will be fixed.
Thank you for your great channel, dont give up i love your Videos
@@SYsimulations honestly I think it is fine. Any chance we get same simulation, but without textolite layer?
@@StevieSantosia thanks for the support; I hope I can find a fix soon too but I doubt it unfortunately
Could we see the same simulation but with M728 APDS instead of the L15?
It wouldn't even make it to the back 20mm plate unfortunately
Which APDS is that?
@@claudiovictorferreira992 It's a 105mm APDS used by M60A1s.
@@SYsimulations can you make simulation with HESH 120mm round for the chieftain?
How is the density of the penetrator and armor modeled ? Isn’t it probably impossible (for modern tanks) to find the right density of the materials that were used?
Не знаю, как работает эта программа, но кажется, что симуляция неправильная. На 0:31 видно хлопья, которые очень хорошо сжимаются, из-за чего пробиваемость лучше. Но может я ошибаюсь и это баг программы.
Can you make IS 2 frontal plate vs pzgr 43 on the long 88
Would you be able to do repeated 20mm vs sherman plate and repeated 40mm versus panther plate?
Well, atleast the driver has a better vision port now lol
Nice Video ! Do you have fiberglass/Textolite material reference?
I,m glad I,ve found this out now,and not as a 20 year old Cheiftain gunner!!!!!!!
The chieftains gun is still scary oml too bad the tank couldn’t drive it anywhere ahah
Great work. I hope this goes some way to dispel the myth that the T-72 was a bad tank. By the time the Western APFSDS came out the T-72 was upgraded and the T-64B was out. Very lucky we never came to blows because Soviet armour would have literally rolled over NATO. This should dispel the myth that the Soviets were even hostile because if they were the aggressors they were made out to be, with such a military advantage youd think they would have attacked.
You getting paid by Putin?I,ve never read such suckarse comments!!!
Except Russia talk the talk but don't walk the walk. They absolutely cannot and could not stand up to a US backed NATO. Ignoring the Nuclear threat they would lose. Big time.
@@MajorJimPlays Absolute rubbish propagated by US propaganda no doubt. You clearly havent heard from analysts and people who served back in the day. Fact is WARPAC had overwhelming numerical and in vast majority of categories qualitative superiority. NATO was not going to be able to stop all those tanks when their AT rounds and ATGMs would just bounce off (I recall the greatly exaggerated performance of the first TOW missiles as an eg). Artillery, Anti-air, tactical ballistic missiles, would all favor the WARPAC. Even an F-15 cant outfight 5 Mig-23s which was the odds at the time, all while dodging SAMs. When Frontal Aviation got the Archer and HOBS it was all over even in the air.
@@stevenbreach2561 Jesus try to come up with something original FFS. Truth hurts. Getting some cognitive dissonance are ya?
By the late M60 and early Leopard 2A4 packages soviet army was very outdated (and to this day it still is) compared to it. While NATO plays with projectiles capable of overcoming soviets and sophisticated FCS and imaging systems soviets were still rolling around like what it was in ww2. Soviets did get a higher ground with T-72 and 64 briefly when they first came out but nato quickly kept up and then surpassed them. Today most of Russian army still plays with old uparmored and redesigned T-72 and 64s lacking thermal imaging and high quality FCS. There is no way in hell a T-90A is as capable as an M1A2 Abrams in modern arena.
What is the name of simulation you use?
You should team up with one of the TH-cam tank channels like red effect, would be cool to see hits on modern tanks and with explosive reactive armor
So you can all stop guessing the yom kippure war saw the chieftain beat the living daylights out of its soviet counter part even though it was outnumberd almost 3 to 1 including night time engagement something that even the export version russian tanks had a clear advantage in
Yomkippur War included no chieftains. Chieftain was not exported until the 70´s and the Israelis never bought Chieftain.
The Israelis used modified Centurions with 105mm L7 guns called Sho´t and the Arab Armies used T55a´s and very limited T62 export versions.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 your absolutely right about the chieftain and centurian i keep getting them mixed up because originally it was just suppose to be an upgrade and instead became a different tank
The spallinh is significant enough to shred everything inside to pieces, you dont need to fully pen a vehicle if 2 out of 4 People are incapacitated due to shrapnel ...
That is not a WW2 tank, spalling would be minimal.
@@huntermad5668 there us still piece of round going thru armor.
Whats the point of textolite if such a tiny part of the round is able to penetrate it like a butter..
HEAT protection and reduced weight.
At that time monosteel armor was more or less obsolete (from the 50s onwards) as HEAT and more modern APDS rounds would punch through anyways. T64a´s textolite allowed for about 335mm armor protection vs APDS and 400+ vs HEAT while it was only 2/3 as heavy as comparable steel protection.
Chieftain on the other hand had monosteel armor with thickness of that level in some regions, wich was totally obsolete as even T55 was capable of penetrating it with its HEAT rounds.
The steel/glass/steel armor against HEAT, APDS, and AP projectiles was experimented with by the US several years before this, but the problem was of repair when hit, since the hit plate would have a rather wide, deep pit in its face exposing the glass layer and could not be effectively repaired (they tried). Only using some sort of replaceable bolt-on router armor could this work and the cost was considered excessive and the idea was dropped at that time.
