Could you try a Tiger 2 Long 88 Vs a Super Pershing's front plates?

@@cezarysztolc6856 good idea! I'd love to see how that spaced armour fairs. Gotta see how accurate war thunder is lol.

I really appreciate the effort you put down making these simulations for us. One question I have is what are the specs of the computer you are using for running these simulations?

So what about the round used by the British challenger in the first gulf War to defeat an export (I believe) T-64 tank making it the longest ranged kill in history?

@@tmac2797 would be cool to see a turret shot aswell

That would burn. Itd still be very hot

@@TheT-90thatstaresintoyoursoul While that is true, I rather take burns to the lap than death.

@@thestig3163 personal preference

It depends if it landed in your lap at a couple of hundred metres per second I suppose.

No it would turn you into paste...

well Chieftain was in heavy combat during the Kuwait Invasion and the Iran-Irak war. In both cases Chieftain got hammered by iraqi T72 and T62 and showed extremly bad performence in more or less every engagement except one on the kuwaiti side.

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 never know about it. Interesting fact. Actually, every case is absolutely unique and depends on crew skills, shell penetration capabilities, armouring, angling, reaction time, equipment conditions, even on crew moral factor, so it is almost absolutely unpredictable how the fight will end... At least now we can imagine what will happen if chieftain fire at T64A front plate)) it is also interesting what will happen if we change them roles)

@@Fu-Jhio-Jhitsu during the Iran-Irak War a T72 brigade destroyed a whole iranian Chieftain equipped division. Iran lost 694 of its 894 Chieftains in combat in this war. The major problems were extremly unreliable engines, low tactical and strategic maneuverability, insufficient firepower and insufficient armor protection vs "modern" sovjet tanks (we are talking about tanks from the same time period as chieftain). Kuwaiti Chieftains shared a similar fate. Only one Battalion achieved local sucess in beating back an iraki advance, but overall it was an operational loss for the kuwaitis. Chieftain was, in the end, just a beefed up Tiger II, when you look at it from the viewpoint of technology. The armor was thicker and the gun better, but overall it had similar power to weight ratio, its targeting systems and rangefinder was not really that advanced over the Tiger II ones, The gun was good vs T55´s but only okayish vs T62 or T64 in their early versions, from the 1970´s onwards its APDS was completely obsolete and L23 APFSDS for the L11 was only introduced in the 1985. Prior to that, they continued to use their extremly obsolete L15 APDS. Chieftain would have been more of a hindrance to NATO forces in Europe than anything.

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 very interesting! Thank you for that information! I need to investigate this conflict more

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 The Chieftain wasn't that much worse than the T64/72. During the Iran-Iraq war, it was only a tactical advantage for the Iraqis tanks in a devensive position to be dug-in the ground with ony the turret showing. The Iranians were very bad with using tank formations. They didn't even use any reconnaissance to reccon the advancing path to be assaulted. They simply drove blindly in a straight line on a street in the middle of a desert and got ambushed by the Iraqi dug-in tanks from the mountains and hills where they could ambush the Iranian chieftains from the sides. Most of the Chieftains were destroyed form flanking side hits while driving on a street in straight line formation, while the Iraqi tanks had the advantage of being in cover by hills and mountains. The Iranians didn't even see it coming. It was very poor leadership and tactics of the Iranians that led to this disastrous outcome. The Iraqis simply had better advantage of defensive tactics and better leadership in the armored warfare role (using Soviet defensive tactics) The British army would have used the chieftains much more effectively in Europe, with lots of reconnaissance and overall much better tactics than the iraianians. But of course it still wouldn't have changed the huge deficit in numbers, as the Soviets had 10 times more tanks than the NATO, so they would still be superior over western Europe in the 1970's. Until the NATO started producing newer equipment and technology in the 1980's, which made things much more equal on the battlefield. The NATO had better equipment in the 1980's, while the Soviets had worse equipment but therefore more numbers, so it was a typical quality vs quantity thing, but at least it gave the NATO better chances to confront the Soviets than compared to the 1970's and 1960's before. In 1991 as the cold war was ending and the Soviet Union dissolved, the Iraqis used the same old defensive tactics, but this time it proved painfully obsolete against the Superpower USA which had the most advanced high tech military and air superiority at that time, which completely deleted the entire iraqi army in a matter of days...

