Love it! You can clearly see how the tapered segments are "skipping" on the armor from the angle of the taper. Would a thicker jacket make a difference? Speaking of which, how about some armor-tests? I was thinking something along the lines of the ribbed armor on the S-tank, but instead of square ribs use triangular ones at a shallow angle, or even sinusoidal. Basically using the geometry to have several parts of the armor at the critical ricochet angle, without needing to slope it as aggressively.
@@PwntifexMaximus thanks, a thicker jacket might help but it's quite ductile unfortunately. I've thought of that triangular ribs idea before but the critical angle of apfsds is so steep that it wouldnt really work :/
APFSDS is overall the best kind of penetrator. Technically I think HESH cares even less about armor sloping than APFSDS (if you're just dealing with plain old monolithic steel), but composite armor or even simple spaced armor will degrade HESH far more than it would APFSDS.
@@gareththompson2708 HESH deals more damage when successful but is very weak against ERA or spaced armor. APFSDS tries to retain the same damage while increasing penetration I think
Wouldnt it make more sence to invert the direction of those segments ( hollow cones instead of tips first) to give them lets say "more grip" versus shown highly angled armor ? Just curious what if...
Good point. Any vibration from parts sliding and flexing of the joint will demolish projectile's precision. On the other hand, penetrator will likely unfold in the cannon's barrel, still being held by the sabot and armies already use WP shells filled with liquid mixture, which also seems ballistically unstable.
I think there might also be a problem with the telescoping simulation in general, this software has a limitation in that it doesn't properly model projectiles shattering on impact. I imagine the thinner amount of material from the telescoped tungsten tube wouldn't actually penetrate properly but break apart on impact.
@@picklepepper900 Yes. You'd think that shooting a hollow pipe at armor would mean the material of the armor enters the pipe and bursts it. That is the whole point of PELE projectiles after all. They are made of a hard pipe sleeve filled with a soft material like aluminium or led. When it hits a target, the material of the target enters the pipe, compresses the softer filling and thus bursts and explodes the harder sleeve pipe. The point is that you can create a explosive splintering effect without actually using explosives. This simulation makes it look as if a hollow pipe would just act like a solid rod, which just can't be the case. So I have to call BS on this whole simulation.
@@TrangleC Well at such high velocities, with sufficient ductility and strength, even the telescope would undergo fluid penetration, which is much different to PELE which are travelling substantially slower than a cannon round. Although I have to agree with you and the telescoped rounds have lower mass, you would expect slightly less penetration, as it just won’t have the energy required to keep the metal behaving as a plastic. Telescoped rounds have the obvious advantage of a higher rate of fire in any cannon, which would likely out weigh reduced penetrative power. For RHA, I know that you can see at least 140mm of penetration at a range of 1.5km with a muzzle velocity of 1500ms, which isn’t bad at all.
@@ollie4022 I think you are confusing a few things here. You seem to be talking about the telescope ammunition for the 40mm machine cannon on some Infantry Fighting Vehicles. We are talking about telescoping APFSDS rods for the 120 to 125mm cannons of Main Battle Tanks here. Those are two totally different things. The 40mm ammo is called "telescoped" because the otherwise regular projectile is encased in a sleeve of propellant before being fired, making it shorter. The APFSDS rods we are talking about are "telescoping" because the projectile itself is separated into a rod and a tube which extend in flight on the way to the target. So rate of fire has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. We are just comparing different types of projectile fired from the same full sized MBT cannons here. Also, PELE is just another type of APFSDS projectile for those 120mm tank guns and has the same projectile velocity as the other types of APFSDS ammo fired by those guns.
Jacket and Telescoping APFSDS have good penetration. Telescoping APFSDS have an effective Perfuration. (Alf of the penetrator goes entirely through the armour). ERA test is gonna be made for Telescoping round?
ERA would prabably take some of the jacket off of the trailing telescopic sabot, leaving the rest of the projectile with plenty of mass to penetrate the target.
@@engineer84-w8x and yet instead of doing that the us miltary was like, hmm, a small steel tip shall do (even though it probobley does bassicley nothing)
If memory serves, the Army tested telescoped rounds in the 80's, but deemed them too vulnerable to manufacturing defects and active measures like ERA despite the potential increase in performance.
@@jamesharding3459 yeah era has always been a huge concern with the USA. That is why nearly all 4 of their upgrades to their apfds has been to defeat it
Great stuff! Was the trailing-telescopic APFSDS constrained in the model so both parts move in one direction, or did it naturally stay as an assembly? I would think any yaw on this design would knock the tail end out of alignment...
