LOSAT vs T-80BVM | MGM-166 Kinetic Energy Missile vs Relict ERA | Armour Penetration Simulation
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.ย. 2024
- The simulation presents the Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank (LOSAT) missile impacting at T-80BVM at its maximum velocity, with the T-80BVM featuring Relikt heavy-ERA.
The MGM-166 missile relied on a long-rod penetrator to penetrate armour, rather than shaped charges. This required it to accelerate to a high velocity of ~1520m/s. It is uncertain at what range the maximum velocity is achieved at, and for how long this can be sustained, so the range of this engagement has not been provided. Additionally, sources vary on the penetrator design for the missile, with the simulation presenting one likely option -the Depleted Uranium (DU) penetrator of the 140mm FTMA study. The missile is simulated coming in at an angle of ~3°, as all available test footage shows the missile travelling in an arc, regardless of range (however, this may depend on the launcher used).
*The T-80BVM upper glacis armour (50-35-50-35-50) has been modelled with 400BHN Rolled Homogenous Armour (RHA) steel and textolite. The Relikt ERA dimensions have been approximated based on images and patents, with the flyer plates being modelled as 20mm thick 500BHN High Hardness Armour (HHA) steel. The explosive amount has been approximated based on 2 layers of 4S23 explosive elements, each with ~5.5mm of explosive. For computational efficiency, a variable pressure load, based on the Gurney and Flis equations, has been used in the place of explicitly simulating the explosive material.
Assessment:
Based on information from the Soviet Armour Blog, at 68°, the T-80BV's 50-35-50-35-50 upper glacis array provides ~555mm RHAe protection based on a mass effectiveness of 1.25 (roughly 492mm at the impact angle of 65°). Mass effectiveness is a measure of how much better an armour arrangement is over a solid RHA plate of equal mass. The DU penetrator is able to perforate 782mm at 65° (Lanz-Odermatt Equation). As perforation is almost achieved (~20mm more penetration required), the LOSAT only managed to penetrate ~472mm RHAe, meaning the Relikt ERA decreased the long-rod's penetrative capabilities by ~40% (310mm). Based on this simulation, the T-80BVM's armour has a mass effectivness of ~1.64. Evidently, this effectiveness can vary based on obliquity, projectile dimensions, projectile velocity, and impact point on the ERA.
Amazing Thumbnail Artwork From: Pr0st0Danya www.artstation...
In the simulation, the ERA managed to degrade the projectile's penetration by ~40% (see the description for more details)
More of a flight profile issue IMHO. I expect more of a diving attack profile. 15-20 degrees off horizontal.
How hard is it to make shaped charge simulations?
It's called line of sight anti tank, not dive anti tank
@@user-qn3xu5ee3tI’d go look at the test footage of the LoSat, it can and does hit a tank at a noticeable angle.
Not a super huge one but 10-20degrees might be enough to get through the BVMs armor
Can you simulate the M829A4 against the composite armor I designed? Blade era + 20mm cover + 40mm air = relikt era + 60mm steel + 40mm ceramic + 35mm steel + 40mm ceramic + 35mm steel + 10mm air + 35mm steel + 40mm ceramic + 60mm steel + 5mm Kevlar with 60 ° and 80° placement
It's crazy how effective the Relikt is against any projectile. I thought for sure the LOSAT would completely penetrate that
Bat muh em Ejt Tu Najn aj For!!!!!!
Calm down bozo
@@worldoftancraft M829A4 is longer, heavier, and faster than LOSAT. Plus, like its predecessor M829A3, it has an anti-ERA breakaway steel tip (which detonates the ERA before it can shatter the main rod). A4 was designed almost exactly two decades after LOSAT was.
@@MacSalterson you count the steel. While it does not penetrate anywhere significantly.
What you've forgot is thickness. That's the thing. But not mass or «length».
@@worldoftancraft The steel isn't supposed to penetrate anywhere significantly. It's supposed to detonate ERA without breaking the main rod. Which it does.
It does not matter how thick or long or heavy the main rod is if it gets shattered by the ERA detonating.
Really expected more from the LOSAT. Lol, those old videos raised the bar of expectation too damn high!
CKEM was recently funded, velocity of 2200m/s.
Re-funded? @@trentvlak
Because they were basically sales pitches.
