M60A3 vs T-72 Ural | Composite Armour Piercing Simulation | 105mm M735 APFSDS
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.ย. 2024
- The M60A3 was one of the first NATO tanks to use APFSDS, being produced from 1978. By this time, the Soviet's had improved their tank's composite armour arrays, but the 80-105-20 was still prevalant among satellite countries using variants of the T-72 Ural.
Until M735, 105mm guns were incapable of perforating the T-72 Ural from the front (except weak spots); by this point, the Soviets had been using vehicles with this armour array for over 10 years, showing just how overdue NATO APFSDS was.
A fall angle of 0.2° is included in the model. A simplified fibreglass model was used for the textolite, with the results against M735 matching Soviet reports of the time: thesovietarmou...
Amazing thumbnail art from: free3d.com/3d-...
While providing the correct amount of resistance, the textolite still doesn't behave perfectly; I will try to learn to model composites better before the next simulation which includes it
Your simulations keep getting better and better, keep it up! I for one am enjoying the content.
May i ask what coefficient has been used for textolite ?
Using Jacketed APFSDS calculator i calculated that the M735 APFSDS will penetrate 159mm at 2000m (1368m/s) at 60 degrees of 260BHN Steel
Problem is, the Russians built the T72 out of mild steel, or at least the ones they sold to Iraq were. British Warriors put 30mm rounds through Iraqi T72 glacis plates.
You wildly overestimate textolite, charts do not exactly apply factually in soviet made world. I spose your home was not filled with socialist bakelite... :-) Enough has been written and documented on Its behaviour after glacis hits. I'd definitely check that before investing time into such complex simulations.
For your information, at the time of developing the M735 APFSDS, the Americans thought that the T-72 glacis was a single 100 mm armor plate sloped at 70°.
well they weren't far off, textolite doesn't do much vs Kinetic rounds so most of the protection comes from the 80+20mm steel
@@jakepeat690 correct.
But how did they get the angle wrong?
@@jakepeat690 yes, it only useful against HEAT and HESH, not KE
@@MrStasyan2013 "Hey you there, arch-enemy behind the Iron Curtain. Would you please look the other way and cough while one of my spies sets up some tools to get the armor angle of your brand-new MBT model? We might be one or two degrees off in our current estimations."
Yeah. Not going to happen. Besides, realities of the battlefield mean you'll be facing variables *much* in excess of those couple of degrees, so it doesn't really matter either way.
In real tests results were the same, and in 1984 old T72 and T64 were upgraded by adding aditional 30mm hard steel plate on the hull.
By 1984 M833 was already a year old. It had far better penetration than M735 and M774. No Soviet tank could stop except the Kontakt-5 armored portions of the T-80U.
Evidence?
@@vitiate5093 you can use the Lanz Odermatt calculator to get pretty accurate results for RHA penetration equivalence. M833 has more penetration than T-80B/72A/64A/B have armor. That calculator also doesn’t factor in the superior ablative characteristics of DU and only goes off of density, velocity, and construction.
@@vitiate5093 additionally, the 30mm plate was added to Soviet tanks not because of M735, but German 105mm DM23. USSR tested M111 Hetz (which was identical to DM23) and found it could defeat their tanks frontal armor at normal combat ranges. They added the plate to counter it. Keep in mind, that M774 was a ballistically superior round to DM23 and M833 was even better than that. It stands to reason (along with the numbers) that M833 was more than adequate against the vast majority of soviet armor.
@@boxtankgamer6014 I just said that simulation showed the same result as a real field trials ))
This could have been me. Was a M60A3 tanker in 85 in Germany. We carried the APFSDS rounds as the primary rounds in the turret load.
Luckily it never turned into that though. Would hate to see what 125mm APFSDS would do to an M60.
@@legaroojack1251 based on the 72’s performance in the Iraq and Ukrainian war, the 60 had nothing to worry about. If you remember US Marines used M60’s to great effect on 72’s in the first Iraq war. Russian armor has always been overrated.
