Abrams M829A3 vs T-72B3 | Armor Penetration Simulation 

Thats my impression as well but a control shot without the steel tip will clarify things a lot more.

Oh and before i forget, a further control shot with the ERA not detonating would be very nice as well. So we can see the difference ERA and steel tip can do separetly.

Thx . Plz do a video on m829a4 Vs t80bvm or t90m upper glacis next

@@Abusing-water-bottles We don´t even know how M829A4 is supposed to work.

@@alanch90 I'm probably guessing a higher muzzle velocity due to a possible different propellant which probably doesn't chain ignite similar to 120mm dm63 and has probably multiple layers of deformable tip or maybe is made from a composite like jm33, which either way is better at defeating better kinds of era like relikt or fy4. Again this is just speculation but my other channel is about tanks (not animations tho)

I wouldn't speak in absolute terms but sure

M829a2 failed to pen k5 1/3 of the time that means a2 was pening 2/3 of the time

@@colejones594 Do you have a source for this ? I know that per S. Zaloga, M829A1 failed to penetrate the front armor of a T-72B equipped with Kontakt-5 but i don't know about M829A2.

@@thomaslebourdonnec4139 cant share links on youtube thry fucked the comments all up on this app but yeah there are declassified us documents about this if you look into it

@@thomaslebourdonnec4139Glenn girona, a former tanker at the Aberdeen test grounds, got to test the M829A2 against the T-90 or T-80’s turret with Kontakt-5 around the year 2000. He’s written about it on Quora.

Even a rebar at this speed is a high tier weapon. Low cost atleast ! 😅

​8500$ per round ​@@OrIoN1989

My favorite comments in these are always the ones that point out that we just looped back to flinging arrows at each other.

@@SilentHunter7 my favorite one was where a guy said "armored tractors throwing metal darts at each other"

@@polar8469 more like spitting

most of the modern rounds are like this really it just depends on the material

It’s the longest penetrator in active service

@@petrikchamula1670 It also depends on the rod length and diameter. Good quality du perform better than good quality w against monolithic target but no one is shooting at monolithic target. Against complex target, du has advantage more often. Then the more advance service rod. The French, German, Polish, American, all had datalink for their AP. Why would you need datalink for inert round, you probably don't.

M829A4 is even longer

And it's fired from an L/44 too

The point of simulation at around limit of either the armor or the projectile is they provide the most amount of information.

"Barely stopped" is also the one, that is most prone to errors as slight changes change the outcome the most. ;)

Well the coolest is when russian junk gets penetrated easily ngl xD

Given how much of the penetrator was left after that many different layers and K5, I'd say it's safe to assume T-80U is also toast.

Yeah...I don't think much would change. Most of the round was in good shape after punching through all that T-72B3 armor. Textolite and Ceramic of the T-80U/UD won't stop the round from penetrating the entire tank

Maybe test against heavier ERA then, like Ukrainian Nozh.

I'm from the future. None of Soviet/Russian tanks will survive such a hit. The entire families of: T-80s, T-72s, T-90s all done.

@@HanSolo__ they'll just slap on even thicker ERA as compensation, maybe even weld a leopard upper front plate ontop of it (if they ran out of era)

What good? So the fascists can win. I do not know what adequate person can be on the side of the United States.

Wasn't M829A4 just M829A2 with the steel tip and a vague "data link" feature while M829A3 was M829A1 with the steel tip?

​@@thermalvision203 A1 and A2 has the same rod.

@@thermalvision203M829A4 is an enhanced version of M829A3

​@@thermalvision203youre fuckin smoking crack

His t90 armor is absurdly thin. America failed to kill an Asad babyl in 2003.

mmm why i smell cope

Quiet fking kid​@@mustang1912

@@mustang1912 1) It's a T72. 2) The armour layout of the T72 is well documented, and this is accurate. 3) what on earth does that gibberish about Asad babyl mean?

