57mm guns overperforming

[Shadow KT]

The ZSU-57 has been tweaked a little already, but it still nukes almost anything short of an MBT and it two shots (2x2 rounds) tanks.

The same can be said for the S-60, as it seems to share the same gun.

ZSU-57 M1A2 Kill at 1000meters .trkZSU-57 Too Strong.trkS-60 Too Strong.trk

 

  
 

[Fri13]

For anything else than a MBT's the 57 mm would just destroy them. 

Even the MBT side armor is questionable as Sweden has shown with the 40 mm Bofors gun on the CV9040, but that is more about getting bottom part on tracks and AP round.

But you know this as you are skipping every MBT that has their only strong armor in their front, just to go their side armors that are weak.

A modern MBT can have at front a 500-1500 mm RHA values, but at the rear it can be as low as 55 mm. 

 

These things gets fixed when new damage modeling comes to ground units and we start to get proper modeling of the AP and HE ammunition. 

Edited April 28, 2021 by Fri13

[Shadow KT]

Two shots of HE blowing up APCs ? Don't think so. 

You know the damage is overdone, when they don't even burn, they straight up blow up. At least it doesn't blow the APCs around the one you shoot anymore.

3 shots to the back side of an MBT kills it ? Yeah, nah.

I agree that it should do damage... although this is APHE we are talking about here, not long-rod penetrators. 

I am fine with it doing damage to all these vehicles, but not killing them with such low amounts of shots. 

2-5 HE rounds for lightly armored vehicles up to 8-12 AP rounds for MBTs sounds way more reasonable. It can kill an abrams in the side with 3 shots from 1KM away.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Shadow KT

[Mad_Shell]

I think you underestimate how powerful a 57 mm gun is. BTR-80 for example are designed to protect crew against 7.62 mm rounds only (12.7 mm for front armor). A single 57 mm HE round would basically kill or very severely injure everyone in the BTR. With 2 rounds at point blank range like in your example, everyone would be instantly dead (which means the BTR blows up with the current damage model). For MBTs Bignewy aknowledged that the team found a common problem with the armor. Any news about that @BIGNEWY ?

[BIGNEWY]

ZSU-57 is correct as is now, we did correct some armour on units and the explosion calculation was fixed as it was exploding to early. 

 

thanks

[Mad_Shell]

13 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

ZSU-57 is correct as is now, we did correct some armour on units and the explosion calculation was fixed as it was exploding to early. 

 

thanks

mmmmh, I have to admit the effectiveness against MBTs in the video surprises me a bit. For example the Leclerc is known to have good side protection, and even the back of the turret is designed to resist RPG-7 hits. 57 mm HE rounds going through seems questionnable to me.

Edit: Oh wait I didn't see he switched to 57 mm AP for MBTs. Yeah at point blank range, why not.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Mad_Shell

[Fri13]

20 hours ago, Shadow KT said:

Two shots of HE blowing up APCs ? Don't think so. 

 

The blowing up is the limitation of current damage modeling. But they would get destroyed.

 

A typical APC is air tight vehicle, they are protected against small arms fire like 5.56-7.62 non-AP ones, but most are not protected against even 12.7 mm that gets through their armors.

What you think that 57 mm does? Already 12.7 mm is enough to penetrate their armors, 20 mm is even more than enough. 

 

You don't need a 120/125 mm cannon to blow up a APC. 

 

You put a 57 mm APHE on the APC and it will get through in and blow whole interior. A pure AP ammo would go through both sides with severe spalling. Killing again everyone and whole vehicle. 

 

IFV's are not so much better, yes little more armor but it is again 57 mm cannon that we are talking about, not 7.62 or non-AP 12.7 mm.

 

20 hours ago, Shadow KT said:

You know the damage is overdone, when they don't even burn, they straight up blow up. At least it doesn't blow the APCs around the one you shoot anymore.

 

Damage is not overdone, the effect is limited. We have values like "smoking", "burning" and "blowing up, and then burning and smoking". 

We need to wait a new damage modeling to come to see actually better effects. 

