For anyone waiting on an April fools video like last year's "Tiger II vs Bob Semple", it's coming soon ;) Teaser: ruclips.net/channel/UCxV8JseLCWxRwLVd1ykivvgcommunity?pvf=CAI%253D Tiger II vs Bob Semple: ruclips.net/video/c5NnEWLn5bw/видео.html&ab_channel=SYSimulations
thing is that your simulations don't take into account the explosive filler inside the shells. and, yes, it does change the results a lot, because as you may MAYBE know, most explosives are not as rigid or anywhere close as rigid as the metals used in tank shells. they also don't take into account the HE fuse or "trigger", which would eventually detonate the ammo even if it didn't reach the other side of the armor. your videos are fine in general, but it does provide some short of "misinformation".
Pretty understandable results, 250m is exceptionally close range and is a perfectly 'head on' hit. Against the 76mm Russian cannon it would've been basically immune frontally.
Can sorta see how modern sabot rounds work in this one. Front breaks but the rear of the shell keeps going. Mostly because armor was thin but still... You could see the possible advantage of long rod ammo for penetrating armor
A couple videos back, SY did a late Cold War APFSDS rod, and it didn't deviate, giving maximum results. The tip breaking off is a very bad thing for rods. The physics for one type of ammo usually doesn't translate, and seemingly counterintuitive developments increases pen like telescoping rods. I highly recommend the game Gunner, Heat PC as it does quick and dirty version of SY sim's. You will be surprised what doesn't penetrates due to critical angles and how Textolite/angle HEAT defences work. The BMP 1 is surprisingly durable, from certain angles. Naturally tank like Abrams the protection is top secret, it is modelled as a "Special armour array". It also shows the channels "Spall, crew dead" is such an annoying meme as location of the hit is far more important than simple penetration. Dart flies through tank hitting nothing of importance.
The real problem with using APFSDS on such thin armour is that it will poke 2 holes with minimal spalling in a very tight cone and that's pretty much it. Not all fragments are equal either. It's why HEAT is use against thin armour like APC/IFV. There are plenty of real life examples of hits by EFP or APFSDS with the crew perfectly fine despite the meme of "Spalling" especially in thin skin. If your APFSDS is disintegrating after entering a space, you are doing it wrong. Earlier video has an APFSDS wreaked by spaced armour. Disrupting the rod is how active/ERA can provide protection.
Would be interesting to compare the model with the different penetration standards, for example the 50% / 75% penetration with intact shell at the specified plate thickness and hardness.
@@SYsimulations Yeah, and also how you could have a hit that's officially "not a penetration" but still rather deadly to the crew inside, say armor 10-20mm thicker than the official pen spec and not fulfilling the requirements but still throwing lots of spall / fragments into the crew compartment. Well this simulation is a good example of that too
the soviets didnt have the metallurgy required to make harder projectiles, thats why they had to increase calibre to achieve the same pentration as german or american counterparts (mostly german) plugging vs ductile hole penetration
@@Simon-vv3kl actually Germany used a lot of France's metallurgy for these rounds, as the country had superior foundry back then. Under occupation, germany made sure factories for theses worked 24/7
I would like to see more "Non penetrations" for the times when armour over matched ammo or when an upgrade failed. As well as more typical distances rather than tank equivalent of point-blank as it doesn't show the rational of the designers.
@@dimushka383 Depends on the vehicle. A Tiger has enough space for people to survive. Otto Carius almost died many times even in a Panzer 38 but it didn't hurt him really bad
@@thiagorodrigues5211 Have you seen the simulation? This is not a through penetration, this is a penetration with a cloud of fragments. Everything inside the tank will be cut.
The round was so damaged while penetrated the armor, I guess that the explosives wouldn't go off. But still extremely lethal for the front crew member of the tank.
Would be cool to have a video a bit longer but also showing with a different angle to show different results. Not complaining, a small sugestion, i still like the videos
I think the Hetzer could kill the T-34-85 and it was much lower and smaller target, chances are the Hetzer gets off the first shot. The Hetzer would be safe at 500m and if it was sideways just 10 degrees would likely be safe.