The US armor was a fundamentally different type of silica-steel composite. The Soviet array is known as 'glass-reinforced plastic', and it essentially sheets of what you'd get if you compacted fiberglass into solid panels via hydraulic press. The US array used pockets of silica that were fused inside the armor as it was cast as an integral part, with both the glass and metal curing as one piece. The fused silica works on the principle of shattering as something travels through it, unlike the fiberglass, and so it becomes a pocket filled with glass dust after one hit, and a pocket that is inaccessible at best. This is why it was a nonviable concept, and the Soviet solution to the problems of a steel-silica array were very innovative.
I am wondering if 88mm L71 gun able to fire apdfs round.
>minimal damage to crew
Bold words for someone with a kilo of metal entering the fighting compartment
Looks like it will just plop into the compartment floor lol.
@@Phantom-bh5ru the spalling would have shredded the driver.
@@Puma_Concolour eh by the time it penetrated the velocity is so low that I doubt much spalling would be created and the ones that are would be much less powerful.
@@Phantom-bh5ru it was going around 100 m/s judging by the velocity plot.
@@rre9121 that’s like way slower than even 22 lr
Operation "Nasr"
300 Т-62 vs 300 Chieftain and Pattons.
Lost 40 T-62, Lost 214 Chieftain. The CHIEFTAIN frontal armor was penetrated by T-62 115mm guns. While the CHIEFTAIN 120mm gun could not penetrate the frontal armor of Soviet tanks
More than half of iranian chiefstain were lost atgm.
But during the fighting even iraqi t62 firing older apdsfs rd manage to penetrate chieftain armour at1600meter plus.range
You going to finish the animation or what?
What software is this?
Now 120mm APFSDS against optics.
**Cries in War Thunder**
Interesting. I'm curious what the textolite would do against HEAT
Interesting. These simulations makes me that the tank crews must not rely 100 or 80% on armor protection. Cause there are various types of amunition which might cause minor or major harm to the tank including the crew.
You can simulate the action of dynamic protection?
Can someone tell me why they used fibreglass. The first thing I'd think of would be some high hardness plates encased in a shock absorbing matrix.
It's effective against heat munitions
High hardness plates in polyurethane epoxy matrix were used in T-55AM and T-62M. The main reason behind glass textolite was its very low weight. According to Soviet studies huge density differential between steel and non-ferrous filler drastically improved the performance of the filler.
What is the difference between RHA and Textoilite ? Would it make any difference if it all RHA only ?
Textolite is like fibreglass, being light but a lot weaker than RHA. If it was all RHA it would easily stop the projectile but would be extremely heavy
RHA is full steel
@@SYsimulations thanks
how about the OFL105 F1 shell vs the upper front plate of a t62
I’m so surprised that the maker made the world works like the simulation!
You should see what a 120mm APDS round from a Chieftain, does to a Sherman Tank, which were used as range targets at BATUS Canada.
We used a T-72 as a Leopard 2 target in Germany, ended up like Swiss cheese.
You want to see the test plates that came back from kirckudbright ranges. I wouldn't have wanted to be in any AFV made from those slabs of armour.
driver would be dead, the crew beside him would be heavily injured from shrapnel
I wonder how many WOT guys come here to see actual penetration tests lol.
*Hit*
Damage: Yellow Crew (Driver)
I will never understand how these simulations work.
Considering that the t72 is unlikely to be facing the chieften at a perfect head on angle in reality the t72 would probably survive this with no penntration
These videos go great with shrooms
Mmmn textolite sammich.
I bet textolite tastes like that marshmellow stuff.
Or fiberglass and asbestos. Definitely marshmellow OR fiberglass + asbestos. One of the two.
Nixe, and the other way around? Was the western armour up to snuff?
No it was not
i guess it was already taken out of service by the late 60's, but what would the Conqueror's L1 120mm gun to do it?
It wouldnt make it to the back plate i don't think
@@SYsimulations Any specs for the Conquerors APDS? the only thing I can find is 7.6kg at 1493m/s, but it was from a video game forum.
APDS for the L11 remained in service until 85, where it was exchanged for the L23a1 APFSDS. So yeah... the brits really fcked up there.
Создаёшь симуляцию пробития брони Т-64?
Переведи на английский стеклотекстолит стекловолокно стеклопластик
It’s interesting how some people are biased agasint soviet tanks saying that they are bad they dont have armour etc, but i think the soviet engineer’s did an amazing job ag making these tanks
would it be to complex to simulate a hit of a engine.
No long Rod Penetrator?😕
интересно что вольфрам здесь мягче стали)) если посмотреть - сталь с вольфрамом - быстрорежущая* самая прочная, твердая) - сверло по металлу, а тут бьется как пластилин)) необычно... при том что и снаряд быстрый, якобы сталь это выдержит)) не говоря о мягком композите(пластмассе) ) честно - не верю) рикошет был бы правдоподобней)
Interest note,during the israel syrian in lebanon,one syrian t72 survive hit from 105mm apds rd.fire from israel tank,the rd. Struck t72 frontal turrent armour.
T26E-1 addon boiler armor vs Tiger 2 maybe?
Chieftain didn't have full bore ap, it had APDS not APCR
This is sub calibre APDS
Оnly 686 meters? Chieftain has very bad ammo. T-64А and Т-72 can destroy it on 2000 meters