@@lenardstarks5891 I'm not sure actually. The shell came to a full stop, and there's more mass in front of the explosive chamber than behind, so I have a feeling that when it does detonate, it will push the thinner back out rather than the bulkier front in.
@warcrimeswilly Notr really. He described the difference between face hardened and Rolled Homogeneus. He said the Rolled Homogeneous from the Tiger deformed like butter, not affecting the integrity of the armor. Face hardened doesn't have this quality, affecting the whole integrity
@@thiagorodrigues5211 Yep, you want face hardened plate in the spaced armor that is ahead of the rolled homogeneous, not as the main armor. Funnily enough this face hardened plate acted the same as titanium plate, popping a plug out instead of deforming to catch/deflect.
@@dalel3608 that's actually what the panzer III had as a form of pseudo composite armor (first dozen or so milimeteres were face hardened followed by a few dozen of rolled homogenous to catch any after pen from the projectile)
FHA is especially weak against flat tipped shells because the average shear strength is less than in RHA and HHA. And the energy required to punch a disk with the thickness of the armor and the diameter of the shell depends on the shear strength.
That was something all nations did with tracks or some other material, all throughout history. It's just something tankers do, rather than one specific thing.
The Australian Armor and Artillery Museum has Panzer IV with a cut off artillery shell welded in as a plug in its armor that looks very much like this.
Wow, exactly what I thought would happen happened. The round punched a ~75mm plug of steel out of the armor plate and sent it through. I remember reading about how the late model Panzer IV's had a problem plugging when hit by mid-velocity 75 and 76mm guns.
@@smerfsmerf5639 each shell has a different hardness distribution, but generally it is up to 600BHN at the tip, 300BHN at the end. caps are about 500BHN at the tip, 300BHN at the back
Were they still face hardening armour on the Ausf.H? I know for sure only a few Tigers had it, and from what I read they began fazing out face hardening in 1943.
@@MaxRavenclaw from what I know FHA was planned for pz IV with 80mm plate. I heard that the first panthers had FHA. at the end of the war only homogeneous armor was used, since when? the first examples of pz IV H should have FHA
@@tedarcher9120they probably ain’t, as the large piece of armour looks to be moving 3x slower than the original speed, of which is 193m/s, or 386mph. So while definitely deadly, it’s not supersonic.
@@tedarcher9120 FHA was planned for pz IV with 80mm plate. At the end of the war RHA was used. Since when? I heard that first panthers had FHA. It's 1943. First examples of pz IV H should have FHA
@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 first examples of pz4h had the same 30+50mm fha of pz4g. Later pz4h had either rha or fha I'm not sure if it was possible to produce 80mm fha. Panther had fha on side and back, later they switched to rha all around I think
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 yes I've also heard it but I'm not sure it happened, it's very hard to produce thick face hardened steel. I'm not sure if P4 80mm plate was face hardened or not, somebody should got to a museum and scratch one
I'm fairly certain that in this very nieche penetration pattern the explosive filler would have enough power to send more of the splintered tip into the fighting compartment. Therefore in this case an American Sherman with APHE would have the upper hand vs a brotish Sherman using the same shells with the filler removed.
@TheLadderman bursting charges, even tiny ones, are also usefull in setting fires. As the gasses from an explosion are very hot and AFVs, if not cleaned rigurously at regular intervals build up very flamable gunk inside them. Made of leaves falling through hatches, oil and other lubricants. And cleaning often falls to the wayside in war. Problem back in the day was that they couldnt make the fuzes strong enough to survive impact more often than not. With modern fuzes its entirely different story. I have seen DM11 HE(more like SAP because of the thick shell walls) go through the side of a T72 range target and explode inside. Lets just say that a couple of Kg of TNT equivalent going off inside, are not a pretty picture. It derailed the turret of its bearings even though the range target obviously didnt carry ammo.
I don't understand why the Germans didnt just angle the front plate in future versions of Panzer IV? Surely that would have been a cheaper solution than building a brand new tank like the Tiger or Panther?
You are now cutting new plate, new welding spot, new bolt placement, new hole to drill, new optics, new mg mount, new... you get my point. The manufacturing side of the issue aside, now due to how the plate got change, there will be new testing done to confirm all the other component don't have structural issue. Point being most engineer aren't idiots, they done shit for a reason.
