T-90M RELIKT armor vs Leopard 2 DM53 APFSDS 

Sabot is the part that keeps the dart in line inside the barrel.

Now can russia actually afford to put this on more than one tank?

@@lulzalfestyes because there are multiple clips of russian T-90M and T-80BVM that is filled with Relikt

@@lulzalfest Exactly.

Seems like the lower plate inside Relikt was super effective by forcing the projectile tear through it along its long side. But a hit on a different spot would've yielded a different results. Also, I think the armor on Russian tanks in general is very sensitive to the tilt angle of the hull. Going down a mild terrain elevation would drastically reduce the armor effectiveness.

I think relict degrades apfsds by 30-50%

Lol he has no idea and this sim means nothing. Do you really believe that some guy puts some random numbers to a program and it shows you something relevant? First mistake is that relikt gets completely penetrated before explosion.

​@@Galova i smell insulted fanboy

a simulation of things that are classified, take this with a grain of salt since the majority of the facts are just claims from the manufacturers rather than proven on field

@@Galova lol

Lol i am

Holding breath for what? Just chill and enjoy.

DM53 is a shit round anyways lol, not trying to cope or anything but it's only method of penetrating is brute force (based on the presumed dissection)

@@somerandomboibackup6086 That's practically every APFSDS round in existence, they just brute force it by being longer, faster and heavier

@@vonvonvonvonvonvonvonvonvo7009 that was the case until M829A3, it doesn't rely on "brute force" in the sense of just buffing velocity. The tip of M829A3 will break off leaving the main DU rod mostly intact instead of letting ERA bends the main rod and increasing the surface contact area. Think of it as like keep buffing HEAT pen rather than making it tandem

Take the ''simulation'' part with a huge grain of salt. The author is still far from making a realistic representation of Relikt as attested by real life X-ray testing of Relikt published by the Russian MOD. There are many effects that are not present in this representation .

You have no source fuck off war thunder@@alb9229

@@alb9229 The photo you refer to is terrible. It does not show any specific phase of ERA penetration. It could actually be anything, because it's just a piece of a penetrator flying through a cloud of shrapnel. Why is it so short? It looks like a leftover from defeating the main armor, not a penetrator after ERA. Not to mention the fact that there is no data about the test conditions or the penetrator being tested, which makes a huge difference. It's hard to believe you're creating confusion based on something so meaningless. Let's be clear, this is a frame from a popular science video. You claim to be able to say what is "anti-ERA" and what is not. I asked you to explain it to me and I didn't get an answer. patent for you: DE 40 23 482 A1 Now it's your turn. I won't ask for a better source of DM53 because you don't have it. Explain what anti-ERA capabilities mean and how they manifest themselves in practice in the design of a penetrator? And what does it have to do with DM53? I'm waiting for some constructive criticism, that is: "where is the problem, why and how should it be solved?" The performance of the ERAs shown by me coincides with the officially reported values of ~20% reduction by the K-5, and also coincides with the results of the Swedish T-80U tests. What this boils down to is that the penetrator is slightly bent and deflected while retaining the ability to penetrate, which is something you are pointlessly trying to deny.