Why? These aren't at all accurate enough simulations to be used for anything other than show. Neither is War Thunder to be fair, but still. This is a visual spectacle, that is all.

@@linusorm What? These are insanely accurate, have you seen the other videos where he shows comparison shots to real life test shots?

@@linusorm you clearly havent seen the video where Dejmian XYZ Simulations compares the simulation to photos of live tests. theyre identical

@@sleepyguardian1962 I have, and they can only be viewed as reliable when compared to actual data. You wouldn't be able to rely on the statistics provided by simulations alone. You need real life data to confirm the simulation. Because the simulation can be flawed. The simulation doesn't take every conceivable factor into account. SY Simulation has even admitted that his simulations aren't perfect (I.E: not 100% accurate) and therefore you can't actually rely on them.. Simulations are: garbage in, garbage out They're only as useful as their assumptions and need to be constantly cross referenced with real life tests to be usable. Not that they aren't cool and some of them are really handy for explaining stuff that's not super intuitive and hard to describe with words but I feel like some people see "computer physics simulation" and assume its the word of god.

@@linusorm I mean tons of industries rely on simulations to verify if a structure is safe. They usually just have a safety factor to account for "real life" but often the Sims are pretty accurate, especially when it's as relatively simple as an impact from a shell on a material.

By soviet archives and testing 8.8cm KwK-43 easily penetrate T-44 UFP and Turret that's why T-44 didn't participate in WW2 and made transition into T-54.

@@rinaldoman3331 That's not the reason why T-44 didn't participate in WW2. The reason is that the Soviet tank crews were just used to T-34s, and because there wasn't really need for a new medium tank.

@@user-fx9rw7xc1e and T-44 wasn't a problem solver cause even 75mm Panther Gun could penetrate T-44.

@@rinaldoman3331 Glacis would be fully imunte, and a good part of turret could be penetrated only at very short range by 75/70.

@patrick wright 88/71 could penetrate T-44 glacis under 400m.

The british also didnt get L23 APFSDS for the L11 prior to 85 and were stuck with the APDS from 65 till then.

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Yes, that´s quite a bad situation for Challenger-1 crews

No, it could be penetrated on turret by 115mm APFSDS. It could be also penetrated by any type of tank/ATG HEAT ammo, including 85mm on the most parts of the frontal projection.

Kuwaiti's Chieftains firing APDS made easy work of Iraqi T72s.

They use export T72 and the iraqi tanks from soviet production did really well against iranian tank from British production

It should pen it without major issues, as some reports before the Stillbrew armor was created and used on Chieftain Mk10 models🧐 I'm with you, hope we can see that!

Hot knife, meet butter

@@johnyricco1220 depends on time period.. early steel APFSDS would struggle against it...

@@JaM-R2TR4 T-62 with steel APFSDS (probably the 3BM4 round, the "cheap" version of the 3BM3 without the tail tungsten carbide penetrator) proved to be enough powerful to pierce the turret armor on various Iranian Chieftain tanks, since those were the most common round type exported to Iraq (same for the 125mm). Also the Chieftain turret armor was made by cast steel and not rolled steel, which have less protection against such high velocity rounds (and an irregular thickness in many points since the shape is not so regular). A good reading on these rounds it's Tankograd blog spot, with detailed infos and data on T-62 as a whole tank and every major part (armor, gun, engine, ammo, etc.).

Chieftain had, prior to MK10 version with stillbrew introduced in 1985, a frontal turret protection of about 350mm RHA, while 125mm and the 115mm gun had both ammunition since the mid to late 60´s that was capable of perforating (full penetration) it on ranges beyond 1500m, from 72 onwards up to 2000m, following ammunition only increased pentration until 85, while chieftain only gained 20mm spaced steel armor on the turret and hull front. Chieftain was designed as heavy armored MBT but was remarkably thinly armored in comparison. T62 has only 100mm less armor for example, T64 had better armor protection. This is shown pretty well in the Iran-Irak war, where T62´s and T72´s of the iraki army mopped the floor with iranian Chieftains without difficulties. And T62 also could use its gun launched atgm on standoff distance to destroy chieftain

ofcaurse you would, these pieces of steel are sloped and thus less flat than modern TV characters.

