ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
3BM9 APFSDS vs L15A5 APDS | 1960's APFSDS vs APDS Simulation | Armour Piercing Developments Vol. 4
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ม.ค. 2022
- The 3BM9 Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot projectile was one of the first APFSDS designs in the world and was used with Soviet 125 mm guns. These cannons had a smoothbore instead of rifled ones, increasing projectile velocity and reducing barrel wear. Due to the lack of rifling, a traditional projectile could not be spin-stabilised, hence the addition of fins. The simulation compares 3BM9 to NATO's most powerful kinetic round of the period, the L15A5 APDS.
The adoption of smoothbore tank cannons in the 60's is considered one of the largest tank developments of the 20th century, with most modern tanks now using smoothbores. The effectiveness of APFSDS can clearly be seen, as the worst Soviet APFSDS outperforms the best NATO APDS. This was the case for over 10 years, as the West would not widely adopt APFSDS until the late 70's.
![[LIVE] สิ้นสุดการรอคอย | พี่ดู๋ สัญญา คุณากร | #คุยให้เด็กมันฟัง EP.44/1 (10/08/67)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rBNZCh-QEYE/mqdefault.jpg)
Luckily the cold war never turned hot; this was the worst 125mm APFSDS...
Soviets would have wrecked our ass.
Please do one with both of them against ERA
@@specialagentdustyponcho1065 It gets especially scary when you consider the best tanks available during the 1970s and the fact USSR outnumbered western tanks, even when it came to the newest, best designs.
Early 1970s: T-64A, T-72 vs Leo 1, Chieftain Mk2, M60A1
Late 1970s: T-64B, T-72A vs Leo 1A4, Chieftain Mk5, M60A3
NATO’s only hope of stopping the onslaught of Soviet tanks were large number of ATGMs and tactical nukes.
@@specialagentdustyponcho1065 Nah. A lot more goes into winning a war than X number of tanks. The front is very short for one and many units would have to sit on other boarders
Also consider very contested air and NATO ATGM infantry in cities and forests
Now do NATO sabot vs T62/72 Armor
I'd love to see the M103's monstrous APBC shells put to the test. 23kg of steel at a little over 1000m/s.
I imagine a good test would be against something like an IS-3
T-10M would be a better option. By the time M103 was introduced, IS-3s were removed from frontline service, placed into storage or shipped off to the Russian Far East.
Is 3 aint surviving it unless it hits the frontal turret
The IS-3 was supposed to fight against the Germans in World War II, but the Soviet army won earlier.
@argy0077 I think it's been proved that just because something is "withdrawn" doesn't mean it isn't actually being used in the Russian army
Can you make more of these differences between two shells? It's very interesting!
Indeed
A comparison between Soviet and Western designs would be fantastic when talking about effectiveness against angles. Maybe something like 3BM22 vs 120mm DM23 or maybe 3BM42 vs M829
The velocity plot shot was incredible to watch!
I remember what a officer said to me about tanks, you can have a million men fighting each other and one tank pops up on the hill and everybody will shoot at it.
Just like they firing at one another with rifles and tracers. But, when a crew served weapon is fired and it sounds different (M60, M249, etc...) you can see the enemy tracers shift towards that direction. Everyone knows to kill the suppression weapon.
I’d love to see how trailing telescopic apfsds reacts vs ERA and hard kill APS systems. Those seem like the real make or break factors for whether the added complexity is worth it considering you’ve already shown it’s increased performance against angled armour. I’m completely infatuated with the telescoping projectile concept, I just think it’s so fricking cool.
I'll be revisiting it in the future :)
@@SYsimulationscan you do the rooikat apfsds since the calibre for apfsds is wierd its 76 mm
Notify all notify alllllll. I love these videos. You will inspire young engineers to make something even better.
Even the older 115mm apds steel round is quite powerful.during the fighting in golan height or in gulf war it will penetrate the centurion and chiefstain frontal turrent armour end to end.
Err, no it wouldn’t penetrate Chieftain end to end at all. Source?