One important fact is Panzer IV is having its transmission on front, and thanks for its flat front armor (where the driver and co-driver behind) the access hatch for the transmission is available Giving it angled armor which mean it'll be a solid angled armor on the front, thus make the only way to access the transmission (for repair or replacement) is through the turret (Panzer III and Tiger I way, where they require heavy crane to lift the entire turret just for transmission only) Otherwise the tank have to follow M24 Chaffee design with front transmission and front angled armor but its thin enough that its light and easily removable through rivets
So this is very clearly a incorrect simulation. The m61 could penetrate 95mm of fha at more or less this distance. (M vs yd). Navy ballistic limit. This would not meet that criteria, but would achieve the army limit. In any case, this is about 10mm short of that. This is more akin to what would happen if m61 hit 85mm of rha not fha.
@@joystickjedi368 You haven't thought a few things through. First, the value you're giving is for perpendicular armor. Second, the hardness of the armor shown in the simulation doesn't have to match the hardness of the target used to obtain the ballistic limit. Besides, ballistic limits are an average of dozens of shots. There's no chance you'll always get the same result.
@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Actually, I have. Firstly, 10 degrees of slope is virtually meaningless. It adds about 1mm in this case and the slope effect on nose isn't even worth mentioning. Second, USA fh test plate was entirely comparable to German fh armor. Regardless, the limit velocities of moderately different hardness plates aren't that large except at extremes. Your third point doesn't even support your claim. Does your FEA also have variance?
@@joystickjedi368 Not true, it penetrates 83mm US FHA at 20 degrees at 550 yd. For 10 the difference will be more than 1mm. The M61 needs 110% of the velocity needed to penetrate 202 BHN armor to penetrate 273 BHN armor. If you are trying to prove something to the millimeter, why would you ignore such things. Assuming that the typical American 237 BHN plate is face hardened, and in the case of the Pz IV the typical German plate of that thickness is face hardened, which would probably be around 280-320 BHN. This is more than enough to explain the difference. The strength of the element has a random variation. The material inhomogeneity provides a more realistic fracture.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 The 85mm armor sloped at 10 degrees results in a minimal increase in effective thickness, reaching around 87mm with slope effect. This difference is minimal when considering the 95mm penetration achieved by the M61 APCBC round at 500 yards. Additionally, the limit velocities for armor hardness are often misunderstood: for overmatched projectiles, the resistance curve remains relatively flat between 250 and 300 Brinell, dropping off on either side. This means the range of armor hardness versus American shells would have minimal impact. In fact, extremely hard German armor might lose resistance above 300 Brinell, possibly explaining why the M61 could penetrate the Tiger's 80mm side armor at 800 meters in Tunisia, despite predictions to the contrary.
@@joystickjedi368 I gave specific data, M61 penetrates 83mm us fha at 550yd, for 20 degrees. It loses 11mm of penetration. And no, it doesn't lose 1mm for 0-10deg. and 10mm for 11-20deg. You can see that the angle of the armor affects the shell. The plug is pushed perpendicular to the armor, the shell was pointed upwards, tilted losing energy. For a T/D ratio of 1.1 and perpendicular armor, in fact 300BHN is not much better than 200 BHN. But for a 30 degree angle, for 90mm M82 shell the difference was almost 600 fps 320BHN vs 200BHN and 250 fps 320BHN vs 260BHN. So it should be mentioned that the angle is of great importance here. Besides, you don't know how the hardness of the main armor affects the hardened layer. You know? You write that the American fh is comparable to the German one. Do you have any evidence for that? I try to write specifics, not that the German fha is better, because it is. Why does the American fha do so much worse than the RHA against shells with a cap? Have you analyzed this phenomenon? Do you have any data on the German fha to refer to this?
So pretty standard combat range for the time against one the most common german vehicles. With the weaker 75mm gun. Man Shermans get a bad wrap from people.
@@tedarcher9120No? This shell traveled around 580m/s of which is about as fast as a 9mm moving 1100mph compared to its 1160mph. So those pieces while fast, are not moving faster than a 9mm.
