@@GM-xk1nw yeah this game has gone to shit. From arcade tank game to p2w war hammer 2k paper tank (probably they even started adding tanks that never existed even on paper, just some engineers imagination) shit game
At the given speed, metals behave much like a liquid on impact. Hovever, in case of sloped armor, metal rigidity allows it to transfer forward momentum into lateral movement of the remaining projectile. Soft metal on the other hand doesn't really care about any slopes, it behaves closest to a liquid jet continuously hitting the same spot. What makes a problem is to deliver the projectile to the target in one piece and moving straight. Byt he way, could you try to simulate normal tungsten darts considering non-ideal stabilization, like how it would perform iof there are 0, 1, 2, 3 degrees of wobbling?
They would completely shatter when hitting the armor, that's how the arrowheads on the Leo2 tanks defeat rounds that are too short to still be outside of the arrowhead when striking the main composite (the dart would have to be over 1m).
Soft metals are theoretically good as APFSDS as their tips don't "mushroom" as much during penetration, leading to a smaller hole and having to go through less material. However they're usually not rigid enough to be fired out of the gun at that speed and get to the target intact. And there's the issue of the physical limitations to have a projectile with enough energy. Accelerating past 1800 m/s with conventional propellants is hard, and current APFSDS are already pretty much as long as they can get, meaning they can't be made larger and heavier. So if you made a gold/lead APFSDS it'd still be limited to some 1800 m/s but being less dense and lighter, it'd have less energy. Plus, like I said before, it'd also disintegrate before reaching the target.
@randomindividual9131 thin tungsten jacket with gold fill is possible on an apfsds and the rear end can be welded shut the tungsten would abraide away in my own simulation rather quickly and produce the simmilar effects as a solid gold apfsds on penetration. the problem that I'm seeing is just pure materials cost is much higher than even the type of depleted uranium I've got figures on. it's not an ammunition type to use till we get a readily available source of gold like asteroid mining or similar using fusion energy propelled drones. this is also assuming that these simulations are accurate to real world application.
From a general observation, it seems that the density of the material itself and its ability to resist deflection is what makes them more effective at penetrating sloped armour. This can be seen with the way APFSDS have developed, where at first it was steel dart with a tungsten penetrator, but with the angle of the armour it's meant to defeat constantly increasing, more and more of the dart becomes the penetrator material, with steel only providing structural support. Also XYZ Simulations did a simulation of telescoping APFSDS where he found the nearly hollow shell to aid the upcoming penetrator core by a *significant* amount. The result is most likely a compound of two factors, one it created a corridor for eroded material to escape through and prevent it from inhibiting further penetration, but also it created an initial impact point which normalizes the armour at the incoming projectile. This is probably what also happens here, the soft material easily erodes away so it doesn't get in the way of the rest of the core while normalizing the plate against the rest of the upcoming projectile.
Flashbacks to scanning and mining away half of Milky Way to get enough iridium for ammo in Mass Effect... Well, I guess now we need to test another staple of sci-fi - osmium armor?;)
I think if a feather was shot as fast as your text scrolling in the video it would blow right thru a T-80 U with Kontact-5 ERA. Maybe you can test that?
Fascinating! Would never have expected gold to outperform uranium! I always admire your thorough research and the fidelity of your simulations. That, and they're really cool!
Makes sense I suppose. At the speed these things arrive, they behave somewhat like shaped charge jets in the way they penetrate. The metal with the best balance of density & ductility is going to win. Gold is the best material so far for shaped charge liners, and I think there might be some missile systems in use these days that use them. $15-20,000 for a charge liner is not a disproportionate amount of money when a complete missile may cost somewhere north of $150,000. The cost of a gold long-rod penetrator would seem to be prohibitive though.
Uranium is the best because of how the tip ablates, rather than being blunted from an impact a uranium penetrator keeps it sharp point. It also tends to fragment and violently catch fire once it penetrated an armored vehicle. It is also extremely toxic on the battlefield and is a persistent toxic hazard for a long time. So western militaries have transitioned to tungsten instead. It not as good but it's close. And it's not as hazardous post conflict...
After watching the video, I'm interested in the performance of a gold apfsds with tungsten sleeve that can be fired out of a cannon without breaking.Can you make that in the next video?
