LOSAT vs T-80BVM | MGM-166 Kinetic Energy Missile vs Relict ERA | Armour Penetration Simulation

Подписаться 98 тыс.

Просмотров 141 тыс.

50% 1

The simulation presents the Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank (LOSAT) missile impacting at T-80BVM at its maximum velocity, with the T-80BVM featuring Relikt heavy-ERA.
The MGM-166 missile relied on a long-rod penetrator to penetrate armour, rather than shaped charges. This required it to accelerate to a high velocity of ~1520m/s. It is uncertain at what range the maximum velocity is achieved at, and for how long this can be sustained, so the range of this engagement has not been provided. Additionally, sources vary on the penetrator design for the missile, with the simulation presenting one likely option -the Depleted Uranium (DU) penetrator of the 140mm FTMA study. The missile is simulated coming in at an angle of ~3°, as all available test footage shows the missile travelling in an arc, regardless of range (however, this may depend on the launcher used).
*The T-80BVM upper glacis armour (50-35-50-35-50) has been modelled with 400BHN Rolled Homogenous Armour (RHA) steel and textolite. The Relikt ERA dimensions have been approximated based on images and patents, with the flyer plates being modelled as 20mm thick 500BHN High Hardness Armour (HHA) steel. The explosive amount has been approximated based on 2 layers of 4S23 explosive elements, each with ~5.5mm of explosive. For computational efficiency, a variable pressure load, based on the Gurney and Flis equations, has been used in the place of explicitly simulating the explosive material.
Assessment:
Based on information from the Soviet Armour Blog, at 68°, the T-80BV's 50-35-50-35-50 upper glacis array provides ~555mm RHAe protection based on a mass effectiveness of 1.25 (roughly 492mm at the impact angle of 65°). Mass effectiveness is a measure of how much better an armour arrangement is over a solid RHA plate of equal mass. The DU penetrator is able to perforate 782mm at 65° (Lanz-Odermatt Equation). As perforation is almost achieved (~20mm more penetration required), the LOSAT only managed to penetrate ~472mm RHAe, meaning the Relikt ERA decreased the long-rod's penetrative capabilities by ~40% (310mm). Based on this simulation, the T-80BVM's armour has a mass effectivness of ~1.64. Evidently, this effectiveness can vary based on obliquity, projectile dimensions, projectile velocity, and impact point on the ERA.
Amazing Thumbnail Artwork From: Pr0st0Danya www.artstation...

Опубликовано:

3 окт 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 746

@SYsimulations 6 месяцев назад

In the simulation, the ERA managed to degrade the projectile's penetration by ~40% (see the description for more details)

@dwwolf4636 6 месяцев назад

More of a flight profile issue IMHO. I expect more of a diving attack profile. 15-20 degrees off horizontal.

@renzjosephremo4143 6 месяцев назад

How hard is it to make shaped charge simulations?

@ГеоргийМурзич 6 месяцев назад

It's called line of sight anti tank, not dive anti tank

@WandererJester 6 месяцев назад

@@ГеоргийМурзичI’d go look at the test footage of the LoSat, it can and does hit a tank at a noticeable angle. Not a super huge one but 10-20degrees might be enough to get through the BVMs armor

@MicheleZhang-uh4ci 6 месяцев назад

Can you simulate the M829A4 against the composite armor I designed? Blade era + 20mm cover + 40mm air = relikt era + 60mm steel + 40mm ceramic + 35mm steel + 40mm ceramic + 35mm steel + 10mm air + 35mm steel + 40mm ceramic + 60mm steel + 5mm Kevlar with 60 ° and 80° placement

@rifkinsa 6 месяцев назад

It's crazy how effective the Relikt is against any projectile. I thought for sure the LOSAT would completely penetrate that

@worldoftancraft 6 месяцев назад

Bat muh em Ejt Tu Najn aj For!!!!!!

@jihadijackass 6 месяцев назад

Calm down bozo

@MacSalterson 6 месяцев назад

@@worldoftancraft M829A4 is longer, heavier, and faster than LOSAT. Plus, like its predecessor M829A3, it has an anti-ERA breakaway steel tip (which detonates the ERA before it can shatter the main rod). A4 was designed almost exactly two decades after LOSAT was.

@worldoftancraft 6 месяцев назад

@@MacSalterson you count the steel. While it does not penetrate anywhere significantly. What you've forgot is thickness. That's the thing. But not mass or «length».

@MacSalterson 6 месяцев назад

@@worldoftancraft The steel isn't supposed to penetrate anywhere significantly. It's supposed to detonate ERA without breaking the main rod. Which it does. It does not matter how thick or long or heavy the main rod is if it gets shattered by the ERA detonating.

@nudgeunit 6 месяцев назад

Really expected more from the LOSAT. Lol, those old videos raised the bar of expectation too damn high!

@trentvlak 6 месяцев назад

CKEM was recently funded, velocity of 2200m/s.

@nudgeunit 6 месяцев назад

Re-funded? @@trentvlak

@LURKTec 6 месяцев назад

Because they were basically sales pitches.

@CEOofFriendship 6 месяцев назад

You need to remember that in real life it would loft, meaning it would impact the armour at a better angle.

@LURKTec 6 месяцев назад

@@CEOofFriendship And the cope begins

@gargean1671 6 месяцев назад

Fair to note that despite 80BVM being so fresh, it is essentially old BV from mid 80s with new ERA. And Relikt itself is over 20 years old today, so 80BVM is new thing that was made trough pairing old tank with oldish ERA.

@92HazelMocha 6 месяцев назад

Yeah now I fully understand why LOSAT was canned. Modern 120mm sabot would go through the UFP of a T80BVM and LOSAT couldn't even at its maximum velocity.