​@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 OK let's begin with the elephant in the room . Patent DE4023482A1 ( can be found on google patent ) explicitly shows the design of a stepped tip penetrator, this design has been seen for the first time on M111 Hetz and it is known to be a mechanism helping with normalization against conventional multilayer arrays ( which is what M111 had to face ). In fact in patent DE4023482A1 description explicitly states , quote : '' ADVANTAGE - The projectile has a simple structure and increased penetration capability without deleterious transverse force effects on the main core when used against targets of multiple material construction (multilayer armour)'' end of quote . Not only patent DE4023482A1 has no connection with ERA but on top of that it does not even explicitly describe DM53 since the penetrator shown in the patent has vastly different L/D ratio and sabot design compared to DM53. Those facts have already been pointed to you by multiple occasions, yet you keep jumping into conclusions undisturbed , pretending that shomehow patent DE4023482A1 is related to ERA defeating mechanisms or DM53 for that matter ... Now put this into contrast with US patent EP2597416A2 which is related to M829A3 , we know this because both design of the penetrator shown in the patent and chronology do correspond . Said patent explicitly describes ERA and ERA defeating mechanism , for instance quote : '' More particularly, as the projectile impacts the outermost plate of an explosive reactive armor module, the explosive material ignites. The ignition of the explosive material causes the two plates of the module to be driven apart. As the outer (or cover) plate is driven outward into the projectile, the outer plate damages, e.g., breaks or bends, the penetrator rod of the projectile .... In general, this disclosure describes a penetrator round assembly having a main penetrator rod and nose designed to penetrate explosive reactive armor. The penetrator round assembly includes a solid steel nose that is sufficiently robust to perforate explosive reactive armor ("ERA") cover plates and absorb the initial energy from the moving ERA cover plates without significantly bending the main penetrator rod of the assembly '' end of quote . So two options are offered here , either you have never read patent DE4023482A1 or you explicitly chose to pretend it is related to DM53 or ERA defeating mechanisms out of personal motivations . Either way it does not paint a pretty image on the credibility that can be granted to your models ! Now let's move to the rest . It is explicitly stated in the video that this is the results of a long rod penetrator ( they show 3BM42 but they don't explicitly name it ) going through Relikt. The picture does not show a ''piece of penetrator flying though shrapnel'' as you state but a heavely fragmented core section flying along the rest of it's own fragments. . From available X-ray pictures of Kontakt-5 work on a penetrator at an earlier phase ( where the entire penetrator lenght hasn't yet made it through the ERA ) you can see how the core ( and in particular the frontal section ) is broken into multiple pieces along with minor gragments after exiting the array , very similars to the one seen in Relikt X-ray picture. So yes altough a specific phase is not given of that picture if one had any clue one could deduct that the picture is taken at a late phase when the penetrator has already crossed the array and has traveled some distance. You are acting as if you are supposed to already know what the fragments of a penetrator going through a particular ERA array will look like , how short or long they should be , what shape they should have ... especially when existing X-Ray photos of Kontakt-5 do correspond with the results observed in the Relikt testing. You don't like real life X-ray pictures of a penetrator going through a Relikt array ... bummer ... the important question is , who cares ? I guess you have the answer to that . Imagine how entilted has one to be in order to entertain the idea that his/her opinion ( completely subjective at that being ) is more relevant than actual photographic evidence of the real deal showcased by a scientific bureau ( NII Stali ). This is ridiculous ! Last but least you still have provided absolutely 0 sourcing to even remotely back up your wild clame according to which '' Sweden testing shwon Kontakt-5 does not fragment a penetrator'' ... funnily enough i have already quoted US patent EP2597416A2 here which explicity states the exact opposite : ''As the outer (or cover) plate is driven outward into the projectile, the outer plate damages, e.g., breaks or bends, the penetrator rod of the projectile'' . Guess who's to be trusted between your wild claims and an actual patent describing ERA defeating mechanisms . Yeah you guessed right ... So please do due diligence and have some pride in your work . If you want to do models for the sake of entertainement then there is nothing wrong with that but if you want to pretend that your models are accurate then you need to step up your game my friend because you clearly have demostrated yourself that you don't have the sholders for that. Don't get offended when i say that you models should absolutely be taken with a huge grain of salt , because i back up what i say with factual evidence instead of making wild claims out of thin air like you do !

@@alb9229buddy got destroyed

Now imagine that the Russians have malachite. This protection fires the plates a few seconds before the projectile approaches. From sources, I learned that from kinetic projectiles +700-800mm and 1000 cumulative.

@@user-tp6ec1zu1y Considering how limited they are now...highly unlikely

​@@MrTrool323 What are they limited in? Don’t be afraid, European leaders lied 80 years ago that Russians were weak, and now almost everything you hear about Russia is a blatant lie. Help is coming, Europe will be free.

​@@MrTrool323когда появился Реликт? Сколько времени его дорабатывали и внедряли? Военные технологии могут внедряться долго, но тем и важнее что бы была начата работа как можно раньше. Через 5-10 лет, а может в 2 раза позже мы будем так же смотреть предположения как хорошо работает Малахит на серийных танках. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

​@@knnd_DZmy favorite production is t-14 armata, so strong and reliable 🔥🔥🔥

I'll see what I can do

M829A3 and DM53 are pretty similar so I'd expect the same result M829A4 would be interesting, it does boast a tiny bit more penetration according to what we know about it Though I think it'd still get stopped, let alone in a realistic setting considering a bit different angles and such But maybe we'd get to see!

@@handsomeivan1980the entire point of the A4 dart is to defeat relikit. It’s not possible to model accurately either because it’s super classified. It has entered service though.

@@SMJ495 I'm not so sure about that, there's literally no information or even statistics besides it's penetration value, which isn't necessarily 100% accurate on penetrating composite arrays, HHA, etc It's kinda like a "trust me, it'd work" kinda thing And if we consider this test, it's almost perfect conditions and angles, i imagine if the hull was rotated a bit, the armor would fair way more and give the ERA more time to disrupt the projectile

​@@SMJ495 Hello again! I've been trying to find this information of M829a4 defeating relikt but all data I can gather is that the difference between it and the A3 is the data link upgrade, propellant, and muzzle velocity It's definitely still anti ERA for K5 heavy ERA, but I still doubt it'd work against Relikt Can you provide a link of something where you found this?

