M1 Abrams vs Leopard 2AV | M774 | Armor Penetration Simulation 

do you have a discord server or anything of the sort where we could talk about the simulations, give recommendations and talk about the topic of armour in general?

is Not 1509 m/s?

@@philneal3750 here lol

Wait, im confused. So they will both have slightly less or more protection their monolithic counter part?

@@jintsuubest9331 it turned out to be, which is rather unsurprising considering that spaced armor doesn't work effectively against monoblocks with good durability

Whoever was behind that plate probably got some wounds but considering there is barely any shrapnel it's not completely fatal.

@@AlreadyTakenTag for the exact case there is also spall liner underneath

Spall liner would absorb the spall

Or as the Chieftain would have put it: "a significant emotional event".

I bet that no one writing about the spall liner checked whether it was actually installed in this tank.

yes this composite array that barely managed to protect from 105mm in a way where spalling probably swiss cheesed some crew members would have definitely stopped soviet 125mm sabot perfectly

@@kmriifps ever heard of a spall liner, homecook cheesemaker?

@@kmriifps Should be fine with the addition of the Arrow Head spaced armor.

there's no such thing as "perfect work" for armor. this simulation has a suspicious lack of witness plate

@@stigmautomata velocity of shrapnel should be a sufficient indicator. Don't think the author would share these numbers though, here you are correct

There's still fragments sent inside. Probably unpleasant if you happen to be right in front

​@@samarkand1585the spall liner would Stop them beforee they can hit the crew

I’ll just spoil that video for you, no perforation.

Id be more interested to see a plate of equal WEIGHT.

@@supremegreaser2399 Yeah, I know these early spaced arrays would keep most but not all of the strength of a single plate against kinetic penetrators while increasing resistance against chemical penetrators... And 380 mm is way too much for an M774 in any case. But it would still be interesting to see!

point of composite armour is to reduce weight by using more space@@rare_kumiko

Go watch the Maus vs T-62, would be a similar result.

and its the first gen of leopards 2 we are at over 9 now

That's not too surprising. We know WC core AP has insane flat performance against monolithic material, since like the 40s. I'm sure if we made some using today chemistry, they will likely still perform better than rod if the target is monolithic material.

Against complex array, it is complicated. Iirc there was once a test of 3bm32 and 3bm42. Yes, it is not a apple to apple comparison but still useful to get some data point. Against the specific test target, iirc I'd some 7 layer of non homogenous material, 3bm42 perform better, but against monolithic target, 3bm32 perform better.

@@jintsuubest9331 Yes and no. The 7-layer target in this test was layers of steel and textolite. Not a complex spaced array ( NERA like set up like the T-72B?), where the 3bm-32 outperformed the 3bm-42 by a rather large degree. The M833 would probably outperform the 3Bm-42 against complex spaced arrays.

7 layer of steel and textolite is complex. But let's not argue about definition of complexity. T72 nera is literally just steel rubber sandwich with spaces in between, more or less what the array on screen is. Hell, I think the angled plate proportion is almost identical. Anyway, I said, it is not apple to apple comparison. 833 is much longer and rod, build out of much better alloy (the alloy does not need jacket to hold together). Of course it will perform better than 3bm42 against practically all target. My point is to demonstrate you cannot simply say du rod is always going to be better than w rod. I mean why Russian chose to produce more 3bm42 than 3bm32? Russia has plenty of nuclear power plant, raw material is least of their concern. Japan still chose W for their latest rod, despite having use du rod before, I believed.

​@@jintsuubest9331 The 3BM-42 overall is a bit longer, and has the penetrating cap. It was developed based on assumptions about NATO armor that turned out not to be correct. It was good against complex spaced arrays. The issue with the 3BM-32 was twofold more related to manufacturing than performance. Alloying DU is difficult and achieving consistent results was/is very hard when quality control kinks were being worked out. Also while DU is not radioactive, the industrial process to create a LRP out of DU can result in a great deal of toxic metal byproducts and potential exposure to workers. Facilities need to be designed with this in mind to reach mass production. Working with WA was a more mature area of expertise, with limitations inherent to the material limiting its introduction. The USSR for these reasons, didn't really get mass production of the 3BM-32/42 until 1988/1990, by then most funding had dried up. The USA for example had to create a whole new facility (in Idaho) in the mid 1980s to manufacture the DU armor packages for the M1A1. google "Specific Manufacturing Capabilities (SMC) Project DU Armor" to learn more.

The issue is that the 3BM15 is from 1972 while this M774 is from 1980. For a comparison, the 3BM22 from 1976 has similar performance to the M774. A more closer comparison, in terms of year released, would be the 3BM29 from 1982. It was an early depleted-Uranium round that had inferior 0 degree performance, but largely improved angled penetrating performance over the BM22.

