Mentioning the amount of explosive and liner in each would be really nice to properly draw conclussions, as well as having targets that arent fully penetrated ;) Also for suggestions that could be tested: wave shapers, they should help specially the lower angle charges, and wider ones benefit from a bit of curvature to create a better slug (getting into EFP territory with that, but why make a wide cone if you want a quick jet?), different ignitions, more or less explosive with different liners, etc
I'd LOVE to see this recreated for a variety of detonation velocities. The major driver of cone shape is detonation velocity. To my admittedly low knowledge on thensubject, mass of charge behind the cone also has an effect. As well as the strength of the vessel. How much of the wave blows out verses is reflected back and so on. Explosive lenses would be cool too.
Yeah more RHA next test so we can see the maximum penetration depth of each shape. Another good idea is using the winning shape but comparing different explosives or liners, keeping the shape the same as a control.
Maybe you could prototype a charge that uses a sort of two staged detonation where one part is used to accelerate an already powerful blast. Doubt it would work better than anything we already have, but it would probably look cool in the simulation.
Russians have developed triple charge HEAT 3bk27 or 3vbk31 that punches trough era with charge at the tip, explodes secondary charge at the back and main charge in the middle. Tail charge seems to be a bit off angle so it doesn't interfere with main charge after tail charge slows down it can penetrate 800-750mm rha
Interesting point. Will investigate in the future if you can create a mathematical model to predict return on investment (penetration by liner and HE mass)
You got to look at the Slow Mo Guys video on this. Because it looks like the inner point goes out as normal but the outer point of the cone gets smacked into the inner point as the inner point is going out. Because the explosives around the cone is faster than the tip leaving and just explode it inward. And it looked like the tip being hit by the outer part is actually what heats up the copper. Otherwise you are just shooting cold copper.
More stand-off distance might be called for: sources suggest 3-4 device diameters of separation from target give best 'carrot' formation interval. The jet has a 'sweet-spot' that is unique to each design; stand-off can be critical for best performance.
“Everyone” says there’s no melting and therefore no molten copper (or other alloy) but the simulation gives the impression of a molten core. Also copper has a low melting point. I fail to see how kinetic energy alone from a super hot jet of copper can penetrate armour.
How does one get into making these simulations. Like where do you start if you want to learn this without going to college for it. Are there books, web tutorials, or video tutorials that walk you through the basics of setting up this kind of simulation?
Yeah i kinda just scraped together whatever i could from tutorials and people i knew. Once you get into it, its actually quite easy. But getting started is a little tough due to the lack of good tutorials and information out there
Hey, I just had an idea for a simulation: What if you took an M855/M855A1 and replaced the steel tip with a nearly identical one but made out of Depleted Uranium? (or perhaps Tungsten Carbide) Would it just do exactly the same, but at a higher price tag? Or would it actually be any better?
Significantly more penetration with tested tungsten carbide perpetrator cores a private company produces DU 7.62 and it penetrates while producing an incendiary effect
Unfortunately this failed to produce the desired result as the relative amount of explosive in the low angle charge was much higher. Pity the simulations seemed to fail.
#QUESTION Does the cone angle and or amount of explosive determine the energy required to penetrate however many inches of material? (eg. regular shape charge stand-off space with small cone angle versus EFP with wide cone angle)
Ayoo my man, how do you manage to make those simulations of HEAT charges? You are the only one that have them looking good, not like PS1 Lara croft, also why does RHA has this wavey pattern after penetration? From my understanding EFP is just spheres interacting with lines, so why is penetrator looking like it's ribbed for my pleasure? I would love an explanation!