@@SMJ495 thats way Malachit ERA was invented

Bruh, so ur the kinda guy who has internet arguments and leaks classified documents LOL

@@WigSplitters its fun to speculate

@@WigSplitters That was rather a quick dialogue in the RU-vid comments section. That was a feeble attempt of mine to reason a little bit. All such attempt are doomed to fail beforehand, when you keep in mind the sheer futility of any anonymous internet arguments.

DM53 is in no way similar to M829A3, one penetrates by brute force (DM53) while the other is a generic rod with steel tip to neutralize ERA first. In no way am I claiming M829A3 will 100% penetrate T90M or any Relikt equipped tanks, but assuming one is similar to another is quite untrue

Why would an empty box with a note 'General Corruptovich really enjoys his new Mercedes' inside it stop a m829A3?

I have a ready model, but it is larger than in this simulation and I don't know if it will work

I don't know, such a simulation is extremely long and problematic.

​@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 would it be worth it? because in practice you can just "lahat" it' at this point

I don't think a tungsten tip is useful. If the goal is to get through the first plate quickly, then a du tip will do a better job, without using a different material. Then the rest using steel is an effective solution with minimal impact to the rest of the rod performance. WC tip will probably be trash, we know that for a long while. Ignoring the era, the angle of impact alone is a big problem for WC in general, especially at such a small diameter.

@@jintsuubest9331 That may or may not be the case. What is the case is that the patent filed by Application filed by General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems Inc around the year 2000 (US6662726B1) is very clear that the tip material is tungsten as there is no mention of steel. "first portion is preferably tungsten-based while the second portion is preferably uranium-based. " It could be a tungsten carbide for all we know. Later patents talk about a steel tip, so perhaps it turned out to be a better solution, however this is well after the M829A3 introduction.

@@evanbrown2594 I had read that as velocity increase, the rod erosion process increasingly favor tungsten alloy. But this only starts to matter beyond 1800m/s. The idea here is to defeat the second layer of era using as little mass as possible. Tungsten alloy used for rod actually has higher density than du alloy, at least the older stuff. That's why I think simply du or steel will be a better choice. But maybe there are some post introduction modification to m829a3 without changes in designation that change the tip from tungsten alloy to steel? Or the tip is actually 2 part construction with a small tungsten tip + steel rod, then follow by a long du body? However I insist on the no tungsten carbide theory. The goal here is to defeat the second plate. Against highly angled hhs, tungsten carbide will likely failed after the first plate and not damage the second plate enough.

​@@jintsuubest9331 Thanks for your thoughtful discussion. The advantages of DU vs WA really come down to the type of target being engaged. For most target arrays DU has proved to be superior to WA. Digging down deeper you get into the weeds of penetration vs perforation of semi-infinite RHA vs real plate thickness. It is important to remember that the M829A3 was developed in the very late 1990s and earl 2000s, at this time the Russian federation was releasing mockups and protypes of tanks like the Object-640 (black eagle) with what was assumed to be Kaktus ERA, and the Chinese were working on improvements of their own heavy ERA. The M829A2 in service was tested extensively and found to be more than adequate against T series tanks protected against K5 ERA. Problems persisted with swelling and storage of the composite sabot, however. Rather than simply fix the sabot design, there was a push that the broke Russian federation would be introducing new tanks like the Black Eagle with a new Heavy ERA, and that a new round would be needed for overmatch. The M829A3 ( and probably to some degree the M829A2) is the product of a defense industry helping whip up scare stories to keep the money flowing in the 1990s, along with major funding after 9/11 breathing life into procurement of new rounds. The M829A3 was developed with a number of possible targets in mind, and to provide overmatch to existing Russian tanks in service from nearly any range. I suspect that the goal of the tip of the M829A3 was to clear the path for the follow on DU round. Either through mushrooming or if a tungsten carbide tip gouging a large hole and shattering once the era detonates. As for the carbide tip, it has possible advantages against certain types of arrays but downsides against others. Tip design is super important here. It is very possible the production version has some combination of all 3 or even 4 materials over the entire penetrator body. Again, what did the rounds developers assume about a possible Resurgent Russian 2010 production version of the T-90A or Black Eagle? That is what the M829A3 was developed for. It is probably something similar to Relikt but hedging against a few possible arrays. I have only a vague idea and it could be way off.

@@evanbrown2594 The Russians used wc cored penetrators with all the consequences. This would be technological downgrade for the M829A3. I also don't see any point in having a tungsten alloy tip. In what way would this clear the path for the main penetrator?

Pasta Tank says:”non!”

