T-62 vs M1 Abrams | Armor Penetration Simulation
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ต.ค. 2024
- Simulation of an APFSDS projectile impact on the frontal armor of an Abrams tank.
115mm 3BM4 APFSDS (3.2kg hardened steel penetrator [up to 650BHN], max diameter 42mm + 0.19kg steel cap, 4kg total) at 1550 m/s
VS
M1 Abrams upper front hull armor (38.1mm RHA at 82.5 degrees)
T-62 tank 115mm U-5TS (2A20) gun muzzle velocity - 1615 m/s. 1550m/s refers to a distance of approximately 0.5 km.
Thumbnail picture source:
@TanksEncyclopediaYT
High angled armor be like: “My 30mm of steel stopped your 200mm round”
@Mialisus Only need to bounce once
jeah unless is some high hardness material like Tungsten carbon or Depleted Uranium
только это Т-62, так то Абрамс картон
@Mialisus would be hard to hit the exact same spot again tho
@@cluster7408 yes
Don't take your 8.3 lineup to 10.0 folks.
yes
Attack The D Point
@@randoperson3596 Attack the D point!
@@v-nem144 I agree!
@Siberian Snake We will not rest till top tier is no longer suffering
I would *assume* even light armor would be enough to stop the leftover chunks from penetrating into underside of the turret's overhang, but some of those larger fragments look like they'd absolutely be on a path to test that.
The velocity view suggest those big chunk still moves at over 1000m/s. You need more than light armor to stop it.
Aka, the 19mm will not stop it. But 38mm might.
@@jernan0510 ratio'd
@@jintsuubest9331 Turret ring on the abrams is pretty thick. Photos suggest >100mm.
@@jernan0510 modern thin long APFSDS will shatter but ones like this can ricochet like we see here. This penetrator is short and fat and made of only hardened steel just like WWII era AP shells and actually works like a subcaliber APCR round. The actual penetrating part of early Russian APFSDS was contained inside the dart and was small, fat and looked a lot like an APDS slug. This would continue until 3BM32 and 3BM42.
@@jernan0510
@JamesJamesJamesJamesJames
Because you said so?
Only report that shows reliable rod shattering is scaled model of very thin rod small rod.
Almost every other test show rod performing erosion correctly.
And there is no detail report regarding bottom casing plate of Abrams available out there.
It'd be interesting to see what those high velocity tip fragments would do when they hit the 50mm thick vertical parts the turret ring.
Expectedly, quite little, I'd presume.
Tiny fragments at that point
@@tomppeli. I tend to see in those simulations even a completely broken projectile can still penetrate significant amount of armor simply because it's hard material going fast
@@oneangryblacktemplar7040 true, but the premise of the dart is to concentrate all that energy on one focused point. Something that the fragments dont have. They are just blunt objects. Very fast blunt objects, but blunt nonetheless. After the initial impact, they are shedding energy as they break up, so they wont have the same velocity they did as a complete dart.
@@tomppeli. tiny? I see several 3-5cm pieces that have barely lost any speed...
But wasn’t that a common problem in testing for early Abrams models was the “bounce” off the front plate would damage the horizontal drive gear.
Kinda crazy how much it digs in that armor even at this angle
@Сергей Владимирович Таборицкий 1970's, not 1980s
@Сергей Владимирович Таборицкий his correction is referring to the m1 abrams, who's development began in the 70s
@Сергей Владимирович Таборицкий Ammo is a little different. You can have an old gun become far more effective just by using different ammo. Look at the performance being squeezed out of the M256 as an example. It is still one of the better guns out there despite being relatively ancient by military standards, just by using updated ammunition.
3BM4 was developed and produced in the '60s.
@@Chopstorm. where is the source ?
Dejmian, it is perfectly fine if you want to use our illustrations in your thumbnails, but please credit us!
Thanks and sorry. I didn't even notice where the picture came from because I found it on Quora.
Very cool.
Btw would a HESH round do better against sloped armour?
No. HESH can have a known weakness against sloped armor in reallife
I think this is to mutch sloped for an hesh shell, probably also for an heat shell
HESH are good against sloped armor, but up to a certain limit (~ 70 degrees)
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 deformation and movement, + at some point everything bounces
I feel like the soft explosive would disperse away from the plate rather than onto it rendering it ineffective. Id like to see a simulation of it that includes the gun mantlet and turret ring as i could see it doing some damage if it managed to ricochet and hit those areas.