@@craigc4334 theres an image in the web showing a iranian chiefstain tank upper turrent armour being hit twice reportly by a kinetic rd fired from 115mm gun.
Can you make a video where an armor plate made of different metals like:
Pure iron
Aluminium
Titanium
Tungsten
Uranium
Gets hit by the same shell? It'd be kinda comparison of how different metals work as armor
I'd really appreciate if you make a video like this
It would be interesting but would take a lot of work to calibrate the materials to match experimental results. I may do some of those materials one day
@@SYsimulations would be interesting to compare modern apfsds (like from the 80s) vs thin armored plates. In war thunder, they have it spalling a lot, which seems odd. Wouldn't it act like a bullet through paper?
Wich Metal Are Strongets?
Impressive, very nice!
just found out about thus channel. man ehat a gold mine
Armor?
I can't believe it's not butter! ;P
*isn’t this(3BM9) the infamous(training) round used by the Iraqi military during the gulf wars that couldn’t pen Abrams but was devastating to Chieftains & M60’s from the Iran/Iraq war* 🤔💡
I think yes, but there was other steel apfsds the 3BM17 wich was a 3BM15 which had a tungsten plug, but the 17 didnt had that. But was longer than 3BM9.
Awesome vid!
Another thing worth noting about soviet APFSDS is that the first rounds for the T62, the first smooth bore MBT were steel penetrators, which meant in a large scale war, it was very economical to field.
Steel, an element that is famously able to withstand composites at supersonic speed./s
@@corwintipper7317 Now mention 1 western tank with composite armor in the mid 70's
@@scarface1ghost624 The prototype M1, Chally 1 and Leo2 and some composite add on armor on the chieftain and m60a1/a3
Very interesting. The APDS travles "upwards" in the armor, basically getting deflected. While the APFSDS "normalizes" or travles "downwards".
Do you know if this is normal behaviour for APFSDS?
Yes, it's much better at staying normalized on more extreme amour angles meaning it suffers less deflection and technically goes through less armor meaning it can go through thicker plates with the same kinetic energy
in practice no round "normalizes". Well, they do in the sense of "denormalization" which is the deflection part you're talking about. Although both of these terms, it seems, do not exist in literature, and are only used in trivial use to convey the same meaning.
The downwards effect you can see on any round, it's the armor plate shearing, because of no supporting material being left anymore, it only happens near the back end of the plate (it's technically also kind of related to the overal size of the round too, how early this effect kicks in). That's how you achieve seemingly higher penetration value than you'd expect looking at just LOS thickness, because the round takes a "shortcut" at the end. Since APFSDS travels in a very straight line compared to non rod ammunition, this shearing effect only boosts angled performance, whereas full calibre round tend to deflect as they try to stay whole (APFSDS just breaks apart at the tip to stay on course, APFSDS works through eroding itself). So although the shearing of the back plate helps too with full calibre AP, it isn't as noticeable as it also in return deflects a lot, losing angled performance.
An APFSDS is longer so it has a higher moment of inertia. Note that the moment of inertia increases by the square of the distance to the center. An other factor is that an APFSDS is thinner so it creates less torque.
As far as I know, it is normal behavior for Soviet APFSDSs, but not because they are APFSDS, but because of other innovations, like geometry of shell, material of outer core and so on. Also I have read (can't guarantee if it's true) that when the angle of attack closer to 0 degrees (shell is perpendicular to the armor) than L15 has better penetration than 3BM9. I am Russian and I am Communist, so I am not biased for the favor of Western weapons :)
@@user-xn2zd7bl1u based
Great stuff. More evidence to point to when people want to argue NATO had better stuff. It was rarely true.
Perhaps you could do a T-72A upper glacis with and without the 16mm additional armor vs. the M111?
How do you model the effect of temperature on the strength of the materials?
Johnson-Cook material models, which take into account thermal softening
@@SYsimulations have you validated the simulations with tests, like a normal bullet hiting a angled plate and a high speed camera? Since in some simulations the crumbling of the round into single elements is kind of weird. Or do you have any other way to tell the confidence interval of the results?