@@Nseminole but weren't those export T72s?
@@Nseminole my comment was not on the tanks performance as a whole, it was simply about how devastating the round could be if it did hit an M60.
@@legaroojack1251 my point is the T72 was inferiorly built and never measured up to spec. It it much weaker than the model reflects.
Excellent work on the simulation as always!
It may not look like much, but even without a lot of spalling simply penetrating a tank alone causes a lot of thermobaric and pressure chaos.
A good spall liner MIGHT protect the crew and equipment to some degree.. but I still wouldn't want to be in the drivers seat haha
Thermobaric ?
Love your simulations! I find these "partial penetration" scenarios particularly interesting.
Ya do wonder what that little bit of spalling would do inside the tank. Not a hard kill, but it could probably be lethal to a crewperson in the wrong place. If it hit that carousel of live rounds in the autoloader, that’s a dead tank.
@@ColinPaddock from a split spalling? How would that ignite an ammo rack? I doubt a single exploded cartridge would even ignite the others.
@@ColinPaddock Shells don't go up that easily.
Hey ~ I'd love to see a Karl Gerat Seige mortar simulation. A 2 ton shell at 220 m/s or the lighter 1 ton shell at 500+ m/s penetrating 2+ metres of concrete - I can imagine the mechanism of penetration but would love to see it simulated in any way you see possible
Ask Simulation bros, they may very well do that if your comment gets enough traction
It seems to me that this simulation is missing an important aspect - the different hardness of the steel used in the armor
While it doesn't mention the different hardnesses directly, it does list the materials used and I'm fairly sure that it is taken into account.
and seems a bit ignore angle.
@@laszloszell8753 the 20 mm back plate should fail against the THICKER APFSDS rods. It should only offer 18mm resistance, while the 80mm should offer 80mm resistance. The Steltexolite is actually two plates and is unlikely to offer more than 40mm resistance.
Total is 138mm resistance at 68o or LOS resistance of 368mm ....or 37cm or < 14" RHA resistance.
Would be nice to see the M735 versus the T-62M turret cheeks (cast steel + BDD composite add-on).
yep that would be interesting, since T-55M and T-62M were an improvement on legacy tanks to bring enough protection against NATO L7 105mm APFSDS, and hollow charge (HEAT) rounds from tanks and AT guns
Fairly sure it will be penned due the extra armor was mainly heat protection.
Man, i really love your vids. They just keep getting better each time!
The commentary is especially helpful, thanks! :)
What is the range, because the tankograd blog shows m735 penetrating at 1000m with room to spare
1500m
the range is 1500m
Ok so this is consistent with the other one then
Just what I have asked, Thank you. Keep that great work of yours.
Looking forward to seeing M774 and M833 simulations
The velocity view looks like by the time in penetrates it's non lethal to anyone even the driver I would think it would just be a hot piece of metal falling on the driver's lap. Can you do more videos like this but with other modern nato and Russian vehicles Abram's chally bradely bmp etc... please? But love these videos keep it up👍
The driver would be very, very dead. There would be little pieces of spalling, toxic hot gas and possible lethal pressure. The video is slow motion, on real time those pieces are still going very fast. Even in this simulation you can see that @1:42 there are little pieces flying everywhere, it's like getting blasted with birdshot in your whole body but with molten hot steel pellets.
@@HighRiskV true but I am looking at the blue I'm not looking at the actual speed of the projectile I'm looking at the velocity chart.
@@HighRiskV the chart says that shade up blue is 175m/s and below velocity, so I imagine that the impact of that spalling would be equivalent to a few 9mm impact on the body. Could totally be fatally, but could not be enough to incapacitate the driver
@@spacetomato1020 tankers also wear armor vests, so driver will be alive
@@spacetomato1020 Still, if you compare by "frame speed", many of those little fragments not simulated on the velocity plot would probably fall into the 500+m/s category
Which Tetexolite is it? ST-1 OR STEF? neither are very effective vs APFSDS type rounds? from what I've read.
