Modern US NERA Simulation | M1150, Abrams armor 

you said "no DU since it's export model" though,no?

@@markdombrovan8849 Yes, but maybe the American version has DU. An early version of the Abrams turret side consists of a NERA layer and a steel-"heavy core"-steel sandwich. The export may include tungsten. But these are just guesses.

Would need enormous amounts of DU, though. Not exactly cheap, at about $100/kg. Working/machining that stuff isn't exactly easy, when you have to avoid inhaling/eating/absorbing any dust/chips.

@@hinz1 DU is also a waste product of the US nuclear industry. So cost is not likely to be market rate. The make ammo out of DU, so I'm thinking they can make a plate.

@@hinz1 its the US military complex, do you really think they care about the price?

We haven't watched to see its resting state after the impact force is mostly done. Is a circular area where this is warped really worse then an entire rectangular segment of the armor having been launched away. Since, we are looking at a small cross section of the armor. Like, a 25mm dart looks reasonably wide here. So while the permanent cavity is likely at least 150mm, is that really much bigger then an ERA brick? We are also assuming huge numbers of ERA bricks attached at an angle stay attached when several of their neighbors are detonated.

Fun fact: the Israeli merkava mk4 has modular armor composite for that reason! The actual turret is quite small

@@WalrusJones185 Chain detonation is an issue with the design of the era, it is solvable and was solved. The bigger issue with era is the inherent weak spot between the explosive element. Unless your era is installed in a staggered fashion, there are some impact that will slip between the edge. That has it issue of its own but we are getting off topic. Anyway, the ratio between the rod and the cavity is between 1 to 2.5 and 1 to 6.7 in this simulation. I believed the rod is roughly 30mm. Which make the channel anywhere from 75mm to 210mm. Unless nera can minimized the area damaged down to max 2 times the rod diameter In practice, the difference is largely academical.

@@jintsuubest9331 I mean I wasn't saying it has a smaller permanent weakspot then era, but that us guessing which is better when the inside of the tank is unmolested is sorta pointless.

If any armour gets hit it is now usless, the point is to stop anything getting inside, if it did that then it's done its job, realistically if you get hit your not staying inside, you pull back smoke up and bail

Yes, this sim shows worst case scenario for the armor layout.

Same. It’s kind of odd that they put it up against something it wasn’t designed for.

Dejmian stated in another comment of the same question that an ordinary computer couldn't simulate a HEAT warhead, therefor he can't do an exact simulation, but be could try a 2D version to show how it could look like.

Most atgms would go straight through. Kornet would not care about the armour being present

@@Masterafro999 wrong

​@@Pman353 So Abrams NERA layout wasn't designed against kinetic projectiles you say?

It is more weight efficient

@@user-qn3xu5ee3t Yes it is, which is why I said "both."

Well. There is Polish CAWA-2 module which had 1,3 weight and 0,94 volume effectiveness in best modification

​@@matt_pigeonowsky1734 ERA by the virtual of being explosive powered will generally be better in both the mass and volume efficiency. But how you make those calculations in itself is an entirely different question. We count the backing plate when era is used on lighter vehicle? The mounting mechanism count? To what extend? And does it count when they are not used up in explosion? How about the spacing between the era and the vehicle base armor?

@@jintsuubest9331 Only problem of ERA is that it's usually only one plate and wgen projectile will pass it without activating or something simmilar it's protection is highly degraded. Polish constructors had this problem with modernized PzF-3

the first two NERA layers were seen several times on destroyed Abrams, here it looks as if the armor was damaged by an explosion, (there is one such photo in the thumbnail)

At this point, the community would do anything to see a HEAT sim 😂. I don't think Dejmian's buying a supercomputer anytime soon, so I'd love to see this work.

@@abdulalsalay Yes definitely! I had the HEAT sim in mind when asking this question. World seriously needs more cool supercomputer collabs

I assume this: Seed hunting goes with 1 seed at a time, so you can do multiple seeds divided with multiple computers. This is one computer which renders one simulation, which you can't divide into smaller parts. This is my thought, i can be completely wrong tho

I don't know how viable it is to thread simulations like that. I know they can be threaded across cores on the same computer, but it may just be too erratic trying to thread with computers from all over. That being said, I don't know how this software works, and it may be specifically designed for supercomputer activities

there is no such possibility, maybe for some special version

"The avrams has nothing to stop the spalling" no one tell him!