You need to remember that in real life it would loft, meaning it would impact the armour at a better angle.
@@CEOofFriendship And the cope begins
Fair to note that despite 80BVM being so fresh, it is essentially old BV from mid 80s with new ERA. And Relikt itself is over 20 years old today, so 80BVM is new thing that was made trough pairing old tank with oldish ERA.
Yeah now I fully understand why LOSAT was canned. Modern 120mm sabot would go through the UFP of a T80BVM and LOSAT couldn't even at its maximum velocity.
@@92HazelMocha yeah ckem was vastly superior to this
@@92HazelMocha or, you know, just bring 2 HEAT warheads, 1 to remove the ERA block and the other to penetrate the armour
its either in the form of an ATGM with tandem charge warheads, or 2 guys with 2 RPG-7 shooting one after another onto the same spot on the target tank
That is true, although it is still considered one of the best protected Russian tanks today, which goes to show how overkill the LOSAT was for a 30 year old design
Still a shame they didint make a upgraded T-80U with Relict. Still, the T-90M was probably a better upgrade path as i doubt the T80U would allow for blowout panels and protected autoloader to be fitted like on the T-90.
If I remember correctly.
The absolute MASS
And ENERGY
that the missile transfers to a target, is equivalent to getting hit by a Mazda Miata
*AT MACH ONE*
mach 5
@@chickenchicken80974.6 to be precise
@@chickenchicken8097me when I don’t understand how comparisons work:
The sabot round for the M1 hits with the same force of a freight train travelling at 60mph with the surface area that of a dime. So they say in transition school.
Most of the missile's weight is propellant and body - the penetrator itself is only 6 kilos. Can't be arsed to google the burn rate but safe to say the propellant will be all gone by 3 klicks and not that effective before that.
Majority reason it never got anywhere was because it was SACLOS system and its launch signature was large enough to blind the gunner/guidance system long enough for it to matter IIRC
I think the bigger factor was LOSAT is only useful against a tank. You can use a TOW on anything you can hit. LOSAT would kill one person if it directly hit, TOW would cream the squad.
There were many reasons it didnt go anywhere. A big reason was that it was highly subject to weather conditions, and poor weather could really mess it up. A second was that it had a minimum range of ~300m to get up to speed. Not bad if youre in an aircraft (which it was envisioned being used on as well) bit less than ideal for ground use. Finally, the end of the Soviet Union meant that the feared (and somewhat in development) Soviet supertank projects like Obj 640/195/299/490 never saw production so there wasnt really a need for an incredibly powerful anti tank specific missile.
No it was not saclos nor was the flir blinded on launch .. the missile flew an offset trajectory at launch specifically not to break track lock with only an update or two needed to remove launch error. The laser never pointed at the target. The propellant going high order on impact was roughly equivalent to a 100 lb GP bomb which is far more than any TOW could ever manage. The minimum range issue was pretty well meaningless given the majority of unburned propellant detonates. Too many folks here have no knowledge of the system and are just guessing. I was present at all the live fire tests. There is nothing known to man that would survive a losat impact…and yes…the heaviest era packs imaginable were tested.
@@Derek-je6vg
I'll be first one to admit if I'm being wrong and tried to write that comment from top of my head instead of checking if actually remember correctly
@@everythingsalright1121 Obj 640 and 195 are post USSR. obj 299 never left paper. Obj 490A was superseded by obj 477 very early on.
Result converges with L-O estimations. Relikt tanks hull front can be represented as 800mm RHA vs KE (550+250mm) while the rod simulated penetrates up to about 780mm.
In 1985 test, 3BM32 penetrated T-80BV at up to 2000 m away, whilst T-72B was invulnerable to it from point blank range.
Soviets rated T-80BV’s UFP as 430 mm eRHA and T-72B’s UFP as 480 mm eRHA. So I am not sure where you got the 550 mm base armor.
@@azeke8 T-80BV have at least 2 base armor layouts. An earlier (and more widespread) 3 layer armor similar to T-64B, which is what most existing T-80BVs have. The second armor corresponds to the 1985 model, they were produced with the same hull as T-80U (the 5 layer armor simulated here) until they were completly phased out by the latter (so basically a T-80U hull and a regular T-80BV turret). This late 5 layer armor is rated at 550mm KE across soviet sources and 90s western sources.
