Even as someone who really likes the Centurion, the 20 pounder completely gimped the earlier variants. Given that the performance testing proved the 84mm was so inefficient that the British then went on to make the L7, it shows you even the MOD didn't deny it.
This is a very hard question but the T-54 lead to the T-55 that is the most successful tank ever. The centurion was awesome for the time due to it's technological advances but outside the stabilizer and apds it really doesn't have anything special By the early 1950s the T-54A entered service and in 1958 the T-55 entered service, soviets where using HEAT shells as well since the early 50s and they also developed APDS rounds. The centurion kept the 20 pounder until 1968 where the L7 replaced it.
@@Ropetor The T-54 and T-55 were the most *produced* tank ever. They were very crude tanks, though. I would not rate them as the most *successful*, which is a weird and hard to define metric anyways. Also you're completely wrong on the entry date of the L7. The L7 was installed on all new-production centurions from 1959 onwards, not 1968. You might be thinking of the L11 120mm, which entered service in 1966.
@@tigersympathiser2265 I cannot understand why some people seem to think the 20pdr was so awful. *For it's "category" of guns of that calibre and overall mass* (that's important) it had great overall AP performance and a powerful HE round. I suppose you can argue it was too small a calibre for the era and wasn't thinking far enough ahead - but you also shouldn't neglect the desire for a fast firing gun. Considering the long 88 served the Germans to the end as a primary *heavy* gun, and the 20pdr is pretty much superior to the long 88 (way lighter, with better overall AP performance with APDS, and I *think* the more powerful HE round); it doesn't seem unreasonable to slap that gun on all of your medium tanks
You're asking about the 20pdr armed Centurions? As a general design, considering all of the things tanks have to do, I think the Centurion is probably somewhat better and more "balanced" - but in a head-to-head 20pdr Cent vs T-54 1v1 the T-54 has a lot going for it. With the exception of the turret front, it's armour stands a very good chance, and it's gun stands a better chance against the Cent. Though the Cent would very likely get the first shots off with it's overall better crew conditions, optics and fully stabilised gun, which is statistically one of the biggest deciding factors in irl tank engagements.
The British had a chance opportunity to study a T-54 tank when one was stolen by the Hungarians during their 1956 revolution. It was driven to the British embassy in Budapest where analysts quickly studied its characteristics. The tank was later recaptured by the Soviets but the British managed to make key notes in the development of the famed 105mm L7.
@@Sevastous No, they didnt steal soviet tech to devolop their new guns. They just discovered that many soviet tanks had much thicker armor than expected for their weight which is why they decided to upgun their tanks to 105mm instead of 84mm or 90mm.
@@Sevastous The T-54 specs included the caliber of the gun, the thickness of the armor, the engine specs, optics, and crew layout. All of that was inspected by the British in the quickest way they can obtain. It is false that the 105mm L7 was copied from the Soviets but it was basically a enlarged 20 pounder.
@yaboi347 my problem with that video is that the model shows one whole plate, instead of a plate welded ontop of another, increasing its effectiveness in the simulation
@yaboi347 Because with the way that an armour plate is forged, the structure of the steel helps to enhance its strength, however with the (correct me if im wrong) less "armour suitable" steel that was welded to the jumbo, the shell would have an easier time penetrating
@@SwissAdmiral The addon armor on the Jumbo was standard RHA like every tank of it's day. However laminated plates are less effective than single plates because it's not a homogeneous structure.
@@SwissAdmiral The M4A3E2 would have had normal quality armor plate as it was a factory addon by Fisher. However, you are quite right I believe that two plates were usually worse protection than one plate of equal thickness. Though I do wonder if round geometry would come into play as seen in the performance differences between the IS-2 and King Tiger rounds from SY Simulations IS-2 vs Super Pershing and Tiger 2 vs Super Pershing videos respectively. My gut would say no since the plates are flush with each other so it would seem unlikely that the blunt IS-2 round would exhibit the over-yawing like in the video. I would also be very interested in seeing a Panther vs Jumbo video.
