M1A2 Abrams vs T-80U | M829A2 | Armor Penetration Simulation 

What can be said about the result? The K-5 cannot defeat a projectile on its own, but it can effectively reduce its effectiveness if there is adequate armor behind it. The armor materials and their arrangement are not accidental and have their own functions. Determining its effectiveness on the basis of the passive efficiency of individual layers does not make sense.

I am genuinely surprised how little loss was there when it hit the first Textolite but when it hit the second,there was little to practically none of the penetrator left Good simulation

The Textolite by the 2nd SHA plate is the real MVP. The back ~half of the projectile goes from looking like it's going to pen everything to practically disintegrating as it goes through that region!

The Kontakt really puts into perspective how fast these rounds are really going

Seeing this simulation, it makes so much sense why the Soviets moved away from “single stack” textolite to this design.

Keep up your amazing work, and thank you for taking community requests.

This comment section is going to be a dream :')

M829A3 was made because A2 cannot defeat Kontakt-5 on the UFP of T-80, T-72 and T-90s. It’s a given that the ERA doesn’t stop the apfsds alone but in combination with the UFP; makes it immune to M829A2.

This one was outstanding! Fantastic work on the era and just simulation overall. Keep it up

Would you consider simulating this against 1987 T-72B UFP with K-5 (i.e. T-72B mod. 1989 state) to compare performance?

I'm not sure if you've done this before but could you show the impact of adding spare track to the front of a hull like they did in world war II.

Excellent showcase of how ERA and NERA works.

Results were kind of as expected. Though reading your description there may of been some minor issues with the projectile model. Actual penetrator rod mass should be 4.74kg. Diameter is close to correct for a simplified model, length though may be the main issue. M829a1 has a rod length of 680mm. A2 is longer but not sure by exactly how much, it's hard to say by the pictures I have. I've been using 695mm for L-O calculation, as it produces the correct mass with a simplified 21.6mm diameter. But that's simplifying the tip to a flat end, in reality it could be closer to 700 or 705mm.

0:28 is very interesting. The corner of the armor bounce back and make 1/3 of the rod falls apart in the channel created by the rod itself, and does not contribute much to the ap performance.

Isnt the A2 like 2 generations old? They dont even use these anymore right?

Would the round have penetrated without the ERA? Also, I'd like to see the reverse. 3BM60 vs M1A2 turret cheek. (Would easily pen the hull so that is a non-factor)

I'm not sure about what I expected with this, but after fighting my patriotism I can accept the results. Penetrating any tank through one of their most armored spots is difficult. I wouldn't expect a T-80U to blast through the cheeks of an Abrams, so I guess at the end of the day, these crews are equally matched

Thank you, I've always been annoyed by the people that say M829A2 has anti ERA capabilities when it lacks any kind of brake off tip or non initiating tip. Having better DU alloy and overall better penetration does not give you anti ERA capabilities it only slightly decreases the effectiveness of the ERA

Interesting video. Can you test Kontakt-5 vs old full caliber AP rounds? ERA was never designed with these rounds in mind since they had been rendered obsolete by the 60s thanks to APDS and HEAT-FS rounds. But I wonder how effective heavy ERA would be against these old rounds. Can you test T-34 UFP + Kontakt-5 vs some German rounds that would otherwise penetrate it?

Marder 1 [20mm] vs BMP1 in front Bradley [25mm] vs BMP3 in front PLEASE !

Holy.....a modern video. I wonder what would make M829A3 different; it has a longer penetrator and lower velocity

Would it have penetrated without the reactive armor?

We're going full cycle from bolts in a ballista to round cannon balls to pointed tank rounds and now back to arrow tank rounds.

Контакт 5 это не просто пустая коробка со взрывчаткой, нет. Там идут две пластины расположенные под разными углами, при детонации каждая из них движется в заданном направлении как бы пересекая путь пенетратора, что снимает значительную часть кинетической энергии.

Honestly i'm not surprised to see this result, as i said in the past community post about this sim, it would hold if the Kontakt was struck and not only the composite armor. The logic is also simple to believe why the M829A2 was not enough based on the sim, if it was enough powerful the A3 was not necessary to be developed and fielded. New technology are fielded on both sides (armor and projectile), it's an eternal fight; new rounds with improvements on their composition (new alloy or new material used), design and propellant replace the old flaws, if there are any, as new materials are placed inside the armor package for the tank. Nice sim as always, i'm sure this will set some new debates or fuel the relative side's story about the shell being useless/the ERA-composite overperforming, but i'm confident the truth is the same thing i thought in the early lines i wrote (i'm not an expert with titles or studies behind me, i'm just an enthusiast with an opinion. Pure and simple).