@@matthiuskoenig3378 Brilliant comment!

the people who crafted these pieces of steel put in a lot more work and passion than the creator of modern TV series. Passion and hard work pays off.

pieces of steel are way more interesting than the tv characters!

You k ow T80B isnt being used by russia right its no longer being touched

@@maple2860 What

@@maple2860 T-80BVM in Russian army at the moment

@@benderrodrigez5814 T-80U still in front line service as well.

@@maple2860 t80 is not produced, but is still in service and is being modernized

Agreed, but there arent good material parameters for that afaik

I highly doubt the outcome would be wildly different than hardened, thick fiberglass. Unless, of course, you also believe in Stalinium.

What is "Warshaw?"

@@HanSolo__ Warsaw

@@CyberneticArgumentCreator strawmaning does not become you. you're effectively saying: ''i don't think DU inserts makes that mutch of a difference. unless, of course, you also believe in freedomium''

Iirc this is the tank that was deployed with its own team of factory mechanics and engineers as the suspension (1/2 torsion bar) and other parts were constantly breaking. first soviet tank with an autoloader. its other drawback was the expense, it was very expensive at the time. the T-72 replaced it.

I'd imagine the composite armor would have more of an effect on HEAT than APDS

No, it does have anisotropic properties like true fibreglass however the failure criteria has been simplified to fail at a certain strain in any direction

Not really. The Centurion and T-55 were technically the first for NATO and the Warsaw Pact

​@@josevictorionunez9312 well neither were considered good enough to drop heavy tanks atogether. Only T64 and chieftans did it.

Thats easy. Bounce.

Considering the projectile impacts at 1325 m/s in the simulation the entire event will be over in some hundredth of a second. You won't even know what happened before there's debris flying around.

its pretty short ranged when you realise the Chieftain's ranging machine gun was effective up to 1800yards in the early 70s and up to 2500 yards in the late 70s.

I thought the ranging gun was for hesh rounds? Although correct me if I’m wrong.

@@matthiuskoenig3378 yeah but when you consider that even T72A models hat enough frontal protection that the latest iterations of L15 APDS had only 20mm "wiggleroom" for penetration under optimal conditions wich would be immediatly be lost at a 30° angle to the side or via range. Chieftain had to get so close, because APDS looses effective penetration really quickly over distance. Much faster than APFSDS. On the other hand, T72´s 125mm gun, T62´s 116mm and even T55 100mm rifled could reliably engage and penetrate Chieftain on ranges up to 2000m or more firing their APFSDS and HEAT. The main problems with Chieftain is that it was already at introduction obsolete. The armor layout was not modern (just a massive slab of cast steel), the maingun and ammunition, wich was also obsolete at introduction in 61 (The gun is still used by Challenger 2.... that says a lot about british tank design), the extremly late introduction of APFSDS in 85 (about 25 years after the sovjets introduced smoothbore and APFSDS), wich was then also outdated/obsolete at introdution, as sovjet MBT gained more frontal protection and the L23 was only capable of reliably penetrating sovjet MBT versions of the A series, while the current versions were the B series with ERA and better armor, underpowered and unreliable Engine, a fricking ranging mashinegun? Everybody else used Coincidence Rancefinders since the mit 40´s.

... really

You want a gun with 180mm of penetration to go up against a tigers front plate that is 150 with and effective thickness of 250-300

That's interesting...

I think it was 180mm, could be wrong

@@legaroojack1251 the gun mantlet was 185 mm the front armor 150 mm

@@legaroojack1251 thats turret front

@@santossteven97 sorry I though you meant the turret, yeah that's 150m.

@@legaroojack1251 the turret front is 185 and the hull is 150

If there's any hot metal that breaches the fighting compartment, the crew are likely toast.

@@jerichom11x I mean. It depends on the speed. If its barely even moving at like a few tens of of m/s vs hundreds and the size of it. A small peble/metal dust I can't do much besides give some burns.