Honestly that's really pretty interesting. The round cuts through a huge amount of material (more than the effective thickness of the plate by the looks of it), but it's very quickly sent in the wrong direction lol. I don't think I've seen a sim where the round travels so far along the plate like that. Considering that the 32pdr was being played around with at the same time as the 20pdr, and they even fitted 32pdrs to Centurions; could you please try to find the relevant stats for the 32pdr's APDS rounds and run this same scenario with that (and perhaps also show it against heavier soviet armour)? From what I've learned so far, the 32pdr was a pretty scary gun that was only really dropped when they decided they were going to go for 120mm guns on the Conqueror and wanted faster firing guns for the Centurions - but hypothetically they could have gone for the 32pdr instead of the 20pdr for that role
@@SYsimulations Perhaps consider trying to contact a channel called "Armoured Archives". He's done primary source research (going to the relevant archives and whatnot) and has a habit of finding new information that isn't currently on the web. There's a chance he might have that info if we're all lucky. He's done a couple of good videos on the tortoise, though didn't go into details on the rounds hardness, for example; but that could easily be to not alienate the average viewer lol. Though he mentioned things like velocity, and presumably mass
I feel like the reason they have a bad reputation among Westerners is that they were mostly used by incompetent Arabic Armies with little training and logistics.
@@InspiriumESOO It will not change much . Ussr at early war suffered from poor organizations ,poor logistical and unprepared for an suddenly attack. They already have superior equipment over Germany in many aspects like tank,aircraft and artillery. Most of the tank kill of Germany are from Stuka since they quickly gained air superiority after destroy almost all ussr aircraft at air field. T-54 will just die like T-34 under the bomb of Stuka
In War Thunder 20 pdr cuts through T-54’s frontal plate like hot knife through butter.That’s what happens when Gaijoob gives the same normalization for every APDS round in the game. Edit:It's changed now.
There were multiple 84mm apds types with different sub projectile dimensions. Some had a boat tail base (like depicted in the video) and some had a wider base. Is there any information available that explains this or says what they are specifically designated?
@@Tomartyr In war thunder, almost all apds rounds share the normalization/denormalization characteristics, with the only rounds (iirc) having different characteristics against angled armor being the Chieftain's L15A3 and 105mm M728, which both perform better against slopes than other apds.
The teeny tiny text at the top describing the history is great. I never noticed it on my phone before. I wish it was bigger and easier to read, coz I like history and info. Thank you for thus video, very interesting.
After seeing the inadequacy of the 20 pdr, all I have to say is...God Bless the 105mm L7 and all it's derivatives(such as the M68A1), and the girl Grunge band of the same name... L7. Those chicks rocked hard!
1956 Hungarian revolution a T54 was driven into the compound of the British Embassy in Budapest. The military attache, Colonel Noel Cowley 24th Lancers , got to look at the tank and measure its front glacis. The result? The 20 lber wouldnt penetrate and neither would the USA 90mm , so the 105mm L7 was rushed into production.
Because WTs APDS all have the same performance and don’t differentiate between tungsten-carbide penetrators (basically identical to APCR) and later shells using tungsten-alloy. Carbide -> very hard, good against thick vertical armor, bad against sloped and spaced armor Alloy -> soft, ok against vertical plates, much better against sloped and spaced armor Edit: There are Infact a few 105 and 120mm APDS rounds with different sloped modifiers, that behave like tungsten alloy.
@@kimjanek646 I highly doubt that. I think you are confusing it with APCR. In WT APCR does have all same multiplier against sloped armor. But APDS absolutely does have different multiplier depending on its material. For example Comets APDS does jackshit against angles but Centurions is a lot better.
@@Phapchamp What are you talking about? Just look at the stat card. All APDS have the same sloped modifiers. Edit: There are a few exceptions. There’s a bunch of 105 and 120mm APDS shells that behave more similar to tungsten alloy.
Pretty good example why harder not always means better. If it was typical WW2 era Soviet steel, tempered to 350-450 BHN, it would not deflect penetrator nearly as good.
One thing these simulations have showed me is how shells dont just blow straight through. I always t hought the shells went in a straight line, right through armor.
Well, a small correction. If we compare by years in 1948, the T-54 had 120 mm frontal armor. In 1949, it was reduced to 100 mm, and this has always continued.
I can kinda answer that one: it's a distinct loud "whumptwang" sound that you can hear over the engine and all the hydraulic motors etc, and you have no idea what it is at first because you've never heard it before. Or at least, that's what a 100mm fin round from a T55 hitting the turret front of a Challenger 1 sounds like. It's wierd how some fvcker shooting at you just makes you annoyed rather than scared.
It all depends on the quality of the armor. Assuming it was all of first quality then this simulation would hold but any defects in the armor resulting in a lower strength would make it vulnerable. As it is the 20 pounder almost made it and with a lower quality armor it would have had a better chance at penetrating
Practically, shape rarely matter. Irl, pointier tip tend to perform better at normal Rounded or blunt tip tend to perform better at an angle. For apds, vast majority of the angle improvement will be coming from core mass and material assume a somewhat appropriate shape (rounded cone tip). More mass = more performance for any given impact velocity. Tungsten alloy instead of carbide will allow erosion base penetration (that allow projectile to deflect less) instead of just shattering and being redirected.