T-80BV Obr. 1985 was a very limited series production. Its unknown if when converted to T-80BVM the BVs with the older 3 layer armor array got it replaced or not.
@@alanch90 All new production T-80BV from late 1984 onwards, have the same hull as T-80U. The ones with old 3 layers armor are upgraded T-80B. The test I mentioned was specifically done to compare the new production tanks from rivaling tank design bureaus.
It was not a limited series production. 4000 T-80BV with 5 layer UFP were produced from 1984 to 1991.
@@azeke8 What are your sources for this stuff?
Could you share one that includes the part about 3BM-32?
While it was unable to penetrate the upper glacis, the fact that it was capable of creating a perforation in the rear plate shows just how powerful the LOSAT was.
Given the sheer amount of force involved I have to imagine it would still be a very significant emotional event for the crew in any case.
A second follow up shot might get through
relikt is more impressive
It didn't penerate, so it was not effective.
@@flanker1659didn’t penetrate isnt much of a consolation to the crew whose ears and head are probably ringing from having a 150+ pound projectile hit their tank at Mach 5. And bear in mind, this is Relikt at a pro deflecting angle on the front plate. A hit to the side or even the turret face would have different consequences for the inhabitants.
Thanks for simulating my goofy suggestion, it was really cool :D
Yay finally some LOSAT!
SOSAT
Can you try kinetic resistant ERA like K5 or Relikt, in a WW2 or early-mid Cold War matchup? For example, Sherman + K5 vs KwK 40. Or T-55 UFP + K5 vs M392A1. I wonder how well ERA works against these older rounds instead of APFSDS.
not at all, full caliber rounds are too big to be easily destabilized by a ~15mm flyer plate it'd have to be much much bigger
The round won't be effected very much due to the size and weight of the shell
LOSAT in C&C Generals Shockwave mod: utterly destroys whatever vehicle it hits
LOSAT in reality: "Hey Ivan, theyre scratching your paintjob"
that very nearly penetrated the ufp of a tank model that is 30 years newer than it. At an unrealistic angle
It's cool to see missiles instead of normal tank ammo
I really like your videos!
I knew the company commander of the test company at Ft Bragg which for some reason was an infantry company assigned to Corps Artillery. Anyway, he had some interesting things to say about the performance of the weapon. Short version: there was no vehicle at the time it could not penetrate. The rest of the system though was not so promising.
Close to all tanks could have been perforated but some Soviet mbts had better base armour than this t-80bvm and sported k5.
People are bringing up M829A4 in the comments thinking it'd go through
A4 isn't much from A3.
Biggest difference is the weird electrical system in the shell.
Relikt can stop A3 and DM53.
I'm positive it can stop A4 as well, SY has done some sims on the aforementioned shells.
Also T-80BVM, didapoints me. Definitely should been T-80u's receiving Relikt. It's like upgrading a T-72a with Relikt
Well, I disagree. A4 has a velocity boost, very significant.
Anyway, let's say we have a rating scale - T-80BV is 0.5 out of 1, T-80U is 0.7 out of 1. If you get T-80BVM, let's say it's 0.9 out of 1. It's better to have a lot of 0.9s and 0.7s rather than 0.5s and 1.0s
@@belgianfried You're right it does, however construction of the penetrater is the same. If we're doing the RHA pen numbers thing you're only going from roughly 600-650 to 700-750 which is definitely very significant but It's just barely not enough
Also reason why I still think T-80U is better for the program is because T-80U has many more modern systems from fire control, to what else
T-80B is literally a T-72a with a turbine, armor package alike
@@handsomeivan1980 Well, T-80BVM isn't just armour. Sosna-U package, DVE-BS and all. So T-80U or T-80BV would only have differences in engine and armour.
Albeit LOS pen of 829A4 was 740.4 mm. Determine its effectiveness by yourself
This is just a simulation. In fact, as it is in reality, you need to do the real test several times.
I myself do electronic simulations and then test on a real circuit, sometimes what works in the simulation works, other times it doesn't, and that's why we never rely on simulation. Simulation is an aid not an oracle.
Try get your hands on a LOSAT and T80-BVM
Great stuff and worth pausing and reading the entire vid description prior to hitting play again. Love this content. The last couple on ERA and long rod penetrators really have illustrated the mechanism where ERA can help protect against the long rods. Great stuff SY.
