Skip to content
CFD Simulation

CFD Simulation

Analyze & Simulate anything !

  • Home
  • Simulation gallery
    • Spray Dryers : All studies
    • Case Studies
      • Covid-19 pandemic
      • Covid 19 – Keeping indoors safe
      • Covid-19 Dispersion Model
      • Surfside Champlain Towers
    • Learn Solid & Fluid Analysis
      • CFD of a Butterfly Valve
    • Human Space Flight
      • Space Shuttle CFD
      • Aircraft Aerodynamics Performance
      • Space Exploration
      • Rocket Science
  • CFD Tube gallery
    • Flow Simulation TCAE
      • Centrifugal Pump
      • Centrifugal Fan Optimization
      • Potsdam Propeller
    • Football
      • Simulation of head kick in football/ soccer
    • Simulation and Analysis of Car Crash
      • Dummy without seatbelt impacting airbag
      • Static Structural Simulation of a teleferic or telpher cable car
      • Car braking with dummy under 3 point seatbelt at 150g deceleration
      • Car bumper impacting hip on 2 directions at 36 km/h
      • Heavy truck impacting a concrete barrier
      • Static Structural Simulation of a teleferic or telpher cable car
      • Truck with loose cargo brakes with 100g deceleration
    • Covid 19 – Gama Platform
    • Brain and Blast Injuries
    • Nuclear Blast CFD Simulation
    • Spaced Armor Penetration
    • Armor Penetration Simulation
      • Ultra Porcelain Armor
      • Explaining mechanics – Armor penetration
      • Energetic Reactive Armor
      • Javelin Simulation
      • Concrete Armor | M4A3
      • Concrete Armor Comparison
      • Merkava I vs T-72A
        • Defeating Modern Armor
    • Anti Tank Simulation
      • 80mm Mortar grenade
      • RP-3 ROCKET vs TIGER
      • 152mm HE vs Tiger II
      • Panzer IV F2 vs Valentine V
      • T-72 vs M1 Abrams
      • T34 | Combat Analysis
      • T90 Third Generation Russian Tank
      • Multiple Impact Simulation
    • Hydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
      • Electric Turbo Innovation
  • Modeling and Computational Simulation
    • Simulation of Car Crash
    • Electrochemical Energy Storage
      • Lithium-sulfur batteries
      • Metal-Air batteries
      • Na based batteries
      • Supercapacitors
    • Covid-19 pandemic
  • FEA & CFD – MESH GALLERY
    • Catfish Drone CFD Simulation
    • CFD Analysis of Football
    • Computational Fliud dynamics
    • Cyclone Simulation
    • Eiffel tower CFD Simulation
    • Flow Simulation Ship Propeller
    • GRIDPRO
    • M113 – Combat Vehicle Mesh for FEA
    • Milling & Turning – CNC
    • NUSCALE POWER PLANT MESH
    • Patriot Car Bumper
    • University of Munich – Research & Methods
      • Gallery – CFD –
      • Tangible CFD
    • Unmanned Combat Vehicle Mesh
  • Human Health
    • EMBRYO TRANSFER
      • Outcome Measures
      • Ectopic and Early Pregnancy Loss
    • CFD SIMULATION SAVES LIVES
    • Virtual Surgery CFD Study
      • Glosary
    • Normozoospermia
    • Sperm Motility Scores
  • Submarine
    • CFD of Submarines
  • R&D – Innovation
    • Capabilities
    • Current
    • Past
    • Future
  • Armor Penetration
  • #CFD Simulation
  • #CFD Tube
  • #CFD learn
  • #CFD Simulation
  • E-mail
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Get free meshing and request for Quote
  • User
  • Login
    • Password Reset
  • Register
  • Logout
  • Jobs
  • Toggle search form

High Explosive Armor Penetration Simulation

Posted on August 18, 2023November 29, 2023 By mechalab761691 No Comments on High Explosive Armor Penetration Simulation

Simulation of the 125mm 3OF19 HE-FS projectile against single plate armour and spaced armour. Spaced armour is supposed to improve protection against explosives, as the air gap allows for the blast energy to be dissipated before hitting the armour underneath. The total metal weight and thickness is equal for both tests, but with the spaced armour having an air gap of 125mm. Plates are mounted at 60° for all tests. Approximate velocity of the fragments is around 1400 m/s.

