T-34 vs FACE-HARDENED ARMOUR SIMULATION | 76mm BR-350B vs Pz.IV H

T-34 vs FACE-HARDENED ARMOUR SIMULATION | 76mm BR-350B vs Pz.IV H | Armour Penetration Simulation

Рет қаралды 222,564

10 ай бұрын

Face hardened armour (FHA) was common on early war German tanks; this type of armour featured an extremely hard front face, with the remainder of the plate being tougher and more ductile. The intention of this was to cause projectiles to shatter or deform on impact, dissipating their energy, instead of the armour having to deform and absord the energy.
The simulation presents the 76mm BR-350B projectile, with hardening upto 450BHN at the nose, impacting the Panzer IV H's 80mm upper plate at a side angle of 15°, from 250m. This is a direct comparison to the previous KV-1 vs Up-Armoured Panzer IV video, which had 80mm total of spaced armour: • KV-1 vs UP-ARMOURED PA...
The spaced armour seems to have performed slightly worse, but by a smaller margin than expected. This may be due to the amount of the projectile which is eroded and broken by the first HHA plates.
The FHA has a 5mm portion of 600BHN steel, with the remainder being 350BHN. The bulk is still relatively hard, with low elongation, hence the very noticeable shear bands which form. While the indentation is very small, the plate is very close to failing through plugging (I ran another simulation with the plate strength reduced by ~5% and it pushed through a plug).
Amazing Thumbnail Artwork from: Sean Barron www.artstation.com/artwork/Ka...

Пікірлер: 175

@erloriel 10 ай бұрын

That last view is absolutely fantastic for everyone's understanding how close the armor was to failure. Thanks for including it!

@mohammadshehada267 10 ай бұрын

To by honest the distance was only 250 meters so the armour hold up extremely well.

@Bialy_1 10 ай бұрын

That hit would cause nasty spall inside the tank and from your comment it is clear its not visible for you...

@wearenumberone1111 6 ай бұрын

forgot about spalling

@pex_the_unalivedrunk6785 6 ай бұрын

That small amount of spall would have gotten mostly absorbed by the driver or bow gunner, and the internal wall behind them, in this particular instance. It wouldn't take much to stop the spall from hitting the 3 turret crewmen in this case, and those guys would probably be able to bail out. RIP to the 2 guys in front though.

@nemiw4429 5 ай бұрын

The tank is probably done for few days. Crew maybe ok, maybe some dead.

@rare_kumiko 10 ай бұрын

Would be cool to see 76 mm M93 HVAP vs Panther UFP.

@STHV_ 10 ай бұрын

It would be interesting to see both a face hardened Ausf D UFP vs an Ausf A or later homogenous UFP

@rare_kumiko 10 ай бұрын

@@STHV_ That's also true! Face hardened armour is subpar at high obliquity impacts due to plug shearing so a comparison (against M93) or some other shell that's "close" to being able to penetrate) would be very interesting.

@Das_Red 10 ай бұрын

The armor really just said "man fuck you" *shatters your tank round *

@spigotsandcogs 10 ай бұрын

You should try this with Krupp armor that was used on warships, it had face hardening that went much deeper and had a gradient of hardness rather than an abrupt transition.

@Phantom-bh5ru 9 ай бұрын

Pretty sure the maus used that type of steel.

@thiagorodrigues5211 10 ай бұрын

Tigers in the Mud again, that book had everything. Otto Carius talked about how brittle other tanks were, with a shell damaging the metal structure and failing. He praised the Tiger's armor a lot, saying that the RHA plate would "melt like butter" as the shell tried to penetrate it, both keeping the structure intact and being able to absorb all the energy

@WeWillAlwaysHaveVALIS 10 ай бұрын

Dude! Thank you so much for explaining the concepts of the armour at the very start! Your content is always engaging and informative and the addition of explaining the core concepts like this is a cherry on top and I hope it's something that you are able to continue doing. Wishing you all the best and thank you for all your hard work and effort to bring us all the content, I for one really, really appreciate it!