@@williamzk9083 I calculate about 1000 meters or a little less each AFV taking the other out. I'm not sure angling would help due to the Hetzer's bad side armor, and the T-34/85 can play that game better than the Hetzer. While the Hetzer might indeed get the first shot, the T-34/85's rounded mantlet would be a tough target for the Pak40 (or should be if modeled correctly). The thinner hull could be more easily penetrated out to like 1000 meters (based on normalized Aberdeen data). Soviet data showed more T-34/85s were in fact lost to hull hits than by turret hits, as the hull by 1945 was just too thin---which was why the "T-34/85M" was contemplated, which upped the hull armor from 45 mm to 65 mm, 70 mm, or 75 mm. Prototypes were built and they looked promising, passing mobility tests, but by this time the uparmored T-34/85M was competing with the T-44 project, so nothing ended up being done. I think that was a mistake, as a T-34/85M with even a 65 mm hull would have been an extremely tough target for the ubiquitous 75 mm PaK40, which was really the most likely gun it would ever face.
It's not a question of if SY can. An early video did HESH. Chemical energy rounds(HEAT/HESH/HE) are rarely done as fluid dynamics require too much compute. SY lowers the resolution a lot, monolithic plates, deletes material, skips the HE filler to keep compute time reasonable.
An except from a report...." The frontal armour can be described as sufficient and reliable against impacts. Even at very short distances, shells fired by 7.62 cm anti-tank guns failed to penetrate it. The side armour is weak but adequate against shells fired by anti-tank rifles and against shrapnel. On one vehicle, the welds on the frontal plates were torn off due to impacts, which indicates either a defect in the material or faulty welding work." There are other combat reports stating the ineffectiveness of Soviet 7,62 gunfire against the frontal armor.
whats the different between BR-365K & BR-365A? in warthunder BR-365A is performed better against angled Tiger tank. i would like to see that if its true in the simulation
@@peasant8246 Isn't spaced armor pretty much always better? That is what I have seen in these sims. Pretty much the only downside is it takes up more space.
The Crew of the hetzer is lined up behind the driver so if u hit the Tank on the front left, the driver would almost certainly be dead, the other two at least Injured.
Well, I guess the idea of a hetzer was more like not getting hit in the first place. Sitting in that thing and waiting for a T34 - or IS on a bad day - to get close enough for your rather modest 75mm...must have been an emotional experience. Behind a PAK you can at least run away...
With ballistic cap it would have punched through intact enough for the HE fuse to detonate. The entire crew would be Swiss cheese. Either way, driver is not having a good day
The vast majority of SY's sims are at tank's version of point-blank, so it's no surprise there are so many penetrations. The set-ups favour the attacker a lot.
0.34 "The Hetzer was better protected from the front than the Tiger, thanks to the sloping". That seems unlikely, unless the extra angle over the Panther really made a disproportionate difference... The Tiger I armour had a unique (and expensive) heat treatment that defeated one Sherman 75 mm shell at literally point-blank range (under 30 m, if memory serves). It was equivalent to more than other contemporary plates. It might be true the Panther glacis was better than the Tiger I (despite the Panther's inferior heat treatment to the Tiger I, being similar to Tiger II), but the Hetzer was 20 mm thinner than that, and also had the "cheaper" heat treatment, just like all other German tanks.
@@peasant8246 Hunnicut's chart has most 75 mm AP and APC rounds penetrate between 60 mm to 73 mm of 30 degree face-hardened armour at 500 yards. Maybe they might penetrate the Hetzer under 200? HVAP would have been 116 mm at 500, but with very limited availability from September 1944 only (only for 76 mm I think, and apparently only given to TDs!). One of the rarely mentioned aspects of HVAP was its accuracy was dreadful. So what it could do on paper was not that great in reality. I did read the US 76 mm AP round out-performed the Russian 85 mm by a significant margin, which surprised me, as the 85 mm is similar in gun ballistics to the Tiger I's 88 (similar to Flak 18), both having about 800-850 m/s. The Tiger I round must have been much better... Tiger II was 1000 to 1100 m/s, and had supposedly the same penetration at 2 km than the Tiger I did at 0(!)... The Panther gun was only slightly better than the Tiger I, so if this is true, the Tiger II was really a massive step up.
