HOW A TINY PIECE OF PLASTIC HELPS DESTROY TANKS | Shaped Charge Armour Piercing Simulation

Also known as explosive lenses, wave shapers force the blast wave to travel around their edges before focussing down on the liner apex, in the form of a conical wave. This conical wave is more effective at accelerating the liner, resulting in a jet with increased velocity and penetrating power. Because of this, wave shapers are used in many modern HEAT and ATGM warheads. The simulation provides a visualisation of the blast wave and associated jet velocity increase.
The simulation demonstrates the wave and jet velocity differences correctly, however the penetration and jet thicknesses don't match expectations. This may be due to the method used, the material model, or my inexperience, but I will try to improve it in the future.
Amazing thumbnail artwork from: Andante sketchfab.com/...

[@SYsimulations]

*The wave shaper should increase penetration* The pressure wave and ~1000m/s velocity increase match what is expected but the penetration doest; it is likely due to the material model or solver settings but I'll try to improve it in the future.

[@gitfoad8032]

Interesting this, but an old book I have (early '70's) states the velocity of the plasma jet as 27,000ft/sec, which converts to over 8,000m/s. What are the variables, or was this book exaggerating?

[@lazyman7505]

BTW isn't 'waveguide' more commonly used term? I've never heard of 'wave shaper'.

[@SYsimulations]

@@gitfoad8032 That book is correct as shaped charge velocities vary depending on explosive type, cone angle, liner material and thickness, plus some other things. With the right combination 10000m/s can be achieved.

[@gitfoad8032]

​@@SYsimulations - Cheers. Sounds very mass x velocity.

[@antaresmc4407]

It could be due to the slightly lesser amount of explosive leading to a smaller tip, or maybe the shaper's shape was slightly off messing the colimation, or tge plastic absorbed too much energy... idk, just guessing, if could be the model too. Charges are designed with a lot of variables in mind and you generally cant plug and play different pieces and expect optimum performance without a redesign...

[@Ciao209]

There is something about HEAT that always fascined me and i do not know why, but your explanation in the video and just seeing how HEAT actually works in such a simple yet detailed way really just keeps making me enjoy it even more, love your content, keep it up!

[@MaxRavenclaw]

What fascinates me is how countless articles and even generals display a complete lack of understanding of how it works and how countermeasures to it such as slat armour work.

[@doggonemess1]

Me, too. I love that the effect was discovered due to the company's name being imprinted in the explosives. I love it when science is discovered by accident.

[@yacinebo1468]

Monroe effect

[@SYsimulations]

Thanks! Really appreciate it, I just wish HEAT was easier to simulate

[@getsideways7257]

@@MaxRavenclaw Oh, and how does it work? Rather, how does it work against the personnel behind the armor. I heard some silly sounding explanations, but I think my own understanding of the effect makes much more sense.

[@tommeakin1732]

It's always interesting to me when adding inert material actually improves performance.

[@RhodokTribesman]

Which is already the point of a shaped charged (replacing potential explosive space with air), but this just takes it another step further lol.

[@tommeakin1732]

@@RhodokTribesman Yes I'm well aware that there's plenty of examples, and some things are more obvious than others, depending on your working understanding of the physics and the mechanism of action; but this example of removing some explosive mass in favour of an inert piece of plastic, does not come across as obvious to me

[@RhodokTribesman]

@@tommeakin1732 You may have missed my tone haha, Im agreeing with you. Its all pretty damn counterintuitive. I was saying "It's already crazy that replacing explosives with air makes it perform better, but even more wild to remove further explosive and have it perform even better than the previous advancement"

[@tommeakin1732]

@@RhodokTribesman Apologies...I might have been a bit needlessly defensive there ; - ; I guess I've got used to people leaving dickish comments and it can stop me from giving people the benefit of the doubt.... Not good! I think I also misread your initial reply which doesn't help lol

[@RhodokTribesman]

@@tommeakin1732 No worries, I didn't take it that way haha. Text has it's limitations for sure

[@N4CR]

Most of the other sim youtube channels are crap, yours over time makes me realise just how far ahead you are through continuous improvement.