I am kind of sceptic towards them because it's not shown in the simulation, but when the projectile hits, the spacers between core will get squished as they are more elastic and are less dense, so in real life situations the projectile would have lower penetration at next pieces of core would slow down and maybe even shift and change angles
dont forget that the forces you are thinking of are actually constrained by the speed of sound, which these rounds are easily going multiples of times faster. By the time the projectile is going slow enough for forces felt on the tip to be felt by the rear it probably doesnt have much penetration left to do anyway
I have some ideas for videos you could do 1: Russian Flat-nosed AP shells I’ve heard from somewhere (idk where) that the flat noses of Russian tank shells helped them preform better against sloped armor. Also, applying a cap would hinder its preformance compared to normal shells with a sharp tip 2. APCR A Warthunder TH-camr named Spookston said that irl APCR was effective against angled armor and had good post damage comparable to normal AP shells. Would be nice to see 3. HEAT I’ve seen you make a simulation of HESH “penetrating” armor from its chemical payload. It would be awesome to see a sim that. Anyway, these are just some recommendations I wanted to give as your content has very entertaining and enlightening. Keep going 👍
@@JoakimfromAnka I believe it would bounce off at high angles if we’re talking about WW2 cumulative charges. HEATFS I believe is the same case as I’ve heard it’s only used for long ranges due to ricochets at short ranges
1. this design (blunt tip + ballistic cap works well both at relatively low velocities of WWII-era guns and APFSDS. APFSDS are blunt too and have ballistic caps. the cap is actually helping to increase penetration, not hindering it.
Don't you think the impact of the telescoping core hitting the limiter would influence the flight path of the dart? it might slow it down a bit but possible alteration in the flight path could be extreme.
This is awesome. Could you make a video where you test how different velocities affect the size of the hole in an armor plate? Does more speed = bigger hole, or is it all about the projectile diameter
This question seems to be going into the direction of "overpen". When solid projectiles have far greater pen than the amour has thicknes the shell just passes without deformation and shrapnells.
looks like trailing telescopic ammo is for APFSDS what double tandem is for HEAT. I.E a frontal bit that takes care of any ERA blocks while the actual damage is then done by the penetrator thats lingering behind.
Telescopic APFSDS did alot better than I thought. The only problem i believe would be accuracy due to the projectile having more parts, but just like APDS, once that is solved, it will be the new main armament.
i have several doubts about those telescoping sabots. in addition, they don't seem effective vs era, as since the 2nd generation, the latter tends to snap the sabot in two. i may be wrong, but the longer the sabot, the easier the snapping, especially if its made of 2 sections of different width
I'm interested in your theory why the jacketed round didn't do as well as the unjacketed round. I assume something about the steel jacket interfered with the penetration of the tungsten
The steel acted as an additional barrier for the tungsten to penetrate. Also the steel jacket being crushed against the steel plate will dissapate energy.
Now we have to test this against active protection system, ERA, slope, and composite armor. In that way we will have the best and possibly most realistic effect of these rounds against modern tanks, because tanks will be armored with those above.
How about this for an extra complicated design: Segmented trailing APFSDS. The tungsten segments are contained in a steel shell, but maintains the design of the original rod.
They don't, it's a proposed shape theorized by the maker of the video. That's why people are skeptical and why in the video it looks artificially stabilized.
keep up the good work!! um about the trailing telescopic dart wont the rear end slam back to the front when the sabot hit its target? and even if there is a lock it wont be able to hold it at the back though, since that very lock itself will be shredded as the energy of the rear part will push through if by any chance the locking is achieved: the front area is hollow and less dense so it should penetrate way less and same for the rear end since its thinner (also weaker structural strength so more of its parts would just get deflected away instead of helping the penetration), also since the front area is hollow wont that accumulate matter at the central area and degrade the rear penetrator's power as well wont it be more efficient if its inverted?
@draksionar mentioned this before but I have a step further into the theory. Flip the segments + split them into 3-4 pieces. This would create a row of tungsten "scoops"
Regarding the telescoping version, what prevents the rear from simply telescoping back up into the front half as soon as the front hits the target and starts decelerating?
I wonder how effective is telescoping APFSDS against heavy ERA such as Kontakt/Relikt; from what I've read, M829A3+ relies on some sort of "two part" isolation to deal with the ERA first so the rear remains less affected.
Thanks for this! Finally understand why I've been having so much trouble with my segmented shells. Next time I'm shelling out for the telescoping APFSDS, worth every penny.
conventional explosive propellants top out around 1800-1850m/sec for these kinds of sabot projectiles. That's about Mach 5.5. 2000+ is around Mach 6, which is verging on railgun territory. The fastest rifle rounds hit around 1400m/sec, or a bit above Mach 4.