60mm @60° has a Line of Sight thickness of 120mm, the Tiger I had 102mm @9° which is a LoS thickness of 103mm. The Tiger also didn't have face hardening and was RHA as well. 120mm>103mm, and that's just LoS, slope modifiers will make it even more effective
@@SYsimulations From what I remember reading in one WWII test (possibly German?), sloping increases effectiveness until the shell diameter gets close to the plate's thickness (at or over 80-90%), at which point the plate sloping quickly loses its effectiveness, to the point the plate becomes no more, or less effective than at 0 degrees. I vaguely remember some shearing effect being mentioned... Here I will quote a post on Reddit mentioning a possible similar effect in a US test (not sure): "However, I've since been show a declassified study on slope multipliers done by the US Army (I assume at around the time of the war or shortly after, its code is AD309986 for whoever is interested) and it contradicts WW2B. It looks at the penetrative capabilities of the 3" M79 AP projectile against various T/D ratios and slopes. Here's a chart I took from it with some comments by me: i.imgur.com/2LzyeYa.png (EDIT: chart context: M is projectile mass in pounds, v is limit velocity to pass fully through the plate, o is obliquity to flight, e is plate thickness and d projectile diameter in inches.) I took one example, a T/D ratio of 0.5 and 45°. LOS for 45° would be 1.41 times the thickness at 0°. A rough estimate based on the WW2B charts suggests a modifier of around 1.6 instead. But Fig.2 from AD309986 suggests that with these parameters, the plate would perform worse than the equivalent thickness at 0°, so somewhere under 1.41."
@@wrathofatlantis2316 Quite right. But here we are talking about a 60mm plate at 60° against a 76mm shell (T/D ratio of 0,79). As you can see from the chart as the T/D ratio gets over 0,5 the effective thickness at 60° obliquity becomes greater than that of equivalent LoS thickness at 0°, so we can be quite sure that the resistance of Hetzer's UFP against 76mm APCBC shells will be higher than 120mm/0°, perhaps somewhere around 140mm/0°. Such target is outside the penetration capabilities of the US 76mm gun credited with penetration of 5in.(127mm)/0° at 100yards (Terminal Ballistics Vol.III).
I don't get why the German produced hetzer in 1944, I think it was a bit too late for war on the eastern front considering Soviet already built high calibers gun
Could you ever make a video about the Ukrainian ERA "Nizh"? I think it will be interesting Many people say that this is one of the most effective ERA against APFSDS, I would like to see it in your simulation
Leopard 2A4 LFP/UFP with Ukrainian improvised Kontakt-1 array or Leopard 2A4 turret front/side with improvised K-1 array 30°-60° impact angle, your choice of Russian APFSDS-T.
Это идеальные условия,в реале к 1944 году немцев отрезали от источников никеля и вольфрама,как следствие броня на всей вновь выпущенной бронетехнике просто лопалась,как стекло
Хетзер была многочисленная и очень удачная машина, пожалуй самая удачная в фашистской Германии. Пожалуй только в ней (вместе с какой нибудь пантерой) броне листы были наклонены, профиль низкий, попасть сложно, пушка мощная. Покажите как они по самому массовому советскому 34 били, учитывая более ранние годы появления Хетзер по сравнению с 34
Hetzer gets armor layout perfectly right, though. Since it's a defensive vehicle, hanging out in rear or laying in ambush, it only needs enough armor on sides and rear to protect its crew from artillery blindly pounding into your side of no-mans land.
Not at all, the designers aren't that flippant or follow some universal doctrine. There are plenty that are designed with thick armour like the American T28, Elephant, jeagar tiger/panther. The sim doesn't take into account of how the tank is used like how hull down can reach critical angles causing deflection of the shell, as well as being fired point-blank, usually against later systems like the T34/85. SY sims heavily favour the attacker too much, although it is understandable. For some TD/SPG fast reverse gear is the primary protection, some having less armour to reverse faster.
