CONCRETE ARMOR vs APCR | Tiger I vs M26 Pershing Simulation
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 бер 2024
- Simulation of a Tiger I tank projectile hitting the front hull armor of an M26 Pershing tank with the addition of concrete.
Concrete was a makeshift addition to vehicle protection used by some crews of World War II vehicles.
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 medium hardness cast armor + 160mm concrete 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
Video without concrete:
ua-cam.com/video/GedpbJpT1aI/v-deo.html
A short summary: Such a brittle material as tungsten carbide was susceptible to the forces acting on the core while passing through the concrete. The damaged core could not withstand the impact on the armor plate and was broken in many places. As a result, it lost more energy during penetration and could not maintain its trajectory, which was why it was easily pushed upwards by the forces resulting from sloped armor.
Only needs to be damn near as thick as the plate itself, might as well just add more steel. Makes sense why it wasn’t popular
When every department of every branch is asking for 'more steel', someone has to be told they can't have as much steel as they want.
I could imagine it would be easier to pour the concrete in the field than strap on more plates
It makes sense that they’d have spare concrete but not steel plates, but again the concrete adds a shit load of weight with like what? 70% effectiveness compared to normal steel?
@@inkycat191 more like 10%
@@tedarcher9120 eh, it's proto NERA, and the disruption to the projectile potentially could improve the overall effectiveness of the armour behind
Every bit helps but Cement was very heavy and slowed down the Pershings even more. That's why Field Expedient kits (from other dead tanks) were much more prefered.
concrete*
Cement is part of the mixture but the heavy part of concrete is the aggregate.
0:33
What are you doing step-Panzergranat 40?
Omg 😂
The comparison with and without the concrete is very welcome. So the concrete does save the tank in this case, but that's a HUGE amount of it. The dust probably covers all of the viewports now.
true...and there will be more shells coming.
The dust would be least of my concerns as the pershing's crew
Its not effective because if you got shot by an 8.8 that means the enemy knows your range exactly,
specialy with that concrete flying everywhere
I'd just bail out of the tank either way
The actual type of concrete being used makes a huge difference. The US military has several very special blends and some of them are absurdly tough.
Unfortunately, wiper/sprayers for the viewports/periscopes weren't invented until a decade later 💀
0:33 Benis :DDD
:DDDD
Penetration
Käännä kielelle englanti = Good :DDD
Made me laugh
@@JV-sk5rl vittu :D
Effective against APCR. I doubt it would have made a difference with APCBC
Concrete looks like it cracks quickly but probably obsorbs a lot of energy in doing so. It also does crack the projectile a little which will help a lot in reducing it's effect on the steel. Concrete obviously does work just not sure it's worth the weight cost. It's an early form of composite armour though.
around 16cm thick concrete on the whole front of the M26 would be around 2t extra weight on the front.
considering that M26 was already at its limit for its transmission and suspension.... not the best idea.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Granted it did stop the penetration. Without the concrete it did create enough damage to fragment on the other side.
@@Punisher9419 we can bet on it, that on the inside still spalling would happen with the concrete addon.
you dont have to perforate to create spalling, impacting or penetrating into the armor can be enough.
the more sensible choice would have been a 1.5-2cm stand off plate 10-20cm ahead of the main armor.
that would absorb alot energy and induce a tumble
@@zhufortheimpaler4041I don't think a penetration this shallow would cause much spalling of note in armor of this hardness. Maybe some but I would be VERY surprised if it would be going fast enough to cause any kind of serious injury
@@signs80 spalling appears even with the round shattering on impact
That's so interesting to see how differently concrete reacts to the impact than steel. I'm so used to seeing steel "splash" when it gets hit that seeing the concrete kind of explode was a bit of a surprise!
I wonder if you could do a video where you impact some generic projectile, not necessarily representative of an particular real round against a variety of non-armor materials, like glass, concrete, rubber, etc, just to see how each of them reacts to a high intensity impact interaction.