Pakitsan vs India experience suggests that the M48 will usually fail to pen, while the T55 will both pen and cause the M48 to explode through hydraulic fires and shock setting off the ammunition.
Well so the APDS in War Thunder is very overpeforming considering the fact that in this simulation the 20 pdr APDS shouldn't be able to pen T-54 upper glacis, yet in War Thunder the 20 pdr APDS can cut through T-54 upper glacis like butter.
@@Bojan_Kavedzic Ah but what are the alternatives? This is a legitimate question, open to everyone, what good tank sims are on the market at the moment? Multiplayer is an optional component here, but would be nice to have. Thanks in advance to anyone who answers!
@@Bojan_Kavedzic APDS normalises so hard in WT that it basically ignores sloped armour. Playing T-54 is just pure suffering until you get T-55. T-54 is a decent tank, but lack of stabilizer, long reload compared to other nations, and high repair cost makes it so hard to get some profit. High repair cost can't be justified if you can be killed very easily.
Every time I watch a WT video I get further away from ever wanting to play. That is pure suffering and f2p which is an instant NOPE. I end up playing GuP dream tank match, very realistic.
Obligatory War Thunder request. One thing that always really bothered me and just really didn’t seem right to me was M829A2 or even DM53 from the L/55 canon not being able to pen the T-64A’s turret in-game. There’s no way out of every Russian mbt ever made including ones with kontakt 5 and relikt, that just a turret with steel plates inside would be the best right?
FROM MEMORY the Soviets based their tank armour, on the idea that the Allies would use the German 128mm gun post war. So they tried to armour their tanks to counter that threat. Interestingly, again FROM MEMORY.. the Germans themselves were looking at improving their 105mm gun (fitted to the 10.5 cm K gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette "Dicker Max"), Or maybe it was a new design?? But either way it had a longer barrel, as they found it gave better penetration than the 128mm gun.
If I’d been driving a T54 when that 20lb round arrived right in front of my face……..I’d have had to go and have a cigarette and a lie down. And I don’t smoke.
Production of the T-54 in the Soviet Union almost ended in 1957. 1948 - 593. From 1950 - more than a thousand every year until 1953. From 1953 to 1957 - 2 thousand every year. A total of 16.7k was produced before 1959.
Probably catastrophic. The earlier in tank designs you go, the more it's a case of "just steel". And, well, there are more than enough sources from WW2 and korean war that describe crews being completely fucked and shell shocked after non pen hits, coming out of their tanks with bleeding ears, not knowing who or where they are. The sheer kinetic energy transfer also fucks shit up, not just people. Even a modern tank, and, maybe especially a modern tank, could be hit, get no pen, but still have to be repaired significantly because just the sheer force of impact carries enough vibration to fuck up a lot of internal components.
Yea, I don't know what the other person is smoking, but it is some really really lotent stuff. So, in conclusion, for vast majority of the projectile and vehicle, as long as there is no penetration, the crew will be fine. Loud sound? Sure. But enough to cause permanent damage? No chance. It is simple math and how physics of energy. Added to that is air being really bad medium to transfer energy when and compressible. Hell, even a worse case scenario of 15cm class he impacting your vehicle. US did a test and find out if it is impacting the front hull top slope, then outside of a loud banging sound, and maybe damage barrel, most of the thing will be fine. Yes, you need to recalibrate stuff but nothing major. Especially with how modern penetrator and armor works, most of the energy is spent on eroding and ejecting the penetrator and armor material. There aren't gonna be much left to vibrate or shake up the crew.
I find this simulations absolutely amazing. What software package do you use? Could you perhaps do land mine simulations against vehicles and or personnel?
While T-54/55 might be better tank than Centurion (ofc, it came later on). But, doctrine and tactical use by Israel certainly even the odds, combine with improvement they made to their Centurion
You are correct that the Mk3 APDS was not able to penetrate the T-54, but the british was mostly going for the use of HESH rounds, so would be a better modeling of using the HESH round for the 20pdr vs T-54
No HESH for 20pdr. Also, none used HESH as main anti-armor round, it is too slow for any kind of longer range engagement and is also erratic in performances (any kind of non-optimal hit, or the hit on equipment on tank might degrade performances significantly).
@@jintsuubest9331 Even there everyone except Brits prefered HEAT, despite having HESH in inventory. HESH is just "unpredictable", way more than other anti-tank rounds.
Lmao! Why not against T-34 or BT-7? Knowing that 2A5 was developed after germans tested T-80 ammunition against frontal armor of 2A4 and results were very poor for 2A4.
