The T-54's 3BM8 APDS round has an indentical core but slightly thinner steel body, fired at 1415m/s. So the simulation can also be viewed as the T-54 firing 3BM8 at the Strv from ~100m away.
But the likelihood that T-54 would get to Strv that close and doesn't miss is like somebody who doesn't know how to backflip does it on the first try, because of the way strv would be used tactically if USSR invades finland
The commentary and historical context is very helpful. While the simulation itself is beautiful to watch, the commentary shows why it's important. Thanks again!
@@aliuddinazfar3388 maybe in the US everybody has it, but not in the rest of the world... just take a manual window. also if he talked about cars... i mean sure powered windows in cars are nice, but it take 5 seconds to open it manually... it's not the end of the world
Officer: was the tank destroyed? Tank crew: no….but the engine has about a dozen new inspection ports in it, and Gunnar shit his pants so hard he broke the drivers seat in half.
Even with such a power full round the fact it shattered and mostly deflected goes to show just how effective extremely angled armor truly is against conventional ammunition.
Perfect demonstartion how thin plates with steep angles can bounce even stupid big shells. Tho Crew would still definietly have significant emotional event from feeling that hit.
Well underneath that plate there is nothing but engine so the crew would probably just hear a huge bang and be completely fine. Hell, even the tank itself may still be fully operational depending on what that shrapnel ends up striking.
The engine and powerpack is in the very front The crew are in the very end of the tank and even if it did make it the spall would have to go through around 5mms of extra armour which is between the engine compartment and the crew compartment
@@RaDeus87 i dont correctly remember the amount of armour which isolates powerpack from the crew compartment but i do know its more than enough to stop spall
@@LazyLifeIFreak Its 100m distance... so its hardly pants-soiling situation because Swedish tank would be able to make few nice holes in the enemmy tank before it would be able to make this huge dent in its armor.
A "from commander gunner/driver" point of view would be nice with Strv-103 diagrams. Likely offering very little, it might put a nice example on why the 'ribbing' of the front plate is so helpful to prevent ricochets bouncing right into the viewport.
Could you show some elements of the Chieftain against various common kinetic threats it would have faced early on? I'm curious to see if the left and right turret front have any noticeable differences in protection as well
Will you possibly do naval armour and guns in the future? I would love to see a 6lb molins equipped Tsetse Mosquito or various ships deck guns and torpedoes against different ship armour.
That's true as long as the S tank is unaware of the threat, if the strv is aiming at the t-10 the entire tank would be tilted somewhat upwards resulting in a similar situation to the video. Also the increased range would reduce the potential penetration
He already did that with a T-54 though, what's the point in doing it against another similarly armored russian tank when there's tons of other more interesting simulations to be done?
@@rifraf276 the turret roof of the IS-3 seems kind of different to me than the turret front of the T-54. Also more like what's the point of not doing it
@@alexthegreat5009 If it goes straight through the upper hull of a T-54 then it will definitely go through the turret roof of an IS-3, just like it would go through its upper hull. The reason to not do it is that it takes like a day of computing time to make each one of these simulations so it would be a waste to do something so similar to what has already been done.
I wonder how T-10Ms' full caliber AP round, BR-472, would perform? It has much less penetration against flat armor, but it's freakishly heavy which certainly helps against strongly sloped armor.
@@SYsimulations Wait, I have a better idea: as we know (or rather, were being told) the curved pieces of armour resist incoming shells better than flat ones of the same thickness. Perhaps you could demonstrate this in detail: an AP/APC shell hitting a curved(or even better, a doubly curved piece, like the hemispherical part of the turret front on JS-2) by a shell at an angle where it's supposed to penetrate a flat piece of armour of the same thickness at the same angle, and compare it with a simulation of such.
I agree with you! But the great problem is that it not used almost anymore live rounds on new tanks. Generally they are using only simulated shots but will never be accurate enough to check if the armour will be strong enough. In my view this has happened when the Turkish army used their Leopard 2 against the rebels and found out they they were using rounds that penetrated those tanks created a diplomatic row between Germany and Turkey. But it was a flaw that it could have been avoided if the Germans used real ammo until they destroyed the tank. This is my opinion....
А толку если он сравнивает снаряды и броню между которыми 10 лет, а с современными Стрв реальными для неё противниками не сравнивает. С таким успехом можно ещё с пантерой сравнить или с Pz 3.