[@SYsimulations]

Thank you, I once was an inexperienced channel too but have continually tried to improve my models and they can too. I wouldnt say mine is the best though :)

[@deathdragon2283]

@@SYsimulations easily in the top 3

[@tunguska2370]

Most don't explain what happened

[@ns6q333]

bruh they're using the microplastics to destroy tanks now

[@lebien4554]

For those who are like me and wondering why it doesn't seem to increase penetration, Read the description: "The simulation demonstrates the wave and jet velocity differences correctly, however the penetration and jet thicknesses don't match expectations. This may be due to the method used, the material model, or my inexperience, but I will try to improve it in the future."

[@SYsimulations]

Yeah it's a shame but I thought the principle was still interesting enough to present

[@lebien4554]

@@SYsimulations No worries. You're pretty much the best out of all the "tank simulations" channels out there and I (and many other) enjoy your work very much. Keep it up!

[@dustsans9859]

Agree, i love these tank simulations, but does anyone know armor vest simulations similar to that, i would be happy to watch these too

[@raymartcarreon6069]

@@dustsans9859 yeah, just saw a demo ranch video with him firing silver tipped .308 ammo(probably AP-I) at some Level 3+ armor plate, wanna see how it works

[@dustsans9859]

@@raymartcarreon6069 I know demo ranch, i meant simulations like on this channel

[@petep8828]

I can’t get enough of these kinds of videos, they have excellent graphical information, and your synopsis couldn’t be better (from a person that knows very a little this software and what it’s primary purpose is.) Keep up the great work!

[@SYsimulations]

Thank you, I really appreciate it and hope you enjoy what is to come

[@hottoniapalustris1541]

I've watched your videos for quite a long time. At first, they hooked me with their higher simulation quality compared to other channels. Then, you doubled down by extending the aftermath, letting us see more of what happens after the penetration, and adding your own words of analysis. You showed you have the knowledge, not just access to some fancy simulator. Then, you started adding historical trivia, putting it all in context. Now, you're leaving the competition far behind. At least that's how I remember it. I guess I'm just trying to say you are unequivocally the best simulation channel I've found so far. Don't stop getting better. Cheers!

[@SYsimulations]

Thank you so much for the kind words, I really appreciate it! I'm glad you like where the channel has gone and I hope to improve it, and my simulations, even more going forward :)

[@JoakimfromAnka]

How about comparing shaped charges with different liner materials and shapes?

[@XtreeM_FaiL]

Never heard this before. 20% increase to velocity is mind bogling. Just a piece of plastic. :O

[@--Valek--]

me watching this is just another reason I'm on the several lists I'm no doubt on.

[@TheArklyte]

Haven't known about wave shaper as part of HEAT munitions "generations". I thought that the only major improvement we've seen for them was switch from ordinary HEAT projectiles to nonrotating ones that have higher penetration. So if we go rough, there's 1)early HEAT with fuzing problems think Effetto Pronto; 2)standardized HEAT with fixed fuzing methods like Effetto Pronto Specialle; 3)switch to nonrotational warheads; 4)introduction of this shaping liner; 5)switch to widespread use of tandem HEAT; 6)widespread use of programmable multipurpose HEAT(aka tandem HEAT with top attack mode or HE options thanks to included shrapnel shell)? So 6 generations of HEAT warheads?

[@JAB6322]

Who knew such an ingenius solution as putting a simple piece of plastic in the explosive filling of a HEAT warhead could make it even more powerful

[@LazyLifeIFreak]

High pressure dynamics are fascinating.

[@barreiros5077]

sometimes a paradox.

[@testpilotmafia862]

I've been interested in cone directed fragments for downing enemy weapons. Minimum explosive with maximum particle density at rocket-like targets with speeds of mach 3+.

[@MajesticDemonLord]

I tried something similar with my Wife, I used an Inert bit of plastic for greater velocity, but she wasn't impressed, since there was no additional penetration

[@SPAZTICCYTOPLASM]

Breaching charges use the same effect except with water. Put water behind an explosive and the energy is focused it's an interesting piece of physics that I can't explain. And the effect applies at all scales so you can focus firecrackers to massive artillery.