@SYsimulations 9 ай бұрын

Thank you so much! Really appreciate it...apologies for the late reply though

@WeWillAlwaysHaveVALIS 9 ай бұрын

@@SYsimulations not a problem in the least and you are more than welcome.

@tokencivilian8507 10 ай бұрын

Nice. Those shear bands...I see what you mean. Question - could you do the hit by IJN Kirishima on the USS South Dakota's #3 barbette. Apparently the hit clipped a deck hatch which decapped the projectile, which went a long way toward ensuring this did little more than scar and leave a shallow impact crater on the surface. (Ref NAVWEAPS and the articles on the battleship action 14-15 November and the USS South Dakota damage analysis). This might be another interesting face hardened test case. It would also be interesting to have the exact same impact profile, yet with the cap in place to see what difference that would make.

@ethanmckinney203 10 ай бұрын

Ooh, ooh, I can simulate the Kirishima getting hit by the 16" shell! It just keeps going all the way through the ship.

@PhantomP63 10 ай бұрын

tl;dr for our channel host; impact angle 17.6 degrees from vertical. The Lundgren/Okun article on Navweaps really clears up some ambiguity in the original Damage Report #57. The newer paper concluded that the 14” pushed through the weather deck, decapping the shell. On impact, the base swung up and slapped the barbette above the impact site. The cap itself ricochet’d through the hatch coaming. I tried to modify the link to be postable but my comment was deleted.

@ethanmckinney203 10 ай бұрын

Yeah I posted my comment because Jon Parshall just commented that Nathan Okun's penetration calculator showed the shell going "THWIP!" if it hit horizontally the only armor was the belt. @@PhantomP63

@JustPeasant 10 ай бұрын

~250m?! That is super close! Even early AT guns, similar to Pak 35/36 were a threat to T-34 at that distance!😲

@quan-uo5ws 10 ай бұрын

well, not really, they didint call the pak36 the door knocker for nothing

@JustPeasant 10 ай бұрын

@@quan-uo5ws Being struck that close at the correct angle. It's still a potential threat that the Soviet tank crews couldn't just ignore it. Besides, Brits, Yanks, Soviets, Italians, Japanese, Swedes had very similar ATs in their inventory (large quantities) in that stage of war.

@darkbiddy511 5 ай бұрын

@@quan-uo5ws Ok but pak 38 could totally defeat a T34 even at 1000m Latest versions of Panzer IIIs were on par with T34/76 As for Panzer IV, versions like Ausf G and H outclassed T34, that's why the Russians had to bring on the T34/85 The 76mm gun couldn't even pierce the 80mm frontal armor of a Panzer IV unless at close range like possibly under 300m while the Panzer IVs and Stug IIIs could destroy a T34 even beyond 1000m T34/85 was on par with the Panzer IV H or G as each tank could destroy the other at 1000m and beyond but still was outclassed by Panthers and Tigers and by far As for cold war, the 85 was outclassed by even the Sherman's long 76mm gun and completely destroyed by the Pershing

@seanmurphy7011 10 ай бұрын

I'd like to see the same vs the Sherman's most common round.

@dyllanalford5276 10 ай бұрын

I agree completely, a direct comparison of the 75mm m3 with it's lower velocity but higher quality ammunition

@BLUNTESSTBOOT233 10 ай бұрын

@@dyllanalford5276I believe the 75mm M3 had more penetration than the Soviet 76mm.

@Losingsince 10 ай бұрын

@@BLUNTESSTBOOT233correct. Harder projectile

@BLUNTESSTBOOT233 10 ай бұрын

@@Losingsince there’s a video of the 75mm M3 penetrating the tiger at point blank so it should probably punch through the PZ IV at a decent range

@thiagorodrigues5211 10 ай бұрын

@@BLUNTESSTBOOT233the T-34 had a better penetration compared to the Sherman's 75mm. The main advantage of the sherman though was that it's optics and overall crew sights meant finding and shooting was way easier on a sherman. It was noted that in urban combat, a sherman would have advantage even over a Panther for it's optics and targeting were great. The T-34 was very fast and loud as hell. Germans said you knew one was around from kms away before you could see it. It would also go through terrain that germans would never imagine, mud, swamps, nothing could stop it. But the sherman? I saw soviet veterans who just loved the tank. They said the only issue was being too tall. By the time they made the easy 8, shermans were already superior to the medium tanks of every nation. To me it's quite unfair to say the Sherman was a bad tank

@Kazuya.Mishima 10 ай бұрын

nice simulation! as always!