I'm not an expert but I believe it's related to the velocity of the propelling gas molecules in the gun. The projectile can only be accelerated as fast as the gas molecules are moving, which depends on the temperature and the mass of the molecules. The temperature is limited by the materials of the gun and the chemical energy of the propellant. The mass of the molecules is determined by the explosive used, but is essentially fixed as most explosives are nitro organic compounds so the gases are mostly CO2, H2O and N2. To achieve ultra-high velocities in the lab, a light gas gun is used: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-gas_gun. These use hydrogen or helium to propel the projectile, but aren't practical for weapons.
Would results be much different if calculated for muzzle velocity decrease at range? ie assuming the projectile is hitting a target 1km away @ 1550m/s (made up figures) instead of at muzzle velocities?
How about laminated armor with ceramic\Boron carbide plates. I presume the armor is AR500 or perhaps lesser grade alloy? Or Ribbed armor with ceramic\Boron carbide ridges that increase effective slope?
Hmm I wonder if it would actually be feasible in real life given that the sabot actually vibrates as it's bouncing up and down the slightly bent barrel seems the tail might wag it out of alignment.
It should, the way the turret screens work is they destabilise the round which then impacts with greatly reduced force. As long as the penetrator is longer than the distance between where the screen was hit and the actual turret face the rod will remain stable and the screens will have very little effect.
@@Scarecrow2596 In theory. Worst case scenario: the screen breaks the telescoping penetrator in two or bends it enough to heavily reduce penetration. Best case scenario: the longer penetrator keeps the screen from destabilizing the penetrator and the 25% extra penetration will cleave straight through the turret armor.
So far in all tests i'v seen it seems that backwards telescoping apfsds gives a massive increse in penetration whit no downside, if it is so, then why is it not in use? Or is there a missing flaw i am not seeing?
@@SYsimulations Hmm, then there must be some other not immediately obvious flaw/downside, I'd assume every military with MBTs would jump on something so much more powerful.
@@SYsimulations Hmm, I was just rewatching the video and it seems strange that the sleeve would act as if it was rigid. It's hollow tube after all and should crumble from the resistance of the material. Also - it's a tube so even if it 'cuts' a path, there is still material left in the middle section (the 'cutout') that would cause it to deform.
I don't get why the telescopic model was consuming nearly the same amount or armor while having way less resistance - even if i take that the extended structure will not break its angle for having a very weak spot and a angled force throught ehresistance of sloped armor.
Because apfsds is a sub-calibre projectile which will fly faster due to being lighter...kind of like a .22 projectile being shot out of a .50cal cartridge. Tank guns are also mainly smooth-bore which means reduces resistance in the barrel when firing
In a personal rifle, using similar or greater mass of propellant compared to projectile is called Eargesplitten Loudenboomer. In a tank gun, is normal thing to do. Also small bullet in a big tube.
Hello sir. What do you think is the result of liquids on small caliber kinetic penetrators? Many tank have fuel cell in side sponsons. Does fuel cell provide proof against of 25-35mm armor penetrators? Like is BMP or Bradley cannon? This way you can make thin armor and add fuel and it is more effective space and weight efficiency?
Hi, this is something I'm interested to test as there is plenty of info regarding how effective liquids are against normal bullets; id be curious to see how fuel fairs against small calibre apfsds though
The fact that the technology is so advanced this days, its not matter how the tank armour is sloped or not. It will penetrate anyways if it dont have that specialized spaced armor.
Dont worry, with this new segmented APDFS, its only a matter of time before APDFSHE is created by adding a fuze to the front tip of the APDFS round leading to the core of the dart which contains HE filler and then... boom
I thought you had already established that it should be very few segments separated by longer extremely low density spacers in between (preferably vacuum or at least air)? Not to mention that conical shapes are probably not ideal at all.
Can you try a design that combines HE and telescopic APFSDS (basically shoving explosives inside the hollow extending part). I think that it may not be effective, but it could be fun to try.
The hollow part of the telescoping rod is filled with the solid core in the back at launch and extends further out as it flies through the air so there would be no room to have it packed with explosives when it was fired.
Impact velocities are way too high. Nevermind that really long darts like (ie M829A3/E4) are generally kinda slow (1500 m/s from an L44 and 1580 m/s from L55). Nothing actually strikes at muzzle velocity. An impact velocity between 50% and 75% of the muzzle velocity is more typical of expected engagement ranges. The "fastest" APFSDS rounds like the old DM13 also tends to be rather short and therefore lose more velocity down range.
What if we just make a big ass HE round (more than 40 kilos of HE something that is equivalent to 80-200 kg of tnt atleast) that goes 3000+ m/s and just lob that at tanks and everything else
Or you could fill the tungsten tube instead of another tungsten rod you fill it with a solid oxidizer turn the enemy armor and the penetrator into thermite
why wouldnt the back of the round just collapse into the front when the front hits the target? the front would slow down/stop and the back would keep going, causing it to collapse.