[@olivialambert4124]

That's pretty cool. I wish this video came out 6 months ago when I did a deep dive to understand how exactly shaped charge warheads work, but either way I'd completely missed the wave shaper. At the same time I think a lot of people would still want an in depth explanation as to exactly what is going on with a shaped charge warhead, every stage of its development, why, how penetration changes with standoff, the physics at play, just as much information as can be. There's a big draw towards shaped charge warheads because they're both so prevalent and because they're so unusual compared to our day by day understanding of the world. I can't be the only one who wanted a proper explanation of how they worked, and there's only so much you can understand by watching simulations. This also seems to be one of the only channels doing this sort of work which actually fully understands the principles behind what is going on which is why I suggest it here. Explosively formed penetrators are another seemingly magical warhead, but theyre obviously a lot easier to understand by just watching an EFP develop.

[@SYsimulations]

Thanks, I will try to do more shaped charge sims in the future but they're not working properly as mentioned in the description. I would like to provide more information on the subject too :)

[@insertyournamehere4328]

What a smart guy who came up with applying diffraction and synthesis of waves to shaped charges!

[@quentinking4351]

I'd never heard of wave shapers before. Incrediblly simple and very cheap.

[@freedomisntfreeffs]

I still don't quite understand *how* it increases jet velocity. The best I can come up with is when the explosive is divided it converges back onto the tip of the liner cone with more explosive mass being set off at the same time around the liner cone tip, compared to just the outer explosion radius touching the liner cone tip with conventional shape charge design, thus giving it a bad "starting push".

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

A spherical detonation hits the tip of the cone first, then progresses down the walls. A wave shaper allows the detonation to progress in a cone, and thus "touch" the liner in a more normal angle.

[@dylanclark1775]

This is so fascinating. I wonder what other things they’ve tried to increase the effectiveness of these rounds?

[@jimmylight4866]

Double shaped charge to defeat re-active armor.😊

[@riddhirahman]

RIP to the crew who is "touched" by this "jet"

[@MauriF76]

I think that there is a lack of material in the tip that penetrate. Maybe this is a reason why the simulation fail to predict the major penetration.

[@alandoak5146]

Video idea: Killdozer! Maybe against a 20mm round perhaps?

[@tsilfidis1996]

damn! that was awesome

[@ThomasRonnberg]

it turns it into a slingshot

[@uroskostic8570]

any tank, having hard surface placed outside on side of the tank, activates HEAT charge, which sends jet stream into empty air, and reduces its penetration a lot. That is whole purpose of rubber skirts, to activate HEAT 30-40-50cm before side armor. T73B3 with that backpacks on sides, have plastic cones inside with same purpose as old rubber skirts, and now having hard surface even further, helps with dissipation of HEAT. In Balkan wars in 90s, great majority of threats for tanks were hand held HEAR projectiles or recoiless launcher HEAT projectile. So people put EMPTY wooden ammo crates all over the tank, so it helps to activate HEAT before it reaches tank. In many cases, hits in tanks, were repairable, and many tanks were returned to combat.

[@yulu803]

Its interesting to see the tip did not really went further even though its velocity is higher. Probably traded off the total mass that is projected forward

[@rykehuss3435]

Read the annotations. Its not working correctly in the simulation

[@yulu803]

@@rykehuss3435 oof I didnt see it

[@Alfeco-dm7uk]

How many pounds of explosive do you need to destroy a tank???

[@Real_Claudy_Focan]

Like a concave focal lens in a telescope (to reshape after a convex lens) This is genius !

[@Bitt3rh0lz]

Im wondering how ductile materials other than copper would behave if they were explosively shaped like this. Things like Lead or perhaps even Gold.

[@tarmokauppi105]

Multiple factors contribute to the liner performance -ductility, mass, shape (eg conical, trumpet, halfdome), speed and angle of impact of the detonation wave, grain size and -direction, impurities in the liner etc. As a general concept the young's modulus of the material contributes strongly on the performance. High speed of sound and ductility increase the performance. Soft and malleable materials tend to perform poorly (eg lead, gold) whereas copper performs pretty good and has a good density. However glass is pretty non-ductile and also performs quite good especially if density doped. So nothing too simple here.