So basically the RHA looks weird because im simulating it in a different reference frame than i do for regular penetration simulations. Normally i use the lagrangian reference frame for solids like steel, copper, etc. for fluids like air, explosives (after they have detonated) i typically use the eulerian reference frame. They both have their advantages and disadvantages, but for stuff like this where you have an insanely fast moving jet of liquid copper, it would be very hard (and take a long time) to simulate the armor as a lagrangian material. But the eulerian approach is not without its faults. With eulerian materials, you cant have strength properties. Basically the RHA is modelled as highly viscous liquid, and not an actual solid. This leads to the material doing some interesting stuff after the jet has penetrated. I can try to work on more accurate methods in the future though. With regards to the EFP part, its important to notice that the angle of the liner is not quite high enough to become an EFP. With lower angle shaped charges, you will see a long jet and not a clump of material as you may expect with an EFP
@@-EPSILON- Ohh alright i get it! Its such a shame we can't yet simulate 100% realistically, especially sad that it principle it would be easy af, just have a 2^fuckton particles that all attract each other with force dependent on the temperature or with what temperature really is, how fast those particles wooble, but i don't think we can achieve that before we build a moon sized computer lol
@@-EPSILON- How do you know your model is behaving realistically after all these approximations? Have you made some simulations and compared them to real life data?
@@peasant8246 I don't know they are behaving realistically. in fact, i know for sure they aren't. Simulating these kinds of systems is very complex and im still learning
Crazy how fast that molten jet is travelling. Seeing footage from Ukraine, it’s less than the blink of an eye for it to be hundreds of feet past the point of detonation.
Wasn't heat a major factor in the penetrators of WWII that seemed to burn their way through armor rather than the kinetic energy of modern heavy material darts that turn into a plasma and in fact burn through armor just the same?
Kinetic energy *is* what causes the high impact temperatures. The armor does not evaporate, but is does behave fluidly at the moment of impact due to the extreme compression, friction, and shear.
I honestly just had to comment on this lol. This is the type of warhead that allows many anti tank weapons to penetrate the thick armor of tanks. RPG's, AT4, M72 LAW, Javelin, just to mention a few of the most well known. The explosive forces a cone of copper (or other similar material) to collapse and squish together. The only way the copper can go is forwards, forming an extremely fast jet of metal that can penetrate a lot of armor.
Очень красиво. Но... Практически бесполезно. Тип ВВ? Материал воронки? Скорость кумулятивной струи? Материал преграды? Максимальная глубина проникания струи в преграду?.. Без этих данных подобные симуляции не имеют смысла, поскольку качественная картина и так описана в каждом учебнике.
Мне кажется, это просто хобби, автор делает эти симуляции просто потому что ему нравится и делится ими с миром через ютуб. Касаемо же научности и практической применимости этих симуляций, в первую очередь стоит взглянуть на то, что объем (а следовательно и масса) ВВ во всех трёх вариантах различна)
Mentioning the amount of explosive and liner in each would be really nice to properly draw conclussions, as well as having targets that arent fully penetrated ;)
Also for suggestions that could be tested: wave shapers, they should help specially the lower angle charges, and wider ones benefit from a bit of curvature to create a better slug (getting into EFP territory with that, but why make a wide cone if you want a quick jet?), different ignitions, more or less explosive with different liners, etc
Thanks for all the suggestions!
More damage.
LAWs utilized a more of a trumpet cone design.
Man, that's a lot of requests. Maybe you should start your own channel and lend your hand in all this simulation work.
@@submechanophobia768 when last time you checked the brain for psychopathological disorder?
If the angle becomes high enough becomes EFP.
Yes, ill do higher angles in the future with a much greater standoff distance to showcase this
What’s efp
@@elliotsmith102 explosively formed penetrator
@@elliotsmith102 Kinetic penetrator formed with explosion
@@elliotsmith102 "explosively formed penetrator" - for further ranges between warhead and target
I'd LOVE to see this recreated for a variety of detonation velocities. The major driver of cone shape is detonation velocity. To my admittedly low knowledge on thensubject, mass of charge behind the cone also has an effect. As well as the strength of the vessel. How much of the wave blows out verses is reflected back and so on. Explosive lenses would be cool too.
Yeah more RHA next test so we can see the maximum penetration depth of each shape.
Another good idea is using the winning shape but comparing different explosives or liners, keeping the shape the same as a control.
