YT channel with penetration simulations

[Aeraaa]

I came across this very interesting channel which contains several different penetration tests videos:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7r...X2ADwlg/videos

Here are some of the most interesting in regards to the game.

HE hitting light tank armor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIKsGsdoF-Q

120mm Pz. 531 @ 2km vs upper hull of M1 Abrams:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7aTSjqMyrM

100mm APHE vs 25mm@ 75 deg.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fih1e1nAiYE

same round vs 20mm @ 81 deg.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O93tbRyUdcU

105mm APFSDS vs T72B composite armor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMOOipoS5mQ

same round vs Chieftain turret:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYyu-iAxhXU

and more.

[Aeraaa]

New video, overpressure simulation, 125mm vs. Leopard 1 early model:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTmgooJ8mjE

kinda shows the true danger of HE, armor is rarely penetrated, but the crewman that is near the blast is almost certainly a goner.

(I wonder if there is any way of accurately modelling that in the game).

[DRG]

Maybe ( maybe.....) there might be a way to add in a check for crew damage from an HE hit. The bigger the warhead and HEK the higher chance of a * crew casualty damage result but that is Andy's territory but even with SPWW2 if you hit a PzIII with a 152mm HE shell direct fired from a SU-152 that can't be good for anyone near the point of impact in that PzIII

[MarkSheppard]

This was done back in April 2021, and is a good example of why sticking to "generic armor thickness" is best:

==================================

RIBBED ARMOUR vs APFSDS & APDS (YOUTUBE URL)

Investigation into the effectiveness of ribbed armour against APFSDS & APDS projectiles. This armour was famously used on Swedish tanks when APDS was the most common kinetic round, as is quite effective against it. The model first matches the experimental set up of a Swedish live fire trial [1], followed by a similar set-up against more modern APFSDS, where the plate has been made thicker and is placed at a steeper angle to stand a better chance against the APFSDS

There is a reason it is no longer used...

https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordp...strv-103-1971/

===========================================

Basically, if you try for a super accurate armor penetration simulation for your game, you end up having to do so many "edge cases" and hacks/workarounds that your "hit/kill" code becomes a convoluted spaghetti mess.

This video is a nice example of an "edge case" -- you'd have a rule that goes: "Strv 103 has +1D bonus to defending against APDS, but no bonus against APFSDS."

[Mobhack]

Looks like you would need a special oil-filter cap hit rule as well...

Also, the 4 production test plates varied - 61, 65, 67 and 70mm. So you will need a rule for determining each individual tank's armour suite since it is rather variable. The opposite of most wargamers who insist that armour for tank X on facing so and so is always precisely 127.567 mm because some book says so.

Myself, I found the early WRG 1/300 tabletop rules worked perfectly well with thier broad-brush classification of armour being from class "F" (thinnest - halftracks and armoured cars) through class "A" which was King tiger (and others) frontal, the tiger 1 was C front and sides.

We will stick to whole centimetres, unlike some who believe it is more accurate/realistic to use individual mm increments. When 2 tanks off the same asseembly line can be a cm of thickness different.

[Aeraaa]

115mm APFSDS vs. Centurion Mk3 turret (a common 60ies scenario):

Hitting the turret only:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg6Vv7lR208

Hitting the gun mantlet and then the turret:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NKzctGLYXA

Interesting how much penetration is reduced with the mantlet hit.

[Aeraaa]

Basically the video I was waiting for, 105mm HESH vs. 125mm at various angles and 135mm at 0 degrees:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9pF2XNtnqk

Turns out 105mm HESH is affected by extreme angling and the maximum it can penetrate in RHA is about 1,3 the shell caliber.

[Mobhack]

HESH does not need to penetrate - it works on the Newtons Cradle effect, like those executive toys with 5 balls on a cradle you used to see in gift shops. It "pings" a big scab of steel off the inside of the armour plate that it hits, any penetration is a bonus and only applies to thinner plate.

Its really only useful on homogenous steel armour, or bricks and concrete (which it reduces to individual grains that being why it was used in the original "wallbuster" RCL gun experments of WW2) and is highly susceptible to any gaps of any kind or the armour having layers of non-similar materials (such as rubber or sand or angled plates etc) within it. Spall liners like you see commonly on modern armour will also mitigate the scabbing effect as well.

So in game, any HEAT armour counts as triple the value to HESH after the steel is subtracted
Armour v HESH = HEAT + ((HEAT-Steel)*3)

HESH is better than HEAT when being used as an HE round, but is still reduced compared to plain HE as HESh is a thin-walled case that produces blast but little fragmentation effect.

(I can give that detail out since HESH is our code, not SSI's)

Why the UK was so wedded to it for so long is a mystery. HESH/HEP really only excels in an engineer demolition gun type application now that tanks have had layered armour since the 60s and the T64s appeared.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I STRONGLY agree with Marks assessment and would add that for a tank like the T-72 which has been in action for decades you would have to further make changes for all the "generational" versions for those tanks over the decades as i.e. in a RESET version such as the T-72B3/B4 any previous code changes would have to be "thrown out the window".

Also it's important to note, that we're not likely to find any current videos (Or other.) data that would cover any penetration levels, deflection or other data for current and likely at least 2 or more previous generations of armor (As previous generations is how you go from "here to there".). Why?

Reverse Engineering.

And finally the data just doesn't exist for every tank out there. We still don't know a thing about Japans TYPE-10 and good luck trying to find anything reliable on that!

Another case for KISS in my opinion. We know more about ammo on the web than armor overall. But with both we can at best, only "read between the lines" of what we can find on the web.

And DOD, MOD or WHoOD whatever, aren't going to tell us either anytime soon.

Regards,
Pat

[Imp]

The truth is especially nowadays you have no real idea what the armour is. They can be fitted with all sorts of different armour packages when fielded or makeshift addons like rubber sheeting. Same goes for WWII you hit a jerry can or something attached outside. Poor armour subject to starring & shattering.

Plus if you go to that detail you would need to rework every gun. Penetration will fall off at different rates due to muzzle velocity, covered partly I assume by max range.
HEAT should be less accurate at range vs moving targets due to flight times etc.

Its good enough its not a simulation but it does a good job of conveying the right feel.