I've always loved the dynamic between armor and penetrators. The constant clash between effectiveness with no side ever having a distinct advantage makes for a very interesting competition
I guess with early-mid era apfsds there actually was a fair discrepancy between practical armor and penetrarion power. Most tanks could penetrate most other tanks
@@joejoemyo
We know for sure rissian tank since t64 is more or less mine to NATO AP of the similar time up until t72b.
Beyond that we have no data.
Thsi 'constant clash' in practice is 'minor marketing shift every 50 years'
We haven't nailed them!
Nice simulation btw :)
nah in shit thunder it goes through the turret cheeks of the M1A2. i know cuz it happened to me
@@THEGRAYFOXX00 don't tell me about it... A t-34-85 was able to pen my angled jumbo on the front plate at 700 meters
how about a chieftain as the armour on its front plate and turret were meant to be designed to stop it
Someday
Not surprising 3bm4 was the first APFSDS Russia ever developed for 115mm gun. Obviously later 115mm ammo like 3BM21 and 3BM28 which where in service in 1978 would penetrate the M1's upper hull armor
Kinda expected a bounce or the round shattering but I'm interested if it could pen the lower front plate
Of course not.
of course not
No, it absolutely could not penetrate the lower plate, as it is more than two feet thick.
Nah, too much NERA
Thanks for letting me know guys !
Not bad for a 1960's gun against 1980's heavy tank.
@@readhistory2023 The Sherman was certainly not a MBT it was designed as a medium tank, and turned out to be a very effective one, the concept of the MBT wasn't put into practice until after WW2.
@@readhistory2023 so the M103 doesnt exist?
M1 Abrams is a MBT (Main Battle Tank) no a Heavy Tank, bruh, typical WoT player
@@luiswarthunderytну при его весе вполне можно принять за тяжёлый танк
Wow,not even spalling
incredible, I honestly thought it would penetrate,
I honestly think it would go through if it were longer
It probably would
well it depends. longer round means more mass, and more mass means lower velocity. so i don't think the energy would change by much.
@@pasqualelandolfo3732
Just give it more propellent. The 115 platform is not even close their limit anyways.
well of course with enough energy it could penetrate it. even a 20mm with enough projectile density and energy would penetrate that armor.
@@jintsuubest9331 115 never lived long enough tbh. 125mm guns came just 2 years later. It would be interesting to test 125mm 3bm60 against that plate.
Damn, that did absolutely nothing.
i wonder what would happen if you ran the same test for 3BM15 rounds from a T-72 like those used by iraqis in the gulf wars
The Iraqi T-72Ms used 3BM9, not 3BM15.
@@tankistrazumist Used BM-9, 12, 15, 17 and Yugo clone of BM-15, as all of those were found by US EOD teams. How much of each was present is a different question.
@@Bojan_Kavedzic Can I ask where this info comes from
@@becauseiwasinverted5222 EOD handbook from what was found in Kuwait
@@Bojan_Kavedzic is there a copy of this handbook in pdf form somewhere or do I need to search through a library to get one?
Amazing how such a thin plate could stand up so well. Guess extreme angling is just really handy.
Make the best Russian APFSDS vs the turrett armor of M1A2 Abrams
You can’t because the armor composition is classified. It would inaccurate. Maybe the very first generation Abrams or export.
@@burnttoaster6313 export one is somewhat more likely
75mm x 400mm hardened steel cylinder at 3400 ms/s vs abrams ufp (railgun simulation)
Oh wow, it really is obsolete
People must be looking at this and think "wow Abrams' extreme angled armor works so well" which it indeed is
but then there's the lower plate.... we don't talk about the lower plate
Tbf, the lower plate isn't supposed to be hit in combat conditions - this was planned for in the design of the Abrams and there are hit distribution graphics out there that suggest that less than 3% of hits would occur to the Abrams LFP. In a hull down position, which is where the Abrams doctrinally fires from ideally, the lower plate is completely hidden.
The lower plate is almost as solid as the turret. So you know, the Abrams can’t penetrate another Abrams frontally
@@burnttoaster6313 This is in no way true at all, tf? Maybe on the original 105mm M1 but not on any other variant.
@@MacSalterson The lower frontal plate has the relative thickness and projectile protection of close to a meter of steel, I think it would be fine.
@@richardmillhousenixon Against HEAT, maybe. Against APFSDS it's likely less than a meter of RHA equivalent
*"That one bounced" sound playing in my head*
Same
We need something modern from Russian ammunition against Abrams upper plate. It’s quite interesting to know if it can penetrate this upper plate.
they would, and reliably.