@goofy_ahh_memes_enjoyer 6 ай бұрын

*YOU MADE THE SNAIL MAD*

@josepetersen7112 10 ай бұрын

I am disappointed to not find a T34 traveling at 900mps impacting steel plate. 0/10 for title honesty, 10/10 for a helluva video.

@Momomaster25 10 ай бұрын

I'd like to see a comparison between standard US WW2 era (1943-1945) 90mm M82 ammo and the later T50E1 90mm ammo. T50E1 had significantly improved metallurgic properties and it'd be interesting to see the two projectiles compared head-to-head. T50E1 was eventually adopted as M82 postwar. Someone on the war thunder forums/reddit has made an excellent post describing the differences between the 3 M82 projectiles used by the US.

@Warrior_Within 6 ай бұрын

Is there a link to this post to read?

@a.t6066 10 ай бұрын

With the military experimenting so much with flechette ammo and fast firing gun (like hstv-l), can you do simulation on how close together two hits would need to be to penetrate?

@leflavius_nl5370 10 ай бұрын

The narration's been a great addition to the channel vids. Nice work!

@drache444444 10 ай бұрын

there was also the knowledge of german engineers of the pzIV's armor hardness's sheering and potential spalling problem that caused them to abandone the hardening process on thicker armor plates, thinking that the thickness alone would be enough

@fostersstubbyasmr9557 Ай бұрын

Impressive

@tommeakin1732 10 ай бұрын

That is really cool. At first it looks like it barely did anything, but in the final shot you can see how close it was to plugging

@Spidd124 10 ай бұрын

Ive always been curious, what happens when you hit the top/ bottom of a plate? With the round going through the plate welded/ bolted to the hit.

@soldat88hun 10 ай бұрын

Can you do a sim on a very large caliber (like 152mm) armor piercing shell hitting armor below fuse sensitivity?

@BOEING--mh6xm 10 ай бұрын

Can you do a Tiny Tim on the roof of either a T-72 panther or tiger ll whichever one is more simple with or without the HE warhead

@usergiy 5 ай бұрын

What application are you doing all this in? Thank you for your reply

@trickythefox9598 10 ай бұрын

KZ-4 vs Bradley or Abrams would be interesting

@CafeLibrado 10 ай бұрын

Simulation idea: maybe one of the tungsten balls from a M30A1 GMLRS warhead?

@seangunn4772 10 ай бұрын

It's weird to think somewhat that should be so useful, like face-hardening existed so long with warships but wasn't used on armor until WW2.

@gerfand 10 ай бұрын

Fun Fact Face Harderned armor is used in Ships, in the American case there was a drive to shattering projectiles, for this reason their cruisers had a very brittle Armor, but that almost doomed the battleship armor if wasnt for futher testings, as the effect was not it for higher caliber guns, like a 14 in gun

@PantsReduction 10 ай бұрын

I'd love to see a modern day tank-fucker-upper against these old iron beasts

@quikisfsYT 10 ай бұрын

How do you make those shell animation?

@klinkadink1345 10 ай бұрын

Could you do the Jumbo's machine gun port versus the panther or the Tiger I's round?

@izma7704 10 ай бұрын

General question how effective was plugging, I saw a lot of soviet shells do it in sims but in real life it seamed to have had much less effect than other shells that do radial fracture or brittle fracture when they come close to penetration. (like German and American shells seamed to rarely plug)

@jintsuubest9331 10 ай бұрын

I'm not sure your assumption is correct. Plugging always shows up, especially at a higher angle of impact, with some upper bound. But plugging is also often observed with penetration that is around the limits, even at lower impact angle. Plugging is instead not observed when penetrator is significantly above the limit and is intact. But any given projectile armor interaction will always have more than 1 failure mode. Some failure mode will be the dominated one but it is almost never going to be 1 only. In this instance, the plug itself experience some radial fracture for example. Beside, both the armor and the penetrator has equal responsibility on the observed failure.