In the sloped armour test the uranium made the biggest impact on the other side showing more pressure i guess that might lead to more spalling, just a thought
I'd be careful with normalizing the projectile energy using velocity because attempting to accelerate any projectile above 1500m/s becomes exponentially more difficult given the current cannon limitations, completely ignoring the structural limits of the round itself.
Your testing had variability in penetrator length. This is a big issue, when it comes to hypersonic rod penetrators. Length is an important characteristic. If you were to equate a tungsten and golden penetrator for total energy, but match the length of the penetrators by using a thinner tungsten projectile, not only will it catch up to the golden one, it will far outperform it. Then make it even longer, keeping weight and speed same, and yet again it will improve in performance. With today's projectiles, length is by far the most important characteristic of a hypersonic rod penetrator, the other 3 being, crossectional density, speed, and toughness (or structural integrity when it comes to non homogenous projectiles, which irl they all are). You may notice I did not mention weight. This is because it varies with density, and can not be accounted for by volume, since the projectiles must keep their shape and volume the same, in order for the comparison to be valid. Coincidentally, this is exactly where the issue of your experiment lies. Essentially you are testing different projectiles. At that point, you may as well start changing all their other characteristics: diameter, shape, total energy. A different projectile is a different projectile. If you wish to test different materials, make the projectiles the same. With constant shape / volume of a penetrator, tungsten or uranium will perform best. Also, a longer projectile will perform better than a shorter one, and above speeds of 1300m/s even projectiles will less total energy but more length will perform better. Simply due to material erosion. ruclips.net/video/wx_xfDnwuyY/видео.html
The M829A1 round was nicknamed "Silver Bullet" for its great effect during the last baby seal clubbing of russian tanks in Desert Storm. ^^ So maybe we'll get a literal gold bullet soon. It will also help tidying up the mess after a tank battle, because the burned out husks will have significantly more scrap value and someone will be found to carry them away. 😅
1:11 i think uranium actually did the best here since from the underside camera we can see that it was the closest to going through even tho the length of the impact area isn't as long.
From more space oriented (Hard Sci-FI) discussion I stumbled upon, numerous authors point out that past certain velocities, it's the energy per surface area that matters more than the actual properties of the projectile. Past 3 km/s or so, any projectile has at least it's equivalent in TNT.... Toss a carrot at Earth escape velocity and the USS RABBIT is toast.
I heard a tale that up somewhere in north California there was such a large gold vein that it was sealed off so gold would stay rare, that would make it even more viable cost wise
Fantastic analysis, and bizarre results. Upon seeing this, now I would love to see an APFSDS projectile, with a thin steel or tungsten jacket, but filled with a gold core. Might be more realistic because the jacket would help with deformation from the projectile being accelerated at 18,000G.
Gold distinguish itself among all other metals with one particular thing. It is the most ductile element from all metals. Maybe this is the reason? And, it is dense metal and its melting point is relativley low, lead is quite similar, so, maybe?
well i think at a certain velocity and kinetic energy m/2+v² the hardness of the material doesnt play a role anymore - its about energy only.. and since gold has a very high specific weight.. voilà
one biais of your analysis is that uranium (in your simulation, have normal temperature at impact, but it will not be the case, as uranium will begin chimical reactions with oxygene and will have high temperature at contact (more than 1000 °C), that will liquefy the metal of armor before reel contact
I would be interested in knowing whether a ‘gold-capped’ or ‘gold-enveloped’ penetrator using a more dense, more standard core (tungsten or uranium, probably) would be of any particular effectiveness.
You want to go the opposite way: a tungsten carbide or depleted uranium sleeve that keeps the gold rod shaped during flight, and funnels the gold core toward the armor during impact.
high af kinetic energy turns into heat and melts gold so gold acts like heat ammo but in modern tanks heat ammos pretty much useless so tungsten and depleted uranium still way to go
gold is good because its heavy, if it was also more resistant then it would be a better penetrator, meanwhile tungsten is too resistant, that's why they use alloys...
.........SO.........SOMEHOW!!!!!!!!!IT IS A MUST TO TRY DEVELOP LEAD APFSDS SOMEHOW........... .................VERY COST WISE BY OBVIOUS REASONS,EVEN THOUGH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE COSTY
@@lior_theboom I'm sorry, I confused iridium and tungsten and thought that since gold is only one and a half to two times more expensive than iridium, but it has the best piercing properties, it should definitely attract the attention of the military. But, again, I confused tungsten with iridium, which costs hundreds of times more
Yes, we dont go DEEP into the other factors like the structure or gas expansion because its already goofy and dumb to test gold lol, we know irl this would go horribly wrong.
