Leopard 2A6 vs T-90A | DM53 APFSDS 

Yellow driver 😂

It's illegal for Russian tanks to be penned. Putin wrote it into law that you go to Siberian gulag if you allow it.

Russian bias fr

@@4tbf616i fired at a su122 with apcr at about 10m at the flat part and it was a non pen for some reason even tho the flat part is 100mm and my apcr has 131mm of pen i tested it in the armor simulation thing and it went through like it was nothing

​@@4tbf616Reality check doesn't care about your L russian bias

Even with the bias of all these simulations using ERA purely on Russian vehicles. There’s not a single simulation of the Abrams, Leopard or Challenger with ERA

​​​​​​​​@@Austin-cx2xethose tanks usually don't have era. while they do have a modification, it's mostly only for the sides. while russian/late soviet tanks have era as standard. shit they plaster era on normal pickup trucks and ifvs lmao

Most Abrams side armor and even add-on panels for the front and turret cheeks is composed of a ceramic composite that is enough to stop most modern rounds, the exception being the Leo 2a6.

@@irirjhrhr4645 Soviets and Russians spec'd into ERA because the basic chassis of the T tanks can't handle all of the weight that adding additional layers of Composites would add... without a major redesign that would not really be worth it in the end. The ERA adds protection against chemical and now some kinetic projectiles, thus (kinda) allowing the T tanks to not be as shit as they would have been naked. It's practically poor man's tank armor.

​@@Austin-cx2xeTell me you don't know much about tanks without telling me you dont know much about tanks.

20k views within a day is... few? Okay then

That's because these simulations are incredibly biased, and so mostly useless for real tanks enthusiasts. At most they can fool tank videogame players

@@Narcan885 Biased? They're literal simulations... Can you show us on the doll where the facts hurt you?

@@Narcan885 True tank enthusiasts know their stuff and appreciate quality. It's easy to recognize someone like that because he doesn't write about bias or other nonsense, but about specifics. Apparently you are not one of them, I don't know why you speak on their behalf. Either way they are a small fraction of the views. Interesting content is important, even if it shows total nonsense. Something is clearly hurting you, but you missed very badly, because I can easily show a video showing extremely unphysical and ridiculous things with several hundred thousand views.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 There we go, you literally admit of producing biased crap for views. Not that it was needed, because anyone that knows anything about tanks know your simulations are biased propaganda crap so your admission wasn't very needed, but still appreaciated for those who don't really know what they're seeing in your videos.

Not for very long.😳

still impressive considering a range of 3Km and still hitting the K5 ERA

@@dominuslogik484DM53 is freaking huge one. It would penetrate hull of any tank in the world including itself.

@@user-yc1xe1pd1f Acording to Warthunder not the strv 122's bc it has extra composite screens and the T-80BVM even from 10m away not

​@@yuanfurbaxWar Thunder is a Russian cope game. You get hit by DM33 or M900 and bounce it on T-72, then shoot 3BM38 at Abrams hull and watch it richochet right through his cheeks. (This is coming from someone who has mained USSR all the way to 11.3 Ground, it is genuine pain playing any other nation at high tier).

@@yuanfurbax the STRV-122's are stupid, those composite screens works a lot more well than in real life, they can't handle not even 3BM60 or DM33 (120mm) irl.

not even heavy neccasarilly, but both dense and fast

Thats just a dumb animation and not reality. Probably that western junk would not be able to. Greetings from Germany

@@whotfcares4940 okay grandpa, let’s get you to bed

yeah, just a dummy animation from westoids. Nothing can penetrate frontal armor of modern Russian tanks but ATGMs.

man i hate western propaganda and even i am not that delusional @@whotfcares4940

I have already announced M829A3 vs T-80BVM

Leopard 2A4 don't use DM53 and Leopard 2A6 is just 2A5 with L/55 instead of L/44 barrel

@@yuanfurbax there's a lot of difference on the Ammo Penetration within the L/55 and L/44 cannon.

@@hdehilter9016 do u know how much by % since all armor is different

​@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174i am waiting for it love your video

The angle of fall is noticeable, and for such fast objects it is not as huge as some people imagine

Falling from a steeper angle would in this case here even help with penetration. Since angle of attack would get shifted towards the 90° again. So less armor to penetrate..

next week T-90M

​@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Thanks! Love your sims, keep up the great work!