@@mr_ThreeEight_1776 Tell me what? The base M1 and all the variants of it except probably the most modern SEP don't have any spall liners, it's just steel inside. Because kevlar is very very heavy, and the Abrams doesn't need to be any heavier than it already is. Hell, even if the SEP has it it's very thin compared to something like the one on the Leo or T-90

what plates? definitely not NERA, it cannot contain brittle materials

I think already this is a pretty big stretch for the simulations. No likely we will ever see the true behavior unless someone who worked on it leaks something

An ordinary computer cannot calculate this. I can try 2D, or simulate the warhead itself and then use some equivalent against armor.

Imo either needs to be done. Find its homogenous armor equivalent against heat amd ratio of mass efficiency nera vs steel

Sorry, I forgot you mentioned before that you can't do quality simulation of HEAT warhead/penetration....

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 That's the difference between pro and amateur. Pro will tell what can be done and what can not. Amateur will assure you he is capable of everything.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Is there any way you could kind of fake it to make the simulation easier to compute? Skip the whole shell explosion part and instead just simulate a high velocity jet of copper impacting the armor? Maybe also simulate a shell exploding in a separate instance with no armor to impact so that you can model the jet more accurately? It wouldn't be an perfect solution, but it might allow you to show a rough approximation of what the results might be.

No, not even close. Battleship armor is both very thick. But also very spacious. We’re talking dozens and if not more of feet from the armor belt/ deck to the barbette/ ammunition magazine. The size the simulation can’t handle and the distance would make any dart pretty much ineffective. As it would lose way too much penetration power in the massive gaps to maintain energy and trajectory all the way into the ammunition magazine

He already did 128 vs the hull.

@@jintsuubest9331 oh , I didn't see that video

Rubber primarily increases performance against HEAT.

The rubber is there to make the armor plates move, something like a weak version of ERA, but in a multiplied quantity. A 6mm plate will disturb the cumulative jet, but won't do much against a 20-30mm penetrator

NeRA of the same weight as homogeneous steel armour is up to 40% more effective protection in mm

It's good armour but if you ever want to defend against tandemn 1m+ penetration missiles you need relikt

​@@okakokakiev787it won't protect you against 900mm+ tandem rockets anyway

"Vant" entered service in 1985 as the 3VBM13 round with the 3BM32 projectile. It was made from depleted uranium, known in the USSR as "Material B". The depleted uranium-nickel-zinc (UNTs) alloy penetrator rod has a monobloc construction, and the projectile is aesthetically similar to the 120mm DM13 APFSDS round, although it clearly does not have a maraging steel jacket like DM13 ("Army" magazine, volume 34, p. 450). The "bucket" style sabot design from the 3BM26 was carried over and modified, which meant that large bore-riding fins were still necessary. The sabot is made out of a light V-96Ts1 aluminium alloy. The total weight of the in-flight projectile is 4.7 kg, including the stabilizer fins (0.435 kg), the tracer (0.03 kg), the penetrator and aluminium ballistic cap. The penetrator and ballistic cap weigh 4.32 kg together. The penetrator alone is estimated to weigh 4.3 kg. Interestingly enough, this is effectively the same weight as the DU penetrator of the 105mm M900 APFSDS round (4.246 kg). Muzzle velocity: 1,700 m/s; total projectile length: 480mm; penetrator rod length: 380mm; maximum diameter of the projectile rod: 34mm; average diameter of the projectile rod: 30mm. These figures come from page 587 of the "Textbook of Means of Defeat and Ammunition" 2008 (Учебник Средства Поражения И Боеприпасы) published by Bauman Moscow State Technical University. Penetration into spaced targets: 7-layer array at an angle of 60 degrees (630mm LOS) could be defeated at 3,200 m. 7-layer array at an angle of 30 degrees (620mm LOS) could be defeated 3,200 m. 3-layer spaced array at an angle of 65 degrees (1,830mm LOS) could be defeated at 5,000 m. Hope this is detailed enough.

