You guys above realize the T-72 Ural had a cast steel turret that was only 280mm thick right? Near the breech was even thinner. The KwK 43 has a chance to penetrate. He didn't specify which T-72 and I think this would be an interesting one to see.
@@RedVRCC umm.. normally quoted penetration of KwK 43 APCR is 240mm against vertical RHA at point-blank range.. it would make sense to run KwK shell against T-62 (220mm @17deg) though and T-62/1972 (242mm @17deg) or simply against vertical plate of RHA of same thickness, 'cause some [unreliable] sources [e.g. Wiki with questionable references] do claim ridiculous penetration numbers for KwK 43.
@@SuperIv7 it might still spall the interior being only 40mm less than the needed penetration. did the ural have a spall liner? Against the T-62, yes that would also be interesting.
Interesting to see. It was lightly armored but it did have the armor to resist autocannon to the front, even with 30mm APDS and 57mm APHE. Which was part of the design philosophy of the Leo 1 and similar tanks, in that they are protected enough to resist milder anti-armor threats like autocannons and HMGs, but relying upon mobility to avoid getting hit with more powerful AT weapons.
@@Slavkovic_Predrag i bet you could def take it out if you hit the ufp close to the turret ring, would be interesting to see if it pens the turret ring at all
I tested 14.5mm KPV heavy machine gun against m113 front already. Bmp2 would be more interesting against 25-30mm since it was designed to stop 23mm on the front.
It's interesting how the BMP sloping shares design traits with other European (some consider Russia a part of Europe) designs. IFVs like CV90 and Puma have extreme sloping like the BMP does, while the Bradley does not (I assume it's due to engine placement)
Pretty Boring. Nearly anything will punch thorugh the Leopard´s Armor anywhere, while it can destroy most of the WW II tanks. No point in simulating an obvious result.
@@pimmelschilz9728 why do you think the only interesting thing is finding out if it will pen or not? If that's the only interesting part why watch the video at all? Why not just read the title and skip to the end?
57мм би и дан данас био много добар калибар против лако оклопних возила. Може да пробуши и веома дебеле зидове и експлодира. Надам се барем да су сачувани топови како би се на нешто монтирали али тешко да могу да се користе јер су 20 година рђали на ливади.
The whole idea of Leopard-1 with armor less than a Panther is stupid and ridiculous. Not a tank, not an SPG. Useless and dangerous to its crew on a battlefield.
Wrong, it made perfect sense. Everything must be compared to its time frame. It was realized the practicality of RHA against HEAT projectiles wasn't possible. The amount of armor needed would make the vehicle slow and what West Germany needed was a reactive force to blunt any Soviet invasion. It wasn't until both composite armor and newer and more efficient power packs that actually armoring a tank to withstand such things wouldn't cause it to be slow. Chieftan: 40 kph (And still not that well protected against HEAT until Stillbrew) Operational Range 500km M60: 48kph (Better protected on the frontal arc with hull exposed then Chieftan w/o Stillbrew) Operational range 500km Leopard 1: 65kph Operation Range 600 km AMX30: 60kph Operational Range 600 km The French and West German armor doctrine was much more about mobility and harassing an opposing force instead of straight on assaulting it. Which would be left to the British and American armor.
@@Cragified I know perfectly well *WHY* it was designed like that. History however showed that this idea was stupid and it did not work. For your reference, Leo 1 appeared *AFTER* T-64. T-64 was smart and revolutionary, still in frontline service even today. Leo 1.. just dumb. Not a tank, not an SPG. Leo 1 is reminiscent of Soviet BT series. Same idea, same result. Both were fast, neither worked well. The funny part is that it was Germans who taught the Red Army that good armor in a tank was imperative.