It's also worth noting that the flight profile of the LOSAT would have the angle of impact being much more down-ward and not horizontal to the plane of the ground. Given in this sim it *barely* didn't penetrate in a worse-case angle, it probably would at a realistic angle.
I do question the effectiveness of relikt, but it’s at least clear that without it, the armor would crumple. Also, is there a source of the interior of the missile, or just an educated guess?
YESSS! LOSAT SIMULATION! I’ve always wanted to see what the physics looked like, not just the explosion that comes after
To be fair - had it entered service when it was supposed to, it would've benefitted from all the subsequent KE penetrator developments. There would eventually be an MGM-166B designed to defeat relikt.
The LOSAT had an upgrade path to telescope a longer and potentially heavier penetrator back into the motor case space. But this corresponds to the baseline as tested design.
The T-80BVM did not enter service 30 years after this. xD Its just a T-80B with Relikt ERA and new sights/electronics. Which means that the old armor held up. T-90M however would be a good example of newer tanks.
It’s an objectively worse armor layout at best it’s the same lol
@@andrewjack5755 T-90M? No, sir. That tank is completely reworked. The T-80BVM however is just a T-80B with new ERA and electronics.
@@bittemeinrammstein T-90M uses the same composite array from T-72B (1989) and (1990), only with Relikt instead
Wait. So the m829A3 and m829E4 are bigger and faster than losat? From what i seen. m829A3 is 960mm long and 26mm wide.
Yeah. LOSAT was designed when M900 and M829/M829A1 were the rounds of choice.
M829A3 and A4 are longer and heavier, and thus superior at defeating armor.
no, M829A3 penetrator is shorter than 800mm
@@christians.597 No it really isn't. The idea that the M829A3 uses a steel tip is based a few blog posts that misread the patent application dates. The M829A3 uses a DU body and Tungsten Tip.
@@evanbrown2594 then how long? because the projectile is 924mm and I don't know how long is the fin but the tip is minimum 10cm
@@christians.597 The M829A3 has a total penetrator length of about 780-800mm. The alloy involved performs about 6% better than that alloy used in the M829A1 vs RHA at 0 deg, and the expect tensile strength of the rod at the time was considered a generational improvement against complex armor arrays developed in the 1990s. I only have rumors as to what these arrays looked like.
I'd love to see this simulation repeated with the LOSAT impacting armor of a vehicle contemporary to its time, or even this same armor but without the ERA package.
Well the 5 layer composite armour entered service in 1983. The t-80bv sported this armour since 1985. The same year K5 entered service. The t-80bvm just entered service in 2017 due to other reasons. Relikt already existed at that time. All that has to change for your wish to come true is to model the exact same scenario with k5. Other tanks of the time were better armoured than the t-80bv with k5.
Since this was basically the equivalent of a penetration (Even if there wasn't spalling taking out the driver, the volcanic glowing crack in the hull would dissuade most people to change their course of action) , you can infer the missile will succeed against all lesser targets.
@@chriskortan1530 or a very angry t-80 crew tracing the huge white smoke trail back to the sender.
@@Masterafro999I think I’d be piss scared about the object I couldn’t react to than angry after it hit my hull like LOSAT would. That’s definitely a brown pants moment if it didn’t penetrate.
@@ronaldmcreagann6343 would be like anything else hitting your tank. Definitely a brow pants moment but since noone died and the vehicle is still intact, I'd say that they'd gtfo. If the spot the losat whilst gtfoing then they might return the favour.
It seems silly to me that they wouldnt make the penetrator longer, with a cap for era, the rocket is huge so why not stuff some high carbon steel at the tip
im wondering why not use a longer and much thicker of around 30-35 mms penetrator instead of one of a standard size
his ass AINT not stopping that lmao no way
If the BVM could tanked it,iam sure the 90M could do better.but still,iam very surprise that the LOSAT didnt just put a gaping hole in the armor.
I guess it was just never as good as APFSDS, which explains why it never entered service.
