Tiger I APCR vs M26 Pershing | 8.8cm Pzgr 40 | Armor Penetration
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 бер 2024
- Simulation of a Tiger I tank projectile hitting the front hull armor of an M26 Pershing tank.
The area of the armor bulge where the ventilator is located was hit.
8.8cm Pzgr 40 APCR (36mm, 1.9kg tungsten carbide core, steel body) at 840 m/s
vs 162mm cast armor at 25° (5° side angle, -0.5° fall angle)
8.8cm KwK 36 muzzle velocity (APCR) - 930 m/s.
840 m/s refers to a distance of approximately 0.7km - Наука та технологія
These simulation runs expended the entire inventory of 88mm APCR the Germans had in 1944/45
I love how you always choose simulations that 'juuuust' pen like this. It'd probably cause a bailout when the shrapnel whizzed around the inside of the tank..
Yeah the driver is spaghetti and one crew member is in a really bad way and the other three need new underpants.
They are bailing lol.
@@Zander10102Lol yeah right. Considering the driver is to the left he’d be just fine.. But can’t satisfy the n4zi propagandist of modern day with facts, and reality. Because rooting for the losers is their favorite activity when they lock their room door @ 12am.
@@Zander10102dude why spaghetti. The driver isn't behind the center of the ufp. They are to the side. There was like no spall... I don't think either the machine gunner or driver would have died.
@@ushiki2212There was spall- the brown 'plate' on the interior view shows multiple 'dents' indicating splinter hits, and remember the sim only has so much capacity- it's doubtless not showing all the tiny pieces that would have resulted from that near penetration. They might not be deadly, but they'd suck inside the fighting compartment to be sure. So maybe not spaghetti, but at least not having a great day...
The damage to the crews would be minimal, if any.
Damn, I really thought that was gonna go through. Pershing was gonna a big problem for most German tanks
its go through, the crew is dead.
@@Brian-qj4kk yeah, that's most tanks though
@@Brian-qj4kk crew is dead after single apcr hit? Ar u mad?
@@raketny_hvostirl apcr did as much damage as a normal round, war thunder has nerfed it
the tiger 1s gun had less penatration than either the panther or tiger 2. theire is a significant amount of difference between the KwK 36 and the kwK 43
I really expected this to go straight through, guess i really underestimated Pershing's armor
100mm with angling, it wasn't that weak, but it wasn't much problem either
@@raketny_hvost The video shows a 162mm section, and 100mm was flat on the tiger and that's apparently "best tank of the war" lol
@@TheMeanLemon i don't know, what's with best tank, but i know, that Pershing was quite late. And main improvement was devastating AP nomenclature, not armor
@@TheMeanLemonbro, relax. Tiger 1 is 1942 tank. Pershing 1944. Its a big gap
@@ztashed6366 Pershing has been around since 1942-1943, one year after Tiger appeared, but for some reason it did not appear until 1945.
So, is this a guy having a bad time behind the plate, or just a fan suddenly developing a funny noise?
the crew members are sitting on the sides, so they're probably fine.
There are various machine components and materials to absorb the fragmentation, but it's possible that he is indeed, gonna have a bad time.
Great work as always!
Wow! This is pretty much as close as it gets.
I was sure there'd be some good chunks coming out the back, but it just held on
Considering the M26 Pershing's armor was made with the Tiger 1's and Panther's main guns specifically in mind I was (rather correctly) never expecting it to penetrate, but it did come closer than I expected. Guess the M26 was quite lucky that German APCR rounds were exceptionally rare due to Tungsten shortages on all sides during the War, especially in Germany.
Well M26 was unlucky because by the time it appeared Germany had much more long 88 mounted and as PAKs than Tiger Is ever produced.
@@AKUJIVALDO You could choose to see it that way but the M26 was only ever engaged by a Long 88 on one known occasion when a Nashorn tank destroyer ambushed and destroyed the only M26 Pershing to be a total combat loss during the war.