​@@SnoutBaron Pretty sure the point of the 2 videos was different lol. The BM15 one was indicative of what the 2AV would have faced if the cold war went hot when it was in use, the M774 vid is more just to show how long rod DU APFSDS from around that era would perform.

Using the Arrow-Head of the Leopard as a fuel tank, and the fuel as armor. This would mean the projectile could need to cross 70 cm of fuel before hitting the armor. I was thinking about this too.

@@karstenschuhmann8334abrams also has fuel tanks as armor, could be interesting to see

The 2AV was a down armored version of the leopard 2 meant to serve in the us army, I’d say if it can’t even penetrate this it’s not a good round

@@finnkraus5824 2AVs armor shown on the simulation is it's standard armor, the composite was completely taken out of the turret for the trails in US because of the "time constraints" as Germans called it.

@@morgus9892 Ok, not my point tho

@@morgus9892 Unless you’re referring to the 2av having standard Leo 2 armor, which it obviously didnt

on the contrary, I was entirely sure it would go right through lmao

bump

Penetration in a homogeneous plate can be calculated, which I do, so I don't see the point of several dozen hours of simulation calculations. The more so that I have already checked during the study of the model process that the Odermatt equations coincides quite well with the results of the simulation.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 What about other part of the suggestion. You could give comparison between various armor profile for the given projectile and analyse the results. Lets say armor arragment A is performing better than armor arragment B but for the same surface area armor B has less mass.. Then you could modify armor B by adding something to compensate for the mass and test it to see the results. I know this is huge amount of hours of processing power but this could provide few videos and give some insight about design characteristics. Best regards!

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 And one more suggestion, every projectile has some Angle of Attack. I haven't seen a simulation of APFSDS hitting some armor with AoA. That would be great! :)

The projectile in the video is old and outdated.

nerf what?

Even the armor us outdated.

@raptorwarrior yeah, that would be exciting

​@raptorwarriorit would be interesting to see that "piercing" of T-90 with Kontakt or Relict on USA's real tests🌚 i suppose results would be not very patriotic for America

possible, although he would have to delve into the subject

Ansys

He tried it before. Sim crashed.

​@@jintsuubest9331 Fr?

A bit of rubber, a bit of air and a bit of metal, you’ve got a strong mixture right there

you know what it is

Cored or brittle penetrators will perform worse vs spaced armor compared to monoblocks with good ductility even if perform better vs RHA

War Thunder uses MUCH simplified penetration simulation, both because it needs to do it in an instant and in order to not confuse the players about the physics involved.

@@BigPapaKaiser War thunder doesn't even sim the projectiles in game, the game has the penetration numbers hard-baked into the files for each projectile (it is possible to make something absurd like a 20mm gun that fires ammo at 50m/s yet has 1200mm of KE penetration). They use a formula to approximate a simulation (poorly) then apply those to the individual ammo files.

​@@BigPapaKaiserWar Thunder is correct on that regard though. The real problem of war thunder is that it gets zero account for certain shenanigans. For example, soviet 85mm APHE shell violently underperforms against sloped armor because knickers are not modeled. On the other note, contact cladding for APDS projectiles is ignored, resulting in projectile shatter and APDS being almost useless. There are also problems of high caliber cannons not causing fires despite carrying a lot of nasty liquids in their hydraulic dampeners, breeches barely generating shards, no account for accumulator blocks being violently flammable and lack of commander vulnerability when using commander binoculars on early tanks, as well as still having it with commander dead.

I uploaded the original documents in the community tab

I'm sure if you drop an m1 on a t90, both will be broken.

Semi-Hardened Armor. This is a popular term for hardened armor, with a lower hardness than High Hardness Armor. In fact, they are all RHA with many different hardnesses. Grouping hardness seems to be more intuitive for the viewer than naming everything RHA. The description mentions what RHA hardness relates to SHA. Medium hardness RHA 250-350BHN, Semi hardned RHA 350-450BHN, High hardness RHA 450-550BHN

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Thank you! I suspected it to be something like that but I wasn't sure. Keep up the awesome work!

Emm... The rod experience tons of erosion. Destabilize is a bs myth that I have no idea originated from where. Breaking rod rely on very energetic angled plate and significant distance after the angled plate, such as era.

@@jintsuubest9331 I‘ve seen/heard the destabilization mentioned several times in different sources, always based around the idea of utilizing a long rods tendency to normalize to cause it to hit subsequent layers at an angle instead of in line with the movement direction of the penetrator. I think we can agree on normalization being a fact, thus this destabilization seems to be a plausible mechanism to defeat APFSDS.

@@RichelieuUnlimited I'm afraid I cannot agree with you on normalization too. Or the use of term like "long rod". Rod, for the most part, enter and exit the armor at the same angle. Sometimes rod will exit the armor at a smaller angle, but that is working in favor of the rod. Only steel rod or rod using wc shows behavior of being deflected to a larger entry angle, but that is standard behavior of those ap material. Now, if the decrease of exit angle of the current plate result in increase of impact angle of a second plate, that would make the rod impact overall more material than if they are all of a single angle. But it is still not the denormalizaition through destabilization thing you mentioned. As far as "long rod" goes, at what point is a rod "long rod"?