@kameronjones7139 6 месяцев назад

@@92HazelMocha yeah ckem was vastly superior to this

@tranquoccuong890-its-orge 6 месяцев назад

@@92HazelMocha or, you know, just bring 2 HEAT warheads, 1 to remove the ERA block and the other to penetrate the armour its either in the form of an ATGM with tandem charge warheads, or 2 guys with 2 RPG-7 shooting one after another onto the same spot on the target tank

@SYsimulations 6 месяцев назад

That is true, although it is still considered one of the best protected Russian tanks today, which goes to show how overkill the LOSAT was for a 30 year old design

@quan-uo5ws 6 месяцев назад

Still a shame they didint make a upgraded T-80U with Relict. Still, the T-90M was probably a better upgrade path as i doubt the T80U would allow for blowout panels and protected autoloader to be fitted like on the T-90.

@kentoncompton3009 6 месяцев назад

If I remember correctly. The absolute MASS And ENERGY that the missile transfers to a target, is equivalent to getting hit by a Mazda Miata *AT MACH ONE*

@chickenchicken8097 6 месяцев назад

mach 5

@FISH_SAUCER 6 месяцев назад

@@chickenchicken80974.6 to be precise

@russman3787 6 месяцев назад

@@chickenchicken8097me when I don’t understand how comparisons work:

@minirock000 5 месяцев назад

The sabot round for the M1 hits with the same force of a freight train travelling at 60mph with the surface area that of a dime. So they say in transition school.

@Klovaneer 5 месяцев назад

Most of the missile's weight is propellant and body - the penetrator itself is only 6 kilos. Can't be arsed to google the burn rate but safe to say the propellant will be all gone by 3 klicks and not that effective before that.

@metaworld567 6 месяцев назад

While it was unable to penetrate the upper glacis, the fact that it was capable of creating a perforation in the rear plate shows just how powerful the LOSAT was.

@brosefmalkovitch3121 6 месяцев назад

Given the sheer amount of force involved I have to imagine it would still be a very significant emotional event for the crew in any case.

@jyralnadreth4442 6 месяцев назад

A second follow up shot might get through

@Brian-qj4kk 6 месяцев назад

relikt is more impressive

@flanker1659 6 месяцев назад

It didn't penerate, so it was not effective.

@ronaldmcreagann6343 6 месяцев назад

@@flanker1659didn’t penetrate isnt much of a consolation to the crew whose ears and head are probably ringing from having a 150+ pound projectile hit their tank at Mach 5. And bear in mind, this is Relikt at a pro deflecting angle on the front plate. A hit to the side or even the turret face would have different consequences for the inhabitants.

@alanch90 6 месяцев назад

Result converges with L-O estimations. Relikt tanks hull front can be represented as 800mm RHA vs KE (550+250mm) while the rod simulated penetrates up to about 780mm.

@azeke8 6 месяцев назад

In 1985 test, 3BM32 penetrated T-80BV at up to 2000 m away, whilst T-72B was invulnerable to it from point blank range. Soviets rated T-80BV’s UFP as 430 mm eRHA and T-72B’s UFP as 480 mm eRHA. So I am not sure where you got the 550 mm base armor.

@alanch90 6 месяцев назад

@@azeke8 T-80BV have at least 2 base armor layouts. An earlier (and more widespread) 3 layer armor similar to T-64B, which is what most existing T-80BVs have. The second armor corresponds to the 1985 model, they were produced with the same hull as T-80U (the 5 layer armor simulated here) until they were completly phased out by the latter (so basically a T-80U hull and a regular T-80BV turret). This late 5 layer armor is rated at 550mm KE across soviet sources and 90s western sources. T-80BV Obr. 1985 was a very limited series production. Its unknown if when converted to T-80BVM the BVs with the older 3 layer armor array got it replaced or not.

@azeke8 6 месяцев назад

@@alanch90 All new production T-80BV from late 1984 onwards, have the same hull as T-80U. The ones with old 3 layers armor are upgraded T-80B. The test I mentioned was specifically done to compare the new production tanks from rivaling tank design bureaus. It was not a limited series production. 4000 T-80BV with 5 layer UFP were produced from 1984 to 1991.

@JamesVDBosch 2 месяца назад

@@azeke8 What are your sources for this stuff? Could you share one that includes the part about 3BM-32?

@GeneralCalculus 6 месяцев назад

Majority reason it never got anywhere was because it was SACLOS system and its launch signature was large enough to blind the gunner/guidance system long enough for it to matter IIRC

@oohhboy-funhouse 6 месяцев назад

I think the bigger factor was LOSAT is only useful against a tank. You can use a TOW on anything you can hit. LOSAT would kill one person if it directly hit, TOW would cream the squad.

@everythingsalright1121 6 месяцев назад

There were many reasons it didnt go anywhere. A big reason was that it was highly subject to weather conditions, and poor weather could really mess it up. A second was that it had a minimum range of ~300m to get up to speed. Not bad if youre in an aircraft (which it was envisioned being used on as well) bit less than ideal for ground use. Finally, the end of the Soviet Union meant that the feared (and somewhat in development) Soviet supertank projects like Obj 640/195/299/490 never saw production so there wasnt really a need for an incredibly powerful anti tank specific missile.

@Derek-je6vg 5 месяцев назад

No it was not saclos nor was the flir blinded on launch .. the missile flew an offset trajectory at launch specifically not to break track lock with only an update or two needed to remove launch error. The laser never pointed at the target. The propellant going high order on impact was roughly equivalent to a 100 lb GP bomb which is far more than any TOW could ever manage. The minimum range issue was pretty well meaningless given the majority of unburned propellant detonates. Too many folks here have no knowledge of the system and are just guessing. I was present at all the live fire tests. There is nothing known to man that would survive a losat impact…and yes…the heaviest era packs imaginable were tested.