The M26 was actually ironically one of the few American Tanks during the Western Front to fight Tiger 1s more than once to overall positive results. So more common APCR munitions for the Tiger 1 would've likely been a bigger deal to M26 commanders than vehicles with the Long 88 which, again, they only encountered once. Primarily due to the Pershing's late combat debut.
@@AKUJIVALDO Also just for reference everybody knows the story of the M26 nicknamed "Fireball" being Knocked Out by "Tiger 201" at Elsdorf but few people realize that was not the only tank engagement at Elsdorf nor was it the only one to involve a Tiger 1 and an M26 Pershing.
Later the same day "Pershing No.40" under the command of Sergeant Nick Mashlonik attached to Combat Command B's "Taskforce Lovelady" advanced upon Elsdorf supported by a small force of M4 Shermans sent to blunt an assault on the town by four Tiger 1s and two Panzer 4s Pershing No.40 opened fire at a range of 914 meters (1,000 yards) while the M4s held their fire.
Four of the German Vehicles were destroyed to no American casualty. However, it is unknown which exact German vehicles were destroyed with only one of the four vehicles destroyed confirmed to be a Tiger 1 and one more assumed to be given the number of tanks present.
thats why they made the T26E5 version but im not sure if it was used @@AKUJIVALDO
Was wondering where the commentary was but then I realized I wasn't watching SY
yep it isn't those warthunder short guys who steal his videos and talk over them...
@@johnwalker7592 hate those tbh
I think that you should do a standard Panther PzGr 39 shell vs a Pershing’s UFP at maybe 600-1000m. I have heard and seen lots of conflicting sources, so it would be interesting to see a simulation of this. Very good content as always!
Hey, could you do the short 88 PzGr 40 vs early Sherman upper front plate (51mm at 55 degrees) at 1000m distance? AP should have no problem punching through, but I wonder how APCR would compete against such sloped armor.
I think it was 56 degrees, and the 51 is technically 50.8, for 90.8 mm effective. The armor back then was a lot harder than what's on the Pershing, so some chance of ricochet, but also much more spall.
Great sim !
Please tell me, is it possible, together with penetration simulation, to calculate the detonation of an explosive? After all, you often use chamber ammunition, but without cocking the filler.
I used an online translator. There may be errors. I'm sorry.
Odd suggestion, but could you simulate the slpprj m/49 apds hitting the front or side of a t34-85?
Would you be able to simulate two layers of era on armor? I doubt it would do anything unexpected but it would be pretty fun to see what happens
What is that circle on the back side of the plate before the shell hits it looks like a cutout or something?
I would really like to see how the basic PzGr 39 or Russian BR-365K / A fares against each other. Also the T-34-57 vs T-34-85?
The Pershing has now been field upgraded with composite armor! (The tungsten core) 🤣
It was pretty close, but considered internal components, thick clothing, etc most of the 5 guys are just gonna have a headache, and find out where that shot came from and deal with it. One guy might have some severe lacerations from spall, but soldiers are tough, they often survive things you wouldn't expect. Bailing out from a hit like this is a bad idea, you'll likely get sprayed with MG fire while coming out the hatches.
What is this simulation app called?
I expected more from APCR, maybe the Americans were good at making APCR designs, 90mm HVAP would probably go through. Also: How long does it take for you to simulate these? How many threads can ansys utilize?
Iirc, americans apcr there better because their core had more weight. They have plenty of tungsten during ww2, so they can afford heavier core for apcr
90 hours, about threads, i don't remember but a lot
This was at 0.7 km so it was expected to not pen.
I’ll admit, I am biased towards the Pershing and was not expecting its armor to stop a round even a small bit.
Its the short 88 mm. The long 88 would go thru.
@@LordOfChaos.x To be honest, I know it’s not the King Tiger or so 88 and it was the Tiger 1, I still thought it would go through
@@Predator20357 it will go thru at closer distances.
The simulation was from 0.7 km away.
@@LordOfChaos.x True, I still thought it was going to go through even at that distance
Doesnt the regular pershing have 101mm of armor in the front? The one with 161 isnt the "T26E5"? Im confused.
the video shows the place of impact. this area is less sloped therefore it is thicker
oh is it the front hull dent? i think i get it now.@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174
The projectile survived so it just needed a little bit more velocity and it could probably go through
The long 88 apcr can go thru it.