@@alexmoos6858 The BVM modification is based on the T-80U

​​@@Ray_SfencerNope, T-80BVM is a modernized T-80BV, the M letter stands for Modernized, which has worse turret composite than T-80U

You have to steal PC from NASA to make sims like that

​@@user-pw1oh2mw6q because HEAT

​@@user-pw1oh2mw6qbro😂😭

i like this, but also test it vs other things

Бесполезно. Динамическая защита требует определённой толщины брони, что то порядка 40мм минимум, а сама имеет стойкость к пулям и осколкам на уровне 12,7мм. Отсюда, её нельзя ставить на БМП - проломит броню внутрь, были тесты, можете гуглить. И отсюда вторым слоем динамической защиты можно ставить блоки сделанные для БМП - вот их первый слой танковой должен выдержать. И, насколько понимаю, танки России Т-90М, Т-72Б3 и Т-80БВМ, не всё конечно, но часть, уже оборудуют бортовой сдвоенной защитой - сначала плиты на экране, в которых есть полости для блоков защиты, а потом уже толстые "рюкзачки" поверх. Сужу чисто по фото из сети.

From what I understand, the stacked ERA arrangement was a deliberate ruse deployed during a visit from outside observers. It was impractical and useless as an armor setup, but it got NATO analysts to scratch their heads, so it was useful for an isolated photo op.

​@@ActionScripter K1 block has 2 explosive element with 4 fly plate. The minimum distance between the fly plate is 0mm and max is about 50mm. Thus it is reasonable to assume a stacked k1 will at least provide some additional protection, even just from having more material and air gap alone. The issue is not weather it provides additional protection but how much additional protection it provides.

@@jintsuubest9331 Yes, obviously. The added weight of the extra layer of K1 is what makes it impractical. Not to mention, the obstruction created by the top layer may stop the bottom layer's flyer plates from functioning with full freedom, making the total effective armor far less than the sum of the parts.

​@@knnd_DZ20мм демпфер можно поставить, но это скажется на массе, да и БМП сопровождает пехоту, вроде в Контакт-1 250 или 300 грамм тротила. Так что вы правы, нет смысла.

Yes

Possibly

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Thank you!!

Да. Наши оружейники умеют делать сплавы металлов, которые имеют высокую снарядостойкость. Так сложилось исторически, что в России зачастую именно военная наука является двигателем прогресса, а не что-то из гражданского сектора

​​@@pavelsokol_off393Он о том, что сможет пробить броню, более крупный стакан подкалибера, чтобы дать бОльшую энергию ломику, телескопический ломик, грубо говоря подкалибер в подкалибере или металлургия. В симуляции правда, такое ощущение, что не учтён эффект перпендикулярного, откидывающего усилия на ломик в момент взрыва ДЗ. На самом деле, тут есть смысл подумать над более бризантной быстрогорящей взрывчатой смесью для ДЗ, чтобы она резче взрывалась и эффект перпендикулярного усилия от откидываемой пластины которая зацепила ломик был выше. Ну и опять же сама пластинка должна быть крепкой, чтобы она просто не порвадась от усилий как бумага

@@pavelsokol_off393Паластров ещё в конце 80-ых доказал что ДЗ не эффективна, теперь танкисты на войне расплачиваются.

DM53 isn’t like in patent. Just add more segments like in patent, and will penetrate easier. DM53 designed for penetrate Relikt.

@@romanyalovyi6079 You are saying Rheinmetall is doing an illegal move by making fake patents for their sabot??? What??? Just stop arguing dude if you knew a bit of engineering you would know SEGMENTED PENETRATORS ARE AWFUL IN ANGLES AND ONLY GOOD IN PAPER.

Ansys

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Thanks a lot for the info. I am looking forward to learning it someday in the future.

thats M829A3 if I recall

Yes. DM53 was developed against Kontakt-5 and entered decade before Relikt. DM63 at the same time as Relikt.

It's not secret anymore as at least three have been captured in Ukraine according to Oryx.

Exactly which means this simulation is bullshit. The specifications and capabilities of dm53 is also not public knowledge so i dont know how or why these simulations are made or what they are based on except the fantasy of the creator.

@@eraldorh theyre made from info we do know chief. just for the sake of curiosity. noone expects actual compositions for rounds or armour for modern tanks in these simulations. but, with the information we are given, we can see roughly how theyll play out. thats the point of this simulation. it isnt definite proof yet you people seem to think it is. -_-

@@sniperh2o325 Its not anything beyond the creators imagination. Do you know how the military works out how ammunition and armour works with each other? they fire at it and find out. There is absolutely nothing to learn from these videos and you are just as bad as the commenters who think this is accurate, these simulations are not based on any legitimate math calculations based on materials because these dont exist and theres no known/public knowledge of military testing on these materials. Its bollocks and the creator should be making that perfectly clear and when they dont are knowly posting false information. But i guess adding that your entire simulation is bollocks and based on absolutely nothing except their opinion would affect its views.