If you go to the Musée des Blindés in France, you can see this exact demonstration ---a Sherman's 75mm round stuck into the left hand side of the 80mm front superstructure plate of their Panzer-IV/70(A). The vehicle also displays characteristics of over-hardened plate and consequential catastrophic cracking on the left hand side of the 80mm thick sloped casemate front & 40mm thick side.
I will forever and always hate the 75mm and 76mm sherman cannons. They sacrificed the penetration for no real good reason, with the 75mm L/48 gun having better penetration than both, and a HE shell with the same explosive mass and performance.
The 76mm is comparable to the German 75 L/48, and it was used plenty. The more common 75mm M3 cannon was chosen and retained throughout the war because it had a better high explosive shell than the 76mm gun, and it was easier to balance for the gyroscopic stabilizer. The reason every tank wasn't just given the biggest AT gun we could give them is because in US WWII doctrine, tanks are for supporting infantry and assault. Tank-killing was for dedicated tank destroyers. The 90mm cannon carried by the M36 Jackson was as good as a Tiger 1's 88mm. Also, the Germans just didn't have that many tanks that a standard Sherman couldn't take on. Yeah, they had Tigers and Panthers, but the majority of their armor was Panzer IV's and STuG's. Especially on the Western front.
Visiblement il y a un paramètre que tu ignore, ce ne sont pas les simulations a la con qui font gagner une guerre....tu as vraiment du temps et de l'energie a perdre...
That is such a perfect plug.
Also, the cap doing exactly what it is intended to do.
I thought it'd make it clean through, didn't expect it to plug the gap
Solution: APHE
This is an aphec shell most likely it will then detonate and if the crew wasn’t already dead they are mow
@@lenardstarks5891 I'm not sure actually. The shell came to a full stop, and there's more mass in front of the explosive chamber than behind, so I have a feeling that when it does detonate, it will push the thinner back out rather than the bulkier front in.
@@alexripard I guess you’re right either way the crew isn’t gonna have a good time
@@lenardstarks5891 oh yes, it'll most certainly be a significant emotional event
"just the tip!"
I remember Otto Cariius comments on Face Hardened. He said the armor itself did more damage than the Soviet shell when his czech tank was hit.
That was because of the rivets, not the face hardening
@warcrimeswilly Notr really. He described the difference between face hardened and Rolled Homogeneus. He said the Rolled Homogeneous from the Tiger deformed like butter, not affecting the integrity of the armor. Face hardened doesn't have this quality, affecting the whole integrity
@@thiagorodrigues5211 Yep, you want face hardened plate in the spaced armor that is ahead of the rolled homogeneous, not as the main armor. Funnily enough this face hardened plate acted the same as titanium plate, popping a plug out instead of deforming to catch/deflect.
@@dalel3608 that's actually what the panzer III had as a form of pseudo composite armor (first dozen or so milimeteres were face hardened followed by a few dozen of rolled homogenous to catch any after pen from the projectile)
FHA is especially weak against
flat tipped shells because the average shear strength is less than in RHA and HHA. And the energy required to punch a disk with the thickness of the armor and the diameter of the shell depends on the shear strength.
The bursting charge would really help here, it would pray additional fragments and accelerate existing ones compared to a solid shot.
Sim was made without fuse explode
Most charges don't do much.
@@ignotumperignotius630 I'm aware, but I'm just speaking in this particular case
Not likely.
Solid shot wouldve had 5 to 8 mm more penetration.
I was thinking the same thing. With the nose of the shell compromised, the detonation could shotgun the fragments into the tank.
I guess this is why Germans added tank tracks to the front armor of the Panzer IV.
that would be interesting to see..
That was something all nations did with tracks or some other material, all throughout history. It's just something tankers do, rather than one specific thing.
The Australian Armor and Artillery Museum has Panzer IV with a cut off artillery shell welded in as a plug in its armor that looks very much like this.
(M61 pokes it's head through the front of the tank) "why, hello there!"
What's missing is seeing all those bits buzzing around the inside of the vehicle.
Would be interesting to see this simulation continue with the detonation of the bursting charge.
You just didn't want to be the driver or front machine gunner, when that plug started to bounce around: definitely spoil your day!
Peekaboo!
Wow, exactly what I thought would happen happened. The round punched a ~75mm plug of steel out of the armor plate and sent it through. I remember reading about how the late model Panzer IV's had a problem plugging when hit by mid-velocity 75 and 76mm guns.