Well i guess that old tanker saying of "keep shooting until the enemy vehicle catches fire or charges shape" really is applicable here

glad to see more WT lore

What abrams AP rounds lack the most is a little bit of velocity maybe 200m/s more and it's done.

Can you simulate DM53 or M829A3 Vs T80 series tanks using Kontakt-5, these are segmented apfsds slugs specifically designed to defeat Kontakt-5 reliably era up to 2km away, the nose of the round breaks off on the era, leaving the main penetrator unaffected.

i wonder how this would go if the projectile was travelling just a few degrees downward, to reduce the impact angle

The craziest part of this simulation is the K-5 actually containing its explosive charge.

I remember someone saying "the Late Cold War would be interesting since there was tanks from both sides that could shoot at each other without being able to pen each other"

У вас кажется отсутвует задержка от детонации блоков 4С20/24. Движение плиты происходит слишком рано, ОБПС не успевает начать внедрение в бронепреграду. К тому же от взрыва происходит деформация самой метаемой пластиной. И максимальную скорость блок ДЗ в реальности так же приобретает не мгновенно.

Contact isnt just a sheet of metal, in reality, it would have detonated and thrown back the Abrams shell without damaging the T80 armor.

Can you do trailing telescopic to see if that will defeat the era?

As expected and thats why the US developed M829A3

Iam surprised by how mature everyone is being on this comment section maybe I just haven’t scrolled down far enough.

Is it possible to make the armor and penetrator material have a higher contrast. Like green for the penetrator instead of grey. RU-vid compression make seeing what's going on hard when all layers are visible.

Would it be possible to run the situation again with M829A3 or is it still too classified to accurately simulate? Given I haven't seen any penetration simulations using it I'm thinking that might be the case.

Incredible! Thank you very much!

For those not understanding what is happening, the APFSDS rod is passing through Kontact-5 ERA, a type of ERA designed to defeat both chemical rounds like HEAT and kinetic rounds like APFSDS. It does this by blasting a metal plate away from itself to damage the rod of the APFSDS and make it less effective at penetrating the hull armor, which in the video you can see. Had the ERA not been present, the rod would have likely gone further into the armor, or through it.

I know this is likely never gonna happen irl, but could you do a simulation, where ERA such as K-5, is double stacked, as in one over thw other with some gap between them, and how effective it would be?

could you do DM-53 from a leo 2a6 vs a T-80BVM front plate? the BVM had Relikt so it would be cool to see!

Sir could you simulate the 2A5’s turret wedge, and compare it with the 2PL’s turret armour? As well as Strv 122 UFP?

Aren't we on m829a4 now?

Awesome to finally see a DU penetration simulation, nice work

Would it make sense to have textolite instead of era inside the added bricks? It'd make it worse against heat rounds I guess?

On late t80u, textolite is replaced by ceramics, I guess it's even more stronger than textolite ?

And this folks, is why ERA and other such things became important it can save you or your friends life.

Interesting, what if we make the ERA plate thicker?

And this is why A3 was designed, because A2 was just a standard step up from A1 while A3 was for ERA.

I humbly suggest to start doing artillery shells vs tanks, because we are seeing more tanks lost to artillery fire than other tanks.

Haters gonna say Russian bias at top tier

ERO Kontakt-5 should have 2 plates not just 1 and explosive is inbetween

I think with ERA simulation it would be interesting to show the same result both with ERA like here and without ERA In this circumstance its obvious this shell woulda penned but still would be interesting for thw future

I'll be honest, it doesn't look like the contact. 5 did much more than maybe deviate the fin a little bit. That being said, the amount of armor that the tank has in the simulation was enough to stop bit all together. Or maybe I miss something.

Can you sim the A3. The A3 was made thicker (unusual for long rod penetrator) the steel tip. The assumption is that it is to improve performance against ERA as those changes aren't going to improve raw RHA penetration.

Seems like that little flex of the penetration at the end was enough of a disruption to stop total penetration.

It's a 2003 missile, so 20 years ago, but the A2 version has almost the same characteristics as the 1991 A1 version, and the two missiles differ only in production technology. The penetrability of the bullet is 540 mm RHA at a distance of 2000 meters.

Не очень хорошо понимаю как кусок текстолита защищает так же как и кусок стали

MIC-brained couch generals: "ITS NOT TRUEEE."

Interestingly , this particular ''simulation'' will soon be put to the test.