@GeneralCalculus 5 месяцев назад

@@Derek-je6vg I'll be first one to admit if I'm being wrong and tried to write that comment from top of my head instead of checking if actually remember correctly

@Nothing_._Here 4 месяца назад

@@everythingsalright1121 Obj 640 and 195 are post USSR. obj 299 never left paper. Obj 490A was superseded by obj 477 very early on.

@nudgeunit 6 месяцев назад

Yay finally some LOSAT!

@User-oq7yi 6 месяцев назад

SOSAT

@HANGING_SILVER 6 месяцев назад

Thanks for simulating my goofy suggestion, it was really cool :D

@MPdude237 6 месяцев назад

Can you try kinetic resistant ERA like K5 or Relikt, in a WW2 or early-mid Cold War matchup? For example, Sherman + K5 vs KwK 40. Or T-55 UFP + K5 vs M392A1. I wonder how well ERA works against these older rounds instead of APFSDS.

@michigancube4240 6 месяцев назад

not at all, full caliber rounds are too big to be easily destabilized by a ~15mm flyer plate it'd have to be much much bigger

@looke3392 3 месяца назад

The round won't be effected very much due to the size and weight of the shell

@Ti_kriss 6 месяцев назад

It's cool to see missiles instead of normal tank ammo I really like your videos!

@Georgewilliamherbert 4 месяца назад

The LOSAT had an upgrade path to telescope a longer and potentially heavier penetrator back into the motor case space. But this corresponds to the baseline as tested design.

@themalcore_ 6 месяцев назад

It's also worth noting that the flight profile of the LOSAT would have the angle of impact being much more down-ward and not horizontal to the plane of the ground. Given in this sim it *barely* didn't penetrate in a worse-case angle, it probably would at a realistic angle.

@LiezAllLiez 6 месяцев назад

LOSAT in C&C Generals Shockwave mod: utterly destroys whatever vehicle it hits LOSAT in reality: "Hey Ivan, theyre scratching your paintjob"

@looke3392 3 месяца назад

that very nearly penetrated the ufp of a tank model that is 30 years newer than it. At an unrealistic angle

@tokencivilian8507 6 месяцев назад

Great stuff and worth pausing and reading the entire vid description prior to hitting play again. Love this content. The last couple on ERA and long rod penetrators really have illustrated the mechanism where ERA can help protect against the long rods. Great stuff SY.

@seanmurphy7011 6 месяцев назад

I knew the company commander of the test company at Ft Bragg which for some reason was an infantry company assigned to Corps Artillery. Anyway, he had some interesting things to say about the performance of the weapon. Short version: there was no vehicle at the time it could not penetrate. The rest of the system though was not so promising.

@Masterafro999 6 месяцев назад

Close to all tanks could have been perforated but some Soviet mbts had better base armour than this t-80bvm and sported k5.

@MBkufel 6 месяцев назад

To be fair - had it entered service when it was supposed to, it would've benefitted from all the subsequent KE penetrator developments. There would eventually be an MGM-166B designed to defeat relikt.

@radbilcz 6 месяцев назад

This is just a simulation. In fact, as it is in reality, you need to do the real test several times. I myself do electronic simulations and then test on a real circuit, sometimes what works in the simulation works, other times it doesn't, and that's why we never rely on simulation. Simulation is an aid not an oracle.

@supermaneuverable 6 месяцев назад

Try get your hands on a LOSAT and T80-BVM

@S1su 6 месяцев назад

YESSS! LOSAT SIMULATION! I’ve always wanted to see what the physics looked like, not just the explosion that comes after

@Ghent_Halcyon 6 месяцев назад

I do question the effectiveness of relikt, but it’s at least clear that without it, the armor would crumple. Also, is there a source of the interior of the missile, or just an educated guess?

@resurgam_b7 6 месяцев назад

I'd love to see this simulation repeated with the LOSAT impacting armor of a vehicle contemporary to its time, or even this same armor but without the ERA package.

@Masterafro999 6 месяцев назад

Well the 5 layer composite armour entered service in 1983. The t-80bv sported this armour since 1985. The same year K5 entered service. The t-80bvm just entered service in 2017 due to other reasons. Relikt already existed at that time. All that has to change for your wish to come true is to model the exact same scenario with k5. Other tanks of the time were better armoured than the t-80bv with k5.

@chriskortan1530 6 месяцев назад

Since this was basically the equivalent of a penetration (Even if there wasn't spalling taking out the driver, the volcanic glowing crack in the hull would dissuade most people to change their course of action) , you can infer the missile will succeed against all lesser targets.

@Masterafro999 6 месяцев назад

@@chriskortan1530 or a very angry t-80 crew tracing the huge white smoke trail back to the sender.

@ronaldmcreagann6343 6 месяцев назад

@@Masterafro999I think I’d be piss scared about the object I couldn’t react to than angry after it hit my hull like LOSAT would. That’s definitely a brown pants moment if it didn’t penetrate.

@Masterafro999 6 месяцев назад

@@ronaldmcreagann6343 would be like anything else hitting your tank. Definitely a brow pants moment but since noone died and the vehicle is still intact, I'd say that they'd gtfo. If the spot the losat whilst gtfoing then they might return the favour.

@KR-ql8gl 6 месяцев назад

his ass AINT not stopping that lmao no way

@Smi3tankoweCjastko 6 месяцев назад

It seems silly to me that they wouldnt make the penetrator longer, with a cap for era, the rocket is huge so why not stuff some high carbon steel at the tip

@bittemeinrammstein 6 месяцев назад

The T-80BVM did not enter service 30 years after this. xD Its just a T-80B with Relikt ERA and new sights/electronics. Which means that the old armor held up. T-90M however would be a good example of newer tanks.