Im not sure the slopped test was the right conclusion. It feels like you measured the lenght of the hole not its depth. When shown from behind it appeara uranium had the most effect behind the plate which would suggest it went deeper. Also a longer hole just shows that more materials was ejected. Tho i could be wrong and i did not see the right thing.
I just thought of an interesting question. Wouldn't all simulations on this channel be flawed because irl the suspension of a tank would allow the armor plates to actually get out of the way a little?
Turns out those gold rounds in WOT actually work
Except when the RNG constantly screws you.
Low rolls and hits otto tracks.
@@XtreeM_FaiL which is why I only play tanks with HEAT as gold
@@panzerkampfwagenviausf.b2236 normally heat would just splash on the track or even side skirt and there is 70% of chance it wouldn't do anything.
LOL
@@XtreeM_FaiL Thats Why i only Play war Thunder But to be honest cas Makes es almoust as anoying as RNG
Only for premium tank crews.
made my day xD
Gold rounds.... *WoT flashbacks*
Not so arcade after all!
lmaoo
Yes
Pay to win game
@@GM-xk1nw yeah this game has gone to shit. From arcade tank game to p2w war hammer 2k paper tank (probably they even started adding tanks that never existed even on paper, just some engineers imagination) shit game
Wargaming was far ahead of its time.. lmao
Makes you wonder how the dev knows about this way early
@@harrybyaqussamprayuga1756 maybe they also use this software and found out by themselves.
world of tanks player: we knew it all along
At the given speed, metals behave much like a liquid on impact. Hovever, in case of sloped armor, metal rigidity allows it to transfer forward momentum into lateral movement of the remaining projectile. Soft metal on the other hand doesn't really care about any slopes, it behaves closest to a liquid jet continuously hitting the same spot. What makes a problem is to deliver the projectile to the target in one piece and moving straight.
Byt he way, could you try to simulate normal tungsten darts considering non-ideal stabilization, like how it would perform iof there are 0, 1, 2, 3 degrees of wobbling?
they behave like plastic or play doh does at normal stress levels, not really liquid
They would completely shatter when hitting the armor, that's how the arrowheads on the Leo2 tanks defeat rounds that are too short to still be outside of the arrowhead when striking the main composite (the dart would have to be over 1m).
So gold apfsds in a thin tungsten shell with the tip being exposed gold
Was gonna say, wouldn't soft gold going this fast act like a super plastic almost and just slice through
hmm, tungsten-ribbed gold projectiles?
Soft metals are theoretically good as APFSDS as their tips don't "mushroom" as much during penetration, leading to a smaller hole and having to go through less material. However they're usually not rigid enough to be fired out of the gun at that speed and get to the target intact. And there's the issue of the physical limitations to have a projectile with enough energy. Accelerating past 1800 m/s with conventional propellants is hard, and current APFSDS are already pretty much as long as they can get, meaning they can't be made larger and heavier. So if you made a gold/lead APFSDS it'd still be limited to some 1800 m/s but being less dense and lighter, it'd have less energy. Plus, like I said before, it'd also disintegrate before reaching the target.
how about some kind of ballistic cap?
Gold is not exactly lighter - it is almost exact same density as tungsten. within 0.5%.
You know they solved this problem over a century and a half ago by jacketing the softer material with a harder one, right?
@Random individual (👤) Shells effect weight ratios, but jackets tend to be thin enough to not have a significant impact.
@randomindividual9131 thin tungsten jacket with gold fill is possible on an apfsds and the rear end can be welded shut the tungsten would abraide away in my own simulation rather quickly and produce the simmilar effects as a solid gold apfsds on penetration. the problem that I'm seeing is just pure materials cost is much higher than even the type of depleted uranium I've got figures on. it's not an ammunition type to use till we get a readily available source of gold like asteroid mining or similar using fusion energy propelled drones. this is also assuming that these simulations are accurate to real world application.
From a general observation, it seems that the density of the material itself and its ability to resist deflection is what makes them more effective at penetrating sloped armour.