Thats what going fast as hell does for you i guess

Relative easy answer, the time it takes to penetrate the armor is to short to see any affect if the tilt

The speed of 1 mile per second and the fact that it’s made from tungsten or uranium , one of the most dense materials on Planer Earth is the main reason why

​@@Nikowalker007that doesn't really matter that much. It can't change direction quickly?

I didn't see any details for armor later than Leo2AV. There are various guesses and descriptions, but I am unable to put it together into a correct model

no chance unfortunately

If this one went through, the DM73 would, too.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 well shucks guess I got to go to Rheinmetall and find out myself

Same projectile, higher muzzle velocity. Probably similar result at 4km instead of 3km.

DM63 perhaps?@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174

I've heard that the DM63 is segmented throughout, but that's not something you can rely on. I haven't heard such opinions regarding the DM53, let alone any material that could reasonably be based on it. Regarding the 3 equal elements of the penetrator, you can find a photo of the scale model in flight, but I don't know if it has anything to do with the DM53/DM63.

ERA is ment to defend against RPG or HEAT rounds, not armor piercing sabot

​@@dustypiddylmao😂😂😂😂😂😂

Relikt / Kontakt 5 is made to fight sabot as well @@dustypiddy

@@dustypiddy That's K-5, it uses heavy flier plates so it has some effectiveness against kinetic penetrators. You can find video comparisons for T-80U with and without ERA vs M829A2 in Dejmian's channel.

@@dustypiddy uhh nope, ERA designed for sabot helps break it up, you can see it did that to the rear of the projectile.

Would not stop DM73, since that is designed specifically for penetrating Relikt. T tank chassis cant handle more composites so they have to go the poor man's armor route.

@@PeterMuskrat6968 No that's just false what, DM73 was specifically designed to have increased range

Rheinmetal themselves say DM73 uses the same penetrater as DM63A1, (which uses the same penetrator as DM53 but with an insensitive propellent) just with a high energy propellent 1650m/s out of L44 with DM53/63 1720m.s out of L55 with DM53/63 1780m/s out of L55A1 with DM73 If DM63 fired out of an L55 can defeat X armor at 2km, DM73 will be able to defeat at roughly just over 3km, due to the higher M/V. that's the only difference. @@PeterMuskrat6968

@@PeterMuskrat6968 No DM73 isn't designed to defeat Relikt with how its designed. Its different in which it has higher performing propellant to achieve higher chamber pressures.

@@PeterMuskrat6968 source: "trust me bro I'm a college dropout"

I could, but is there any source confirming that the T90M is the T-90A with Relikt?

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 The visual armor dimensions are roughly the same, but there is no source at all saying if it is other composite armor or the same of t90a.

T90M have relikt , its same ERA on front hull of t80bvm

T-90M has Relikt but the internal armor array is... not known. You can't run a simulation if there's no armor array lmao

it;s just a stupid cartoon

ERA is only supposed to counter projectiles that derive their damage from their chemical energy, such as HEAT rounds and anti-tank rocket launchers. While Kontakt-5 is allegedly meant to stop kinetic shots, it still only scrapes rods up a bit to make the penetration of actual armor less devastating.

@@eagleboi3593 I don't know enough about the subject and I'm also unable to calculate the forces applied to the penetrator from the explosion, but in my naive view I'd expect at least some change in the trajectory/orientation of the rod. It doesn't seem to pass through the shockwave fast enough for it to be completely unaffected. (again,that's just my completely amateurish point of view)

@@eagleboi3593 No that is K-1. the one used here is made to help degrade APFSDS to and they are effective not just to make it "less" devastating and they are not meant to "STOP" anything by itself. Look up "K-5 Explosive Armor Effectiveness | Armor Penetration Simulation" another video he have made to see how it works