I’m very interested in this program and the education you might have in order to make these simulations?
What’s the program they use?
Have you done a reactive armor simulation?
Be interesting to see what a modern round would do to the front of a Matilda MK2 because I have heard great things about not only it's thickness but the quality in the heat treat and the steel
In the front and right out the back. You would need over 500 mm of modern armor steel to stop even a 35-year-old projectile.
@@LOLHAMMER45678 no doubt it would still be funny to see
Can you maybe do APFSDS but with the sabot still attached?
How do you do your simulations
Hey @SY Simulations I wanted to ask what do you use for making the simulations and what settings because sometimes the armor doesn't properly break like it is suppose to break
I use Ansys and editted Johnson Cook parameters for the materials. Its not perfect but I think its at a pretty good state right now. What do you think isnt right? My L15A5 video compares the simulation to real word results and theyre almost identical.
That APDS sure cuts one hell of a swath.
which software are you using for these situations
Now we need:
3BM9 and L15A5 vs Tiger II armour.
What is the thickness of the sloped metal plate?
140mm
How hard would it be to simulate how much water would be needed to stop apfsds?
Well, you'd be able to tell where SY *_used_* to live by looking in the direction of the newly born star forming out of what used to be his computers heatsink.....
what app?
The thing I'm learning from watching these videos, is armor does nothing to stop rounds.
"nothing" aint a good way to put it.
the fact that the Maus’ armour could potentially be penned by modern shells says something…
Nowadays it's not so much about stopping the rounds outright as absorbing or redirecting as much of their energy as possible to minimize their terminal effect. But yeah, the days of rounds bouncing off tanks are pretty much over.
Amazing to see. APDS looks terrifying...
Being killed in a tank has to be one of the worst ways to die if you aren't killed outright...
King Tiger vs 17 pdr please
APCBC or APDS?
What program are you using?
can you do HE vs HEAT vs HEAT-FS? I think it would be cool
i would love to see APFSD vs metal-ceramic armour like chobham armour
What software is this?
Totally Accurate Impact Simulator :D
What software is this? impetus?
Was the erosion optimised so that it doesn't glance off? If so, how?
Also, if I think of how my tanks would have looked like IRL after surviving a war thunder match, I do wonder how it would be repaired. So many dimples and nicks and a few penetrations. If a car was this badly damaged, the shop would tell me that I should buy a new car instead...
it sounds stupid but can you do a diamond round?
I just wanna know how you do your animations
With engineering software called Ansys
maybe you could do some simulations of regular pistol calibers such as 9x19 parabellum?
I'll be doing smaller projectiles at some point in the future :)
Were the fins a little spiral to induce spin?
thats probably just a spin induced by travel the fins on apfsds are made to counter the rotation since those types of perpetrators lose a great deal of penetration from the rotation thats why most mbt guns use a smooth bore barrel unless they have some full caliber shells that its designed to fire
Velocity means everything.
Whether it's a .45 ACP or a 7mm Mauser from a 29 inch tube.
Cross section and speed means everything
Wrong! Time is the reason everything doesn't happen at once.
Material is important too. Won't do much if the projectile is soft lead
Since the speed has in the formulla of kinetic energy the highest impact => this statement is very true.
@@MultiDivebomber right but a copper jacketed soft point from my 7 Mauser will go right through a high tensile steel grader blade whereas a larger diameter slower yet 50% heavier .308 Winchester only craters and puts a slight bulge in it. A 30-30 barely leaves a lead mark.
It's more about speed than anything
@@MartinMizner "speed kills" is appropriate here as well as in cars. A .223 going 3200 fps drills a neat hole in sheet steel whereas a .22 rim fire will bulge the metal before perforating
We're on that BESH by now 😉
I suggest you and dejmian make a simulation contest who can develop the most penetrating projectile against 0° steel plate in agreed mass, velocity and material.
It's gonna be like a nerd War Thunder duel.
apds vs apcr (hvap) maybe next?