You see it even here. It does perforate. But its barely even moving and "Minimal damage to tank and crew" is stated

@@jerry250ify If that piece hits crew in vital area - read head, whole body, upper parts of legs - that crew is dead or completely incapacitated. No variations.

@@gargean1671 Still though, 1/3 crew incapacitated means you have 2 folks who might still live to fight another day

The US armor was a fundamentally different type of silica-steel composite. The Soviet array is known as 'glass-reinforced plastic', and it essentially sheets of what you'd get if you compacted fiberglass into solid panels via hydraulic press. The US array used pockets of silica that were fused inside the armor as it was cast as an integral part, with both the glass and metal curing as one piece. The fused silica works on the principle of shattering as something travels through it, unlike the fiberglass, and so it becomes a pocket filled with glass dust after one hit, and a pocket that is inaccessible at best. This is why it was a nonviable concept, and the Soviet solution to the problems of a steel-silica array were very innovative.

clean penetration. T62 and 72 killed hundreds of chieftains in the 80´s in the Iran-Irak war

What for, we know it will go right through.

explosve payloads reduce shell strength and density, reducing penetration even ignoring the explosive fuse going off early.

most sub calibre rounds don't have explosive filler

No

Because by that point penetrator design had improved to minimise the performance deficit of the 105mm caliber. M774 is a different beast to earlier 120mm APDS from the Chieftain, mainly in terms of angled performance than anything else, which is relevant here.

@@AdotLOM that's quite an interesting backwards logic with use of foresight. Yeah, I guess it's perfectly in Pentagon style to do it this way:D What I mean is that developing penetrator for 120mm is much cheaper and more promising then limiting dimensions and a design of the tank to smaller gun and by doing so greatly sabotaging it further modernization potential.

@@AdotLOM Was still inadequate tho, especially against T-64Bs and T-80Bs.

@@TheArklyte I'd imagine it's because that's what they had the most of at the time and it could do the job it needed to in the early 80's. When all of a sudden it was decided that the US could only "win" the cold war by outspending the Soviets, developments to ammunition and the adoption of the rheinmettal 120mm became3the way forward, and the M1 turret was assumingly made to accommodate a 120mm gun from the onset and we can see that has worked out just fine

@@hjorturerlend well, hence why they put the 120mm in it with the A1. Like I said, the 105mm is what they had at the time the Abrams was introduced.

We used a T-72 as a Leopard 2 target in Germany, ended up like Swiss cheese.

You want to see the test plates that came back from kirckudbright ranges. I wouldn't have wanted to be in any AFV made from those slabs of armour.

Minimal crew damage, maximum birth control!🤣

minimal crew damage, but very high damage to the driver's future generation.

Yellow Crew Color

yeah but on ranges above that, chieftain could not reliably do shit to T64A and T72A. While both on the other hand could penetrate the thickest part of Chieftains armor on ranges up to 2000+ meters. The UK only introduced APFSDS in 85 and then it had not enough penetration to reliably penetrate T72BW, T64BW and T80BW, wich were the standart of the 80´s but only the A models, wich were from the late 60´s and early 70´s. So about 15 years late and already obsolete at introduction. Sounds kind of familiar

That is not a WW2 tank, spalling would be minimal.

​@@huntermad5668 there us still piece of round going thru armor.

500m with AP - 100% penetrations, from a real life fire on the target range.

One side, or both sides?

@@tomk3732 Front

Vietnam war show m113 can be penetrate by 12.7mm apc rd.

It wouldn't even make it to the back 20mm plate unfortunately

Which APDS is that?

@@claudiovictorferreira992 It's a 105mm APDS used by M60A1s.

@@SYsimulations can you make simulation with HESH 120mm round for the chieftain?

It's effective against heat munitions

High hardness plates in polyurethane epoxy matrix were used in T-55AM and T-62M. The main reason behind glass textolite was its very low weight. According to Soviet studies huge density differential between steel and non-ferrous filler drastically improved the performance of the filler.

It wouldnt make it to the back plate i don't think

@@SYsimulations Any specs for the Conquerors APDS? the only thing I can find is 7.6kg at 1493m/s, but it was from a video game forum.

