TELESCOPIC, SEGMENTED, & JACKETED APFSDS vs SLOPED ARMOUR | Unique APFSDS Vol. 5
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ส.ค. 2021
- Comparing the effectiveness of the most promising unique APFSDS designs against heavily sloped armour at 82°.
The designs tested are the simple monolithic, trailing telescopic, tapered segmented, and jacketed penetrators, with the target being 50 mm of RHA.
The kinetic energies have been matched between tests, but additional, more realistic velocity tests are shown for the 2 lighter projectiles.
TRAILING TELESCOPE: • TELESCOPING APFSDS | R...
TAPERED SEGEMENT & JACKETED: • UNIQUE APFSDS Vol. 4 |...
References:
[1] Odermatt Formula: www.longrods.ch/perfcalc.php
[2] Paper containing split-rod and similar segmented designs: www.researchgate.net/publicat...
[3] Material Properties: core.ac.uk/download/pdf/28829...
[4] RHA modified from: apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA392...
The hardness used in the Odermatt formula was 300 BHN. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
These designs will be tested against ERA in the near future...
Keep it up. You might be onto something...
Nice
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.
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
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)
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.
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
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.
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
Fascinating stuff and thanks for posting.
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
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 .
Very interesting video.
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.
How effective is the 120mm MPAT against armour when configured to be APHE?
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?
Awesome, loving the reduced velocity stuff.
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
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
Would be cool to see a Composite Metal Foam simulation against APFSDS .
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.
Bless you
Something i don't understand with the telescopic apfsds design is how the slender core remains extended backwards when the ''jacket'' frontal section enters in contact with the armor . By what mechanism is the slender core kept locked backwards untill the entire frontal section is being erroded ?
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?
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.
Telescoping one looks awesome and performs awesome!
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.
Will you go into detail on the depleted uranium apsfs?
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.
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.
What program do you use to do these simulations? Is it Ansys or something else?
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.
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
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.
About the telescopic penetrator, won't it go back in to the "sleeve" due to momentum when it hits the target?
Could it be that the new M829A3/4 are of a trailing apfsds design? Its an interesting concept, the trailing sabot
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.
Very interesting, I wonder how the 3BM-42 being a segmented and jacketed design would preform against such a target.
Probably worse
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
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.
Do you know, why the trailing telescopic penetrator doesnt get retracted again, when it hits the target?
@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"
Круто, я и не знал, что этот снаряд при попадании так деформируется. Я как-то по другому себе это представлял 🤔🤔
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?
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?
Can you customize the material properties of the simulation?
Actually 2a82 cannon is said to have 2+ km muzzle velocity.
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
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?
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.
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.
Can you do Afganit vs APFSDS simulation?
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.
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!
What is the purpose of segmented rounds? It seems like it just lowers the overall strength.
How do telescopic APFSDS prevent the core from sliding forward directly on impact?
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.
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
can you simulate effects of various AP projectiles on HRA + Ukrainian ERA Nizh and Duplet?
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
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
can you do LOSAT hyper Velocity missile.
wouldnt the drag on a big nose cone be far higher than very thin fins?
What software is used
in what program he makes this simulations ?
If a proper way to lets apfsds telescope gets developed, it will be and absolute game changer.
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
The frontal sloped armor above the driver of the Abrams is 82.5°.
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.
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
what software is this?
Can anybody kindly tell me examples of those rounds ? Like what type are M829A-series ?
What about DM-series ? Etc.
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.
The telescopic version Vs. Angled spaced armor on angled hull armor.
What can i say going back to the arrow designs
i know its not really your thing on this channel but could you do 45acp vs ww1 german trench armour or 9mm para vs ww2 soviet steel armour?
I do not think such manufacturer method and metallurgy is well documented?
wt simulator do you use?
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
Whenever I watch musicless video, I kept on thinking that there will be jumpscare at the end
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 u simulate a amx foch ac48 ?
Possible video of the Russian Kornet missile?
If you reduce the velocity of the projectiles to a more realistic number, increase their size/mass to counter the loss in KE.
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
So UFP of M1 Abrams can be pierced with this type of ammo. Interesting.
whats the software called?
So all that boogie hoogie sabot rounds of Abrams tanks are actually useless?
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
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.
Could you try telescoping APFSDS vs active protection? I want to see if there’s a drawback to this seemingly superior projectile.
Manufacturing defects and heavy era can more easily destabilize it
and thats best case with good angling
What is name aplication ? Plese
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.
No ricochet?
APCR + HE update can ?
Gaijin should hire you for their modeling.
What about ricochet?
All very cool but not many machines use plain armor grade steel any more.
Weapon designers are probably taking notes from these videos.
If you think they hadn't already "been there, done that", you are very naive