 

20 hours ago, Shadow KT said:

3 shots to the back side of an MBT kills it ? Yeah, nah.

 

Yeah, sounds pretty possible and valid. 

 

20 hours ago, Shadow KT said:

I agree that it should do damage... although this is APHE we are talking about here, not long-rod penetrators. 

 

You don't need those than for the frontal section of the hull and the turret in the modern MBT's. The sides are weak, rear and roof are even more weak. 

 

20 hours ago, Shadow KT said:

I am fine with it doing damage to all these vehicles, but not killing them with such low amounts of shots. 

 

Again, we need the proper damage modeling to come so we can start to have the minor damages. Like destroyed optics, antennas, wheels gone, tracks cut, engine broken various levels, hydraulic and batteries gone etc. Not to forget the most critical part, the crew. Lowered moral, fear, incapacitated from shock waves etc. 

 

20 hours ago, Shadow KT said:

2-5 HE rounds for lightly armored vehicles up to 8-12 AP rounds for MBTs sounds way more reasonable. It can kill an abrams in the side with 3 shots from 1KM away.

 

A 57 mm cannon with APHE doesn't really lose much energy at 1000 meters as the key word is the "HE" part, not the AP part. HE doesn't care about the range, it is as effective as it explode same force regardless distance.

 

You only need one good 12.7mm, 20 mm  or 30mm round on the APC and it is gone. You can as well hit in bad angle with any of them that makes it bounce. You can shoot with the 120 mm APFSDS on APC and you might get zero effect because the arrow penetrates the whole hull like a hot knife through warm butter. Unless you happen to sit front of its path or hit something critical, it doesn't even cause spalling as it is so damn fast. That is why you want to use HEAT or similar that will actually blow the whole armor side etc. 

[Shadow KT]

On 4/29/2021 at 1:42 PM, Fri13 said:

 

The blowing up is the limitation of current damage modeling. But they would get destroyed.

 

A typical APC is air tight vehicle, they are protected against small arms fire like 5.56-7.62 non-AP ones, but most are not protected against even 12.7 mm that gets through their armors.

What you think that 57 mm does? Already 12.7 mm is enough to penetrate their armors, 20 mm is even more than enough. 

 

You don't need a 120/125 mm cannon to blow up a APC. 

 

You put a 57 mm APHE on the APC and it will get through in and blow whole interior. A pure AP ammo would go through both sides with severe spalling. Killing again everyone and whole vehicle. 

 

IFV's are not so much better, yes little more armor but it is again 57 mm cannon that we are talking about, not 7.62 or non-AP 12.7 mm.

 

 

Damage is not overdone, the effect is limited. We have values like "smoking", "burning" and "blowing up, and then burning and smoking". 

We need to wait a new damage modeling to come to see actually better effects. 

 

 

Yeah, sounds pretty possible and valid. 

 

 

You don't need those than for the frontal section of the hull and the turret in the modern MBT's. The sides are weak, rear and roof are even more weak. 

 

 

Again, we need the proper damage modeling to come so we can start to have the minor damages. Like destroyed optics, antennas, wheels gone, tracks cut, engine broken various levels, hydraulic and batteries gone etc. Not to forget the most critical part, the crew. Lowered moral, fear, incapacitated from shock waves etc. 

 

 

A 57 mm cannon with APHE doesn't really lose much energy at 1000 meters as the key word is the "HE" part, not the AP part. HE doesn't care about the range, it is as effective as it explode same force regardless distance.

 

You only need one good 12.7mm, 20 mm  or 30mm round on the APC and it is gone. You can as well hit in bad angle with any of them that makes it bounce. You can shoot with the 120 mm APFSDS on APC and you might get zero effect because the arrow penetrates the whole hull like a hot knife through warm butter. Unless you happen to sit front of its path or hit something critical, it doesn't even cause spalling as it is so damn fast. That is why you want to use HEAT or similar that will actually blow the whole armor side etc. 

I know you love to argue for the sake of arguing and trying to be on top, but it doesn't matter.