Please make some ww2 Videos! 😘😊 75 mm Pak 40 vs IS 2 Front Armor 88 mm KwK43 vs IS 3 Front Armor 90 mm Pershing vs King Tiger Front Armor 17 pdr Sherman Firefly vs King Tiger Armor Distance 500 to 1500 Meters Thank you and im shure you get many klicks for this Videos because WW2 Armor Vids very interesting in whole world.
this is exactly the stuff that computers are great at - it can optimize 1000s of combinations of armour, ERA, weapons etc. to a) offer the best attack and b) offer the best defense Attackers will always have the upper hand and defenders need to play catchup. Tanks will become field obsolete soon as they will weight in excess of 100 tons to protect and prevent against most projectiles.
These designs will be tested against ERA in the near future...
Keep it up. You might be onto something...
Love it! You can clearly see how the tapered segments are "skipping" on the armor from the angle of the taper. Would a thicker jacket make a difference?
Speaking of which, how about some armor-tests? I was thinking something along the lines of the ribbed armor on the S-tank, but instead of square ribs use triangular ones at a shallow angle, or even sinusoidal. Basically using the geometry to have several parts of the armor at the critical ricochet angle, without needing to slope it as aggressively.
@@PwntifexMaximus thanks, a thicker jacket might help but it's quite ductile unfortunately. I've thought of that triangular ribs idea before but the critical angle of apfsds is so steep that it wouldnt really work :/
I'm so glad you finally took the conventional cannon max muzzle velocity into consideration.
please simulate an apfsds against sintered diamond
now i know what APFSDS is the best for sloped armor, now what do i do with this information
APFSDS is overall the best kind of penetrator. Technically I think HESH cares even less about armor sloping than APFSDS (if you're just dealing with plain old monolithic steel), but composite armor or even simple spaced armor will degrade HESH far more than it would APFSDS.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: World domination!
Now you know what ammo type to stock up on for when you buy that t-80 you've had your eye on at the local dealership.
This SY Animation Has done HeSH against slope
@@gareththompson2708 HESH deals more damage when successful but is very weak against ERA or spaced armor. APFSDS tries to retain the same damage while increasing penetration I think
Wouldnt it make more sence to invert the direction of those segments ( hollow cones instead of tips first) to give them lets say "more grip" versus shown highly angled armor ? Just curious what if...
Good point. Maybe you could shape the segments like they did with WW2 caped shells. would be really interesting to dig deeper into this.
@@peterfruchtig5334 I wonder what capping would do to the long projectile. Could it make it tumble as the cap deforms?
True, but that might not be as good for flatter armor pieces.
@@ayylmao1558 If digging through straight steel doesnt make you tumble then t his wouldnt either
I have my doubts about the effective accuracy that telescoping penetrators could actually attain.
Good point. Any vibration from parts sliding and flexing of the joint will demolish projectile's precision.
On the other hand, penetrator will likely unfold in the cannon's barrel, still being held by the sabot and armies already use WP shells filled with liquid mixture, which also seems ballistically unstable.
I think there might also be a problem with the telescoping simulation in general, this software has a limitation in that it doesn't properly model projectiles shattering on impact. I imagine the thinner amount of material from the telescoped tungsten tube wouldn't actually penetrate properly but break apart on impact.
@@picklepepper900 Yes. You'd think that shooting a hollow pipe at armor would mean the material of the armor enters the pipe and bursts it. That is the whole point of PELE projectiles after all.
They are made of a hard pipe sleeve filled with a soft material like aluminium or led. When it hits a target, the material of the target enters the pipe, compresses the softer filling and thus bursts and explodes the harder sleeve pipe.
The point is that you can create a explosive splintering effect without actually using explosives.
This simulation makes it look as if a hollow pipe would just act like a solid rod, which just can't be the case.
So I have to call BS on this whole simulation.
@@TrangleC Well at such high velocities, with sufficient ductility and strength, even the telescope would undergo fluid penetration, which is much different to PELE which are travelling substantially slower than a cannon round. Although I have to agree with you and the telescoped rounds have lower mass, you would expect slightly less penetration, as it just won’t have the energy required to keep the metal behaving as a plastic. Telescoped rounds have the obvious advantage of a higher rate of fire in any cannon, which would likely out weigh reduced penetrative power. For RHA, I know that you can see at least 140mm of penetration at a range of 1.5km with a muzzle velocity of 1500ms, which isn’t bad at all.
@@ollie4022 I think you are confusing a few things here.
You seem to be talking about the telescope ammunition for the 40mm machine cannon on some Infantry Fighting Vehicles.
