Leopard 2A6 vs T-90A welded turret | NERA Armor Penetration Simulation
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.ย. 2024
- Simulation of a Leopard 2A6 projectile hitting the turret cheek armor of T-90A from the front (parallel to the vehicle axis).
120mm DM53 APFSDS (~24mm WHA penetrator, WHA segmented tip) at 1665 m/s
vs
T-90A turret cheek front armor:
Kontakt-5 ERA (17mm HHA plate, + 2x explosive elements + 9mm steel)
+
60mm RHA + NERA + 45mm HHA/SHA* + 150mm RHA at 50 degrees
NERA (21mm HHA/SHA* + 6mm rubber + 3mm bulging steel)
120mm Rh L55 muzzle velocity (DM53) - 1750 m/s. 1665 m/s refers to a distance of approximately 1.6 km.
*HHA/SHA - Sk-2Sh/Sk-3Sh steel as is suggested for their use in new welded turrets
There is a popular opinion that the so-called detachable tips are a method of overcoming ERA. Considering the fact that the ERA plate is much slower than the penetrator, this is quite a questionable solution. It is true that the K-5's effectiveness against the M829A3 was noticeably lower, but this is the result of its large diameter compared to the earlier M829A2 and M900. In my opinion, the method used is more clear. A way to defeat ERA may be to avoid detonation. How does this apply to DM53? The DM53 model was created based on photos, a patent and other indirect sources. However, the patent does not show the actual proportions of the tip. A photo of an early version of the DM53 comes in handy, the shape of which was most likely covered by a ballistic shield in the production version. The structure consists of a large tip that can be used to pierce the explosives covering plate. It is placed on a narrow "neck" where a needle-shaped segment may be located, allowing smooth passage through the explosive. This is how the penetrator segments were presented in the simulation.
1:05 Sorry I am dumb, but what are the arrows trying to convey here?
The current movement of the materials present in that area.
green is the direction of armor failure and this is the direction the penetrator is directed because it is the direction of least resistance, yellow is the direction of the main forces acting on the penetrator
I'm dumb, I always think that everyone will understand what is obvious to me without explaining
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Thanks for explanation.
However, from what I've seen on the video, the penetrator keeps moving forward through the armor without showing any deviation in its trajectory, even though the green arrows supposedly represent the penetrator deviating from its original trajectory.
So why the direction the penetrator is moving is different from the direction of the green arrows?
@@oim8254 long penetrators have the feature that the center of gravity is very far from the point of impact of the force and as long as it is long enough and has the appropriate speed, it will maintain its trajectory(more or less, when you draw the line you will see a slight deviation), and only the tip will be bent and destroyed.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 So if I understood this correctly, the part of the penetrator that physically touches the plate will deviate from its trajectory, while the rest of the penetrator that haven't touch the plate will continue moving forward, correct?
Considering ERA didn't went off, the armour worked pretty well.
NERA it's for Non Explosive Reactive Armor
@@overlord4404 it says Kontac 5 era, then NERA in the turret
I mean it hit the angled part of the turret, not surprising. There are other places that could be easily penetrated
@@TheRealSteve42
The whole point of these simulations is to show rounds attempting and mostly failing to go though some of the toughest parts of tanks to study how the armor protects against the round. If he just showed the round going through all the time it would be boring
Kontakt-5 absolutely does not “create a jet of fire”
Very Interesting. Thank you for your continued effort.
To anyone who complains about this, please try and remember that the mechanical properties of LRP alloys both WA and DU are mostly unknown after the early and mid 1990s. it is possible that they perform better, but modeling that is difficult without exact information.
Very impressive work!
LRP alloys?
@@worldoftancraft Long Rod Penetrator
What are "LRP alloys"?
@@aaronsmith8073 Long Rod Penetrator
@@evanbrown2594 thanks
Technology is so advanced that we went back to arrows
Weird looking and fast moving arrows if you ask me
but arrows fly at 60m/s and APFSDS at +1500m/s, a bit diference
@@amgpsp small diffrence tho
Turns out we REALLY hit the nail on it with arrows.