We have to note that in video not DM53, because DM53 has segmented penetrator for penetrate Relikt ERA. German patent DE 4023482A1 Zu einer Anhebung der Durchschlagsleistung von unterka-librigen Wuchtgeschossen 10 an Mehrstoff-Sonderzielen werden vor ainem Hauptkern 20 zwei Vorkerne 21,22 kleinerer Masse angeordnet und wird eine die Vorkerne 21, 22 und einen Teilbereich des Hauptkerns 20 umschliebende ballistische Haube 11 mit einer Spitze 12 aus Wolfram-Schwermetall versehen. Die Spitze 12 wird in die ballistische Haybe 11 einge-schraubt. Der erste Vorkern 21, der sich vorderseitig konisch verjungt, wird mittels einer Madenschraube 14 axial fixiert. Die Fixierung des zweiten zylindrischen Vorkerns 22 erfolgt beispielsweise uber einem am Hauptkern 20 vorgesehenen Gewindezapfen 26. Zwischen den einzelnen Kernen 20,21,22 konnen Zwischenlagen 15,16 aus einem weicheren Material zur Stobdampfung vorgesehen sein.

If it was impressive 25mm HE wouldn’t cause it to explode. Actual armor in real life, vs war thunder nerds

@@Austin-cx2xe Isn't 25mm round something that can trigger ERA? I mean, it is not 12.7mm...

Нечем больше фронт двигать если не танками, БМП не может наступать на танк а он может спокойно

@@thunderjavelin13 слишком они на виду и слишком уязвимы из за наличия дешёвых и эффективных средств их поражения в современном технологичном конфликте. Тут даже в этом аналогия с ПМВ очень показательно

если от использования техники не отказались значит причин много. или ты считаешь что эксперт лучше тех кого до управления страной допустили ?@@neilgromov6473

The T-90M was developed from the T-90. No source mentions any interference with the hull structure. The dimensions haven't changed, and there's no room to put anything better there.

Unbiased? Why would he be biased in a simulation?

Si, pero te falto decir que necesitas por lo menos 7 drones con RPG para destruirlo

That will happen to all tank

“Seam” is not the word you’re looking for there buddy.

Слава Украине. Не полный эксперимент, ибо на видео не DM53A1 которым сейчас вооружены танки леопард 2 ВСУ. Скорее это DM43. DM53A1 имеет сегментированый сердечник и создан в 2003 году для обхода ДЗ Реликт 93-го года, у автора канала не полная информация касательно DM53, он думает что DM53 имеет только сегментирований наконечник, что и показал в этом видео. Так же не верны его посылы что Реликт создан после DM53 в 2006 году. В немецком патенте чётко описан именно сегментирований сердечник. Думаю как только он попадёт к вам на обзор, мы в этом и убедимся и автору этого канала можно будет предъявить доказательства его ошибочного эксперимента.

​@@romanyalovyi6079сала Окраине. Вам то какая разница?? Вы пользуетесь подачками со всего мира и когда они кончатся, что вы будете делать?) Жалкие попрошайки.

IRL it would be filled with cardboard and wood instead of explosives. And even if they had explosives it would have sensitivity issues especially at the edges of the explosive layer.

кого я тут вижу, а как же слабые российские танки, которых леопарды будут жечь пачками? рад что ты еще жив, надеюсь чуб себе не отрастил пока? а то твой канал в инфопомойку скатывается, где молятся на западные танки, и смеются над российскими.

@@romanyalovyi6079 дм53 делали против К-5 и разработок на его основе, но и Реликт не чистая копия К-5, к томуже развитие Реликта не на месте не стояло. В чем согласен, только то что автор некорректно провел симуляцию, еще должна быть 20мм стальная плита над ДЗ, вот тогда было бы реальней, а первый сегмент дм53, как раз об нее бы и стёрся, а основной стержень нанес бы еще меньше урона броне. И Славы в/на Украине давно нет, сидит гдето в Польше.

Yeah in general most tanks load Anti-infantry rounds and tank vs tank engagements rarely happen nowadays.

Used against buildings and fortifications. The T-series in general has a longer range than Western APFSDS allow, so Leopards have no chance of getting within dangerous range. Nazi has only chance to hit a Russian tanks using Leopard is to be in an ambush, but after the first shots are fired, they are immediately found and destroyed. In addition, due to its enormous size, it is quite difficult to disguise it - therefore Leopards are destroyed whenever they participate in battle.

Against heat relikt is even better

💀 DM63 is literally the exact same round just more consistent propellant for extreme temperatures but has the exact same performance in perfect conditions. Even DM73 still uses DM53 penetrator 💀💀💀

@@BladezAndrew Pretty much DM73 would be the main "improvement" as it has stronger propellant resulting in 9% increase in performance. Though it does have the same penetrator as DM53.

