Abrams vs T-80UD turret ceramic armor inserts | Armor Penetration 

that's very interesting with armor weakening. Never knew of such a phenomenon but seems to make sense.

when the soviets made contact 1 . era is directly installed on all tanks so it's unlikely we'll ever see the t80 contactless 5 on the Battlefield.

​@@carkawalakhatulistiwaK1 ERA, dosent protect against kinetic energy, only against chemical...K5 is made to redused penetration of kinetic energy projectiles plus chemical....Relikct is even batter and protect against tandem warhead of ATGMs.

The M829A2 might perform better then calculations suggest. According to a report completed in 1990 referring to the development of new alloys for the follow on to the M829A1. "The new ternary element additions impart additional strengths by a solid solution strengthening mechanism. The special mechanical working and textured schemes impart added strength to the standard alloy by unique deformation strengthening mechanisms." "These mechanical properties are substantial improvements over the standard U - 3/4 Ti alloy and can be expected to conservatively provide a 3% to 7% improvement in terminal ballistic performance for RHA penetration (zero obliquity" the new ternary alloys these special mechanical working treatments would result in the following mechanical properties for a DU alloy (density range of 18.4 - 18.6 g/cc): 300 ksi Comprehensive Yield Strength 250 ksi Ultimate Tensile Strength 175 ksi Tensile Yield Strength 45-50 Rockwell C Hardness Hope this helps.

2 sims I Would love to see Aircraft dropped bombs at different distance and sizes Finish Molotov cocktail vs t-34 engine deck

What would the end of the war change?

​​​@@kamov52510the beggining of it

I have about 5 simulations planned and I'm going back to the 30s-60s

T34 85 vs is3 😂😂😂

@@Beni-zq2ewI dont see why Germany would even bother repurposing a T34-85 to fight against the hypothetical threat of IS3’s.

That's the idea of having the ceramic. The pieces are very hard and gouge at the rod as it moves through, slowing and altering it's trajectory

Without actually doing the math, the effect is minimal at best. The more noticeable effect ceramic layer provide is making the penetrator going a non straight path.

@@jintsuubest9331 The effect is strong enough that it is visible and it is a pretty interesting phenomenon regardless of its actual effect on the integrity of the rod.

​@@HelSeher I fail to registered where it being visible. Granted I didn't do frame by frame comparison but the width of the rod looks more or less the same accounted for rendering artifact.

@@jintsuubest9331 I mean I saw it in the simulation on the video and it looked like that was the case to me.

Glad it was useful to someone

​@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174try t80 bvm

@@carkawalakhatulistiwa 80BVM didn't receive turret armor upgrade over 80B (which is the same as on 64B) so it's actually weaker than 80U, the modernization mostly involved modern ERA, FCS and more powerful engine from 80U

I think right now he shud focus on the current conflict. So much interesting duels. Its sad it happens in RL though! Im pro life, pro happyness!

There is a chance that M829A3 and M829A4 do not perform significantly better than M829A2 when it comes to armor not protected by ERA. M829A3 has the same dimensions DU rod + sacraficial anti-ERA tip, but noticably lower velocity. M829A4 has the same velocity as M829A2, but shorter and more narrow DU rod, due to presence of a massive sacraficial anti-ERA tip. So if this simulation is to be trusted then T-80UD's turret armor has a chance against even the most modern APFSDS threats. Also, this is why the newest American APFSDS is made of tungsten instead of uranium, since the length limit for 120 mm shells has been reached and tungsten benefits from increased muzzle velocity much more than DU.

@@argy007 Is it so? Various analyzes point to the larger diameter of the M829A3, which is consistent with the significantly increased mass.

​@@argy007 No that "US is switching to tungsten" Is pure BS. Why do you think the euro are trying to introduced a bigger gun in their tanks when the US is simply designing a new round. Btw we did this test irl and the result with the T-80UD that we see here only happened at 3.5km+.

​@@gotanon9659 What? Tungsten based alloy has higher theoretical performance by increasing the velocity because DU based alloy will erode too fast if exceed certain velocity. But below the threshold velocity, du consistently shows performance uplift even against more complex target. It is totally possible to produce a rod with tungsten and du sub rod. Maybe it was being tested, we never know. Chances are engineer that get paid good money knows more about those stuff than you and me. Oh, US does not have access to t80ud. Actually, most people including Russian and ukraine have no access to t80ud.

@@gotanon9659 Do you have a link to a video of this IRL test against the T-80UD? I didn't know the US had any to test.