​@@Masterafro999 Thank you very much for the detailed breakdown. The main question is whether the penetrator in the video has actually been modeled according to the sources you cited...

@@razyoba yes

@@Masterafro999 Oh no, Russian lies, never happend and now again. If you want to know the truth about real russian abilities - divide their bullshit by 10.

There were no leaks, so virtually nothing is known

Most of that area is most likely occupied with computer, like commander's battle management system and gunner's fire control system If there's actually another armor, it won't occupy a lot of space

When I heard about Chinese weapons, what I think is a rarely published detail

@@za_pravdu1943 it is an old steel penetrator, so i think there is info about it

1.4 times as stated in the video

But where? The only thing we have some level of partial confidence in is the sandwiched plate are probably some form of nera. They relies on flexible plate and non energetic sandwich material. They also tend to work much better as the angle increase. Thus we can safely assume, the outside is 0 and the interior is 5, layer 2 with highly angled long plate is likely some form of traditional nera, using hhs sandwiching rubber construction. Beyond that we know nothing. There are some theory but they are just theory. This is my personal theory. Layer 1 is some sort of steel ceramic composite. The lower angle is simply not optimal for traditional nera operation. Layer 3 is likely not traditional nera either. Perhapse this is where the mysterious du addition is placed. Layer 4 is most certainly not simply rha. We know that from the og published abrams drawing. But no indication of what they are.

any sufficiently large shell will cause severe damage to any tank, just imagine being the crew and having your head slammed against every side of the vehicle then trying to figure out what was damaged and where you got shot from while having a concussion

​@@Consumpter155 мм фугас проломит влд и крышу башни Абрамса или леоперда 2 как виден был пролом крыши леоперда 2 в контрнаснаступе от 125 мм установки гиацинт и что то мне подсказывает что экипаж в башни не отделался контузией!

People actually think that? It's practically a naval gun, the tank has not yet been devised that won't feel that hit.

​@@sayerglasgow115 Can active protection systems be useful against that?

@@sayerglasgow115 Yes, Abrams fanboys claim their tank is invincible. LOL. I had like a dozen different people insulting me and claiming that I'd be crazy for making such a preposterous statement as that a WWII tank gun could harm an Abrams...

M1150 is in service since 2009. What do you mean by modern?

@@UncleQ57it be more relevant to say that the M1A1 armor layout is from 1986, since that’s when the M1A1 (the base for the M1150) was entered into service.

Well shouldn't be too much of a problem if it's a downrated export armor.

It has an entirely different turret. Is barely equal to initial M1 variants armor. Which we already knew about since 1980s

@@GordonMuslimanWell, it is certainly much more advanced armor than some old Abrams. I doubt they would put something technically older than 2010 there. The appearance of the first layers of NERA resembles what was seen in the destroyed Abrams. The third layer is something new.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 The destroyed abrams had it's side turret armor exposed. Which obviously will have weaker NERA arrangement than turret front. I don't think making any comparison using this picture and Abrams armor is any fair considering ABVs are more designed to be backline vehicles. M1150 ABV armor looks more similar to M1s hull front armor in terms of arrangement. Which we know from declassification. In terms of composition we can only speculate.

@@GordonMusliman You might as well say that every Abrams in existence has the same NERA. As I wrote, the M1150 has a similar or more advanced NERA configuration compared to what was seen in the turret side of the destroyed M1A1/A2. And what is on the side of the turret is also on the front, only thicker.

Material is known, it is an export abrams

The materials and the array was exposed recently

@@West_Coast_Mainline Really? What alloy is it then?

Lol even if polymer burned it left dust and oxydants to chemist figuring what it was is obvious

@@MarcinP2 Steel of different hardness and rubber

you can write how to find it in the browser

Btvt2019 28 April 2024 Has a pic of armour element with yellow stripe.

Won't let me even comment how to find it haha I have a feeling someone is intervening.

Those would be the export version. No Chobham armour.