I suggesting a solution based on what we have currently as mechanics.  Sure, you can blap on about how 3 shots of 57 would make a complete kill of an MBT and how a classic APHE round doesn't loose energy, all you want... won't make it more true.

[Fri13]

2 hours ago, Shadow KT said:

I know you love to argue for the sake of arguing and trying to be on top, but it doesn't matter.

 

You don't know anything. And it doesn't matter as you can invent what ever you want to justify your believes. 

 

2 hours ago, Shadow KT said:

I suggesting a solution based on what we have currently as mechanics.

 

You suggested things that just wouldn't make sense. A 57 mm shouldn't be made act like a 20 mm because someone thinks it is "too powerful because it takes a MBT out with two shots". 

 

2 hours ago, Shadow KT said:

 Sure, you can blap on about how 3 shots of 57 would make a complete kill of an MBT and how a classic APHE round doesn't loose energy, all you want... won't make it more true.

 

Please explain how does a MBT have its thickest armor protection all around its hull and turret?

Please explain how does a firing distance lower the High Explosive effectiveness on the armor?

 

Do not blab around all you want, please explain why it is true?

[Dragon1-1]

High Explosive shouldn't effect armor at all. Now, the 57mm is a beefy round, but it still explodes before it can penetrate anything. APHE is basically a HE in a thick jacket so that it doesn't blow up on contact. It's not a tungsten penetrator or a HEAT round. What it can do is spall the armor and damage whatever's inside, but new tanks have spall liners to prevent that. 

 

You may be able to kill the engine, tracks and gun optics, especially on older MBTs, but not in 3 rounds, it'd hardly translate to the entire tank blowing up. It would kill APCs and older IFVs, but tank armor is something else. ZSU-57 is a surprisingly powerful vehicle when used as fire support, but it's not a tank destroyer.

[Fri13]

10 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

High Explosive shouldn't effect armor at all. Now, the 57mm is a beefy round, but it still explodes before it can penetrate anything. APHE is basically a HE in a thick jacket so that it doesn't blow up on contact. It's not a tungsten penetrator or a HEAT round. What it can do is spall the armor and damage whatever's inside, but new tanks have spall liners to prevent that. 

 

The round in this case is not HE, and not a simple APHE. It is APCBC-HE-T.

Quick explanation: 

 

"The APCBC munition type was an evolutionary development of the early war armour-piercing capped (APC) shell, itself an evolution of the more basic AP (armor-piercing or solid shot) and APHE (armor-piercing high-explosive) shell types. With respect to armored land warfare, the primary intended function of both AP and APHE shell types was to penetrate an enemy armored vehicle and incapacitate the vehicle and crew by internal explosion (in the case of APHE) or fragmentation/ricochet (in the case of AP rounds)."

 

"Early World War II-era uncapped AP projectiles fired from high-velocity guns were able to penetrate about twice their caliber at close range (100 m). At longer ranges (500–1,000 m), this dropped to 1.5–1.1 calibers due to the poor ballistic shape and higher drag of the smaller-diameter early projectiles. Later in the conflict, APCBC fired at close range (100 m) from large-caliber, high-velocity guns (75–128 mm) were able to penetrate a much greater thickness of armor in relation to their caliber (2.5 times) and also a greater thickness (2–1.75 times) at longer ranges (1,500–2,000 m)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APCBC

 

The side armors in the modern 80-90's MBT's are fairly weak for AP rounds. We are talkin just tens of millimeters thickness. 

Example here is a T-80U turret armor thickness:

 

 

The similar case is with any modern MBT. You want enemy to stay 30 degree angle from your front. Not to allow it to engage you from the sides and especially not to your rear section from any direction.  That is the basis of any MBT warfare that you keep your hull and your turret facing the enemy. You turn those toward the threat as your maximum armor is only in the front of hull and turret.

 

If you allow a enemy vehicle like ZSU-57 to slip to your flank, or to shoot you to your flank or rear, you have then completely failed as a commander by opening that shot. (And again this is partially problem in DCS as we do not have infantry modeled in the game as should). 