@@jintsuubest9331 The idea I was referring to is, that if the penetrator slightly angles itself when hitting an angled plate, increasing its performance against said plate, this can be exploited, as the penetrator is no longer fully in line with its direction of travel, thus decreasing its performance against subsequent armor layers. The long rod, as I‘ve understood it, refers to a monolithic as opposed to a segmented penetrator. Edit: Like keyholing bullets.

Он говорил что не может для кумулятивных снарядов симуляции делать, не помню почему правда.

@@NameWasStolen Затраты на вычисление выше на несколько порядков, даже если делать это в 2Д

Смысл? Ещё в СССР проводили испытания. Там происходит пролом брони, никакой защиты это не даёт.

@@LT0609 ты говоришь об алюминиевых плитах БМД/БМП 3. Я же говорю об стальной броне бетера и БМП 1/2.

@@gargantuan-wb1br Именно на БМП-1 и БМП-2 в 88 году в НИИ Стали испытывали воздействие ДЗ на броню. Стреляли гранатой ПГ-9В. Произошёл пролом брони. Даже фото есть.

Rather vehicle captured by the enemy?

The Leo 2AV is older than the first Abrams with 105mm lol

Yes and yes yes

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 I'm guessing M774 was used because it's the only available 105mm APFSDS the US used at the time when testing the Leo 2AV?

@@somerandomboibackup6086 Yes, it is the best US penetrator available before the introduction of the Leo 2A0 serial version.

At 1.7km it might be closer than you think At LOS with the turret front the armor is stronger, but there's like a 10-15% margin of error on these

1978-1985

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 thx

Semi-Hardened Armor. This is a popular term for hardened armor, with a lower hardness than High Hardness Armor. In fact, they are all RHA with many different hardnesses. Grouping hardness seems to be more intuitive for the viewer than naming everything RHA. The description mentions what RHA hardness relates to SHA. Medium hardness RHA 250-350BHN, Semi hardned RHA 350-450BHN, High hardness RHA 450-550BHN

This is reactive armor and the active function is performed by rubber, which accumulates energy well. By setting the metal sheet in motion, it destabilizes and interrupts the cumulative jet. Several layers of such armor are more effective than the heaviest solid armor.

Nein

Yeah, except it will be M833A3/A4... likely a LOT meaner rounds, but against substantially improved armor.

Protect the crew against chemical and kinetic rounds and reduce vehicle weight

Deflect the incoming projectile to increase the effectiveness of the armour. Kind of like sound-proofing foam that bounces the sound waves around absorbing it, the NERA ricoshettes the round around slowing it down.

Save the tank, it worked

I'm really interested in the effect of high hardness ceramic plates in the armour, against KE penetrators. It should be more effective than spaced hardened steel plates or non explosive reactive armour

@@levilastun829 Definitely, multi-layered ceramic + steel angled arrays are probably the best, though armor ceramic is quite expensive

@@AnthraciteGari It's so expensive that the Soviets only used it on their best T-80UD and T-80UM tanks. From what I could find

And we just forget about scj threat? There is a reason why teams of engineers, that get paid super well, goes to the "over complicated" route. Military is cheap very cheap in fact. If they can get away with cheap, they will. Whatever armor package we saw is most likely the least complicated and cheapest stuff they can get away with at that time. Beside, the performance increase is not negligible. The t80 example shows significant chunk of steel bounce back into the path of penetrator because the textolite is there to do that. Hell, even era design is more complicated than your simple thinking. Starts with 1 fly plate, then multiple fly plate, then fly plate at different direction, fly plate at different angle, fly plate that is not steel, some with no fly plate at all...... There is also a newer threat for a while now. How to protect against stuff falling out of the sky. NERA need lots of space. Era need less space but it still need it nonetheless. So unless you plan to attend another meter to the top of your vehicle, you need different solution.

@@jintsuubest9331 No comment at all is better than one written condescendingly. I won't argue with you.

Because this version of the abrams I believe uses the 105mm cannon, while the T72s and T90s use the 125mm cannon.

Tbh no optics available at the time those could meet would allow reliably/remotely allow a hit at such extreme range.

@@Valks-22Imagine that it shoots at a factory yard where they keep a few thousand T-34s side-by-side

@@Valks-22 I understand what you're saying, but there is an account (story) of a 4500M kill from either a Nashorn or an Elefant doing just this to a T-34. And Both were equipped with an L71 88 with is 100% capable of killing a T-34 at that range. I just want to see the probability of it actually penetrating at that distance.

Simulation bros tested it. Went right through

oh.......ok then. Thanks lol.