It looks like the penetrator is outrunning the ERA explosion and not being heavily affected by it

Pregúntate porque en Siria están esparcidos los trozos de estos carros igualmente a los leopard

I am waiting for copium supplies by NATO Metallurgy EXPERTS

As a Javelin admirer this made me chuckle 🤭🤭🤭

"Our Armor is hard And our tanks are fast " -soviet ww2 song

Can you try “real “ Kontact-5 that without Charge but EVA panels?

Защита контакт не отработала должным образом. Но даже без 100% ее работы, результат хороший

Is it possible for you to simulate how much shrapnel would a fuel tank absorb? Like the sides of a Leopard 2 or hitting a soviet MBT at an engle to the side.

T-80U have a really strong armour, when it relased, NATO countries dont have any weapon to penetrate ıt on the front armour.

One last thing. I HAVE read Aberdeen ballistic metallurgy reports that are older. The materials used have molecular properties that avoid blunting to a round cross section. They always fracture in ways that increase oblique penetrations. It’s key.

0:09 no 0:17 no 0:24 yes!

Can we see a test without the ERA?

Epic! I kinda wonder if it conforms to any secret testing.

In 1999 T80 and T90 live armor trials have shown that even RPG 29 pens both tanks UFPs with K5 and its penetration is around 600-650mm rha. Both were almost penetrated by soviet Mango rod with 450mm pen (70-99% penetration). While A2 has a 700-720mm penetration at 2km it would go through T80U plate no problem at all, which just proves that all these simulations have nothing to do with real life situations and materials.

now stop your complaining 10.7 american mains

А "Контакт 5" лежит просто как коврик от пыли, или воздействие на снаряд должен производить?

Western superiority complex sets off in 3, 2, 1...

is ThIs nOrmAL @military girl?

very cool, you should do t80bvm vs m829a3, t80bvm upgrades the era to "relikt" spec, im not sure if the details of this era are open source yet but its supposed to be considerably better. would be a true test of modern vs modern

1. K5 explosive destroys depleted uranium shell structure and the arrow became fragile and possible to maximum destroy first 50 mm level of armor together with the plate under it. 2. If there is no K5 defence, there is no problem to penetrate t-80 front armor. 3. Also t-64 front armor is fully protected against any APDS shell including 3BM-46 using Ukrainian knife protection system (proven by the today's war).

Love seeing modern stuff like this

How is speed of the plate was calculted? Can it affect shaped charge with such a speed ??? Shaped charge is about 8000-9000 meters per second and this AFSDS was 1630meters. Difference is 5-6 times. Shaped charge will "use" only about 5cm of the plate.

Great work , I’m sure this took you a good amount of time

Not sure if you've modeled ERA correctly. It should be an explosive brick sandwiched between two metal plates, but your simulation shows only one?

Great vid, but consider this: the US knows the make-up of the T-80's armor. The US hasn't developed new sabot round since 2015, nor has the US transitioned to the longer Rheinmetall L55 gun. Hence they are confident that their current projectile is good enough for any threat that they might face ... which means that they can pen the T-80's glacis plate. So some of the simulation parameters (projectile weight / mass, v0) are likely wrong.

Why is the projectile bent so much? 0:30

Why are you using the outdated US round? Just to get your "Russia wins" simulation? Lmao

Wow! Did you know that Soviet tanks actually WERE ARMORED??? REDDITT!!!!!!!!

Amazing, we would love to see more modern tests with apfsds, feels like theres too much ww2 related stuff with these simulations...

Why didn't you show through the armour scheme how the projectile's velocity changed during the penetration?

So your telling me, in a perfect world where the russians dont lie about their armour, on flat ground, with a flat angle, the old apfsds we used to use, almost pens the front armor of a t80... ukraines gonna have a blast.

The uranium armor is quite strong, bur its extremely expensive to produce which is why they cost an estimated 9 billion Dollars each

definitely me when the

i wonder, how would the armour fare after this? it can take a hit, but how would the integrity of the complete frontal armour be after a hit? and even how do you even fix armour after a hit?

Kontakt-5! 🤩🤩🤩🤩 Just a question: aren't the two inserts supposed to be ceramics?

Yet Russian tanks are destroyed in their 1000’s. 😂😂

Can u do armor penetration of 125mm vs t84 oplot? Oplot is supposed to have the best armor of any other tank in the wrold not including its aps that can be mounted anywhere on the tank that has the ability to degrade penitration of even apfsds shells by typically about 40 to 60 percent if its 2 core and if my memory servers me correctly 80 if its single core

Not a problem, there is an A4 variant now 😊