Abrams SILVER BULLET vs Iraqi T-72 | M829A1 Depleted Uranium APFSDS Armour Penetration Simulation 

How would the same round have fared against actual soviet t-72bs of the time? To end the age old debate.

I've been wanting too see how heavy ERA would function, but swap the high hardness plates with diamond

The driver is an expanding cloud of vapour.

​@@MostlyPennyCatin war thunder he'd just turn yellow 😂😂😂

Driver:turns yellow

@@NK-qn6pq 😂 Tis but a flesh wound _drinks his vodka diesel and walks it off_

shell shattered

one thing that the sim fails to show is D.U. round self-sharp when hitting harden target meaning the front of the round does not become blunt.

@@chrishill3536 The penetrator is supposed to be blunt and it stays blunt during penetration. The term "self sharpening" is misleading is not really whats happening. The sim also takes into account the material differences between tungsten and uranium.

@@Komet1305 true D.U. round burn the outside layer, which would make it self-sharping.

APFSDS rounds dont really deflect off armor that much, even if the round fails to penetrate.

​@@chrishill3536 "self sharpening" refers to the fact that the end doesn't mushroom as much as tungsten does. However, at higher velocities (above 1900 m/s I believe) tungsten alloys begin to acquire similar properties to DU with regards to this. I don't believe that any tank guns in service reach velocities like this though so it's more of a thought experiment currently.

They said before that HEAT was very hard to simulate

@@pyrenees2695 That's not why i pay them. I don't pay them at all, to be honest.

One can dream...

I remember there were HEAT simulation videos before but against a solid block (should be equal to thickness of composite armor's thickness in theory) rather than actual composite armor.

Aw nah the armour is mewing

So the game "Gunner, Heat, PC" is very accurate compare to real life's impact?

@@dmknght8946 I'd be willing to say it's the best sim I've played. I say that as somebody that also has Steel Beasts 2 Pro PE.

Let's seal it with Flex Tape!

@@paleoph6168 ?

Bro this red small things is damaging the crew

@@user-wt3sp5ec2u I know

@@ukuskota4106foreign? Or child?

Old(USA): 3km in sandstorms . New(RUS):400m if weather was perfect .

​@@grigor.h3929 not really, it's better than american thermals because it's not that old

@@user-vt4je9ym6h 400m range is better than 5km? Also it’s an 1970s old model bought from France. You showed why Russian can’t be better. Keeping lie to yourself and be the best of your dreams.

​@@grigor.h3929о чем ты? Какие 400 М? Какие песчаный бури? Для повышения кругозора, столкновение танков Ирака с Амеканскими была полной неожиданностью для первых. Иракские танки вышли со своих капониров для переброски к другим силам, тогда как Американские обходили со стороны соседнего государства при поддержке авиации и разведки, то есть Абрамсы точно знали в какой стороне враг, что он будет двигаться к ним бортом и что Ирак точно не ждёт нападения со стороны пустыни соседа и не имеет авиации для разведки, потому Американцы начали обстрел противника намного раньше Иракцев, которые не имели тепловизоров и снарядов для поражения лобовой брони абрамса (3бм22) на большой дистанции, поэтому направились на сближение

@@user-py9yk5tr1q Remember, that’s an old western equipment bought from France. And you Orcs won’t have it again because your invasion at 2014.

export heavily downgraded model in small numbers against most modern tanks opponents can field? wow who couldve guessed

@@user-pe8yi9uh7d T-72 M1 is 1:1 variant of T-72A. M1 is pretty much a export designation only. For it's time, it was a decent MBT as a whole. Not a real downgrade. Was it A or M1 is irrelevant. Both were obsolete by the time when 1st Gulf war occurred.

@@JustPeasant It was downgraded in the sense that Iraq only had the 3BM9 steel round against the Abrams, which was insanely old and pretty much useless. It also wasnt obsolete at all, (its still used in Ukraine lol) if it had better rounds it could probably do ok against some NATO MBTs, however Iraq was simply way too outgunned by the coalition of 30+ nations to really do anything.