Is it possible that the round might be able to dig in more and penetrate at a greater distance with a higher angle of impact but lower velocity, much like the Sherman and the Tiger tank in the last sim?
That's not what last sim is about. And the answer is no. The impact angle barely changes at 1km.
Now imagine a modern 120 or 125mm round made from Tungsten or DU. It would go through like butter.
Its the armour of t-62 a tank made like more than 50 years ago nothing to brag about in my opinion
Long-rod ammo out of the 120 and 125mm modern cannons is actually more likely to shatter depending on the round.
I just love how retards on the WT subreddit and forums make BS claims that 3BM42 and stuff like that should shatter on the UFP
@@shturm602 yup, better to not even engage them.
What are you talking about? The simulation is about the front plate of an m1a2 Abrams?
Another excellent match up. Very interesting to see how the early M1 fairs against this round.
The only problem i see with relying on extream angles for your armor effectiveness is that as soon as your enemy has a elevation advantage and is shooting down on top of you it becomes incredibly unreliable.
>shooting down
>Russian tank
@@johnnycab8986 lol ya i know not gunna happen. But still if there were defending a pre set up position the can put the log under the back if the tracks for the extra depression they need. Thats why its there lol
@@Past10Performance no, it's not
But I don't see why that couldn't work
As one other commenter has stated, the Abrams was designed to fight Soviet tanks, and no Soviet tank has a gun depression of greater than 6°(or -6° of elevation). In order for the enemy to fire at an Abrams of a lower elevation, that would require them to put themselves in an even more dangerous position.
Were the Abrams fighting against NATO members, that would be not ideal since NATO tanks have a far greater amount of gun depression, but then it comes down to the rounds that are being fired.
NATO APFSDS projectiles are designed in such a way that they're more effective against sloped armor. Russian rounds are designed to be more effective against light angles and flatter armor. Most of that is down to how the respective rounds are loaded: with most NATO tanks having humans loading the rounds, and most Russian/Chinese/Soviet vehicles having automatic loading carousels. NATO rounds are significantly longer than those used by RU/USSR/PRC.
That's also why tanks like Challenger II, Leo2A6/7 with their Arrowheads and even Abrams with its sloping turret all fare very well against Soviet/Russian Ammunition. It's also why non-NATO members like South Korea and Japan have adopted heavily sloped turrets on their newest vehicles: the K2 and Type 10 respectively.
Conversely, Russia/USSR/PRC have opted to invest in ERA blocks to defeat NATO projectiles. The tank itself doesn't have room to add extra armor like NATO tanks do, thus the idea behind ERA is that it shatters the round(because they're so long) so it won't penetrate.
I'd spray the inside of tanks with an inch of truck bed liner. The myth busters blew up a few pounds of C4 next to the stuff and it wasn't even phased.
I note that the 3BM4 shell did not have an armor-piercing core and consisted entirely of rather mediocre steel, it was one of the early and very unsuccessful shells, as Soviet designers noted in the future.
You can also show how corn bounces off the armor of "Abrams" and "Abrams" withstands the hit of peas!
No deformation at all, nice
T-62 is very old tank (20+ years older than Abrams). Even a slightly less ancient T-64 (1964) would have pierced this armor.
@@MultiNike79 nope
@@burnttoaster6313 Why? Its armor penetration is 450mm. Must punch.
If you look at the experience of Syria: similar Turkish Leopards-2 were penetrated by old Soviet shells (1970th) in all projections.
@@MultiNike79 your clearly have no clue on what export models are!
@@burnttoaster6313 it is not answer.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Armor For the base model M1 Abrams, Steven J. Zaloga gives a frontal armor estimate of 350 mm vs armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot (APFSDS)
ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/2%D0%9026#%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8B
3ВБМ7: 400 mm
It is so armored that it breaks through the side with an arrow from a bow. But seriously, it's worth it to get under the shoulder straps of the tower and the khan's tank.
It would be interesting to see how to make 3BM59/60 in the same conditions and according to other projections, for example, the tower and the frontal part
Is 3BM59/60 the current standard?
Because if WT is anywhere near real life in terms of how well everything is modeled, it'll go through the hull pretty easy, but won't go through the turret face unless the round enters in the turret ring or mantlet.
@@OtterTreySSArmy I don't know how Google translator works correctly. If the question is understood correctly. 3BM59/60 can be massively used on upgraded T72B3 tanks and all T90s that have undergone modernization. He should not break through the cheekbones of the tower of the latest modernization of the Abrams M1A2 sep v3, but towers with a non-enlarged booking size are interesting
Heya! Can you make april fools simulations of rubber shell against rubber armour, please?