[@phdnk]

jet penetration scales as density^0.5 but the jet speed must be well supersonic in target metal. I expect golden/lead jet to be slower

[@WineScrounger]

They don’t need to be ductile. Glass works well.

[@tarmokauppi105]

@@WineScrounger That's very true. Ductility is just one factor. Theoretically you could use anything, even liquid as the liner. They use high-density glass on SCs on oil wells. Glass tends to create quite wide craters compared to the depth.

[@christopherleubner6633]

Depends on what you want. Tantalum is an excellent liner material for deepest penetration because it is heavy, refractory, and super malleable. Want the most damage, make the liner out of depleted uranium. This metal will shear and burns white hot in air at supersonic speed. 🤔

[@Paksusuoli95]

Amogus

[@JoakimfromAnka]

Das ist sehr interessant! But the penetration with and without wave shaper looked equal.

[@SYsimulations]

With wave shaper should offer more penetration, there's an issue with penetration for both in the simulation unfortunately

[@indyjons321]

What are the differences in charges that have steeper vs shallower cone angles?

[@BloopTube]

Itd be a balancing act between applying compressive force to the liner and pushing it forward. Id have to go do the maths on it but id reckon the ideal angle was found early on and has been stuck to.

[@DarrenBostock]

Would explosive lensing result in a better or worse result? i.e. instead of using plastic, surround the copper with a curved (lensed) explosive with a slower explosive rate.

[@darkgalaxy1402]

That charge is looking kinda..

[@doiboiplayswarthunder3980]

How about a T-64BV shooting at a T-90M on the right turret cheek

[@RedVRCC]

It's crazy how simple shaped charges really are. Hell, you can make one out of a wine bottle.

[@KennethMilesBPorras_]

Do HEAT vs 200mm Concrete

[@TheArklyte]

It's a weird question, but in aftermath of NASA successfully demonstrating that humanity CAN hit passing asteroids to change their course, can you do simulation of nuclear shaped charge(the one that uses nuclear charge as propellant for formed kinetic penetrator) striking a small asteroid?

[@voneror]

Why would you use kinetic penetrator in that role? At best it would just produce more asteroids. It would be much better to push asteroid with minimal disturbance using something like orion pulse unit (which strikes target with wave of tungsten plasma). Even better rather than striking asteroid itself, attach sail to it and have pulse unit push against sail.

[@TheArklyte]

@@voneror because the point is EXACTLY to expel the most possible amount of sheer mass out of asteroid in one direction to change its course into opposite one to said "plume"?

[@voneror]

@@TheArklyte I hope I just misunderstand what you are trying to say, because idea that penetrating something or shattering it is great way of pushing it is ridiculous. You could even say that penetration is exact opposite to pushing.

[@anin871]

can you try it, does spherical plastic more superior? hmm...

[@kamilwardziak4759]

HOLY FUCK I LOVE IT. I have a masters in high explosives and lets me tell you this would be awesome addition to any lecture explaining shape harges. As i remember the decade old lecture the lenses also can be plece further back and the effect of it is a linear propagation front. Do you simulate that explosion is propagating thru this plastic?

[@SYsimulations]

Thanks! Yes, the pressure does go through the plastic as well but its substantially less so isn't visible on the pressure plot

[@QwerYT4819]

Instead of a "•" impacting the liner, a "

[@TuAFFalcon]

Do EFP's please.

[@moistmike4150]

Uh, I don't wanna be the kid who calls out the King-With-No-Clothes, but there's barely any difference there.

[@haguroIJN-myokoclass-No.4-1929]

ｷﾀｰ しかもHEATだ！

[@roflchopter11]

Where can I read mote about how the models and solvers begin something like tbis work?

[@MrQuijibo]

We sure do put a lot of effort into killing each other

[@Jan191]

among

[@erikscariot5937]

this is great to learn and watch the application affect. top channel.

[@tsclly2377]

Cool.. but I'd like you to do a video on the concrete (river pebble) anti shaped charge panels that the Finns developed at the end of WW2 for their tanks.. like against these shaped charges and the shaped charges of 'the day'.