@@quan-uo5ws For the 90s you can consider it obsolete in the sense that it's armor isnt able to resist main threats at the time and the fire control system is from the early 70s, even if you gave it modern ammunition it would still be at a big disadvantage. T-72A was ok for early-mid 70s, but as T-64B came in it got surpassed.

@@quan-uo5ws Not obsolete in true sense, just like you pointed out. Also, it has to be taken into account that Iraq waged unsuccessful invasion on Iran for almost eight years (22 September 1980 - 20 August 1988). It certainly played its part into Iraq's forces depletion and exhaustion.

I think there is already a video about that scenario. If I remember right, the shell failed to pen.

Nothing newer is needed. Soviet t-72bs of the time would have likely stopped that round under the same circumstances...

Shtora wont affect a hellfire

@@Jonas636_ depends on hellfire used laser ones would possibly be affected

@@user-pe8yi9uh7d Shtora works by confusing the launcher not the missile itself

@@user-pe8yi9uh7d It wouldn't do a thing. Hellfire is looking for a laser pulse, there are no instructions being provided to the missile from the launcher for the Shtora to jam.

Shtora wouldn't affect the most common ATGMs of any of the platforms you just mentioned as it is an infrared dazzler. While the majority of the US's missiles, even back then, were wire or laser guided and remain so to this day. You can't spoof a wire or laser guidance system with a system meant to fool infrared sensors.

A t-72b hull would have likely stopped the round even without the era.

@@Masterafro999 Except that's not a T-72B, is it?

@@seanmurphy7011 well...none of the export models ever received heavy reactive armour. So I went on to assume that a comparison was only possible on a tank of the same time period that did receive k5. But the t-72bs hull armour would likely be sufficient to stop the round entirely on its own....

@@Masterafro999 Hence my proposal of a theoretical scenario: "I would like to see how contemporary reactive armor would (or would not) have made a difference." which is kind of the point of this channel.

@@seanmurphy7011 so heavy era on this very tank. I'd say the round would not be able to penetrate the hull.

The hull of the t-72b alone would have likely stopped this round under the same circumstances. Adding k5 would simply solidify that outcome. Long rod DU penetrators are very brittle and prone to shattering when external shear forces are imparted on its body. Complex composite armour arrays and heavy reactive armour tiles such as k5 do exactly that...

When NATO got a hold of Kontact 5, they had trials with that. The result was near immunity at the area due to ERA. On T-72/T-80 hulls. The new APFSDS was rushed into production due to those trials

@@huntermad5668 I think Kontact 1 won't do anything much to this projectitle? (I believe I saw a simulation video that K-1 didn't help)

It would struggle to penetrate the hull of the t-72b even without the era.

@@Masterafro999 source?

@@somerandomboibackup6086 "Numerical analysis and modeling of jacketed rod penetration" by Brett R. Sorensen, Kent D. Kimsey, Jonas A. Zukas, Konrad Frank. "Numerical analysis and modeling of jacketed rod penetration"-seperate paper on the same topic by by H. Kaufmann. "Comparisons of Unitary and Jacketed Rod Penetration into Semi-Infinite and Oblique Plate Targets at System Equivalent Velocities" by J. Stubberfield. There's plenty more where this came from.

@@somerandomboibackup6086 earlier du projectiles like m829a1 were brittle and prone to shattering when facing external shear forces which would be imparted by either heavy era like K5 or complex composite arrays like the one found on the t-72b series of tanks. Their armour was very good for its time. Especially when coupled with k5...

@@Masterafro999 yes it will get destroyed by K5 but how will composite?

