M829A3 vs Relikt | Abrams vs best T-90/T-80 Explosive Armor 

penetrators are being tested, not the tank's armor You can see the difference when the penetrator passes through the ERA, but is it particularly positive for the steel tip penetrator? I have my doubts. Would anyone complicate the design of a penetrator when it won't be noticeably better? I doubt it too.

​@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174But isn't you comparing round ability to go through ERA ? So isn't it's would be better for us to see is it effective against this ERA or it's still not enough to penetrate ERA and armour ?

@@_blackdeep_3518 what armor? If the armor is thick it won't penetrate, but if it is thin it will penetrate. This has nothing to do with what ERA will do to the penetrator, which is what I wanted to test.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 For example upper plate of T80BVM . Since some people was saying that M829A3 was designed to deal with Relikt ERA so that's why I and probably the guy who started this thread interested will it penetrate actual armour of tank on which this ERA usually installed

@@_blackdeep_3518 It`s kinda another type of question what author want to say. This video is just simulation test, not the actual model of pen/non pen of t80/t90 armor

I think NASA might have the computing power needed for that.

​@@JPduclerc😂

@@JPduclerc FEM when shaped charges: *confused screming*

To me it looks like the rod with the steel tip got bend more, so the hit on a second armor plate would be at a way worse angle. If there was a second plate it might hit it sideways and would be unlikely to perforate.

idk, but this is very theoretical as detonation occurs where the explosive is sheared

Id like it too

I would also like this.

Ok

It seemed to me that if the design makes sense, there would be no need to measure the penetration down to the millimeter, it would just be clearly visible

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Maybe not, but even a minor change in angle can have a huge impact on penetration. Also, i'm curious, if you run the same simulation with exactly the same specs several times, will the result be 100% the same, or is there some small variations?

@@superliga1 Failure model, cracks may appear elsewhere, but in general there may be a constant random distribution over several simulation runs

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 I think it would work if the "tip" was acctually the out steel layer of a telescoping rod giving it a slot ~1 meter of stand of distance against the era, but yeah I doubt the "anti-era" capibilities of what is basicley a steel balistic cap.

Ansys

Ansys I think

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 thank you!

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 how did you manage to get it? It seems like a paid program

Lots of googling, pixel measurement, material science course, and math.

I disagree. The question being ask here is give a fix mass, does steel tip make sense from a performance perspective. Since we know the mass, what sense does it make to test a penetrator of lower mass? I argue we should instead test various proportion of steel and du mix, with the same mass.

If you provide the technical diagrams of M829A3, I will do it in the next simulation

the ballistic cap is for aerodynamics,the steel tip is to help defeat ERA,but they didnt put the armor behind the ERA so the test doesnt actually show the difference.

@@abas656thegodemperor9 What makes the difference is what happens when the penetrator passes through the ERA... If you don't see a difference when the penetrator passes through the ERA, it won't magically appear when it passes through the armor

Ansys

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Thank you so much.

It seemed to me that if the design makes sense, there would be no need to measure the penetration down to the millimeter, it would just be clearly visible

Cap on steel apc is to prevent or realistically minimized and delay projectile shattering. They almost always result in worse entry angle compare to uncapped projectile.

Too long. I always have trouble modeling ERA with the actual armor behind it, because with such a large model, sudden load spikes stop the simulation. It would take a month to make them.

if you assume the tip will be lost, you don't need a heavy DU

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Super fair, would having a soft or hard tip on the round make any difference in your opinion?

@@WandererJester yes, soft doesn't make sense because it's harder to penetrate the front ERA plate, too hard doesn't make sense either because it will shatter upon impact

I've heard one reason why they went with the steel tip is that it pokes a hole into ERA without detonating it. I also have heard that the M829A4 has a full DU tip that is designed to break off in a similar manner to the M829A3 steel tip. Which makes me suspect maybe at the time the M829A3 was designed, we didn't have the know-how on how to make a DU tip that could be like that steel tip.

I think that's only true for very early ones, on later HEAT warheads it would be fixed with longer fuzes/cones

Supposed doesnt mean 100% will, we only know that K5 is 100% toasted by A3

​@@somerandomboibackup6086we don't know that either

@@okakokakiev787 watch M829A3 vs T-72B3 bruh

Not necessarly, remember this is just comparing 2 different penetrators not K-5 and Relitik.