Симуляции на этом канале традиционно ничего общего с реальностью не имеют, у него форма подкалиберного снаряда (3бм) - аналогична бронебойной болванке БР. Нормализации нет, корпус не учитывается, ребра почему-то имеют прочность одинаковую с твердосплавным колпачком снаряда (приваривают ребра вольфрам к стали как и чем?) это все в реальности невозможно
HEAT in general take SOOOOOOOOOOO much processing power, and you want two of the with a delay inbetween in the same simulation, yeah no that isnt going to happen.
You don't discuss afterwards the effect of the spall. It was marginal but it was there. At least it would cause eye injuries if unshielded, yes? In general, or invariably, do all tanks use spall liners and are they equal to said threat? If you would detail that in future it would at a moderate benefit at hopefully small cost.
Apologies, it was mentioned in the previous strv video that there is an engine and a decently thick spall shield between the armour and the crew. The spalling from this impact would not penetrate the shield and would probably do nothing to the engine either
@@SYsimulations thank you, sorry for not keeping up with all of your content, there is so much of everything nowadays, even your excellent stuff has biters.
That explains the tutorial or guidelines about STRV 103s must avoid engaging tanks with 122mm (World of Tanks/War Thunder) This shit really is dangerous
Interesting tidbit, when they tested the tank they found that after shell impacts, even non-pens, the bolt that locked the engine hatches in place tended to sheer off. So they needed to devise a way to strengthen the hatches so this wouldn't happen. For this they tested 2 solutions. Simply increasing the armour thickness to 50mm and keeping it the same but adding the engine ribs. They found the engine ribs were much more effective in strengthening the hatches and keeping bolts from sheering off while also being a lot lighter than simply making the whole plate thicker. And that's the primary reason for the engine ribs existence. Not as a shrapnel shield, not to give it more armour, but to strengthen the hatches structurally. The rest was just an additional bonus.
I really like your simulations :) Would you consider doing one with a mine or a railgun shot, in the future? Would also love to see a simulation of hit to the ammo storage, if possible.
Question: at the ranges used for the simulation, wouldn't the round be dropping to its target? Does this get modeled? Just curious as it was so close to penetrating.
@@SYsimulations снаряд, отклоняющийся на 5 метров вниз, прилетает по броне сверху, чего вы никогда не понимали. Не параллельно, как у вас. Сверху, с углом в 1-3 градуса, если посмотреть баллистические таблицы. Анекдотическая ситуация, надо было ещё занизить точку попадания, как будет выстрел присиходит снизу. Вы не знаете геометрии, видимо.
Would it be possible to make hypothetical rounds as in How would a kwk 43 8.8cm l71 fare against a T54 or Centurion using a hypothetical apds round. Just out of curiosity because certain haves like to put German tanks against early cold war era tanks without showing the German tanks the benefit of modern rounds
Considering that the engine is housed below the sloped part, it wouldn't have any significant impact toward the crew or especially vulnerable parts of the vehicle with whatever shrapneling made it through
Does anyone know what programs are used by all these different RUclipsrs that make these videos? I can never get an answer out of anybody and I wanna do my own tests and simulations.
Relative armor thicknes is less than 200mm. Raw thickes vs extreme slope, the difference is quite surprising. 320mm of penetration fails to pen "200mm".
320mm Is the amount of penetration at 500metres, at 1.2 km it is even less but the main thing here is the impact angle which completely shits on the shells penetration capability.
Love these gamer talks about sheer potency of strv 103. Basically it's one purpose armoured self propelled gun (not tank), that is suitable only for ambush. It cannot support infantry properly, cant attack cities or fortified positions, has problems with elevated targets and keeping fire on same target, can be easily made inoperable just by one HE shell hitting track (there is no need to penetrate it). Well, that gimmick is funny and can be deadly effective but only in special conditions, otherwise it's just a well made SPG.
Have you done any glancing hits with apfsds to the front of an is3 turret? I know it'll probably go right through but I wanna see if it can deflect it.
