T-34 vs FACE-HARDENED ARMOUR SIMULATION | 76mm BR-350B vs Pz.IV H | Armour Penetration Simulation
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ส.ค. 2023
- Face hardened armour (FHA) was common on early war German tanks; this type of armour featured an extremely hard front face, with the remainder of the plate being tougher and more ductile. The intention of this was to cause projectiles to shatter or deform on impact, dissipating their energy, instead of the armour having to deform and absord the energy.
The simulation presents the 76mm BR-350B projectile, with hardening upto 450BHN at the nose, impacting the Panzer IV H's 80mm upper plate at a side angle of 15°, from 250m. This is a direct comparison to the previous KV-1 vs Up-Armoured Panzer IV video, which had 80mm total of spaced armour: • KV-1 vs UP-ARMOURED PA...
The spaced armour seems to have performed slightly worse, but by a smaller margin than expected. This may be due to the amount of the projectile which is eroded and broken by the first HHA plates.
The FHA has a 5mm portion of 600BHN steel, with the remainder being 350BHN. The bulk is still relatively hard, with low elongation, hence the very noticeable shear bands which form. While the indentation is very small, the plate is very close to failing through plugging (I ran another simulation with the plate strength reduced by ~5% and it pushed through a plug).
Amazing Thumbnail Artwork from: Sean Barron www.artstation.com/artwork/Ka... - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
That last view is absolutely fantastic for everyone's understanding how close the armor was to failure.
Thanks for including it!
To by honest the distance was only 250 meters so the armour hold up extremely well.
That hit would cause nasty spall inside the tank and from your comment it is clear its not visible for you...
forgot about spalling
That small amount of spall would have gotten mostly absorbed by the driver or bow gunner, and the internal wall behind them, in this particular instance. It wouldn't take much to stop the spall from hitting the 3 turret crewmen in this case, and those guys would probably be able to bail out. RIP to the 2 guys in front though.
The tank is probably done for few days. Crew maybe ok, maybe some dead.
Would be cool to see 76 mm M93 HVAP vs Panther UFP.
It would be interesting to see both a face hardened Ausf D UFP vs an Ausf A or later homogenous UFP
@@STHV_ That's also true! Face hardened armour is subpar at high obliquity impacts due to plug shearing so a comparison (against M93) or some other shell that's "close" to being able to penetrate) would be very interesting.
The armor really just said "man fuck you" *shatters your tank round *
You should try this with Krupp armor that was used on warships, it had face hardening that went much deeper and had a gradient of hardness rather than an abrupt transition.
Pretty sure the maus used that type of steel.
Tigers in the Mud again, that book had everything. Otto Carius talked about how brittle other tanks were, with a shell damaging the metal structure and failing. He praised the Tiger's armor a lot, saying that the RHA plate would "melt like butter" as the shell tried to penetrate it, both keeping the structure intact and being able to absorb all the energy
Dude! Thank you so much for explaining the concepts of the armour at the very start!
Your content is always engaging and informative and the addition of explaining the core concepts like this is a cherry on top and I hope it's something that you are able to continue doing.
Wishing you all the best and thank you for all your hard work and effort to bring us all the content, I for one really, really appreciate it!
Thank you so much! Really appreciate it...apologies for the late reply though
@@SYsimulations not a problem in the least and you are more than welcome.
Nice. Those shear bands...I see what you mean. Question - could you do the hit by IJN Kirishima on the USS South Dakota's #3 barbette. Apparently the hit clipped a deck hatch which decapped the projectile, which went a long way toward ensuring this did little more than scar and leave a shallow impact crater on the surface. (Ref NAVWEAPS and the articles on the battleship action 14-15 November and the USS South Dakota damage analysis). This might be another interesting face hardened test case. It would also be interesting to have the exact same impact profile, yet with the cap in place to see what difference that would make.
Ooh, ooh, I can simulate the Kirishima getting hit by the 16" shell!
It just keeps going all the way through the ship.
tl;dr for our channel host; impact angle 17.6 degrees from vertical.
The Lundgren/Okun article on Navweaps really clears up some ambiguity in the original Damage Report #57. The newer paper concluded that the 14” pushed through the weather deck, decapping the shell. On impact, the base swung up and slapped the barbette above the impact site. The cap itself ricochet’d through the hatch coaming.