Not necesarily if you take into account the effects of K5 which wasn't modeled.

@@acheroncyc Modeling DU properly, esp the far more advanced alloys that make up the M829A2 is very difficult with this software. These results seem to align with the KEW-A2/A3. DU performs about 10% better, the alloys that make up the M829A2 perform 3-6% better still than the alloys that make up the M829/A1,M833/M900. The main issue with the M829A2 was not the performance against armor, but the composite sabot in storage.

Just checked the thumbnail. With that angle, it's as expected to me.

Logically, yes. From one document. Various ceramic steel configurations were presented, also with shock wave damping in front of the steel, but no major benefits were noticed. On the other hand, advantages have been noticed for the case of directly hitting the ceramic instead of the steel plate covering it.

That's a real thing. Israel bragged about how it could lol pen T72's in its marketing material after doing it in lebanon. So Russia duct tapped an extra 16mm plate to the front after testing against some captured magachs.

@@masonicrat That's actually really interesting, I'd love to read about it, got a good place for it?

I'm not going to, because I haven't found a clear confirmation that ceramics were used in the hull, and I'm convinced that the hull plates are not stiff enough to protect the ceramics from damage, especially during the K-5 explosion

All this versions have same hull and turret armor. T-80UD have diesel engine and 12,7mm on distant control, T-80UM have new thermovision device. Armor wasn't changed

it would be a fantasy with so little information

I think it was carbon fiber. Expect 150x as much work to code that anisotropic nightmare.

The limit is at least a good 30mm over the armor.

I marked with green lines the possible penetration for other angles of impact, based on the simulation

I did a long time ago many test cases, for the M829A2 too. I will not upload the video, because the content is not attractive enough, I can upload a screenshot for example situation

T-80UD has ceramic inserts, T-80U polymer pockets, the rest is similar

​@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174regarding the polymer packets, is that to provide energy absorption like rubber? Or us it to protect from certain forms of radiation?

​@@jimtrela7588my guess would be for HEAT protection? Polimers are the best for HEAT from all the aplications they could have been used for there

Known versions of the T-80 never used NERA

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Why is that? Seems odd that the arguably less advanced T-72 would get NERA but the T-80 got "simple" ceramic inserts. I know that ceramics are used in the armor of many western tanks, but usually in conjunction with NERA.

@@jaffacalling53 NERA, at least the known versions of it, are good against HEAT warheads, not so much against kinetic rounds. Reverse for armors of T-80,U,UD, T-64A,B, T-72 up to B version

​@@jaffacalling53t72 isn't less advanced. Maybe back in the 80s they used to be

@@okakokakiev787 It was supposed to be the easier produce, less complex alternative to the T-64. The first variants only used cast steel in the turrets.

And length.

Kinetic energy, penetrator length, hardness, density, weight, and rod configuration are all the Major factors (independent of Mass x velocity) of a APFSDS projectile

The most important information is at the beginning of the video, the supplement is in the description.

I'm definitely going to do this someday

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Nice. The infamous Swedish leak has a page dedicated to the composition of the T-80U turret which gives some exact thicknesses which will make the dimensions of the polymer cells depicted in BTVT's diagrams easier to estimate. That shouldn't be too hard to track down, and I'm in possession of it if you can't find it elsewhere.

@@thermalvision203 I have data from several sources, but the problem is that each one says something different, for example, the Russian factory diagram gives two layers with chambers of about 105 mm each, and the documents from the Swedish tests say about a layer of 100 mm and 60 mm.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 I've noticed that getting good-quality information on the T-80U is particularly difficult. Though from what I know about the Swedish trials and BTVT's less than trustworthy sources, I would go with the factory diagram's numbers over the Swedish documents' as the Swedes were looking at an export T-80U meant to compete with the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams for an export contract, which the Leopard 2 won. As such, the factory diagram is likely for the version used by Soviet and Russian forces (and South Korean forces after Yeltsin paid off some debts to South Korea by giving them T-80Us straight from Russian inventories). However, check to see which model actually fits the T-80U's turret armor cavity. Also, if you do a Yandex images search for a T-80UK specifically, you can find a set of pictures that give some good close-ups of the Soviet/Russian domestic T-80U's armor insert cavty, which you can use to cross-reference diagrams.

if you are talking about a projectile, it will become heavier and slower and will not fit in a tank

Can the tank be repaired yes. The armor no. It is a factory job. You need to cut the section out and replace it

This is repairable, but you’d have to replace the turret itself in a factory if you want the tank back in action asap (expensive, fast, no loss of turret integrety). Or you’d have to wait for a factory to cut out the section entirely and repair it (cheaper, slower, tiny loss of turret integrity).