So here's an idea that may interest a few people, if possible could you save the damage from the previous hit and have another shell hit in the same General area? It may provide some odd results because the nearby armor is damaged now
How would the Strv fare against 105mm hesh from an L7? I’ve heard that higher angles tend to spread out the explosive more increasing its effectiveness. And if ever there was a slope to try it against. Well this would be it
Afaik it an angled plate would only increase hesh performance up to a point, with it "sliding off" at really steep angles like this. I also think the ribs would interfere with hesh quite heavily
Can cut rib at first time perpendicular to the round, and at the second time from angle to angle cut this cube ribs? Weight is lower, but effect think better
what stopped the swedes from giving this tank an extra thick front plate? why just 40mm? they could double that without any issues with mobility and the the tank would be impenetrable from the front
Tactical doctrine. This tank was intended to fight on mountainous region of Swede, where a lot of hills already provides significant protection. The tank's low profile allows it to crest on top of the hill while exposing only it's gun and vision port. They are meant for defensive battle without trading shots for prolonged amount of time. They would be camouflaged, ambush the enemy, retreat in reverse, and repeat on the next hill
It actually looks like the ribs are helping the projectile. It appears to be "ricocheting" downwards off the ribs on approach, helping it maintian a horizontal path for longer and penetrate deeper
I love strv103 one of the most under valuated tank 2 engine piston and turbine fast moving auto loader effective gun pocket size it is a killer far better than those 70tons monsters running today who cant cross any bridge or swamp without being stuck in.
For the era, it really was a great tank for Sweden. I think where it fall short compared to modern tanks is the fire control system and the loss of true fire on the move capabilities (although it was stabilized). Compared to it's contemporaries, that gap was much less evident since they couldn't all reliably hit targets while moving either, and the 103 could swing around quite quickly (As demonstrated by the Chieftain's hatch iirc).
Hard to believe that such thin armor would be able to stop such a large shell simply because of its slope. Would a HEAT or HESH round have performed better in this scenario?
Could you do a test on volumetric shells? Say a test where a APFSDS round gets caught by the upper front plate and the lower turret cheek of a tank? I want to send it to gaijin on how it's supposed to work. Thanks.
penetration is the act of digging into armour, so for example you can say it penetrated 200mm deep into the 300mm plate. Perforation is when a hole is broken through from front to back, such as "it perforated the plate" when it goes all the way through
I wonder why Sweden never thought about composite armour for the S Tank 🤔? Granted the S Tank isn't built for manoeuvring in combat as its gun is stabilised with the suspension but as a defensive asset it was great. Add composite armour (Modern NERA) to the upper glacis and maybe to foremost lower glacis, replace main gun with a RH L44 or L55
![[STOCK] Strv 103c Experience 🔥🔥🔥 UNIQUE moments HERE!!! (Just kidding it's a GRIND)](/img/1.gif)
The T-54's 3BM8 APDS round has an indentical core but slightly thinner steel body, fired at 1415m/s. So the simulation can also be viewed as the T-54 firing 3BM8 at the Strv from ~100m away.
But the likelihood that T-54 would get to Strv that close and doesn't miss is like somebody who doesn't know how to backflip does it on the first try, because of the way strv would be used tactically if USSR invades finland
@@analbumfromhell1842 sweden
@@squgieman Duck! I'm really rewarded🤦🏼
@@analbumfromhell1842 what reward did you get? 💀
Can you do soda can launched from a potato cannon into a vending machine? So perhaps soda can @600fps at some sheet metal?
The commentary and historical context is very helpful. While the simulation itself is beautiful to watch, the commentary shows why it's important. Thanks again!
It's incredible military vehicles were so advanced in 1967 meanwhile civilian cars had barely gotten power windows
Military-Industrial Complex is one hell of a drug.
Don't worry the Soviets won't have a toilet paper factory until two years later 😉
Who even needs to have a power windows it’s useless
@@me67galaxylife What?
@@aliuddinazfar3388 maybe in the US everybody has it, but not in the rest of the world... just take a manual window. also if he talked about cars... i mean sure powered windows in cars are nice, but it take 5 seconds to open it manually... it's not the end of the world
Officer: was the tank destroyed?
Tank crew: no….but the engine has about a dozen new inspection ports in it, and Gunnar shit his pants so hard he broke the drivers seat in half.
Technically though its destroyed. An Strv without an engine is like a human without limbs.
More like Gunar shat his pants...not a Gunter LOL
@@AKUJIVALDO close, but It should be Gunnar with two n. :-)
@@niksonrex88 I think they call that a 'mission kill'.
@@StefanGarvander Fixed!
Even with such a power full round the fact it shattered and mostly deflected goes to show just how effective extremely angled armor truly is against conventional ammunition.