@@oohhboy-funhouse,Yes, there were such self-propelled guns as the ISU-152 or Ferdinand, but the tactics of using such machines are very different from the tank
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
For anyone waiting on an April fools video like last year's "Tiger II vs Bob Semple", it's coming soon ;)
Teaser: ruclips.net/channel/UCxV8JseLCWxRwLVd1ykivvgcommunity?pvf=CAI%253D
Tiger II vs Bob Semple: ruclips.net/video/c5NnEWLn5bw/видео.html&ab_channel=SYSimulations
Hey what engine do you use to make these simulations? I would love to make my own
But shouldn't the chamber projectile explode after breaking through?
also BR365A has more penetration at corners
thing is that your simulations don't take into account the explosive filler inside the shells. and, yes, it does change the results a lot, because as you may MAYBE know, most explosives are not as rigid or anywhere close as rigid as the metals used in tank shells. they also don't take into account the HE fuse or "trigger", which would eventually detonate the ammo even if it didn't reach the other side of the armor. your videos are fine in general, but it does provide some short of "misinformation".
maybe a chain track and safe
Task failed successfully by the rounds breaking up but by doing so, becoming more effective penetrators.
hahah yep
"If you strike me down I will become more powerful than you can ever immagine."
More effective spalling*
soviet engineering lol
It's neat how it almost deflects the round. A more gentle angle definitely would've done the job.
Pretty understandable results, 250m is exceptionally close range and is a perfectly 'head on' hit.
Against the 76mm Russian cannon it would've been basically immune frontally.
I would say at 250m the 76 might still have a chance
definitely!
@@ZayP730
Its 120mm LOS thickness, that's hard to punch through by a weapon which cannot penetrate 80mm flat armor.
@@ThatZenoGuy you dont need to fully penetrate armor to do damage and it also depends on the angle it would be hit at
@@ZayP730 Against the UFP? No
Can sorta see how modern sabot rounds work in this one. Front breaks but the rear of the shell keeps going. Mostly because armor was thin but still... You could see the possible advantage of long rod ammo for penetrating armor
A couple videos back, SY did a late Cold War APFSDS rod, and it didn't deviate, giving maximum results. The tip breaking off is a very bad thing for rods. The physics for one type of ammo usually doesn't translate, and seemingly counterintuitive developments increases pen like telescoping rods.
I highly recommend the game Gunner, Heat PC as it does quick and dirty version of SY sim's. You will be surprised what doesn't penetrates due to critical angles and how Textolite/angle HEAT defences work. The BMP 1 is surprisingly durable, from certain angles. Naturally tank like Abrams the protection is top secret, it is modelled as a "Special armour array". It also shows the channels "Spall, crew dead" is such an annoying meme as location of the hit is far more important than simple penetration. Dart flies through tank hitting nothing of importance.
@@oohhboy-funhouse it will disintegrate which will mince the crew of the target
The real problem with using APFSDS on such thin armour is that it will poke 2 holes with minimal spalling in a very tight cone and that's pretty much it. Not all fragments are equal either. It's why HEAT is use against thin armour like APC/IFV. There are plenty of real life examples of hits by EFP or APFSDS with the crew perfectly fine despite the meme of "Spalling" especially in thin skin.
If your APFSDS is disintegrating after entering a space, you are doing it wrong. Earlier video has an APFSDS wreaked by spaced armour. Disrupting the rod is how active/ERA can provide protection.
Interesting
Would be interesting to compare the model with the different penetration standards, for example the 50% / 75% penetration with intact shell at the specified plate thickness and hardness.
Good idea, explaining the difference between army, navy and protection criteria as well
@@SYsimulations Yeah, and also how you could have a hit that's officially "not a penetration" but still rather deadly to the crew inside, say armor 10-20mm thicker than the official pen spec and not fulfilling the requirements but still throwing lots of spall / fragments into the crew compartment.
Well this simulation is a good example of that too
Love the info you add into the playback and analysis!
This is why even a partial penetration can be lethal to at least some of the crew, even if the vehicle itself survives.
It's interesting to me that soviet shells were soft, while their armour plate on the T-34 was over-hardened.
the soviets didnt have the metallurgy required to make harder projectiles, thats why they had to increase calibre to achieve the same pentration as german or american counterparts (mostly german) plugging vs ductile hole penetration
@@Simon-vv3kl Why just German and US?