I like how you have Shells with Straight Forward Names like HE and AP. And then there's the APHEFSDSHEATHECBC
I'm surprised that the fins actually enter the armor. Are they actually made of the same material as the penetrator?
They are Al
So. From what i can tell, close penetrations (like nearly blocked by armour). The APDS/APFSDS just has like a tiiiiiny % left from the penetrator to actually do damage inside the tank.
Which is logical. So, even if the armour does not completely block the round, it can infact block a good deal of the potential damage it would cause if the round penetrated with a greater margin.
Nope, both of these are catastrophic penetrations.
Tanks are cramped metal boxes, and that small fragment of APFSDS was still going 800m/s after the armour. There's a reason the British during ww2, despite using very large explosive fillers in AP for warships, didn't even bother with it for tank AP, its really not required. If you can penetrate you are going to kill a crewman and trash some vital equipment at the very least, tanks don't have redundancy so they get knocked out. Things are totally different in War thunder of course.
Look at the velocity plot. the small fragments were going at like 400 m/s in a spray across the crew compartment . You can imagine what that would do to crew when its bouncing around a compartment let alone the mangled lump of penetration going at 800m/s
Now do NATO apds vs Soviet T62/72 Armor
I still prefer the bigger rounds, brute force is more like my thing, more damage, more kaboom, and if it's slow enough you can use the art of artillery or even the art of granade launchers and mortars with it
I read a document that showed the L15A3/A5 could penetrate 150mm/60o at 1750yards
What about range - apds loses more speed by air resistance so long range shots couldnt penetrate same plate that in point blank
I noticed something, that the darts usually simulated have a temperature of about the same as the impacted plate. Wouldnt the darts be slightly hotter due to being fired out of a cannon and actually travelling at speeds where the airflow around them actually heats them up instead of cooling it down due to friction in the dense air at ground level,? Wouldnt that have an effect on the performance even if its ever so small?
Yes, in reality they would be warmer, but not to an extent where it would make much of a difference. Its simplified in simulations where its just set to room temperature
@@SYsimulations also if you want to show the real progress on the characteristics of different ammunition types I recommend doing simulations for the T55As D10T2S gun
You got everything from APHE(BR 412 series), to APDS(3BM-8) to APFSDS(3BM25) and HEATFS(3BK-5 and onwards). Even tandem HEAT ATGMS can be fired from the same gun. I do not know if the propellant charge would be the same for the kinetic rounds but I assume as much. That would be a really good gaige for the performance of different type of rounds fired through the same gun with the same amount of propellant.
Love this, are you able to please show how effective the M4a2 or M4A4 (76) Sherman's front slope and turret was vs German 75L48, 88L56 and 75L70 using Pzgr39. Do your video's include things like shattering, overmatch and normalization?
now do a APFSDS shell fired from the yamato's gun.....for scientific purposes
There is a lot of rhetoric of a lot of Soviet ammo being "the worst" or something. What these people often fail to acknowledge is that these types of ammunition came out relatively early and should be compared to advanced APDS shells which they beat even when in their cheap, steel configuration. Something as T-62 or T-64 or even T-72 had simply superior firepower until very end of Cold War when advanced Nato APFSDS projectiles came into service and Warsaw Pact got its reputation due to using this ammunition as cheap export product several decades ago.
'
why no powerful TNT inside the bullet to through the armor and band boom insde tank
Compared to the APFSDS, that APDS made a whole lot more spall
Irrelevant really. Notice the APFSDS remaining piece and tiny bits of spall have a much higher velocity ~800 m/s so whatever it hits inside the vehicle is very much game over as in this situation the driver is now dead and getting the driver's remains out of his seat and replacing him is quite difficult from inside all while the enemy is going to keep engaging you until you burn. So you GTFO. In a AFV once the armor is perforated it's over. An IFV/APC sure if the round passes through the troop compartment it could continue in action as it has a much larger volume for the spalling to hit or pass through irrelevant equipment or space to the function of the vehicle. If you classify the potential troops in the compartment as non essential.