@@petrkdn8224 it is said in the video that shot entered service in 1967.
@@OTOMAGIC whatd he say
It can angle even more to because of its suspension. Earning it the nickname “dancing cheese wedge” amongst war thunder players
and stupid the overmatch system on WoT ruins it.
@@noir2559 To be fair, there is a good chance the spalling would kill the crew.
Perfect demonstartion how thin plates with steep angles can bounce even stupid big shells.
Tho Crew would still definietly have significant emotional event from feeling that hit.
Its a subcaliber round. the core is 50mm, not near the 122mm gun caliber, so it doesn't demonstrate that at all.
Well underneath that plate there is nothing but engine so the crew would probably just hear a huge bang and be completely fine. Hell, even the tank itself may still be fully operational depending on what that shrapnel ends up striking.
The engine and powerpack is in the very front
The crew are in the very end of the tank and even if it did make it the spall would have to go through around 5mms of extra armour which is between the engine compartment and the crew compartment
@@nex865 I thought the fighting compartment was surrounded by like 25mm of armour?
@@RaDeus87 i dont correctly remember the amount of armour which isolates powerpack from the crew compartment but i do know its more than enough to stop spall
Ammo: Im gonna penetrate
Also ammo: I changed my mind.
While the shell might have bounced, it is a pants-soiling close call.
@@LazyLifeIFreak I know right xd
@@LazyLifeIFreak don't forget the vehicle positioning, it can be that the t54 fires from an top of an hill down at it
@@LazyLifeIFreak Its 100m distance... so its hardly pants-soiling situation because Swedish tank would be able to make few nice holes in the enemmy tank before it would be able to make this huge dent in its armor.
@@LazyLifeIFreak 😂😂
I really love that you started to add historical context and general discussion about the armor and projectiles and "what we actually see"
Love the added historical context.
A "from commander gunner/driver" point of view would be nice with Strv-103 diagrams. Likely offering very little, it might put a nice example on why the 'ribbing' of the front plate is so helpful to prevent ricochets bouncing right into the viewport.
Those videos are really improving my WT knowledge! Thank you so much! I would love to see a Video about 120MM HE shells vs T-14 Armata.
Could you show some elements of the Chieftain against various common kinetic threats it would have faced early on? I'm curious to see if the left and right turret front have any noticeable differences in protection as well
Love your videos! Crazy to see the penetration without the slat armour in place x
That's a quick round! Love your channel!
Will you possibly do naval armour and guns in the future? I would love to see a 6lb molins equipped Tsetse Mosquito or various ships deck guns and torpedoes against different ship armour.
I mean T-10 is a tank from the 50's.
Yes but the apds round entered service in 1967, as the video states, the same year as the strv entered service
The gun on the T-10M is different then the one on the earlier variants. Still a 122mm but higher pressure.
As a T-10M, i can confirm this.
These are always a great watch. Always been an interest of mine. Thank you.
Hi. you have best simulations mate :)
Can we get a simulation of a shot right to the pointy tip of the dancing cheese wedge?
Oh yes would be soo cool
Interesting to keep in mind that from a greater distance it could penetrate it fully thanks to the shell trajectory.
That's true as long as the S tank is unaware of the threat, if the strv is aiming at the t-10 the entire tank would be tilted somewhat upwards resulting in a similar situation to the video.
Also the increased range would reduce the potential penetration
Could you simulate FV4005 vs IS3? I'm curious what would happen if such huge HESH hit the driver's hatch or the turret roof
I would love to see a hit on that pike nose too
He already did that with a T-54 though, what's the point in doing it against another similarly armored russian tank when there's tons of other more interesting simulations to be done?
@@rifraf276 the turret roof of the IS-3 seems kind of different to me than the turret front of the T-54. Also more like what's the point of not doing it
@@alexthegreat5009 If it goes straight through the upper hull of a T-54 then it will definitely go through the turret roof of an IS-3, just like it would go through its upper hull.
The reason to not do it is that it takes like a day of computing time to make each one of these simulations so it would be a waste to do something so similar to what has already been done.
Here I am, in my bed at 1am watching tank penetration videos while I should sleep to write my bachelor thesis the next day
Love the T10m!!! One of my favorite tanks!! J
2nd time in the same spot, and you got him!
I wonder how T-10Ms' full caliber AP round, BR-472, would perform? It has much less penetration against flat armor, but it's freakishly heavy which certainly helps against strongly sloped armor.