@@tommeakin1732 sorry, i forgot to include the british
@@Simon-vv3kl actually Germany used a lot of France's metallurgy for these rounds, as the country had superior foundry back then. Under occupation, germany made sure factories for theses worked 24/7
@@Simon-vv3kl
The German PzGr39 proved superior to the American and British rounds, with exceptional performance against most targets.
I would like to see more "Non penetrations" for the times when armour over matched ammo or when an upgrade failed. As well as more typical distances rather than tank equivalent of point-blank as it doesn't show the rational of the designers.
For tanks of the Second World War, this is the most working distance.
Now imagine 3 people in the hetzer sat in line. That would ruin their day right...
With a shot like that, it doesn't matter where they sit. Everything and people and equipment would be cut.
@@dimushka383 Depends on the vehicle. A Tiger has enough space for people to survive. Otto Carius almost died many times even in a Panzer 38 but it didn't hurt him really bad
@@thiagorodrigues5211 Have you seen the simulation? This is not a through penetration, this is a penetration with a cloud of fragments. Everything inside the tank will be cut.
@@dimushka383 Did you read Otto Carius book? That's exactly what happened to those czech tanks
@@dimushka383 Otto Carius even mentions that the worst wasn't the shell but the amount of spalling from the brittle armor.
Вы забыли про слой грязи и пыли, он бы наверняка не дал снаряду пробить броню
The round was so damaged while penetrated the armor, I guess that the explosives wouldn't go off. But still extremely lethal for the front crew member of the tank.
Obviously. that everyone will die. and en only the front. Armor probitta, fragments scattered throughout the volume.
7,5 cm Hetzer Main Gun vs Sowjet IS-2 and American Pershing Armor
uh German bias Gaijin? Even with APHEBC, it doesn't pen in WT wtf?
The rent free sabo at the end to let us know what peak performance looks like
Would be cool to have a video a bit longer but also showing with a different angle to show different results. Not complaining, a small sugestion, i still like the videos
It would be great to compare guns in the same situation. I mean shots from F-34, ZiS-3, M1, M3, PaK40, QF 75mm
Wouldn't the shell drop make it easier at long ranges?
Nope, the velocity drop would counteract any benefits from the drop
Yeah, that poor Hetzer stood no chance at such a close range.
I think the Hetzer could kill the T-34-85 and it was much lower and smaller target, chances are the Hetzer gets off the first shot. The Hetzer would be safe at 500m and if it was sideways just 10 degrees would likely be safe.
@@williamzk9083 I calculate about 1000 meters or a little less each AFV taking the other out. I'm not sure angling would help due to the Hetzer's bad side armor, and the T-34/85 can play that game better than the Hetzer.
While the Hetzer might indeed get the first shot, the T-34/85's rounded mantlet would be a tough target for the Pak40 (or should be if modeled correctly). The thinner hull could be more easily penetrated out to like 1000 meters (based on normalized Aberdeen data). Soviet data showed more T-34/85s were in fact lost to hull hits than by turret hits, as the hull by 1945 was just too thin---which was why the "T-34/85M" was contemplated, which upped the hull armor from 45 mm to 65 mm, 70 mm, or 75 mm. Prototypes were built and they looked promising, passing mobility tests, but by this time the uparmored T-34/85M was competing with the T-44 project, so nothing ended up being done.
I think that was a mistake, as a T-34/85M with even a 65 mm hull would have been an extremely tough target for the ubiquitous 75 mm PaK40, which was really the most likely gun it would ever face.
I wonder if having explosive filler vs. having it omitted changes the on-impact breakup at all.
I think the effect would be negligible personally
please add a real speed option at the end so we can not only see the slow process but also see this destruction happen in real time
Watching SY Simulations videos twice, once to look at the simulation and second time to read all the text
88 KwK 36 Tiger I vs IS-3 Armor
Aside from shot-traps and potential weld-breakage, not going to penetrate.
Projectile literally split in two
Front flew away while the back did successfully made a hole
but would the shell still detonate after disintegrating like that
Absolutely beautiful 👍
Wouldnt the Tiger I still with 100mm of armor have a higher Brinell hardness and overall more durablilty than 60mm sloped armor?
Wonder at what range the armor could mostly prevent perforation.