@@92HazelMocha thats understandable
It wasn't good as other weapons like ckem which would have probably punched through it
@@92HazelMocha or never as good as a tandem charge HEAT warhead; a kinetic penetrator's performance depends on its velocity, and a missile can only get to that much speed
HEAT warhead, on the other hand, works with any missile speed
@@tranquoccuong890-its-orge HEAT is not that effective of a AT weapon against the front armor. Modern composites are rated much higher against HEAT. Most composite are 50% to 100% more effective against HEAT than kinetic. So, you need a HEAT warhead that has much more RHAe penetration to a kinetic before it can do something frontally to a target. It is why tanks all still use APFSDs as its primary tank killing round. The HEAT hype died in the 60s.
I want to see that hypothetical telescoping APFSDS against all types of armor.
Today, the author bestowed upon us a banger of a video. Insta like.
Bruuh losat penetrator is just 780mm long? It is weaker than M829A3 and A4 in raw penetration then
I would like to see what an armor-piercing projectile from a centaur tank destroyer would do to a t 72b
Interesting, can you test LOSAT missile vs 2a7 arrowhead?
Holy crap I was certain it would go through
War thunder made this expectation. I always said that this thing needed to get nerfed as it's ingame representation is much better than it's irl equivalent.
@@Masterafro999its already a shit vehicleM
@@binhvuthanh5804 maybe. But that doesn't justify it being buffed for nothing.
@@Masterafro999 It wasn't "buffed for nothing", the LOSATs representation is correct, even in the description he states as much:
"The DU penetrator is able to perforate 782mm at 65° (Lanz-Odermatt Equation)"
I don't know where you got the idea that LOSAT was "buffed for nothing", when its in game representation seems to be very accurate. No in game T-80s have the upgraded 50 - 35 - 50 - 35 - 50 hull array either btw.
@@aflyingcowboy31 they don't have the 5 layer armour? The t-80bvm should have it amongst others. The t-80bv should have it as well. Some t-72bs definitely have it in game. Losat pens everything in game regardless of the distance unless the armour analysis is bugged again.
The narrator is wrong in that. The T-80BVM hull array originates from the T-80B and T-80BV contemporaries. Thise means that LOSAT would NOT be able to penetrate any vehicle of its time.
What kind of simulation software do you use? I’ve been wanting to create military simulations as well but I don’t know which websites/ software to use
Epic job, dude
why isn't the penetrator isn't the entire length of the missile? Since the penetrator is very thin and the penetration ability is proportional to its length, it would be common sense to make it the entire length (just like APFSDS shells), just mold the missile fuel and electronics around the central rod.
Are there tungsten carbide penetrators? How would they do against modern armour?
I love your videos
Was replaced by CKEM. . .which was also cancelled.
Because why waste money on big kinetic missle, if APFSDS created around that time, especially for 140mm cannons, could achieve the same results for much lower price and better convience of use? ATGMs with tandem warheads could destroy majority of targets as well, while still having good capabilities against soft targets and infantry.
It was "Cancelled" like all other us programs
@@a.t6066Let me guess. You think Martians are operating LOSATS out of Area 51?
That simulation is just for fun
Most of these simulations don't even distinguish between RHA and HHRA or reflect what is written in the manual. In the case of LOSAT vs BVM, LOSAT penetrators vary from source to source, so the comparison is meaningless if the data used by the warthunder is not the same as the data for LOSAT with 140mm apfsds-based penetrators referenced in the simulation.
could we get multiple pak 38 rounds against the same spot. idk front of a t34 or even against a coldwar tank? I am realy couriouse how if at al it would damage the armour.
What simulation software is this on?
How hot would it be if i were to touch the back of that armor where it bent?
Big owie, no touch. Typing with my feet rn, dont ask.
¿Que simulador es?
Amazing simulation very good its rare to see ATGMs
I wonder how it would do if the penetrator were shifted back so that the noze cone sets off ERA
Th driver is absolutely fried with the way that backing plate is fragmenting
What simulator game called
Gustav vs T-80BVM
Wow, I thought that massive thing would get through.
It killed the driver for sure
Let us not forget the losat missiles at medium to far ranges would find themselves hitting targets at not 2-6 degrees but 10-20! Or more due to the slight loft of the missile 😊
There is an agenda in these vids...
Nice colourfull show...
Imagine if instead of 780mm long the penetrator extended down the length of the rocket body too. Longest rod penetrator.
What SITE/APP u use..??
Could you simulate a burst from a ZSU 23 4 on a modern composite armor?