On the other channel, via simulation 103B stopped IS-7 130mm APCBC round
The ribbed armor seems brilliant tbh. The added resistance seems to increase the upwards angling of the projectiles.
An idea for one of your future simulations: 2pdr "Littlejohn" APCNR against Tiger II turret side armour.
I do indeed want to do the little John round... will get to it eventually :)
@@SYsimulations Wait, I have a better idea: as we know (or rather, were being told) the curved pieces of armour resist incoming shells better than flat ones of the same thickness.
Perhaps you could demonstrate this in detail: an AP/APC shell hitting a curved(or even better, a doubly curved piece, like the hemispherical part of the turret front on JS-2) by a shell at an angle where it's supposed to penetrate a flat piece of armour of the same thickness at the same angle, and compare it with a simulation of such.
That angle is straight up cursed, useful but cursed.
Also regardless of survival the next thing the crew hears will be the horn on judgement day.
Мне интересно на сколько прогнулась бы плита в реальности. Эта симуляция на крошечном листе металла, который абсолютно неподвижно закреплен в воздухе.
I agree with you! But the great problem is that it not used almost anymore live rounds on new tanks. Generally they are using only simulated shots but will never be accurate enough to check if the armour will be strong enough. In my view this has happened when the Turkish army used their Leopard 2 against the rebels and found out they they were using rounds that penetrated those tanks created a diplomatic row between Germany and Turkey. But it was a flaw that it could have been avoided if the Germans used real ammo until they destroyed the tank. This is my opinion....
А толку если он сравнивает снаряды и броню между которыми 10 лет, а с современными Стрв реальными для неё противниками не сравнивает. С таким успехом можно ещё с пантерой сравнить или с Pz 3.
Ну и если пару градусов сверху, соответственно больше нормализация, можеть быть и пробило
Симуляции на этом канале традиционно ничего общего с реальностью не имеют, у него форма подкалиберного снаряда (3бм) - аналогична бронебойной болванке БР. Нормализации нет, корпус не учитывается, ребра почему-то имеют прочность одинаковую с твердосплавным колпачком снаряда (приваривают ребра вольфрам к стали как и чем?) это все в реальности невозможно
@@deus3xmachina да и как такая болванка просто так может отскочить?
Can you do a tandem warhead? Or simulation with Javelin proved unfixable?
Javelin causes a supernova explosion
HEAT in general take SOOOOOOOOOOO much processing power, and you want two of the with a delay inbetween in the same simulation, yeah no that isnt going to happen.
Surprisingly effective.
You don't discuss afterwards the effect of the spall. It was marginal but it was there. At least it would cause eye injuries if unshielded, yes? In general, or invariably, do all tanks use spall liners and are they equal to said threat? If you would detail that in future it would at a moderate benefit at hopefully small cost.
Apologies, it was mentioned in the previous strv video that there is an engine and a decently thick spall shield between the armour and the crew. The spalling from this impact would not penetrate the shield and would probably do nothing to the engine either
@@SYsimulations thank you, sorry for not keeping up with all of your content, there is so much of everything nowadays, even your excellent stuff has biters.
All these simulations have taught me is that the Stridvagn 103 is one of the most overpowered tanks of its time.
How would the ribbed armour of the 103 impact the performance of a HESH round like the 120mm L31A7 of the Chieftain?
These videos are very informal. You should try fictional armor.
That explains the tutorial or guidelines about STRV 103s must avoid engaging tanks with 122mm (World of Tanks/War Thunder)
This shit really is dangerous
Neat, I was the only one to guess it right
The little ribs seem to help. Clever little touch in the armor design that is essentially free.
Interesting tidbit, when they tested the tank they found that after shell impacts, even non-pens, the bolt that locked the engine hatches in place tended to sheer off. So they needed to devise a way to strengthen the hatches so this wouldn't happen. For this they tested 2 solutions. Simply increasing the armour thickness to 50mm and keeping it the same but adding the engine ribs. They found the engine ribs were much more effective in strengthening the hatches and keeping bolts from sheering off while also being a lot lighter than simply making the whole plate thicker.
And that's the primary reason for the engine ribs existence. Not as a shrapnel shield, not to give it more armour, but to strengthen the hatches structurally. The rest was just an additional bonus.