To answer you're question. M829a1 would have struggled to penetrate the hull if a t-72b even without the era. That's an actual soviet tank of the time. And for the rest....I'd love to see those too😂

Not the exact same projectile but there's a video on youtube (simulation plus) showed M829A3 vs T-90M

I think the simulation is editing out particles of a certain size and down. There's a shot where there's just this spray of red particulates and they would absolutely shred everything inside. Armor is hard af, but electronics, people, and ammunition? Not so much.

its same,back then M1A1 was the best MBT

Soviet T-72A was the Russian used variant. T-72M1 is an export equivalent sold to many Soviet satellite states. There were not that many differences between them. The Russians started using T-72B which has improved armor.

@@TeurastajaNexus yes but that time Still M1A1 was the best mbt in the world during those times, no ussr armor can match the abrams back then.

@@usmc5977 True. Also, Don't forget the Leopard 2A4. Western armor was and still is superior to what the Russians have.

It seems the Iraqi's had a mix of ones with and without the 16mm applique plate, here is an image of one from The Tank Museum where you can see the 16mm plate. Its most evident by looking at the cut-outs around the towing eyes x.com/TankMuseum/status/1188544897114132481/photo/1

T-72M1 copies armor of T-72A with one small exception in case of iraqi forces - due to their experience with iranian TOW-1 mossiles, iraqis added an additional external plate to act as spaced armor and make the tank nigh invulnerable to TOW-1. So it's BETTER armored against HEAT compared to original.

@@TheArklyte That´s what many believe, me too back then. But after thoroughly checking the situation it is confirmed that the T-72M1 has a 80-105-20 base armour, regardless if they later put some extra armor on it or not.

T-72M would have the updated 60 + 105 + 50 armor from T-72A as baseline, there is a photo of Polish T-72M front hull plates side profiles and you can see that arrangement. Unless the Iraqi version of T-72M was downgraded to original T-72 armor layout.

​@@DonJuanIIdeAustria The rib is not a reliable indication. The 16mm plate was attached to both the 80 20 and 60 50.

The BMP-3's 100mm cannon is a low-pressure one which doesn't fire HEAT, let alone kinetic rounds. It uses HE-frag round and a guided missile.

@@matovicmmilan It uses the 9K116-3 "Basnya" ATGM

@@matovicmmilan Either way, HE would totally mess it up.

@masterafro999. This comment is the one I’m referencing.

It Would be very grim but coalition had air superiority

​@@BelugaChonky I dont think it would be too diffrent Their nvds were trash and i dont think they had termals at all If they couldnt figure out where they were shot from the armor would fail earlyer or later

Food for the ATGM and M1A1 at that point

​@@dannyzero692 food for Bradley's Atgms

APFSDS has an incredibly high velocity, is very aerodynamic, and flies incredibly flat. M829A1 has a muzzle velocity of 1575 meters per second, which means that at a distance of 3000 meters, it would've taken about 2 seconds to from firing to impact. Angle of impact from drop would be negligible if at all extant.

yes, M829A1 is flat up until 3.6km because it is 22mm, ie very thin

What do you expect the angle to be?

​@@MacSaltersonNot 100% correct , cause this is the velocity as it leaves the barrel . It slows down immediately , hard to say exactly how long it takes for 3km .

@@5co756 Of course it's not 100% correct, but it's close enough to correct as to not matter. This paper (apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA439796.pdf) actually supports my claim. Even with a velocity drop off of 68m/s/km for M829A1, the quoted flight time at 3km is close enough to two seconds to not matter.

Let's talk introduction date instead of WT's bs heavily compressed BRs

​@@burnedbacon3989yep A engine upgrade on a m4 sherman will make the sherman higher br While vastly upgradeing a another tank would get it no br increase The difrence ? The start br The lower br a tank is the easyer it is for a upgrade to increase its br

@@nikolaideianov5092 what are you talking about again?

@@burnedbacon3989 im giving an example of how f**k the br system is currently

@@burnedbacon3989 i sould have worded it better

It's like fighting a t34/85 in a bt-7

@@exoticdachoo007 T-90M used T-72A’s hull. It’s a recycled version of old T-72.

@@exoticdachoo007 Iraqi T-72 has the same armor as T-72A, you may want to talk about the T-72G but it’s a advantage model used T-64A’s armor design , effective to against KE round and lightweight for the desert terrain.