I really wonder how well the composite holds up
One of these days I'm gonna have to commission someone to figure out the most likely armour composition of some of the Metal Gear models.
And no, you don't have to tell me that it's illogical to do that because the amount of hits they take is optimised for gameplay rather than realism, or the fact that it's a series with psychic powers and other fanciful shit. I know already.
Now gotta test its smaller and faster brother.
Meanwhile in Armored Warfare: LOSAT is point, click adventures.
LOSAT seems like it was late to the party. Top attack munitions won out the AT race.
LOSAT is basically just a monoblock penetrator going at 1750 m/s anyway. Nothing special.
/facepalm you people are literally dumb...
I wonder if AdKEM and CKEM would've done better
Also did I misread something or was the "initial velocity" literally 1650m/s lmao
Unless the motor and fuel mix received a massive upgrade, it is unlikely they will do better as they are smaller in dimension.
As for velocity, it would get shoot out of the container at low hundreds m/s before the main motor get ignited and accelerate to max velocity.
1650m/s also makes sense as that's what the army 120mm main gun round is targeting. But the documentation on losat is very limited.
However there is no way the initial velocity is 1650m/s as it will need some time to accelerate up to that velocity.
@@jintsuubest9331 The initial velocity claim is taken from the documents SY cited in his community posts lmao
If anything, I'm pretty certain (about 70-80%) LOSAT doesn't even use a long rod penetrator but rather has a small tip in the front, instead of a whole rod. If it was a long rod like in the video, it would have to run through the guidance electronics, the IMU(whatever that is) and the attitude(not altitude) control motor. In fact, there is obscenely few information regarding LOSAT (and KEMs in general)'s penetrative performance. The sources I read upon make LOSAT look more like a hypersonic guided APCR if anything.
@@jupitercannon3028
I just want to make sure we are reading the same document as I don't see anything suggesting initial velocity of losat. Only velocity figure are the rod expected to be used in the 140mm gun.
Also the same document suggested standard penetrator can be used in losat without fins as stabilizing fin would be redundant for something encased in a missile. That at least in part suggest the intention is to use the exact same rod in for losat.
If you can provide links (youtube does not allow links, so some keyword to search for) to documentation supporting your claim, it would be fantastic.
imu is inertia measurement unit, i don't think any component were labeled that in the image he post, it is labeled acm.
Lastly, your logic is flawed.
a. there are about 5 million ways to build computer to enclose a 30mm square void (more like a triangle void in this case)
b. we have tungsten carbide, tungsten alloy, and experimental du alloy apds fired at 1500m/s to 1600m/s, they will struggle to deal with even the most wide spread 60-50 armor, let alone more advance 50x3 threat as shown here.
c. we know even somewhat short steel rod achieve better performance than above mentioned apds, we talking about sub 500mm steel rod at 1500m/s
d. we know very little about real world performance of rod penetrator in general, but we can mostly accurately simulate rod performance against non complex static armor
@@jintsuubest9331 1: My mistake, yes, I confused 140mm stats with LOSAT stats, and apparently no, the document excerpt doesnt even mention LOSAT velocity.
2: In fact, the document never makes explicit mention of LOSAT, or MGM-166 entirely. The "we don't need fins if we're putting it in a KEM duh" can be a hypothetical scenario created for future endeavors or discussion. LOSAT is not the sole KEM project the US did. CKEM and others exist. Hence, you claim is highly speculative.
3: According to ADP010952, "LOSAT has no warhead charge - the kinetic energy of the hypersonic missile provides the kill mechanism. LOSAT provides kinetic energy on target that exceeds that of a tank round, without requiring the heavy weight of a tank gun." Speed of sound at ground level is approximately 340m/s, thus hypersonic (at least 5x speed of sound) would mean LOSAT should at least reach 1700m/s at its peak.
4: I want to send you the image, but I don't exactly know how to send PDFs in TH-cam comments -_-
5: Thank you for explaining what "imu" is.
6: LOSAT is a late 80s project. First ever tanks to be equipped with "Relikt" ERA are from the mid/late 2010s. This was an "unfair" fight to begin with. Moreover, human intuition regarding high velocity impacts is extremely poor. Without good documentation regarding LOSAT's actual performance (since the sources I've come across never agree what the range, impact energy and weight of LOSAT is, and the fact that none of them seem to have properly documented it's penetration performance...), all performance is highly speculative. Comparing 105mm and 120mm APDSes to whatever max diameter LOSAT's "Lethal Mechanism" is, considering said "LM" resides in LOSAT's nose tip, seems extremely inappropriate.