@andrewjack5755 6 месяцев назад

It’s an objectively worse armor layout at best it’s the same lol

@bittemeinrammstein 6 месяцев назад

@@andrewjack5755 T-90M? No, sir. That tank is completely reworked. The T-80BVM however is just a T-80B with new ERA and electronics.

@belgianfried 6 месяцев назад

@@bittemeinrammstein T-90M uses the same composite array from T-72B (1989) and (1990), only with Relikt instead

@Priehten 6 месяцев назад

Today, the author bestowed upon us a banger of a video. Insta like.

@GOD719 6 месяцев назад

Wait. So the m829A3 and m829E4 are bigger and faster than losat? From what i seen. m829A3 is 960mm long and 26mm wide.

@MacSalterson 6 месяцев назад

Yeah. LOSAT was designed when M900 and M829/M829A1 were the rounds of choice. M829A3 and A4 are longer and heavier, and thus superior at defeating armor.

@christians.597 6 месяцев назад

no, M829A3 penetrator is shorter than 800mm

@evanbrown2594 6 месяцев назад

@@christians.597 No it really isn't. The idea that the M829A3 uses a steel tip is based a few blog posts that misread the patent application dates. The M829A3 uses a DU body and Tungsten Tip.

@christians.597 6 месяцев назад

@@evanbrown2594 then how long? because the projectile is 924mm and I don't know how long is the fin but the tip is minimum 10cm

@evanbrown2594 6 месяцев назад

@@christians.597 The M829A3 has a total penetrator length of about 780-800mm. The alloy involved performs about 6% better than that alloy used in the M829A1 vs RHA at 0 deg, and the expect tensile strength of the rod at the time was considered a generational improvement against complex armor arrays developed in the 1990s. I only have rumors as to what these arrays looked like.

@jansenart0 6 месяцев назад

I want to see that hypothetical telescoping APFSDS against all types of armor.

@kmriifps 6 месяцев назад

Th driver is absolutely fried with the way that backing plate is fragmenting

@DamplyDoo 6 месяцев назад

Epic job, dude

@KekusMagnus 6 месяцев назад

Holy crap I was certain it would go through

@Masterafro999 6 месяцев назад

War thunder made this expectation. I always said that this thing needed to get nerfed as it's ingame representation is much better than it's irl equivalent.

@binhvuthanh5804 6 месяцев назад

@@Masterafro999its already a shit vehicleM

@Masterafro999 6 месяцев назад

@@binhvuthanh5804 maybe. But that doesn't justify it being buffed for nothing.

@aflyingcowboy31 6 месяцев назад

@@Masterafro999 It wasn't "buffed for nothing", the LOSATs representation is correct, even in the description he states as much: "The DU penetrator is able to perforate 782mm at 65° (Lanz-Odermatt Equation)" I don't know where you got the idea that LOSAT was "buffed for nothing", when its in game representation seems to be very accurate. No in game T-80s have the upgraded 50 - 35 - 50 - 35 - 50 hull array either btw.

@Masterafro999 6 месяцев назад

@@aflyingcowboy31 they don't have the 5 layer armour? The t-80bvm should have it amongst others. The t-80bv should have it as well. Some t-72bs definitely have it in game. Losat pens everything in game regardless of the distance unless the armour analysis is bugged again.

@runrun7649 6 месяцев назад

I love your videos

@AlexanderK9519 6 месяцев назад

Amazing simulation very good its rare to see ATGMs

@AlfonsoAlejo124 6 месяцев назад

I would like to see what an armor-piercing projectile from a centaur tank destroyer would do to a t 72b

@shocknaw 6 месяцев назад

Interesting, can you test LOSAT missile vs 2a7 arrowhead?

@mamarussellthepie3995 6 месяцев назад

Let us not forget the losat missiles at medium to far ranges would find themselves hitting targets at not 2-6 degrees but 10-20! Or more due to the slight loft of the missile 😊

@madmexican1761 6 месяцев назад

im wondering why not use a longer and much thicker of around 30-35 mms penetrator instead of one of a standard size

@doncarlitos6145 4 месяца назад

There is an agenda in these vids... Nice colourfull show...

@claudiovictorferreira992 6 месяцев назад

Bruuh losat penetrator is just 780mm long? It is weaker than M829A3 and A4 in raw penetration then

@sferrin2 6 месяцев назад

Was replaced by CKEM. . .which was also cancelled.

@cybernetic_crocodile8462 6 месяцев назад

Because why waste money on big kinetic missle, if APFSDS created around that time, especially for 140mm cannons, could achieve the same results for much lower price and better convience of use? ATGMs with tandem warheads could destroy majority of targets as well, while still having good capabilities against soft targets and infantry.

@a.t6066 6 месяцев назад

It was "Cancelled" like all other us programs

@sferrin2 6 месяцев назад

@@a.t6066Let me guess. You think Martians are operating LOSATS out of Area 51?

@DecidedlyNinja 6 месяцев назад

Wow, I thought that massive thing would get through.

@andrewjack5755 6 месяцев назад

It killed the driver for sure

@북극곰-j8x 4 месяца назад

That simulation is just for fun Most of these simulations don't even distinguish between RHA and HHRA or reflect what is written in the manual. In the case of LOSAT vs BVM, LOSAT penetrators vary from source to source, so the comparison is meaningless if the data used by the warthunder is not the same as the data for LOSAT with 140mm apfsds-based penetrators referenced in the simulation.

@CMDRFandragon 6 месяцев назад

Meanwhile in Armored Warfare: LOSAT is point, click adventures.

@angry_zergling 2 месяца назад

Imagine if instead of 780mm long the penetrator extended down the length of the rocket body too. Longest rod penetrator.

@BrutalEnough 6 месяцев назад

Very interesting, I never heared of that weapon before!

@FirstDagger 6 месяцев назад

Was added to War Thunder as an event vehicle, that is why it became more popular within certain circles.