@@xendk Its done in several ways. The simplest one is done by a repair crew near a frontline. They'd just weld in a metal rod. Good enough short term, as the probability of hitting the same spot is very low. At the factory the repair is more extensive. They even might opt to replace the turret, as they are kept as spare parts.

@@Burboss Why are you replying me ??? and you clearly know nothing about it.

@@xendk oh, why don't you share your infinite wisdom and tell others about your crazy tank repair skills )))

ye, you certainly know that. Why much lowered and not much much much exalted? I know why, because that's how you would like it 🤣🤣

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Because american military, contrary to the russian one, has a history of understating their capabilities. Remember how russians called Su-57 a stealth fighter, for example? Yeah.

@@user-xh9pu2wj6b Still no basis to guarantee the round underperformed here - more sounds like americans being biased for their own tanks that die after the enemy has a 3 degree elevation advantage (though to be fair, every western style MBT (excluding the challenger, dunno if you could call that "western style" though) has the same problem with their paper thin UFPs)

@@user-xh9pu2wj6b Bro seriously wanted to talk about stealth planes and overstated capabilities. The crash of the "invisible-stealth" F-117 bomber near Budzhanovtsy on March 27, 1999 with the help of a prehistoric Russian C-125, 56 year old issue says hello.

@@alexanderwolf8766 ah yes, the sole instance of this aircraft being downed in the past 50+ years, of course! Also, you clearly have no fucking idea what "stealth" means. Fun fact, according to russians themselves their *modern*, not 50+ years old Su-57 jet has an abysmally fat radar profile of about 1-1.5 m^2 which is about 100-1000 times larger than anything even remotely considered to be a stealth aircraft. And, fun fact, unlike said Su-57, american stealth jets actually saw action and weren't a crudely clubbed together prototypes. Keep coping.

Why would they be rattled at all?

@@mac2857 Cus the amount of energy imparted from the armour absorbing that hit would be loud as fuck

its called training. that is just a fire cracker sound for them.

@@georgeb65412 ita not a big pf a deal when you are used to it. And would be worst in ww2 tanks whit tinner armour and full caliber shells

​@@novosib9017 they will be a bit hammered cause of the loud sound. They will be out of action for up to a minute

when the T-80BVMXYZ comes out in fifty years, will you write that too?

Then, in fact 3bm60 too is penetration the leopard 2a6 turret🤨

This shoot is without k5 so dm53 probably can't

no :) dm53/dm63 was designed to dissarm k-1 and k-5 ERA and to penetrate special armor like in t-80um @@IzakSemrdoii

If you can find him the schematic for the M1A2 armor im sure he will do it

but you see there's an ERA there? 😉😉😉

I try to bypass the infinite difficulties associated with HEAT warheads

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 godspeed my man as an beginner in dynamic analysis it amazes me how you can manage to get this much of great results

It's "nozh". "Nїyizh" is retardspeak.

@@lake258 forgot to ask russian imbecile 🤦‍♂

T-80U was produced little, a lot of T-80B

From Ukraine to Pakistan in 1990s. Russia have retired them from service in early 2000-s because of ukrainian engine. Some of T-80UD turrents replaced old T-80B turrents, it called T-80UE modification.

@@user-nr3gp2ts2g Thanks for the info!

Wrote above

T80bvm doesn't have this turret , it has the t80b old turret

Hold my beer! 152-mm 2A83 cannon with a muzzle velocity of an armor-piercing projectile of 1980 m/с

There is no need for this because in the age of drones, high-precision artillery, tanks do not fight tanks. Against fortifications and infantry 120-125mm is quite enough.

​​@@tankistrazumisth yes thank you rando from yt who thinkd he has a better understanding of the battlefield than a fuvkin binational arms manufacturer 🙄

@@chocokingchocolate1273 1. Since when do arms manufacturers not make mistakes? 2. We already have the largest war in Europe since ww2 with two thousand tanks destroyed/damaged. How many of them were destroyed in a tank duel? 0.5%? 3. Who started mass-producing tanks with a caliber of more than 125mm? The USA started producing light tanks M8 with 105-120mm, Poland buys Korean K2 and M1A2, Russia produces T-90M and T-14 with 152mm does not exist even as a prototype. It is possible that the KF51 will be produced with a 130mm, but this tank also has kamikaze's drones.

Why tho if you could use TOW-2 or Kornet-M instead?

