PROTOTYPE 12.8/8.8cm APDS vs IS-3 LOWER PLATE | E-100 Armour Piercing Simulation
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ย. 2024
- As a sequel to the E-100 vs IS-3 video, the simulation presents the same 128/88mm APDS round against the Lower Plate of the IS-3.
The 12.8/8.8cm Pzgr.39 Treibspiegelgeschoss (TS) round was a modified, sub-calibre version of the 88mm Pzgr.39 to be fired from the 128mm KwK44, using a discarding sabot. This increased the muzzle velocity of the cannon but made shattering extremely likely. The round also has one of the longest abbreviations being an Armour-Piercing High-Explosive Capped Ballistic-Capped Discarding Sabot Tracer round (APHECBCDS-T)
The simulation assumes a good quality projectile, which still shatters despite the armour piercing cap. A projectile of average quality would shatter on the surface of the plate, resulting in a reduction in performance for the cannon. The armour of the IS-3 has been modelled as RHA as no credible source could be found for it being anything else. The 55° angle of the lower plate has been taken from Warthunder as this was based off a 3D scan of an actual IS-3, rather than the 63° which is shown in some drawings online, as these drawings are apparently of a prototype IS-3 armour layout, which was changed before production.
Amazing thumbnail artwork from: Henrik Larsen two_larsens.artstation.com/projects/l8L8z#top
To put the power of this sub calibre round in perspective, it had a muzzle energy of over 7.5MJ...thats more than most APFSDS rounds from the120mm L/44.
However, its penetrative performance at 60° is less than the 60/17mm APFSDS simulated recently, which only had 1.14MJ of energy. This shows the inefficiency of short steel projectiles, compared to heavy metal long rods, and makes it evident why projectile designs developed as they did.
Wow this opened my third eye
It's really interesting. The M103 M58 gun is among the most powerful gun, yet performs disappointgly in many tests I've watched against Soviet heavy tanks
Could you show what other German (less than 128mm) grenades of the time would do with that much muzzle velocity?
@@ivan5595 Purely due to its projectiles?
@@Orinslayer I imagine that if there was a long-rod style penetrator made for it (and it was possible to fit it inside the turret to load it, even if it had to broken down into projectile and cased propellant), the performance against armour would be similar to more modern guns with a similar ballistic performance.
...although I would expect the usual mechanical "reliability" of heavy WW2 German tanks would be "Achilles heel" for the Panzerkampfwagen E-100, along with only having RHA armour, rather than more modern composite/Chobham armour that a modern tank would have.
I love how you include little facts with the simulation
The only problem is that in the facts he omitted that E-100 was unusable, while IS-3 had by the best protection-to-weight ratio of all existing tanks in the world, a "standard" weight and "standard" dimensions. That said, good simulation! 😁
Yes. Sysimulation videos are top quality on TH-cam! Best simulation channel content wise (I think still improving simulation accuracy though?)
@@RiccardoTheBeAst
>IS3 best protection to weight ratio
>Falls apart by itself due to bad welds
Kek
@@ThatZenoGuy >cracked if hit by very powerful rounds, only in the v-shaped glacis, probably happened two times on the first exemplars
>some guy on the internet: "falls apart by itself"
@@RiccardoTheBeAst
You have to go back.
The fact that it's tumbling though, just go's to show that's its both heavy and insanely fast
Great stuff as always! Have you ever considered doing some of the early (WW2 era) French sabots for tanks like the ARL? Would be neat to see.
Thanks! No I haven't but idk if there's enough information out there about them...i haven't looked yet tbh
NATO: "there's nothing we can do, the steel plate is too steeply angled!"
WoT/WT players: "I'm gonna do what's called a pro gamer move"
And spam gold
sadly irl a shot to the lower plate is only going to destroy the transmission, maybe detonate ammo if the crew load the max load on paper.
@@tdpro3607 if a round manages to travel through the LFP all the way to the rear-mounted transmission then I’d say there’d be a little more damage than that 😂
Shoot the barrel and go to side 😁
WT Players: Time to hit your minigun with my HE and overpressure you
It would be cool to see this round against an Abrams lfp, I think there's already a video somewhere of the full caliber 128mm round hitting an Abrams and it almost went through. Would be cool to see the difference
I wonder if the american ap shot from 120mm gun of m-103 would go through the abrams fron
@@tedarcher9120since those rounds would be full caliber and shaped like a more traditional AP round, it would tumble like this and undoubtedly penetrate the Abrams UFP, but I’m not sure about the lower plate, seeing that Burlington armor is made to quickly disperse energy
Seems like the round shattering was meant to be a feature, given how much shrapnel it created.