@GloriG_C17 9 ай бұрын

Wow, I dont know this!

@progressorofbridgesman 10 ай бұрын

Хотелось бы увидеть подобную симуляцию со снарядом БР 305П

@user-pz7qg2oc1g 10 ай бұрын

Наконец-то есть поверхностная закалка...

@russhaconstructorandgame3324 10 ай бұрын

sorry, what is the name of this simulation app

@notazombie...notatall8577 6 ай бұрын

Can you do the sherman 75mm vs the panzer IV 80mm face-hardened armor? 👀

@REgamesplayer 4 ай бұрын

Solution during that time was to continue using FHA as it was superior type of armor technology. Except add an additional layer of armor which would be sufficient at shattering armor projectile caps. Then it would hit FHA part which would stop the projectile. This type of armor would be early composite armor and would had been superior to historical alternatives at the time. There was up-armor attempts, but they were more of improvisations. They also did not designed specific plates to counter specific threats. Furthermore, it wasn't made in factory and mostly just improvised and poorly wielded add-ons to a tank. Instead of Tiger having 100 mm of RHA steel, it could have had 80 of FHA steel. Then an air gap. Then it would have 20 mm of external armor. This armor would be wielded over a tank as a main plate. This would had been much more effective against all projectiles and maybe would even protect against HEAT.

@nobodyisbest 10 ай бұрын

From what I have read, Germany also started running out of steel workers that could face-harden armor plates.

@changeling5984 10 ай бұрын

If I may suggest, a Mark 8 out of a QF 17-pounder 76.2mm (3') against a T34-85 Drivers Hatch/ Frontal Armour. I'm curious to see how allied muntions would've stacked up against Soviet tanks.

@Tuck-Shop 10 ай бұрын

I just used WarThunder armour viewer and it will not penetrate the drivers hatch. To defeat it you need 120mm APFSDS from no further than 100m. (sarcasm aside, 1Km, easy. 2Km not the hatch but still go through the plate.)

@sayerglasgow115 7 ай бұрын

Probably not the best matchup if you want to do that, a 17 pounder will go through a medium tank like the T-34 with ease. The Sherman's 75mm would be a better matchup against T-34 armor, or if you want to use the 17 pounder, an IS-2 or T-44 would be a better target.

@changeling5984 7 ай бұрын

@sayerglasgow115 I chose the QF 17-Pounder due to it being the standard anti-tank cannon used in Sherman VC tanks, the Archer, and subsequent post-war era Challenger and Comet prototypes. A short 75mm from a Shermans M3 cannon would've made a better test munition in hindsight.

@simefestin 10 ай бұрын

Tiger 2 APCR shot vs pershing front turret

@playyourturntodieatvgperson 8 ай бұрын

could face hardend armour be used as part of coomposite arrays?

@christophercripps7639 Ай бұрын

Odd the Germans used AP-capped shells even though I don’t seem to recall if the Brits, USA or Russians used much face hardened armor. A properly designed APC projectile if driven at a high enough initial velocity will do just fine. The UK 17 pdr APCBC, USA 76 mm/3” M62 or the 90 mm M82 or the Russian 100 mm BR-412D (possibly post-war) are examples. The same trend away from face hardened armor was also seen in the last battleships. Big thick, tough alloy plates ar😂e hard enough to roll and shape much less face hardened and anneal. Plus AP shells such as the 2,700 AP capped with windscreens for the USN’s 16”/45 & 16”/50 were well designed for dealing with FH armor. (And rarely used vs other battleships - USS Washington vs IJN Kirishima is the only one that comes to mind. Surigao Strait was resurrected WW I vintage Battleships (whose 16”/45 guns could not fire the 2,700 lbrs) vs similar vintage IJN battleships.)