Would a BR 350A shot from an F34 do the same at the same range?
@@ShokkuKyushu FHA would work much better against Russian APs without a cap
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174bro I really wanna see m72or the br350b vs pziv plz
Do Tiger H1 upper frontplate angled at 50° against a 76mm sherman gun
That's a very severe angle. I'd be surprised if it made it through.
At that angle the sherman would just shoot the side. No reason to shoot the front plate
That chunk of armor will still certainly give someone a bad day....
Could you do KV 2 vs Maus?
Hitting a HE below the Mantlet
And the charge of exp "D" in back of the shell?
@@ljubomirculibrk4097 fuses have a large delay in relation to the simulation time
I wonder how 55mm of AR600 angled at 60 degrees would perform against the russian 30mm APDS round form the BTR
Nice plug
I'd like to see the reverse, just out of curiosity.
What is it with using push shells now?
wonder what happens when the explosive filler goes off.
I just simply don’t believe that it didn’t go all the way through, something must be up with the numbers.
Nice, do you know what range would have stopped it?
~750m was supposed to be safe distance
@@SavageTactical Not much more was needed to stop the whole shell. Although armor opening would probably have appeared up to 1km.
What hardness and material do you use for the shells and Cap? I cant find much info on the properties?
@@smerfsmerf5639 each shell has a different hardness distribution, but generally it is up to 600BHN at the tip, 300BHN at the end.
caps are about 500BHN at the tip, 300BHN at the back
Shell: " Bon jour!"
wow what a lovelys monday
Well u do m72 next?
For comparison of cap ap and no cap ap
I wish you could show what a real time shot would look like. Like is that fragmentation on the inside moving fast enough to kill?
Starting from 0:40 everything that is shown as green is lethal.
Were they still face hardening armour on the Ausf.H? I know for sure only a few Tigers had it, and from what I read they began fazing out face hardening in 1943.
@@MaxRavenclaw from what I know FHA was planned for pz IV with 80mm plate. I heard that the first panthers had FHA. at the end of the war only homogeneous armor was used, since when? the first examples of pz IV H should have FHA
Would a tank track on top prevent penetration?
@@tedarcher9120 maybe, perhaps, possible
if it would effectively damage the cap
Even it not fully penetrate it still quite dangerous, the piece of armor can kill the crew 😳
These pieces are still supersonic and definitely will kill
@@tedarcher9120they probably ain’t, as the large piece of armour looks to be moving 3x slower than the original speed, of which is 193m/s, or 386mph. So while definitely deadly, it’s not supersonic.
@Armoured-Pizza-Carrier I think it's 2 times slower or so
@@tedarcher9120 Still not supersonic, as that would be 290m/s, or 580mph
Aren't 80mm pz4 plates homogenious and 50mm that are face hardened? Or isnit only for very late p4?
@@tedarcher9120 FHA was planned for pz IV with 80mm plate. At the end of the war RHA was used. Since when? I heard that first panthers had FHA. It's 1943. First examples of pz IV H should have FHA
@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 first examples of pz4h had the same 30+50mm fha of pz4g. Later pz4h had either rha or fha I'm not sure if it was possible to produce 80mm fha. Panther had fha on side and back, later they switched to rha all around I think
@@tedarcher9120 I meant Panther glacis.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 yes I've also heard it but I'm not sure it happened, it's very hard to produce thick face hardened steel. I'm not sure if P4 80mm plate was face hardened or not, somebody should got to a museum and scratch one
I'm fairly certain that in this very nieche penetration pattern the explosive filler would have enough power to send more of the splintered tip into the fighting compartment.
Therefore in this case an American Sherman with APHE would have the upper hand vs a brotish Sherman using the same shells with the filler removed.
A rare case of a bursting charge actually being useful
@TheLadderman bursting charges, even tiny ones, are also usefull in setting fires. As the gasses from an explosion are very hot and AFVs, if not cleaned rigurously at regular intervals build up very flamable gunk inside them. Made of leaves falling through hatches, oil and other lubricants. And cleaning often falls to the wayside in war.
Problem back in the day was that they couldnt make the fuzes strong enough to survive impact more often than not.
With modern fuzes its entirely different story.
