E-100 vs IS-3 | SECRET WW2 APDS SIMULATION | 128/88mm Pzgr.39 TS APCBC-DS Armour Piercing Simulation
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.ย. 2024
- In the late stages of WW2, Germany was working on a number of projects, such as the E-100 super heavy tank and sub-caliber discarding-sabot projectiles, like the 128/88mm Pzgr.39 TS. This round essentially fired the 88mm Pzgr.39/43 APCBC round from the 128mm KwK44 at around 1230m/s, extending the effective range of the cannon, but never entering service.
However, this increased velocity made the round susceptible to shattering, despite the presence of an armour piercing cap. The IS-3's pike nose results in an extremely steep impact angle from head on attacks, imparting high lateral stresses on the projectile and causing it to shatter. Despite the close range, the projectile only manages to slightly crack the back face of the plate.
The simulation assumes a good quality projectile with hardening equal to that of the standard 88mm Pzgr.39/43 round. The design follows the diagram for the 150/88 round as this was the best that could be found at the time. A slightly different diagram for 128/88 has been found since, which will be used for any future simulations with this projectile.
Amazing thumbnail artwork from: Henrik Larsen two_larsens.artstation.com/projects/l8L8z#top
The IS-3's armour profile is scary...
It did spall though. I wouldn't want to be that driver...
It is strong bc of Stalinium
and it has the same weight as panther tank... 45 tons (Actually 1 more ton)
The early 1945 versions were plagued with issues.
@@Ulrich_von_Jungingen it was far from a perfect tank. But the armour layout is extremely smart, its a really good design. Imagine you are a western intelligence officer and you see this monstrosity rolling through Berlin
Even the 105mm APDS fired from the L7 gun couldn't penetrate IS-3 frontally during the 6 Days War, so its nothing surprising
Lol I had seen that picture too
Yet HEAT rounds apparently could penetrate, even of much lower caliber.
@@Treblaine HEAT is a kinda cheat code, no wonder everyone tried HEAT favor as all be end all solution for tanks for a few decades (until composite armor that is, then HEAT is kinda easier part compare to APFSDS)
That would be a fun simulation to see (hint, hint).
But heat ammo is useless this days?
This tanks armour layout is insanely smart and innovative, no wonder the british came up with the idea of mounting a fucking 183 mm gun on a tank chasis
There was a British tank that featured pike-nose armor before the IS-3 did, but it was considered one of the worst tanks of all time.
@@sangheiliwarrior86 the Valiant?
@@vitsobotka6268 Yup. Your comment just made me think about it.
@@sangheiliwarrior86 Matilda did have a pike nose too.
I would not be worried about the shell penetrating, but I would be concerned about the armor welds cracking aftet the impact
IS-3 moment
True. Russia always had crude welding due to unskilled labor at the time.
@@UkrainianPaulie The welding on the earlier tanks was just fine, on the late war T34 85 models they were as strong as the main armor. IS-3 just had very weak welds
@@guvyygvuhh298 IS-3 were super rushed they were not ready at the end of the war to be used in combat but were in a good enough condition to be used as propaganda machine to scare the west in victory parade
@@guvyygvuhh298 Lolno. Wartime T-34s of any model were flat out dogshit. Post-war T-34-85s and the like were of much better quality since they could actually build the things to spec.
@@Prometheus19853 lolyes, latewar 34s were good.
IS-3 armor design was superb... the glacis, the sides, the rounded turret, a masterpiece of design!
Except it suffered from Russianism/Sovietism, where the crew had barely any room to work with, the ammo was scattered all across the vehicle, the crew was essentially blind inside, the optics were awful, and so on and so forth. The armor angling and thickness was something else, sure, but it was the wrong nation to create it...
@@LiezAllLiez Ammunition all around was also in M60A3 from late 70s 🤣
@@RiccardoTheBeAstcrew of m60 could atleast move around and see anything outside the tank without opening half if the hatches.
@@RiccardoTheBeAst also m60 didnt brake down every 100 meters unlike the is3
@@ussindianapolis487 Well, bradley helped with this problem
The E-100 and the Maus use identical guns, so in an alternate history where WW2 gets extended by a month or two, IS-3 and Maus could’ve theoretically met, resulting in this exact shot happening.