Ansys

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 thank you bro)

if you mean nera types, i.e. two thin plates vs. thick and thin plate, basically one will provide better protection against kinetic penetrators, the other against heat jets

Old 3bm32 vant, and even that enough for bebrams xdd

It's a basic M1A1

It's construction is identical or similar to basic M1A1 but with less thickness than M1A1 turret front. It's probably closer in performanceb to M1A1 turret side armor. Possibly the turret front armor has additional layers optimised against rod kinetic penetrators. M1150 was probably not supposed to operate in vicinity of enemy MBTs.

​@@amizaur3marcinostrowski186для это цели он и создавался что бы действовать в авангарде настующий сил быть клином танковых колон для прокладки маршруто для наступающих сил что и видно было чем это закончилось в контрнаступе для ВСУ при начии крупных моторезированных подразделений на леопардах и Бредли!

​@@amizaur3marcinostrowski186You're absolutely batshit insane if you think this is how much side armor an M1A1 has on its turret.

@@maksimer6612 за год они потеряли 30 леопардов и штук 60 бредли, о каких крупных моторизированных подразделениях ты говоришь?

So form this video it seems to be rubber next to steel plates. As the rubber gets hit it expands and forces the steel into the path of the projectile.

@@Phantom-bh5ru yeah but what does NERA stand for? I mean ERA is explosive reactive armor

@@kingghidorah5213 "non explosive reactive armor"

@@Neonblue84 oh lol

@@kingghidorah5213 ☺

NERA is passive armour. You could put Kontakt on it or other western ERA like Dorchester. Soviet tanks run NERA like arrays in the turret cheeks.

NERA is active armor. (Non-Explosive Reactive Armor) Something like ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor), only much less energetic. K-1 does not work against kinetic penetrators because it uses thin plates. NERA also uses quite thin plates and this is the result.

NERA is reactive armor, it rely on penetrator's energy to work/trigger, as well as ERA

rubber is a simplified term and does not refer to ordinary rubber but to a special elastomer. Anyway, where did the idea with this polycarbonate come from? It's a stiff, hard plastic. How would it work in NERA?

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174it’s stiff and hard at low velocities, but like all things when hit with sufficient energy it will behave more like a liquid than a solid.

@@Fatallydisorganized It's not a question of whether it behaves like a liquid, but whether it has the ability to accumulate energy.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Declassified documents show that the Chobham armor used polycarbonate plastic sheets

The M1150 was destroyed in Ukraine so it is an "export model". How does it differ from "non-export". The vehicles sent to Ukraine were specially prepared, they probably thought about the possibility of being captured by the Russians.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 So you think that whole packages of armor were specially disassembled and sorted out at the manufacturer's factory?

@@愛を込めてロシアから M1A1SA is the Abrams variant Ukraine has right now, it is an export variant without the Depleted Uranium armor, M1150 probably followed the same rule, if it comes with DU as well

@@thesaul9484 But no serial Abrams has uranium armor...

@@愛を込めてロシアから Right, but the Abrams vehicles sent to Ukraine, were disconnected from DU armor even before being considered being sent to Ukraine

I didn't use advice "better call Clown🤡"

Wouldn't matter much. The newest rounds that Russia produces like 3BM59 which also uses DU would go straight through with ease most likely given the terrible quality of the Abrams.

He also used a 40 years old round against it too, so it sorta fits for a mid 80s scenario

The "U" in the serial numbers say otherwise, especially on my 1st Tank (M1A1) in 1993. You might be confusing the export version with the non export version.

@@worldoftancraft Better call is being somewhat smart and try to counter argument instead bitching about you inability to create a valid answer. Ukrainians doesnt even know how to operate Abrams how they should be.

production started from 2008-2009 Moreover, the equipment for Ukraine was specially prepared, the armor may not be the best they had, but it was certainly modern

​@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174arms exported, which was probably much worse than the American, unfortunately Poland was also deceived in the export purchases at the common price.

Well he used a penetrator from the 1980s against it 🙄

​@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174nah nah nah. Because of today's modern political climate, if you showed one tank losing your wrong and dosent matter about facts or clear evidence. Your wrong because you didn't follow someone's propganda.

no rubber, no protection against HEAT

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 "No ruber" - Anthony Palumbo

​@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 this would make a very good condom-claim.