It looks like the amount of penetration might have been small enough to be stopped by anti-spall materials behind the armor. And, of course, it would have to be a perfect frontal hit to achieve even this. If the tank was angled even slightly to one side it's likely it would fail to penetrate.
The anti spall is nowhere to be found
@WardenWolf, In your dreams
This just shows the how the 105mm cannons while potent were quickly turned obsolete
What does textolite stand for?
It's a type of fibreglass
@@SYsimulations thank you
Thank you for showing it to the end!
I tested that round of Ammo! M-735 for the 105mm. A lot better than you may be aware of but it does have its limitations!
For some odd reason, I can hear tanks fitted with the L7A3s and copies that they can still hurt MBTs if they were given some pretty rad FSDS rounds.
... I still cant unsee the APDS shell looking like someone just shoved a point through a bucket compared to the FSDS that looks like a thumbtack
Chinese 105mm APFSDS quite good actually. Those shells on Type 15 is capable of penetration like 3BM-42 or M900.
L7A1 is rifled right? Then it would explode quickly after shooting 500 apfsds rounds, a smoth bkre can shot 2000? before needing replacement
L7 cant bring enough firepower to the table for being relevant as a MBT gun today.
The best APFSDS for 105mm guns sits arount 560mm Penetration. T72B3M or T90M have around 650mm-700mm average frontal protection.
Western MBT have alot more. (Leo2a7 about 650-800 on hull, 1500+mm on turret for example)
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 your numbers are higly inflacted, T-90M has 900-950mm on front turret and 850 on hull. Leopard 2a7 has on hull 600mm and 800 on turret.
Its impossible for it to have 1500mm, also T-72B3 has 700mm on hull and turret. T-90A has 800mm on turret whit kontack 5, the areas whit none are 650mm.
Going back to Leopard 2A7V whit extra hull armour is 700mm.
@@76456 The Applique Armor on Leo2´s Turret increase armor protection vs kinetic beyond anything used today.
its 1m thick NERA with spacing.
And still, All those numbers are way beyond what M900 or similar is capable of.
Знаете насколько я знаю, пакет бронирования Т-72 состоит из 5 частей, верхний слой 80мм гомогенной плиты 52мм броне стеклотекстолита, 15мм плиты стальной, 52мм броне стеклотекстолита и ещё 20мм плиты стальной
Откуда у вас такая информация?
Ведь в интернете пишут, что в Т-72 "Урал" не имел 15-мм плиты между слоями стеклотекстолита.
Lets make a Kursk 1943 "first encounter of two beasts" simulation: SU-152's 152mm APCBC "BR-540B" vs Panther upper front plate at 1000m
Even the he rd fire from su152 is sufficient enought to destroyed even the tiger tank.
thank you for all the explanations, it really adds to understanding and to the enjoyment of the vid
Today it's simulations day for me, nothing it's better to watch some of them during dinner🤓
given how few steel was ejected on the other side of the plate, the driver and his equipment would probably have been dead (and so, the tank stopped) but it seems like the commander, gunner, and all the turret systems would have been fine enough to retaliate.
why do people think M60A3s only fired M735? FFS.. they fired shit like M774 and Especially M833 when they saw action in Desert storm.
M60A1s or M60A1 AOS would of fired M735 as those are both ancient...
hell even M60A1 rise variants would of likely fired M774 for the era in which they and the ammo were in.
obviously any 105mm gun can fire the newer rounds except M900. so you can put M833 or other rounds through even and OG M60A0 if you had one laying around. but why would you?
Do you have any clue as to what you're talking about?
Late 1970s M60A1s were combat loaded with M728.
Early 1980s M60A3s initially loaded out with M735, switched to M774 before 1985. Some units were issued M833, others not.
USMC M60A1s in Desert Storm fired mix of M833 and M900.