This can be seen with the way APFSDS have developed, where at first it was steel dart with a tungsten penetrator, but with the angle of the armour it's meant to defeat constantly increasing, more and more of the dart becomes the penetrator material, with steel only providing structural support.
Also XYZ Simulations did a simulation of telescoping APFSDS where he found the nearly hollow shell to aid the upcoming penetrator core by a *significant* amount. The result is most likely a compound of two factors, one it created a corridor for eroded material to escape through and prevent it from inhibiting further penetration, but also it created an initial impact point which normalizes the armour at the incoming projectile. This is probably what also happens here, the soft material easily erodes away so it doesn't get in the way of the rest of the core while normalizing the plate against the rest of the upcoming projectile.
Knowing nothing of the subject, I think you are on to something there...
Flashbacks to scanning and mining away half of Milky Way to get enough iridium for ammo in Mass Effect...
Well, I guess now we need to test another staple of sci-fi - osmium armor?;)
I think if a feather was shot as fast as your text scrolling in the video it would blow right thru a T-80 U with Kontact-5 ERA. Maybe you can test that?
?
This comment is gold
Ahahahahaha. I was thinking the same.
more like penetrating battleship from side to side
@@Null_900 Like the penetrator
What a WOT reference...
What if I think of Diamond Rounds as a Minecraft reference
Fascinating! Would never have expected gold to outperform uranium! I always admire your thorough research and the fidelity of your simulations. That, and they're really cool!
i wonder how mercury would do, assuming it was frozen first ofc
Makes sense I suppose. At the speed these things arrive, they behave somewhat like shaped charge jets in the way they penetrate. The metal with the best balance of density & ductility is going to win. Gold is the best material so far for shaped charge liners, and I think there might be some missile systems in use these days that use them. $15-20,000 for a charge liner is not a disproportionate amount of money when a complete missile may cost somewhere north of $150,000. The cost of a gold long-rod penetrator would seem to be prohibitive though.
Mixing with a little bit of silver and 20% copper should increase your tensile strength greatly without reducing density too much.
We were so close to 69% accuracy
Uranium is the best because of how the tip ablates, rather than being blunted from an impact a uranium penetrator keeps it sharp point. It also tends to fragment and violently catch fire once it penetrated an armored vehicle. It is also extremely toxic on the battlefield and is a persistent toxic hazard for a long time. So western militaries have transitioned to tungsten instead. It not as good but it's close. And it's not as hazardous post conflict...
When you using that premium ammo.
After watching the video, I'm interested in the performance of a gold apfsds with tungsten sleeve that can be fired out of a cannon without breaking.Can you make that in the next video?
Gold is actually also the best material for shaped cones in Heat rounds.
In the sloped armour test the uranium made the biggest impact on the other side showing more pressure i guess that might lead to more spalling, just a thought
Basically, soft metal makes apfsds behave more like a HEAT, because it is able to compress itself and hit a smaller surface area
It also means once penetration occurs the crew inside gets a supersonic splash of molten and semi-vaporized gold splattering everything.
i dont know what you mean. gold being soft means that it can hit angles without shattering or wobbling. its also heavy.
I'd be careful with normalizing the projectile energy using velocity because attempting to accelerate any projectile above 1500m/s becomes exponentially more difficult given the current cannon limitations, completely ignoring the structural limits of the round itself.
Except nearly any high caliber round today flies at above 1500m/s and that 1800m/s was a workable speed for some cannons in 60s?..
Your testing had variability in penetrator length. This is a big issue, when it comes to hypersonic rod penetrators. Length is an important characteristic.
If you were to equate a tungsten and golden penetrator for total energy, but match the length of the penetrators by using a thinner tungsten projectile, not only will it catch up to the golden one, it will far outperform it. Then make it even longer, keeping weight and speed same, and yet again it will improve in performance.
With today's projectiles, length is by far the most important characteristic of a hypersonic rod penetrator, the other 3 being, crossectional density, speed, and toughness (or structural integrity when it comes to non homogenous projectiles, which irl they all are). You may notice I did not mention weight. This is because it varies with density, and can not be accounted for by volume, since the projectiles must keep their shape and volume the same, in order for the comparison to be valid. Coincidentally, this is exactly where the issue of your experiment lies. Essentially you are testing different projectiles.
