Sherman Firefly vs Maus | 17pdr | Armor Penetration Simulation
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 лип 2023
- Simulation of Sherman Firefly projectile hitting hull side armor of Maus tank.
76mm AP Shot (7.7kg) at 790 m/s vs 183mm RHA at 16 degrees side angle.
17pdr gun muzzle velocity - 884 m/s. 790 m/s refers to a distance of approximately 0.55 km (for AP). - Наука та технологія
What is often overlooked is the fact that AP rounds are better than APC rounds in theoretical armor penetration potential. In practice, they shatter easily, thus losing this potential, but in the case of angles close to 0 degrees (medium armor hardness and not too high velocity) a good quality shell can survive.
I was thinking of modeling a fuel tank, but I couldn't find any thickness data.
the witness plate may be an approximation.
How are AP considered better in theory? I can't wrap my head around this.
@@johnhighway7399 since the cap is an extra burden that marginally helps with penetration
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174
Maybe use US 90mm ap vs apc sim to show that?
@@johnhighway7399 90mm M318 and 90mm M82 are both roughly 24 lbs and fired at 2800 fps but M318 can penetrate around 210mm of armor, while M82 penetrates around 170mm of armor. M318 is a solid AP round and M82 is an APCBC round with .3 lbs of HE filler.
Another cool idea would be the long 90mm gun (The T15E1 gun) found on the T26E1-1 firing its highest penetration APCR round which apparently can penetrate 330mm at 0 degrees at the Tiger II's UFP at close range and see how that performs. Either idea in a video would be so sick.
It’s crazy that the shell even cracked the back of the armor without going through more than like 2/3s of the actual thickness
This result highly depends on steel quality
@@Einheit101 It is caused by energy transfer via homogenic steel plate...
And this is why we use spall liners
@@deskmat9874 And this is why spall liners weren't a thing until the 1950's. Ain't no spall liner in a Maus. Just as the AP shell depicted in the simulation didn't exist IRL. What is (nominally) depicted by weight and velocity is an APCBC round, but without the cap or ballsitic cap. And those two parts *ARE* important.
Spalling is one of the main reasons for armour not being homogeneous any longer
800 mm Mortar Gustav vs U-Boat Bunker Brest would be very interesting
It isn't mortar... It is a gun on 4 rail lines.
@@AKUJIVALDOtechnically it Is an artillery mortar
@@IlllIlIlIIlll where you found that it is a "technically artillery mortar"? LOL
@@AKUJIVALDO its artillery, indirect, mortars are basically the same, just different by a bit.
@@OwO2620 ah yes, "different by bit". Maybe you can convince gullible ignoramus, but not anyone who knows even few basic things about artillery.
I knew it wouldn't pen on the first shot but...i am surprised it was able to make a crack in the back of the plate and even do some small damage to the fueltank
It certainly would've rung their bells and left some of the crew temporarily concussed.
@@brosefmalkovitch3121You forget that the driving and fighting compartment are completely separate by the engine one. Such a minor hit might not even be noticeable if the engine is loud enough
@@maplearrow1842no engine is gonna drown out the fucking CLANG from a hit, in a tank like the maus, sure it wouldnt have as big an impact but the engine aint stopping shit from vibrating, although how shaken the crew would be is likely 'ehh'
@@LeMeowAu Like I said, there are walls to protect the engine and the sheer size of the tank is enough to disperse the energy of a small shell like that
@@maplearrow1842 thats what i said, however the noise will still be apparent
Can you simulate the killdozer getting hit by various things
I love these. Really drives home the idea of what happens on impact of shells to armor, as well as potential damage of things on the interior.
Not sure if you did it already, but I'd love to see a video on the effectiveness of the spaced armor of the E-100 hull, 75mm CHA side-skirts with an air gap and another 120mm of RHA.
Isn't E-100 hull the same as Maus?
pretty sure the e-100's hull is basically just an upgraded king tiger hull
@@messerschmitt.262 Cast homogeneous armor and rolled homogeneous armor
@@HappysMarshmallows Sort of but not really. Almost if not all of the automotive components along with most of the engine deck and exhausts were identical to Tiger II however everything everything else was all brand new with exception to the turret as it was just a lightened version of the Maus II turret. It's entire purpose was to be a more conventional take on the Maus, one of it's early names when it was still a Krupp project with torsion bar suspension was Tiger-Maus due to its many Tiger II components.
The Maus has armor like a battleship
More like a heavy cruiser.. How do you think the Maus would stand up to 14-16" shells!? They would punch right through the tank w.o even igniting the fuse
Cruiser
@@nukkinfuts6550 dejmianxyz actually has 16" shell hitting maus frontally from 1km away in his video library. It does pierce through, but not that easily.
@@nukkinfuts6550from 30-40 Kilometres away? Not easily LOL
@@nukkinfuts6550 It has like 300mm effective armor on the front. That's BB levels of protection.