@@DK-ed7be yes i know what im talking about, but you apparently dont. M735 (1978), M774 (1980) and M833 (1983) were all developed and fielded within a 5 year time period. Most M60 Versions (not the A2 or A3) would have had M728 (which is crap) and mostly used heat for the longest time. Once 735 came out, it was rapidly issued and fileded. then that was quickly supplanted by M774 which is actually a copy of the M735, execpt that its made out of DU not tungsten like the 735, this is why it has much better angled pen performance cuz DU is self sharpening as it passes through material. and finally Heavy M833 production a few years later. by the time of the 1st golf war M728 and M735 was used almost exclusively for training and existing stocks were dwindling on 735 due to its short production run compared to 728.
also its not possible for M60s of ANY variant to fire M900 because the propellant load was too high for what the gun was designed to handle.
This is LITERALLY THE warning FROM the manufacturer of the M900 rounds that was sent with every fucking crate supplied to the military on the proper use and safety of the round.
"The M900 is authorized for use in Mid and Later production M1 tanks only. Firing the M900 from any other 105mm tank system may result in failure of the gun mount. Firing in unauthorized gun mounts will result in failure of the recoil mechanism hydraulic seals damaging equipment and potentially injuring or killing crew.
Do not fire the M900 from 105mm, M68 series cannon equipped with breeches having serial numbers lower than 4804. These breeches will fail catastrophically without warning and may also injure or kill crew."
Later systems capable of firing M900 were the M8 AGS light tank, and the M1128 Stryker MGS. so yes i apparently know way more about what im saying than you seem to.
Check yourself before you wreck yourself kid/boomer w/e you are.
You have proved you can read books. Good for you. Books that tell you M728 and M735 were used for training? Now that's a knee slapper. Why did you mention that the M60A2 did not fire 105mm ammunition, why would you suppose anybody would think it did? Because you read it in a book?
Go have yourself an internetgasm with your latte drinking gamer bois while discussing ancient history that the likes of me actually lived. Me, I'll take my practical knowledge as an M60A1/M60A3, and M1A1 tanker, and M60A3 & M1A1 Master Gunner, and the accounts of my USMC buddies over the likes of you and your internet sourcing, and I'll go gentle into that good night.
The T72s standard 125mm round, or the special Svir round would have no problem defeating the M60s frontal armor.
Well yes, but that wasn't the point of the simulation, so what do you want to say?
@@arnowinchester591 he's just crying i think
@@nicolas8098 crying about what?
@@nicolas8098 What crying? He is just saying what is going to happen if T72 shoot back to the M60.
@@oguz9670 that's way out if the scope of the simulation, it's just about Armor pénétration not irl tank match up , everybody knows that M60 is q Tin box against 125mm
might injure crews or damage some systems....but there's a good chance the tank will remain operational
During the Gulf War Marine Corps M60s easily penetrated the front of Iraqi T72s. Of course those were export versions without the upgraded armor. Plus post war examination found the armor was of poor quality, varying in both thickness and hardness. These simulations ASSUME Russian/Soviet quality control actually exists
I was waiting for this. Thanks a lot!
Stupid question: how would they field repair such armour?
They probably won't
Well, not the plate armor, if it was ERA, Those could be swapped out or reapplied in various ways. Not always the same, or orthodox. Check out destroyed tanks in Ukraine to get an idea of how it could be done
Turret: field repairable
Hull: no
You want to repair a blown up tank?
@@matthiasewert3587 not every time such an armour element is damaged, a tank is vlown up...
Could you please repeat it with 128mm APHECBC projectile (former WT player)?
It would show how what happens when more mass is involved, but the velocity is lower.
Can u make a video with HEAT vs Textolite?
You should consider patreon, or other third-party funding so you can buy a PC with more processing power. I'm sure people would pay to see it
It would be great to see what difference the Textolite accually had as an effect on armor protection. In comparesion to just pure spaced armor aka 105 mm pure air.
I doubt that air would absorb much energy. Think about sound waves. The more dense, the more energy it transfers/absorbs.