@Yaboi Just a friendly reminder that for projectile armor interaction analysis purpose, they can often be consider as the same thing. In fact, many apcr and apds share the same exact core, only difference being them having a different impact velocity at any given range.
@Yaboi Emm, please read what your wrote and think about that. US 76, British 17pdr, 77mm, all use the same core for their respective act and apds. And guess what, they all achieve the same performance at the same velocity. You know, same core at same velocity means same energy, same weight, same geometry, and same interactions?
Rather hohol supporters had their daily dose of butthurt, innit? So funny how westerners lived in a fairy tale of their military superiority, yet now you all trying to pass the privelege of supplying the hohols with your "superior" tanks to each other.
Which do you think was the better tank of the time, and why?
Keep in mind, in a real battle its not JUST about who has the better gun and armour
Even as someone who really likes the Centurion, the 20 pounder completely gimped the earlier variants. Given that the performance testing proved the 84mm was so inefficient that the British then went on to make the L7, it shows you even the MOD didn't deny it.
This is a very hard question but the T-54 lead to the T-55 that is the most successful tank ever.
The centurion was awesome for the time due to it's technological advances but outside the stabilizer and apds it really doesn't have anything special
By the early 1950s the T-54A entered service and in 1958 the T-55 entered service, soviets where using HEAT shells as well since the early 50s and they also developed APDS rounds.
The centurion kept the 20 pounder until 1968 where the L7 replaced it.
@@Ropetor The T-54 and T-55 were the most *produced* tank ever. They were very crude tanks, though. I would not rate them as the most *successful*, which is a weird and hard to define metric anyways.
Also you're completely wrong on the entry date of the L7. The L7 was installed on all new-production centurions from 1959 onwards, not 1968. You might be thinking of the L11 120mm, which entered service in 1966.
@@tigersympathiser2265 I cannot understand why some people seem to think the 20pdr was so awful. *For it's "category" of guns of that calibre and overall mass* (that's important) it had great overall AP performance and a powerful HE round. I suppose you can argue it was too small a calibre for the era and wasn't thinking far enough ahead - but you also shouldn't neglect the desire for a fast firing gun. Considering the long 88 served the Germans to the end as a primary *heavy* gun, and the 20pdr is pretty much superior to the long 88 (way lighter, with better overall AP performance with APDS, and I *think* the more powerful HE round); it doesn't seem unreasonable to slap that gun on all of your medium tanks
You're asking about the 20pdr armed Centurions? As a general design, considering all of the things tanks have to do, I think the Centurion is probably somewhat better and more "balanced" - but in a head-to-head 20pdr Cent vs T-54 1v1 the T-54 has a lot going for it. With the exception of the turret front, it's armour stands a very good chance, and it's gun stands a better chance against the Cent. Though the Cent would very likely get the first shots off with it's overall better crew conditions, optics and fully stabilised gun, which is statistically one of the biggest deciding factors in irl tank engagements.
That is the deepest I have seen a shell pen without actually penning.
The denormalization is hard on this one...God bless angled Armor.
Right? Eyeballing it, it penetrated a tad more than 300mm of material!
@@angry_zergling It’s right impressive if it didn’t just parallel the armor.
Technically it's still a penetration, but not a perforation
So, colloquially, you're correct, but akchtually you're not quite there yet 🤓
@@tomppeli. we all embrace the 🤓
The British had a chance opportunity to study a T-54 tank when one was stolen by the Hungarians during their 1956 revolution. It was driven to the British embassy in Budapest where analysts quickly studied its characteristics. The tank was later recaptured by the Soviets but the British managed to make key notes in the development of the famed 105mm L7.
So the mother of all nato MBT's armament was soviet origin? How the turntables
@@Sevastous What?
@@Sevastous No, they didnt steal soviet tech to devolop their new guns. They just discovered that many soviet tanks had much thicker armor than expected for their weight which is why they decided to upgun their tanks to 105mm instead of 84mm or 90mm.
@@brokenpotato438 OK I understand now. The original comment had a bit unclear about what was inspected
@@Sevastous The T-54 specs included the caliber of the gun, the thickness of the armor, the engine specs, optics, and crew layout. All of that was inspected by the British in the quickest way they can obtain.