@BrutalEnough 6 месяцев назад

@@FirstDagger I see. I played the original combat mission trilogy...nothing that came later could compare! 😁

@4T3hM4kr0n 6 месяцев назад

the ERA did it's job

@xiphoid2011 3 месяца назад

why isn't the penetrator isn't the entire length of the missile? Since the penetrator is very thin and the penetration ability is proportional to its length, it would be common sense to make it the entire length (just like APFSDS shells), just mold the missile fuel and electronics around the central rod.

@Xiones11 6 месяцев назад

LOSAT seems like it was late to the party. Top attack munitions won out the AT race.

@handsomeivan1980 6 месяцев назад

People are bringing up M829A4 in the comments thinking it'd go through A4 isn't much from A3. Biggest difference is the weird electrical system in the shell. Relikt can stop A3 and DM53. I'm positive it can stop A4 as well, SY has done some sims on the aforementioned shells. Also T-80BVM, didapoints me. Definitely should been T-80u's receiving Relikt. It's like upgrading a T-72a with Relikt

@belgianfried 6 месяцев назад

Well, I disagree. A4 has a velocity boost, very significant. Anyway, let's say we have a rating scale - T-80BV is 0.5 out of 1, T-80U is 0.7 out of 1. If you get T-80BVM, let's say it's 0.9 out of 1. It's better to have a lot of 0.9s and 0.7s rather than 0.5s and 1.0s

@handsomeivan1980 6 месяцев назад

@@belgianfried You're right it does, however construction of the penetrater is the same. If we're doing the RHA pen numbers thing you're only going from roughly 600-650 to 700-750 which is definitely very significant but It's just barely not enough Also reason why I still think T-80U is better for the program is because T-80U has many more modern systems from fire control, to what else T-80B is literally a T-72a with a turbine, armor package alike

@belgianfried 6 месяцев назад

@@handsomeivan1980 Well, T-80BVM isn't just armour. Sosna-U package, DVE-BS and all. So T-80U or T-80BV would only have differences in engine and armour. Albeit LOS pen of 829A4 was 740.4 mm. Determine its effectiveness by yourself

@leonleeoff2216 17 дней назад

This sounds like cope seeing as there is multiple videos of a drone with an rpg punching through t90ms and t80bvm but w/e

@ankurar6492 6 месяцев назад

Gustav vs T-80BVM

@QuirkyTurtle2 6 месяцев назад

You all forgetting that the vibrations caused by a 80 kg projectile nearly penetrating the upper front plate at mach 4 would most likely cause severe damage to mechanical and electrical components of the tank. No tank was ever designed to absorb so much kinetic energy at once.

@ИльяСтратанович-ы8ъ 6 месяцев назад

Meanwhile in warthunder: penetration everything alive right thtough

@wulfleyn6498 4 месяца назад

Now gotta test its smaller and faster brother.

@BirchMonkey857 6 месяцев назад

One of these days I'm gonna have to commission someone to figure out the most likely armour composition of some of the Metal Gear models. And no, you don't have to tell me that it's illogical to do that because the amount of hits they take is optimised for gameplay rather than realism, or the fact that it's a series with psychic powers and other fanciful shit. I know already.

@t3n0n79 6 месяцев назад

In this case ir would ve great to see with and without ERA

@kireta21 6 месяцев назад

Adding weight and lenght to missile-carried penetrator to improve its potency feels almost trival compared to doing same to tank-fired KE. Only tradeoffs I can think are: longer time to reach maximum velocity, and longer fuel cells to compensate for longer acceleration,

@Brokken 6 месяцев назад

yea im not believeing that for a second

@IC3XR 6 месяцев назад

It takes a very, very, very strong round to perforate the UFP of a T-80BVM. Luckily, the Javelin ATGM doesn’t care 🥱

@IzakSemrdoii 6 месяцев назад

Just like lancet for nato mbts lol😂

@IC3XR 6 месяцев назад

@@IzakSemrdoii lancets are just garbage drones. At least Western MBTs don’t send the turret into orbit every time they’re hit.

@AdotLOM 6 месяцев назад

@@IC3XR you are highly petty lmao. gave half the arsenal of javelins to ukraine and yet most destroyed russian tanks have been hit by artillery or landmines. just another wunderwaffe that wasn't able to fulfill everything that soyjacking dickriders wanted it to. all this to praise the javelin that failed to kill 90% of the time, you'd think the russians would have no tanks left if over 5000 javelins were sent and did what they were supposed to when did the javelin last take out parked jets and RADARs located 40km+ from the line of contact? Not bad for a "garbage drone", huh? and kornets don't care about any armor that your or any tanks have, and lol at challengers and leopards that have thrown turrets too - and I remember seeing the abrams destroyed at berdyachi had smoke coming out of the commanders hatch, some real neat crew seperation you got there

@АртемНосочек 6 месяцев назад

@@IC3XR b-but the turret toss!!!!!!! You never change smh

@IC3XR 6 месяцев назад

@@АртемНосочек as if you just acted like you know me 💀

@notachair4757 3 месяца назад

I wonder how it would do if the penetrator were shifted back so that the noze cone sets off ERA

@popocart5304 6 месяцев назад

That right there is exactly why we don’t see it in service right now

@Johanz1998 6 месяцев назад

Seems like if they moved the penetrator a bit toward the rear and added a small tungsten tip to trigger the era, it would have gone trough

@thomaszhang3101 6 месяцев назад

I wonder if kinetic penetrator missiles will make a comeback now that active protection is becoming more common.

@Phapchamp 6 месяцев назад

APS is not common/affordable enough to be a threat. By the time they became common they would be advanced enough to respond to hypersonic threats. Kinetic energy missiles are dead end tech.

@thomaszhang3101 6 месяцев назад

@@Phapchamp idk man, a dense metal rod flying at extreme speed is very difficult to counter. Unlike chemical warheads, you can’t degrade its performance by changing its shape or triggering early explosion.