Maybe you could prototype a charge that uses a sort of two staged detonation where one part is used to accelerate an already powerful blast. Doubt it would work better than anything we already have, but it would probably look cool in the simulation.
It's called a tandem warhead, and they already exist.
Russians have developed triple charge HEAT 3bk27 or 3vbk31 that punches trough era with charge at the tip, explodes secondary charge at the back and main charge in the middle. Tail charge seems to be a bit off angle so it doesn't interfere with main charge after tail charge slows down it can penetrate 800-750mm rha
Doesn't the optimal angle change based on the detonation velocity?
Can you try different liner thicknesses?
You should try this same test with optimum standoff distance for each liner angle
Narrow cone has more HE mass and more liner mass than wide cones. Can we normalize the penetration by these two factors ?
Interesting point. Will investigate in the future if you can create a mathematical model to predict return on investment (penetration by liner and HE mass)
Would love to see the effect of that Experimental HEAT charge you did a few videos ago.
True i completely forgot about that one. Ill post in the coming week probably
Waiting
You got to look at the Slow Mo Guys video on this. Because it looks like the inner point goes out as normal but the outer point of the cone gets smacked into the inner point as the inner point is going out. Because the explosives around the cone is faster than the tip leaving and just explode it inward. And it looked like the tip being hit by the outer part is actually what heats up the copper. Otherwise you are just shooting cold copper.
More stand-off distance might be called for: sources suggest 3-4 device diameters of separation from target give best 'carrot' formation interval.
The jet has a 'sweet-spot' that is unique to each design; stand-off can be critical for best performance.
Which simulation do you use for this?
I always love HEAT simulations. They’re a lot more satisfying because they’re hypersonic molten copper jet compared to darts
“Everyone” says there’s no melting and therefore no molten copper (or other alloy) but the simulation gives the impression of a molten core. Also copper has a low melting point. I fail to see how kinetic energy alone from a super hot jet of copper can penetrate armour.
@teeanahera8949 not sure but trust me it does.
How does one get into making these simulations. Like where do you start if you want to learn this without going to college for it. Are there books, web tutorials, or video tutorials that walk you through the basics of setting up this kind of simulation?
Yeah i kinda just scraped together whatever i could from tutorials and people i knew. Once you get into it, its actually quite easy. But getting started is a little tough due to the lack of good tutorials and information out there
So... what if we do like, 10 degree?
My unit found the first known EFP in Iraq, 2004. CIED, 458th EN BN under 1CAV
What are you using to create this simulations?
Hey, I just had an idea for a simulation:
What if you took an M855/M855A1 and replaced the steel tip with a nearly identical one but made out of Depleted Uranium? (or perhaps Tungsten Carbide)
Would it just do exactly the same, but at a higher price tag? Or would it actually be any better?
Significantly more penetration with tested tungsten carbide perpetrator cores a private company produces DU 7.62 and it penetrates while producing an incendiary effect
Unfortunately this failed to produce the desired result as the relative amount of explosive in the low angle charge was much higher. Pity the simulations seemed to fail.
What happend with the hot beam if it water if ? If the water break the hot beam you can use it has protecting gear on tanks in jerrycans.
#QUESTION
Does the cone angle and or amount of explosive determine the energy required to penetrate however many inches of material?
(eg. regular shape charge stand-off space with small cone angle versus EFP with wide cone angle)
Hemispherical liner?
What is the software called?
What do you use for simulations?
Ayoo my man, how do you manage to make those simulations of HEAT charges? You are the only one that have them looking good, not like PS1 Lara croft, also why does RHA has this wavey pattern after penetration? From my understanding EFP is just spheres interacting with lines, so why is penetrator looking like it's ribbed for my pleasure? I would love an explanation!