It is false that the 105mm L7 was copied from the Soviets but it was basically a enlarged 20 pounder.
could you do the panther vs M4A3E2 jumbo's front plate? ive always wondered how realistic WT was about that
I wanna see this
@yaboi347 my problem with that video is that the model shows one whole plate, instead of a plate welded ontop of another, increasing its effectiveness in the simulation
@yaboi347 Because with the way that an armour plate is forged, the structure of the steel helps to enhance its strength, however with the (correct me if im wrong) less "armour suitable" steel that was welded to the jumbo, the shell would have an easier time penetrating
@@SwissAdmiral
The addon armor on the Jumbo was standard RHA like every tank of it's day.
However laminated plates are less effective than single plates because it's not a homogeneous structure.
@@SwissAdmiral The M4A3E2 would have had normal quality armor plate as it was a factory addon by Fisher. However, you are quite right I believe that two plates were usually worse protection than one plate of equal thickness. Though I do wonder if round geometry would come into play as seen in the performance differences between the IS-2 and King Tiger rounds from SY Simulations IS-2 vs Super Pershing and Tiger 2 vs Super Pershing videos respectively. My gut would say no since the plates are flush with each other so it would seem unlikely that the blunt IS-2 round would exhibit the over-yawing like in the video. I would also be very interested in seeing a Panther vs Jumbo video.
I love how it penetrates everything apart from going through the plate lol
Honestly that's really pretty interesting. The round cuts through a huge amount of material (more than the effective thickness of the plate by the looks of it), but it's very quickly sent in the wrong direction lol. I don't think I've seen a sim where the round travels so far along the plate like that.
Considering that the 32pdr was being played around with at the same time as the 20pdr, and they even fitted 32pdrs to Centurions; could you please try to find the relevant stats for the 32pdr's APDS rounds and run this same scenario with that (and perhaps also show it against heavier soviet armour)? From what I've learned so far, the 32pdr was a pretty scary gun that was only really dropped when they decided they were going to go for 120mm guns on the Conqueror and wanted faster firing guns for the Centurions - but hypothetically they could have gone for the 32pdr instead of the 20pdr for that role
Id love to do a 32pdr sim but cant find enough info on the projectile designs anywhere
@@SYsimulations Perhaps consider trying to contact a channel called "Armoured Archives". He's done primary source research (going to the relevant archives and whatnot) and has a habit of finding new information that isn't currently on the web. There's a chance he might have that info if we're all lucky. He's done a couple of good videos on the tortoise, though didn't go into details on the rounds hardness, for example; but that could easily be to not alienate the average viewer lol. Though he mentioned things like velocity, and presumably mass
yeah im always about if they want info @@tommeakin1732
Honestly it's no surprise that the T-54 and later the T-55 was as feared as they was back in their day.
I feel like the reason they have a bad reputation among Westerners is that they were mostly used by incompetent Arabic Armies with little training and logistics.
Yes, Indian army used them effectively against Pakistan with Pattons (M47,48) (India also operated Centurion too).
gun performance and frontal armor (when taking slope into consideration) shockingly close to a king tiger at half the weight
@@PureFalcon1 imagine if Soviets produced these in 1940.
@@InspiriumESOO It will not change much . Ussr at early war suffered from poor organizations ,poor logistical and unprepared for an suddenly attack. They already have superior equipment over Germany in many aspects like tank,aircraft and artillery. Most of the tank kill of Germany are from Stuka since they quickly gained air superiority after destroy almost all ussr aircraft at air field. T-54 will just die like T-34 under the bomb of Stuka
Wow, that angled performance is awful, but oh my god the amount of material this thing eroded.
That penetrates an insane amount of armor if not for being deflected
It is the charm of angled armor though
Thank you I’ve been needing to see this, the 20pdr vs T54 has been ongoing in my mind
holy shit that shell just didn't stop
T-54 really was great for it's time
the round hemispherical turret is almost ballistically perfect. Unfortunately, it's also terrible for internal space and crew ergonomic.
omfg yes, I've been waiting for this for so long and couldn't figure out why it hadn't been done yet.
imho it seems like the first sim you'd run
Even though the round didn’t pen, the crew would likely still be going through a “significant emotional event”
And would definitely need to change their underwear !
Nice phrasing for it there.
Better having your pants brown than covered in red lmao
@@Grimmy41 bro 💀
In War Thunder 20 pdr cuts through T-54’s frontal plate like hot knife through butter.That’s what happens when Gaijoob gives the same normalization for every APDS round in the game.
Edit:It's changed now.
True but if u angle it should bounce
There were multiple 84mm apds types with different sub projectile dimensions. Some had a boat tail base (like depicted in the video) and some had a wider base. Is there any information available that explains this or says what they are specifically designated?
Most likely fitting as much weight into the penetrator as possible. After all weight = performance.
inb4 a thousand War Thunder fans chime in
@@Tomartyr What do you mean?