Yes and no, Maus and E-100 are taller than the IS-3, the angle armor is less efective.
@@yukariakiyama3059 maybe if the tanks are 10 meters apart. At any real distance tho it becomes negligible
The armor of is 3 gets cracked
IS-3: exists
Conventional Anti Tank rounds:💀💀💀
Bismark APHE 🗿🍷
@@mateusstocki941 🗿
@@mateusstocki941 Ah yes, the glorious Jagdkreuzer 42 Bismarck.
Heat be like: “youre no match to my power”
I killed IS-3 easily on my M36 Jackson in war thunder
The driver be like : do you hear that ?!
The commander: nope i think its just in your head
*knock knock*
Driver: Who's there?
*spalling entered the chat*
Commander: Sasha, don't worry, it's in your head.
fun fact. the first IS3 rolled off the assembly line 2 months before the war ended. so while it didnt see action. technically speaking. the IS3 is a World war 2 tank. not a post war tank as many have suggested.
Akthualy
That one bounced!
Make one on SU-100's gun vs Panther or Tiger 2's armor.
Why through. You already knew the result.
a real-world situation that might be worth simulating: th-cam.com/video/qdOwx0RQ5qY/w-d-xo.html
The is-3 and his Pike nose armor is really affective against anti tank rounds
128mm APCBC VS IS3 ? I think that a good compare
apds not apcbc
since you're making experimental weapons sims, make one where an armor block (sandwiched between armor plates) can move back as the penetrator hits it so that the force at the point of contact is diminished and the armor block is acting as a break until it reaches the inner plate.
Kontakt 5
IS-3 was a monster. Also the coolest looking "Evil Empire" tank ever!
IS-7 fits it better
I think the M48 works better as an evil empire tank tbh, especially with its proportions
Nice sim! I would like to see a su100 ap shell against panther upper plate at mediun range and how it will behave.
Pen up to 1200-1300 meters
Steel Stalinium I love that!
amazing tank for 1945! pretty much immune to all shells that were available at the time
I would say this is a emotionally significant event
Would be interesting to see M103 trying to penetrate IS 3 frontal armor
Do you think you could simulate how an explosive charge from a Trophy system used in some modern tanks work against an APFSDS round? It would certainly be an interesting simulation.
Not trophy system but still APS nonetheless:
th-cam.com/video/6hhSMryZaQY/w-d-xo.html
@@ar0568 Thanks for the video mate. Have a good day 👍
Trophy doesnt work against apfsds iirc
No wonder the IS-3 made the brits design the 183mm, the thing was solid.
Great armor design for its time
This meant that the Jagdtiger 128mm gun cannot penetrate the IS3 at WW2 time.
Yes , it cant pen it thats why most of the world used HEAT against angled heavy armor
It could have since the early IS-3s used high hardness armor, like T-34s and IS-1/2.
HHA doesn’t like getting hit by overmatching shells.
I wasnt able to find concrete evidence of HHA being used in the IS3, and around this time the soviets began to shift towards tougher RHA plates instead, so this was chosen for the simulation. Full calibre 128 cannot penetrate an RHA is3 ufp frontally
Not when faced frontally, but in IRL combat the tanks are rarely facing each other 1v1 like that. When attacked at angle the pike nose starts losing effectiveness, so it would still be vulnerable to enfilading fire from these vehicles.
@@czwarty7878 i know, if the is3 angulates its loses the design natural angulation.
Now THIS is what the chieftan would call a significant emotional event
Would be cool to model the whole front hull , this pike nose looks good on paper . But this is all welded together and welds are a huge weak spot for armor . The welds will probably crack , the armor plates are weaker around the welds cause from the heat . A big single armor plate is way better for stoping multiple AP rounds , like a Panther , Tiger 2 , T44 , T54 . It stopped it true , but the next hit will be devastating .