@macellaio5452 12 күн бұрын

Thats why Tiger ,even if a square tank, have strong armor

@sergarlantyrell7847 5 ай бұрын

I know far more about naval history than tanks, but as I understand it face-hardened armour didn't disappear because of ballistic caps, but because face-hardening is often counter-productive when used with sloped armour, coupled with removing the face-hardening process being a war-expiediency measure AND the scarcity of some of the alloying elements that are needed to make good face-hardened armour towards the end of the war.

@tommeakin1732 10 ай бұрын

On the subject of face-hardening, could you throw some high calibre naval shells at battleship plate? Ideally with one example being face-hardening done poorly (for the shells being thrown at it) like US battleship face-hardened armour seems to have mostly been, and another example (against the same threat) being face-hardening done well. Maybe you could even do one without any face hardening at all. To my understanding US battleship class A armour was quite good in lower thicknesses against lighter shells (cruiser and below) but the shear depth of the hardening made them very poor and prone to cracking and shattering at the scale of battleships. It sounds like face-hardening loses a lot of it's benefits as you get to that scale

@jintsuubest9331 10 ай бұрын

Don't US has like 3 different manufacturers each has their own formula and process for their class A plate, and each exhibit different behavior?

@mr.waffentrager4400 10 ай бұрын

88mm vs CHALLEGER 2 lower plate pls

@jintsuubest9331 10 ай бұрын

It is standard rha 70/30. The result is rather obvious.

@mr.waffentrager4400 10 ай бұрын

@@jintsuubest9331 maybe add era (it will have negligible effect)

@kimjanek646 7 ай бұрын

Can you try with 75mm M72 AP from a Sherman/Cromwell? :)

@REgamesplayer 4 ай бұрын

You mentioned that FHA has hardened surface and ductile steel at the back. So how armor is "very close to failing" when it barely made a dent? It would break over initial surface and then would face metal which is very resistant to bending and doesn't shatter.

@NotLikethisComrade 2 ай бұрын

Okay, that's crazy. Panzer IV regulates! 💪🏽🇩🇪🔥💯❤️

@kimjanek646 5 ай бұрын

Would a RHA plate have stopped the round as well, is my biggest question 😊

@mab2187 10 ай бұрын

I want to know, does APCR really bounce at such small angles? or is it wrong in WT?

@reinbeers5322 10 ай бұрын

APCR acts more like solid shot and APDS in real life. WT used to get it right, but low and mid tier APCR spam caused that to be changed.

@tarjei99 5 ай бұрын

The main reason for diitching face hardening was that the plantbthat did this was bombed. Hence only small parts were face hardened.

@glocksp80smd 21 күн бұрын

Even if it stops the round the back shoots shrapnel inside lol

@cedricschmidtke4287 3 ай бұрын

i wonder what would happen if you face harden the interior side

@shelbylover1359 4 ай бұрын

I would like to see the HVAP 76 Sherman round vs the king tiger front to prove gaijin that the 76 Sherman was capable of killing a tiger 2 frontally

@_white_name_ 10 ай бұрын

cannon ball vs tigers armour?

@user-pc7kq7qb5s 3 ай бұрын

Program?

@kireroom5856 10 ай бұрын

Pls make it with 57mm gun ;-)

@Bojan_Kavedzic 10 ай бұрын

IRL, BR-350B vs 80mm Pz-IV front - penetraton @ 600m. BR-350A failed to panetrate @ 100m.

@peasant8246 10 ай бұрын

Sauce?

@kimjanek646 10 ай бұрын

Probably it was 50mm RHA + 30mm FHA. The 80mm FHA would certainly stop the round at 500m.

@zerindszendrey4986 10 ай бұрын

Do you think you could do a medieval cannonball against something like a panther or t-34 upper plate?

@InternetStudiesGuy 3 ай бұрын

The soviet 85mm was famously ineffective against tigers.

@Blitz9H 10 ай бұрын

Tungsten tipped rounds improved German penetration

@riv4lm4n 10 ай бұрын

close to failing is better than failing

@rexekz3295 3 күн бұрын

What is the name of the program?