We are talking about telescoping APFSDS rods for the 120 to 125mm cannons of Main Battle Tanks here.
Those are two totally different things.
The 40mm ammo is called "telescoped" because the otherwise regular projectile is encased in a sleeve of propellant before being fired, making it shorter.
The APFSDS rods we are talking about are "telescoping" because the projectile itself is separated into a rod and a tube which extend in flight on the way to the target.
So rate of fire has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. We are just comparing different types of projectile fired from the same full sized MBT cannons here.
Also, PELE is just another type of APFSDS projectile for those 120mm tank guns and has the same projectile velocity as the other types of APFSDS ammo fired by those guns.
Jacket and Telescoping APFSDS have good penetration.
Telescoping APFSDS have an effective Perfuration. (Alf of the penetrator goes entirely through the armour).
ERA test is gonna be made for Telescoping round?
ERA would prabably take some of the jacket off of the trailing telescopic sabot, leaving the rest of the projectile with plenty of mass to penetrate the target.
@@engineer84-w8x and yet instead of doing that the us miltary was like, hmm, a small steel tip shall do (even though it probobley does bassicley nothing)
Us Army after watching this video: "We must buy more telescopes"
"But why?!"
Us Army: "Shut up and take my money!!"
If memory serves, the Army tested telescoped rounds in the 80's, but deemed them too vulnerable to manufacturing defects and active measures like ERA despite the potential increase in performance.
Ha
Ha
Ha
@@jamesharding3459 yeah era has always been a huge concern with the USA. That is why nearly all 4 of their upgrades to their apfds has been to defeat it
Great stuff! Was the trailing-telescopic APFSDS constrained in the model so both parts move in one direction, or did it naturally stay as an assembly? I would think any yaw on this design would knock the tail end out of alignment...
I had the same Question
This information really helps 125mm ammunition users since carousel loader limits penetrator length.
yes indeed it does help the regular old 125mm autoloading apfsds users
I am kind of sceptic towards them because it's not shown in the simulation, but when the projectile hits, the spacers between core will get squished as they are more elastic and are less dense, so in real life situations the projectile would have lower penetration at next pieces of core would slow down and maybe even shift and change angles
dont forget that the forces you are thinking of are actually constrained by the speed of sound, which these rounds are easily going multiples of times faster. By the time the projectile is going slow enough for forces felt on the tip to be felt by the rear it probably doesnt have much penetration left to do anyway
@@facepalm7345sound moves much faster in solid objects .
I have some ideas for videos you could do
1: Russian Flat-nosed AP shells
I’ve heard from somewhere (idk where) that the flat noses of Russian tank shells helped them preform better against sloped armor. Also, applying a cap would hinder its preformance compared to normal shells with a sharp tip
2. APCR
A Warthunder TH-camr named Spookston said that irl APCR was effective against angled armor and had good post damage comparable to normal AP shells. Would be nice to see
3. HEAT
I’ve seen you make a simulation of HESH “penetrating” armor from its chemical payload. It would be awesome to see a sim that.
Anyway, these are just some recommendations I wanted to give as your content has very entertaining and enlightening. Keep going 👍
I would like to see how HEAT behaves against highly sloped armor, assuming it detonates in the first place.
@@JoakimfromAnka I believe it would bounce off at high angles if we’re talking about WW2 cumulative charges. HEATFS I believe is the same case as I’ve heard it’s only used for long ranges due to ricochets at short ranges
1. this design (blunt tip + ballistic cap works well both at relatively low velocities of WWII-era guns and APFSDS. APFSDS are blunt too and have ballistic caps. the cap is actually helping to increase penetration, not hindering it.
@@Burboss I was referring to the cap that is made of soft metal, not the ballistic cap. I believe I got this info on a WoT forum
@@retrominskis1552 ballistic cap is made of aluminum. its used both for aerodynamic purposes and to improve shell normalization on impact.
Don't you think the impact of the telescoping core hitting the limiter would influence the flight path of the dart? it might slow it down a bit but possible alteration in the flight path could be extreme.
It 100% would, the projectile has been stabilized in the simulation
This is awesome.
Could you make a video where you test how different velocities affect the size of the hole in an armor plate? Does more speed = bigger hole, or is it all about the projectile diameter
This question seems to be going into the direction of "overpen".
When solid projectiles have far greater pen than the amour has thicknes the shell just passes without deformation and shrapnells.
Projectile diameter is only the matter. Hole size is the same for a given shell size no matter the speed
Wouldn't the inertia of the slender core on the telescoping projectile cause it to fold back into the sleeve on impact?
At lower velocities possibly, but the huge velocity of the projectile probably negates that.