I was thinking it was more like ~140mm of armor and went with 1/2, so no real penetration but some plate damage on the inside.
I find the concept of 1/2 pen kinda strange but this for me is a 1/2 pen. 😅
1/2 is like a partial penetration, for me.
The round doesn’t penetrate but perforates the armor.
Of course depending on the round the damage can vary wildly.
Could you elaborate on the purpose of the plastic part in the projectile?
probably for normalisation to reduce effect of sloped armour
so that the core does not slip out
@@bongomeister9965 it has no effect on penetration and cannot be considered a cap
According to War Thunder, that point on a pershing can stop 20pdr apds so the apcr did better than i expected.
Wait, isnt this techically a hard spot? the rest of the UFP was around 100mm thick?
The rest of the Upper Glacis was also far more harshly sloped than this part which APCR munitions perform poorly against.
Edit: More clear wording.
The rest of ufp is more angled, so its harder for apcr to go through
@ztashed6366 this was at 0.7 km range. I think at closer ranges it would have went thru even at angles.
@@LordOfChaos.x Also at a closer range the gun would be aiming downwards, reducing the effective armor further
that is also true if both vehicles are on a flat surface at the same elevation@@EdyAlbertoMSGT3
What about tiger 2's 88 with standard apcbc shot at 500m distance... Target pershing's front turret
How much time did it take to process the simulation and what processor do you use?
I7-10870h, about 90 hours, APCR require a fairly dense mesh, because with such brittleness, unwanted erosion of the material may occur.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 So as I understand Xeons from ali-express will be faster?
Edit: Correction - the 700 meter distance is right according to H.Dv. 119/328 "firing table"
Would have been nice to see the approximate firing distance in the simulation video, also.
description exists
After this test was concluded, the driver confirmed the results were mind blowing.
In fact, it was such an amazing revelation that his brains seemingly expanded all around the tank.
Edit: yeah, I know the driver and machine gunner aren't in the center of the tank. That poorly thought out joke was the first thing that came to mind, that's all.
I want to see simulation with BK-354M vs. upper front plate M48
from how far got the granate come from?
Wow this is completely not what I have expected, I thought it would just stop in the middle of the plate but it actually perforated it a bit. APCR isn't as weak as I thought it would be.
Its also not as bad against angles as most people think.
How long do these take to make?
Pretty good for 700m!
Even if it doesnt go all the way through, it's still a significant emotional event and the crew for sure are no longer in the mood to stick around 😅
reminder Pershing was a heavy tank during WWII
Tiger 1 Vs Sherman Jumbo Front armor next
hte core of apcr is smaller than normal ap shells, which led to lighter weight and lower penetration when stuck inside the armour (but still has a higher total penetration than normal ap shells) and worse after armour effects
well opposite, the smaller diameter the less material it need to push through overall, so shell can punch through more armor overall with less energy needed, which is why modern APFSDS are thin, but long.
for after armor effects US tests given them basically same rating as brittle tungsten carbide core produces a lot of fragments and due to higher velocity smaller fragments have greater punching power.
@@arczer2519 modern apfsds has a heavier weight than apcr, what i am saying here is that apcr is too light, and losses kenetic energy fast when hitting the armour.
@@chickenchicken8097 they're not that much heavier (at least compared to proper high power APCR/APDS that US and UK used), core mass is similar they're thinner and longer.
105mm T29 APCR has diameter of 48mm and core mass of 3.6kg
105mm M833 APFSDS has diameter of 28mm and mass of 3.85kg
Not surprised too much, though it wasn't big deal for cats. I heard turret was not too hard to damage
Slightly stressful situation.
this gonna be get more close to shoot and get effective.
It's an APCR for Tiger I 88mm, Tiger II Long 88mm APHE would go right through that armour plate. Also Germany's APCR were worst out of all 4 main tank and anti-tank gun manufacturers during WWII, because of lack of metals like tungsten, so their APCRs had smaller amounts of tungsten compared to that they could've used, leading to smaller penetrator, smaller penetration and smaller amount of APCR ammunition.