​@@TheInfamousMrFoxdon't talk on facts the guy has now nowhere to hide

I will do simulation of monoblock apfsds vs Leo2AV.

the tip makes no difference other than just a ballistic shape to cover the blunt nose of the rod.

@@thewhitehousevietsubarchiv2625 While its not that obvious from the simulation, if you watch it frame by frame you see that the tip absorbs the initial "shock" of the flying plate starting to move. While it doesn´t seem like such a dramatic difference, the tip also allows the penetrator to come into contact with the base armor with relative low deformation. However, this is just my impression (i´m not any kind of engineer) and thats why a control shot without the steel tip will clarify its effects.

@@alanch90 You are exactly correct as the steel tip was added specifically to defeat Kontakt-5 style heavy ERA and no other reason.

@@thermalvision203 Yes i agree to that and its been a long known fact taken from the projectile patent. However i maintain that to fully appreciate its mechanism, a control shot is needed.

@@thewhitehousevietsubarchiv2625 no. It sets off the k-5

The T-80BVM has worse base composite armour that the T-72B3, but maybe the Relikt ERA can compensate. The hull composite armour on the T-80B and T72A is similar, and that used on T-72B was considered an ungrade

@@levilastun829 The effect of Relikt is mainly what I'm interested in.

50x3 has roughly same protection against rod as this array afaik. Whatever this array gain by having more steel is offset by nera like material feeding on the 50x3 array. As far as relikt goes, that sim is likely coming.

​@@levilastun829 the T-72B does have better base armour than T-80BV, but the T-80B and T-80BV hull armor are not the same, T-80BV is still an upgrade.

@@enriqueouro9 from what I can find, many T-80B's were upgraded to become T-80BV's and retained the same hull armour, but received kontakt-1 ERA. Apparently the newly built T-80BV's received a different hull armour

T72B3 doesn't have Relikt. Does it?

@@sert87 Not standard I believe but we have seen updated models with relik IIRC.

​@@snipermakedonskithe updated models has relikt but just on its sides de t72b3m

​@@KkaksAamsmIt has explosive elements from the relict era. The M829a3 has the option of not activating the K-5 due to its inferior explosives, compared to the relict. So the results of this test would be much worse if there was an old explosive in the K-5.

@@LukaBlazevic3 the thing that made relikt So good its because it use 2 heavy plates kontakt 5 have Just 1 plate, yes it would improve but not at relikt level

At 0:45, we have a view that removes perspective and provide a velocity plot. Rod diameter is known from the simulation discription. Rod material density is also known. You can do fairly good estimation with those data. Everything is calculated. There are views that gives energy, he just didn't put it into the video.

Looks like 900-1100 on the chart

Yes

It would certainly degrade it more, but I'm not sure whether it would actually stop it or not

100%

Probably doesn't do much at all to full calibre AP. But such rounds have no chance of defeating the main armour array anyway.

Yes thicker rod does make single fly plate era with relatively thin fly plate less useful. There are different strategies of how to improve a single fly plate era. Making the gap between era and main armor larger. Making 2 layer of era flying at the same direction. Making 2 layer of era flying at opposite direction. Making longer fly plate. Making thicker fly plate. Setting the era at a higher angle. Most of them are not mutually exclusive. There are also different era design. Like one using efp. One using composite fly plate... Most era would have minimal impact to efficacy of many full caliber projectile, especially 12cm class projectile. The pushing away of rod and erosion is the 2 main mechanism of how era defeat rod. The delta of fly plate weight snd the projectile weight is substantial. I'm not sure about the erosion but I doubt such a thin plate can cause many damage. Hell, the ap likely will clear most of the era before it can act on the projectile.

thicker rod means slower velocity, which means more surface area contact. that energy will spread, not to penetrate.

Probably. But it appears the tip didn't do much of anything as the increase rod thickness alone is enough to counter any adverse effect.

Modeling of reactive armor is rather conditional, it does not take into account all the processes that are going on there.

This is a simplification. I dont think we ever will be 100% accurate because its super hard to model it perfect AND be able to simulate. Its like the weather system. We make approximations that maye miss some %, buts it is better than no sim.