I did this because otherwise it was technically problematic. I specifically wrote in two places that the armor would be thicker if the penetrator flew from the front of the vehicle and I even gave a specific value. I even wrote a comment giving room for interpretation, so as not to read senseless complaints. This is not a test of which is better, the T-90 or the M1150. I don't care at all whether the penetrator penetrates or not, I don't care about the name of the tank or its nationality. I could sweep it on armor X, penetrator Y. I'm doing a test to check something for specific conditions. Only kids will draw conclusions based on whether something falls out of the back of the armor or not, apart from the test conditions.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 I asked the reasoning for your inconsistency and your response was to get emotional and call me a child. what you did was created the most ideal and uninteresting circumstances for penetration which tests nothing of value out of an armor package people haven't seen before. the fact you got offended by my questioning shows some level of insecurity on your own part and you may want to take a moment for some self reflection on that rather than lashing out at the comments on your youtube channel implying you have some sort of emotional investment in these results.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 I love how my previous reply got hidden, real great stuff. how about you be more consistent rather than getting emotionally hurt because I questioned your inconsistencies?

@@dominuslogik484 you are biased and looking for a problem where there is none. evidence? you are implying that I deleted your comment when that is not true. I haven't been on RU-vid for twenty hours. Your "consistent" means that for every simulation where ru "wins", I have to make one where the West "wins" and it must be a certain victory, because if by chance they lose twice in a row, I will have to read comments like yours. Except, neither side actually wins or loses.it's information, whoever has it is a winner

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 no my consistency is that when you are testing designs as they are intended to function you should remain with those tests or put a caveat that you were curious about a less ideal angle being used to engage the target to test it's flexibility but you didn't do that at all. As for my comment I was not implying you deleted my comment I was complaining about RU-vid randomly deleting comments which it does all the time.

Different kind of composite. This is NERA and they are dogshit against apfsds

It sucks how?

Но в наших СМИ говорили, что они помогут против русского наступления. А на деле их первыми и бьют из-за больших выплат. Дядя так и вовсе говорит, что в реальном бою т-64бв живёт дольше. На него хотя бы мангал вешают от дронов

Польша бедная страна и живёт за счёт подарок Евросоюза или льготных кредитов собирать нелинзионные копиии и иметь бронетанковую индустрии это не одно и тоже и могут себе позволить только индустриально развитые страны!

Such array like CAWA would be severely damaged by first hit and then have a big area of decreased protection around this point for next hits. Would require sending tank for factory repair of its main armor after first defeated hit. Or accepting of decreased protection in quite big area. It was just a theoretical work of estimating protection levels from such simple steel/ceramics array, without considering any real-life factors like how practical or reusable would it be. But it would be interesting subject for simulation - to recreate CAWA test and see how accurate the result is. The setup is quite simple, just a test penetrating rod of known dimensions and velocity against known setup of steel and ceramic layers. With known results of both physical test and it's numerical simulation they did. If the results of simulation are close to real thing, other kind of real-world penetrator models could be tested against it for comparison.

​@@maksimer6612now Poland may be a poor US colony but it once had potential and it is not without reason that Malaysia bought Polish PT-91M and not the T-90 or the Ukrainian version of the T-80

@@amizaur3marcinostrowski186According to Polish research, it wasn't that bad - various ceramics, optimal cube sizes and assembly methods were selected. The area that was destroyed during the tests was not very large at all. In addition, an assembly in the form of ERA ERAWA was also developed, which could be done by tank crews. Anyway, to compare the armor of the upper hull plate of the T-72B/T-90 vs PT-91 with the CAWA armor.

@@maksimer6612 So stay where you are, in your rich country, and do not bother visiting us or this "bad EU". Especially in a tank.

If it couldn't see the T-72, it would be irony, since most T series tanks in gulf war are destroyed when they could barely see anything, they lack of thermal sight at that time

@@za_pravdu1943 diffrent model, also more modern model with gen 3 thermals and NVG's for driver and commander. i don't think gunner gets thermals

@@dirtysniper3434 perhaps luck I think.

Despite it being totally possible, it wasn't a T-72 which destroyed that Abrams, it was a Kornet or similar ATGM.