Could you do a simulation of Osmium APFSDS as it is the densest naturally occurring metal
Bahh! The E100 gun is mounted high up, it would have to fire at a downward angle to even hit the lower plate of an IS3 at close range, and at long range the angle from shell drop would also make it less effective(or difficult to hit). The only time an E100 would get a chance to hit IS3 lower plate at this angle would be if the E100 had the low ground. Not to mention how small of target the lower plate of IS3 is to begin with (compared with other tanks lower plate)
This is such a cool and informative channel. Useless but nonetheless interesting knowledge.
Slow firing cannon is a bit of a meme btw. That "2RPM" usually goes from official documentation without mentioning of test specifications, which usually included ALL ammunition expenditure, not only first rack. With first order ammo average reload cycle was around 16 seconds (including reaiming and fire), and maximum pure firerate could achieve 6RPM, which, while isn't stellar, is far from usually mentioned numbers.
"Maximum pure fire rate" is misleading, as that would make the Panther's ROF 15-20 RPM in comparison.
It would be nice to see the short lived planned round with the Pzgr 40 and with the full charge 1800m/s at some distance.
Could you replace it with the PzGr 43? I would like to see if it would work better please
Ich wünsche sie hätten den einen E100 Prototypen fertig gestellt. Das wär heutzutage ein unfassbares Gefährt
Man, look at that spalling
THIS is one of those times a witness plate is simply not necessary.
Could you please do a simulation where you compare damage from a solid round and an apcr round. Both rounds from same cannon (note that velocity can differ even if fired from same cannon as apcr is lighter and will most likely have higher velocity) and where both rounds penetrate. So not simulate the penetration values but the damage that the respective rounds causes.
Thank you and keep up the great work.
Would be nice if you could include several different plates of one vehicle in one video. I'm sure everyone would also like to see the round go against the UFP or the turret.
The previous video shows the upper plate; originally i wanted to do both in one video but didn't have the time unfortunately
Driver had a VERY bad day
This may be quite time consuming, but can you do the 76K railgun against several tests?
I suggest: old ww2 128mm versus modern western MBT
Won't punch it, will get caught, and then the WW2 crew is paste.
Jagdtiger hitting M1 Abrams at pointblank range: th-cam.com/video/ba3jGiaTsdY/w-d-xo.html
Wow, that's amazing!
Knowing how cramped the is3 was this penetration on the LFP turned the entire crew in juice
Some I would like to see
Grifel-1 (152mm depleted uranium) vs challenger 2 front turret armor
DM63a1 vs t14 front hull
3BM-69 vs leopard 2 front turret
M829a4 vs merkava turret front
9M133-1 atgm vs leopard, abrams, challenger and merkava
There isnt any info about t14 hull armour.
The rest is also vague
You then will be the person responsible to track down the material, dimension, and construction details of whatever you just said.
That would wreck someone's day.
Never heard of these sub calibre rounds before and I played WT...
Because they're only prototypes
Did any fragments make it through? Couldn't tell without a witness plate :D
War Thunder:This is a bounce
Holy shit that obliterated that plate going sideways lol
Went through like Ralph Wiggum through a window.
war thunder player: "AIM FOR THE GUNS!"
But the IS-3 was in service in different countries, and the E100 was purely on paper only.
can you give sources for those 150/88 or 105/75 mm shells? i could not find any info about them
The 150/88 is for the sFH 18 L/30 and the 105/75 and 105/88 is for the LeFH 18. The 105/75 should even be in the Geschossringbuch (cant remember which part) as it was in full frontline service for example in the StuH 42 series. And the pic about the 150 was allready shown in some previous video. Also i can assure you that they exist i also have at least 2 sources which can both be found on the internet. (I forgot the names tho, one is a Heeres Dienstvorschrift.) But the 150/88 goes 880 m/s (and is a more or less normal 88 Pzgr 39) and the 105/75 goes 765m/s and is a 75 mm Pzgr 39 which is 7,7 kg in barrle and after segration an 6,4 kg grenade. The 88 was a bit slower with 660m/s or so. There were also some He rounds. And both 105/75 and 105/88 were also in an Mbs version which meant Mündungsbremsensicher, muzzle brake save.
@@Ghostmaxi1337 okay, thanks. i will look into it a bit more when i will have time
So much metal punching through
128/88 vs is-3 or is-4 gunner optic
@SYsimulations Think you could simulate a 155 Bonus explosively-formed penetrator hitting top armor?
One day maybe, shaped charges or efps are a bit too computationally demanding unfortunately
Any chance you could simulate differences of angled armour penetration between the 122mm BR471 and BR471B
Potentially, yes
@@SYsimulations cheers mate, would be interesting to see if you get the time.
@@SYsimulations and include BR471D if possible
E-100 greatest tank ever
That never existed past a hull
Li'l shell just wanted to be a HESH
Man thats a lot of spal and fragments
could we get a comparison between an apds round and an apcr round? i assume the angle performance on apds rounds is due to the velocity but i would like to see if its really as good as gajin says it is
Could you do a simulation with the 120 mm SA46 of the AMX 50? I think it would perform similar, but with a higher velocity...