@@grigor.h3929 It's not a recycled version, they didn't just take a T-72 hull and that's it. They used the T-72 hull's design and heavily improved upon it to be much more armored. And what you're thinking about is probably the base T-90, which yea, it is basically a T-72 clone, but the T-90M isn't that simple

@@exoticdachoo007 In the Soviet Union, There are only 2 ways to get a new hull. 1, beg Ukrainian to built a new one. 2,Recycle an old one from storage. However, T-90M is a lightweight version based French weapon system because it uses T-34’s V2 (called V92 now)engine. It must keep light enough or immobilized by it self.

@@exoticdachoo007 One thing you must know, the true name of T-90 is “T-72BV”.

About 150.

@@abaj006 1

not quite. it's pyrophoric so the fine dust it gets turned into by the impact reacts with oxygen and simply burns adding some extra incendiary effect compared to a tungsten alloy penetrator.

​@@Erpyrikk+fire damage. 😂

This isn't powered by penetration numbers It's a fluid sim of an object, made of a certain material, moving at a certain speed when hitting another object of known angle, composition and thickness. You get penetration numbers _from_ the simulation, you don't put them _into_ the simulation. And we know the material, dimensions and velocity of the dart and the specifications of the armour target.

No, it would not have stopped the Silver Bullet.

@@danielmiller2076 why wouldn't it? Look at what little of a projectile exited the armour at the end of this simulation. That's a 60s armour layout. Why would an 80 armour layout yield the same results..?

@@Masterafro999 Because the simulation is incorrect. Far more of an intact penetrator punches through the armor envelope than what is shown in the simulation. I have seen the actual results against T-72s, which is how I know that this simulation is inaccurate. Please see my comment on actual observed results.

@@danielmiller2076 I should see which comment? Anyways...the t-72b would have likely stopped the round under the same circumstances. Same distance etc.. M829a1 would likely penetrate the t-72b hull without era at shorter ranges. Era would reduce that distance even further. Also...where did you see the actual results of a t-72b being penetrated by m829a1. Those two never fought...till ukr...

@@Masterafro999 I never claimed to have seen M829A1 against T-72b. I personally saw the effects of M829A1 against T-72M in real time. I am a veteran of 73 Easting. That’s how I know that this simulation showing the effects of M829A1 against T-72M frontal armor is incorrect. In fact it is grossly incorrect. It also would penetrate T-80 with ERA over the frontal aspect. Using this simulation to draw conclusions of the effectiveness of M829A1 APFSDS is an error.

no chance

insane and won't do a punch through, except take side or rear shot.

mtc4?

@@irirjhrhr4645SPG-9 is completely busted in MTC4, if the crew is not paying attention you can easily pen a T-72A from the front by shooting at the small gun mantlet and it will knocked out the gun and the MG. If you shoot it from the back of the turret in a bush you pretty much disable it forever and it’s easy picking from there.

Tssh, fanboys think that Russia still uses the same tanks

That is because the effect is somewhat microscopic and subtle. Also, it doesn't mean the tip will look sharp. To properly observe the sharpening effect, it probably would be best to color the rod in 20mm section using high contrast color, length wise. To make it simpler to understand. DU rod will create a smaller hole than W rod.

There is no reliable DU properties in simulations

It's because they do self sharpen but at a insignificant level

No, T-72M1 was a near carbon copy of T-72A and this was still in many Soviet frontline formations of the time, and the main tank of Soviet frontline units of the time was T-72B Obr. 1985 which was only a little better protected against KE. And calling the Iraqi Republican Guard “stone throwers” is flat wrong they were a somewhat well trained and equipped force with high motivation, beating them was entirely through superior combat capabilities of Western crews and targeting systems. Though the regular Iraqi army was a mess.