I tried to modify the link to be postable but my comment was deleted.
Yeah I posted my comment because Jon Parshall just commented that Nathan Okun's penetration calculator showed the shell going "THWIP!" if it hit horizontally the only armor was the belt. @@PhantomP63
I'd like to see the same vs the Sherman's most common round.
I agree completely, a direct comparison of the 75mm m3 with it's lower velocity but higher quality ammunition
@@dyllanalford5276I believe the 75mm M3 had more penetration than the Soviet 76mm.
@@BLUNTESSTBOOT233correct. Harder projectile
@@Losingsince there’s a video of the 75mm M3 penetrating the tiger at point blank so it should probably punch through the PZ IV at a decent range
@@BLUNTESSTBOOT233the T-34 had a better penetration compared to the Sherman's 75mm. The main advantage of the sherman though was that it's optics and overall crew sights meant finding and shooting was way easier on a sherman. It was noted that in urban combat, a sherman would have advantage even over a Panther for it's optics and targeting were great. The T-34 was very fast and loud as hell. Germans said you knew one was around from kms away before you could see it. It would also go through terrain that germans would never imagine, mud, swamps, nothing could stop it. But the sherman? I saw soviet veterans who just loved the tank. They said the only issue was being too tall. By the time they made the easy 8, shermans were already superior to the medium tanks of every nation.
To me it's quite unfair to say the Sherman was a bad tank
~250m?! That is super close! Even early AT guns, similar to Pak 35/36 were a threat to T-34 at that distance!😲
well, not really, they didint call the pak36 the door knocker for nothing
@@quan-uo5ws Being struck that close at the correct angle. It's still a potential threat that the Soviet tank crews couldn't just ignore it. Besides, Brits, Yanks, Soviets, Italians, Japanese, Swedes had very similar ATs in their inventory (large quantities) in that stage of war.
@@quan-uo5ws Ok but pak 38 could totally defeat a T34 even at 1000m
Latest versions of Panzer IIIs were on par with T34/76
As for Panzer IV, versions like Ausf G and H outclassed T34, that's why the Russians had to bring on the T34/85
The 76mm gun couldn't even pierce the 80mm frontal armor of a Panzer IV unless at close range like possibly under 300m while the Panzer IVs and Stug IIIs could destroy a T34 even beyond 1000m
T34/85 was on par with the Panzer IV H or G as each tank could destroy the other at 1000m and beyond but still was outclassed by Panthers and Tigers and by far
As for cold war, the 85 was outclassed by even the Sherman's long 76mm gun and completely destroyed by the Pershing
nice simulation! as always!
The narration's been a great addition to the channel vids. Nice work!
With the military experimenting so much with flechette ammo and fast firing gun (like hstv-l), can you do simulation on how close together two hits would need to be to penetrate?
That is really cool. At first it looks like it barely did anything, but in the final shot you can see how close it was to plugging
I'd like to see a comparison between standard US WW2 era (1943-1945) 90mm M82 ammo and the later T50E1 90mm ammo. T50E1 had significantly improved metallurgic properties and it'd be interesting to see the two projectiles compared head-to-head. T50E1 was eventually adopted as M82 postwar. Someone on the war thunder forums/reddit has made an excellent post describing the differences between the 3 M82 projectiles used by the US.
Is there a link to this post to read?
*YOU MADE THE SNAIL MAD*
Ive always been curious, what happens when you hit the top/ bottom of a plate? With the round going through the plate welded/ bolted to the hit.
Can you do a sim on a very large caliber (like 152mm) armor piercing shell hitting armor below fuse sensitivity?
I am disappointed to not find a T34 traveling at 900mps impacting steel plate. 0/10 for title honesty, 10/10 for a helluva video.
there was also the knowledge of german engineers of the pzIV's armor hardness's sheering and potential spalling problem that caused them to abandone the hardening process on thicker armor plates, thinking that the thickness alone would be enough
Can you do a Tiny Tim on the roof of either a T-72 panther or tiger ll whichever one is more simple with or without the HE warhead
General question how effective was plugging, I saw a lot of soviet shells do it in sims but in real life it seamed to have had much less effect than other shells that do radial fracture or brittle fracture when they come close to penetration. (like German and American shells seamed to rarely plug)
I'm not sure your assumption is correct.