@@amgpsp tank canon is basically a glorified over engineered modern crossbow that use explosion to launch the bolt instead of strength of rope and hand
just wow how much damage those things can make thanks for u videos an work buddy
How does armor 2ork? Exact clear explanation via arrows 😂😂😂
simple and transparent... I hope
If anyone wants to learn more, there is a video that explains the basics:
th-cam.com/video/r_csVsl1iPI/w-d-xo.html
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174
Joke aside, I do think 1 more are now showing the path of path would make it even better.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 сложна, многа букаф
Based on the description the round is a sort of "tandem sabot" Just like how Tandem HEAT has a smaller charge in front with a bigger charge in the rear to defeat ERA, this has a small metal point in the tip to break the surface of the ERA followed by the main long rod.
But wasn't relik ERA made to beat that which is why it's set at an angle? (Metal plates inside meant to fire out into the projectile)
@@DracoSen21 K5 and Relikt are not the same. Relikt is sometimes considered a improved version of the K5 hence sometimes also called Kontakt-5. But Kontakt-5 and kontakt-5 Relikt are different. To be quite frank, I don't see any similarities between K5 and relikt so IDK why people call it a "improved version" unless there is some developmental history that i'm not aware of.
Anyways, K1 only stopped single charge HEAT. K5 and on wards are heavy ERA with a heavy enough plate and big enough boom to disrupt even APFSDS. All the ones after K1 are mounted at an angle. In fact, even K1 has a reactive element that is angled and another one flat inside the block.
Relikt variant is the one that is supposed to be effective against tandem charge HEAT. Honestly, looking at relikt schematics, I'm not sure how it manages this since it looks to just be two equally thick plate sandwiching a single explosive layer. Where as K1 and K5 has two reactive elements(which in my normie brain would think responds better to tandem HEAT) but what do I know. There's also Monolith (people mix it up with malachit which is a different ERA used on a prototype MBT) on the T-14 but no one in the public really knows how that is any different. Only speculation
@@neurofiedyamato8763I'm speculating the 4S23 element inside there has a different arrangement and better properties? 4S22 has different arrangements too depending on what tank it's on. Things like how many elements are in one block, etc
Wow! Splendid simulation! I didn't expect the round to be held off that well by the armor. It suddenly makes sense to use Javelins and such even more.
HEAT rounds have similar performance against armor as darts
@@user-si5ik5xf3m but have a problem called ERA, made specifically to counter HEAT
@@user-si5ik5xf3mNope, its much harder to defeat composite armor with HEAT, however modern ATGMs have also very high penetration power.
@@quan-uo5ws also top attack
Imagine if the round went in parallel to the nera plates in the armor lol, you should try rendering that
High chance it would go through, especially if it completely passed between the plates and the ERA failed to detonate. If ERA did detonate then there is a chance it could be stopped but id imagine some spall at the very least depending on how much of the penetrator is remaining.
There is no point lol
did that already
@@HANGING_SILVER even if the era detonated, no way it would be stopped.
Is there enough information about DM63 to see how it would perform?
I have no basis
DM63 is just a DM53 with more consistent propellant in different temperatures, would make no actual difference in this test
@@Maverick966 maybe, maybe not
the tip looks different, probably for a reason
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 The tip might be different but the penetrator is very similar to DM53 penetrator in size, at 15° celsius both have the same muzzle velocity, not enough to make a significant difference in this test, in real life for sure due to the more consistent propellant
@@Maverick966 energetically yes, no design will cheat physics, but it may have a different way of penetrating ERA for example
That armor held off really good. Amazing
And then we have reality where a T90 got wrecked by a Bradley's 25mm gun.
Not really it didn't do anything but it did ruin the sights which made the driver blind @@user-xu2pi6vx7o
Странно, что контакт 5 не сработал в симуляции. Он довольно чуствителен и срабатывает на снаряды. Хотя его срабатывание сделало бы броню сильно крепкой что ли и многие могли бы не поверить в результат симуляции)
shouldn't the ERA block explode?
In this test he had it not explode
Basically if it were empty
Check description
@@handsomeivan1980nera Non Explosive Reactive Armor.
Non Explosive.
@@glasstunaThe ERA didn't go off. NERA is different from K-5 ERA.
@@glasstunaNERA is in the turret; the one on the outside didn’t explode-which is what this comment was referring to
Can you do a simulation against graphene armor?
RBS-132 vs Panther G side armor at 45 degrees impact angle from 800m?
Possibly
Nice sim as always Dejman, I never expected the array to stop that powerful of a shell without ERA, and I assume the distance was 1.5km, correct?