I'd love to see the steel plate split and the concrete in between. I bet that would be better as it would be like a sandbag.
I'm pretty sure that's what older dreadnought-type battleships used, rolled-cemented armor
reminds me of hearing somewhere that wooden logs as protection against panzerfausts were counterproductive as the panzerfaust didn't have al lot of standoff and the wood spacing would improve penetration.
Would adding appliqué concrete or wooden logs serve to prevent the penetrator from deflecting against sloped armor? I read that it would serve to "tee up" the projectile instead of stopping it. 160mm of concrete is like pouring a foundation, I doubt so much would be used!
Can you test this against Concrete Busting ammunition found in the KV-2 152mm
Could you simulate a burst from a ZSU 23 4 against modern composite armor?
It definitely seems that instead of actually affecting the core of the shell, it dragged on the sabot part surrounding it and overall slowed the velocity of the entire shell.
Hey, love your videos! I'm really curious as to what software you use for these simulations, if you don't mind telling.
Ansys
It did stop the projectile quite a bit but is concrete armor really worth it? I heard that it increased the weight of the tank a lot, and so crew was instructed not to do it.
Everytime add-on 'concrete' armor gets brought up in conversation- I've always seen people make the argument that it was pointless or even reduced the armor's effectiveness due to the normalizing effect it had on the shell angle...
This simulation doesnt really seem to have the shell come in at an angle so, besides slightly deforming the core before it hits the armor- this old argument seems to fail to hold up. (unlike the armor here)
It can reduce the armor's effectiveness to a degree by allowing the projectile/round to hit a softer material first, allowing the momentum to "normalize", instead of steel which is much harder and rejects that energy conservation much more, resulting in "ricochets", however in this context which is dealing with over half a foot of concrete, this effect is not present and you are correct in saying the concrete helped but only very little by breaking up the projectile very slightly, the weight-to-protection ratio is extremely poor and that's why most people will argue its "pointless".
That is because "normalization", whatever it actually suppose to means, is largely a myth.
Concrete will help, like every bit will help. It is just that concrete has like probably 10% mass efficiency when compare to steel.
@@jintsuubest9331 "Normalization" put into simple terms is a way to describe the relation between the conference of energy between two materials, when a softer material hits a harder one, the angle of momentum is shifted harder and more extremely than if a softer material were to hit another soft material, obviously other factors such is the size, how brittle, the mass, etc are huge factors but to say "normalization is actually a myth" is largely uneducated.
@@jintsuubest9331 To quote the owner of the video "The damaged core could not withstand the impact on the armor plate and was broken in many places. As a result, it lost more energy during penetration and could not maintain its trajectory, which was why it was easily pushed upwards by the forces resulting from sloped armor." I believe the later part of that statement could give you some insight on how the forces of "Normalization" affect a projectile.
depends on the type of projectile used.
Iirc concrete can actually help shells penetrate, especially on armor that is sloped. Where otherwise the shell may be deflected, fully or partially
Very interesting comparison- thanks. I can't see concrete being all that useful though- a second hit near the first won't be affected, and I'd imagine the dust created would blind the Pershing for a while too. And that's not even considering the extra weight affecting mobility. It would probably have been more a morale thing than anything, I'd think.
Could you do jagtiger vs t 72 but the jagtigers shell is made out of depleted uranium?
I assume beyond other factors listed, concrete would also be susceptible to HE shells or nearby artillery hits completely blowing it off or reducing it.
Other question is how it was held/mounted in place, if a tank makes a hard hit/dive while traversing rough terrain it could break and slide off in pieces.
Could you test Merkava 4M armor front plate and tank face
I like ur simulations and hiw u msje this
can you check a bag of sand? I've seen many pictures of Sherman tanks with bags of sand or earth.
sand is very unfriendly to this modeling method
Definitely some concrete evidence to the effectiveness of adding cheap concrete to the front
Now I'm wondering how an extra 15-20mm steel plate in front would do.