Doesn't really matter since tank crews are trained to bail at first penetration. If something can pierce your tank once it can and will do it again.
Im confused by the name APDS as the sabot aint discarded when firing. As far as I knew APDS and APDS FS are very similar but the former is spin stabilized.
The shell depicted here as APDS is an APCR, Armour Piercing Composite Rigid, basically a hard central penetrator with a soft shell around it.
Look up a picture of L15A5. It definitely has a sabot before firing, as it is a subcaliber round. APCR projectiles typically look somewhat like an APDS projectile that still has its sabot attached in flight.
As warriorcat says, this is APDS, the sabot isn't shown
Alright thanks for the clarification.
I see that the L15A5 has a sabot, and the jacket is a different layer.
That apds round is still smoking at 1370 m/s!
This is the ultimate version of the old (L15) versus the worst example of the new.
The innate value of APDSFS is on show; 3BM9 is an awful, cheap-out thing (they knew how to make composite steel/Wh darts, but 'expensive') that wastes the gun's potential, yet at 60° it's close to equalling the performance of a highly refined, Wh-heavy old-school APDS projectile.
At lower obliques it's a rather different story, at 2km the L15 is ~33% better in perpendicular impact.
Roll on the mid-70s and all-steel darts are gone and BM-15 is the new standard and modestly better than L15 in every way (or so they said, I'm guessing many a Soviet Lt. Col. lined his pockets whilst handing out BM-15 stencil kits to BM-9 equipped tankers 😮)
Game name
I theorize if we have like a gradient of different materials As the projectile slows and relative to molten-ness, around it as it travels; that would be pretty good🧐☝
I mr. "scientists" will steal this but we
First what if physics is complete opposite im not trying u to make it im trying to get an answer
Yeah few things wrong with this, one Russia uses slug sabot not monolithic sabot, sloped armour will shatter the penetrator and rod where monolithic goes through more armour when sloped, it's rod length is max on flat angles, this is how the two are to this day
They use both monolithic and slugs, with this being the first 125mm apfsds. The rod shattering will only be visible when a longer portion of it comes through the back of the plate
@@SYsimulations the monolithic ones are very rarely deployed, however that is true the early rods shattered when they essentially slapped the armour
could you add a Text to speech narration?
L15A5 is still pretty impressive for APDS.
He payed for the whole cpu. He's going to use the whole cpu.
MORE
The thumbnail looks like APCBC and not APDS
Meanwhile apds in war thunder seems to do less damage
Absolutely incorrect data, the armor penetration of 125-мм 3БМ9 at an angle of 60 degrees is only 80 mm of armor with a hardness of 300 BHN and at an angle of 0 degrees - 245 mm.
Nope, it can go through 140mm at 2k; just Google 3bm9 penetration. 80mm would be so little...a 17pdr from ww2 can go through that
@@SYsimulations My friend, my father is a colonel in the Soviet Army, served in East Germany (DDR) and was a military adviser in Iraq(1981 and 1987-1988) and Yemen. I have at hand special documentation for these APFSDS (3БМ9, 3БМ12, 3БМ15, 3БМ22, 3БМ26, 3БМ42), with an inscription "Для служебного пользования" ("For official use"). If you are interested in something, then ask, I will answer in detail.
@@SYsimulations Oh, I'm sorry, I took out the document and looked at the 3БМ9 data, mass-5,67 kg(3,62kg), muzzle energy- 9200 kJ armor penetration at an angle of 0 degress- 245mm, at an angle of 30 degress- 210 mm, 35 degress- 200 mm, 45 degress- 180mm, 60 degress-140mm, 72 degress-80mm.
What would happen if one of these went through a human being
Said human would be reduced to a red puddle
Hm, it's almost like soviets knew what they were doing when they made those things...
Now we gotta see what 🅱️ESH can do.
Как игра називаетса
Это не игра, это симулятор "Ansys"
Target destroyed
Quite a moot point comparation.. as first 125mm equipped tank in serial production was T64A in 1973...