Closer to 1.6km
Might be best adding "faulty ERA" to the video title as it was confusing
Except that's not what the video is about. K-5 is fully functional in this situation. The video is intended to show that the K-5 is in fact not reliable and that modern penetrators have certainly benefited from this.
Could a few autocannon rounds sufficiently degrade the nera array to the point it is no longer effective against tank rounds?
Good question
You would be shooting for an hour
yes, but if the T-90A is polite enough to not return fire
You could do so but you would need to shoot it very close to where the autocannon rounds penetrated. It would take either an insanely lucky shot or you'd need to hammer at the turret for a full minute to hit enough surface area
@@10.huynhphathuy8 if you hit said T-90A with HE autocannon, its most likely going to scramble the crew and disable the optics
prime example of what happened with the M2A2 vs T-90M. The bradley smacked the T-90M with HE, which disabled the optics, then they switched the loads to APDS and began hitting the turret ring, which penetrated and disabled the turret ring
Very nice man
THE TARGET HASN’T TAKEN ANY DAMAGE
🗣️🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥
How would a second round hitting the same section look like with the ceramics already shattered?
The poor panther goes 🅱️🅾️🅾️M before it launches another round
@@olocuilta456If the higher ups are competent and know something about tank warfare they'll never send only a one tank to shoot at an enemy tank. This is pretty much universal strategy among all countries
@@Llamajake777 yes they never launch an alone tank
Там нет керамики - только сталь высокой твёрдости.
I suppose the trick in learning if this is the actual intended method is learning the mechanism by which ERA detonates, and how it detones only for higher caliber things and not lower like autocannon or rifle fire, and then seeing if you can overcome that design mechanism.
My guess for how ERA explodes under certain conditions is velocity- plastic explosives can't be detonated easily, but a high enough velocity impact can create a kinetic detonation of them. It is possible they're tuned based on the velocity of projectiles being a high enough speed meaning they're kinetic penetrators, so something has to go that fast to cause the explosive to detonate.
perhaps the tip operates by crushing or mushrooming, lowering the velocity of the impact initially and creating a gap for the tough high velocity main rod to fly through
I looked into it a bit. The difference between Kontakt-1 and Kontakt-5 is not just in the difference between the thicknesses of the flyer plates, but in the composition of the explosives. Kontakt-1 is intended to detonate only with the very high velocity of a shaped charge jet, whereas kontakt-5 is able to be detonated at lower velocities to work with kinetic penetrators of a certain velocity.
Thus it can be guessed that "era-defeating" upgrades to longrods operate by a mechanism of a tip that impacts the explosives more gently and cleares a path for the kinetic penetrator to fly through the plate.
The subsequent response in ERA to this counter-ERA design would likely be to have much higher hardness exterior flyer plates which cause the impact-softening tips to desintegrate against them and create a greater chance for the tougher and harder core of the projectile to be what impacts, and thus detonates, the ERA
The answer to all your questions is in the description.
Interesting, what does SHA means? I have never heard of it.
Semi hardened armor. Between RHA and HHA in terms of hardness
Makes the 127 T90s they've lost in Ukraine all the more impressive.
Still wonder why the flyplate of k5 did not ignite? Did i miss something?
i belive a lot of people has already made this question
but what is the program used?
thanks : )
Ansys
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174
Witch one thou
I looked at the site
There are so many
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174
But which one? I looked on their site and there is a lot of programs available
Someone should post this to the warthunder forums and show them DM53 is not an anti era round.
I always thought T90A turret armor arrangement would give more normalization to the apfsds by pushing it upward a bit more
physically you cannot push the apfsds significantly because the center of gravity is very far from the applied force, so the tip of the penetrator is the first to give in
the blueberry jam worked
Blueberry waffles
Where did you get the T-90 turret armour from? It's the first time I see it.
I posted some tips in the community tab
Alright thanks
what if the round came in at a 45 degree angle? would it just go between the plates?
yes, but for that to happen the enemy combatant would have to be like, directly underneath the tank. your best shot of penetrating is to go directly perpendicular to the armor, that negates most of the affects of NERA and will generally penetrate quite easily
Honestly I belive that the round would not crumble due to the depleted uranium used in DM 56
As far as i know the object 292's uses 3bm-42 round but accelerated to the absurd velocity. Is it possible to se simulations of that in the future. I wonder whether it will helt to get past the ERA before it deforms the penetrator too much. Grest video!
If I can confirm this somewhere, it will appear
2A82 is the high velocity 125mm, LP-83 rod is not just faster but also 1.5 times heavier. 2A83 is supposed to go even bigger.