As many guys mentioned the six day war , as the IS3-M withstand even the 105mm L7 . This Arab states recieved 300 western tanks , wich 250 of them were M48A3 Pattons equipped with a 90mm gun . Just a few Centurions were delivered with the 105mm L7 , both loses a dozen IS3's and M48's . So most fights were between IS3 and M48 , I don't know if you ever did a simulation with a 105mm vs IS3 . But it should pen 120mm@60° , so no chance for a IS3 .
If you compare muzzle energy of the 105mm APDS with 4.1kg and 1478m/s it has about 4.5MJ . The 128/88mm with 10.4kg and 1230m/s has 7.9MJ , that's a big chunk of metal hitting the armor with 7.9MJ . Cause on some pictures you see no cracks , but this APDS or HVAP rounds are way smaller and have less energy transfer in the armor .
Yeah the pike nose was its best and worst feature for the reasons you stated. It would be nice to simulate the welds cracking from impacts and I may do that sometime! The other issue is that from anything but head on, the effective angle of the pike nose decreases, unlike single plates which increase in effectiveness across the frontal arc
Hm didnt know germans had sabot rounds.
Also, is3 armor holding out.
Strong tonk
The anti-armour sabot rounds never entered service but some HE ones did for artillery iirc
The Thumbnail looks like IS-2 overall IS3 is nuts imagine countering this on real life battle
It has pike nose on the thumbnail, it's IS-3
Israelis countered IS-3, they deemed this tank useless and obsolete for combat once they got their hands on captured Egyptian ISs
Would you think it'd pen at a flatter angle? it looks like it could but the round wouldn't be in good shape for the bursting charge to be effective (possibly might not even fuse)
Yes, Id guess at around 60° a plug would be pushed through and at 55° a proper (but shattered) penetration would take place
Did you account for the height difference? Given that the E-100 would be firing downwards, there might be a slight difference in angle (especially at closer ranges).
From 450 m the height difference of the tanks is much less important than the ballistic trajectory but you can see at the beginning the round is angled downwards a bit.
Now try the 15cm gun as portrayed in World of Tanks
Ivan, go open the hatch and see who’s knocking outside.
Thanks for the upload!
Nice stalinium steel
Interesting how efective IS3 armour is👍
I'd be curious to see how a shaped charge like the magnetic mines the Wermacht equipped (not exclusively, but theirs is the only type of infantry unit I am almost certain had them as standard equipment) to the Pioneer units.
That is assuming of course that the software you utilising is capable of simulating a shaped charge. If not then I am sorry to have wasted your time.
I do just want to say a quick thank you for everything you do on this channel. Your content has answered a lot of questions that I have had floating around in the back of my mind since I was a teenager without my having to go to annoying lengths of working out the calculations myself (something that I am never certain of the answers of as I am far from a talented mathematical thinker), and I just wanted to let you know that I sincerely appreciate it.
All the best from the UK and I look forward to seeing your next video.
Thanks for the suggestion! The software can do shaped charges but im working on improving the accuracy of it, so may do that at some point.
Thank you so much for the support though, I'm glad I could answer some of the questions youve had. Happy holidays from the uk as well!
@@SYsimulations i really want to see a
PzB 39 anti tank rifle
(7.92x94mm Patronen at 1210 m/s) vs the upper plate of an m22 locast
(12.7 mm at an angle of 65 degrees)
Try the 120mm M358 fired by the M103. It was designed to defeat this tank.
As players of WT and WoT know, the downside of a pike nose is that even a mild side angle will ruin over half of your frontal armor as the effective angle drops sharply on the side facing the enemy.
the IS-3 really was one of the epitome of conventional armor designs
E-100: «YES, A HIT!!!»
It is likely that if the round was ever produced, it would have gotten a thicker flatter cap to help against shattering and angles. Might be worth giving it another go with a PzGr44 style cap?
Wow I’m surprised. Thought it would make it for sure
considering how low quality the IS-3 was, if the shell didn't punch through then the armor plate itself would crack at the seams
insanely effective angling, its crazy how if this armour was flat a panther could penetrate it.
Since you showed it could you try and modell the 150/88mm and how that would perform
So in conclusion is 3 hull is more protected against ap and apcr then abrams hull as yes the 128mm actually does more then t72 apdfsds
What I don't like about this scenario is that it's pretty much best case. Since it's a pike nose you get the most protection at 0°.