[@Toyota-me6iq]

no wave shapers?

[@jantschierschky3461]

Very interesting, smart invention

[@JasonPruett]

what is the goal to destroy the machine or the living inside of it or both?

[@CosmoWenman]

Ah, yes, I see the difference.

[@TheDude50447]

Wasnt the result like the same. I couldnt make out a difference in penetration.

[@Boden_Worms]

HEAT/ shaped charges look like explosive slingshots, the way they propel the molten metal through the armor.

[@TheShootist]

now tell why early nuclear bombs used copper nails and polyurethane

[@enriqueacosta6544]

pleas rpg29 vampir vs challenger 2 decepticon

[@zonex001]

No difference?

[@maxkeller102]

Hmm very interesting

[@maioralofknowledge2658]

I'm still waiting for my armor suggestion vs 3BM59 round from 1km. The armor specs (simple version angled in 45°) is: 50mm steel 500 bhn, 50mm boron/tungsten carbide, 25mm 600bhn steel, 30mm uhmwpe, 50mm steel 600bhn.

[@jackmarston8279]

Just a lil suggestion. Jerry cans as ERA??

[@simonphoenix3789]

how come the penetration doesn't seem to be greater even with the increased velocity in the simulation?

[@SYsimulations]

Its an error somewhere, the pressure and velocity increase are correct though

[@Cortixz811]

whats this game called

[@Andrecio64]

Plastic: "let me add a nice litte boost to your HEAT round"

[@Treblaine]

6km/s, almost orbital velocity.

[@andytroo]

could it be that energy is conserved - the tip is faster, but the bulk mass isn't - after the first few mm of penetration the thinner tip doesn't actually have more 'oomph' pushing it from the bulk of the material behind it? Some of the explosive energy is also reflected off the insert, so may impart less overall energy to the copper, even if the tip is faster?

[@opkeanos88]

These videos makes me want to become an engineer besides that I doing completely different things for a living

[@engrtahir]

How you set the wrap criteria in ansys. I mean we have info about the tims, energy fraction etc

[@bromine_35]

A shaped charge for your shaped charge to make your shaped charge charge-ier

[@phdnk]

Please try non conical shape of the liner. E.g. trumpet shape

[@Polkem1]

dam that is sick, i always wondered what those are, seen them in many Russian RPGs

[@dragonelite2725]

T 34 vs super bazooka

[@bezimienny_andzej6425]

Wow, that "secondary penetrator" looks menacing, I guess that's what really does the damage if the armor is penetrated by the initial jet.

[@redzone8002]

Trebuchet vs tank

[@dr.ryttmastarecctm6595]

It's the little things that make the difference, in milliseconds.

[@TheJttv]

dats cool

[@seekwhen1848]

Why is plastic used instead of tougher materials like aluminum or steel for the shaper?

[@jackmarston8279]

Cheap and kinda effective, i dunno

[@cristitanase6130]

the penetration distance looks equal...

[@looke3392]

Should have read the comment then shouldn't you

[@cz1589]

Can you do several video's about HIMARS missiles of different types, impacting on T-72, T-80's en T-90's?

[@SYsimulations]

Unfortunately there isnt much available info on such a modern weapon system and the scale of it would be a bit strange for a simulation

[@peasant8246]

This was still an interesting video.

[@DreadX10]

Seeing that the lower velocity, more massive jet creates a bigger hole diameter in the RHA. Could it be that the jet created with the wave-shaper is just too small compared to the mesh-size? Or could it be that your simulation throws away some of the 'too much distorted' cells and this means the faster jet has more mass deleted than the slower jet?