Keep in mind that soviets were playing with 152mm smoothbores since the 60s on Taran.
I'm curious about one thing - I vaguely recall reading some time ago that modern composite armor also include ceramics, yet I don't remember ever seeing anything like that in any of your simulations.
Is it just a myth? Or is it obsolete in modern armors? Or is my memory just wrong (very possible)?
There was stuff like the T-64 Ceramic ball inserts, but these days most armor is NERA, that is Rubber and metal stacked in sandwiches with a airgap.
I made a T-80UD turret with ceramic armor. There was an idea to use ceramics in the new welded turrets for the T-80 and T-72B, but it was apparently abandoned.
In the case of eastern tanks, Leopard 2A0-A4s used NERA similar to the one shown here until 87', probably switched to ceramics after 87'.
Polish PT-91 from the end of production and Malaysian PT-91M have a composite based on CAWA ceramic armor.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174Thank you, I'll search for the video you mentioned.
It would be very interesting (at least to me) to see the differences between different compositions of metal/rubber/ceramics (and whatever else people came up with to put in tank armor).
ceramics are actually 💩compared to rubber NERA when it comes to stopping a tungsten or DU round, that said it can still destabilize penetrators, just so much less effective
now I'm curious about m829a3, would it pen with/without malfunction of kontakt-5?
it will disregard K5 but I'm not sure, that's a thick turret (even T-72B has like 900mm LOS of materials and air)
It would at least crack the base armour and fill the crew compartment with shrapnel.
@@somerandomboibackup6086 That is the thickest portion, the turret checks are around 550mm thick.
@@voidtempering8700 cheeks have like no considerable NERA, but it's like the biggest part of the turret when facing enemies so yeah
What is the blue liner on the spaced armour
Elastomer, rubber-like
Can you make "Nozh" ERA vs 3bm46?
Someone know what is the program used in the simulations?
ANSYS, afaik
He once said he uses ANSYS
What Kind of Software do you use for Simulation?
Ansys it's engineering software
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 ok, thanks. It is LS-Dyna not Autodyn?
It looks like the armor is very effective despite being an older model.
question is how would dm73 perform
can you do a video where the dart goes parallel to those nera inserts?
Зачем? Параллельно в танк не выстрелишь.Это будет мультик а не боевые условия
@@Lexey_36 yes you can... its very possible that a combatant tank can get a parallel shot
in said scenario, most of the NERA would be negated and the sabot would slice right through
Contact 5 didn't fire?
as you can see, the K-5 has sensitivity issues, so there's a good chance the special tip won't initiate it
Hey, can you do Dm73 at T-90M Ufp?
Idk what DM73 looks like, noone knows
Осталось в пустоты кевларовых матов напихать и будет почти идеальная защита.
whats SHA? Soul Hardened Armor?
Semi Hardened Armor
one thing isnt entirely clear to me about this and that is if the ERA naturally didnt explode or you forced it not to explode
ERA doesn't really work against APFSDS rounds, only has a major affect on HEAT-FS
Kontakt 5 afk?
Without the ERA I didn't think the turret would be this effective honestly
How about the same test but on the older casted T-72B turret ?
Faulty/non working k5 included
The result would be more or less the same. T-72B has similar turret filling, it just houses NERA in casted turret instead of welded one
@@user-qn3xu5ee3t I'm assuming something similar too but still be nice
The T-72B has less thickness at the line of sight and inferior cast armor
I'll do it someday
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 The difference at roughly the same spot is about 100-150mm. According to WT that is
Does T-90M have better base armor? or is the only change relict?
it's secret
@@ukuskota4106secret in ruzzian language means "not there, already sold, missing in Action, Delivery Problems, sanctions, unqualified workers and Something the Ukraine ist involved with 🤣🤣🤣
@@thehornyhorny bruh💀
Tell me you're coping hard without telling me your coping hard 🤣 @@thehornyhorny
We don't actually know the composition or changes made not for the T-72B3's base armour or the T-90A's or M's from earlier models.
It's just assumed that it's the same because the hull looks identical practically to previous models in size, depth etc.
Likely different materials as well as different densities are used in the base armour alone from earlier models but we don't know for sure
Can you do the same simulation using dm73?