APDS for the L11 remained in service until 85, where it was exchanged for the L23a1 APFSDS. So yeah... the brits really fcked up there.

Its frustrating, but I cant find anything on how to fix it...I think its an issue with this version of the software

@@SYsimulations i love your simulations and always give thumbs up before i view the vids, i hope in the next vids this error will be fixed. Thank you for your great channel, dont give up i love your Videos

@@SYsimulations honestly I think it is fine. Any chance we get same simulation, but without textolite layer?

@@santossteven97 thanks for the support; I hope I can find a fix soon too but I doubt it unfortunately

Textolite is like fibreglass, being light but a lot weaker than RHA. If it was all RHA it would easily stop the projectile but would be extremely heavy

RHA is full steel

@@SYsimulations thanks

You getting paid by Putin?I,ve never read such suckarse comments!!!

Except Russia talk the talk but don't walk the walk. They absolutely cannot and could not stand up to a US backed NATO. Ignoring the Nuclear threat they would lose. Big time.

@@MajorJimPlays Absolute rubbish propagated by US propaganda no doubt. You clearly havent heard from analysts and people who served back in the day. Fact is WARPAC had overwhelming numerical and in vast majority of categories qualitative superiority. NATO was not going to be able to stop all those tanks when their AT rounds and ATGMs would just bounce off (I recall the greatly exaggerated performance of the first TOW missiles as an eg). Artillery, Anti-air, tactical ballistic missiles, would all favor the WARPAC. Even an F-15 cant outfight 5 Mig-23s which was the odds at the time, all while dodging SAMs. When Frontal Aviation got the Archer and HOBS it was all over even in the air.

@@stevenbreach2561 Jesus try to come up with something original FFS. Truth hurts. Getting some cognitive dissonance are ya?

By the late M60 and early Leopard 2A4 packages soviet army was very outdated (and to this day it still is) compared to it. While NATO plays with projectiles capable of overcoming soviets and sophisticated FCS and imaging systems soviets were still rolling around like what it was in ww2. Soviets did get a higher ground with T-72 and 64 briefly when they first came out but nato quickly kept up and then surpassed them. Today most of Russian army still plays with old uparmored and redesigned T-72 and 64s lacking thermal imaging and high quality FCS. There is no way in hell a T-90A is as capable as an M1A2 Abrams in modern arena.

Yomkippur War included no chieftains. Chieftain was not exported until the 70´s and the Israelis never bought Chieftain. The Israelis used modified Centurions with 105mm L7 guns called Sho´t and the Arab Armies used T55a´s and very limited T62 export versions.

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 your absolutely right about the chieftain and centurian i keep getting them mixed up because originally it was just suppose to be an upgrade and instead became a different tank

HEAT protection and reduced weight. At that time monosteel armor was more or less obsolete (from the 50s onwards) as HEAT and more modern APDS rounds would punch through anyways. T64a´s textolite allowed for about 335mm armor protection vs APDS and 400+ vs HEAT while it was only 2/3 as heavy as comparable steel protection. Chieftain on the other hand had monosteel armor with thickness of that level in some regions, wich was totally obsolete as even T55 was capable of penetrating it with its HEAT rounds.

Looks like it will just plop into the compartment floor lol.

@@Phantom-bh5ru the spalling would have shredded the driver.

@@Puma_Concolour eh by the time it penetrated the velocity is so low that I doubt much spalling would be created and the ones that are would be much less powerful.

@@Phantom-bh5ru it was going around 100 m/s judging by the velocity plot.

@@rre9121 that’s like way slower than even 22 lr

No it was not

Check killing ratio

@@vladimirnaydenov8563 well, the "downgraded" T72A and M of the irakis killed about 600 Chieftains, while only losing about 100 T72´s in the Iran-Irak War.

Chieftain hull down with its superior FCS would make short work of T64/72 as was seen in Kuwait.

Я служил танкистом на Т-64А в Украине. 1975-1977гг.

Brit began to introduced apds fs rd for 120mm tank gun in the mid 70s.before that even the chiefstain 120mm apds rd has little chance of penetrating t64/72 frontal armour.

This is sub calibre APDS