It was assumed that main weapoms would be shaped charges anyway, and the relatively armored M60 (with a pathetic HP/ton ratio) would just die the same as a leopard 1. realistically only the Cheftian could resist Russian rounds (on the turret only) until the introduction of new gen tanks like leopard 2 and abrams
@@SuperIv7 T-64 was the first AFV to incorporate composite armor which was a well kept secret. Details on the T-64 where not uncovered until much later. All of which proves my point. Even the M60 which originally was conceived to use silica core composite armor ended up being produced with RHA because it wasn't known how far ahead Soviet composite armor was.
The idea may actually make sense, just look at how most tank deaths in Ukraine came from HEAT weapons. And that came from an era where the average BMP can smash through most NATO tanks.
88 KwK 43 Tiger II vs T-72 Turret
T72 turret is ~70cm thick. No way.
why would one waste time? It should be able to penetrate 80mm side panels of a basic bare T-72, but 0 % probability against 400mm+ at combat angles.
You guys above realize the T-72 Ural had a cast steel turret that was only 280mm thick right? Near the breech was even thinner. The KwK 43 has a chance to penetrate. He didn't specify which T-72 and I think this would be an interesting one to see.
@@RedVRCC umm.. normally quoted penetration of KwK 43 APCR is 240mm against vertical RHA at point-blank range.. it would make sense to run KwK shell against T-62 (220mm @17deg) though and T-62/1972 (242mm @17deg) or simply against vertical plate of RHA of same thickness, 'cause some [unreliable] sources [e.g. Wiki with questionable references] do claim ridiculous penetration numbers for KwK 43.
@@SuperIv7 it might still spall the interior being only 40mm less than the needed penetration. did the ural have a spall liner? Against the T-62, yes that would also be interesting.
Interesting to see. It was lightly armored but it did have the armor to resist autocannon to the front, even with 30mm APDS and 57mm APHE. Which was part of the design philosophy of the Leo 1 and similar tanks, in that they are protected enough to resist milder anti-armor threats like autocannons and HMGs, but relying upon mobility to avoid getting hit with more powerful AT weapons.
And get bus by autocannon from helicopter
...and it's still heavier than soviet tanks...
T-10M vs Abrams frontal armor (hull or turret), I know it won't pen, but I want to see the result, one with 128 was quite surprising
Apds from 122mm might be able to penetrate Abrams ufp (not fully penetrate but to shrapnel inside). Will see if I have time to do it.
@@Slavkovic_Predrag I'm interested in full-bore APHE with T-10M's main gun velocity, but APDS would also be interesting
@@Slavkovic_Predrag i bet you could def take it out if you hit the ufp close to the turret ring, would be interesting to see if it pens the turret ring at all
0:56 the what I call it a bounce 😂😂 still it could damage the turret if it hit the lower turret part
UFP is way too much in front to bounce into lower turret
@@petrkdn8224 could hit the gun tho
12,8 cm KwK44 Maus vs IS 2 Armor Hull
Pen
7,5 cm Pak 40 vs T-44
no pen
Could you do a 90mm M82 projectile at 2800 fps (853 m/s) vs IS-3 turret roof (20mm sloped at 82 degrees), no fall angle?
First 90mm projectile i will test will be t33 since i modeled it. I could make m82 if I found right diagrams for it.
The T33 could be interesting as well, but it is more likely to pen. If you search for "M82" in the Discord server you'll see a diagram of it.
@@alexandrosyuk9473 okay i will check it out.
It looks great! But how about making a real angle of a collision? For "slow" projectiles it would be more than 1 at the usual distances of 500-2000 m.
Object 278 APHE vs M1 front hull (the composite part)
I thought that the leopard 1 can only resist shots up to 20mm, i'm surprised to see it resisting an 57mm.
The spalling from that shot would be enough to cause a significant emotional event and more than likely a mission fail
Can you do model of firing with 12.7mm DShK or .50 browning in front of IFV like BMP-2 or m113?
I tested 14.5mm KPV heavy machine gun against m113 front already. Bmp2 would be more interesting against 25-30mm since it was designed to stop 23mm on the front.