DM 73 is brand new. I dont think there is any non-classified data on it available.
why did kontakt-5 not work?
because the DM53 has a special tip that, with some probability, may not detonate the explosives
The shot placement is pretty far left, pretty sure it just flat out misses the commander if it pens (though shrapnel would hit), any reason why?
any reason why, what?!
@@BKBCrAnK any reason why he chose to offset the shot so far off to the right? The angled spot on the turret is pretty far off from the center of the tank
Dejmain based his simulation on his pervious work and his own educated guess.
Previously, with k5 on the hull and activate properly, the penetrator pass through at impact velocity lower than 1600m/s (over 3km).
So he adjust the simulation accordingly, as it would be no point in learning what we already know.
In this case, the impact velocity is roughly at 2km, and he likely underestimate the armor a little bit.
Ideally, we will gain the most if the penetrator reach at least halfway into the back plate.
Bu simülasyonu DM 63 ile tekrar yapmanı çok isterim🎉❤bu simülasyon için teşekkürler
Not enough info on DM63.
Why did K-5 failed in this simulation? It didn't go off.
Check description
nice video
A huge, hard, complex projectile fired from a long barrel or one buzzing, cheap boi with a rocket taped up with duct tape - what will tear off the turret of this T-90?
Chemicals vs kinetic
Well, many things can take out tanks. It's just a matter of how you fight them
For example, the Italians in Ww2, while retreating from el Alamein, didn't have many anti tank weapons and mostly used Molotovs and improvised explosives
They were however incredibly effective, managing to hold off something like 150000 British troops while they were 15 000
Its just a matter of time until cheap drones become fairly useless due to widespread deployment of jammers on vehicles. Electronic warfare just has to make its way from the airspace to the ground in a smaller package and with somewhat protected emitters that wont immediately fail when even hit by small arms fire or shrapnel.
"Panzerfaust 60" (or 100) vs late WWII "T-34-85" front upper hull... or maybe "Panzerfaust 60" (or 100) vs side upper hull with mesh screen of "T-34-85E", someday?
Prolly not, since HEAT rounds are extremely tricky to simulate
Yes, HEAT warheads are too demanding for regular computers. I did one such simulation, but only part of it was successful
What is wrong with ERA?
Its on porpuse
Cardboard technology
Check description
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174oh ok
It's filled with rubber.
/jk
ОБПС пролетает сквозь взрывчатое вещество.
Также оно : 🙂↔️😊
Контакт 5 отработал бы, но у нас видео чисто про броню башни, а не броню башни+ДЗ. Хотя я бы посмотрел, как ратотает ДМ63 или М829А3 на башне Т-90М с Реликтом. И даже сравнительные испытания К5 и Реликта в симуляторе
Both of those would have failed in the angle we are seeing here. But a more realistic angle i think they would penetrate.
Why the K-5 didn't work?
Mistakenly or are you misleading the dudes there 😁
Penetrator with a specialized tip can pass through K-5 without initiation
Makes me wonder how a rifled 120mm firing simple AP would do.
Could very well stopped mostly by the era block alone
1 grain of sand going mach 10 or 100 vs armour
Enemy didnt taken any damage 🗣🗣🗣🔥🔥🔥
А почему не было подрыва ДЗ?
DM53 has a pretty good chance of not detonating EEA
Dm73 plz on 120mm L55
we don't have data about DM73 because it's very new and very classified.
No data = no simulation
Ну вот это уже более-менее симуляция...И то кажется будто скорость снижена для такой реакции снаряда.
Russia: Write this down! write this down!
oh...wait. 🤣
500$ fpv drone like - listen here noob .
Kontakt-5 is meant to explode it is ERA not NERA
This sim was ment to test a situation where K-5 doesnt activate.
check the description
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174is it know under what conditions ERA would not explode coming in contact with projectile ?
i just did xD
@@fpsserbia6570 The Swedish T-80U trials mention "special conditions" (even before DM53 was created), so it seems to me that a specialized penetrator can achieve a fairly high probability of success
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 "so it seems to me that a specialized penetrator can achieve a fairly high probability of success" Sounds like a callout to M829A3/M829A4
Почему динамическая защита не сработала?
ДЗ в первую очередь все же работает против кумулей и птур. Против ОБПС это не панацея.