1969 production and fielding. 1970 production.
@@belgianfried T64A came into production in 1973... T72 in 1974... so in 1970, there was no tank with 125mm gun that could use these rounds... BM-9 in 1970 was pretty much a testing projectile..
@@JaM-R2TR4 My source is Kubinka Tank Museum. First Object 172 was created in 1968, Object 172M (T-72) was accepted into service on December of 1972. So you are wrong, actually.
@@belgianfried yes, but those were prototype tanks... first serial produced tank with 125mm gun was T64A in 1973... so there is no point in comparing 1960 Chieftain against projectile that would not be in use till 1973-74... and FYI - T64A was problematic, with some technical issues, so Soviet Army got functional tank with T72 in 1974-1975 when first 200 were manufactured..
@@JaM-R2TR4 Completely incorrect.
"T-72: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow" states that the T-64A was in production (but not service) by 1968.
The same source, plus "T-72/90: EXPERIENCE IN CREATING DOMESTIC MAIN BATTLE TANKS" also states that the T-72 was already in serial production by December 1972.
So?
125mm 3BM9 not real 125mm only about 42mm diameter but better than old standard 25mm
I think the shrapnel on a APDS are bigger if it successfully penetrate
Without charge payload then how possibly can APFSDS kill ?Can anyone solve my question mark in mind?
The shrapnel from penetrating will harm the crew and damage internal components, or ignite the ammunition or fuel
Algorithm.
1
APDS has much more and larger schrapnel
I'd argue that APDS would be more effective against older tanks (especially those with cast turrets and not welded plates) even if they have lower penetration because they have the ability to penetrate with higher lethality
Not true notice how the large fragments of the APFSDS projectile don’t shatter but rather perforate at ~1000ms once penetration has occurred. That allows it to have far greater lethality than the APDS who inefficiently expends all its kinetic energy simply having to overcome shell normalisation to the point that once penetration finally does occur there’s nothing behind the shell as shown by the animation.
Wow I was early to this one, only 1 view
Leopard 2K spaced armor turret vs L28/DM13 105 mm APDS
Both penetrated the plate , so no need for a ADFSDS for the NATO . How accurate were this early APFSDS projectiles really at range , the Brits still use rifled cannons for that reason .
The L15A5 was only used on one single tank, the chieftain...all other NATO tanks couldn't penetrate this target, or the T64/72's main armour. APDS was not good enough for 105mm cannons and APFSDS was very accurate afaik
@@SYsimulations The T64 has composite armor , not this plate you shot . Rated at 440mm for kinetic and the T62 has 102mm at 60° . As far as I know , wich front plate should that be you shot at ?
@@SYsimulations NATO was relying on HEAT rounds at that time (and Soviets as well, as these early APFSDS rounds were not that accurate).. of course, against composite armors HEAT became obsolete, so they switched to APFSDS rounds as well in late 70'ties, and in general 105mm APFSDS rounds were at the same level as 125mm APFSDS Soviets had at the time... 120mm then outperformed them completely...
@@5co756 The plate isnt from any specific tank, just a 140mm target plate to compare their maximum penetration. The T64's composite array is stronger thant his plate which is why im saying APDS wouldnt be enough to deal with T64/72s reliably
@@JaM-R2TR4 I know HEAT was relied upon but like you say, it was insufficient against T64/72 composite arrays. Apologies if APFSDS is actually inaccurate, but my general point still stands, NATO was insufficiently armed between the mid-60's and 70's to deal with the new soviet MBTs, which could easily deal with all of their tanks
that was APCBC aktually.... but thumb up
It's not apcbc, its apds; L15A5 is just designed like that. There are plenty of images of it
Apds chad
🧈
If only gaijin saw this.
Рокетп*рно
🤨
God needs to nerf these
APFSDS shells NOT ROTATING!!!
They still do, but slower than rifled projectiles. The fins literally have chamfers on them to induce a spin
please????????🥲🥲🥲🥲🥲🥲