Tested the same, scenario in WT and it won't penetrate, even from much lower angle.
now let's imagine a simulation where a modern APFSDS would be shot with as much energy as thoose fat 128mm projectiles where shot with. would be truly devastating
Well 120mm L/55 APFSDS rounds have MORE energy than the 128, and so do some other cannons I think
It did a cartwheel
So this is a 128 mm gun firing an 88 mm shell that has had sabot petals added to bring it up to size? Am I understanding correctly, or am I off-base?
Yes, there were a couple for different guns even. And the 105/75 was even in full production and frontline service making the LeFH 18 and similar guns to more or less modern multi purpose guns as the in barrle 7,7 kg and after discarding 6,4 kg 7,5 cm Pzgr 39 was 765m/s fast and by that only 5m/s slower than the L/43 while even in barrle beeing 0,9 kg heavyer. With addition to beeing able to fire 105 mm He shells.
There was also the 105/88 and the 150/88 which is more or less an Pzgr 39 with 880m/s. So inbetween L/56 and L/71 for the sFH 18 L/30.
i dont think E100 ever would land shot at this angle, E100 much higher
minor emotional event for driver and ammo racks
Wouldn't the E-100 have the same turret shot trap as the Panther A?
Yeeess now 122 mm vs E 100 lower plate ot upper plate
So it’s under indeal conditions, like E100s turret is way lower than it should be…
At this range, the 1m height difference results in nearly no change in angle; a slight downwards trajectory is included though
@@SYsimulations oh okay, got it
Wooow it penetrates so easily... would it be the same result for t-10m and is-7? Both are is3 improvement tank.
I don't remember the thickness of the T-10M lower plate but it wouldn't go through the IS-7's
On behalf of the imaginary crew of that is3, ow.
the shell just front flipped into the tank
Jesus christ look at that spalling 💀
I still don't understand the point of the hollow cones on some of these shells
The ones at the front? Theyre called ballistic caps and are to improve the aerodynamics of the shell, reducing drag and increasing effective range
R.i.p drivers feet 😢🦶😞
Yikes! That driver would have a baaad time
Use Big Medic Kit to fix all in tank!
Rip driver
Suggestion
T54/55 3BM8 HVAPDS hitting the UFP of a T34 from 800 meters away at 15 degrees horizontal angle
it goes clean through
I think the driver will certainly go through some significant emotional events
Just a mild feet burn
Do you simulate missiles as well?
I was wondering if you can do Tow2B against Russian T90
Missiles are much too hard to simulate lol
Better 10kg shell at 1230m/s than 28.3kg shell at 920m/s :D
I don't want to be the loader of a 128mm gun 😂
Hey, not sure if you'll see this, but what source did you have for this shell? Everything I can find says it's HE-DS for AA uses, not APDS. That includes both German and English primary and secondary sources. I'm genuinely curious cause so many people talk about it but I can't find it anywhere. Any pointers would be a huge help
It was added to war thunder according to a very old document. It mentions of a 128 to 88mm apcbc shot. Basically a tiger shell inside maus gun. I have no idea how you can find it tho.
@@yatzeegamingop sikrit dokument for blans, of course
@icantake yeah ik of this supposed document but I can only find it posted online in places like forums, not from any primary or even secondary source
There are some documents on war thunder forum
Search maus 128 apds war thunder
What software do you for such simulations?
USA T34 120mm and T30 155mm vs IS3/IS4?
Only IS-3 prototypes had welding issues.
Afaik many original IS-3s had issues with welded components, with these issues being addressed by changes in the IS-3M
Would it be possible to simulate a Japanese lunge mine (suicide mine)
Will the filler actually detonate even in that shattered conditions? Or would it detonate before total penetration would happen?
Whatever the case, it would obliterate the crew inside by spalling or the explosion.
No detonation at all I would guess
Gaijin left the chat again
LoL
AYO WHAT THE-
How is it 128/88mm? There’s a huge difference. Can someone please explain?
88mm shell in a 128mm sabot
regular 88mm German shell fitted in 128mm gun as a discarding sabot round
Its a APHEBC-DS round. Basically they took 88mm PZGR 39 and put in a sabot to fit into the 128mm Pak 43 gun. Rather than increase penetration it was more a way to extend the range of the round beyond the capabilities of the long 88.
well in this case its the same as an apfsds round but the "sabot" is an 88 mm shell technicaly the sabot is what fills the bore so its a 128 mm sabot but the actual projectile is 88 mm
@@123asap6
Eh? It was made to increase penetration, via higher velocity.