It's interesting how the BMP sloping shares design traits with other European (some consider Russia a part of Europe) designs. IFVs like CV90 and Puma have extreme sloping like the BMP does, while the Bradley does not (I assume it's due to engine placement)
I wonder how much better an M60A1 would have fared?
King Tiger 88 vs Leopard 1 hull front, and vice versa
Pretty Boring. Nearly anything will punch thorugh the Leopard´s Armor anywhere, while it can destroy most of the WW II tanks. No point in simulating an obvious result.
Yeah Leo armour is a relic of ww2 jus5 with a better layout. They would both pen easy.
@@pimmelschilz9728 why do you think the only interesting thing is finding out if it will pen or not? If that's the only interesting part why watch the video at all? Why not just read the title and skip to the end?
What's name of this program?
ansys
..and, BTW, those ZSU-57-2 SPAAG's have the rate of fire of up to 240 rpm. That's 4 rounds every second. That Leo-1 would stand no chance.
What is the distance? 2km?
More like 300m
Kako mogu da te kontaktiram?
slavkovicpredrag003@gmail.com
Ili Djape#9486
正面抜けるのかぁ
ダスターといい、本当に対空で設計したんかな？
A naši slepci izbacili pedesetsedmice iz naoružanja.
57мм би и дан данас био много добар калибар против лако оклопних возила. Може да пробуши и веома дебеле зидове и експлодира. Надам се барем да су сачувани топови како би се на нешто монтирали али тешко да могу да се користе јер су 20 година рђали на ливади.
The whole idea of Leopard-1 with armor less than a Panther is stupid and ridiculous. Not a tank, not an SPG. Useless and dangerous to its crew on a battlefield.
Wrong, it made perfect sense. Everything must be compared to its time frame. It was realized the practicality of RHA against HEAT projectiles wasn't possible. The amount of armor needed would make the vehicle slow and what West Germany needed was a reactive force to blunt any Soviet invasion. It wasn't until both composite armor and newer and more efficient power packs that actually armoring a tank to withstand such things wouldn't cause it to be slow.
Chieftan: 40 kph (And still not that well protected against HEAT until Stillbrew) Operational Range 500km
M60: 48kph (Better protected on the frontal arc with hull exposed then Chieftan w/o Stillbrew) Operational range 500km
Leopard 1: 65kph Operation Range 600 km
AMX30: 60kph Operational Range 600 km
The French and West German armor doctrine was much more about mobility and harassing an opposing force instead of straight on assaulting it. Which would be left to the British and American armor.
@@Cragified I know perfectly well *WHY* it was designed like that. History however showed that this idea was stupid and it did not work. For your reference, Leo 1 appeared *AFTER* T-64. T-64 was smart and revolutionary, still in frontline service even today. Leo 1.. just dumb. Not a tank, not an SPG.
Leo 1 is reminiscent of Soviet BT series. Same idea, same result. Both were fast, neither worked well. The funny part is that it was Germans who taught the Red Army that good armor in a tank was imperative.
It was assumed that main weapoms would be shaped charges anyway, and the relatively armored M60 (with a pathetic HP/ton ratio) would just die the same as a leopard 1.
realistically only the Cheftian could resist Russian rounds (on the turret only) until the introduction of new gen tanks like leopard 2 and abrams
@@SuperIv7 T-64 was the first AFV to incorporate composite armor which was a well kept secret. Details on the T-64 where not uncovered until much later. All of which proves my point. Even the M60 which originally was conceived to use silica core composite armor ended up being produced with RHA because it wasn't known how far ahead Soviet composite armor was.
The idea may actually make sense, just look at how most tank deaths in Ukraine came from HEAT weapons.
And that came from an era where the average BMP can smash through most NATO tanks.
Fake
ruclips.net/user/shortsObgnr9pc820?feature=share
@@Slavkovic_Predrag I was kidding, I know it's nothing fake...