Plugging always shows up, especially at a higher angle of impact, with some upper bound. But plugging is also often observed with penetration that is around the limits, even at lower impact angle.
Plugging is instead not observed when penetrator is significantly above the limit and is intact.
But any given projectile armor interaction will always have more than 1 failure mode. Some failure mode will be the dominated one but it is almost never going to be 1 only. In this instance, the plug itself experience some radial fracture for example.
Beside, both the armor and the penetrator has equal responsibility on the observed failure.
sorry, what is the name of this simulation app
You mentioned that FHA has hardened surface and ductile steel at the back. So how armor is "very close to failing" when it barely made a dent? It would break over initial surface and then would face metal which is very resistant to bending and doesn't shatter.
Simulation idea: maybe one of the tungsten balls from a M30A1 GMLRS warhead?
Impressive
I'd love to see a modern day tank-fucker-upper against these old iron beasts
Can you do the sherman 75mm vs the panzer IV 80mm face-hardened armor? 👀
Could you do the Jumbo's machine gun port versus the panther or the Tiger I's round?
On the subject of face-hardening, could you throw some high calibre naval shells at battleship plate? Ideally with one example being face-hardening done poorly (for the shells being thrown at it) like US battleship face-hardened armour seems to have mostly been, and another example (against the same threat) being face-hardening done well. Maybe you could even do one without any face hardening at all. To my understanding US battleship class A armour was quite good in lower thicknesses against lighter shells (cruiser and below) but the shear depth of the hardening made them very poor and prone to cracking and shattering at the scale of battleships. It sounds like face-hardening loses a lot of it's benefits as you get to that scale
Don't US has like 3 different manufacturers each has their own formula and process for their class A plate, and each exhibit different behavior?
If I may suggest, a Mark 8 out of a QF 17-pounder 76.2mm (3') against a T34-85 Drivers Hatch/ Frontal Armour. I'm curious to see how allied muntions would've stacked up against Soviet tanks.
I just used WarThunder armour viewer and it will not penetrate the drivers hatch.
To defeat it you need 120mm APFSDS from no further than 100m.
(sarcasm aside, 1Km, easy. 2Km not the hatch but still go through the plate.)
Probably not the best matchup if you want to do that, a 17 pounder will go through a medium tank like the T-34 with ease. The Sherman's 75mm would be a better matchup against T-34 armor, or if you want to use the 17 pounder, an IS-2 or T-44 would be a better target.
@sayerglasgow115 I chose the QF 17-Pounder due to it being the standard anti-tank cannon used in Sherman VC tanks, the Archer, and subsequent post-war era Challenger and Comet prototypes. A short 75mm from a Shermans M3 cannon would've made a better test munition in hindsight.
Fun Fact Face Harderned armor is used in Ships, in the American case there was a drive to shattering projectiles, for this reason their cruisers had a very brittle Armor, but that almost doomed the battleship armor if wasnt for futher testings, as the effect was not it for higher caliber guns, like a 14 in gun
What application are you doing all this in? Thank you for your reply
i wonder what would happen if you face harden the interior side
Хотелось бы увидеть подобную симуляцию со снарядом БР 305П
It's weird to think somewhat that should be so useful, like face-hardening existed so long with warships but wasn't used on armor until WW2.
The main reason for diitching face hardening was that the plantbthat did this was bombed. Hence only small parts were face hardened.
KZ-4 vs Bradley or Abrams would be interesting
Наконец-то есть поверхностная закалка...
I know far more about naval history than tanks, but as I understand it face-hardened armour didn't disappear because of ballistic caps, but because face-hardening is often counter-productive when used with sloped armour, coupled with removing the face-hardening process being a war-expiediency measure AND the scarcity of some of the alloying elements that are needed to make good face-hardened armour towards the end of the war.
could face hardend armour be used as part of coomposite arrays?
From what I have read, Germany also started running out of steel workers that could face-harden armor plates.