I have seen DM11 HE(more like SAP because of the thick shell walls) go through the side of a T72 range target and explode inside. Lets just say that a couple of Kg of TNT equivalent going off inside, are not a pretty picture. It derailed the turret of its bearings even though the range target obviously didnt carry ammo.
Brotish
@@schullerandreas556 How does DM11 HE work? Is it packed inside the footprint of a regular long rod? Would it not affect the density too much
@@ysac full calibre HE. Variable setting fuze.
4mm more armor didn’t help 😋
That cartwheel would shred anyone in its path and probably ricochet around the hull more than a few times.
I don't understand why the Germans didnt just angle the front plate in future versions of Panzer IV? Surely that would have been a cheaper solution than building a brand new tank like the Tiger or Panther?
You are now cutting new plate, new welding spot, new bolt placement, new hole to drill, new optics, new mg mount, new... you get my point.
The manufacturing side of the issue aside, now due to how the plate got change, there will be new testing done to confirm all the other component don't have structural issue.
Point being most engineer aren't idiots, they done shit for a reason.
Because a sloped plate of equal thickness weighs more?
They did. It's called Jagdpanzer 4. It didn't make sense to put a turret on it as the turret was only 50mm and could not hold any wore weight
One important fact is Panzer IV is having its transmission on front, and thanks for its flat front armor (where the driver and co-driver behind) the access hatch for the transmission is available
Giving it angled armor which mean it'll be a solid angled armor on the front, thus make the only way to access the transmission (for repair or replacement) is through the turret (Panzer III and Tiger I way, where they require heavy crane to lift the entire turret just for transmission only)
Otherwise the tank have to follow M24 Chaffee design with front transmission and front angled armor but its thin enough that its light and easily removable through rivets
@@blackmark7165 they could have put a turret on Jagdpanzer 4 but it was too heavy
Man, running out of French 75 and upgunning to the 76 did so much for the Sherman.
76mm HE shell hasnt that good though
The 75mm M3 was only based on the M1897 gun, no Sherman tank used the M1897
This shows it was still capable of taking out its primary antagonist.
T34 vs tiger 2 upper plate or IS-3 upper plate
why bother, it cant pen at point blank range
@@jukeseyable Not the soviet T-34.
@@jukeseyable which t34 do you think I mean?💀
@@TheDLVProject maybe Tiger 2, because there was already M103 vs IS-3, and T34 has a similar gun
@@TheDLVProject it doesnt matter
What was the shell velocity? The HVAP would have zipped right thru
Description, 580m/s so about 500m distance.
Krupp smoke! Don't breathe this!
So this is very clearly a incorrect simulation. The m61 could penetrate 95mm of fha at more or less this distance. (M vs yd). Navy ballistic limit. This would not meet that criteria, but would achieve the army limit. In any case, this is about 10mm short of that. This is more akin to what would happen if m61 hit 85mm of rha not fha.
@@joystickjedi368 You haven't thought a few things through. First, the value you're giving is for perpendicular armor. Second, the hardness of the armor shown in the simulation doesn't have to match the hardness of the target used to obtain the ballistic limit. Besides, ballistic limits are an average of dozens of shots. There's no chance you'll always get the same result.
@dejmianxyzsimulations4174
Actually, I have.
Firstly, 10 degrees of slope is virtually meaningless. It adds about 1mm in this case and the slope effect on nose isn't even worth mentioning.
Second, USA fh test plate was entirely comparable to German fh armor. Regardless, the limit velocities of moderately different hardness plates aren't that large except at extremes.
Your third point doesn't even support your claim. Does your FEA also have variance?
@@joystickjedi368 Not true, it penetrates 83mm US FHA at 20 degrees at 550 yd. For 10 the difference will be more than 1mm.
The M61 needs 110% of the velocity needed to penetrate 202 BHN armor to penetrate 273 BHN armor. If you are trying to prove something to the millimeter, why would you ignore such things. Assuming that the typical American 237 BHN plate is face hardened, and in the case of the Pz IV the typical German plate of that thickness is face hardened, which would probably be around 280-320 BHN. This is more than enough to explain the difference.