@@jackpersales4920 ah my bad actually. I was thinking of the different full caliber variants that are in that game.
@@Tomartyr In war thunder, almost all apds rounds share the normalization/denormalization characteristics, with the only rounds (iirc) having different characteristics against angled armor being the Chieftain's L15A3 and 105mm M728, which both perform better against slopes than other apds.
The teeny tiny text at the top describing the history is great. I never noticed it on my phone before. I wish it was bigger and easier to read, coz I like history and info. Thank you for thus video, very interesting.
This the armour dynamics channel par excellance
After seeing the inadequacy of the 20 pdr, all I have to say is...God Bless the 105mm L7 and all it's derivatives(such as the M68A1), and the girl Grunge band of the same name... L7. Those chicks rocked hard!
Absolutely a premium T54.
very interessing the way the projectile dig a tunnel within the plate, parralel to the plate's direction
100 meters? Point blank basically....
ooof look at that shear! holy cow!
1956 Hungarian revolution a T54 was driven into the compound of the British Embassy in Budapest. The military attache, Colonel Noel Cowley 24th Lancers , got to look at the tank and measure its front glacis. The result? The 20 lber wouldnt penetrate and neither would the USA 90mm , so the 105mm L7 was rushed into production.
Hey hey!
Can u make hit m1 abrams by rpg-7, who slipped from upper front armor plate into horizonte drive
Tested this in WT. It just goes right through on the T-54 (1951).
Because WTs APDS all have the same performance and don’t differentiate between tungsten-carbide penetrators (basically identical to APCR) and later shells using tungsten-alloy.
Carbide -> very hard, good against thick vertical armor, bad against sloped and spaced armor
Alloy -> soft, ok against vertical plates, much better against sloped and spaced armor
Edit: There are Infact a few 105 and 120mm APDS rounds with different sloped modifiers, that behave like tungsten alloy.
Does it matter how it performs in some random f2p game?
@@logitech4873 yes
@@kimjanek646 I highly doubt that. I think you are confusing it with APCR. In WT APCR does have all same multiplier against sloped armor. But APDS absolutely does have different multiplier depending on its material. For example Comets APDS does jackshit against angles but Centurions is a lot better.
@@Phapchamp What are you talking about? Just look at the stat card. All APDS have the same sloped modifiers.
Edit: There are a few exceptions. There’s a bunch of 105 and 120mm APDS shells that behave more similar to tungsten alloy.
Looks like it made the inside armor warm to the touch at least!
Pretty good example why harder not always means better. If it was typical WW2 era Soviet steel, tempered to 350-450 BHN, it would not deflect penetrator nearly as good.
One thing these simulations have showed me is how shells dont just blow straight through. I always t hought the shells went in a straight line, right through armor.
APFSDS can do that, especially the ones made of depluran
so it doesn‘t lack pen, just pen in the right direction
"He's a little confused, but he's got the spirit."
Great Videos, how long does a single simulation usually take to render? and also how much time to set everything up? :)
Well, a small correction. If we compare by years in 1948, the T-54 had 120 mm frontal armor. In 1949, it was reduced to 100 mm, and this has always continued.
Where are the leopard 2 vs T-Series tanks videos at?
And make it a realistic scenario upper Plate in main combat range so 1000 -3000m
Excellent. Now do the same round against the turret front of the T-54. Results should be better I would think.
Against the more flat portions it will go through :)
@@SYsimulations - I figured that. Still want to see it😁😁
i allways asking me, how this feels like from the inside of the tank when the hull barely holds
I can kinda answer that one: it's a distinct loud "whumptwang" sound that you can hear over the engine and all the hydraulic motors etc, and you have no idea what it is at first because you've never heard it before. Or at least, that's what a 100mm fin round from a T55 hitting the turret front of a Challenger 1 sounds like. It's wierd how some fvcker shooting at you just makes you annoyed rather than scared.
Thx for the simulation
It all depends on the quality of the armor. Assuming it was all of first quality then this simulation would hold but any defects in the armor resulting in a lower strength would make it vulnerable. As it is the 20 pounder almost made it and with a lower quality armor it would have had a better chance at penetrating
We need this back to back with the replacement the 105mm L28A1.
It looks that any faults or lowered quality of T54 armour would mean a penetration
It would be cool to see some unangled hits
How hard was to modify the shape of the tungsten core to be able to deal with sloped armor instead of changing cannons?
blunt ones were used as well which helped a bit, but the material itself is the issue, being too hard and brittle. Tungsten alloy is much tougher
Practically, shape rarely matter.