@@Kwisssit's important to note that DM73, if it came out yet, can only be fired from the upgraded L/55A1 not to be confused with the regular L/55, only the latest upgraded 2A7V's and 2A8's have this upgraded gun in very small numbers i believe, unless you're a certain russian based game company than no apparently the 2A7V doesn't get the upgraded gun or rounds, and it can't even pen kontakt 5

@@BladezAndrew False. You are confusing DM63 with DM53A1. DM53A1 is DM53 with SCDB propellant. DM63 is a new penetrator with breakaway tip. DM73 uses DM63 penetrator, not DM53. Also Leopard 2A7V has the L55A1 gun, all German Leopards will recieve it eventually. DM63 already busts Relikt. DM73/L55A1 development was kicked off by introduction of Armata. The Germans literally have a gun/round against a tank the Russians don't even have in service yet.

@@jonny2954 DM53A1 and DM63 are the same exact round, both are 745mm long 5kg projectiles that are segmented made of WSM 4-1 Tungsten alloy, both use 8.45 kg of L15190 SCDB propellent. Idk why they changed the name, but they're definitely the same exact round with the same penetrator and same propellent and amount, same muzzle velocity and chamber pressure of 545mPa regardless of all that confusion it's still a known fact that DM73 still reuses the same 5kg, 745mm long DM53 projectile, the projectile has not changed since 2001 which was a slight geometry difference from the original one sold to the swiss in 1999. I already typed in a previous comment that 2A7 and 2A8 have L55A1 in small numbers which L55A1 equipped tanks are the only ones that can fire DM73 meaning the vast majority of leopards will still be using DM63/DM53 which to my knowledge can defeat Kontakt-5 but not Relikt, the simulation video that we're on now proves that. Even DM73 from L55A1 is probably still not really all that sufficient against Relikt since it's just basically just a supercharged DM53. It might be but it just means any ERA or armor array that's better than relikt it won't be sufficient enough or will be too close for comfort. I'm by no means an expert but in my non expert opinion i really don't get why they have not developed a new projectile. They've done a really bad job at attempting to future proof their ammo. America is using M829A4 which is nearly a meter long projectile that weighs well over 7kg and is fired through L44 length barrel at 1650m/s which is the exact same muzzle velocity as DM53, and length and weight help tremendously in defeating ERA. L55A1 firing M829A4 or something similar would be insane. There's no doubt that L55A1 is one of the best tank cannons ever made but the ammo.... it's not to say that DM53 derived projectiles are bad, the fact that it's still good over 20 years later proves how good they are. But it's so borderline almost junk now, in another 5 to 10 years it'll be bad

​@@nvelsen1975wow, you know so much about Ru society.You must be live in Russia yourself. Or you just another "thing" who each morning raise your right arm to pray for one Austrain Artist.

@@thorgrimgrudgebearer6844 shut up sputnik

@@nvelsen1975 Как украинец живущий в Украине, могу сказать что сейчас Украина намного болльше похожа на Северную Корею.

@@Verdus_Prime Speak a civilised language please. If it's English, German, French, Arabic, Mandarin-Chinese I can readily understand you.

@@thorgrimgrudgebearer6844 You're confused, my name isn't Putin, Shoigu, Gerasimov or Utkin.

the purpose of the explosive is to drive the plates so they present fresh portions to the jet/rod, otherwise they are pretty useless

My observation, not a material scientist. Take it with a sea worth of salt. There are 2 primary mechanism how this type of fly plate era defeat rod. From the perspective of the vehicle. 1. the backward flying plate feeding new material into the path of penetration, and push the penetrator downward. 2. the forward flying plate pushing the penetrator upward while generate weak point in the middle of the penetrator. The backward plate has a more direct effect at destroying the rod. Shortening the rod. Damaging the tip geometry (spread out the area of penetration). The forward flying plate by itself is actually rather useless. It is believed that simply thicken the rod or sheathed the rod alone can defeat it with very minor performance implication. However if combine with the backward flying plate, the alternating force applied to the rod can do substantial damage to the rod structure. Thus for the backward flying plate, it is better to have more material, as more material means more of the rod get eroded away. For the foward flying plate, it is better to have a higher velocity, as higher velocity will generate more stress and create more failure point for the rod.

Haha, I guess I should be more clear. I know how the ERA is supposed to work, I just meant that in the simulation it wasn't very obvious that the moving plate was having any dramatic effect on the penetrating rod so I think it would be interesting to compare exactly the same set up but leave the ERA plates static and see if the penetration depth is comparable to this simulation or if even the seemingly subtle impact of the moving plates is enough interference to substantially reduce the penetrative effect of the projectile.