Do a stone ball shot from a bombard vs a panzer 2
I'd like to see this the other way around.. so the 75mm of the Hetzer against a T-34-85..
Sturmtiger vs T-34 front armor pls
The hetzer wasn't made from RHA I think I was just regular steel so it's more like 30mm compared to RHA source Hilary Doyle
You can make this summation with br365a for comparison?
What about some Hesh vs bunker?
How would this look like at the range of 1000m?
Is there anyway you can simulate HESH?
It's not a question of if SY can. An early video did HESH. Chemical energy rounds(HEAT/HESH/HE) are rarely done as fluid dynamics require too much compute. SY lowers the resolution a lot, monolithic plates, deletes material, skips the HE filler to keep compute time reasonable.
What about BR-365A with a stub nose?
Modern tanks are often equipped with spall protection. Kevlar screens inside of a tank as far as i know.
Can you do the Conway HESH vs the same hetzer?
So... confirmed kill or what? What was the speed of the shrapnels?
An except from a report...." The frontal armour can be described as sufficient and reliable against impacts. Even at very short distances, shells fired by 7.62 cm anti-tank guns failed to penetrate it. The side armour is weak but adequate against shells fired by anti-tank rifles and against shrapnel. On one vehicle, the welds on the frontal plates were torn off due to impacts, which indicates either a defect in the material or faulty welding work."
There are other combat reports stating the ineffectiveness of Soviet 7,62 gunfire against the frontal armor.
This is an 85mm
How different would it be using 85mm APCR rounds?
I wonder what a high amount of brittle projectile moving at like 1km/s would do.
It would shred a man
Does this hurt the Hetzer?
whats the different between BR-365K & BR-365A?
in warthunder BR-365A is performed better against angled Tiger tank.
i would like to see that if its true in the simulation
do not take into account the presence of a fuse on the projectile and TNT inside it
too computationally demanding unfortunately
Explosive warhead would likely fail in a pentration like this
@@SYsimulations the fuse has another different sensitivity (the moment of explosion upon penetration)
@@terranoduster as steve said it wouldnt trigger because the projectile broke apart
GAIJIN YOU TAKING NOTES ?
Was the low quality of the hetzer armor implemented? From what i know the armor was much less effective compared to the standard steel
So it breaks through but seems to lose all power, if it had a secondary layer of even like 15-20mm a few inches back looks like it would stop it.
The shell itself seemed to lose its kinetic energy, but the spalling armor would have been like a huge shotgun on the crew.
@@jackmoorehead2036 Right, so I would think 20mm of steel a 6 inches away would stop it, based on this sim.
@@Cruor34 Increasing the thickness of the armour by 20mm would be even more effective.
@@peasant8246 Isn't spaced armor pretty much always better? That is what I have seen in these sims. Pretty much the only downside is it takes up more space.
@@Cruor34
Depends entirely on the projectile you're trying to stop, and the thickness of the armor already.
to hetz or not to hetz?
90 mm Pershing Main Gun vs Jagdpanther Armor
183MM HESH VS BOB SEMPLE!!!!
Could you do an Ottoman super cannon, called a bombard, up against the side of an M1 Abrams? It has a 500 pound granite ball it fires.
How about the Hetzer's 75mm gun firing on the T34's armor, hmm?
Good effect up to like 700 m after which it has trouble in case the tank is angled
The Crew of the hetzer is lined up behind the driver so if u hit the Tank on the front left, the driver would almost certainly be dead, the other two at least Injured.
Website link?
*soviet shells were often softer, breaking on impact*
Gaijin: "Im gonna pretend i didn't hear that"
Well, that would be a significantly emotional moment for the crew.
The last moment in their life. The result is much worse than just breaking through.
I remember several years ago when that might have been moderately funny.
Well, I guess the idea of a hetzer was more like not getting hit in the first place.
Sitting in that thing and waiting for a T34 - or IS on a bad day - to get close enough for your rather modest 75mm...must have been an emotional experience. Behind a PAK you can at least run away...
Do something with Object640
That's a filled up coffin ready to go.
Pls translate (hu-eng)
De ha lesüllyesztik a t-34-es lövegét közelharcban, akkor a t-34-és beüti a hetzer páncélját.