@HuyenLe-bu7ns 6 ай бұрын

Alright, rip saori and mako (radio operator and driver)

@joshuaynadamas1147 2 ай бұрын

Pero cuando yo uso ese panzer la defensa no funciona de la misma forma

@ericdlandero1976 10 ай бұрын

Can you please shoot a jagtiger HE into the side turret of the m41a1 tank pplssss

@seedkls3730 10 ай бұрын

War Thunder: Pz4H got extreme penetration by BR350B from 500m

@peasant8246 10 ай бұрын

What is going on, I wonder? Your channel has 80k subs but only 30k people have watched this video.

@itsmrlonewolf 3 ай бұрын

What if the whole thing was “face hardened”

@avantyofi_eri 10 ай бұрын

Can challenger 2s underplate get penatrated by ww2 gun?

@3dwrecker_4660 10 ай бұрын

Interesting, I thought panzer 4 had only RHA.

@kimjanek646 5 ай бұрын

No every version except the J actually had FHA for all vertical front and side plates m.

@Nisen3000 6 ай бұрын

ok so, what if you reverse it and put the hard plate at the back?

@kimjanek646 5 ай бұрын

It would cause some major spalling at the back of the plate.

@joenuts5167 10 ай бұрын

I thought the pzIV ausf H had 20+20+30mm base armor and bolted armor plates.

@kimjanek646 10 ай бұрын

No that one was pretty rare. It was an old Pz. V D which was modernized with extra armor and the KwK 40. So probably an old tank which was repaired and then upgraded. The regular versions of Pz. IV went through this armor iterations: 30mm FHA 30mm FHA + 30mm FHA 50mm FHA 50mm FHA + 30mm FHA 80mm FHA 80mm RHA

@michaelkroger899 5 ай бұрын

plate on pz 4 is till end 500 brinell hardened

@abitofapickle6255 10 ай бұрын

Video suggestion. The 76mm M1 vs the 17 pounder

@tomk3732 6 ай бұрын

Close but no dice.

@redrazorjp 10 ай бұрын

is it me or warthunder says otherwise

@kimjanek646 10 ай бұрын

WT doesn’t have FHA for tanks.

@ahmedalsadik 10 ай бұрын

Didn't you mean to say the face is harder and the rest less hard?

@peasant8246 10 ай бұрын

Did the face hardening actually help? I have my doubts about it. Maybe you could run another sim of the same scenario but with a 350 BHN homo plate this time?

@kimjanek646 5 ай бұрын

Yeah. I am also curious about that. Flat projectiles were used because pointed shells were not very effective against FHA, so by using flat shells you lose nothing but gain advantages in some areas.

@berttrombetta4953 2 ай бұрын

Face hardening defeats uncapped ammo by causing the round to shatter. It is very effective especially when the calibre of the ap round under matches the armour thickness. Soviets used almost exclusively uncapped ammo, the most numerous being 45, 56, 76 and 85mm . German 80mm FHA plates were therefore the optimal thickness to defeat those rounds. However FHA is less effective than RHA against capped ammo but since most of the fighting was being done on the Eastern front and British/US AP was generally smaller calibre than Soviet stuff, the use of FHA was the better compromise for the Germans. They later dropped face hardening due to shortage of alloys and difficulties associated with heat treatment and controlled quenching of thick plates.

@peasant8246 2 ай бұрын

@@berttrombetta4953 Good bot.

@MrWilde-zx7vm 10 ай бұрын

Could you show a simulation of the MBT M1A2 SEPSv2 upper right or left turret plate vs older kinetic penetrators like the 8.8 cm KwK 36 form the tiger 1 or 7.5 cm Kampfwagenkanone (KwK) 42 L/70 from Panzer V, or the tigger 2s 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 anti-tank, that would be amazing to see how modern armor works against older projectiles.

@pimmelschilz9728 10 ай бұрын

No. Turret Armor of modern MBTs is classified

@MrWilde-zx7vm 10 ай бұрын

@@pimmelschilz9728 oh, how about older models of MBTs, like the M1A1?

