120 mm APFSDS-T Vs T72B Turret NERA Armor

Подписаться 13 тыс.

Просмотров 136 тыс.

50% 1

This video presents the 120 mm M829 APFSDS-T penetrating the Soviet T72B tank turret armor.Te different penetration positions against turret NERA Armour are considered and compared in the analysis.
Please subscribe to our channel: / @extremeengineeringsim...
Credits: www.bensound.com
Other Similar Videos
T72B Turret Armor Vs 120 mm M829 APFSDS-T #NERA VS APFSDS
• T72B Turret Armor Vs 1...
1. 125mm BM15 APFSDS Projectile Vs 250 BHN RHA #Armor Piercing Simulation
• 125mm BM15 APFSDS Proj...
2. Bullet Penetration Vs Aluminum Plate #Failed Armor Penetration
• Bullet Penetration Vs ...
3.120 mm KE M829A2 APFSDS Vs T44 Tank Armor Inclined Plate
• 120 mm KE M829 APFSDS ...
4. 7.62 NATO x 51mm Bullet Penetration on Aluminum Plate # Finite Element Analysis , Failed Penetration2
• 7.62 NATO x 51mm Bulle...
5.7.62 NATO X 50 mm Bullet Vs Armor Steel Plate # Armor Penetration Simulation
• 7.62 X 51mm NATO Bulle...
6. BM15 APFSDS Vs 250 BHN RHA #Armor Piercing Simulation
• BM15 APFSDS Vs 250 BHN...
7.Shot, fixed A.P.T 90 mm T33 Vs Reinforced Concrete and Steel Bars # Armor Piercing Ammunition
• Shot, fixed A.P.T 90 m...
8.7_62X51 mm NATO Vs Bulletproof Steel Vest #Armor Piercing Simulation
• 7.62X51 mm NATO Vs Bul...
9.120 mm M829 APFSDS Vs 125 mm BM 15 APFSDS # APFSDS Collision # Armor Piercing Simulation.
• 120 mm M829 APFSDS Vs ...
10.Low Quality Armor Vs Reinforced Concrete and Steel Bars # Armor Piercing simulation
• Bomb (Kinetic Energy P...
11. Pz Kpfw V (Panther) Tank Vs Shot, A.P., 90mm, T33 # Armor Penetration simulation
• 90 mm t33 Vs German Pz...
12.125 mm 3BM9 APFSDS-T Vs Leopard 2 # Armor Penetration Simulation
• 125 mm 3BM9 APFSDS-T V...
13. 3VBM3/3BM9 APFSDS Vs M829 APFSDS #APFSDS Collision
• 125 mm 3BM9 APFSDS Vs ...
14. APFSDS Vs NERA #Non Explosive Reactive Armor
• APFSDS Vs NERA #Non En...
15. 120 mm M829A2 APFSDS-T Vs Leopard 2 Turret
• 120 mm M829A2 APFSDS-T...
17. 3BM9 APFSDS Vs M829 APFSDS Part 2
• 125 mm 3BM9 APFSDS-T V...

Опубликовано:

7 фев 2022

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 198

@76456 2 года назад

Would be cool if you could model the kontack 5, and see, all the angles in particular the one at 60° from the center

@extremeengineeringsimulati5627 2 года назад

Sure ! If you more inputs please share with us, thanks !

@wiciovs 2 года назад

kontakt, not kontack, natoschwein

@kollok3740 Год назад

nope， Because all K5 has been stolen by Russian officers

@76456 Год назад

@@kollok3740 you must be funny at partys

@user-zo4ce3nk9s 2 года назад

In general, all tanks of the USSR and Russia, starting with the T-64, are equipped with additional protection. Starting with "contact-1", "contact-5" and now the "relic" is being put on the T-72B3. The principle of operation is this, on top of the armor, they put additional containers with explosives and a movable plate, from a projectile hit, the explosive detonates and the movable plate shifts towards the projectile. This gives about 200-500mm of extra armor. it all depends on the angle of impact of the projectile and the type of projectile.

@chaosxassassin7 2 года назад

Contact 1 is mainly for chemical rounds though. Contact 5 has increased kinetic protection but is mainly to counter tow 2's. Which could defeat contact 1 with their tandem heads.

@leonleeoff2216 2 года назад

Doesnt work anyway

@elliotsmith102 2 года назад

Not 200-500mm extra against KE penetrators.