During a arms show in England a guy from Rheinmetal presenting their hard Kill system talked about kenetic energy rounds vs ERA and other active protection systems... his simple answer... there is nothing a active defence system can do against a 1700m/s moving soild dart... all russian claims about adding 50% protection are simple marketing lies...if you want to stop a high power kenetic penetrator you need real armor... and a lot of it... if you look at Ukraine all the ERA and other russian active defence system simple fail if you see the thousends of destroyed T Versions .. Fun fact no western or far east manufactur claim that their hard kill system like Trophy or ADS add any extra protection agains KE rounds... only russia does... they recived now the bill for their performance lies... during the biggest air show in the world only days ago .... Russian arms manufactors did not recive a single order... not even for a screw or a theet brush... Putin has destroyed the russian Army, the russian weapon industry for decades to come... the world is thick of Propaganda videos making big claims and total fail on the battlefield

There are photos showing the penetrator. According to the patent, the tip is hidden under a black casing, the diameter is given by the source which correctly provided the remaining dimensions of German penetrators, the density is standard for a penetrator from that period.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Density is 17200 right?

Ansys

Yea but the armor is moving... and it is not optimal when you doing a hole in it in the same time... The biggest problem here is that ERA can do it once and in the same time this whole situations and ERA force will gonna make things even worse for the crew to notice from where they were shot=next projectile is comming and there is no ERA...

Well, they probably won't write the DM53 patent, because then it would be a direct source without any doubts. First of all, what does anti ERA mean? M829A3 has a tip against ERA? How does this tip differ from a segmented tip? Seriously segmented, because I don't know what you think the segmented tip looks like if you compare it to the M111. Generally, I relied on technical knowledge and information about the segmented tip. This is confirmed by a patent, a Russian infographic and a diagram of another APFSDS. Is there such thing as an anti-ERA tip at all? A segmented tip may make sense in the case of a two-plate ERA, then what I showed looks like a technically sound solution, that's why I said it's ok, and since you have some proper information about the segmented penetrator that would be against ERA, you can share.

DENTRO DE 10 AÑOS TENDRÁS TU 130 MM ... TEN YEARS HAHA

Simulating the backside of the vehicle aswell for exit hole.

автор видео ошибся в своих моделях.

@@diglyfixiky9372 No, I don't think so. You might stay off the copium, comrade.

War Thunder is not real life.

Ansys

Smaller diameter barrel would definitely be worse. Basically you want as much propellant in your shell case as possible, and having a larger diameter barrel allows you to fit more. It's much more practical to have larger diameter shells than to have very long shells. And there's a reason we don't use full caliber AP anymore. Long rod APFSDS is just better. It has much higher velocity and much better performance against armor. The main advantages are the thin profile and the length. All that length allows the round to continuously feed material into the hole until penetration is achieved. As for the sabot itself, sure it "wastes" some energy, but they are made to be lightweight. For example, the sabot of m829a2 is made of a carbon epoxy composite, and that round entered service in 1994. Also keep in mind that despite any losses from the sabot, these projectiles have muzzle velocities usually ranging from 1500 to 1800 m/s. Compare that to about 1000 m/s at the absolute high end for full caliber AP rounds.

iirc tank engagement ranges have only been longer and longer it was like 1km far in the late cold war now common quotes are >90% on the move at 2km and so i have to conclude that modern tanks are capable of firing on eachother at 3km ranges or longer

@@KoishiVibin even in Ukraine where it is extremely flat with long sightlines fighting is still usually at or under 2Km range. most combat areas rarely see sightlines longer than about 2.5Km so though it would be rare I am not saying its impossible.

​@@dominuslogik484 The record is 5km

@@cayden2744 the record is 5km but practical engagement range is still considered 2.5 km

@@dominuslogik484 3km is totally practical according to tank commanders.

It is not fake, but it is not said that the hit caused the destruction of this tank. There is data from Russian tests, the 3BM42 is not able to penetrate the T-80U/BV armor even without the K-5, and based on previous simulations I would expect this.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Ok, thank you!

Yes

no because its bs propaganda and t80s are being penetrated frontally by ukr t72s

according to Russians themselves, it is twice as effective as Kontakt-5. Whatever that means. Like against chemical warheads? HEAT? EFP? Kinetic? Both? Is that still true against long rod penetrator?