The armor spalled hard as fuck lol
With ballistic cap it would have punched through intact enough for the HE fuse to detonate. The entire crew would be Swiss cheese. Either way, driver is not having a good day
Sooo, task failed successfully ?
Ah for a second I thought this was the April fools vid, didn't expect t34 to be able to kill the hetzer
The vast majority of SY's sims are at tank's version of point-blank, so it's no surprise there are so many penetrations. The set-ups favour the attacker a lot.
day 1 of asking tutorial on how to do this
152mm APHE vs panther hull
0.34 "The Hetzer was better protected from the front than the Tiger, thanks to the sloping". That seems unlikely, unless the extra angle over the Panther really made a disproportionate difference... The Tiger I armour had a unique (and expensive) heat treatment that defeated one Sherman 75 mm shell at literally point-blank range (under 30 m, if memory serves). It was equivalent to more than other contemporary plates. It might be true the Panther glacis was better than the Tiger I (despite the Panther's inferior heat treatment to the Tiger I, being similar to Tiger II), but the Hetzer was 20 mm thinner than that, and also had the "cheaper" heat treatment, just like all other German tanks.
US data tells us that Sheman's 75mm gun cant defeat 100mm thick armour plate and I'm pretty sure they mean average RHA.
@@peasant8246 Hunnicut's chart has most 75 mm AP and APC rounds penetrate between 60 mm to 73 mm of 30 degree face-hardened armour at 500 yards. Maybe they might penetrate the Hetzer under 200? HVAP would have been 116 mm at 500, but with very limited availability from September 1944 only (only for 76 mm I think, and apparently only given to TDs!). One of the rarely mentioned aspects of HVAP was its accuracy was dreadful. So what it could do on paper was not that great in reality. I did read the US 76 mm AP round out-performed the Russian 85 mm by a significant margin, which surprised me, as the 85 mm is similar in gun ballistics to the Tiger I's 88 (similar to Flak 18), both having about 800-850 m/s. The Tiger I round must have been much better... Tiger II was 1000 to 1100 m/s, and had supposedly the same penetration at 2 km than the Tiger I did at 0(!)... The Panther gun was only slightly better than the Tiger I, so if this is true, the Tiger II was really a massive step up.
60mm @60° has a Line of Sight thickness of 120mm, the Tiger I had 102mm @9° which is a LoS thickness of 103mm. The Tiger also didn't have face hardening and was RHA as well. 120mm>103mm, and that's just LoS, slope modifiers will make it even more effective
@@SYsimulations From what I remember reading in one WWII test (possibly German?), sloping increases effectiveness until the shell diameter gets close to the plate's thickness (at or over 80-90%), at which point the plate sloping quickly loses its effectiveness, to the point the plate becomes no more, or less effective than at 0 degrees. I vaguely remember some shearing effect being mentioned... Here I will quote a post on Reddit mentioning a possible similar effect in a US test (not sure): "However, I've since been show a declassified study on slope multipliers done by the US Army (I assume at around the time of the war or shortly after, its code is AD309986 for whoever is interested) and it contradicts WW2B. It looks at the penetrative capabilities of the 3" M79 AP projectile against various T/D ratios and slopes. Here's a chart I took from it with some comments by me: i.imgur.com/2LzyeYa.png (EDIT: chart context: M is projectile mass in pounds, v is limit velocity to pass fully through the plate, o is obliquity to flight, e is plate thickness and d projectile diameter in inches.)
I took one example, a T/D ratio of 0.5 and 45°. LOS for 45° would be 1.41 times the thickness at 0°. A rough estimate based on the WW2B charts suggests a modifier of around 1.6 instead. But Fig.2 from AD309986 suggests that with these parameters, the plate would perform worse than the equivalent thickness at 0°, so somewhere under 1.41."
@@wrathofatlantis2316 Quite right. But here we are talking about a 60mm plate at 60° against a 76mm shell (T/D ratio of 0,79). As you can see from the chart as the T/D ratio gets over 0,5 the effective thickness at 60° obliquity becomes greater than that of equivalent LoS thickness at 0°, so we can be quite sure that the resistance of Hetzer's UFP against 76mm APCBC shells will be higher than 120mm/0°, perhaps somewhere around 140mm/0°. Such target is outside the penetration capabilities of the US 76mm gun credited with penetration of 5in.(127mm)/0° at 100yards (Terminal Ballistics Vol.III).