7: If I just said "60mm gun vs T-55 at 3km, who would win?", the result would not be easily guessed unless you had access to documentation regarding 60mm HVMS, or saw the simulation.
TH-cam deleted this twice for some godforsaken reason... I had to resort to writing on a .txt file.
My question would be with the LOSAT would it matter all that much even if it didn't achieve a penetration in the traditional sense, or would the mass and velocity of this thing still render the tank inoperable from the sheer kinetic impact and force? I can see there being many cases where an outright penetration wouldn't occur but the destructive force from the kinetic energy would be more than enough to make the tank completely dead in the sense that most systems, tracks and possibly the engine and it's components would be disrupted, destroyed or damaged from this impact. That was the effect it looked like it achieved in the videos of the LOSAT I have seen but I don't know if modern era tanks actually do or do not have enough structural strength to withstand the mass and velocity of the LOSAT. I'd like to know if anyone can clarify or correct what I'm assuming would occur.
Not to break through, but even an automatic cannon can take the tank out of battle, which we recently saw in Ukraine, even fragments of a 155 mm projectile can seriously damage the tank.
It would surely cripple the vehicle if the turret front is hit. Optics, sensors and turret drivers would likely suffer from the sudden shock
I dont think its mass alone would be enough to knock out a tank (when hitting a strong area), as most of its weight is made of a thin air frame and propellant (which burns away), with it also being quite long -this would cause less of an impulse on the armour
Using your logic, would it not be better if they fill the warhead with lead?
Did you not see it shotgun the driver in the face lol. It doesn’t have to go all the way through to be considered penetration.
the ERA did it's job
Can you do one where the target is moving to simulate a tank advancing?
is et even possible to pen t80bvm?? just try 16" 850kg AP mk.17 at 500m. i think it could probably reach last plate. then - Eifel tower from stratosphere about 500-600m/s....
Russian tanks have been penetrated frontaly in combat many times, the simulation relies on the armour being of perfect quality while irl armour quality can vary drastically between different production batches and.l especially era blocks that don't always explode perfectly or at all
@@sim2003 It depends on the UNIT they are issued to. NII Stali manages ALL armour for tanks, but many of their armours go unused due to unit corruption/being sold on the black market
how long the rod had to be for full penetration?
20 more mm.
You all forgetting that the vibrations caused by a 80 kg projectile nearly penetrating the upper front plate at mach 4 would most likely cause severe damage to mechanical and electrical components of the tank. No tank was ever designed to absorb so much kinetic energy at once.
I wonder if kinetic penetrator missiles will make a comeback now that active protection is becoming more common.
APS is not common/affordable enough to be a threat. By the time they became common they would be advanced enough to respond to hypersonic threats. Kinetic energy missiles are dead end tech.
@@Phapchamp idk man, a dense metal rod flying at extreme speed is very difficult to counter.
Unlike chemical warheads, you can’t degrade its performance by changing its shape or triggering early explosion.
@@thomaszhang3101 Uh no wrong. APS can degrade the performance of KE penetrators by deforming the rod itself. Some of the current APS can do it even let alone future ones.
@@Phapchamp I’ve seen his simulation of APS on rods. It doesn’t seem to do a whole lot even in the most ideal circumstances when most of the APS fragments hit the penetrator
@@thomaszhang3101 Even a slight bit of structural deformation to a rod will significantly effect its penetration. That is how ERA against KE penetrators work as well. Main problem with APS is cost. Even the cheap ones cost upwards of 1M$. This adds up really quick when you try to fit hundreds of them. Especially considering APS can't respond to most threats a tank faces. Like mines FPVs artillery etc.
Meanwhile in warthunder: penetration everything alive right thtough
Very interesting, I never heared of that weapon before!
Was added to War Thunder as an event vehicle, that is why it became more popular within certain circles.
@@FirstDagger I see. I played the original combat mission trilogy...nothing that came later could compare! 😁
Pls OPLOT ERA 😭😭😭
Penetrate or not, that thing will definitely fuck the chassis over
Must be noisy inside
In this case ir would ve great to see with and without ERA
Losat vs random obstacle like tree?