@user-zo4ce3nk9s 2 года назад

Yes it works. even the pin 1, in 1989 the US got the T-72B with the built pin-1. built-in in the case, the tower was without protection. fired at his M829 hull, and the M829 did not penetrate the frontal part of the hull. contact 1 worked. after the bops were modernized, in 1991 the M829a1 came out, to which the sharpening angle was changed. the bops gave fewer fragments after the passage of the upper plate and contact-1 did not feel it anymore.

@quantuman100 2 года назад

@@user-zo4ce3nk9s we have 6 weeks of data showing that these reactive Armour schemes aren't very effective as for singe examples, there are always many factors that can lead to certain results, but across large numbers these factors disapear

@UniverseUA 2 года назад

I love watching your videos! I have a video idea for you: in different simulations a plate of armor with the same thickness gets hit with a shell, but the plate is made of different metals such as: Pure iron Aluminium Titanium Tungsten Uranium I'd really appreciate it if you make a video like this!

@extremeengineeringsimulati5627 2 года назад

Thanks for appreciation ! We will do that simulation soon !

@acr_master5594 2 года назад

it would be interesting to see what apfsds would do to a model of the uranium turret cheeks of the m1a2 abrams

@threndor3743 2 года назад

I would love to have concrete added to that list (simulate a knocked down building/structure). I know it will go a ways, but how far and how much damage goes through? Normal armor that gets penetrated adds the penetrated metal to the shrapnel that bounces around inside the tank, for instance.

@paullakowski2509 2 года назад

@@threndor3743 their are numerous papers on that topic in IJIE.

@TheOreoOverlord Год назад

@@extremeengineeringsimulati5627 ⁰z

@akriegguardsman 2 года назад

It would be interesting to see the effects of a second hit in a similar position on composite armour after a failed penetration from the same round earlier

@jackmoorehead2036 2 года назад

In that one last scenario, what would the shock damage be to the turret drive? That's a lot of kinetic energy being dumped on to a geared system.

@datpudding5338 Год назад

I'd imagine most of the impact is already spread by deformation. Maybe a simulation of this with the whole turret could tell us more

@marianzacharski5748 2 года назад

your best simulation yet :) good job

@extremeengineeringsimulati5627 2 года назад

Glad you think so!

@RoninTF2011 2 года назад

Lateral forces applied to the penetrator in the second simulation seem way to low. I'd check the parameters there...

@Rusoria Год назад

I love these simulations. Check, what software do you use? Greetings and thanks!

@user-gf3yh4pe7p Год назад

Заявленная стойкость башни Т72Б - 600мм на углах до 20 градусов, М829 столько не пробивает, М829А2 еще может быть 50 на 50, М829А3 точно пробьёт

@user-hr2yc6by6r 6 месяцев назад

Мультики они и есть мультики. Даже температура заряда влияет, да и контактом всё обмазано, там вообще казино)

@Artig627 2 месяца назад

Заявленное пробитие М829 540 мм на 2 километра, если выстрелить ближе, то пробьёт

@rayotoxi1509 2 года назад

With kontakt 5 ERA over it now pls And i would like to see how 3bm42 mango would perform on the t72b3 frontal plate Tottaly not becuse ukraine and russia conflict might be about to escalate

@rakeshpatil3723 2 года назад

Best video, Clearly presented !

@extremeengineeringsimulati5627 2 года назад

Thank you !

@alanch90 2 года назад

Well done, could you also simulate impact velocities at more common ranges like 1, 2, 3km?

@Dodo-ze5ep 2 года назад

The velocity doesn't differ that much...

@alanch90 2 года назад

@@Dodo-ze5ep at 2km the difference can be greater than 100 m/s

@extremeengineeringsimulati5627 2 года назад

Thanks ! Okay will try to do separate simulation.

@aguilayserpiente Год назад

Does composite armor contain compressed liquidized quartz? How does it react to the AP dart?

@schutzanzug6731 Год назад

Can you do the same thing but with Relict 1 ERA?

@user-mt8rr3jk6q 2 года назад

It would be interesting with "Contact-5" ERA

@prezydentkucz9931 2 года назад

Could you compare your simulation to war thunder penetration testing? It would be something new on this channel, but i bet it would get you many new viewers :)

@borisb1831 2 года назад

That's incorrect terminology, penetration is when a projectile enters the armor, perforation is when it enters the armor and exits as well.