Could the 105 L7 APDS pen the lower place on the IS-3? I know Centurions had some issues dealing with them, at least on the upper plate.
Насколько высокого ис-3 должен стоять, чтобы Е-100 могу попасть в нлд под таким углом?
да в реале там пофиг, куда залетит - нос развалится по сварным швам, от того от щуки и отказались.
Turret Jumbo vs tiger2?
It went through sideways!
1170? 😮
Is3 vs maus turret cheeks?
Der Kannonen !!!!!
Everyone in the tank is 100% dead.
Yeap
How common was it that the weak point of the IS-3 was the pikenose?
IS-3 never saw combat service.
@@gregoryfilin8040 Arab-Israeli war?
During trials it had issues with the pike nose welds breaking after multiple impacts but not sure about in actual combat. It did definitely see combat though, in the Hungarian revolution and israeli wars iirc
The Israelis couldn’t knock it out with 90mm Sherman’s an centurions.
@@joenuts5167 Issue was largely self-inflicted, IS-3s were engaged by M48A1s, while Centurions were acting as support. plinking from long distance to grab their attention. M48s had HEAT rounds which were supposed to be able to pierce frontal armor of IS-3, but after first few rounds glanced off they assumed they're inefective, and used HVAP rounds for rest of the engagement which were even less likely to pierce armor,. They ended up trading 4 lost M48s for 7 destroyed IS-3s.
Where's the witness plate
Do you really need one for this simulation LOL
Excuse me, I`m just passing through
В броню как будто атомная бомба влетела
Almost all knew this would penetrate, after all the lower front plate looks bigger than upper front plate visually which almost any gunner would go for it unless IS-3 angles, they'd go for UFP.
Tanks gunners don't aim for weak points 95% of the time, they aim for the tank and hope they hit it unless they're very close, at which point they're either ambushing the tank from the sides or rear, or they're in front of the tank and have to fire quickly so the enemy doesn't hit them first
@@comrade-princesscelestia4907 close by there s also parallax
@@okakokakiev787 yep
@@comrade-princesscelestia4907 Usually they do in old time like WW2, Korea War and so on, you'd read tankers mentioning hitting tanks in certain spots like between the wheels on the side hull to detonate the ammo inside, the transmission upfront, spot on the turret to put commander and gunner out of commission. But it doesn't happen often as T-34, Pz IV and M4 can easily take eachother out and they're the most common tank to face-off. When it comes to a tank that outclasses others like a Tiger vs M4 tanks with only 75mm, they'd had to flank, shoot in the side, shoot the turret ring, etc, that's when they'd use strong tank's weakness as edge for victory.
80s to today is pretty much turret ring, engine, and ammo storage. Angling doesn't play much factor in armour protection anymore.
@@panther7584 again, you read the memoir and notice when they say "I remember a few times aiming at the bottom of the turret on the panther" but the thing is, nobody is gonna mention the other 90% of the time where they just aimed at the enemy tanks and called it a day
This does not happen in World of Tanks.
In Warthunder it would bounce 😂
ı have to say sound effects or a music would be great
kung fu shell
Pen Armor
To everybody impressed by this, please bare in mind, the E100 was never produced, let alone saw action and neither did this wonder shell.
The gun was produced tho, and the sim states the difference between this wonder shell and the regular full calibre 128mm shell isn't high enough so the round would still pen in this scenario.
@@AllMightyKingBowser Look, this simulation is for entertainment / education purposes only as accurate as it may be. Germans at that point of the war could barely gather heavy tanks that they actually build, forget about wonder waffles like the E100 with experimental shells. THey had problems getting fuel to put in their tanks.
@@Vlad_-_-_ what does this have anything to do with the simulation or the capabilities of the gun?
And the IS3 never accomplished much more than that, lmao.
@@MethodePyro I guess he is offended his precious IS-3 was defeated by German wunderwaffe
This "Simulation" is absolutely wrong on a level that can't be described. The shell turns in the armour? There is better observation in a paper target and a spitball!
What do you assume should happen? That it keeps going straight?
@@SYsimulations It wont go straight, not totally, it will follow the "angle" in a downwards bow line. It won't turn sideways! Imagine penetrating with a surface area 5 times the calibre
@@funkx6438 The the direction velocity (remember velocity is a vector. We aren’t talking about speed but velocity which has both speed and direction) will be almost unchanged (going left to right), but the tip will start pointing downwards. And the velocity will push it so that it folds and penetrates sideways. Especially considered that the shape of the shell helps it go sideways.
@@zoroverse8358 I’m in the clear about that. It just defies basic Physics. Way of the least resistance!
@@funkx6438 That has nothing to do with this.
E-100 is a non-existent tank. Germany did not build a single copy, only a chassis without a turret.
Time to add fucking E100 apds on War Thunder
IS-3 VS E-100/Maus turret cheek