So basically the RHA looks weird because im simulating it in a different reference frame than i do for regular penetration simulations. Normally i use the lagrangian reference frame for solids like steel, copper, etc. for fluids like air, explosives (after they have detonated) i typically use the eulerian reference frame. They both have their advantages and disadvantages, but for stuff like this where you have an insanely fast moving jet of liquid copper, it would be very hard (and take a long time) to simulate the armor as a lagrangian material. But the eulerian approach is not without its faults. With eulerian materials, you cant have strength properties. Basically the RHA is modelled as highly viscous liquid, and not an actual solid. This leads to the material doing some interesting stuff after the jet has penetrated. I can try to work on more accurate methods in the future though.
With regards to the EFP part, its important to notice that the angle of the liner is not quite high enough to become an EFP. With lower angle shaped charges, you will see a long jet and not a clump of material as you may expect with an EFP
@@-EPSILON- Ohh alright i get it! Its such a shame we can't yet simulate 100% realistically, especially sad that it principle it would be easy af, just have a 2^fuckton particles that all attract each other with force dependent on the temperature or with what temperature really is, how fast those particles wooble, but i don't think we can achieve that before we build a moon sized computer lol
@@-EPSILON- How do you know your model is behaving realistically after all these approximations? Have you made some simulations and compared them to real life data?
@@peasant8246 I don't know they are behaving realistically. in fact, i know for sure they aren't. Simulating these kinds of systems is very complex and im still learning
@@-EPSILON- Thank you for a quick and honest answer. I wish you good luck in your endeavour.
Everything reminds me of her
💀
💀
no bro...
What in the world does it reminds of her?
What about my shaped charge vs. as much RHA as possible
Need some help regarding shaped charge analysis doing project student
@@vinaysathena5718 okay
Will the copper liner thickness affect the performance?
Yes most SCE have around 6-8mm and the copper is normally alloyed with silver and other metals but copper works just fine.
Is this the Tv bomb from hamas
Crazy how fast that molten jet is travelling. Seeing footage from Ukraine, it’s less than the blink of an eye for it to be hundreds of feet past the point of detonation.
So conclusion?
Wasn't heat a major factor in the penetrators of WWII that seemed to burn their way through armor rather than the kinetic energy of modern heavy material darts that turn into a plasma and in fact burn through armor just the same?
Kinetic energy *is* what causes the high impact temperatures. The armor does not evaporate, but is does behave fluidly at the moment of impact due to the extreme compression, friction, and shear.
@@JWQweqOPDH the impact site looks like it "melted thru" the armor with extreme heat generated by kinetic friction of a phenomenally dense material
@@JWQweqOPDH It's like erosion in fast motion.
*TARGET HIT*
I don't know how I got here. What is that? Actually nvm. Seems like something I'm too stupid to even bother trying to comprehend.
I honestly just had to comment on this lol. This is the type of warhead that allows many anti tank weapons to penetrate the thick armor of tanks. RPG's, AT4, M72 LAW, Javelin, just to mention a few of the most well known. The explosive forces a cone of copper (or other similar material) to collapse and squish together. The only way the copper can go is forwards, forming an extremely fast jet of metal that can penetrate a lot of armor.
ATF FBI NSA DHS CIA LLE TSA SHP LSD just entered the chat 😂
Hey man, can we connect? I was doing a graduate research project on specialty shape charges.
MIKK7978#7937 add me as friend on discord and id be happy to talk
Can we connect? I'm making new types
Yah
Ok! Sent :)
@@ohbeardedone9253 Enthusiast#7724
Очень красиво. Но... Практически бесполезно. Тип ВВ? Материал воронки? Скорость кумулятивной струи? Материал преграды? Максимальная глубина проникания струи в преграду?.. Без этих данных подобные симуляции не имеют смысла, поскольку качественная картина и так описана в каждом учебнике.
Мне кажется, это просто хобби, автор делает эти симуляции просто потому что ему нравится и делится ими с миром через ютуб. Касаемо же научности и практической применимости этих симуляций, в первую очередь стоит взглянуть на то, что объем (а следовательно и масса) ВВ во всех трёх вариантах различна)
What are you using to create this simulations?