YT channel with penetration simulations

[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.

[scorpio_rocks]

http://www.wargamesresearchgroup.net...story/wrg.html


gives a history of WRG and links to downloads of some of the rulesets

[Aeraaa]

Another one. It seems that the Maus had strong enough armor to withstand early APFSDS rounds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oZ51UJ9lQQ

[Aeraaa]

T62 hardened steel APFSDS vs. M1 upper frontal plate at around 500m.

[Aeraaa]

Sorry, link for the above:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r4pwzC6pzc

[MarkSheppard]

I've worked up my own penetration simulator based off a few equations here.

http://alternatewars.com/BBOW/Ballis...Marre_Calc.htm

It implements the following formulas:

1.) Franz Kosar's Panzerabwehrkanonen 1916-1977 on page 15 reproduces a "DeMarre" Formula.

2.) The Soviet "DeMarre" Formula reproduced in Курс артиллерии. Кн. 1. Общие сведения. М., 1941 (Course of artillery. Book 1. General information. M., 1941).

3.) The ARMET-TR-17002 Linear Velocity Decay Formula from The 76mm Gun M1A2 and M1A2: An Analysis of US Anti-Tank Capabilities during World War II to rapidly calculate striking velocities at arbitrary distances.

The Kosar and Soviet "DeMarre" formulas are near identical, the only difference being that the Soviet formula adds a parameter to incorporate armor slope LOS effects.

There's a lot of working parts; and I'll write a user's guide one day. But you can use it to figure out hypothetical guns on paper, or obscure guns that little information is known about.

No, it's not as reliable or as accurate as some of the CFD penetration simulations that are linked here that the youtubers are doing -- but you can run them on limited information (no accurate scaled drawings/models of shell needed) and rapidly (results within a second, rather than hours).

EDIT: The biggest thing that screws up a lot of simple armor penetration formulas (like my attempt) are slope effects.

Slope effects are far more than just a simple "increased LOS thickness" SIN(angle) or COS(angle) calculation -- sloping increases the energy required to penetrate the same amount of armor; and scaling laws don't work too well -- at around 45 degree slope -- 76mm HVAP (K=2418) and 90mm HVAP (K=2268) diverge; with the 90mm shell having an easier time penetrating armour than the 76mm shell, presumably having to do with increased areal density, or the shell being large enough to "turn into" the slope, like the Soviet 122mm shell was notorious for.

[Aeraaa]

70ies matchup: Chieftain APDS round vs. T64/T72 hull armor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG4OOJymX5U

That was the period where top of the line Soviet tanks were really hard to get knocked out.

[Aeraaa]

152mm HE vs. the strongest part of the Kingtiger's armor (the hull):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fhr-jf-ZSZQ

(two versions, one with a 250BHN steel and one with lower quality with reduced ductility).