1 April :p
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 respect, man! You've said that!
Shell: ricocheted
Driver's pants: brown
Engine: backing up at full speed
Pls do HEATFS vs Heavily sloped armor. Let’s see how it bounce off the armor!
Love the vids. I would really love to see the new russian apfsds rounds against the m1 abrams 😁
I wish there were a video with some modern soviet/russian APFSDS like 3BM42 "Mango" or 3BM32 "Vant"
Hmmm dont you love how everyone is an internet ballistic expert everytime dejmian uploads ?
Interesting. I wonder if that plate would stop simple HE shells with a fuse designed to detonate even against that slope?
No
You should try simulating the first AP round ever developed like the Palliser shot vs tank armor be it world war tanks or modern one's
Gaijin: ima pretend I didn't see this
wow... it is safer than i thought
Did you choose the literal first-ever APFSDS round on earth for a reason or it's just a random choice?
One of the first.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 What's the first round that has been adopted in the military? Can't be far. You don't have larger rods to test?
@@MGZetta he has done larger ones too (Pz.531? polish apfsds fired from leo 2pl) he wanted to show how different short rods acts compared to long rods probably
I mean is it accurate to simulate M1 Abrams armor as RHA?
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 So does that mean you simulation isn't what would happen in real life? Since you are modeling advanced composite armor as RHA?
@@krumpirko8888gaming He's trying to say that the plate modelled is made out of RHA on the real thing, but I guess you're too dense to figure out that one alone
@krumpirko8888gaming That means, the upper front plate is a single plate of homogeneous rolled armor.
The upper front slope is RHA, under the front 1/3 is NERA, under the rear 2/3 is the driver. Since the penetrator didnt cause any noticable deformation in the plate, simulating anything behind it really isnt necessary.
@@cohu5541 so you are saying that abrams is made out of steel?
Stronger than I expected.
the lack of speed reduction means that the mantle is in risk
Yeah, this is very situational, what if the (I guess t72 or t62) has the high ground?
Assuming it is not screwed over by the depression, the driver is likely a goner. Just reference the sim against Centurion.
"It's over Abrams, I have the high ground!"
@@daweihe2142 "You underestimate my democracy"
@@ГеоргийМурзич "Don't try it!"
@@daweihe2142 maybe we should take a vote?
Good animation, though it would be nice if the camera angles were changed a bit to be more direct as it's kinda annoying to pick out the damage of most of the shots with the exception of maybe one or two perspectives.
Very interesting
Так грустно. Советская техника ни чего не прбивает. Попробуйте пушку Шувалова или Царь-пушку. Может быть они смогут?
Solid rounds self stabilise so it is possible to penetrate
T-62 versus a T-34 looking up at 20 degrees
In my opinion the next Abrams variant should have 50-75mm of steel armor in the extreme slope area and some extra composite armor on the low front plate
Abrams already overweight and hard to transport, probbly should just abandon idea and use active armor like Russians
Nice to see armour penetrating ammunition failing.
that one bounced
Could you try sheet of paper vs. Paperclip?
Kv-2 has entered the chat
No one will shoot Abrams in the upper armor plate
The driver periscopes arent going to be enjoying this
Could you do modern 115mm like the Mekar round for this that the Egyptians bought?
Does your simulation Software also manage actual full-projectile bounce/ricochet?
If so, it'd be cool to see how those worked
Almost all of his vid involving bounce?
@@jintsuubest9331 Indeed, but in none of them do you see the projectile not completely disintegrating.
Think of that whistling ricochette scene in the movie "Fury", or many other examples of a bounce where the projectile whistles off into distance.
@@CertifiablyDatBoi
Well, fury is a movie. Bounce almost always result in projectile falls apart.
Is this with a modern projectile or a Warsaw Pact early 1980s round?
These rounds would easily get through, side or rear armor.
It's painful to see Sabot without penetrating any armor
Would love to see a HEATFS round against that kind of armor or even better an ATGM warhead
The problem is that modern tank armor is still a secret. So this is only a guesstimate of what would happen
can you test some 125mm sabots in same simualtion? like 3bm60 or more earlier ones
Some Abrams were immobilised/knocked-out by 25mm APDS DU in the Iraq War - blue-on-blue au naturelle (Bushmaster - Bradley).
I mean the side is like 50mm and the back is like even less.
Immobilized tank is considered a kill. The sides are thicker than 50mm.