At that point, you may as well start changing all their other characteristics: diameter, shape, total energy. A different projectile is a different projectile. If you wish to test different materials, make the projectiles the same.
With constant shape / volume of a penetrator, tungsten or uranium will perform best. Also, a longer projectile will perform better than a shorter one, and above speeds of 1300m/s even projectiles will less total energy but more length will perform better. Simply due to material erosion. ruclips.net/video/wx_xfDnwuyY/видео.html
imagine missing your shot and seeing $242000 vaporise on the dirt.
time to go gold panning in warzones
*Melts down Golden Eagles to create APFDS able to defeat Stalinium*
"Wait gold is the best round?"
Wargaming: "always has been"
The M829A1 round was nicknamed "Silver Bullet" for its great effect during the last baby seal clubbing of russian tanks in Desert Storm. ^^
So maybe we'll get a literal gold bullet soon. It will also help tidying up the mess after a tank battle, because the burned out husks will have significantly more scrap value and someone will be found to carry them away. 😅
It gives a new meaning to "Striking Gold"
1:11 i think uranium actually did the best here since from the underside camera we can see that it was the closest to going through even tho the length of the impact area isn't as long.
Imagine being ontop of what poor thing got hit by this, the ammount of spall hitting you
our healthcare bouta get more expensive 🔥 💯 🥶
From more space oriented (Hard Sci-FI) discussion I stumbled upon, numerous authors point out that past certain velocities, it's the energy per surface area that matters more than the actual properties of the projectile. Past 3 km/s or so, any projectile has at least it's equivalent in TNT.... Toss a carrot at Earth escape velocity and the USS RABBIT is toast.
I heard a tale that up somewhere in north California there was such a large gold vein that it was sealed off so gold would stay rare, that would make it even more viable cost wise
Sitting on currently-unprofitable reserves and borrowing against the futures price of that resource is a known behaviour in late-stage capitalism...
@@SirNigelGresley4498 its been at least 50 years or more since it was buried
Fantastic analysis, and bizarre results. Upon seeing this, now I would love to see an APFSDS projectile, with a thin steel or tungsten jacket, but filled with a gold core. Might be more realistic because the jacket would help with deformation from the projectile being accelerated at 18,000G.
I would love to stand aside to the armor and get the forbidden golden shower :)
pay 2 win
This is why the lead was used for hunting weapons bullets and other early weapons 😐
Gold distinguish itself among all other metals with one particular thing. It is the most ductile element from all metals. Maybe this is the reason? And, it is dense metal and its melting point is relativley low, lead is quite similar, so, maybe?
squishy and dense, sounds plausible
Forgot which video it is but One Way Ticket by Eruption is a whole jam. Ty
Ps definitely worth it
this kind of makes me thing about space combat and how gold is only a precious metal on earth.
irl premium ammo
The only problem is Gold might be mistaken as a artillery Beacon
well i think at a certain velocity and kinetic energy m/2+v² the hardness of the material doesnt play a role anymore - its about energy only.. and since gold has a very high specific weight.. voilà
Turns out, throwing money at the wall is actually a good solution
How well would an osmium projectile perform? It's the densest known element on the periodic table.
The problem is gold would probably stretch and snap upon firing....causing the tail to break off.
i would like to know, how much food, houses, medicine and scientific research can be produced by cost of one iridium projectile.
Breaking new: American defense budget set to increase by 1000%
one biais of your analysis is that uranium (in your simulation, have normal temperature at impact, but it will not be the case, as uranium will begin chimical reactions with oxygene and will have high temperature at contact (more than 1000 °C), that will liquefy the metal of armor before reel contact
Nothing quite as poetic as using the material most associated with greed to kill our fellow man
there is a lot of reason why aliens love gold
"It costs $400,000 to fire this weapon... twice."
I would be interested in knowing whether a ‘gold-capped’ or ‘gold-enveloped’ penetrator using a more dense, more standard core (tungsten or uranium, probably) would be of any particular effectiveness.
You want to go the opposite way: a tungsten carbide or depleted uranium sleeve that keeps the gold rod shaped during flight, and funnels the gold core toward the armor during impact.
Why not diamond APFDS??
It would just shatter. Reminder: diamonds are hard, not tough. Meaning its hard to scratch them but relatively easy to break them.
it's brittle
Can you try osmium round?