@@brianlam5847but the core is only extended in the first place by the drag from the fins, which is much less
looks like trailing telescopic ammo is for APFSDS what double tandem is for HEAT. I.E a frontal bit that takes care of any ERA blocks while the actual damage is then done by the penetrator thats lingering behind.
Fascinating stuff and thanks for posting.
How effective is the 120mm MPAT against armour when configured to be APHE?
Telescopic APFSDS did alot better than I thought. The only problem i believe would be accuracy due to the projectile having more parts, but just like APDS, once that is solved, it will be the new main armament.
i have several doubts about those telescoping sabots. in addition, they don't seem effective vs era, as since the 2nd generation, the latter tends to snap the sabot in two. i may be wrong, but the longer the sabot, the easier the snapping, especially if its made of 2 sections of different width
This suggests that a round with reverse taper (thicker in front and thinner at the back) may be better than a purely cylindrical profile...
The advantage there that the projectile length has increased.
not for aerodynamics
I'm interested in your theory why the jacketed round didn't do as well as the unjacketed round. I assume something about the steel jacket interfered with the penetration of the tungsten
The steel acted as an additional barrier for the tungsten to penetrate.
Also the steel jacket being crushed against the steel plate will dissapate energy.
Now we have to test this against active protection system, ERA, slope, and composite armor. In that way we will have the best and possibly most realistic effect of these rounds against modern tanks, because tanks will be armored with those above.
Actually 2a82 cannon is said to have 2+ km muzzle velocity.
How about this for an extra complicated design: Segmented trailing APFSDS.
The tungsten segments are contained in a steel shell, but maintains the design of the original rod.
What if you made the segmented core in the style of how caped rounds are made with that ledge to help normalize the impact angle and dig in.
I never knew they made trailing telescope rounds like that. Wow
They don't, it's a proposed shape theorized by the maker of the video. That's why people are skeptical and why in the video it looks artificially stabilized.
The frontal sloped armor above the driver of the Abrams is 82.5°.
Explosive APSFDS? Still curious what would happen if the back quarter or more detonated while in the channel bored by the rest of the round
I think it wouldn't be enough explosive to make a difference, but that would be cool to see!
keep up the good work!!
um about the trailing telescopic dart
wont the rear end slam back to the front when the sabot hit its target? and even if there is a lock it wont be able to hold it at the back though, since that very lock itself will be shredded as the energy of the rear part will push through
if by any chance the locking is achieved: the front area is hollow and less dense so it should penetrate way less and same for the rear end since its thinner (also weaker structural strength so more of its parts would just get deflected away instead of helping the penetration), also since the front area is hollow wont that accumulate matter at the central area and degrade the rear penetrator's power as well wont it be more efficient if its inverted?
@draksionar mentioned this before but I have a step further into the theory. Flip the segments + split them into 3-4 pieces. This would create a row of tungsten "scoops"
Regarding the telescoping version, what prevents the rear from simply telescoping back up into the front half as soon as the front hits the target and starts decelerating?
Pretty sure the front has so much energy instead of slowing down and allowing the back to catch up its just disintegrating
I wonder how effective is telescoping APFSDS against heavy ERA such as Kontakt/Relikt; from what I've read, M829A3+ relies on some sort of "two part" isolation to deal with the ERA first so the rear remains less affected.
Awesome, loving the reduced velocity stuff.
Thanks for this! Finally understand why I've been having so much trouble with my segmented shells. Next time I'm shelling out for the telescoping APFSDS, worth every penny.
conventional explosive propellants top out around 1800-1850m/sec for these kinds of sabot projectiles. That's about Mach 5.5. 2000+ is around Mach 6, which is verging on railgun territory.
The fastest rifle rounds hit around 1400m/sec, or a bit above Mach 4.
Maybe its a dumb question but os there any particular reason modern cannon can't pull 2000 m/s? Is it a drag issue? Metallurgical?
I'm not an expert but I believe it's related to the velocity of the propelling gas molecules in the gun.
The projectile can only be accelerated as fast as the gas molecules are moving, which depends on the temperature and the mass of the molecules. The temperature is limited by the materials of the gun and the chemical energy of the propellant. The mass of the molecules is determined by the explosive used, but is essentially fixed as most explosives are nitro organic compounds so the gases are mostly CO2, H2O and N2.
To achieve ultra-high velocities in the lab, a light gas gun is used: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-gas_gun. These use hydrogen or helium to propel the projectile, but aren't practical for weapons.
Will you go into detail on the depleted uranium apsfs?
Would results be much different if calculated for muzzle velocity decrease at range? ie assuming the projectile is hitting a target 1km away @ 1550m/s (made up figures) instead of at muzzle velocities?
No ricochet?
How about laminated armor with ceramic\Boron carbide plates. I presume the armor is AR500 or perhaps lesser grade alloy?