Whaaaaat ?!!! nothing but a scratch ? damn
Now do the 3bm32 or 3bm42
Ok
i would be interested in seeing MBT rounds through IFV front plate for post pen effect
I'm here losing my mind till i read T-62, and said "okay that makes sense"
Edit" I want to see if it even damages the turret ring since the shot is really close to that part of the tank even adding if it does damage the driver's hatch
Now what would an IED from beneath do to that?
А что не т 34? Это ж вероятный противник абрамса.
Hey Johnson get the rattlecan and fix the scratch in the paint
Japanese 47mm anti tank gun vs Sherman or T-34 front and side armour simulation. Please do if you can 🙂
We didn't even scratch them
Is it possible to repeat analysis on frontal turret armor or lower glacis? Kind of implausible scenario for T62 to shoot upper angled glacis
If you have an armor blueprint, then of course.
At first I was like:
So driver wounded but not dead? If he's eyes are ok he should be sill able to operate the tank. Adrenaline works like a painkiller, so if he can still see there is a chance he might not even feel this.
But then I realised those fragments are flying nearly as fast as the projectile itself... It would shred the dude.
What about hits at the lower glacis where the angle is less steep but has double spaced armour?
when he hits you with that dollar store ammo
On the side armor, it would disable the tank.
If there would be joint near the forward tip of the arrow, alloving tip to bent up after hit but while doing so it forced rear end of the arrow downwards which then helps to pen high angled plane
at this kind of speed, the joint would most likely just shatter and destabilise the round, worsening penetration.
Don't know something seems a bit off with how the rod breaks apart its really flaky and continues to disintegrate even after it bounces off. Also what kind of steel have you modeled for the steel plate?
Do some APCR simulations to know if APCR really does bad agiast slopes
Lesson learned: if your gun was not really up-to-date, try attack from the high ground.
Or use a slightly better projectile.
Or just high yeid explosives. Don't need to pin armor when I can turn your crew to fucking pudding
Or get some HE on those tracks then flank it through a ditch with a few RPG shots at close range side and/or a few molotovs
ww2 shell vs ww2 commander hatch (like 5 cm shell vs sherman)
Wonder how a cone of tungsten machined as a series of 90 degree steps would behave against angled armor, as opposed to a 'standard' smooth pointy projectile. Could even leave the point, but on the smallest stepped section so if it were to hit too obliquely the tip snaps and the next stepped section digs in like a flat penetrator.
Sacrificial portion for better angle performance somewhat make sense with non rod munition, but makes zero sense with rod munition.
Before anything would happen, the rod would start engage in erosion. At that point, angle of impact is irrelevant.
T62 vs chieftain
Someday
Why no one bullet penetrante on these simulation, but on the real life almost all shoots did it(Ucrânian War) ?
"I think they scratched the paint."
This is also placing the tanks on perfectly ground right?.. a couple more degrees of angle like being on a hill could have a different result
Interesting would be to see what this round could do to the frontal armour, upper and low..
We're gonna need a bigger gun.
Now try the turret ring.
APFSDS critical ricochet angle depends on its velocity. 3BM4 is simulated at speeds of most modern APFSDS projectiles however in this simulation it seems not to connect with a surface and ricochet from it.
Does the nose of projectile behave realistically? Did this projectile connected with an armour or not? If it did not, what are other parameters which influence critical ricochet angle which makes this specific APFSDS projectile obsolete?
APFSDS projectiles are relatively simple. Velocity, density, length. Here, you can simulate them. Are there any other parameters which makes 3BM4 obsolete? Outside of it being very short bolt made from steel rather than tungsten.
The projectile uses high carbon steel, just like full-caliber armor-piercing shells. Such steel is brittle and its behavior cannot be predicted. The penetration equations for steel APFSDS apply to maraging steel which do not shatter.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Ah, so this rod shattered due it being made from high carbon steel which is brittle.
As I understood, maraging steel means material which has low ductility and is of high tensile strength. In other words, these materials are extra tough, they do not mend and do not break under mechanical stress. Is that correct?
So in this simulation we are seeing steel breaking due to its relatively low resistance to mechanical stress while modern APFSDS projectiles do not break, because they have better mechanical properties.
In general, I do admire T-62 and its early APFSDS projectiles. They are cheap, deadly and most importantly came very early in the cold war.
Could you do these with a slight downwards trajectory to simulate the trajectory of shells fired from range?
This is the trajectory of the shell fired from range, angle of fall is included as always
How I be looking at the T-62 after they hit me with that dollar-store APFSDS
What if you hit a pothole and you armor is angled 5deg less? Whast if the range is higher and the projectile dices at 5deg?