In other Simulations, when you use 0° that's usually when the armor is the weakest since from a different angle the armor increases, while on the IS-3 it decreases.
If the hull is just angled 10° to the side the angle of the front plate decreases from 64° to around 60°, which seems more realistic.
The problem with this round is it does not act like apds do to fact that it uses normal steel core instead of stronger core that makes it crack easily but i read a records about that this apds is tested by a company i forgot the name they made the steel a good quality and manage to defeat 300mm of plate!
Could you imagine the shock and sound effect from inside the tank
what a day as driver
You mean World of Tanks...lied to me?! I can't believe it!
What about the same simulation, except with a experimental 88mm., 105mm. or 128mm. PPg. (Peenemunde Panzergranate) FSAPDS round??
An explanation as to why this is highly likely : The core of the Discarding Sabot 88mm was not solid, it was filled with HE filler. This leads a reduction in longitudinal strength and consequently the shattering.
What if they used APFSDS for 12.8cm Pak 44, would it penetrate?
Well there was also the plan to use the Pzgr 40/43 in the sabot, but that was put aside as there wasnt enove tungsten. Instead this round could be fired with the normal 25kg charge at 1800m/s but that makes it ineffective at short range as the round brakes up and can only penetrate 200mm at 30° until it reaches a velocity of 1240 or so m/s when it again will penetrate well over 30cm. At 30°
Гон, как мне кажется. Ещё поверю, что ИС-3 выдерживал попадание из Pak 43, но Pak 44 с её 28-кг снарядом, думаю, только ИС-7 смог бы потянуть.
E100:"Reloads then shoots same spot" 💀 💀 💀 💀
Hypothetically the E100 would still have the upperhand even if IS-3 retaliates.
IS-7 tho... I can see E100 losing that one duel
Tank duels are scarey as fuck
Maybe, but that ignores that for every E-100 there's probably gonna be 5-10 IS-3s
Could you add the angle cone in these video too? Like in the "effectiveness of APHE" video. Or is this too much to ask? I would be interesting to know the area of lethal spalling with measured angle :)
Thanks!
That would take a lot of effort unfortunately, and do you mean lethal cone for actual penetrations? Seen as this one didnt go through there wouldnt be one in the first place
@SY Simulations yes, lethal cone after penetration. In this video it is not so relevant becuase armor has resists projectile but video where penetration occurs is where it can be seen. Especially in something like not well known 60mm apfsds vs t-55 video can be interesting to know.
IS-3 is the best tank designed trough WW2 it achieved maus class protection with less than half the weight and nearly half the size
Too bad the armor is mitigated in war thunder because of HEAT rounds
Сделайте пожалуйста анализ пробития лба корпуса,а также лба башни танка т-10м .Спасибо
Someone mentioned that even if they made this round, the 88 would likely shatter if it hit anything. Is this true?
Wow, that thing disintegrated
IS-3 driver with wide af eyes: "Im in danger"
Nice work!
I'm just curious if you are using Ansys for all the simulations?
If I can ask !
Thanks, and yep! :)
Very interesting simulation and what you did here was use a German concept tank against a late World War II operation August storm era Russian heavy tank
IS 3 ❤
Can you do one of the amx 50 surbassie, or somua sm shooting at an is3?
although with how gouged out that plate is i bet a well aimed 88 would pen that spot afterward
What would be able to pen the IS-3 aside from heat rounds? Was any conventional round able to?
In 1945, nothing. The KwK 44 was the most powerful gun in the world at the time. However, both the KwK 44 and the American 120mm M1 could go through the turret face of the IS-3, but that's a much smaller target than the UFP.
The introduction of the IS-3 scared the crap out of the US and UK, leading to the development of both heavy tanks (Conqueror, M103) and tank destroyers (FV4005, Charioteer) specifically to counter it.