I would like to see the HVAP 76 Sherman round vs the king tiger front to prove gaijin that the 76 Sherman was capable of killing a tiger 2 frontally
Would a RHA plate have stopped the round as well, is my biggest question 😊
Thats why Tiger ,even if a square tank, have strong armor
Odd the Germans used AP-capped shells even though I don’t seem to recall if the Brits, USA or Russians used much face hardened armor. A properly designed APC projectile if driven at a high enough initial velocity will do just fine. The UK 17 pdr APCBC, USA 76 mm/3” M62 or the 90 mm M82 or the Russian 100 mm BR-412D (possibly post-war) are examples.
The same trend away from face hardened armor was also seen in the last battleships. Big thick, tough alloy plates ar😂e hard enough to roll and shape much less face hardened and anneal. Plus AP shells such as the 2,700 AP capped with windscreens for the USN’s 16”/45 & 16”/50 were well designed for dealing with FH armor. (And rarely used vs other battleships - USS Washington vs IJN Kirishima is the only one that comes to mind. Surigao Strait was resurrected WW I vintage Battleships (whose 16”/45 guns could not fire the 2,700 lbrs) vs similar vintage IJN battleships.)
Tiger 2 APCR shot vs pershing front turret
How do you make those shell animation?
Even if it stops the round the back shoots shrapnel inside lol
Pero cuando yo uso ese panzer la defensa no funciona de la misma forma
Can you try with 75mm M72 AP from a Sherman/Cromwell? :)
Wow, I dont know this!
Solution during that time was to continue using FHA as it was superior type of armor technology. Except add an additional layer of armor which would be sufficient at shattering armor projectile caps. Then it would hit FHA part which would stop the projectile. This type of armor would be early composite armor and would had been superior to historical alternatives at the time.
There was up-armor attempts, but they were more of improvisations. They also did not designed specific plates to counter specific threats. Furthermore, it wasn't made in factory and mostly just improvised and poorly wielded add-ons to a tank. Instead of Tiger having 100 mm of RHA steel, it could have had 80 of FHA steel. Then an air gap. Then it would have 20 mm of external armor. This armor would be wielded over a tank as a main plate. This would had been much more effective against all projectiles and maybe would even protect against HEAT.
88mm vs CHALLEGER 2 lower plate pls
It is standard rha 70/30.
The result is rather obvious.
@@jintsuubest9331 maybe add era (it will have negligible effect)
Can you please shoot a jagtiger HE into the side turret of the m41a1 tank pplssss
Okay, that's crazy. Panzer IV regulates! 💪🏽🇩🇪🔥💯❤️
Do you think you could do a medieval cannonball against something like a panther or t-34 upper plate?
IRL, BR-350B vs 80mm Pz-IV front - penetraton @ 600m. BR-350A failed to panetrate @ 100m.
Sauce?
Probably it was 50mm RHA + 30mm FHA. The 80mm FHA would certainly stop the round at 500m.
Didn't you mean to say the face is harder and the rest less hard?
Alright, rip saori and mako (radio operator and driver)
plate on pz 4 is till end 500 brinell hardened
cannon ball vs tigers armour?
I want to know, does APCR really bounce at such small angles? or is it wrong in WT?
APCR acts more like solid shot and APDS in real life. WT used to get it right, but low and mid tier APCR spam caused that to be changed.
Tungsten tipped rounds improved German penetration
What is the name of the program?
close to failing is better than failing
Can challenger 2s underplate get penatrated by ww2 gun?
ok so, what if you reverse it and put the hard plate at the back?
It would cause some major spalling at the back of the plate.
What if the whole thing was “face hardened”
What is going on, I wonder? Your channel has 80k subs but only 30k people have watched this video.
Close but no dice.
I thought the pzIV ausf H had 20+20+30mm base armor and bolted armor plates.
No that one was pretty rare. It was an old Pz. V D which was modernized with extra armor and the KwK 40.
So probably an old tank which was repaired and then upgraded.
The regular versions of Pz. IV
went through this armor iterations:
30mm FHA
30mm FHA + 30mm FHA
50mm FHA
50mm FHA + 30mm FHA
80mm FHA
80mm RHA
The soviet 85mm was famously ineffective against tigers.