Verification happens on the battlefield at the latest. It would be good to have some idea before then.

Yes. The performance lost depends on a huge variety of factors including the penetrator itself.

i think this is because its only a part of armour, not whole front plate ("контакт" explosion is too weak for this kinda deformation)

I don't think it works like that Anti kinetic ERA function to shatter or bend the Apfsds round so it will not have 100% it's penetration potential Though in this case it doesn't work because M289A3 was made specifically to defeat Kontakt-5 ERA

@@NoName-fm6ew the Simulation however suggest it can 🤷‍♂️

@@WotansCry its only 0.3 kilogrammes of trotyl , really small amount for such deformation, if it was a bmp i would believe ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@@NoName-fm6ew of course not... Each ERA box contains 12 explosive elements of 0.28 kg of explosives each. and it is not trotyl, but explosive material based on RDX...

It's teasing)

83% check the community tab

It's there to trigger ERA early and protect the core from it's explosion, therefore neutralizing the protection it provides

@@thezig2078 interesting, so it’s like armor for the main DU body of the penetrator itself. Is it anything to do with the relative hardness of steel compared to DU? I think high grade steel is harder than depleted uranium but I have no idea where I got that information or if it’s even true.

​@@tobyj762 that's a good question I hadn't really considered. I'm not sure if there's a reason it needs to be steel. My assumption was always that they make the sacrificial tip a separate piece instead of just making the penetrator longer because having the tip be a separate piece from the penetrator means the ERA acting in the tip doesn't disturb the penetrator as much since the tip isn't actually part of the penetrator and just sortof pops off. I always figured they just used steel because it's relatively cheap but I'm not sure now.

@@MrMrsirr I think it’s probably the cheapness aspect, but it’d be really interesting if there was also a material aspect behind the usage of steel

​@@tobyj762 The entire point of the tip is to add standoff distance so when the ERA detonates, it is affecting less of the actual penetrator. The density of steel is about 2.4x lower than depleted uranium, meaning the tip can be 2.4x longer (what you want) and increase the standoff distance by 100mm without decreasing the penetrative ability of the actual DU rod by much (~4% compared to a purely DU penetrator)

1100m

partially

of course, 89' has less armor resistance than 84' without active protection. Besides, there is no photo of the T-72B3 with 89' armor, but the T-72B3 with 84' armor was shown at the 2015 tank biathlon

​@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174less armor resistance!? 110 mm steel>170mm steel😮

@@versusandbattles-2781 60+20+20+10+10+50=110mm?? 😮😮

I bet hollowed tip would create air drag. It has to trigger ERA, not penetrate the armor

​@@thezig2078 Ballistic cap with hollow space has been in used for over a century.

@@jintsuubest9331 i misunderstood then, my bad

I think not, because such a steel tip is a few percent of the weight, the increase in speed would be minimal. I think such a tip would be quite useful against the two-plate Relikt

​@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Does that mean we will be expecting your PC going up in flame with the same setup with relikt?

in 1984, tests of the DZ "Kontakt-5" were carried out, which showed controversial results. When using the 4C20 design with the explosive PVV-5A, the probability of triggering the DZ at a shock velocity of 1,700-1,800 m / s was 80-85%, at a shock velocity of about 1,400-1,500 m / s - 50%, and at a shock velocity of 1,300 m/ s and less, there was no initiation

78?😅

It should be 68°

@@mr.waffentrager4400 really 68 deg, thank you! 450-480 mm + ERA

T-80U is 100% toast, but I'd be interested to see how close the pen is for BVM

thats exactly what i said when he did the survey yesterday, great minds think alike.

My thoughts exactly. Impressive!

The A4 variant went into production in 2016, nearly a decade ago. That could even have a better performance.

The T-series have a larger range, and they often shoot Western vehicles from safe distances. There is a funny option - not to attack Russia and not create immediate existential threats to it. But for some reason, every new Western conqueror cannot simply stop at conquering Europe. Napoleon, Hitler, now the Americans.