@Phapchamp 6 месяцев назад

@@thomaszhang3101 Uh no wrong. APS can degrade the performance of KE penetrators by deforming the rod itself. Some of the current APS can do it even let alone future ones.

@thomaszhang3101 6 месяцев назад

@@Phapchamp I’ve seen his simulation of APS on rods. It doesn’t seem to do a whole lot even in the most ideal circumstances when most of the APS fragments hit the penetrator

@Phapchamp 6 месяцев назад

@@thomaszhang3101 Even a slight bit of structural deformation to a rod will significantly effect its penetration. That is how ERA against KE penetrators work as well. Main problem with APS is cost. Even the cheap ones cost upwards of 1M$. This adds up really quick when you try to fit hundreds of them. Especially considering APS can't respond to most threats a tank faces. Like mines FPVs artillery etc.

3 месяца назад

Are there tungsten carbide penetrators? How would they do against modern armour?

@JustanotherMA 6 месяцев назад

I wonder if AdKEM and CKEM would've done better Also did I misread something or was the "initial velocity" literally 1650m/s lmao

@jintsuubest9331 6 месяцев назад

Unless the motor and fuel mix received a massive upgrade, it is unlikely they will do better as they are smaller in dimension. As for velocity, it would get shoot out of the container at low hundreds m/s before the main motor get ignited and accelerate to max velocity. 1650m/s also makes sense as that's what the army 120mm main gun round is targeting. But the documentation on losat is very limited. However there is no way the initial velocity is 1650m/s as it will need some time to accelerate up to that velocity.

@jupitercannon3028 6 месяцев назад

@@jintsuubest9331 The initial velocity claim is taken from the documents SY cited in his community posts lmao If anything, I'm pretty certain (about 70-80%) LOSAT doesn't even use a long rod penetrator but rather has a small tip in the front, instead of a whole rod. If it was a long rod like in the video, it would have to run through the guidance electronics, the IMU(whatever that is) and the attitude(not altitude) control motor. In fact, there is obscenely few information regarding LOSAT (and KEMs in general)'s penetrative performance. The sources I read upon make LOSAT look more like a hypersonic guided APCR if anything.

@jintsuubest9331 6 месяцев назад

@@jupitercannon3028 I just want to make sure we are reading the same document as I don't see anything suggesting initial velocity of losat. Only velocity figure are the rod expected to be used in the 140mm gun. Also the same document suggested standard penetrator can be used in losat without fins as stabilizing fin would be redundant for something encased in a missile. That at least in part suggest the intention is to use the exact same rod in for losat. If you can provide links (youtube does not allow links, so some keyword to search for) to documentation supporting your claim, it would be fantastic. imu is inertia measurement unit, i don't think any component were labeled that in the image he post, it is labeled acm. Lastly, your logic is flawed. a. there are about 5 million ways to build computer to enclose a 30mm square void (more like a triangle void in this case) b. we have tungsten carbide, tungsten alloy, and experimental du alloy apds fired at 1500m/s to 1600m/s, they will struggle to deal with even the most wide spread 60-50 armor, let alone more advance 50x3 threat as shown here. c. we know even somewhat short steel rod achieve better performance than above mentioned apds, we talking about sub 500mm steel rod at 1500m/s d. we know very little about real world performance of rod penetrator in general, but we can mostly accurately simulate rod performance against non complex static armor

@jupitercannon3028 6 месяцев назад

@@jintsuubest9331 1: My mistake, yes, I confused 140mm stats with LOSAT stats, and apparently no, the document excerpt doesnt even mention LOSAT velocity. 2: In fact, the document never makes explicit mention of LOSAT, or MGM-166 entirely. The "we don't need fins if we're putting it in a KEM duh" can be a hypothetical scenario created for future endeavors or discussion. LOSAT is not the sole KEM project the US did. CKEM and others exist. Hence, you claim is highly speculative. 3: According to ADP010952, "LOSAT has no warhead charge - the kinetic energy of the hypersonic missile provides the kill mechanism. LOSAT provides kinetic energy on target that exceeds that of a tank round, without requiring the heavy weight of a tank gun." Speed of sound at ground level is approximately 340m/s, thus hypersonic (at least 5x speed of sound) would mean LOSAT should at least reach 1700m/s at its peak. 4: I want to send you the image, but I don't exactly know how to send PDFs in RU-vid comments -_- 5: Thank you for explaining what "imu" is. 6: LOSAT is a late 80s project. First ever tanks to be equipped with "Relikt" ERA are from the mid/late 2010s. This was an "unfair" fight to begin with. Moreover, human intuition regarding high velocity impacts is extremely poor. Without good documentation regarding LOSAT's actual performance (since the sources I've come across never agree what the range, impact energy and weight of LOSAT is, and the fact that none of them seem to have properly documented it's penetration performance...), all performance is highly speculative. Comparing 105mm and 120mm APDSes to whatever max diameter LOSAT's "Lethal Mechanism" is, considering said "LM" resides in LOSAT's nose tip, seems extremely inappropriate. 7: If I just said "60mm gun vs T-55 at 3km, who would win?", the result would not be easily guessed unless you had access to documentation regarding 60mm HVMS, or saw the simulation. RU-vid deleted this twice for some godforsaken reason... I had to resort to writing on a .txt file.

@Smi3tankoweCjastko 6 месяцев назад

Id be interested in seeing how the german long 50mm cannon does against the front plate of a t-34

@VIlSharklIV 6 месяцев назад

What kind of simulation software do you use? I’ve been wanting to create military simulations as well but I don’t know which websites/ software to use

@makszg9634 6 месяцев назад

140mm adfsds-t/dm53 2000m/s vs t90m front hull next maybe🙂

@adhitypratamairwanto5450 6 месяцев назад

If the BVM could tanked it,iam sure the 90M could do better.but still,iam very surprise that the LOSAT didnt just put a gaping hole in the armor.