@@neurofiedyamato8763 According to the russians themselves = not true

@@neurofiedyamato8763 Twice as effective at grifting, it's probably only a nominal increase but the PR guy is just reeeaaalllyyy good at selling a product.

better sit down, take a deep breath The 2017 T-80BVM uses the same armor as the 1985 T-80BV. seriously, the T-90 and T-72B 89' have the same armor. For the T-90A turret was replaced with a welded one

They not only have the same frontal plate but from T-90 destroyed in Ukraine we know that in facts are T-72B from Soviet times as serial numbers recorded on match serial numbers from old Soviet era records that Ukraine have...

yes. it got uparmoured. newer versions of the t-90m have received even more armour.

@@Masterafro999 " have received even more armour." kinda funy statement considerig this simulation and fact that reactive armor can work only one and the next shot is going in... and chance for the crew to locate the enemmy tank is close to zero and reactive armor is one of the reason of it...

Well it was kind of made to defeat DM53. Then DM63 came around.

DM53 is a beast, even more with the L/55.

The distance also kind of helped it since the round angled a bit downward normalizing against the plate which is the natural trajectory of rounds over vast distance.

​@@hdehilter9016it's just a useless rod.

@@sibsnake "Useless"...but of coooourse...

@@sibsnakeeither you are American or Russian lol

ANSYS

IIRc there have been simulations done by him already

It can, but the inaccuracies of the simulation and the processing time usually spikes massively. HEAT is also usually too "slim" for ANSYS thus leading to more issues

most tank armor is steel and rubber plus backing textiles or other materials. that and the turret is most likely stronger, given that its a much more likely target. it is known that the soviets make use of ceramics here and there but until someone cuts open a T-90 in the ukranian war we wont know

@@KoishiVibin Well I am pretty sure intelligence agencies around the world know that information, that was surely one of the first things shared from the ukranians lol

@@loadout3727 when does someone post pics of a cut open T-80 glacis?

@@KoishiVibin most likely in some centuries when they are declassified and out of service

@@loadout3727theres a bunch of the tanks floating around though. A penetrating hit through the side or top won't ruin the frontal arrays. Only a matter of time...

It SHOULD be able to

No

I like this comment Especially because real circumstances are completely different to a simulation Infantry are more deadly to a tank than another tank

@@handsomeivan1980 Not true and entirely depend on circumstance.

​@@neurofiedyamato8763 Ye it is, reason being because infantry with anti tank weapons are way more common than another tank, also artillery, air support, etc, that's what I mean Tank on tank combat is rare

​@@handsomeivan1980not only is it rare, but most often they would engage with whatever ammo they have loaded, which is either HE for soviet tanks, or HEAT for western and just bonk each other center mass hoping that shockwave will blow enemy's sights off of the turret.

Yeah, simps on both sides of the isle. Realistically, I would expect DM53 to penetrate a late T-72B/T-90A hull with K-5 with a decent amount of penetrator left over. While certainly not to be akin to a hot knife through butter, it is a high performance projectile (And the exact specs are still classified. This sim was an approximation). K-5 does a decent job of degrading projectiles, but shells like DM53 and M829A3 are just a bit too high caliber for most existing Russian arrays to handle reliably.

Yes same hull as any other T-72B, there was no change in that since the 80s.

It uses the 89' T-72B hull, but there were several versions of the T-72B.

Да

Как минимум отличается ДЗ. В 90А используется контакт 5, когда в М используется реликт

ДЗ однозначно другое - реликт. Но какого либо оффициального подтверждения или опровержения замены композита в корпусе нет.

отличается только ДЗ . но есть плохие новости , такие снаряды как дм 63-73 они влетаю так в дз что она даже не детанирует! высокая скорость и уменьшена толщина стержня ! но как видим даже дм 53 достаточно против контанк 5 . против реликта будет тот же результат только с 2 км

@@warthunderbattl8090откуда мы видим? из мультика этого? Где еще вы видели пораженные Т-90А влоб?

The armor is completely made up

The ceramic balls where in the pre production t64 turret

Same, I'm confused with armour tbh

Is it? Apart from the moderately successful use in the T-64B turret, only the T-80UD prototype variant had ceramics in it. There is not much space in the T-72/T-90 hull design, and the ceramics are weight efficient but not space efficient.

