Скачать или смотреть HOW BAD IS APCR SPALLING? | APCR Spall Cone Armour Penetration Simulation

The simulation presents the spall cone generated by a 75mm T45 Armour Piercing Composite Rigid (APCR) projectile impacting the side armour of an M4A3 Sherman. This type of projectile is also known as High Velocity Armour Piercing (HVAP).

Support me on Patreon: patreon.com/SYSimulations

The eroded elements are converted into particles, with each particle weighing roughly the same as a #7 birdshot pellet. Ones highlighted in red are at a velocity of 300m/s or more, indicating that they are hightly likely to cause injury. The witness plates for the crew are modelled as 2mm thick aluminium. The mesh and element size for this simulation is identical to the previous AP video, allowing for a direct comparison.

Overall, APCR produced less spalling, with no larger pieces, but the spall cone angle remained relatively similar.

To make the model efficient, the tungsten carbide core and tank have been made rigid (apart from the area of impact). Under the impact circumstances (0° impact against medium hardness RHA from a relatively low velocity cannon) the core is likely to remain intact or simply break into a few pieces (but follow its trajectory), so the rigid body assumption is unlikely to affect the simulation results very much. The projectile body is hidden whenever particles are shown, as eroded aluminium particles would make the spall cone appear more dense and dangerous than in reality (the aluminium particles would look identical to steel ones, so they've been hidden).

It should be noted that the element size at the far-side exit point is coarser than the initial impact point, hence the smaller number of higher-mass particles generated. In reality, there would be a distribution of spalling mass, however the simulation will always give particles identical mass as they are based on the element size.