Id be interested in seeing how the german long 50mm cannon does against the front plate of a t-34
Osea que el LOSAT es de plastico?
Seems like if they moved the penetrator a bit toward the rear and added a small tungsten tip to trigger the era, it would have gone trough
I thought the warhead was a solid chunk of hi carbon steel! Not a cap over a thin uranium rod! Is that how all of them were? What if the penetrator used more of the space provided by the rocket and was of different, less expensive material? Wasn't the warhead itself of 80 kg of weight alone?
That right there is exactly why we don’t see it in service right now
I'd double check if you didn't use wood instead of DU for that material
Honestly considering losat wasn’t even designed to handle heavy era it did good. A modernization probably would have defeated the array
could you do dm53 vs t80bvm?
140mm adfsds-t/dm53 2000m/s vs t90m front hull next maybe🙂
Bruh it basically just scratched the last plate. You'd really expect a lot more from a missile that size and speed you know?
30 year difference, imagine if LOSAT-2, LOSAT 2A, were a thing.
I keep forgetting missiles arent solid bricks of metal
While it only partially penetrates, the amount of damage done to the crew and systems would likely be more than enough for a mobility kill.
Question How reliable a simulation like this ?
Armor layouts are probably a little off but it’s bc it’s classified, like the particular materials and such
@@andrewjack5755 nah, this is old array from '84-'85
Should be like +-5% accuracy to eyeball
I think this is why losat never use in masscale
meanwhile in wt: entire tank is red
During the war in Ukraine most of times relikt era was not activated. Kontakt 5 shows himself as more reliable but less effective ERA
Adding weight and lenght to missile-carried penetrator to improve its potency feels almost trival compared to doing same to tank-fired KE. Only tradeoffs I can think are: longer time to reach maximum velocity, and longer fuel cells to compensate for longer acceleration,
Telescoping apfsds is the future
It takes a very, very, very strong round to perforate the UFP of a T-80BVM.
Luckily, the Javelin ATGM doesn’t care 🥱
Just like lancet for nato mbts lol😂
@@IzakSemrdoii lancets are just garbage drones.
At least Western MBTs don’t send the turret into orbit every time they’re hit.
@@IC3XR you are highly petty lmao. gave half the arsenal of javelins to ukraine and yet most destroyed russian tanks have been hit by artillery or landmines. just another wunderwaffe that wasn't able to fulfill everything that soyjacking dickriders wanted it to. all this to praise the javelin that failed to kill 90% of the time, you'd think the russians would have no tanks left if over 5000 javelins were sent and did what they were supposed to
when did the javelin last take out parked jets and RADARs located 40km+ from the line of contact? Not bad for a "garbage drone", huh?
and kornets don't care about any armor that your or any tanks have, and lol at challengers and leopards that have thrown turrets too - and I remember seeing the abrams destroyed at berdyachi had smoke coming out of the commanders hatch, some real neat crew seperation you got there
@@IC3XR b-but the turret toss!!!!!!! You never change smh
@@user-te4rk1td9j as if you just acted like you know me 💀
I think the solution would be easy here. Longer penetrators are needed. Hollow steel front penetrator and move the DU bit rear ward.
I believe that is how modern US APFSDS work
what seems to me interesting is that every simulation made shows that super-stronk russian MBT are impregnable to most AP-APFSDS rounds fire by the west. Still in the real world they got destroyed easily....popping turrets easily because of penetrations....so one of the 2 is totally wrong, i think the simulations got it all wrong.
Ofc they are wrong it's the same deal with Russian cope games like War Thunder good thing the real life can verify those claims of unpenetrable armor
are you blind? it hit the composite and ERA - this has nothing to do with ammunition cook-off
same is true of leopards, challengers and abrams that have been destroyed. the former 2 have seen their turrets popped as well.
the ruskies don't care about facts / logic.
@@AdotLOM^^^
The stimulation is +-5% accurate as with all things, and the Lanz-Odermatt formula is +-3% accurate.
But, one thing we know is that - No shit LOSAT would be stopped, it's very rudimentary
@@AdotLOM composite and whatnots, in real life how many abrams, leopard and challengers have suffered constant explosions on their magazines? few. Oh, but look at the T-72, T-80, T-90 series of videos of flying turrets.