@dyllanalford5276 10 ай бұрын

There's a video showing Jagdtiger 128mm vs Abrams lower hull@@MrWilde-zx7vm

@rare_kumiko 10 ай бұрын

@@MrWilde-zx7vm We only know base M1 (from 1979) and I think only the hull.

@MrWilde-zx7vm 10 ай бұрын

@@rare_kumiko Oh, that’s too bad. It would be cool if we could see the modern armor and how well it does.

@funtimewithhuskyman5601 10 ай бұрын

It performed well and after the impact the the panzerkampfagen is still functional, unlike driver's face

@kimjanek646 10 ай бұрын

Yay finally 😋

@matyborec16 2 ай бұрын

pls name simulator

@Ey_SmoKrac 2 ай бұрын

ceramic armor… your ancestors:

@m.a.g.y.1796 10 ай бұрын

Imagine German Tanks with more heavy-duty engines, fixed transmissions, and better quality, face-hardened steel...

@klemensustupski2710 Ай бұрын

War thunder players be like: what do you mean no pen

@Ciao209 10 ай бұрын

what if we put this on a Tiger 1? ik it probably never was a thing but what if?

@ahmetzahitdemirtas4974 6 ай бұрын

Non pen . Shel shattered.

@edi9892 10 ай бұрын

So, why did they stop it? Was it costs or the risk of spalling?

@atlashugged2591 10 ай бұрын

The video says that advances in projectile technology, particularly ballistic caps, defeated the face-hardening, so they focused on other armor technology instead.

@Einwetok 10 ай бұрын

It was pointless after enemy's tech caught up. Otherwise it was just wasting a lot of material making it. Saving strategic resources was important as their logistics pool dried up. Same reason the tungsten AP ammo was never widely adopted. Losing oilfields in East Europe and the Middle East meant they had to go back to synthetic fuel production.

@gervinschwarz575 2 ай бұрын

In War Thunder russian bias just skips the hard layer.

@Tr4wnet 10 ай бұрын

Can drone dropped munitions be simulated? Like FPV drones or similiar thats happeing in Ukraine rn. Would be fascinating

@Borsuk3344 10 ай бұрын

That's an RPG warhead vs 30mm of roof armor. The outcome is rather obvious :P

@Dist_lumine 10 ай бұрын

⁠⁠@@Borsuk3344hand grenades and mortar shells are more common to be dropped from drones then RPG rockets 😂

@sinisterthoughts2896 10 ай бұрын

The ballistics are negligible given they are only falling a couple dozen meters. It's relying on the shaped charge for armor penning.

@jintsuubest9331 10 ай бұрын

@@Dist_lumine Result is still rather obvious.

@jamesedwardladislazerrudo1378 10 ай бұрын

Drones dropping 82mm HE mortar probably have devastating effects on BMP-2 AND BMDs

@golova45i5 4 ай бұрын

Риальный т34 76 пробивал pz4 в силует , то что вы показываете дезинформация

@ar0568 10 ай бұрын

Isnt this basically just a very basic form of composite armor?

@kimjanek646 10 ай бұрын

No. It’s just steel with specific properties.

@user-ul4vs6fs3x 6 ай бұрын

Abaqus...

@jamesharding3459 3 ай бұрын

Floppy Soviet projectile vs. face hardened armor made of sex

@thickboi7570 10 ай бұрын

War thunder says no

@Chainyk26 6 ай бұрын

Show it to the developers of Tundra. Very imbecile 34s on BR with "paziki"

@user-tb8bq1vv4f 10 ай бұрын

Ну реальная встреча была бы с т-34 85

@quan-uo5ws 10 ай бұрын

да нет, pz-4 h еще в 43 год был

@aea70a 29 күн бұрын

Вот брехня.....

@GearheadVO 10 ай бұрын

I really hate the AI voice. I wish you would take it out.

@kimjanek646 10 ай бұрын

And I thought that’s his real voice 🥲