Soviets had the worst APCR
Would not have guessed! But it makes sense being the USA had the German guns at Aberdeen by the Pershing roll out
Seems about right honestly. The M26's upper glacis was rated to be immune to the standard APCBC shells of the Tiger 1 and Panther but the APCR shells for both were believed to be a serious threat to the tank within 200-300m so this result more or less lines up with how the armor was expected to function.
Luckily for the M26 German APCR munitions were all but virtually non-existent by '44 let alone '45 when the tank saw most of it's brief service during the War. All sides during the War had limited Tungsten for such penetrators but Germany especially was hit hard on the rare metals side of things.
Pershing's armor doesn't look too bad to me here. The Tiger I's best (and rare) round from only 70 meters. A 76mm Sherman can likely pen a Tiger from that distance with regular ammo.
But the vets who were there would tell you that an 88 could kill a Sherman and unfortunately often most/all of its crew by spalling alone from around half a mile if not a mile.
Oooooo- so close. The Pershing crew would have been super lucky that they faced a Tiger and not a Königstiger or Jagdpanther LOL This also shows that the Pzgr. 40 would have had no trouble with anything less armoured. Cast armour is, I believe, stronger than rolled, so that might have something to do with it juuuuust being able to withstand the penetrator. Anything with rolled armour less than 162mm may not have survived. I hope you repeat this with an IS2 maybe?
just a fun note, one of couple T26e3's that were lost during operation zebra was shot through the lower front plate by a nashorn i believe. a few others were damaged but repaired and survived until the end. during their short service they did rack up an impressive kill/death ratio, it was found that the 90mm gun with even standard ammunition could frontally penetrate the panther and tiger anywhere. on the other hand the T26's gun mantlet was vurnerable to the Tigers gun(therefore also to the panthers gun) as in a close range ambush a tiger managed to knock out an T26 with a shot throught the mantlet, another shot to the gun barrel and one richochet off the side of the turret, this T26 called "fireball" was repaired a few days later and went back into action, immediately upon returning it knocked out several panzer 4's and a couple tigers/panthers.
the story of the fireball is well documented with pictures and records, reading it gives a great idea of how excellent the tank was
@@chost-059Oh that's right- one was knocked-out by enemy fire, and I'd forgotten it was a Nashorn. Thanks! So that shows the KwK43 would manage with standard Pzgr.39/43 shells- if it shoots in the right spot. No gunner would choose to hit the glacis if he could avoid it. I wonder how many Pershings were actually hit by anything other than Paks...
@@chost-059 To clarify things three M26's total were knocked out during WW2.
One by a Nashorn through the Lower Glacis, as you mentioned. This was also the only M26 written off as a total loss because the ammunition cooked off after the crew bailed.
One was knocked out by an artillery shell striking the Commander's hatch and killing the Commander, causing the crew to bail but the tank would be recovered and put back into service.
One was knocked out when ambushed by a Tiger 1 at Elsdorf. The M26 nicknamed "Fireball" sustained 3-4 direct hits to the turret face at a range of roughly 80 meters. All but one failed to penetrate but the one that did killed two of the turret crew causing the surviving three to bail. The penetrating shot was an extraordinary one as it punched through the coaxial machinegun port where the armor was less structurally sound. "Fireball" would be recovered and put back into service after Elsdorf was secured.
Edit: Ah I see you covered Fireball as well, my bad.
@@chost-059 and I agree on the excellence of the Pershing's performance even though it's service life during the war was short. For a total of three tanks knocked out and only one permanently destroyed the Pershing racked up an estimated 15-20 kills on armored vehicles.