 

10 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

You may be able to kill the engine, tracks and gun optics, especially on older MBTs, but not in 3 rounds, it'd hardly translate to the entire tank blowing up.

 

Again, that is the limitation of the current damage modeling that is fully functional, damaged (smoking) and destroyed (exploded + burning etc).

But example what comes to Leopard 2, the side armors are the fuel tanks behind just about 25 mm of armor. Behind that is about 50 mm of armor before you are fully penetrated completely to the crew compartment. The fuel doesn't add much to the armor, but somewhat. 

 

10 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

It would kill APCs and older IFVs, but tank armor is something else.

 

IFV's are tanks, but not MBT's. MBT's are as well tanks but not IFV's. Both are AFV's, but not all AFV's are tracked but can be wheeled. But none of the tanks are wheeled as definition requires to be tracked. 

 

The modern (80's to this date) MBT's front armor is something that 57mm will never penetrate. And as can be seen OP didn't even take a shot from front because it is useless.

Instead the OP was aiming to vulnerable side armors, to the rear parts etc where the armors are thin and very vulnerable to kill the crew and the engines (in DCS that means full kill at this moment). 

 

10 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

ZSU-57 is a surprisingly powerful vehicle when used as fire support, but it's not a tank destroyer.

 

"Tank destroyer" has on classification, and ZSU-57 isn't such because it is a SPAAG by its classification. It just has capability as well engage ground targets effectively to protect itself if really required.

 

The 57 mm cannon is not a 120 mm one. But it is neither a 30 mm one. And it will take down even modern MBT if you give it a change to get to shoot you at such position that you would not want anything to be firing at you with anything.

 

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

The round in this case is not HE, and not a simple APHE. It is APCBC-HE-T.

Which, if you check out the drawing on the very page you took your "quick" (and unnecessary, given the link) explanation from, is exactly what I said it is. The only difference is, the "BC" part gives it better ballistics than plain old APHE. It's an APHE in a pointy hat, so to speak. A full-caliber 57mm round will not reliably punch through a modern MBT's armor, rear or otherwise. 

 

You're also forgetting that in your example, thickness of armor is equivalent thickness. Yes, about 100mm RHA is plausible penetration value for the 57mm round at a sensible range. Nobody uses actual RHA any more. The T-72 has 80mm of armor on the sides of its engine compartment, but the equivalent RHA thickness is between 170 and 230mm. No way a 57mm round can punch through that, except maybe with a lucky shot. Turret rear armor might be a little weaker, but still not that weak. You could kill a WWII tank with that, or the Armata (because its turret is very lightly armored), but not a T-72.

 

No, being attacked from the rear isn't some great tactical failure, just a battlefield reality. A tank might be ambushed, or have to choose between turning the back of its turret on a SPAAG in order to engage a more serious threat. A ZSU-57 isn't a tank destroyer because it's not good at destroying tanks. It'll chew up lighter vehicles and knock the tank's crew around and possibly disable it, but if it was that easy, tank destroyers all over the world would be mounting 57mm and not 90mm guns.

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

IFV's are tanks, but not MBT's. MBT's are as well tanks but not IFV's. 

If anyone doubted you're full of crap before, that pretty much removes any doubt about it. IFVs are not tanks, even if they can be used as such in some situations. IFVs have much weaker armor and are more reliant on things like reactive armor to survive. They don't have the weapons of a tank (BMP-1 and -3 cannons aren't tank guns), either. Oh, and there's a small matter of being able to carry infantry. Either way, a confrontation with an actual tank will end really badly for an IFV, unless it catches the tank by surprise at ATGM range.

[Mad_Shell]

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Which, if you check out the drawing on the very page you took your "quick" (and unnecessary, given the link) explanation from, is exactly what I said it is. The only difference is, the "BC" part gives it better ballistics than plain old APHE. It's an APHE in a pointy hat, so to speak. A full-caliber 57mm round will not reliably punch through a modern MBT's armor, rear or otherwise. 