@billytankcomander1233 2 года назад

can you do this again with era pliz

@tac_c0512 Год назад

As a former tank gunner... this channel is ABSOLUTELY terrifying

@kaidanalexander2840 Год назад

Yea cuz it shows that half the time armor doesn’t do shit against kinetic ammunition

@markandannettewalcheske5154 Год назад

would love to see the simulation of an M829 120mm, APFSDS-T on T72 latest generation tank.

@Angry-Lynx 2 года назад

that men of war music 😂

@destrylett1619 2 года назад

Am I missing something the most likely angle the turret would get hit still wasn't strong enough to stop pen even once, was armor already outdated here?

@pcguy2 2 года назад

This is a modern DU dart vs cold war tank. The weapon is far superior to armor tech by 40+ years.

@JamesCZFEA 2 года назад

@@pcguy2 25 years, the first t72 entered production in 1969 and the m829 was in use by 1993.

@sistros84 2 года назад

@@JamesCZFEA @Adam Zhang The M829 was fielded in 1983, the T-72B NERA is soviet technology of early 80's. Have in mind that the simulation was made with the muzzle velocity, that was a point black hit. At 2km the m829 should have problems piercing that armor.

@sistros84 2 года назад

@@pcguy2 The M829 was fielded in 1983, the T-72B NERA is soviet technology of early 80's (both late cold war contemporaries). Have in mind that the simulation was made with the muzzle velocity, that was a point black hit. At 2km the m829 should have problems piercing that armor.

@paullakowski2509 2 года назад

THEIR IS NO ACCUMULATED YAW FACTORED IN.

@Fish-ub3wn 2 года назад

loved the game from which u have the music :)

@jimbob3291 2 года назад

That shot trap at the end of the NERA pod gives me bad vibes. It only takes a longer dart to bounce it at a menial angle and then it's inside the turret.

@zainoo8298 Год назад

I don't think the apfsds would fully penetrate the armor of the t72b as russia uses t 72b3m instead which has kontakt-5/relikt

@lucasboaventura100 7 месяцев назад

Mate, we need Leopard 1A5 L7A3 105mm DM33 and DM63 against T-72B1 Kontact1 Hull and Turret front and sides

@Googlencraptubesuckabandonship 2 года назад

I always knew Warthunder was a joke. Thanks Gayjin.

@chickenchicken8097 5 месяцев назад

like ur life

@wawaweewa9159 Год назад

What if you fill the gaps with loose sand?

@maioralofknowledge2658 2 года назад

I have an array design of a top armor composite for frontal hull and turret made of armox steel, boron carbide, UHMWPE, aramid etc to simulate, can you do this? What kind of information do you need? Have email contact?

@extremeengineeringsimulati5627 2 года назад

Hi ! You can share it with us. Please refer our contact page for email address, thanks !

@livewyr7227 Год назад

Why are we calling composite armor NERA? What's reactive about it?

@BBCRF 2 года назад

А закалку стали ты учитывал? И еще не указал слой со сталью БТК-1

@user-oe2qx7sm7s 2 года назад

Не хера он не учитовал, ни марки, ни твердость

@redpart 2 года назад

т72б бедолагу мучают. пытаются цифры своим боеприпасам накрутить, якобы наши танки слабы, забывая что и марки стали другие, да и башни уже на т90 катано-сварные

@deathdragon2283 2 года назад

@@user-oe2qx7sm7s it also completely ignores the yaw that would be imparted into the rod. You can see the rod stays on a perfectly straight path like it’s a laser.

@WhatTrigger 2 года назад

0:44 is it just me or seeing the turret inners like that kinda eerie?

@andrej5861 2 года назад

Do these simulations take into account any destabilizing effect of armor on long rod penetrators? I do not see any jawing motion on projectile as it passes through different layers of armor. I believe that one of main purposes of layered and composite armors is to destabilize penetrators. I have seen videos of bullets fired from rifles tumbling after hitting obstacles and going all over the place. Or is the interaction of forces significantly different (higher velocities, etc.)? Isn't it the case that the higher L/D ratio the more susceptible to destabilization is the penetrator? Thank you for your answer.