@@ThatGuyOrby the one that was knocked out near a bridge by a sIG 33 150m field gun was surprisingly not a total loss, most of the turret remained intact enough to be repaired
Stark contrast to pictures of panthers that were hit by 152mm HE and broke apart, could say that speaks to the manufacturing quality of american casting
sideway cut viev reminds me some awkward pictures on biology lessons
I found it funny how confident everybody was of a tiger 1 just because how much hype the "tiger" has and it's 88mm. Pershings armor is as thick as the shells penetration at point blank. 100meters about 162mm of armor for the APCBC round. Yes i know it's apcr and apcr likes to curve on slopes.
There’s documented evidence of a Tiger I shooting through the Pershing’s gun mantlet
Nice one but i really wanna know how much ERA is effective against solid AP and APHE rounds
With how slow those shells are compared to APFSDS, extremely effective
considering their size, mass concentration and bending resistance compared to APFSDS, rather not very effective
@@thezig2078 No. APFSDS is very thin. Sideways force will affect it a lot like when you snap a stick. Now try snapping a thick short piece of wood. Not so easy.
@@TwixSvK It's not about snapping it, it's about slowing it down by launching a large chunk of metal at it, and slowing the shell down even more.
@@thezig2078era doesnt work by slowing down apfsds
Why is the normalisation of APCR so bad compared to APDS?
Maybe the body of the APCR changing its path before it begins to bore into the target? It's not much, but it's there. APDS wouldn't have this issue.
The steel back only helps for very small angles, as you can see in the simulation it broke the entire end part of the core.
What is so called normalization anyways? There is nothing inherently different between apcr and apds, other than one will have a higher muzzle velocity.
@jintsuubest9331 mainly the velocity. Also the distance was 0.7 km in the simulation.
So is it 1/2 pen?
More like 99% since it almost made it through and pushed out a bit, no?
Driver had a significant emotional event? 🤔
If youe gonna say driver say machine gunner too since both are adjacent to where the round landed.
isn't it supposed to explode?
How
meanwhile in War Thunder: haha GeRmAnY pEnS eVeRyThInG nOt RuSsIaN
Ha, my guess 50/50 was a nice shot :D
This makes sense. Its important to note the tiger I was outdated when the pershing showed up
i knew it
I had that down as just making it through. Only just though
Velocity of sharpnel seems pretty low.. i feel like if whomever sitting behind would be physically okay, but not mentally okay.
That oughta give someone a ptsd.
Aaaaaaaaaand this is why you never take APCR
Mild spalling, not enough to knock out the Pershing but would definitely injure some crew.
Wat Thunder says: "Hit"
Wish we could see vs AP
Heheh knew all along u doubters
The strange is , real life tends to ignore calculations, statistics, and testing. Just a few inchs over in cast armor can have significantly different properties in strength/brittleness .
Uhhhh End product quality control is a thing and it ensure that doesnt happen
Now try putting the Tiger 2 against it since it's gun is more better than the Tiger 1's 88 let's see if makes any differences
Found the german main.
Tiger 2 easily pens it. Tiger 1 has shorter barrel/less velocity.
No point since the KwK43 was much more powerful than the 36, so if the 36 nearly penetrated, the 43's shot definitely would have.
@@joshuasutherland6692I genuinely despise wheraboos. Second class humans
there would be significant spalling, the driver could be taken out of action here
The Pershing sucks
Like I said. WEAK German APCR. It ain’t happenin’. Carrol Baskins.
Except that this was the latest and greatest opponent, vs. a shell designed 5 years before LOL It nearly penetrated something it was never envisioned to have to face- something that was specifically designed to survive shots from. Can't really say the Pzgr.40 was weak- especially since it defeated everything it faced UNTIL the Pershing, and then only this bit. ;)
I went through all three years of your videos of Western Allies vs. German and Vice versa simulations. I found not a single instance of German munitions penning an Allied tank, and all simulations of Allied munitions showed penatration on the German tank. That is uncanny. Do you have an ulterior motive or something? This particular simulation is performed at a range of 700 meters. One of your other simulations shows a Sherman penning a Tiger at basically point blank range. Don't you think that doctoring angles and ranges to present a rosy picture of Allied armor effectiveness is extremely disengenious? Are you afraid of making your audience uncomfortable? The bias in the simulations is, to me at least, very disturbing, and I hope other people are catching on.