Irl, pointier tip tend to perform better at normal
Rounded or blunt tip tend to perform better at an angle.
For apds, vast majority of the angle improvement will be coming from core mass and material assume a somewhat appropriate shape (rounded cone tip).
More mass = more performance for any given impact velocity. Tungsten alloy instead of carbide will allow erosion base penetration (that allow projectile to deflect less) instead of just shattering and being redirected.
This is what the Panther dreamed of doing to the 17 Pounder.
The shell went into dig a tunnel mode
Could you do the 105mm firing m392 apds v t55
Have you tried multiple, main gun rounds into one area? Like, a follow-up shot into the same area? Within, say 12 inches of the initial shot
Are material chunks below a certain threshold invisible? There is a gap between the visible core and the leading edge of the penetration
yes, fractured ones become particles which cant be seen in cross-section view, but theyre still there. Its a very brittle material
Wow, and not even slight bit of spalling even with SABOT. No wonder why 105 came
Warthunder says it would fully pen at that distance/angle and shell type... Gaijin Logic?
Man, if that thing could go straight, it would easily penetrate that armor.
Can u please tell me which software do you use for these simulations?
which of t54? 1st model of t54 mod1947 had 120mm front armor, from 1949 mod t54 had 100mm armor
it pen?
Centurion: Yesnt!
17 pdr vs King Tiger
King tiger goes bye bye
@@iain-duncan i dont think so, if youre thinking about apds- it wasnt used much because wasnt reliable
@namelamus much shallower angle should allow the apds to work
Oh look, it's the German supremacist guy who's either suggesting scenarios that validate his emotions, or celebrating something German 🤨
@@iain-duncan
If you actually read the report, then this can be a very interesting match up.
Are there any simulations for the 32 pounder gun?
Centurion Mk X (105 mm) vs T-55 or T-62?
Yep, and right there is the reason Britain developed the 105mm L7.
Wasn't there a Canadian 20 pdr round that had better qualities?
now make the armor straight up and not sloped, there will be a big difference.
And that's why we got the L7, kids! 😉
I'd love to see the M48 vs T55
Pakitsan vs India experience suggests that the M48 will usually fail to pen, while the T55 will both pen and cause the M48 to explode through hydraulic fires and shock setting off the ammunition.
Well so the APDS in War Thunder is very overpeforming considering the fact that in this simulation the 20 pdr APDS shouldn't be able to pen T-54 upper glacis, yet in War Thunder the 20 pdr APDS can cut through T-54 upper glacis like butter.
WT's "realism" is laughable. It can not be taken as a reference with reality. It is a game, nothing else.
Yet the same shell can't pierce the t-44 in game. Love the consistency.
@@Bojan_Kavedzic Ah but what are the alternatives? This is a legitimate question, open to everyone, what good tank sims are on the market at the moment? Multiplayer is an optional component here, but would be nice to have.
Thanks in advance to anyone who answers!
@@Bojan_Kavedzic APDS normalises so hard in WT that it basically ignores sloped armour. Playing T-54 is just pure suffering until you get T-55. T-54 is a decent tank, but lack of stabilizer, long reload compared to other nations, and high repair cost makes it so hard to get some profit. High repair cost can't be justified if you can be killed very easily.
Every time I watch a WT video I get further away from ever wanting to play. That is pure suffering and f2p which is an instant NOPE.
I end up playing GuP dream tank match, very realistic.
Obligatory War Thunder request. One thing that always really bothered me and just really didn’t seem right to me was M829A2 or even DM53 from the L/55 canon not being able to pen the T-64A’s turret in-game. There’s no way out of every Russian mbt ever made including ones with kontakt 5 and relikt, that just a turret with steel plates inside would be the best right?
FROM MEMORY the Soviets based their tank armour, on the idea that the Allies would use the German 128mm gun post war.
So they tried to armour their tanks to counter that threat.
Interestingly, again FROM MEMORY.. the Germans themselves were looking at improving their 105mm gun (fitted to the 10.5 cm K gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette "Dicker Max"),
Or maybe it was a new design?? But either way it had a longer barrel, as they found it gave better penetration than the 128mm gun.
Flat or frustrum nose, maybe use tungsten instead of the carbide, problem solved.
It uses tungsten.
No, shell, go perpendicular, not parallel
If I’d been driving a T54 when that 20lb round arrived right in front of my face……..I’d have had to go and have a cigarette and a lie down. And I don’t smoke.
T-54 made of stalinium!
it is fortunate that the T-54 was not mass-produced until 1957
Production of the T-54 in the Soviet Union almost ended in 1957. 1948 - 593. From 1950 - more than a thousand every year until 1953. From 1953 to 1957 - 2 thousand every year. A total of 16.7k was produced before 1959.