 

You're also forgetting that in your example, thickness of armor is equivalent thickness. Yes, about 100mm RHA is plausible penetration value for the 57mm round at a sensible range. Nobody uses actual RHA any more. The T-72 has 80mm of armor on the sides of its engine compartment, but the equivalent RHA thickness is between 170 and 230mm. No way a 57mm round can punch through that, except maybe with a lucky shot. Turret rear armor might be a little weaker, but still not that weak. You could kill a WWII tank with that, or the Armata (because its turret is very lightly armored), but not a T-72.

If you notice in the OP video, he's not at any sensible distance from the MBTs. At this distance the rounds will easily have 120 mm RHA penetration. Also, when he's shooting at the Abrams he's aiming at a very specific spot, where the armor is weaker. Do the test yourself: aim anywhere else on the Abrams side, and it won't penetrate. For the Leclerc, the all around protection is against 30 mm rounds only. So it's not a stretch to imagine there are quite a few weak spots on the sides and the rear against 57 mm rounds, especially when those are fired at point blank range.

Edited May 5, 2021 by Mad_Shell

[Dragon1-1]

I can't do the test because I don't have CA. However, if it's really a particular spot with weak armor, then it might be OK. Do note that only the Abrams has anything resembling actual armor modeling, all other vehicles use a much simpler model.

[Fri13]

11 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Which, if you check out the drawing on the very page you took your "quick" (and unnecessary, given the link) explanation from, is exactly what I said it is. The only difference is, the "BC" part gives it better ballistics than plain old APHE. It's an APHE in a pointy hat, so to speak. A full-caliber 57mm round will not reliably punch through a modern MBT's armor, rear or otherwise. 

 

So you really claim that 57mm doesn't punch through a 20 mm of armor?

 

Quote

You're also forgetting that in your example, thickness of armor is equivalent thickness.

 

No... Those armor values are equivalent protections. If you have 71 mm protection and you have penetrator capable go for 93 mm then it will go through.

 

Quote

Yes, about 100mm RHA is plausible penetration value for the 57mm round at a sensible range. Nobody uses actual RHA any more.

 

RHA is a equivalence value.

 

Quote

The T-72 has 80mm of armor on the sides of its engine compartment, but the equivalent RHA thickness is between 170 and 230mm. No way a 57mm round can punch through that, except maybe with a lucky shot. Turret rear armor might be a little weaker, but still not that weak. You could kill a WWII tank with that, or the Armata (because its turret is very lightly armored), but not a T-72.

 

The RHA value for the rear compartment is just a 80 mm in total.

 

 

 

Quote

No, being attacked from the rear isn't some great tactical failure, just a battlefield reality.

 

Sorry, but it is fully commander failure to open your most vulnerable parts to the enemy. 

The enemy of course is trying to utilize all their tactics to get that flanking opportunity. That is why you have tactics to get that.

Why you are not going to stay in the area where you are open for multiple directions as you die for that.

 

Quote

A tank might be ambushed, or have to choose between turning the back of its turret on a SPAAG in order to engage a more serious threat.

 

What is platoon leader failure to be ambushed in first place.

 

Quote

A ZSU-57 isn't a tank destroyer because it's not good at destroying tanks. It'll chew up lighter vehicles and knock the tank's crew around and possibly disable it, but if it was that easy, tank destroyers all over the world would be mounting 57mm and not 90mm guns.

 

Again you are beating a dead horse. Don't you understand that I said already that it is not a tank destroyer?

The classification of "Tank Destroyer" is to have vehicle that main purpose is to only destroy other tanks. It can be slow as tortoise and so heavily armored from the front that it can take beating from front while having enough power to put any tank out of the action from the flanking positions. It doesn't even need to be a cannon that is used but it can be a simple ATGM to perform the role. 

 

Quote

If anyone doubted.......

 

Personal attack is not an argument. It is just signal that you have no valid argument and lost. 

 

Quote

IFVs are not tanks, even if they can be used as such in some situations.