Excellent work
So it would have penetrated a Tiger II H turret from close range :3
Warthunder and other games typically underestimate the penetration values of solid shot AP, since having armour matter so little would make heavy tanks less fun. For example, IRL the 90mm AP round fielded by Americans was specifically made to kill panther tanks.
can you test something, like a 15mm RHA, and on top of that is a 4mm structural steel storage box (like the side of a ZSU-57-2) against a Conqueror APDS?
In WT, it just shatters, and does no damage.
He already did that.
Also, "structure steel" is not a thing as there are many different steel with different mechanical property to be use as structure steel.
you mean the side armor and the box over the fender?
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174
He mean sometimes in wt, when you shoot a flat surface with multiple layer of things, the shell disappear.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 yes. 15mm armor, with a box on it that has a wall thickess of 4mm. Like a box on the side of the ZSU-57-2
Thats EXTREMELY impressive for a 76mm god dayum
Did the fuel tank actually stop the metal shards from penetrating? holy crap thats an insane level of hairline penetration its mind boggling how close it is to going through.
Try the same with 90mm apfsds. Also, what are you using to make these simulations?
Would love to see the APDS shell on that target :D
2nded.
i have heard that an apds round was developed for the 17 pdr but suffered from accuracy issues, they didn't use it because the normal rounds were sufficient, but would like to see if you could do a simulation on how it would behave
"they didn't use it because"
Apds was extensively used for the 17 pdr, I'm surprised that's not what OP modelled.
@@TheInfamousMrFox Was it? I thought it was issued but the the round had bad issues with it's accuracy. I never learned if the 77mm, which is know is a shortened 17lber and really also 76.2mm, gun had the same issues with APDS. And I would like to know if the 6lber's APDS had issues like the 17lber did. I did know of the 6lber using APDS a fair bit but had thought the 17lber had too many issues with it's APDS and wasn't used a lot.
@@adamg7984 they were used extensively to knock out German heavy tanks because it has enough penetration to punch through the upper front armor of the Panther. however it's accuracy left a lot to be desired due to the muzzle brake device on the front end of the cannon snagging on the sabot.
Could you provide us with a library containing the materials properties values of typical armor and projectiles for ansys?
I’ve always been interested in what effect a follow-up shot would have if it were say within 15cm of the initial impact point. Is it possible to test this?
With the fuel tank behind it, would this mean that the small spalling would be caught in said fuel tank, saving anything that's behind?
Can you model the armor of the maus, or any other tank, as AR500 and shoot It with different ww2 cannons to see how would it behave?
maybe, but it would be a very theoretical simulation, because it is impossible to produce an AR500 with a thickness adequate for a tank's armor
This really shows how terrible of an idea the maus was. It wasn’t some unkillable juggernaut. Just an incredible expensive, slow and difficult to move target for enemy close air support
It demonstrates how quickly rolled steel became obsolete. Much easier to increase gun penetration than armor thickness.
Can you test the Abrams LFP against 3bm42 but on the side where the feul tanks are saying its a huge tank and theres a 30-40mm side wall inside the tank?
Not sure where you get the 30 to 40mm tank thickness, because that's a waste of weight.
Anyway, he already model 42 vs the armor. What's there to see?
It would be difficult to do this because it is a very long distance for a projectile to fly, which means a huge computational time.
Btw I doubt he's that thick
@@jintsuubest9331probably he means the wall separating the fuel tank from the crew compartment, probably 20mm could be
Could you please add shrapnel next time?
Its ki da hard to see
Considering that even today most MBTs would be breached with a near dead angle hit on hull side from the same shell, good protection.
Yeah but the tank was effectively non-functional. You could put a 200mm armored steel box on some wheels and it would do about as good as the Maus did. I know it went into testing and it had 2 completed prototypes but the tank was untenable. It was too heavy. That's why they don't build tanks at these ridiculous sizes to this day despite the immense protection it would provide. Also, I'd say you're under selling how a lot of MBT's genuinely have just plain RHA on their sides, especially behind the road wheels. A shot from even a bad angle with something like a 17lber would likely be capable of penetrating an MBT. I'm pretty sure most MBT's don't put any reactive or composite armor on their lower sides and are the weakest part to any sort of solid shot/APDS/APFSDS. I may be wrong or mistaken, but from what I know most tanks don't prioritize that area for protection.
How about the 32pdr or even 32pdr apds against the maus (same angle or frontally). 32pdr apds was suppodedly the highest pen round of ww2 so i reckon its worthy of some video
If I can find any projectile schematics.
whats the name of the simulator?
Can you do a mbt70 atgm or 152 heat shell vs Maus .. i non pend it with a 152 atgm straight on
The AP Shell of 17pdr piercing 140~160mm, but the APDS is 200~220mm
Can you include the material specs that you used?
"RHA" doesn't really mean very much, especially when talking about 1945 Germany.
this is how I should write: RHA with appropriate hardness and adequate impact strength and ductility for the period. In this case, medium hardness ~250BHN
Maus be like "Hey, ouch! That's my cervix you brute!"