Or Ribbed armor with ceramic\Boron carbide ridges that increase effective slope?
Hmm I wonder if it would actually be feasible in real life given that the sabot actually vibrates as it's bouncing up and down the slightly bent barrel seems the tail might wag it out of alignment.
Now I'm curios about this too
So UFP of M1 Abrams can be pierced with this type of ammo. Interesting.
Do you think a Telescopic APFSDS round can defeat the composite turret screens of a Leopard 2A5-2A6?
It should, the way the turret screens work is they destabilise the round which then impacts with greatly reduced force. As long as the penetrator is longer than the distance between where the screen was hit and the actual turret face the rod will remain stable and the screens will have very little effect.
@@Scarecrow2596 In theory. Worst case scenario: the screen breaks the telescoping penetrator in two or bends it enough to heavily reduce penetration. Best case scenario: the longer penetrator keeps the screen from destabilizing the penetrator and the 25% extra penetration will cleave straight through the turret armor.
@@TheCoolParnell yes in theory but telescoping APFSDS as a whole is little more than a theory for now
About the telescopic penetrator, won't it go back in to the "sleeve" due to momentum when it hits the target?
Do you know, why the trailing telescopic penetrator doesnt get retracted again, when it hits the target?
Would be cool to see a Composite Metal Foam simulation against APFSDS .
So far in all tests i'v seen it seems that backwards telescoping apfsds gives a massive increse in penetration whit no downside, if it is so, then why is it not in use? Or is there a missing flaw i am not seeing?
Telescoping one looks awesome and performs awesome!
seems thin slopped armor is a negative without ERA blocks . The diameter of the penetration is massive
Hello SY, could you do a simulation DM73 apfsds against an armor (15mm titanium+15mm rubber+15mm titanium+15mm boron carbide) x14 layers
Is telescopic APFSDS a real thing? Does anyone actually use it?
It exists but isn't in service anywhere
@@SYsimulations Hmm, then there must be some other not immediately obvious flaw/downside, I'd assume every military with MBTs would jump on something so much more powerful.
@@lazyman7505 there are issues with how it extends in real life, and accuracy issues associated with that. Also it adds complexity
@@SYsimulations Hmm, I was just rewatching the video and it seems strange that the sleeve would act as if it was rigid. It's hollow tube after all and should crumble from the resistance of the material. Also - it's a tube so even if it 'cuts' a path, there is still material left in the middle section (the 'cutout') that would cause it to deform.
the same effect is easier to achieve by increasing mass and length of the APFSDS core, e.g. using larger caliber gun
I don't get why the telescopic model was consuming nearly the same amount or armor while having way less resistance - even if i take that the extended structure will not break its angle for having a very weak spot and a angled force throught ehresistance of sloped armor.
How is that tank cannons can accelerate a projectile to 1850 m/s when even high-powered rifles are lucky to have a bullet get past 600 m/s?
Because a tank gun is far more powerful and is firing APFSDS.
???
Because apfsds is a sub-calibre projectile which will fly faster due to being lighter...kind of like a .22 projectile being shot out of a .50cal cartridge. Tank guns are also mainly smooth-bore which means reduces resistance in the barrel when firing
In a personal rifle, using similar or greater mass of propellant compared to projectile is called Eargesplitten Loudenboomer. In a tank gun, is normal thing to do. Also small bullet in a big tube.
@@sealpiercing8476 Thanks, I thought the ratios were roughly similar.
Very interesting, I wonder how the 3BM-42 being a segmented and jacketed design would preform against such a target.
Probably worse
Why does the telescoping projectile work better? Less deflection due to greater rotation moment?
How could you stop the telescopic penetrators to fold back in after the initial impact?
Could it be that the new M829A3/4 are of a trailing apfsds design? Its an interesting concept, the trailing sabot
More telescoping apfsds pls
How do telescopic APFSDS prevent the core from sliding forward directly on impact?
wouldnt the drag on a big nose cone be far higher than very thin fins?
Can you do Afganit vs APFSDS simulation?
Hello sir. What do you think is the result of liquids on small caliber kinetic penetrators? Many tank have fuel cell in side sponsons. Does fuel cell provide proof against of 25-35mm armor penetrators? Like is BMP or Bradley cannon? This way you can make thin armor and add fuel and it is more effective space and weight efficiency?
Hi, this is something I'm interested to test as there is plenty of info regarding how effective liquids are against normal bullets; id be curious to see how fuel fairs against small calibre apfsds though
The fact that the technology is so advanced this days, its not matter how the tank armour is sloped or not. It will penetrate anyways if it dont have that specialized spaced armor.
Try it with aps and composite armored
How does the telescopic work? Wouldn't the telescopic one, untelescope itself at impact?
can you do LOSAT hyper Velocity missile.