That 85mm oneshoting my Tiger H in war thunder
Make gaijin see this for warthunder
250m 😂 why even bother to simulate this range?
Yes 🤣
I don't get why the German produced hetzer in 1944, I think it was a bit too late for war on the eastern front considering Soviet already built high calibers gun
Rheinmetall Rh-120 vs T-55 please
What for, there are 2 decades of development between them.
@@Postoronniy 0 decades between of use.
@jansenart0 My point is it will easily penetrate. Why waste time and computing resources on it?
@@Postoronniy I feel like you don't know that because you haven't seen it.
120mm goes through the T-55 like a knife through butter.
Maybe t34/85 vs. M24 light tank.
During the korean war
Warthunder players: Perfectly B A L A N C E D
Thats spicy
Rest in pieces crew
"Better protected from the front than the Tiger"... and still dead.
The “biter,” *bitten.*
Could you ever make a video about the Ukrainian ERA "Nizh"? I think it will be interesting
Many people say that this is one of the most effective ERA against APFSDS, I would like to see it in your simulation
I wish warthunder wouldn’t use APHE like it was the god round amongst tank fight
Every war thunder player knows BR365A shell is superior
would a normal speed simulation be possible?
Leopard 2A4 LFP/UFP with Ukrainian improvised Kontakt-1 array or Leopard 2A4 turret front/side with improvised K-1 array 30°-60° impact angle, your choice of Russian APFSDS-T.
Это идеальные условия,в реале к 1944 году немцев отрезали от источников никеля и вольфрама,как следствие броня на всей вновь выпущенной бронетехнике просто лопалась,как стекло
it would be cool if you included a real time shot of the penetration
250m is pistol distance, can you make more realistic situation? 800 or 1000 meters?
Хетзер была многочисленная и очень удачная машина, пожалуй самая удачная в фашистской Германии. Пожалуй только в ней (вместе с какой нибудь пантерой) броне листы были наклонены, профиль низкий, попасть сложно, пушка мощная. Покажите как они по самому массовому советскому 34 били, учитывая более ранние годы появления Хетзер по сравнению с 34
Welp, that hetzer ain't hetzin no more 😢
unfavored matchup, hertzer is tier 4 and t34 is tier 6
Video suggestion russian artillery shell hitting Abrams roof
El acero checo era de peor calidad, Doyle señala que los 60mm del Hetzer equivalen aprox a 40mm del alemán.
Meanwhile in War Thunder: RICOCHET!
For anti-tank self-propelled guns, armor has always been of secondary importance
Hetzer gets armor layout perfectly right, though. Since it's a defensive vehicle, hanging out in rear or laying in ambush, it only needs enough armor on sides and rear to protect its crew from artillery blindly pounding into your side of no-mans land.
Not at all, the designers aren't that flippant or follow some universal doctrine. There are plenty that are designed with thick armour like the American T28, Elephant, jeagar tiger/panther. The sim doesn't take into account of how the tank is used like how hull down can reach critical angles causing deflection of the shell, as well as being fired point-blank, usually against later systems like the T34/85. SY sims heavily favour the attacker too much, although it is understandable.
For some TD/SPG fast reverse gear is the primary protection, some having less armour to reverse faster.
@@oohhboy-funhouse,Yes, there were such self-propelled guns as the ISU-152 or Ferdinand, but the tactics of using such machines are very different from the tank
@@ФедотовДмитрий-щ3г It might be pedantic, but don't use the word "Always" especially if it is blatantly false.
Hello. But only 250m? Not a right distance for a tanks duel. But if 500 or 1000m?
It did its intended job in less impressive manner;) Expected something more spectacular from 85 mm projectile... Not sliding along 60mm-thick armor.
Not to best range for a Hetzer to shoot at a T-34-85 :D
Это сплошной снаряд или каморный?
Остроголовый камор, есть тупоголовый, по наклоной должен немного лучше работать но там базовое пробитие меньше из-за его формы по идее
war thunder says it would bounce