@@ThedodgerKharkiv вроде как реликт под бопс был заточен🤔 хотя потом и бопс под реликт заточили🤔
@@user-kp2mj2sh7xэто т-90а, у него контакт 5. Она против кумулей в большей степени подходит. ОБПС же может не инициировать к5, поскольку есть множество факторов. Например угол атаки
@@ThedodgerKharkiv количество осколков еще
the DM53 has a special tip that, with some probability, may not detonate the explosives
Помоему если просто выстрелить в танк ОФ(HE) снарядом, может он и не будет уничтожен, но свои функции выполнять он уже не сможет.
Looking forward to drama
M829A4 out of the same gun almost made it through...almost. safe to say that T90 crew would be having a significant emotional event.
Can you link the sim to this please?
@@azothemtcplayer it don't exist anymore, yt took it down. I had it saved... In theory with slightly higher velocity the DU round basically performed roughly 10% better than tungsten
M829A4 simulation? Sounds bullshit considering info on that is nigh impossible to find
@@THEGRAYFOXX00 I would love to know how they could even model M829A4 when we know very little about what the purposes of it performance wise over M829A3 i.e. why tf does it have datalink capability? Afaik we also don't know much about the round in general except for what the US military has stated in declassified documents, and the things they have stated just left me with more questions.
@@aflyingcowboy31 no idea man other than programable munition reasons...the presumption was that the slightly better alloy for the dart body or ERA defeating or less degradation after ERA was set off. weirdly enough it did behave just like DM53 but it went almost all the way through. almost. if i remember the vid the dart velocity was around ~1850m/s
Some question.
1. Is ceramic era still happening?
2. If we were looking into unconventional rod tip design, france ball bearing tip on rod?
You mean, balls against personnel on the tips of French penetrators?
when I made ofl-105 I replaced it with some uniform equivalent, as the balls are relatively soft and almost do not affect penetration
+ what about this era?
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174
Maybe compare ceramic vs steel fly plate?
We do have patents of polish era with ceramic fly plate.
Or there is nothing of interest we can learn?
@@jintsuubest9331 That sounds silly - flying plate is supposed to maintain rigidity to keep presenting new area to the projectile when ceramic works by *contained* shattering.
@@Klovaneer
Tell that to the poles.
They even develop second generation of it.
@@Klovaneer
Then ask the polish.
They made not one but at least two generations of era with ceramic fly plate.
Beside, plate feeding is not the only mechanism how era works.
According to Indian sources T-90S turret backplate is 130mm thick, not 150mm thick
Different vehicles.
T-90A and T-90S are different vehicles
@@IonPerseus Do you have any proof they are different in terms of basic protection?
@@Zadlo14 The entire turret is different
@@Zadlo14 can't provide any links, but apparently T-90S has the same cast turret from original T-90 (1992) that went into serial production, T-90A has new welded turret from obj 188A
Huh, that went through a lot more then I thought it would
looks like something wot would commission....
disregarding the malfunctioning ERA as that was intentional as other have discussed this is definitely one of the most ideal situations the armor could have encountered because had the shot bee from an angle not directly to the front of the turret even by a few degrees those reflective panels inside would have a dramatically decreased effectiveness.
maybe its worth a bit of a test simulation to show that interaction, basically have a shot hit in a theoretical situation where the T90 turret is still turning towards the threat when the cheek it hit with the cannon breach pointed about 15-20 degrees away from the firing position.
This is the natural angle of the cheeks when viewed from the front of the turret
are you suggesting that the bullet would slip between the plates?.... I think so too, I can't understand why they did it this way.
but it could also be worse if it hits it at a more oblique angle. Realistically, this is the most probable angle as it represents a dead-on shot
@@patrykb_ most nera blocks disigned like that
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 yes but what my point was is that its not every engagement that a shot would come at the perfect forward angle in an engagement, with an opposing tank being at any angle other than directly forward of your gun when you get hit the effectiveness of the armor is decreased dramatically.
IIRC there is an example out of Ukraine of a shaped charge getting through the cheek where ERA was not present due to hitting at an angle of around 20-30 degrees to the side frontal arc of the turret with the jet having visibly gone between the deflector plates.
I am not criticizing your simulation as it is showing how the armor is intended to work under ideal circumstances but I was just getting at how the specific layout of this composite armor array degrades in effectiveness dramatically from a target attacking at a slight angle with the given example of the turret still rotating to engage a threat but getting hit prior to having the gun pointed at said threat.
next time put some goofy sound music
Где леопард и где т-90?
Леопард стреляет , броня т90
@@user-ob9jg2ue3h спасибо, а как ты догадался?