[@SYsimulations]

It might be that mesh issue you described but there isn't strain related deletion in this simulation. Unfortunate though

[@meanteen]

Wouldn't having a 700ml of water halp? I heard that it bounces pressure waves (also try it with HESH I'm pretty interested in the result as the mass will help it spread out especially when it is rifled)

[@tarmokauppi105]

Water as a theoretical wave shaper? No benefits. It has a low sound of speed compared to the det. Wave so just performs as a normal wave shaper

[@alf3071]

how does it increase penetration if the jet looked pretty much the same for both

[@SYsimulations]

The velocity is higher (but the penetration depth in the simulation is wrong)

[@noahsawesomevids422]

Awesome 😎

[@SatelliteYL]

Great video

[@stoneHeHenge]

This simulation shows no difference in perforation depth

[@looke3392]

He explains why in his comment if you bothered to read it

[@a.t6066]

It matters what shape the wave shaper is? If it was more dome shaped, trapezoid, or have thinner center?

[@SYsimulations]

I think that would have an effect yes, don't know enough about them though

[@a.t6066]

@SY Simulations ok. Thanks. Too much to ask but off your head top, is there any reading on such things you know that may enlighten on it? Panzerfaust 3 i think has a very large shaper and look like a muffin

[@АзарЯвед-э4м]

I don't see much difference.

[@jintsuubest9331]

Description

[@blocksland817]

more like plastic bomb

[@diwajerebation4077]

isnt HEAT like..obsolete?

[@SYsimulations]

Not at all, its used in nearly all ATGM warheads which have proven to be exceptionally effective against even modern MBTs

[@diwajerebation4077]

@@SYsimulations doesnt slat armor obsolete it?*

[@deathdragon2283]

@@diwajerebation4077 slat armor only really works against certain RPG-7 rockets. The gaps in between the slat need to be something like 60-70% of the diameter of the warhead so that when a warhead passes in between the slats the side wall of the warhead impact the metal. This will crumple and cut into the warhead and, due to the fuze design, short out the fuze or sever the connection to the detonator. The warhead then typically fails to go off. Depending on the design of the slat armor you can expect it to work a good 70-80% of the time if struck from a perpendicular angle. The rest of the time the warhead successfully detonates and the slat armor merely acts as a small amount of spaced armor. Anything other then these specific RPG-7 warheads will not be defeated by slat armor

[@diwajerebation4077]

@@deathdragon2283 didnt know that

[@DaCouchWarrior]

Is penetration still the same? Lol.

[@liamwartz]

when you realize. plastic explosives is a warcrime

[@Prometheus19853]

Plastic explosives aren't a war crime.

[@liamwartz]

@@Prometheus19853 The 1980 Protocol I to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides: “It is prohibited to use any weapon the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays.” Amendment to Article 1 of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons In 2001, States parties to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons decided to amend Article 1 of the Convention, governing its scope. This amendment states: 1. This Convention and its annexed Protocols shall apply in the situations referred to in Article 2 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the Protection of War Victims, including any situation described in paragraph 4 of Article I of Additional Protocol I to these Conventions. 2. This Convention and its annexed Protocols shall also apply, in addition to situations referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, to situations referred to in Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. This Convention and its annexed Protocols shall not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature, as not being armed conflicts. 3. In case of armed conflicts not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply the prohibitions and restrictions of this Convention and its annexed Protocols

[@Prometheus19853]

@@liamwartz That's not plastic explosives, nor is it the point of a plastic shelled explosive.

[@ThatZenoGuy]

@@liamwartz No fragments of the material are left, yet alone within the body.

[@liamwartz]

@@ThatZenoGuy damn, a person who actually can defeat my arguement

[@4T3hM4kr0n]

I just realised that HEAT is sort of like an inversed APHE round. With APHE you have a big piece of metal with the explosives on the inside. With HEAT you have an explosive on the "outside" with the piece of metal that does the piercing on the "inside"

[@orange8175]

no not really

[@CJIABuK77]

А почему Абрамс не нарисовал?

[@velvetthundr]

I wonder which HEAT munition achieves a jet tip velocity of 14km/s

[@Blei1986]

afaik, the highest velocities with common explosives is like ~10km per second max. only tiniest particles will exceed that velocity, the jet itself will be below 10km per second.

[@ambush_akula5261]

Who would’ve thought Konkurs and Javelin would literally save Ukraine

[@peasant8246]

@SY Simulations Man, dont you check your email?

[@SYsimulations]

Sorry ive been busy haha, I've replied now though

[@peasant8246]

@@SYsimulations No worries. :)