Powerful of not, the massive coalition against Iraq didint leave them any chances. It was a pretty well planned and executed operation aswell, though the decisive advantage the coalition had was in the air power (coalition aircraft massively outnumbered iraqi aircraft)

Air superior wins wars

A coalition of more than 30 countries (of which 10 are individually larger) against a single country exhausted by a decade long war & a decade under general sanctions. Its most modern military equipment was 20 years old and export oriented. No long-range air defense systems, no satellites, open desert terrain with no natural cover etc.

“One of the most powerful armies” was propaganda to make it seem less unfair

​@@generalmarkmilleyisbenedic8895 you got it. Most don't...4th largest army in the world my ass

Holy shit 1k in a day

American propaganda truly is built for the most braindead userbase that exists.

I just ordered it. I’ll come back in a few weeks to tell you how it went. Thanks

25mm APFSDS can actually penetrate T-72's side up to 2km iirc

Apparently he was trying to claim more kills than his entire unit achieved so this is a case of BS

That didn't "almost didn't penetrate" though. That penetrated with ease and broke up exactly how it was supposed to to spray superheated depleted uranium fragments throughout the crew compartment at sufficient velocities to create human swiss cheese.

@@MacSalterson cool, but I expected half or at least one third of penetrator to stay intact and fly into the compartment. That's an old tank and relatively modern round. I don't think that round will penetrate same T-72 with additional 16 or 30 mm of armour (don't remember which one is used on 72's).

You don't even know what you're talking about lol

@@samuelstevens1129 that's it? No arguments? Ok.

3000m, the end result suggests around ~100mm more RHA penetration

Americans when it's about WWII and Shermans vs. Tigers: "Quantity has a quality of its own" Americans when it's about Desert Storm and Abrams vs T-72: "Quantity has a quality of its own is bollocks"

@@jonny2954 Joke's on you, I'm German, so your entire argument insinuating some sort of jingoism US-bias falls flat on its face, mate. Tigers were exceptionally bad tanks due to the high demand in resources and their tendency to break down. The track setup is a nightmare in terms of maintenance or repairs and the engine was crap as well. The Tiger wasn't defeated by large numbers of "bad" Shermans, the Tiger was simply overengineered and prone to mechanical failure, while the Sherman was a very well designed tank that did its job extremely well. Shermans were good tanks, cause they were effective in combat, reliable and reasonably easy to maintain while also featuring an impressively high crew survival rate in excess of 85%. Compare that to the T-34, that (according to Soviet numbers, mind you) had a crew survival rate of less than 15%. It certainly helps that the US Army doctrine was much better than the German one and the Sherman was much better suited to fulfill its role in said doctrine. Add to that the fact that the US was outproducing Germany in every regard and you've got a recipe for victory: Better tanks in larger numbers. More easily replaced combat losses combined with skilled crews staying alive thanks to the protection provided by their tank. The US didn't win by producing a lot of lackluster tanks, planes and warships, they won by producing a lof ot really good tanks, planes and warships. One would need to be a fool not to know that the US had some of the best planes of WW2, hands down, for instance.

By 1990 Soviet forces would have already many T-72A (1984)s, T-72B1s, T-72Bs and T-72B (1989)s. What's your point?

@@belgianfried T-72As made up half of the USSR active tank fleet in 1990…

Weird comment.

Or better, against engine deck of T-90M, that one's much more popular target.

​@@thezig2078nah russian drone operators earn like 80k per Abrams destroyed thier littrealy money pop ups

@@BelugaChonky so desperate for propaganda when they got a stalemate on the front

Not in desert storm

Outdated doesn't mean useless and it doesn't mean it can't be dangerous. It just means it cannot compete against newer tanks in a even fight.

Not all T-72s are equal, it's received a lot of updates over its service life and the iraqi ones were seriously behind on those compared to what wealthier countries would be using. Besides which that doesn't actually prove anything. It's a war, tanks get destroyed. This should be obvious.

"several leopard 2s" According to who exactly?

Believe it or not but there's a big difference between the t72m1 and t72b3 your point is completely irrelevant to what is said in the video