@SuperIv7 2 года назад

Hmm... only the yellow scenario (#2) seems to be a realistic = front angle. However on reference images external armor at the point of contact near gun mask is ~2x thicker than the model, see blue area at 0:35. You'd need to increase model armor thickness in that area and/or move the point of impact upwards where angle of incidents would be 45deg instead of zero. Turret armor is obviously not designed to survive #1, basically a side shot, which would represent a mistake by defending tank's crew. #3 looks least realistic - the projectile would have to go through the gun first.

@h.n.t.d7963 2 года назад

Wow i underestimate those skiny dart too much

@Slavkovic_Predrag 2 года назад

Is this abaqus or ansys ?

@extremeengineeringsimulati5627 2 года назад

ANSYS !

@mando_dablord2646 Год назад

Based on the engineering of Soviet tanks, any penetration is potentially fatal because of the crew cab and ammo storage. Even with ERA, it's a flaw that can't be fixed, only covered up. Although it comes down if a military decides the protection solutions from the west are worth the increased price, or if they're even able to buy them in the first place.

@cynicalfox190 Год назад

“Any penetration is potentially fatal” thanks genius it’s not like that’s how it works for all armoured vehicles in the world. Of course APFSDS and HEAT don’t kill people if they aren’t in Soviet vehicle…

@mando_dablord2646 Год назад

@@cynicalfox190 Do you know of the engineering behind NATO tanks? Crew and ammo are designed to be as protected as possible, along with the fact that NATO propellant being designed to be less reactive to the point where DM53 is tested to not cook off when hit.

@cynicalfox190 Год назад

@@mando_dablord2646 I am fairly familiar with NATO tanks as I am with Soviet vehicles. Soviet vehicles are designed with the autoloader in the lowest part of the hull possible leading to it being very hard to hit ammo in the first place and if crews are even more worried about cook off’s they can only load the autoloader not the spare ammo. If that is done the T series tanks are more survivable that a Leopard 2 with its full load for example. Tanks generally get hit in the upper hull or turret, the NATO philosophy has been to make a seperate ammo rack in the turret with blow out doors and blast shields for protection. The Soviets went with not having the ammo up high in the first place to decrease the chance of ammo being hit in the first place rather than having to protect the crew in case of a cook off. Both philosophy’s work and NATO even dabbles in unprotected hull ammo with the Leopard 2 for example so obviously its perfectly fine when NATO also uses hull ammo stowage right? If we look at theatres where both nato and Soviet tanks are both operating we see that both get readily taken out by ATGM’s Syria for example with T series tanks and Leopard 2’s is an excellent example of this. Soviet tanks letting the turret fly away on ammunition detonation is probably of little concern to the crew who were already dead. Why is it that when the hull ammo of a leopard 2 detonates and cooks the crew is it not the same design flaw?

@mando_dablord2646 Год назад

@@cynicalfox190 NATO tanks are designed with the idea of being either hull down or a similar position to make the hull as little of a target as possible, so even before DM53 the propellant was in a protected position. Now with DM53 a cook off is nearly impossible and the crew compartment is the most protected position on each tank. Most kills on NATO tanks with a modern package are mobility kills where the engine is taken out. Russian tanks can also do hull down, it would be stupid to say they can't, but they weren't designed with that idea as their basis. The fact that the only protection the ammo has is that it's low in position isn't great given their already low silhouette. If a cook off does happen that's the destruction of the tank, not just needing to go for repairs. However, Soviet-Russian tanks are compact to a fault where they cram as much as they can into it. So that's why I say any spalling is potentially fatal for its interior. With Sabot, tandem warheads, and top attack missiles being able to negate tank defenses is enough. Which APS has always been something Russia has struggled with, which extends to the majority of their technical solutions. They understand the problem, but take the budget solutions because of the amount of shortcuts already taken. The fact that it took so long for the T-90M to get a laser warning system as a standard issue should be embarrassing. So everything beforehand didn't even know they were being targeted so they could reposition themselves or find/create cover. But I can give them the fact that they started armoring their carousels so it's not completely vulnerable.

@HerpDerpNV Год назад

@@cynicalfox190 your copium and butthurt is showing

@bittemeinrammstein Год назад

Would really like to see this same test with Kontakt-5 or Relikt ERA.