The strength of the element has a random variation. The material inhomogeneity provides a more realistic fracture.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174
The 85mm armor sloped at 10 degrees results in a minimal increase in effective thickness, reaching around 87mm with slope effect. This difference is minimal when considering the 95mm penetration achieved by the M61 APCBC round at 500 yards. Additionally, the limit velocities for armor hardness are often misunderstood: for overmatched projectiles, the resistance curve remains relatively flat between 250 and 300 Brinell, dropping off on either side. This means the range of armor hardness versus American shells would have minimal impact. In fact, extremely hard German armor might lose resistance above 300 Brinell, possibly explaining why the M61 could penetrate the Tiger's 80mm side armor at 800 meters in Tunisia, despite predictions to the contrary.
@@joystickjedi368 I gave specific data, M61 penetrates 83mm us fha at 550yd, for 20 degrees. It loses 11mm of penetration. And no, it doesn't lose 1mm for 0-10deg. and 10mm for 11-20deg.
You can see that the angle of the armor affects the shell. The plug is pushed perpendicular to the armor, the shell was pointed upwards, tilted losing energy.
For a T/D ratio of 1.1 and perpendicular armor, in fact 300BHN is not much better than 200 BHN. But for a 30 degree angle, for 90mm M82 shell the difference was almost 600 fps 320BHN vs 200BHN and 250 fps 320BHN vs 260BHN. So it should be mentioned that the angle is of great importance here.
Besides, you don't know how the hardness of the main armor affects the hardened layer. You know? You write that the American fh is comparable to the German one. Do you have any evidence for that? I try to write specifics, not that the German fha is better, because it is. Why does the American fha do so much worse than the RHA against shells with a cap? Have you analyzed this phenomenon? Do you have any data on the German fha to refer to this?
And after that the shell explodes!
If that’s m61
You’ve turned the hill of a tank into a shotgun barrel LMAO
So pretty standard combat range for the time against one the most common german vehicles. With the weaker 75mm gun. Man Shermans get a bad wrap from people.
“Fff-THOOP”
Damns, was expecting it to cut straight through.
Still a significant emotional event for the driver/radio-operator though
The radio operator watching the 75mm steel hockey puck fly towards their crotch:
Emotional as in certain death. These slow pieces are still flying faster than a 9mm bullet
@@tedarcher9120No? This shell traveled around 580m/s of which is about as fast as a 9mm moving 1100mph compared to its 1160mph. So those pieces while fast, are not moving faster than a 9mm.
50m closer and it would be a full penetration
Ive been lied to all my life
If you go to the Musée des Blindés in France, you can see this exact demonstration ---a Sherman's 75mm round stuck into the left hand side of the 80mm front superstructure plate of their Panzer-IV/70(A). The vehicle also displays characteristics of over-hardened plate and consequential catastrophic cracking on the left hand side of the 80mm thick sloped casemate front & 40mm thick side.
War Thunder: bounced
World of Tonks: 🤡
World of Warships: how is this even related???
"aphe isn't useful"
The pz 4 experience in north africa
This would definitely be a significant emotional event for the crew.
I will forever and always hate the 75mm and 76mm sherman cannons. They sacrificed the penetration for no real good reason, with the 75mm L/48 gun having better penetration than both, and a HE shell with the same explosive mass and performance.
The 76mm is comparable to the German 75 L/48, and it was used plenty. The more common 75mm M3 cannon was chosen and retained throughout the war because it had a better high explosive shell than the 76mm gun, and it was easier to balance for the gyroscopic stabilizer. The reason every tank wasn't just given the biggest AT gun we could give them is because in US WWII doctrine, tanks are for supporting infantry and assault. Tank-killing was for dedicated tank destroyers. The 90mm cannon carried by the M36 Jackson was as good as a Tiger 1's 88mm. Also, the Germans just didn't have that many tanks that a standard Sherman couldn't take on. Yeah, they had Tigers and Panthers, but the majority of their armor was Panzer IV's and STuG's. Especially on the Western front.
Ah ah ah….
First
M’am, this is a Wendy’s.
Visiblement il y a un paramètre que tu ignore, ce ne sont pas les simulations a la con qui font gagner une guerre....tu as vraiment du temps et de l'energie a perdre...
you got something mixed up, this isn't a stupid simulation of winning war.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Non j'ai bien compris que c'était juste une stupide simulation ...encore un sujet qui réchauffe la planète pour rien