​​@@za_pravdu1943😂 дружище даже если вы не разбираетесь в бронетехнике на уровне War Tynder иракская армия 100-200 т противостояла армии агресора США и их сателлитов и прочих пособников наёмников 1м человек, т 72 армии Ирака аналог т72 Урал и т 72а без дз контакт 1 плюс вс не имело перевеса или равных возможностей в разведки в РЭБ и наведении и чем Абрамс отличается от челенджера или леоперда 2 а5 в контрнаступе? Результат будет оди и тот же для обоих сторон, но результат будет другой если как и есть 2-5 т 72б3м будут против одного м1а1 или леоперда2а5 !

Not at all. Read the text before the simulation. First, there's no way of knowing what the plates behind the NERA are, so they just used steel plates as a placeholder. The penetrator was slowed and deformed by the time it reached those plates, and if they were composite armor (which they almost certainly would be) the penetrator might have been stopped. Secondly, NERA is most effective against shaped charges, not APFSDS.

You see what's in the armor. I didn't design it, they could have used something thicker to stop kinetic penetrators instead of the typical delicate NERA.

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 I mean - yeah. Buy maybe there was filling that burned down? A plate that fell off? Its not like I'm some Abrams fanboy, but its just surprisingly thin. Seems like comparative Ts have just more densely packed armor. And you'd expect Abrams - export model or not - to have more package, given sheer size of it.

@@mauser98kar there is a close-up photo, I don't see any possibility that something is missing, the armor is generally in good condition

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 I have to agree. But that would mean the armor there is weaker than people thought, I think.

Beside, this is a combat engineer vehicle, not to use a tank to tank fist and fight.

and then, simulation didn't always means they're right at all. even as seen, it's gonna be goes through the plate.

​@@Mechanized85some strong cope from you

The program does not support magical effects that occur at such speeds. Simulating will make no sense

​@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 oh thats sad but I am really happy you've responded anyway, and I have now have another suggestion: Linear shaped charge that can be fitted on a boat drone against crimean bridge support pillar it can carry around 1 tonn of explosives, simulate it exploding at point blank range near support so as to cut the crossection of the pillar

They got sheared on impact buddy

Happened probably around times of Ancient Greece.

Older ammo for older armor, we can already infer that 3BM42 would go through it easily, and using a weaker shell is more interesting to see the result.

3BM32 is not weaker than 3BM42

You yourself wrote that the armor was specially prepared to some extent, so it comes from present times, i.e. it is modern

It probably protects against monobloc rpg, atgm. It does what it's supposed to

NERA does better against HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank) rounds and EFPs (Explosively Formed Penetrators). Kinetic penetrators like the Russian 3BM32 or the American M829A3 have much more velocity. Speed is what kills armor. Sure, you could hit an armored target with a huge round and brute force your way through or you could go through with a high velocity round that slices cleanly through.

It's meant to protect against heat. It's still far more protected than it's counterparts

@@gamersunite7968 Are you sure, that kinetic rod penetrators have more velocity than EFP or HEAT jet? ;-)

@@amizaur3marcinostrowski186 Velocity isnt everything, different materials react differently to either threat

The 5 Abrams you are talking about are the ones with DU armor in the hull. All serial Abrams from the M1A1 onward have DU inserts in the turret face.

🤓

@@moldypotato4656 I can link you a few documents or people who have covered it if you like. In the Current M1A2Sep2 or 3 they do not However it is speculated that the armor array had changed judging by the increase of weight in the armor

​@@handsomeivan1980 At least one official document from the Department of Defense states the M1 Abrams has used depleted uranium in its armor since at least the late 1980's and that the same depleted uranium armor has been carried over to the M1A2 Abrams. The document in question is from the DTIC "Environmental Consequence Analyses for the M1A2 Abrams Tank Program", primarily on page 43, although there are other references to the use of DU armor throughout the document. There are also references to the use of DU armor in books by David Grummit, Steven Zaloga, and Michael Green. This is the result of a quick search but there are undoubtedly more sources that state the same.

All Abrams variants more modern than M1A2 SEPV1 has DU in both turret and both the hull. Army amended for DU usage limits to be lifted in around 2010.