Out of curiosity, what software are you using for the simulations
I think he is using ansys
Do a simulation HEAT/HESH vs STRV-103 frontal protective grid
It's always those damn thin angled armor
Excellent content as always. Could you please also do the British L15? It would be a nice complement to the former L52 simulation.
Hello Sy Simulation! Can tou make a video to how is your setting to making this ? Please
Can you make each simulation view a bit longer? Its hard to read the description in full and see the simulation. Cheers!
I really like your simulations :)
Would you consider doing one with a mine or a railgun shot, in the future?
Would also love to see a simulation of hit to the ammo storage, if possible.
Should also consider doing a simulation of Anakin's hit to the Death Star and me throwing a rock (85mm, 14m/s) at your window (2mm at 10°).
the strv103 is literally designed to be as annoying as possible to fight
Question: at the ranges used for the simulation, wouldn't the round be dropping to its target? Does this get modeled? Just curious as it was so close to penetrating.
I had the same exact thought
This is accounted for. Notice the video says "impact at 77.7°" meaning the round was modeled with a 0.3° drop
It's included as 0.3°, which isn't much but it only flies for
@@SYsimulations снаряд, отклоняющийся на 5 метров вниз, прилетает по броне сверху, чего вы никогда не понимали. Не параллельно, как у вас. Сверху, с углом в 1-3 градуса, если посмотреть баллистические таблицы.
Анекдотическая ситуация, надо было ещё занизить точку попадания, как будет выстрел присиходит снизу. Вы не знаете геометрии, видимо.
Thanks for the info guys, much appreciated
Sadly the rotation was not included in the simulation
Te vídeo es muy buena
Would it be possible to make hypothetical rounds as in
How would a kwk 43 8.8cm l71 fare against a T54 or Centurion using a hypothetical apds round.
Just out of curiosity because certain haves like to put German tanks against early cold war era tanks without showing the German tanks the benefit of modern rounds
Considering that the engine is housed below the sloped part, it wouldn't have any significant impact toward the crew or especially vulnerable parts of the vehicle with whatever shrapneling made it through
Does anyone know what programs are used by all these different RUclipsrs that make these videos? I can never get an answer out of anybody and I wanna do my own tests and simulations.
Its ansys :)
Next, do the Jadgtiger 128mm gun
Relative armor thicknes is less than 200mm.
Raw thickes vs extreme slope, the difference is quite surprising.
320mm of penetration fails to pen "200mm".
320mm Is the amount of penetration at 500metres, at 1.2 km it is even less but the main thing here is the impact angle which completely shits on the shells penetration capability.
Can you model HEAT rounds?
Seemig how this tank had no combat proper experience it did quite well here
That software looks awesome! Do you know where I can find it?
Love these gamer talks about sheer potency of strv 103. Basically it's one purpose armoured self propelled gun (not tank), that is suitable only for ambush. It cannot support infantry properly, cant attack cities or fortified positions, has problems with elevated targets and keeping fire on same target, can be easily made inoperable just by one HE shell hitting track (there is no need to penetrate it). Well, that gimmick is funny and can be deadly effective but only in special conditions, otherwise it's just a well made SPG.
Can you simulate its HEAT round vs this armour?
Have you done any glancing hits with apfsds to the front of an is3 turret? I know it'll probably go right through but I wanna see if it can deflect it.
Can you do the lower frontal plate of the 103 as well?
So here's an idea that may interest a few people, if possible could you save the damage from the previous hit and have another shell hit in the same General area? It may provide some odd results because the nearby armor is damaged now
How would the Strv fare against 105mm hesh from an L7? I’ve heard that higher angles tend to spread out the explosive more increasing its effectiveness. And if ever there was a slope to try it against. Well this would be it
Afaik it an angled plate would only increase hesh performance up to a point, with it "sliding off" at really steep angles like this. I also think the ribs would interfere with hesh quite heavily
Can you do the same simulation but with chieftain's APDS?
The most powerful soviet 122mm APDS VS the most powerful NATO 120mm APDS.