@lilMungo Год назад

The m829 is is first 120mm apfsds for the m1a1 lol if yiu wanna do that we gotta use m929a3 or m829a4

@bittemeinrammstein Год назад

@@lilMungo Most common APFSDS is US service in M829A2. There is maybe some thousand A3 which is in service, but no A4 yet in active service, but selective examination yes.

@dwwolf4636 Год назад

I was under the impression that the 45mm plate was a HHS equivalent.

@Fulcrum683 2 года назад

Воо вот эт другое дело: выстрел отмеченный желтым цветом вот оно то самое от него практически ничего не остается... Хоть он и пробивает наполнитель... А поперек наполнителя конечно он его пробьет насквозь и вылетит с другой стороны башни.... Можете сделать ролик выстрел 3ВБМ-17 между маской пушки и триплексом мехвода М1А1?

@extremeengineeringsimulati5627 2 года назад

Please share more information on that ! thanks !

@TheInfamousMrFox 2 года назад

Except 3rd world ruSSia's tanks all stow poorly protected 2 stage ammunition in the crew cab, as we discovered in Iraq, and again in Syria, and again in Ukraine is that even the slightest penetration means hot fragments and sparks getting down into the ammo, cooking off the tank and barbecuing the crew.

@jondavidmcnabb 2 года назад

@@TheInfamousMrFox Truth!!! I have seen it first hand....

@Loubie2005 2 года назад

War Thunder needs to see this video

@vladimirvladimir1702 2 года назад

0:18 Velocity measurement is m/s not m/s^2

@Mugonini Год назад

Видео согревающая американские сердца...

@Artig627 2 месяца назад

На самом деле люди в США милитаризированы гораздо меньше чем в России

@akanoob2072 Год назад

Good test, but a thing to keep in mind is that T72 composite armor has to be coupled With ERA to be effective

@JsphCrrll Год назад

Against a 90mm fired from an m60 sure, but what about a 105mm fired from a m60?

@rajaydon1893 Год назад

@@JsphCrrll not even worth seeing, it ain't doing much

@markqqq_ 2 года назад

Great simulation

@extremeengineeringsimulati5627 2 года назад

Thank you !

@zeppkfw Год назад

Why not just run light tanks at this point?

@saucy743 2 месяца назад

To be honest, the performance of the Composite armour in the 2nd simulation was quite underwhelming.

@diegotarses9460 Год назад

Imagine the M829A2, with will cross side by side the entire turret by the simulation results.

@КайлБ Год назад

после того, как вы леопард а5 в башню пробили на этой считалке, о чем вообще можно говорить)

@vicentegomezalvarado3308 Год назад

Resumen: Abrams M1A2= Die T-90= Die Leopard= Die Merkaba= Die Todos los tanques son destructibles

@dmitryogorodnikov699 Год назад

T-72B with unmounted ERA almost survive. So T-90, T-72B, T-80B with ERA Kontact-5 or Relict will survive.

@the_burger 2 года назад

Fun

@extremeengineeringsimulati5627 2 года назад

Lot !

@arpioisme 2 года назад

aren't NERA optimized for HEAT?

@paullakowski2509 2 года назад

THE MORE EXPLOSIVE INCLUDED IN THE COMPOSITE INTERLAYER , THE MORE THE PLATES BULGE AND BEHAVE LIKE FLYER PLATES.

@wfpnknw32 2 года назад

So the only situation where it stops it is where it would miss if the plates werent there haha

@23GreyFox 2 года назад

0:50 where is the music from?

@RiccardoTheBeAst 2 года назад

men of war

@23GreyFox 2 года назад

@@RiccardoTheBeAst Assault squad 1 or 2? Can't find it.

@RiccardoTheBeAst 2 года назад

@@23GreyFox Mmh...... can't tell, i must admit.... i'm going to do some more research

@comrade607 2 года назад

Without era?

@extremeengineeringsimulati5627 2 года назад

Yes at present no ERA considered. We will includes it in future simulations

@mode4148 2 года назад

Wow

@extremeengineeringsimulati5627 2 года назад

Thanks !

@israelacevedo2258 2 года назад

Leclerc please!!!

@Max_Da_G 2 года назад

As expected. Composite armor would typically do worse than homogenous armor against APFSDS. Simple matter of there being less material to penetrate. Composite armor is made to stop HEAT rounds more effectively.