@@user-oi8hm5iu6n ну так в начале видео снаряд дм53, это немецкий обпс, а стреляют в т90 как показано на превью
@@user-ob9jg2ue3h , я дважды пересматривал и не увидел обозначения )
Like a cheese grater.
Do a new russian "Turtle-tank"!!!
Why is it on these videos only the russian armour seems to work yet the reality their tanks are junk? 😫🤔
lie
T-72 vs Abrams hull no pen
T-72 vs Leo 2AV hull no pen
T-72 vs Leo 2AV turret no pen
Abrams vs T-72B3 hull pen
Leo 2A6 vs T-90 hull pen
and so on
Moreover, Western tanks, according to military documets, have always had weaker armor vs KE (turret frontal protection)
M1 400mm
Leo 2AV +400mm
Leo2A0/A4 before 87' 350mm
Chieftain Stillbrew 420mm
T-72M1 500-550mm
T-80 550mm
M1A1 460mm
Leo 2A4 435mm
Challenger 1 430mm
Challenger 2 500mm planned
Leclerc 420mm
T-80U 630mm (K-5 is probably not included)
1994
M1A1 Improv. / M1A2 650mm
Leopard 2 Improv. 650mm
Challenger 2 600mm
FTS 2 750mm (estimated Russian tank)
Western tanks focused more on crew comfort and safety after penetration, and they had better penetrators.
it's so easy for people to cry and hate, but they always have a problem with wanting to verify what they're crying about.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 All that doesnt change the premise that the reality is different than the sims in a lot of cases with the seeming ease of the destruction of Russian tanks.
@@petermcglone135because there is a massive conflict going in with drones and top attack atgms which are basically impossible to not die to if you're targeted by one
@@petermcglone135you know the Abrams and Leo's were also destroyed pretty easily too.
@@burner33 true was gonna say that all the armour specs seem less effective than everyone expected western tanks included. Seems to be a gap between sims and reality
Шёл 2024 год , американцы пока что еще не узнали что в мире существует противотанковые мины , артиллерия , дроны и птуры 😅. Американские генералы по прежнему планируют свою тактику по игре The world of tanks 😂
what the fuck is bro talking about
@@tomwanks9123 he's russian
Says the man who lost more tanks then there's people in some small countries
прямое попадание 🐆💥💸
I heard representation like this is unreliable due to their inability to demonstrate heat and real physics like humidity and the weather, another thing is the fact people think you have to 100% penetrate a tank for a shot to be a effective, pressure and concussions isn’t great on the human body.
Ok video. 👍
Just don’t like the “well actually… *links this video 🤓🤓🤓”
Hmmm, Id really like to see a mantlet shot or a less steep angle on this one. Or maybe a shot to the front of the hull near the drivers hatch
So, you want to see a shot at a weak spot? Ask for a side shot
@@user-qn3xu5ee3t He's asking for a more probable shot, not best case from the armor's standpoint. Gotta have both, as there are more less favorable angles (for the armor) than there are unfavorable ones.
Non Penetration
*throws keyboard at the wall*
RUSSIAN BIAS
The A6 has a L55 smooth bored gun and the DM53 has 1760m/s - just for your information🤷🏻♂️
penetrator velocity varies with distance 😯😯😯
And then a Bradley comes around xD
In the real world this sabot drives clean through. Nice simulation though
Do a T-90 vs a $300 Ukrainian drone. 😂
Только баба яга не 300 стоит. В остальном дронов у нас них не осталось так-то
ERA is not working ?
check the description
yea, last community post, it assumes if the ERA malfunctioned, and did not explode.
for that CIA pay u for??? Russian armor made from woods - redone this fast!
This is like the best possible angle for the T90. Any other angle, and it would have penetrated. Not representative.
this is the normal angle when viewed from the front
The armour is angled already
Ridiculous angle
the penetrator flies parallel to the gun axis...
Look all the leopard tanks in Moscow 😂😂😂😂 and the abrams in western Ukraine hiding 😂😂😂😂
too sum up this channel: western tank never penetrate russian tank. russian tank always penetrates western tank. russian copium
Sum up yourself. "I watched all the videos where a Western tank doesn't penetrate a Russian tank, and the Russian one penetrate a Western one, and I ignored the rest just to have a reason to cry and hate, because I'm such an ignorant and hater"
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 i apologize. your channel is informative, uses great research methods, and thus is absolute credible. have a good one.