(Russian) Взрывная волна снижает и рассеивает кумулятивную струю. Метаемые пластины так же очень хорошо влияют на это, БОПС в некоторых случаях может просто сломаться из-за взрыва.

on paper. In reality it hasnt protected any russian tanks so far

@@PAcifisti Except it has. In fact it was so effective that Ukraine started begging for top attack ammunitions because they could not get through Relikt lol

@@dwarow2508 a t80bvm was knocked out through the relikt ufp by a ukrainian tank's apfsds

@@waldek7772 There was no such T80BVM that was knocked out by an APFSDS through the UFP and Relikt

@@dwarow2508 so the tank made a hole in itself or what?

🤡

🤡

That wasn't cardboard. I know what video your talking about, and that was the ERA filler for Kontat 5. Also what cardboard lookes like that?

20mm

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 thx!

@user-tycj2fy1r789 it didn’t though the optics got destroyed by the cannon fire. Learn the truth before opening your mouth

It has the same penetrator as DM63 which isn't much different from DM53

@@user-qn3xu5ee3t It was said that DM 63 has 760-820 mm of pen at 2kms, when fired from L55 gun. DM73 has 850-900mm of penetration at 2km when fired from L55/A1 gun. And there is also a newer projectile being developed.

Western ammo penetration ability is allways rated at top numbers. This won't happen allways in real life conditions. If penetration rated as 800 mm, in reality it can be 700 mm for example

@@jansedlak8505DM73 is the top notch of KE rounds going into service in DEU. They will be top of the line for a while

​@@187Rajah Lmao

We barely have any intel on the DM63, how is he going to do DM73?

@@jonny2954 sorry about that, i forgot that was still classified to this day lol

Russians have the best technology in every field, hence their economy is the leading economy in this world, they dominate the automotive sector, the semiconductor sector and make the best planes in the world. Also, they buy their weapons in Iran and North Korea, another indicator that their economy is absolutely on top. Not.

HAHA I just noticed you don’t have a single comment on any of the simulations where the Russian armor is penetrated. Another Sovietboo in denial 😹

@@GermansRuinedWT LMAO

@@GermansRuinedWT They're just glad their tank had something going for it for once. The T-90A in the simulation got penetrated by DM53. The problem is that DM53 entered service about a decade before Relikt, and the DM63, which entered service a year before Relikt, is in fact not the same as DM53. And now guess what round the German Army uses? Yeah. DM63. Exclusively. All of their Leopards are capable of penetrating a T-90M frontally. It goes even further. And this is the funniest part. Many thought DM73 was a response to Relikt, but Relikt entered service mid-2000s, DM73 started development in mid 2010s. DM73 and the L55A1 gun that goes with it are a reaction to a tank model that was presented mid 2010s, and guess what tank that is? Yeah, Armata. The Germans now literally have a round and gun in service that's supposed to counter a tank the Russians haven't even put in service now. And they even have a 130 mm gun in testing that counters the generation after Armata, which hasn't even started development yet. I'd be coping too dude.

Why are people getting up in arms over a simulation. It's just a cool thing to look at. Get over yourselves.

💀

* muere de un tiro *

The Bradley never penetrated T-90M, it simply desteoyed external equipment and optics panicking the gunner, what destroyed the T-90M at the end was a top attack kamikaze drone, still the crew survived.

It was disabled by a drone. The same Bradley was destroyed trying it a second time the next day. There is an interview with the driver or gunner from both incidents. He was shook after the second encounter almost took his life and didn't work out too well. The light explosions you see on the tank from the Bradley were just from the reactive armor too.

No we didn't. So far Relikt has always worked. The edges are not Relikt plates but the mounting to attack Relikt too.

@@dwarow2508 Its just that ive seen photos of directly hit era blocks, and ones that've been hit on the edges and the plates are UNTOUCHED no detonation what so ever i can send images if u want

@@acr_master5594 Please do. I have yet to see a single ERA block failing to detonate

@@acr_master5594 if you're talking about that t80bvm frontal plate photo, there's no evidence that the hit penetrated or that it was that hit that resulted in the vehicle destruction or that it was an actual tank apfsds hit, the ERA has mechanisms to not explode on 30mm hits and downwards

@@user-vt4je9ym6h ye cause my friend says its apfsds but i dont see any APFSDS fins around the hit, i thought it is HEATFS

DM63 has the anti-ERA tip.

​@@jonny2954DM53 has an anti-ERA tip but for K5. DM53 and DM63 have the exact same penetrator length so their performance is identical with DM63 having a minuscule chance to burn or cook off. DM73 has the same penetrator length as DM63/53 but with stronger propellant giving it an approximate ~9% increase in overall performance.