@BARelement Год назад

No tank is able to have 900mm of steel looped onto it unless it has a 14 mm thick unmanned turret, no ERA, 50mm side armor MAX with a 1800HP engine to even come close to useful… Even then you’re looking at Maus speed, and we didn’t even get to the point of how tf do you balance tht + create a sustainable suspension for that wonky weight distribution. Look how much armor it had just to not even close to that of what a T-72B3 could stop… Homogeneous armor ISNT AN OPTION at all. So mentioning it being better makes 0 sense, isn’t true l, isn’t practical. If that’s the case tell me why countries build the Leopard 2, Abrams, T-90 and not the Maus, Ratte, E-100, E-75s, Tiger IIs, IS-7s, T-10Ms, Is 3, etc??? BECAUSE HOMOGENEOUS ARMOR ISNT AN OPTION. You will never successfully win an argument saying the IS 3 is better than the T-72 I’m SORRY. Name at any point in time that a 300 ton plus hunk of steel will ever be useful in a conflict other than being a MASSIVE waste of material, and an overkill of a paper weight?

@Max_Da_G Год назад

@@BARelement You missed my point. I never said that homogenous armor is a superior solution. And I fully agree with your points. In fact homogenous armor is bad against HEAT jets: they PREFER the homogenous material as it helps penetration. Only a combination of defenses can help: active protection system, combined with layered ERA and then the composite armor. APS to destabilize the APFSDS projectile, ERA to shatter it and composite to handle the pieces landing onto it. As for HEAT rounds, APS would cause the to explode or damage the metal cone that's the HEAT jet material.

@nucleus691 8 месяцев назад

But composite armor is better against everything?

@ushiki2212 6 месяцев назад

dunno. The ceramic or "hard" layer of chobalm or similar Armour types shatters to distribute the energy of the impact across a larger area on the next layer of steel. This increases armour protection even against kenetic projectiles.

@hssilic3794 2 года назад

танковые бои это просто уникальность. 95% всех уничтоженных приходятся на артиллерию, птрк, рпг

@1SweetPete 2 года назад

Dart completely invalidated this armour... damn

@inniyewtesfaw2003 2 года назад

as expected, NERA is meant to counter chemical warheads

@redpart 2 года назад

T72B

@illturralli 2 года назад

Geez, its practically worthless vs this level of apfsds.

@volatile5460 2 года назад

Depending against kinetic ammunition is very difficult today. Shaped charges are easier to defend against and most NERA composites focus on this to protect the tank vs air strikes, infantry, etc.

@utah20gflyer76 3 месяца назад

Also not a realistic test since all T72s have ERA in those areas. Without including the entire system you really aren’t looking at reality.

@zidfih1176 2 года назад

Do a simulation of mud and supply lines cause they are doing the most damage to T-72s

@GGoblin525 Год назад

Глупость. Лоб башни 72 так не пробивается

@WarDaddy8917 2 года назад

The fact thats just a M829 which is a retired ammunition while the newest and longer and much tougher and smarter M829A4 was just buffed up to beat the ERA

@user-jl7bn7nt5l 4 месяца назад

it isnt NERA

@kazaxnayman385 2 года назад

Да как он пробил броню толщина стенки можно выдет но другом выдосе показали как не пробиват лоб танка М1 Абрамс рекашет под башню

@30oooo33 3 месяца назад

🤣

@Terminator-T850 4 месяца назад

Как ни посмотришь подобные ролики - наша техника сплошь пробивается, натовская нет. Одна пропаганда.

@Artig627 2 месяца назад

Лол, у тебя в мозгу пропаганда сплошная

@niffy99 2 года назад

So basically the t-72 is dead

@chaukim4753 Год назад

American bullets can penetrate through any T-72 tanks. Poor Russians.

@gauden7785 2 года назад

Western 120mm can penetrate all Russian tanks easily. Russian tanks have very bad quality amour.

@RiccardoTheBeAst 2 года назад

This is bullshit 😂😂😂 Soviet armor was far superior to NATO tanks. For all the 70s and 80s they fielded tanks with thick composite armor, against 105mm armed NATO tanks with relatively thin RHA armor. That comparison is 1985 armor vs 1993 round, bad quality my ass.

@gauden7785 2 года назад

@@RiccardoTheBeAst Don't be stupid, take a look in ukraine. 1,000 Russian tanks were destroyed today, where are their amour. That''s 2022 amour, but 2010 rounds, stupid.