Russian designs don't really use ceramics in the hull, it's largely steel, textolite and air gaps (varies by model), but remains rather effective due to the angle, as they have about 400 mm LOS steel.

Bro ,nobody foking know what shell it use

Its classified

I will post details of the penetrator remains in the community tab

All tank warfare have been like that

@xendk pretty sure a Sherman armed with a 75 could have spotted, fired a tiger or panther first and it wouldn't have meant a thing...

I don't think you understand. How to ensure that an armor plate fired at a penetrator will not affect it? Turn off physics in a physics-based simulator? Besides, you don't know the construction of the K-5, because it is exactly as shown and everything is correct regarding its functioning.

​@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Looked up some Russian sources. I stand corrected. Original view was from Fofanov page where it described the way K5 worked.

​@@Max_Da_Gyou can watch his latest video with relikt era. relikt works as youve described and is alot more effective than k5

It's done

check out the community post and comments below

DM53 tip is designed to be anti ERA, regardless of what type of ERA it is

If you like DM53 you are gonna absolutely love M829A5 and DM73, that shit was designed to go through a T-14, it will 100% go through a T-90M

​@@PeterMuskrat6968M829A5 doesn't exist and DM73/63 are DM53s with better powder, since you can't really fit more things into an already crammed shell Thing is, the Armata has the benefit of saving space of having a turret that only has at best, 100 mm of proper armour (not LOS, mind you), so from what I counted and measured from photos and in person, you have roughly 600 to 700 mm of composites alone, at an angle of around 50 to 60 degrees, alongside doubled Monolith block of DRA angled at around 60 degrees, which is around 50 mm thick in itself. So that equates to about 933 mm LOS in composites and 200 mm in DRA, LOS It's no doubt the hull is impenetrable, however you can modify the hull composite LOS factor by maybe 0.9 or 0.8x because the materials are unknown. Regardless it is still huge though, especially because in person holy shit it's so long…

@@PeterMuskrat6968 DM73 isn’t in service yet, DM63A1 is

@@shocknaw M829A5 isn't either, he just talks abt the future

@@loadout3727 M829A5 isn’t even built man, DM73 just finished production

Except Armata. That's what kicked off DM73 and L55A1.

@@jonny2954 ´THErmata is a litteral Paper tank , would trust nothing said about it, russia is more than famous for greatly exaterating the capabilitis of their military equimpent.

so you're saying that defense companies are run by idiots who spend billions developing specialized penetrators and armor

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 I am saying what I see in the results of the only recent major conflict of trained armies. Most of the world's military-industrial complex has not been involved in a real war for a long time, they do not have any experience and competencies

Nowdays it's more likely that 2 stealth fighters end up engaging in a dogfight than a Tank Duel happening.

someday for sure

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 I'm sure if you ask the US government reeeaallyy nicely they will let you see one of the T-80 BVM's that they got from Ukraine.

Relikt would definitely stop it It's basically 2 heavier Kontackt 5 plates that fly in 2 different angles, it may even stop DM 73

@@handsomeivan1980 You fucking wish lmao

⁠@@handsomeivan1980so basically 2 solid plates of steal?

@@Theinitedstatesofamerics12345yes

@@Insert-Retarded-Reply-Here ok, so maybe it would stop it from like 5km.

35%.

No it did just fine. It is suppose to push(feed) the plate into the rod

Generally, a small effect of ERA generates a large effect in the penetration depth due to the widening of the penetration channel resulting from the instability of the penetrator flight. Although in this case the effect is actually smaller than expected, as if the shape of the lower part of the ERA was not optimal in its operation.

The Kontakt-5 ERA basically just slaps the rod with a steel plate from a side. The Ukrainian Nozh ERA is the best, it cuts the rod into tiny pieces with shaped charged blades.

@@JAnx01 it's better but not because of the tiny pieces, but because it has twice the explosive mass, on the other hand it makes tanks fitted with it like t64 very overweight for their drivetrain, causing frequent breakdowns and problems with mobility

@@ryssa2409 It is because it cuts the rod. That divides the rod energy significantly and also destabilizes it. It does require more explosives as you need to form the shaped charge, but its a more effective method than the same explosive mass used to push a flat plate.