@92HazelMocha 6 месяцев назад

I guess it was just never as good as APFSDS, which explains why it never entered service.

@adhitypratamairwanto5450 6 месяцев назад

@@92HazelMocha thats understandable

@kameronjones7139 6 месяцев назад

It wasn't good as other weapons like ckem which would have probably punched through it

@tranquoccuong890-its-orge 6 месяцев назад

@@92HazelMocha or never as good as a tandem charge HEAT warhead; a kinetic penetrator's performance depends on its velocity, and a missile can only get to that much speed HEAT warhead, on the other hand, works with any missile speed

@neurofiedyamato8763 6 месяцев назад

@@tranquoccuong890-its-orge HEAT is not that effective of a AT weapon against the front armor. Modern composites are rated much higher against HEAT. Most composite are 50% to 100% more effective against HEAT than kinetic. So, you need a HEAT warhead that has much more RHAe penetration to a kinetic before it can do something frontally to a target. It is why tanks all still use APFSDs as its primary tank killing round. The HEAT hype died in the 60s.

@itzdylan7665 6 месяцев назад

Can you do one where the target is moving to simulate a tank advancing?

@Skravich 6 месяцев назад

Pls OPLOT ERA 😭😭😭

@monitor4208 6 месяцев назад

I would think, that the angle of impact is critical. All simulations show an incoming object always horizontal. But in reality the projectile, fired from a distance will always have an other impact angle.

@romain8501 6 месяцев назад

Could you simulate a burst from a ZSU 23 4 on a modern composite armor? I really wonder how well the composite holds up

@KaanTechCrazy 6 месяцев назад

30 year difference, imagine if LOSAT-2, LOSAT 2A, were a thing.

@Excal500 6 месяцев назад

While it only partially penetrates, the amount of damage done to the crew and systems would likely be more than enough for a mobility kill.

@nighthawk2174 6 месяцев назад

Honestly considering losat wasn’t even designed to handle heavy era it did good. A modernization probably would have defeated the array

@GoatGoggy 6 месяцев назад

even if it doesnt penetrate, the crew in there is dead, people forget that crews only die via penetration. the reality is they can die to shock

@kitchenersown 6 месяцев назад

By how? Vibration? Unless there was a huge dent that bit the crew don't think that's a case

@GoatGoggy 6 месяцев назад

@@kitchenersown you know the t90 that was knocked out by a Bradley? It’s not only because the Bradley destroyed the optics, it’s also because it’s pummelling metal on metal, the bushmaster hits like a truck, I bet my money on this, that crew was probably disoriented when they bailed. Imagine this, hit your head against a wall 10 times and try to do something productive after, you won’t be able to cause your brain is super disoriented or you are lying on the floor dying. It’s also the same case as that t80bvm that was going around in circles. The crew was dead due to being hit with a 100mm field gun. The tank is fine! The crew is just bleeding out their eardrums and eyes while they lie dying in the tank, ghost tanks are tanks where the crew is dead by the tank it self is still perfectly fine. Look it up, scary shit

@maxkreuzer 6 месяцев назад

@@GoatGoggy there was also a recorded case where a 75mm Sherman was shooting a Tiger wiþ HE shells nonstop causing þe crew to become unable to return fire.

@burner33 6 месяцев назад

@@GoatGoggy cope harder bozo

@kitchenersown 5 месяцев назад

@@GoatGoggy as far as i'm concerned the bardley did not knock the T-90M out, nor the optic. The Bradley shot at the T-90M and the crew probably because their gun depression sucks couldn't shoot at it and panicked. The 25mm did nothing but the T-90M began retreating without any damages. It continued retreating eventually reaching Russian line but hit a tree... then a Ukrainian FPV hit it disabling it. If you look at the picture of the T-90M after it was abandoned the CITV is perfectly fine. Even if the gunners thermals were destroyed the CITV is still there. It's impossible to destroy the drivers optic because...there is none. He has a little viewing port. The Bradley likely obscured his port but the commanders thermals is still there. And I haven't heard of that T-80BVM case, i'll try to look it up.

@someweeb3650 6 месяцев назад

Imagine seeing that dent on the inside of your tank

@me-fp6bf 6 месяцев назад

How hot would it be if i were to touch the back of that armor where it bent?

@CheezeSpartan 6 месяцев назад

Big owie, no touch. Typing with my feet rn, dont ask.

@adamg7984 6 месяцев назад

My question would be with the LOSAT would it matter all that much even if it didn't achieve a penetration in the traditional sense, or would the mass and velocity of this thing still render the tank inoperable from the sheer kinetic impact and force? I can see there being many cases where an outright penetration wouldn't occur but the destructive force from the kinetic energy would be more than enough to make the tank completely dead in the sense that most systems, tracks and possibly the engine and it's components would be disrupted, destroyed or damaged from this impact. That was the effect it looked like it achieved in the videos of the LOSAT I have seen but I don't know if modern era tanks actually do or do not have enough structural strength to withstand the mass and velocity of the LOSAT. I'd like to know if anyone can clarify or correct what I'm assuming would occur.

@Baton666 6 месяцев назад

Not to break through, but even an automatic cannon can take the tank out of battle, which we recently saw in Ukraine, even fragments of a 155 mm projectile can seriously damage the tank.

@Masterafro999 6 месяцев назад

It would surely cripple the vehicle if the turret front is hit. Optics, sensors and turret drivers would likely suffer from the sudden shock

@SYsimulations 6 месяцев назад

I dont think its mass alone would be enough to knock out a tank (when hitting a strong area), as most of its weight is made of a thin air frame and propellant (which burns away), with it also being quite long -this would cause less of an impulse on the armour

@jintsuubest9331 6 месяцев назад

Using your logic, would it not be better if they fill the warhead with lead?