It's for shaped charges mostly
do you think you will ever simulate heatfs?
Hopefully one day; ill need a more powerful pc though
I can tell you this armor simulation is correctly represented in Gunner, Heat, PC. You aim for a T-72's glacis plate, you're going to bounce. Absolutely. Without fail.
Quick kill shots on a T-72 from the front are: Left hand lower glacis plate, and the turret ring. You want to get something hot in that carousel magazine. If they are hull down the best you can do is aim for gun mantlet. You might be able to disable the gun, but she's still got her coax and can still report your position. Not a kill.
Would be nice to see maybe the same simulation just at closer ranges. 1.5 kilometer is not unrealistic for engagement range of the time, but considering how close it was to breaking through it would be interesting to see what would happen at maybe just one kilometer.
How about doing one with the M111? It spooked the soviets into upgrading the T-72.
The M111 are licensed M735.
@@felipetendo47 it was a drastically improved design, which became used by Germany and other nations as DM23. It could fairly easily get through the T-72A
@@Hollycalvey not so easily but in 1983 they added 16-30mm plate on hull to stand M111.
Spall lining probably would save the crew here
Can you please explain the color legend to the left? TIA 🙂
Temperature
@@76456 Hmmm.... looks more like pressure?
@@Bernd109 no, its temperature, it comes whit the program
@@76456 Ok, thanks!
What is the textolite used for? In the video I can see like if it is useless against this shell.
I think it’s purpose is to deform the projectile to the point that it’s cracked and doesn’t have the structural integrity to pierce the steel.
Maybe, I’m not an expert by any means.
Against heat(atgms, rpgs, etc)
The main purpose of it is against HEAT shells.
Its second purpose or kinda say side profit was extra resistance against kinetic energy projectiles as it is a kind of fiberglass.
Imagine pitting a tank against a round that is 10 years younger.
If we don’t get full penetration, can we see some examples of these projectiles hitting damaged armor? Armor that was already hit once
What is the simulated impact velocity and range?
1401m/s (1500m range)
That's an amusing simulation, but when Israeli 105mm APFSDS rounds actually encountered T-60s and T-72s, they routinely defeated the enemy armor.
so hang on.. if it has a velocity of 1401m/s & a range of 1500m does that mean it's only in the air for around 1 second
What about M900?
What is the name of this software??
What software do you use?
Ansys
What about to test Leopard series against T-72, T-80 or T-90?
I guess the simulation is not right at all. The M111 Hetz is a more effective (= better tip) copy of the M735 ist is proven by multiple real firing balistics tests that the M735/M111 APFSDS only penetrates the frontal hull armour at distances of 500m o below. No way the M735 penetrates that armor at 1500m distance. Just pointing out a real life fact. Other then that great chanel, I am a subscriber.
I think you're mixing up T72 variants as M111 was tested by the soviets and could go through the 60-105-50 array to almost 2km. Because of this they upgraded the T72A to have a 16-60-105-50 array which did limit penetration to
This is useful as a GHPC player lol
This spalling would be real unplesant, i assume more advanced APDSFS like MD 33 would just smash trhu?
Next video T-72 firing t-80UD hull armor
M60A3 120mm is the current package. Raytheon has the variant under their SLEP (Service Life Extension Program). The US can outfit Ukraine with these tanks as they are cost effective over the M1 and can still destroy T72/T80/T90 tanks.
Tank :
Steel coffin with motor.
I wonder if making the APFSDS core spin affect its penetration capability, like what a Screw does.
It reduces speed
You have armor from t-64, not from t-72, they have it different, for t-72 60-106-50
Actually the earliest T72 (T72 ural) shared the hull armour of the T64A; you're thinking of the subsequent T72 version
@@SYsimulations Nope, all serial t-72s 1973 were produced with such armor. (60-106-50), and only the prototype object 172 was with such armor from the t-64.