ага. Повезло, что удар NLAW или Javelin сверху всё равно сносит башню к чертям и поджаривает экипаж.

Where is this information from?As I wrote various analyzes point to the larger diameter of the M829A3, which is consistent with the significantly increased mass.

It is best to hit any tank low and on the side because most tank are sparsely armored in those area. Beside, Abram is the only tank in service that can sustain any given combat mission without needing to use the hull stowage. Unless you are suggesting Abrams is the only tank that's design to act like a tank?

@@jintsuubest9331 British Challengers keep most of their ammo up in the turret with a scattering up in the lower front. German Leapord does the same. And so does Japan, France, and Sweeden. Itally, Russia, (and countries useing Russian tanks) all keep almost all of their munitions directly under the turret due to the auto-loader they use. Israel is the only odd-ball as they keep ammo low and in the rear of their tanks, though thats likely due to them being 'front-facing' by design. The other tanks that have ammo in the turret generally have it designed to re-direct any hits to that ammo to go up and out away from the crew. When 'all' of the ammo is in the belly.. there's really only way way for it to go.

@@jintsuubest9331 Hitting tanks low and to the side is a good way to disable them, unless your using a explosive round (though most fire FSPD's these days), as you'll damage/destroy engines, fuel-tanks and such... my point though is that when all of the ammo is down there as well.. it makes it nearly catastropic 'every time' a Russian designed tank takes a hit to the side, where tanks like a Leapord or Abrams would likely still survive (albeit, be damaged)

@@Gwydion_Wolf ​ Abrams hull stowage vent downward. Up is not always the only way to go. Sideward vent is also a thing, I don't know if any made into production vehicle. Anyway, outside of Abrams, everyone has ammo unprotected ammo scatter about in their hull. The height is generally from the hull floor to the turret ring. Challenger being the worst offender, even worse than Ariete. *Ariete does not have an autoloader. Merkava, even mk4, has unprotected loose stowage in the fighting compartment. Although they might not use it just like Abrams crew not using the hull stowage. Anything before mk4 has unprotected stowage for ready rack. The 105 M1 also has unprotected loose stowage in the fighting compartment. Type 90 has unprotected ammo stowed in the turret, behind the gunner. The armor protection in that area is less than 100mm of vertical steel. So, what makes those other vehicle with similar vulnerability not "mobile pill-boxes"? It appears engineers in general are in agreement that unprotected hull stowage are acceptable risk.

​@@Gwydion_Wolf Slight correction, Challengers do not store their whole ammunition load in the turret. They store the rounds in the turret, and the propellant charges are stored in armoured wet stowage (water-filled) boxes in the hull, around the turret ring.

you would like 🤣

it wouldnt: Shtora blocks ERA, weakening the tank armor. Shtora itself works not great (That why it dropped from all tanks in favor of better ERA coverage) Drozd - have realy limited angles and cant cover all projectiles Kontakt-5 is replaced by Relict that FAR superior against kinetic overall late T-72 and T-90 are just overall better tanks

@@iMost067 In T-80UK Shtora is placed above ERA unlike T-90A.

Mad?

They were sent, which is why mental kids have a problem with assessing the situation. Maybe this will be fixed as more western tanks get into combat then you'll wake up to see they can burn just like russian tanks

Amerimutt propaganda got to this kid

Why are you guys always expecting that western tank will 100% penetrate russian tank?

tell me how i could "better" test this tank's armor

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 its not about doing a better test - what ever system you use beforehand seems to let you produce much more favorable scenarios for Soviet tanks than western/ German ones... And that stinks my friend. It stinks..

@@WotansCry and that's what I'm asking, how was I supposed to test this armor so that the conditions were not "favourable"

"this round is still classified, you dont even know the real characteristic of it YET!" - average murica wunderwaffen enjoyer, probably :))

It's -1 IQ argument 😃 find one real life situation where the simulation was wrong

confirmed from where? something called "oryx"? Lol in the recent week while the biggest annihilation of nateo equipment - got rek by inferior russian design, he quit, wonder why? :)))

@@sontran5312 triggered russian pidaru =)

@@sontran5312 "in the recent week while the biggest annihilation of nateo equipment" according solely and only to the russians? Same russians that were lying for the previous year and a half about their every single accomplishment? Those russians? And yes, without a doubt, russian designs are inferior. Their crew survivabilty sucks ass and you can't deny this. Also, go and vomit out your argument against oryx as a source. It supplies every single loss with a visual confirmation. Are you gonna deny objective reality like every other vatnik?