Do not fucking tell WarGaming they were actually right about something
Well, at least if you survive the shot, the survivors can retire.
What about diamond? It's very dense and we can make synthetic ones.
So a solid gold APFSDS round costs about the same as a Javelin? Cool.
Could you do an APFSDS round with a gold tip followed by a tungsten body?
Depleted uranium is still enough to turn enemy crew into a burning paste.
high af kinetic energy turns into heat and melts gold so gold acts like heat ammo but in modern tanks heat ammos pretty much useless so tungsten and depleted uranium still way to go
How do you make these???
It's ductility would make ERA effective against it though.
Please do more vidieos with iridium.
Well, in terms of cost, its about the same as a javelin. That says waay more about the cost of the javelin than the gold rod.
What about osmium? Most dense material and has some other interesting properties, probably better than any of these projectiles
I think you should rather compare lenght/width or mass/velocity with all the rods having same kinetic energy
gold is good because its heavy, if it was also more resistant then it would be a better penetrator, meanwhile tungsten is too resistant, that's why they use alloys...
I read the tittle GOD makes the best apfds ??? Welp time to get my eyes check
Flawless logik
If the text stayed on screen for a second or two more it would he easier to read :(
What program was used for this simulation?
Gold is a very soft metal, but what about copper?
I wonder... Telescoping penetrators
Iridium at 0:26 be like \o
German tank moment
Do leopard 2 hull vs T 90 APFSDS 2000m
Imagine firing literal gold just to penetrate a bunch of metal
Osmium? 22,86g/cm³
Its insane to me how tungsten, the strongest metal, is shitty at penetrating armour
.........SO.........SOMEHOW!!!!!!!!!IT IS A MUST TO TRY DEVELOP LEAD APFSDS SOMEHOW...........
.................VERY COST WISE BY OBVIOUS REASONS,EVEN THOUGH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE COSTY
Will the golden APFSDS deform when fired? Maybe this is the main reason why they are not considered?
Mostly cost I think and era
@@lior_theboom I'm sorry, I confused iridium and tungsten and thought that since gold is only one and a half to two times more expensive than iridium, but it has the best piercing properties, it should definitely attract the attention of the military. But, again, I confused tungsten with iridium, which costs hundreds of times more
Besides costing around $150,000 per shot (lol), yes, the projectile would completely deform.
How did you come up with the velocities? Same kinetic energy?
Yes, we dont go DEEP into the other factors like the structure or gas expansion because its already goofy and dumb to test gold lol, we know irl this would go horribly wrong.
1:13 mistake uranium made the deepest hole
This isn't a fair test. They should all have the same size and the same velocity.
Im not sure the slopped test was the right conclusion. It feels like you measured the lenght of the hole not its depth. When shown from behind it appeara uranium had the most effect behind the plate which would suggest it went deeper. Also a longer hole just shows that more materials was ejected. Tho i could be wrong and i did not see the right thing.
I just thought of an interesting question. Wouldn't all simulations on this channel be flawed because irl the suspension of a tank would allow the armor plates to actually get out of the way a little?
I'd think the shells would be striking so fast that the suspension doesn't really have time to compensate in that way?
The inertia of a 60 ton vehicle will make this effect negligable.
@@casaxtreme2952 not if you hit it with a 12 inch gun
@@notlistening6499 if yiu hit anything with a 12 inch gun, its dead
@@notlistening6499 lmao love it when people bring in the what if argument with a incredibly wacky scenario
Best way to balance wars, everytime you miss your shot, you make the other faction richer xddddddd
Why no Osmium though?
Osmium?
What Is a APFSDS?
Standard dart-sabot round in post cold war era
Better than steel but, still not optimal.
Personally I would use neutronium
i dont understand how uranium performs worse than RHA
242k per round is US military levels of affordable
Ah yes, what do you think would happen if you propel soft metal rounds the same speed you would propel normal tungsten apfsds...
Yeah.... It would not go well and the shell would turn into a pretzel lol.
How i get this programm?
I think lead is perfect. good price good quality.
I have several of these in my house
Imagine diamond APFSDS
Very bad (low density). Also brittle
Gold rounds who would think 🤔
World of tanks were right about selling golden rounds 😆
PS
I'm 1k liker XD.
bruh chill