 

They are tanks. They are just specifically IFV's and not MBT's. It is common misconception that "A tank" means only a MBT because people have only that in their mind. "Tank" is a very broad class that has multiple various other classifications under it. It is like "Aircraft", that includes all kind airplanes and helicopters and so on. 

 

Quote

IFVs have much weaker armor and are more reliant on things like reactive armor to survive.

 

Definition of "tank" does not say anything about quality of the armor, thickness or type. 

 

Quote

They don't have the weapons of a tank (BMP-1 and -3 cannons aren't tank guns), either.

 

"Tank" doesn't say anything about the quality of the armament or capabilities. It just needs a weapon to be combat capable. 

 

Quote

Oh, and there's a small matter of being able to carry infantry.

 

And what would be that as problem or requirement?

 

Quote

Either way, a confrontation with an actual tank will end really badly for an IFV, unless it catches the tank by surprise at ATGM range.

 

Again you are confusing yourself. A Tank vs Tank doesn't mean that they are equal in the performance. 

You are talkin about Tank vs Tank situation where other is a IFV and other is MBT. And you try to use that as your argument that I have claimed that IFV's are as well protected, armed and capable as MBT's. That I have not done. 

 

There is a reason why there are all kind different type of tanks. As not every is meant to be a MBT that is todays most common idea of the tanks. Before MBT there were other more well known classifications of the tanks as light, medium and heavy tanks (and as well super heavy tanks). There are as well others like a "Tankette" idea that even Germany is utilizing today as in Wiesel.

 

Of course you might try to argue that no other tank is a tank than a MBT. But it would be in conflict with everything.

Edited May 5, 2021 by Fri13

[Fri13]

11 hours ago, Mad_Shell said:

Also, when he's shooting at the Abrams he's aiming at a very specific spot, where the armor is weaker. Do the test yourself: aim anywhere else on the Abrams side, and it won't penetrate. For the Leclerc, the all around protection is against 30 mm rounds only. So it's not a stretch to imagine there are quite a few weak spots on the sides and the rear against 57 mm rounds, especially when those are fired at point blank range.

 

Yes, the OP is doing exactly the cherry picking fallacy. He specifically shoots to weak points that are vulnerable for 57 mm caliber and then makes a case that whole 57mm is overpowered because you can take out all MBT's by ignoring the fact that he doesn't even try from any other part that would make those 57 mm cannons ineffective.

 

As I pointed out, the new up coming damage modeling will improve these thins in the future by adding various damage effects and more improved damage zones. The current models can be seen in the 3D model viewer. Someone said that there are multiple sub zones in the MBT's so they ain't just "left side" and "front" so you get different results from hitting various parts in them.  Nothing fancy, but just more than people think just "It has one HP value".  

 

Edit: Just made a simple test with ZSU-57 vs M1A2 Abrams and T-72B3 (likely has the high end damage modeling) and you could get M1A2 Abrams destroyed hitting for that very specific small area, maybe about 50 x 70 cm part with the AP ammo. Everything else was invulnerable for it. Sometimes it was possible get the HE shell damage it from that specific spot. Then just shooting to rear part and it was down almost everywhere.  

The T-72B3 was invulnerable almost against anything. Managed to blow up one from the rear shots with AP.

 

 

 

Each of the vehicle is from 90 degree to 0 degree with 30 degree rotation from opposite side of the runway. 

But it can be easily see that those two MBT's are invulnerable for 57 mm rounds from every where than those couple spots at the rear. Just as they should.

And in future the 57 mm will become far more effective than opposite. As hitting to skirt area will take out the tracks. You can destroy the optics, cannon, engine (if managing to shoot from the hill above them) or other equipment from roof gun to radio antennas and so on. Easiest targets will be the gun, wheels, tracks and optics.

 

What the OP has done is just trying to make a case that 57 mm is too powerful against MBT's by cherry picking highly vulnerable small rear hit zones only.

Hit those at any other areas and you are just wasting ammunition at the current damage modeling. 

 

 

ZSU-57_AP_value.miz

Edited May 5, 2021 by Fri13