How much in front?
@ukuskota4106 I was honestly thinking "just welded on top," like the concrete in the example.
Though there's already a community post asking for opinions on a 10mm plate, so I'm guessing there's already something planned.
You'd want to space the 20mm steel plate out about 6-8 inches(152-203mm) away from the main plate...then fill the gap with old Nokia 3310 Cell Phones....but they wouldn't exist for another 55 years, so you would also need a time machine.
Concrete is a really strong load bearing material for construction, but its weight and relative brittleness make it a poor substitute for just making the base armour thicker. It would be a great tool to boost the moral of tankers who dont know any better, but now a days we know that it was mostly just for show.
Nice .. can you do the uss misouri against an sdkfz 2/24 and He only as April fools joke?
Was concrete tried with something inside?
I always wondered, would concrete armor on tanks function similarly to ceramic plates on body armor?
Dunno, but nobody would ever make concrete body armor just because of how heavy it would be and you'd still get fuckall protection
Wouldn't this act kind of like current ceramic's in armor arrays? Technically it's absorbing some of the force and slowing the projectile's speed.
I always wondered whay they do with damaged tanks like this one? Imagine the Pershing survives this encounter and goes back to the depot. To fix the damaged hull, do they fill it with metal? Extract the stuck round? Or just cut a hole in the are and weld a new armour patch in place?
Good question, I have always observed that as well. They cannot just scrap the entire tank, that would be hugely wasteful.
In this certain case the penetrating projectille filled up the hole itself. What they would do is removing the bakelit/ soft steel end caps (Light blue) and would fill up the remaining hole with welding rods.
@@venator5 Bakelit is like early plastic , they don't used that on shells . And welding on armored plates is deadly , they have to change the whole front plate if the damage is deep enough . Welding would bring too much heat in and change the hardness of the plate .
what about 128mm?
140mm adfsds-t/dm53 2000m/s vs t90m front hull next maybe🙂
Concrete crumples and cracks so I wondered - what if you encased the concrete with steel walls? Like a hollow box cast full of concrete. If the concrete had nowhere to escape maybe it would perform better against AP shells. You could even run a bit of rebar inside it
Against APCR, it's much easier to just weld on a spacer and a 15-25mm RHA plate.
Basically first composite armor
Wow the concrete did something, I’m surprised!
I don’t think standard non-reinforced concrete would work as well against full calibre armour piercing munitions.
How would concrete help against HEAT?
Concrete would probably perform better if it had Rebar or something but at that point you might as well just weld extra layers of steel if you want that feeling of safety.
This is for all the people who claim addon concrete/tracks for armor don't make a difference. This certainly helps, and the weight factor most of the times is negligible.
Except it’s against tungsten ammo that wasn’t very common in WW2. It just adds unnecessary weight.
Could have done the same with using spare tracks that need to be kept on the vehicle anyway.
@@venator5 No way it would weigh 16t.
😂
Maybe 1,6 😉
Is sand better than concrete as a armor?
@@venator5 Are you crazy? That would not weight 16,5 tons, a concrete layer in the front of the sherman for example would weight at max 800kg.
@@igormsh14bidevisualizacoes45
Concrete is somewhere around 2g to 2.5g /cm^3. That translated into 2000kg to 2500kg /m^3. While far from 16ton, it will be more than 800kg.
Also, suggesting the weight increase will be of negligible amount is untrue.
Official us army test report. They tested, track, sandbag, logs, process lumber, concrete, etc.
They stated track is the most useful one per weight compare to the rest. Sandbag and lumber in general provide little to no effect. Concrete will provide meaningful performance increase only when applied in sufficient thickness, with the size and ratio of the aggregate also making a difference.
For the sake of the discussion, we will only expand on the conclusion of the concrete bit. The amount of concrete that will make a difference will put strain the suspension and the transmission is not design to handle. The service interval will greatly decrease. From a mechanical stand point, it is a rather stupid idea. However, from a morale standpoint, assuming the logistic can keep up, it is well worth the trade off.