Material Properties taken from literature, 3OF19 from wikipedia :

[1] RHA: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/28829…

[2] Air & TNT: https://osf.io/f8awq/download/?versio…

[3] 3OF19 specs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/125_mm_…

To note: The tail assembly and fins have not been modelled as they would have no effect on the penetration. SPH would have been better for this model but I didnt have the time or the computational power to implement it properly.

Popular Stories Right now
Additional cases
AI – Roles of CFD Simulations in Developing Rocket Propulsion System
Numerical analysis of the penetration process of a 30mm armor-piercing projectile

The T-34E featured spaced armour on the hull and turret, intended to protect against sub-calibre and HEAT munitions, with the simulation showing how it would fair against APCR from the long-barrelled 50mm KwK39 L/60.

The KwK39 offered a higher muzzle velocity than the Panzer III’s previous KwK38 cannon, and its Pzgr.40 Armor-Piercing Composite-Rigid (APCR) projectile provided it with excellent penetration. However, spaced armor can cause shattering of the brittle core. The T-34’s armor has been modelled as 440BHN steel, with the applique plate being 500BHN. The spacing and angling has been approximated from the Warthunder 3D model.

It should be noted that the image of live fire-testing is not of the T-34E, but one of it’s prototypes, using high hardness applique plates but with a closer spacing, and likely not an impact from Pzgr.40, but Soviet APCR.

The MBT-70 was an advanced prototype main battle tank, developed during the 1960s between America and West Germany. Later that decade, the Swedish Strv103 entered service. The simulation shows what would happen if a Slppjr m/66 APDS round impacted the upper plate of the MBT-70 from 800m away. The MBT-70’s spaced armour was intended to protect against “105mm APDS from 800m” but it is likely this referred to L28 APDS (and its equivalents) as it was the standard APDS round for the US and West Germany at the beginning of the project. L28 featured a tungsten carbide core, which is susceptible to shattering against spaced armor.

Slppjr m/66 was the Swedish designation of L52 APDS, which featured a tungsten alloy core and only entered production in the mid-60’s, . This made it a lot tougher than L28, making spaced armor substantially less effective against it. For reference, L52 (Slppjr m/66) can penetrate just over 130mm RHA @60° at this range.

There is varying information on the MBT-70’s armor composition, thickness, and angle, with the simulated layout following the more commonly stated parameters. Its interesting that the 38mm HHA – 127mm gap was used on the Leopard 2K as well.

#simulation, CFD Tube gallery, Spaced Armor Penetration Tags:CFD, Spaced Armor Penetration

Post navigation

Previous Post: Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis of Butterfly Valve – ChatGPT Generated
Next Post: ElectroChemical Energy Storage (ChatGPT based)

More Related Articles

Potsdam Propeller CFD Benchmark Potsdam Propeller CFD Benchmark CFD Tube gallery
Defeating Modern Armor and Protection Systems #CFD Simulation
Finite Element Analysis of Armor Piercing Bullet, NATO Ball striking an armor steel plate Finite Element Analysis of Armor Piercing Bullet, NATO Ball striking an armor steel plate Armor Penetration Simulation
Spray drying of baby milk formula #CFD learn
Predictive results for Explosive Armor Penetration Simulation Spaced Armor Penetration
Matlab Simulink Glossary #simulation

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

About Mechalab

Mechalab Limited is a UK-registered company trading in England and Wales. By Post : Mechalab Ltd 49 Station road - BN26 6EA Polegate - East Sussex - United Kingdom Phone : 07 342 212 398

By email : info@mechalab.co.uk

Copyright © 2025 CFD Simulation.

Powered by PressBook Blog WordPress theme