Pls make it with 57mm gun ;-)
Program?
War Thunder: Pz4H got extreme penetration by BR350B from 500m
Interesting, I thought panzer 4 had only RHA.
No every version except the J actually had FHA for all vertical front and side plates m.
Video suggestion. The 76mm M1 vs the 17 pounder
Non pen .
Shel shattered.
Did the face hardening actually help? I have my doubts about it. Maybe you could run another sim of the same scenario but with a 350 BHN homo plate this time?
Yeah. I am also curious about that. Flat projectiles were used because pointed shells were not very effective against FHA, so by using flat shells you lose nothing but gain advantages in some areas.
Face hardening defeats uncapped ammo by causing the round to shatter. It is very effective especially when the calibre of the ap round under matches the armour thickness. Soviets used almost exclusively uncapped ammo, the most numerous being 45, 56, 76 and 85mm . German 80mm FHA plates were therefore the optimal thickness to defeat those rounds. However FHA is less effective than RHA against capped ammo but since most of the fighting was being done on the Eastern front and British/US AP was generally smaller calibre than Soviet stuff, the use of FHA was the better compromise for the Germans. They later dropped face hardening due to shortage of alloys and difficulties associated with heat treatment and controlled quenching of thick plates.
@@berttrombetta4953 Good bot.
It performed well and after the impact the the panzerkampfagen is still functional, unlike driver's face
Could you show a simulation of the MBT M1A2 SEPSv2 upper right or left turret plate vs older kinetic penetrators like the 8.8 cm KwK 36 form the tiger 1 or 7.5 cm Kampfwagenkanone (KwK) 42 L/70 from Panzer V, or the tigger 2s 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 anti-tank, that would be amazing to see how modern armor works against older projectiles.
No. Turret Armor of modern MBTs is classified
@@pimmelschilz9728 oh, how about older models of MBTs, like the M1A1?
There's a video showing Jagdtiger 128mm vs Abrams lower hull@@MrWilde-zx7vm
@@MrWilde-zx7vm We only know base M1 (from 1979) and I think only the hull.
@@rare_kumiko Oh, that’s too bad. It would be cool if we could see the modern armor and how well it does.
ceramic armor… your ancestors:
is it me or warthunder says otherwise
WT doesn’t have FHA for tanks.
Imagine German Tanks with more heavy-duty engines, fixed transmissions, and better quality, face-hardened steel...
what if we put this on a Tiger 1? ik it probably never was a thing but what if?
War thunder players be like: what do you mean no pen
Риальный т34 76 пробивал pz4 в силует , то что вы показываете дезинформация
pls name simulator
In War Thunder russian bias just skips the hard layer.
Isnt this basically just a very basic form of composite armor?
No. It’s just steel with specific properties.
Floppy Soviet projectile vs. face hardened armor made of sex
So, why did they stop it? Was it costs or the risk of spalling?
The video says that advances in projectile technology, particularly ballistic caps, defeated the face-hardening, so they focused on other armor technology instead.
It was pointless after enemy's tech caught up. Otherwise it was just wasting a lot of material making it. Saving strategic resources was important as their logistics pool dried up.
Same reason the tungsten AP ammo was never widely adopted. Losing oilfields in East Europe and the Middle East meant they had to go back to synthetic fuel production.
Can drone dropped munitions be simulated? Like FPV drones or similiar thats happeing in Ukraine rn. Would be fascinating
That's an RPG warhead vs 30mm of roof armor. The outcome is rather obvious :P
@@Borsuk3344hand grenades and mortar shells are more common to be dropped from drones then RPG rockets 😂
The ballistics are negligible given they are only falling a couple dozen meters. It's relying on the shaped charge for armor penning.
@@Dist_lumine
Result is still rather obvious.
Drones dropping 82mm HE mortar probably have devastating effects on BMP-2 AND BMDs
Show it to the developers of Tundra. Very imbecile 34s on BR with "paziki"
Yay finally 😋
Hello,
I was wondering if there was a way to contact you, such as an email or such
War thunder says no
Abaqus...
3rd! :D
Ну реальная встреча была бы с т-34 85
да нет, pz-4 h еще в 43 год был