Can you customize the material properties of the simulation?
Whenever I watch musicless video, I kept on thinking that there will be jumpscare at the end
Can anybody kindly tell me examples of those rounds ? Like what type are M829A-series ?
What about DM-series ? Etc.
Dont worry, with this new segmented APDFS, its only a matter of time before APDFSHE is created by adding a fuze to the front tip of the APDFS round leading to the core of the dart which contains HE filler and then... boom
The telescopic version Vs. Angled spaced armor on angled hull armor.
What can i say going back to the arrow designs
I thought you had already established that it should be very few segments separated by longer extremely low density spacers in between (preferably vacuum or at least air)? Not to mention that conical shapes are probably not ideal at all.
If you reduce the velocity of the projectiles to a more realistic number, increase their size/mass to counter the loss in KE.
how does the empty tube of the telescopic remove the central mass of the armor it hits so efficiently?
5mm thick walls of tungsten pipe and a solid tungsten cone on the front of the dart.
Can you try a design that combines HE and telescopic APFSDS (basically shoving explosives inside the hollow extending part). I think that it may not be effective, but it could be fun to try.
The hollow part of the telescoping rod is filled with the solid core in the back at launch and extends further out as it flies through the air so there would be no room to have it packed with explosives when it was fired.
look into Explosively Formed Penetrators
Impact velocities are way too high. Nevermind that really long darts like (ie M829A3/E4) are generally kinda slow (1500 m/s from an L44 and 1580 m/s from L55). Nothing actually strikes at muzzle velocity. An impact velocity between 50% and 75% of the muzzle velocity is more typical of expected engagement ranges. The "fastest" APFSDS rounds like the old DM13 also tends to be rather short and therefore lose more velocity down range.
What is the purpose of segmented rounds? It seems like it just lowers the overall strength.
What program do you use to do these simulations? Is it Ansys or something else?
How do you get the erosion to work so perfectly? Been struggling for days.
It's always difficult at first, but try different sources for the materials and different damage evolution values
@@SYsimulations even pulling values off of a stress chart has me sweating lol
Possible video of the Russian Kornet missile?
If a proper way to lets apfsds telescope gets developed, it will be and absolute game changer.
can you simulate effects of various AP projectiles on HRA + Ukrainian ERA Nizh and Duplet?
Very interesting video.
Is there any advantage of telescopic shells over simply long shells?
well they take up less space in the tank, and are easier to store while offering the benefits of a longer shell.
in what program he makes this simulations ?
What if we just make a big ass HE round (more than 40 kilos of HE something that is equivalent to 80-200 kg of tnt atleast) that goes 3000+ m/s and just lob that at tanks and everything else
It would have a skill issue getting to the target
What software is used
We went from hurling spears to arrows to balls to rounded, capped cylinders to chemicals to atoms and then finally back to arrows... full circle.
Can u simulate a amx foch ac48 ?
Or you could fill the tungsten tube instead of another tungsten rod you fill it with a solid oxidizer turn the enemy armor and the penetrator into thermite
pretty sure the telescoping apfsds would start tumbling, even with fin stabilization due to the round becoming so back heavy.
Can we have a simulation with an interior damage model? like an APCBC shell detonation post-penetration.
idk why but seeing an esix pfp in the youtube comments did me a heckin spook
why the hell do jacketed /segmented APFSDS rounds exist
The empty cylindrical part cant perforate much in real test, its mass is small, maybe the nose can do some penetration but again not much
I don’t think it’s all that common on the battlefield to find armor plates slopped at such acute angles
M1 Abrams upper frontal plate
what software is this?
wt simulator do you use?
whats the software called?
why wouldnt the back of the round just collapse into the front when the front hits the target? the front would slow down/stop and the back would keep going, causing it to collapse.
Because speed. By the time the fist section is slow enough to be stationary it is already long disintegrated
@@a.t6066 Seems it would just crumple and remove energy from the impact
Please make some ww2 Videos! 😘😊
75 mm Pak 40 vs IS 2 Front Armor
88 mm KwK43 vs IS 3 Front Armor
90 mm Pershing vs King Tiger Front Armor
17 pdr Sherman Firefly vs King Tiger Armor
Distance 500 to 1500 Meters
Thank you and im shure you get many klicks for this Videos because WW2 Armor Vids very interesting in whole world.
this is exactly the stuff that computers are great at - it can optimize 1000s of combinations of armour, ERA, weapons etc. to a) offer the best attack and b) offer the best defense
Attackers will always have the upper hand and defenders need to play catchup. Tanks will become field obsolete soon as they will weight in excess of 100 tons to protect and prevent against most projectiles.
Except that that still takes a very, very long time to run that many simulations