Notice how the penetrator bent and has multiple cracks? It is the result of the penetrator cannot cope with 2 opposing force acting on it simultaneously on different end.

@@jintsuubest9331 yes but that’s the job of the top plate isn’t it

@@jintsuubest9331 the trajectory seems to follow what M829A3 does to T-72B3

Obviously it does, the projectile trajectory is more stable than without it.

Maybe add some composite behind for a more realistic test.

@@IanAwfuls The steel tip projectile comes out parallel to the plate it penetrated, it is less stable after hitting ERA. It's a little confusing because sometimes the steel tip is at the top of the video and sometimes at the bottom

A few degrees? This is unattainable for APFSDS for real distances. ~0.5 degree for such a situation. The ballistic curve for all reasonable conditions is compensated by the side angle, because it is practically impossible to hit perfectly with the tank's axis.

Everything's fine, you just have no idea what K-5 and Relikt look like. There are two plates as it should be.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 You have no idea. I also forget to mention that Relikt is spaced away from the hull so the second plate can detonate under. Therefor your render is wrong. EDIT: I just saw the second plate, it exists but not put how it is intended. It looks more like the bottom cover of the ERA block.

@@mclukas44lol25 Maybe on the third comment you'll notice that the backplate is away from the hull as it should be. Moreover, no one who knows anything about the subject will say that the rear plate resembles the bottom cover of the ERA, because it is too thick and the K-5 mounted on the hulls does not have it at all. In addition, the K-5 has three times more internal space. Someone who points out my mistakes should know this perfectly well.

I wonder what the PT-91 shoots with. The implementation of modern ammunition with long tungsten penetrators has been discontinued. 3BM15 remaining...

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 3WBM3, 3WBM6, 3WBM7, 3WBM8 (ap,sabot, carbide core), Ryś (tungsten core), 3WBK7, 3WBK10 (HEAT) i 3WOF22 (HE)

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Probably yes, maybe Ukrainians have something better idk. In early 2000s new ammo was tested "Ryś" with Israelis tungsten penetrator but was too powerful [too high pressure] for 2A46. Also can you test ERAWA armour ?Can PT91 turret survive direct hit from RU T72B3 ?

Supposedly* Ryś APFSDS-T, were produced around 2002 r, Declared to do 630 mm of RHA. There are only about 6 ryś rounds per tank though. And there is no info on the quality control of the materials for the core. More likely the penetration is around 500-550. The problem is the heavy sabot weighing 3.85 kg, there were no capabilities to produce modern composite sabot in Poland. Whole round is 7.55kg The core weight is 3.7kg, muzzle velocity is 1650m/s RHA pen at 2000m is ~500mm

First abrams appeared on the front lines in November 2023, so far 9 abrams were lost, averaging 1,3 per month. Russia lost between 50-67 t90m since beginning of the invasion, averaging 2-2,5 per month. If abrams lives an hour, then t90m lives 25 minutes.

@@anderoo9260 Ok, we're your Abrams dude? 25 min, very funny 🤫🤫🤫🤕🤕🤕🤡

@@romankovalev7894 these are your words, not mine. Both Abrams and the t90m live much longer than an hour on the battlefield. I wish I owned an abrams, bold of you to assume I supplied more than 30 of them to Ukraine. If I owned them, I really wouldn't do that. To answer, more than 20 are still in use by the Ukrainian forces, duh. Don't worry vatnik, the t90m may be worse than even the 90s NATO tech but it's still a better tank than t64 will ever be. Both t90 and t64 date back to the 1951 obj430- they are nearly 80 year old tech. Only in the 2010s did Russia manage to put blowout panels on a tank and to this day relies on ERA. not even NERA. Just ERA. And their targeting system is just knock off French gen 2+ thermals. Russia will most likely win the war in Ukraine, but their army is mediocre at best and wouldn't stand a chance against NATO.

@@anderoo9260 Don't worry nаzi

@@romankovalev7894 vatnik destroyed with basic facts lmao you failed baaaaaaad.

It seemed to me that if the design makes sense, there would be no need to measure the penetration down to the millimeter, it would just be clearly visible