@andrewjack5755 6 месяцев назад

Did you not see it shotgun the driver in the face lol. It doesn’t have to go all the way through to be considered penetration.

@dwwolf4636 6 месяцев назад

I think the solution would be easy here. Longer penetrators are needed. Hollow steel front penetrator and move the DU bit rear ward.

@Keep3r1438 6 месяцев назад

I believe that is how modern US APFSDS work

@ytsks 6 месяцев назад

I'd double check if you didn't use wood instead of DU for that material

@Paul_Sergeyev 6 месяцев назад

I thought the warhead was a solid chunk of hi carbon steel! Not a cap over a thin uranium rod! Is that how all of them were? What if the penetrator used more of the space provided by the rocket and was of different, less expensive material? Wasn't the warhead itself of 80 kg of weight alone?

@roccosfondo8748 6 месяцев назад

It's crazy how many experiences, high tech yet uneffective projects were going on before the 9/11. Nowadays, a few hundred dollar drones can easily do the job of a missile that costs hundreds times more.

@vladdehboiii8888 4 месяца назад

Penetrate or not, that thing will definitely fuck the chassis over

@lightningstrike5024 6 месяцев назад

meanwhile in wt: entire tank is red

@adodgygeeza 6 месяцев назад

I remember doing some calcs at the time that suggested substantially more penetration than what is suggested here. Specifically I sized penetrator based on quoted KE values (expressed in multiples of M829) and also a drawing from ATK which showed the penetrator protruding into the solid rocket motor (which they made).

@Phapchamp 6 месяцев назад

LOSAT is basically just a monoblock penetrator going at 1750 m/s anyway. Nothing special.

@sartte 6 месяцев назад

/facepalm you people are literally dumb...

@kerkonig5102 6 месяцев назад

could we get multiple pak 38 rounds against the same spot. idk front of a t34 or even against a coldwar tank? I am realy couriouse how if at al it would damage the armour.

@BlueGOfficial Месяц назад

I keep forgetting missiles arent solid bricks of metal

@1reefshark 6 месяцев назад

Here I thought it was like a solid piece of metal with a rocket motor attached lol

@exoticdachoo007 6 месяцев назад

Bruh it basically just scratched the last plate. You'd really expect a lot more from a missile that size and speed you know?

@tommeakin1732 6 месяцев назад

After learning about Starstreak HVM it hit me "why is nobody using missiles to accelerate pure kinetic penetrators for the AT role...?" It seemed like starstreak itself could surely be pretty easily adapted to fire kinetic warheads for an AT role. I wondered if there was something fundamentally flawed with the idea. But the fact these projects did exist shows the idea is at least workable. I wonder though, is part of the reason why we're still seeing chemical warheads over kinetic ones down to flexibility? Like a HEAT warhead can still make for a reasonable round for use against infantry and structures, whereas a kinetic round is borderline useless against infantry, and of limited use against structures. Overall though, with the speeds missiles can reach - if you want to make armour totally useless, a kinetic missile would surely be the way to do it lol. I'd be interested to hear how small and light you could make a modern missile that would deliver a modern 120mm/125mm long rod penetrator at speeds around what modern guns can manage. It seems like, for LOSAT, a big flaw was that it was bloody big for what it offered. Maybe that's the core flaw in kinetic missiles.

@belgianfried 6 месяцев назад

Well, kinetic missiles are currently a little hard to make as worth it/good as KE penetrators. Wait 20 years I guess

@Masterafro999 6 месяцев назад

Some other promising projects were there as well. Initially the air force wanted a hvm for their a-10s and some other branches were interested as well. Air launched variants are the only reasonable attempts as you can launch the missiles from tens of kilometres away. They just need a lot of build-up to reach their speeds. Saclos guidance at those ranges was and still is somewhat of a problem. They would probably need to have some sort of radar guidance. I guess these projects failed that cost efficiency test as heat war heads were simpler and cheaper.

@hemendraravi4787 6 месяцев назад

iirc there was a soviet apfsds that was powered by a rocket/missile motor.

@tommeakin1732 6 месяцев назад

@@Masterafro999 To use Starstreak as a reference as this is the thing that got me thinking about kinetic missiles: Starstreak is from 1997, so it's hardly new. It only weighs 14 kg and it's three warheads weigh a total of 3kg and are accelerated to "over mach 3" (not sure exactly how fast) "rapidly" (in a couple of seconds as far as I can tell). Now that's not anywhere near the kinetic energy of a modern tank round (about 1-2 mach off and 1-1.5kg less projectile mass) - but, again, it's only 14kg and from 1997. Also Starstreak seems to be very accurate and capable of hitting rapidly moving and evading aircraft (directly). I have a feeling there might be a scaling problem trying to increase that mass and velocity by roughly 1-1.5kg and 1-2 mach, respectively

@Masterafro999 6 месяцев назад

@@tommeakin1732 yeah my thought exactly. Scaling would be limited by rocket motor size. Those boosters would be massive for the projectile to reach high speeds at ranges of let say 20km

@crlourenco88 6 месяцев назад

Must be noisy inside

@TooNaturalAI 6 месяцев назад

During the war in Ukraine most of times relikt era was not activated. Kontakt 5 shows himself as more reliable but less effective ERA

@rexaprawira2980 6 месяцев назад

I think this is why losat never use in masscale

@BeyondNormal. 6 месяцев назад

What simulation software is this on?

@shawn7889 6 месяцев назад

Losat vs random obstacle like tree?

@shaggings 6 месяцев назад

Oh wow, depending on how accurate this is to real life specs, that is impressive. It almost made it through, even the slightest neutralization of the angle on that plate would probably have caused it to go right through.