Can we all just take a moment to appreciate what it looks like at 0:32 and tell me that it doesn't look like intercourse.
Always screwing around 😊
It does look like a willy fulfilling it's purpose yes.
the German anti tank pen¡s was a big thing back then
You *really* need to get laid.
16cm (~6 inches) of concrete on the front must add at least a couple tons to the vehicle.
Considering mechanical properties of concrete, it is to be expected that , against kinetic ammunitions (I do not know against shaped charges) it will have mediocre results.
Make a simulation with ad on water armor.
Pls do ARAT 1 and 2 ERA
HESH vs concrete armor and steel! pls it will be intresting
+
Knew it. While concrete may supposedly normalize the projectile, it can't make that much of a difference at this angle.
I was freezing the video at 0:34 :D that looks right :D
Интересно что реальный бой между PzKfg Tiger и М-26 Першинг был.
26.02.1945 в небольшом городке Эльсдорф, что не в далеке от Кельна. Тогда снаряд PzGr-39 попал точно в амбразуру спаренного пулемета танка М-26 Першинг с личным именем Fireball, проник в башню и убил 3-х членов экипажа. Второй снаряд попал в дульный тормоз и разорвал его, ствол пушки изогнулся а само орудие сделало полный откат как при выстреле, сработал полуавтоматический затвор и из казенника выпал заряженный туда ранее снаряд, третий снаряд прочертил огромную борозду на башне вырвал с мясом зенитный пулемет, оторвал открытый люк командира и улетел дальше по своим снарядным делам.
conrete does infact, work
Do turret armor with the applique spaced bolt on kit, on a late model Leo 1, but with the gap completely filled in with Nokia 3310 cell phones...vs the Soviet 100mm or 115mm cannon from the T-55 or T-62, at an offset angle against the uh frontal-ish part or something in an ideal frontal engagement.
but it's GOTTA have the Nokia phones in the spaced armor gap! otherwise easy pen predicted.
Now sturmtiger vs m36
Pershing already had weight issues. Extra weight would have made them less reliable and mobile.
plus all that dust is going to obscure the tanks vision
Same with Tiger II 8,8 KwK 43 would be very interesting
Do water armor
why isnt titanium used in tank armor
It is in fact used in some NERA arrays. I think it is too brittle so its not that widely used.
@@localdrugseller6431 cost would be the other reason
I’d rather see it with 7,5cm APHE vs concrete on a Sherman’s front plate
I mean it's an APCR
we do not have the distance, this is maybe from one click but lets say 300 meters
everything is given, you just need to click on the description
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 sorry I missed this ✌️
0:31 lewd
Called it lol
0:36 That's a p...
das conkcrete babey
Won't help against a pak-43
No margarita maker?
as you can see in the thumbnail photo, Pershing drives around with concrete and doesn't complain
No way they used 160mm concrete with a functioning transmission lol. Seems BS.
you have a photo in the thumbnail, there is a gap in the concrete on the hook, you can measure...
Judging by your other comments im gonna guess you’re another slow wheraboo
Not worth the effort of installing concrete.
-Adds a loot of weight with like 10-15% protection compare to steel.
-It will be destroyed by the first impact.
-Water can go trough the concrete, however it will trap the water/ moisture, meaning after the first major rainfall your tank will be even heavier and the steel would start corroding under the concrete.
Is sand better than concrete?
@@drsm7947no
conc crete
Makes you wonder just how *"right"* the *"experts"* actually are when saying crew applied armor never had any effect 😂🤣 lmfao 😊
0:32 🤨🤨🤨🤨📸📸📸📸
fIrSt (im acoustic
Bro os literally a germany hater.
OK do a Tiger II with twice the powder hahahah
Can't, Tiger II broke down on the way and was abandoned
@@thezig2078 Oh so it's like the russian "army"
@@OIFIIIOIF-VET exactly