There would be spalling
What noise inside of tank would it generate?
Probably catastrophic. The earlier in tank designs you go, the more it's a case of "just steel". And, well, there are more than enough sources from WW2 and korean war that describe crews being completely fucked and shell shocked after non pen hits, coming out of their tanks with bleeding ears, not knowing who or where they are.
The sheer kinetic energy transfer also fucks shit up, not just people. Even a modern tank, and, maybe especially a modern tank, could be hit, get no pen, but still have to be repaired significantly because just the sheer force of impact carries enough vibration to fuck up a lot of internal components.
Yea, I don't know what the other person is smoking, but it is some really really lotent stuff.
So, in conclusion, for vast majority of the projectile and vehicle, as long as there is no penetration, the crew will be fine. Loud sound? Sure. But enough to cause permanent damage? No chance.
It is simple math and how physics of energy. Added to that is air being really bad medium to transfer energy when and compressible.
Hell, even a worse case scenario of 15cm class he impacting your vehicle. US did a test and find out if it is impacting the front hull top slope, then outside of a loud banging sound, and maybe damage barrel, most of the thing will be fine. Yes, you need to recalibrate stuff but nothing major.
Especially with how modern penetrator and armor works, most of the energy is spent on eroding and ejecting the penetrator and armor material. There aren't gonna be much left to vibrate or shake up the crew.
*BONK*
Most tank crew wearing ear protection, some don't, i think it's might give a crew ringing ear but that's about it.
I find this simulations absolutely amazing. What software package do you use? Could you perhaps do land mine simulations against vehicles and or personnel?
Land mine simulation would be amazing but I assume too demanding to simulate.
wait, war thunder? are you lying to me? 😭😭
While T-54/55 might be better tank than Centurion (ofc, it came later on). But, doctrine and tactical use by Israel certainly even the odds, combine with improvement they made to their Centurion
You are correct that the Mk3 APDS was not able to penetrate the T-54, but the british was mostly going for the use of HESH rounds, so would be a better modeling of using the HESH round for the 20pdr vs T-54
No HESH for 20pdr. Also, none used HESH as main anti-armor round, it is too slow for any kind of longer range engagement and is also erratic in performances (any kind of non-optimal hit, or the hit on equipment on tank might degrade performances significantly).
HESH is never the main at warhead for anyone outside of handheld/recoiless tube application.
@@jintsuubest9331 Even there everyone except Brits prefered HEAT, despite having HESH in inventory. HESH is just "unpredictable", way more than other anti-tank rounds.
@@Twitchy1 How is 87/60/1000 able to penetrate 100/60?
@@jintsuubest9331 AFAIK Israeli Centurions were using it in the 1973 war.
We did not penetrate there armor
leopard 2a6 and t-62m
Lmao! Why not against T-34 or BT-7? Knowing that 2A5 was developed after germans tested T-80 ammunition against frontal armor of 2A4 and results were very poor for 2A4.
What if it hits turret?
If anything this channel has shown... Just tip the nose 5 degrees or way less and record the result... This thing would have gone through both sides!
Weird
True definition of "russain bais"
You should do a video of all the tanks heading to Ukraine vs the types of munitions they will be dealing with
I know right, you will be task with the job of asking around gdls, KMW, and bae lna.
While try not getting lock up by various intelligence agency.
PT-91 vs TM-62
So based off this simulation, is it safe to say that the British 17 pounder with APDS ammo would not have defeated a Royal Tiger’s front plate?
hahaha first
omg the joy
😄
Algorithm.
that's why you don't use APCR vs Sloped armor...
@Yaboi
Just a friendly reminder that for projectile armor interaction analysis purpose, they can often be consider as the same thing.
In fact, many apcr and apds share the same exact core, only difference being them having a different impact velocity at any given range.
@Yaboi
Emm, please read what your wrote and think about that.
US 76, British 17pdr, 77mm, all use the same core for their respective act and apds. And guess what, they all achieve the same performance at the same velocity.
You know, same core at same velocity means same energy, same weight, same geometry, and same interactions?
Russian supporters are now feeling so happy.
Rather hohol supporters had their daily dose of butthurt, innit? So funny how westerners lived in a fairy tale of their military superiority, yet now you all trying to pass the privelege of supplying the hohols with your "superior" tanks to each other.
I was betting on it going through the armor. I'm surprised.
How to get the simulation armor test?
Soviet tanks far superior 🇷🇺🙏
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ю. Ю. 112Ю Ю 112Ю