Some of the allied post-war 120mm cannons (such as on the M103, the Conqueror, the AMX-50, etc.) were likely at least somewhat capable of defeating the IS-3's frontal armor with conventional rounds. However, this is kind of a moot point because APDS and HEAT very quickly after WW2 (i.e. within a decade) became the standard anti-tank ammunition. The Americans clung to HVAP for a bit longer before moving to APDS, but admittedly American HVAP was pretty much the best there was, and was still inferior to proper APDS. In addition both the M103 and Conqueror had HEAT and APDS/HESH rounds developed as well.
Basically there was no need to develop a conventional round that could penetrate the glacis of the IS-3 because technological advancement had produced more efficient penetrators. It was likely possible to develop full caliber AP that could, but why?
@@MacSalterson Everyone knew that, and for some reason conventional APBC rounds were available for the T-55 into the 50s. If I recall, some modern small caliber auto cannons use it, as it would be very effective against light skin.
@@ATruckCampbell Michael Salazar clearly didn't know it, and it was him I was responding to.
Also, the T-54 largely had access to APHE rounds for the same reason the M48 did - said rounds had been developed for a previous iteration in their gun's design (for the M48 its 90mm was developed from the 90mm M3 of WW2, and the 100mm of the T-54 used the same gun as the SU-100 of WW2). So if it could still be issued and had some utility, why not?
@@MacSalterson I meant everyone as in militaries.
If you shoot it frontally with no extreme angles that armour isn’t that angled
Please do APFSDS fired underwater
Can you do the same one but with the full normal charge with a velocity of 1800m/s which is with the standart 25kg charge. The velocity of 1800 m/s was at the very beginning but at that velocity it was breaking apart on impact, but that will help it over range more.
Е-100: я не могу его пробить пук среньк!!
Варгеи: хыхы, 220мм во лбу
That would ring the crew ears .
What about the lower plate?
88mm L/100 vs T-44 upperplate at 600-900m perhaps?
Could you simulate IS-3 near the welds?
It may be a fantasy in case of calling it a simulation for E-100 vs IS-3... but you can call it 1947-1953 soviet invasion and stationary Pak 44 used to defend and suddenly it's much more uncannily realistic:D
That would be more realistic, correct, but makes for a less catch title 😉
@@SYsimulations I know. I just mean that the scenario isn't as far fetched as some people would believe it to be. Though idk how long was post war service of those towed 128mm guns.
We need a simulation 120mm Gun T53 (T14 and T17 ammo) vs Tigerll and IS-3
Can we get MAUS vs something of your choice :D
im quite sure that would knock out the crew, at least for a while, since bigger plane would bend and cause acoustic shock.
oh and driver is dead 100%
Can you do hesh Vs t 72 with era
wasnt the e100 supposed to be mounted with a 150?
That was also a proposed cannon, there were a few being considered
now can u do the is-3 122mm vs the turret hull of the t-29?
The turret what!!!??
ИС-3 power!
Add a WC core instead of the explosives.....
What about M-36 Jackson vs Jagdtiger?
There are photos of BMPs being uparmored with Kontakt-1 ERA blocks on their sides. Could you consider simulating the effects of the ERA detonation on the base armor of vehicle?
There are also photos of BTRs and even Tigr with such blocks.
@@alloy299 Spetsnaz tried it in the '90s
the IS-3 was designed with the tiger II and jagdtiger in mind as main opponents. No wonder it can't go through 😁
E100 was better than tiger 2 and jag
@@gibbon8827 "Better" is a very questionable term in this context
@@racernatorde5318 better at breaking down and catching on fire is what he probably meant.
So it means it wont even scratch IS7
Wargaming: well lol, it will be punched head-on by an Italian medium tank with a 90mm gun and a Tiger-2
can you do it with the 15cm canon of e100
Wart hunter and world of tanks:
-mmmm make the is3 an tier8 and easily to penetrate with any tank
What's the simulated distance of the shot ?
450m
@@SYsimulations appreciate it!
Meanwhile in wot and wt = got penetrated by everything in front even by 76mm gun with standard AP/APBC shell
I mean in a games its impenetrable but IRL i shot and the driver is injured heavily. wasnt a very good design plus the other areas were alot larger than the frontal pike nose so its not like every shell would hit there
German Quality didn't managed to get inside Red armor
Ummmm. . .
Stalinium just built diff