@@Kwisss DM53 with insensitive SCDB propellant is designated DM53A1, not DM63. Common misconception, DM63 is a completely new round, different penetrator. DM73 has the same penetrator length as DM63, not DM53.

people wouldnt say that if soviet armor actually worked well (over 2000 soviet tanks destroyed from combined russian and ukrainian losses)

@@grimsurgent Leopards 2 destroyed with 500 bucks fpv drones just as easily.

​@@grimsurgent Which it does lol. You are trying to claim that the armor does not work because tanks get destroyed by top attack missiles lmfao. Throwing around casualty numbers is not an argument😂

​@@TwixSvK~30 leopards lost vs over 2000 soviet tanks lost, i know which tank I'd wanna be in 😅

​@@dwarow2508i hope you've seen the image of the T-80BVM penetrated frontally before posting that comment

As if bradley penetrated the UFP with 25mm..

This could be done

You are my favourite commenter

"Rubber" as a reactive material is the main component of NERA armor, which is used against HEAT jets. It accumulates impact energy and gives it to a thin plate that "bounces" and disturb the jet. Basic armor is limited by the hull design. When it comes to volumetric efficiency, metals is still the best armor.

​@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Thanks for the response. What does the rubber do to a HEAT projectile exactly? I read that glass disrupts the projectile when penetrating or something.

@@Punisher9419 I added an explanation

@@Punisher9419 Absorbs a lot of the jet's energy, thus dispersing it. Shaped charge penetrators love energy sponges and will seep into it if they have the chance to do so. Glass (ceramics) is/are super hard materials, so they take a lot of work to shatter. HEAT also hates this because of how much energy it wastes.

​@@Punisher9419I don't know for armour, but I know from safes that rubber stops blow torches. The rubber disintegrates and becomes a gas and thus there's a huge increase in volume similar to an explosive going off. In case of the safe, the pressure can only go out by the recently created hole and thus disturbes the fire trying to burn through.

Потому что они мертвы)

do you mean the resulting acceleration? would have to be calculated

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Well does this simulation include the acceleration or is it just an instant speed jump from zero to whatever value?

@@sebastiansilva6058 I don't set it up. I use the right amount of explosive

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Gotcha, is that open source information?

@@sebastiansilva6058 You mean explosive? 4S23, if you look hard enough you can find some information... mass, TNT equivalent etc

No, no lo hace, nisiquiera lo penetra, solo le ganaron porque el t-90m estaba solo y le dañaron sus obticas, imagina que hubiera pasado si le hubiera hacertado aunque sea 1 tiro?

Sure 🤡🤡🤡🤡

Best armour is Monolith, Armata's dynamic protection

Yet it has been beaten multiple times. So it's not magical armor.

​@@Mr.Chlorophil опровержения?

West uses NERA to fill the same role, less efficient for its size and weight so offers less total protection, but instead can take multiple hits in roughly the same location along with not being a danger to nearby infantry. Both systems have their tradeoffs

NATO follows a different doctrine. They prioritize CE protection and crew survivability over KE which makes sense considering LATs ATGMs FPVs and sort are bigger concern compared to KE penetrators. It can even be argued at this point in modern warfare KE penetrators barely have a place. Maybe at best %10 of lost tanks in Ukraine for example was lost to KE penetrators. Which is a fairly peer-to-peer conflict.

Of course not. West has nothing like relikt era. Its 3rd gen and has a long lineage

@@GordonMusliman the reason being, there are hardly any tank on tank engagements in comparison to everything else. And from those few I have seen grainy videos of, they more often than not looked like HEAT was used.

After all it's *relic* of the past :DDD

@Losowy not just a relic. I know some lads who did tours of Ukraine and confirmed they had seen some of the era packs similar to those pictures doing the rounds online that were just filled with any old crap

@@scrubsrc4084 Most were scuttled even by the Ukrainian crews to reuse on other tanks.

Which it is

​@@LosowyLiterally the most advanced ERA on earth after Malachit

Ansys

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 thanks

Контакт-5, спокойно. Насчёт "Реликта", не уверен.

@@KasKusOK I don't speak Russian, I can't understand

@@usmc5977 "Contact-5" will pass quietly, but about "Relic", I'm not sure.

T-90M can be created by modernisation of any T72 and T90 variants (except T72A variants). End result of the modernisation is always the same T90M, just cost and time requirement increases if using older variant.

Pretty sure that as far as we know, T-90M didn't modify the hull array. So it should be the same armor array as late T-72 and other T-90s. It probably uses the same hull as well. It does get a new turret though I think, whether it uses the same armor there I have no clue

Only the hull armor. The turrets are different.

@@user-fx9rw7xc1e Yes, hull armor. That's what I meant.

@@JAnx01 Sorry, didn't want to offend you. Then the answer is yes.

i mean layers