Simulations I'd love to see:
sPzB 41 vs KV1 and T-34 frontal armor @200 meters
50mm Pak 38's APCR shell vs KV1 front armor @400 meters
7.5 cm le.IG 18's HEAT ammunition vs KV1 and T-34 front armor
57mm M1 AP round vs Panther G mantlet @400 meters
But doesn't the Maus have thick side skirts and then the side armor?
Ohh it's still dangerous 😮
Do Stug iii g kwk40 l/48 vs t-34/85 front hull armour at 500m please.
why is the shear band seemingly in the wrong direction? i would have expected it to be more in line with bullets trajectory
why so? The trajectory was changing because the projectile deflected upwards. The most optimal moment is when the shell pushes the armor with the flat nose area perpendicular to the armor.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174thanks for explaining :)
Meanwhile in War Thunder:
“Der Fahrer wurde ausgeschaltet!”
Yes, in Italy in War Thunder I just bought the Sherman IC and APCBC 190 mm drilling in 4.7 will not have HE but it is good especially when you play with Germany as an ally xd
Why is the texture at the impact point grainy unlike the circumference?
not all areas are modeled with equal detail as high detail is only required to show armor damage
what software do you use for this? id love to know
Ansys
How long does it take to make a video like this?
weeks
what software is this
Certified "bonk" moment
Since even the relatively weaker 17pdr had such an effect, I wonder what would happen if it faced the soviet big calibers, like the 122 or the 152. Could you do that as well?
it is not the caliber of the projectile is most important, but its quality, type and velocity. 17pdr AP beats soviet short 152 for such case
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 my thought was that since the 152mm carries more momentum, it could cause more spalling even if it didn't went through
@@siaratan9982 more kinetic energy is one thing and how it is concentrated is another...
Soviet 152 will pen the side trust me I played World of Tank
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 what about the 32pdr that would've been mounted on Tortoise or the 84mm (or whatever it was) from the Cent Mark 1?
How do you make these kind of simulations i also want to make these?
I made tutorial
Could you test at combat ranges instead of point blank?
500m is a very realistic combat range on the western front, if hypothetically the two tanks would meet it would be in 1945 west against the allies not 1942 great plains of Ukraine or Belarus in the east. I don't believe USSR received any lend lease Fireflies?
What about a 25-Pounder?
Now 17 Pdr. APDS vs Maus pls pls
I side shotted a maus with T26e5 with the apcr 287mm pen at mostly 0⁰ degree and it bounced now i know why
Would the Maus have suffered from late war german steel quality issues?
Steel quality issues would lead to the Maus not even being produced.
if it were mass-produced, maybe some examples would have problems, but the prototypes built certainly had good quality armor
Germans didn't have late war steel quality issues though?
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 well, thats interesting to hear, since games like WT purposely lower the effectiveness of the armor on tanks like the maus due to the above mentioned steel quality issues in late war Germany.
@@WelcomeToDERPLAND no they dont, all RHA is the same effectiveness as any other RHA and its purely dependent on the type of armour (RHA vs CHA vs HHA etc)
Everyone: no sound
Me: Peeeew.
17 pdr stronk
When burstyn motorgeschütz
Incrível
Just shows how effective the Firefly was and why the Germans learned to target them first
It tickled the maus
380mm sturmtiger rocket vs Leopard 2A6 front armor
M103 AP Shell vs Maus
FV4005 vs IS7 please
Bro it's 3 A.M. 💀
180+ side armor............ youre heading into battleship territory.....
Thank God that thing was completely unfeasible and got stuck and broke down under its own weight all the time and couldnt cross bridges and they only made 2. otherwise we would have been in troublr
In Germany there is a word for this. It´s called "Tja."
Lancet pls
0:14 me waiting 17 pdr pen
In actuality, it would probably bounce off vs crack the backside. FFS
Hit.
Show's how far a lost cause were Hitler's wonder weapons were.
I don't care how stupid it is, it would be awesome to see a 2000 hp maus (maybe more) jumping on battlefield like bt5
This really illustrates how futile the concept of super heavy tanks is, a tank that cannot cross any bridge will get destroyed by a gun readily available in numbers.
AAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUGHHHHHH
im the 1000th like of u😂😂😂
Если бы кто то сказал автору, что Maus российский танк, то снаряд обязательно бы пробил его в оба борта на вылет , развернулся бы обратно и еще раз пробил бы его через оба борта на вылет .
Average russian interiority complex
i love 1940s german engineering, build tanks that are almost indestructible, tank died on a 2 meter incline from its own weight
xDDDDD
Now APDS in the same situation to make it more interesting? This sim was kind of predictable - not sure why you went for it
apds is an obvious penetration in such a situation, but the potential of regular AP is widely unknown
It isn't even a guaranteed hit with 17pounder APDS at more than 500 meters in WW2...
think you could do a simulation of "Plastic armor" from ww2? it was an experimental add on armor that was considered for the sherman and I have never seen if it would have actually been effective at all. (note, the armor was not made of actual plastic but was called plastic for some reason)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_armour