125mm
Can cut rib at first time perpendicular to the round, and at the second time from angle to angle cut this cube ribs? Weight is lower, but effect think better
what stopped the swedes from giving this tank an extra thick front plate? why just 40mm? they could double that without any issues with mobility and the the tank would be impenetrable from the front
Tactical doctrine. This tank was intended to fight on mountainous region of Swede, where a lot of hills already provides significant protection. The tank's low profile allows it to crest on top of the hill while exposing only it's gun and vision port. They are meant for defensive battle without trading shots for prolonged amount of time. They would be camouflaged, ambush the enemy, retreat in reverse, and repeat on the next hill
It actually looks like the ribs are helping the projectile. It appears to be "ricocheting" downwards off the ribs on approach, helping it maintian a horizontal path for longer and penetrate deeper
I love strv103 one of the most under valuated tank 2 engine piston and turbine fast moving auto loader effective gun pocket size it is a killer far better than those 70tons monsters running today who cant cross any bridge or swamp without being stuck in.
For the era, it really was a great tank for Sweden. I think where it fall short compared to modern tanks is the fire control system and the loss of true fire on the move capabilities (although it was stabilized). Compared to it's contemporaries, that gap was much less evident since they couldn't all reliably hit targets while moving either, and the 103 could swing around quite quickly (As demonstrated by the Chieftain's hatch iirc).
At that kind of range the projectile would impact at a slightly downward angle due to the parabolic trajectory.
It's already included but its extremely small because it falls for
@@SYsimulations Oh. I assumed it would be like 2-3 degrees, which might be more visible.
I would love to see the effect of a tiny tim rocket with its armor piercing capabilities and huge explosive warhead.
What if it was facing some form of autocannon?
Yes that would be cool, maybe the gun of a bmp-2
Interesting, it looks like APDS does better than APFSDS against this armor?
No, 3bm9 apfsds is still more effective
would those ribs be more effective if they ware loose?
how would it change if the ribs are actually welded instead? will it penetrate?
Hard to believe that such thin armor would be able to stop such a large shell simply because of its slope. Would a HEAT or HESH round have performed better in this scenario?
Well the shell is only ~60mm diameter and heat may do better but hesh probably wouldn't
@@SYsimulations Ok, thanks!
That would definitely scare the crew.
Shell: "missed it by thaaaat much"
Cold War goes hot in 1967 alternative history!
I would like to see this round shot against the M1 hull armor array. I imagine that it would make a decent dent.
i love your work man, thanks for the content. can you make a javalin vs t-72? it would be pretty cool :) thanks again
Ears would be bleeding after that shot is imagine.
Since these were made to fight soviet heavy tanks that's a pretty good result
I've always wondered what APFSDS from this gun would have performed like.
had it stayed in service longer that may have become a reality.
identical to the Leopard 1 and other western tanks with the L7 105mm cannon
Most tanks today use smoothbore 120mm which nearly identical in size just not rifled
@@destrylett1619 the chamber pressures and the velocity of the rounds on the 120mm are also higher than the 105mm
@@destrylett1619 yeah I'm well aware
@@thesayxx i would argue more analogous to British 120mm rifles
Wait, how do the STRV ribs work?
What if the M1A2 put those rips on its upper plate?
Where is the detonation of the projectile?
Could you do a test on volumetric shells? Say a test where a APFSDS round gets caught by the upper front plate and the lower turret cheek of a tank? I want to send it to gaijin on how it's supposed to work. Thanks.
So close ... Although, it seems to me that if the projectile had flown a little higher, by 2 degrees, the fragments would have flown inside.
Can you add the bar armour or is it too far away from the main plates?
I'll do one with the bars in the future :)
Upon impact, the crew went to full "Brown Alert" ^_^
The tank crew suddenly turned into a helicopter crew and had a "brownout"
what is the name of the program in which it works?
even if spalling does enter the tank the spalling shield will block it.
Can I ask you something? You don't need to answer. Where do you come from?
Uk :)
I suppose it will also bend the armor around inward and simply break it with the second hit
What is the difference between penetration and perforation?
penetration is the act of digging into armour, so for example you can say it penetrated 200mm deep into the 300mm plate. Perforation is when a hole is broken through from front to back, such as "it perforated the plate" when it goes all the way through
I wonder why Sweden never thought about composite armour for the S Tank 🤔? Granted the S Tank isn't built for manoeuvring in combat as its gun is stabilised with the suspension but as a defensive asset it was great. Add composite armour (Modern NERA) to the upper glacis and maybe to foremost lower glacis, replace main gun with a RH L44 or L55
I did think the IS-9 would do more demage
what do those ribs do?
They are made to stop spalling/shrapnell from going into the optics/view ports
А почему у вас снаряд попадает в брон не по парабалической траектории? Ведь таким образом наклон брони был бы частично нивелирован.