Lol russian copium@@MultiNike79

T series tanks are such a joke compared to western tech. Are you forgetting, Russia invaded Ukraine. Not the other way around!@@MultiNike79

you are such a joke lol@@MultiNike79

cry@@BlockOrDeleteMeansIOwnYou

Dm53

well IRL they are filled with cardboard or wood, so NO XD

yes it would, m829a3 is actually slowed down in effort for era to chop of only the very first part and the rest would just go straight threw

If they were real and not filled with anything to save money then yes it does.

​@@N1lavyes in our western media😂😂

​@@N1lavThey weren't wood or cardboard. Iirc it was actually some type of liner material. It just looked like cardboard. As for the actual explosives, can't comment. If given enough time, they may remove it to sabotage the abandoned vehicle. But otherwise that's time consuming so would rarely be done.

Semi-Hardened Armor. This is a popular term for hardened armor, with a lower hardness than High Hardness Armor. In fact, they are all RHA with many different hardnesses. Grouping hardness seems to be more intuitive for the viewer than naming everything RHA. In the description it is mentioned to which hardness of RHA SHA refers.

This is just a popular simplification. DU is characterized by more effective shearing of erosion products accumulating around the flattened tip. I mentioned "more effective" because the phenomenon also occurs in the case of tungsten and steel, based on the theory of adiabatic shear bands.

That's an export version isnt it

@@somerandomboibackup6086 I should have wrote DU penetrator body and Tungsten break away tip. I think the steel tip version is an Export version.

steel tip is the domestic version, export version has the same configuration with tungsten replacing DU in the main penetrating rod, or do you have that patent that I can look at just in case I'm wrong?@@evanbrown2594

I didn't paint it, it's a physical simulator

The computer did tons and tons of math based on the given parameters and determined that it could in fact be penetrated by the projectile

That's Nizh

That's the Ukrainian counterpart or smth idr

T-80BVM

I don't think combined armor creates as much spalling though, most of the spalling would probably come from the last plate to be penetrated.

​@@IosifStalinsendsyoutoGulag And the last plate is what?

@@IosifStalinsendsyoutoGulag That's not what they said, because the penetrator is penetrating the last plate at an angle with a greater surface area its going to create more spall from that last plate.

@@jintsuubest9331 The last plate is 50 mm

bruh, you think that in fifty years of development of Russian tanks, textolite was always packed into each one?

:(

Most of the M829 shells are restricted. They have the KEW series for export which uses tungsten instead.

Poland bought 60k M829A4 lol

Hard to do because it's based on HEAT warheads

Maybe 3BM42 or 3BM60 vs T-64BM with nozh

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 true, but maybe someday you will have enough time

​@@NoName-fm6ew Time is the keyword here. I think the simulation time exploded into thousands of hours. Thousands of hours is... not optimal.

@@jintsuubest9331 you'd need NASA supercomputer to simulate that lol

until a Ukrainian STUGNA-P hits you, then it doesn’t matter what tank you are in. You die. Or where it gets hit. Plenty of all aspect turret and chassis kills on all types to include t-90m

​@@xassasiantorxevery atgm with tandems will kill any tank

Warthunder obviously.

Exatly slapping shitty boom boom plates wont fix

@@somerandomboibackup6086theres another way to stop penetrators iirc. One is where you use ERAs and nERAs, and the one I’m talking about is the “deflecting” armor. Basically, the armor consists of plates that are facing in different directions. Forcing the penetrator to lose energy by changing it’s course, thus losing speed and armor penetration. Some space industries are working on this type of armor for spacecraft/space stations, the 2AV has a similar armor as well.

For his sim, semi harden steel. Point is make things less confusing. He tend to denote Rha to be 250bhn to 350bhn. Sha to be about 400bhn. Hhs to be about 550bhn.

crappy 1980s armor even with Relikt won't save it lol (T80BVM), Gayjin in a nutshell

@@somerandomboibackup6086 indeed