Simulate please T-64БВ against T-72's/T-80/T-90 and vice versa
Very useful in current circumstances
@@Android8054 not so useful, t64s just destroyed from KA-52s.
@@drdnout or ka52s destroyed by ground ATGMs )
UA T64s dont have many targets other than BTRs and Infantry since Russian tanks are being destroyed by mines and ATGMs instead
@@brokenpotato438 you mean footage from ARMA 3 or DCS?
@@drdnout Very impressive graphics from either game, much better than I've ever seen. Did Arma and DCS get graphical updates solely for Ukrainian Nazi propaganda?
Please test IS7 vs some modern armor threats.
And if you could try to test APCBC vs ERA😊
T62,T72s were being penetrated in Gulf War with APFSDS Training rounds......... 1991
Vary interesting I wonder what would happen in a HEAT missle (with 2 warheads)vs reactive armor
Thought the t72s were made and able to stop nato 105mm apfsds? Or was that the t80?
B version of T-72, but T-80B could stop some, ans any BV version could stop any/most 105. T-72A and T-64 whit extra armour HHS 16mm could stop some 105
@@76456 gotcha, thank you
That one bounced!
I would like to see how well the old M60 would be if upgraded reactive armor was added. As this is easily done and would make the take equal to a lot of other tanks even today. Then add on maybe even a an additional modern sensor system and a few drone systems. As the old girl still got some fight in her
They should test it in Ukraine against Russian soviet relics.
Can you try the dm53 next?
The Driver would shit his pants and be deaf but fuck it. Staying alive is all that matters. Always keep your barrel in the game
Как же ты "моделировал",муделятор,ежели 105-мм пушка нарезная?
А симуляцию того же снаряда и брони+динамическая защита?
Это "враньё" че он тут налепил... Снаряды 105мм пушки 72ка держала в лоб они должны рикошетить а тут как "нож в масло" без изгибов траектории при пробитии например... вот если был бы снаряд 120мм пушки вот эт вот да поверю... А с ДЗ по мнению автора неинтересно будет)))
What us Textolite?
Glass-reinforced plastic
But according to Gaijin warthunder you cant pen russian tanks front armor
You can actully, it depends on the round
T 72 doesn't bounce a whole lot in WT anyways.
I wish you would do the MxXVIII Mosquito with the 57mm 6 pounder, vs. a U-Boat hull.
This is why the M774 made from Depleted Uranium was developed.
there was also M735A1 made of DU..
It seems to not be a full penatration but since something entered the crew compartment we can say someone was injured if not severely wounded or something was damage either way it seems to have done something to the internals of the t72
It penned it? More or less...dang, no wonder 120mm were tearing em up in the gulf war
Yah, even if the round didn’t completely go through, I’m probably not going to wait to find out if it can go through again.
Текстолит для защиты от кумулятивных боеприпасов
This was tested in the Gulf War ‘91 with Marines. Tankers don’t fire directly at the armor where it’s thickest, but at the gap where the turret meets the hull. Pops the turret clean off and detonates the enemy’s ammo in a spectacular fireball.
Impressive
That's good on frontal slope, as a m60a3 TC & Gunner, we always put our rounds from the front, at the gap between the hull right about the driver and the turret. That is the most leathel spot from the front..
C'è la perforazione , ma non ho capito se è sufficiente per creare danni 🤔
To the driver, yes. Unless it hits near the fuel tanks then there may be little damage
I believe t72 had a spall liner, the damage would still be minimal without it
Injuring to render them to work
M60t vs M1 Abrams please?
T72 would survive then, possibly only the driver dead.
Just remember, the round is side ways, not angled down a bit. And t72s are just better in urban areas than the fields of summer, winter, and deserts
Actually any of its Russian armor is better off in Urban combat
Russian armour is absolutely horrible in urban environments, their shitboxes got absolutely slaughtered in both Chechen wars and later in Ukraine because their vehicles aren't meant for close in combat in cities or town
i thought the t72s were immune to western 105s?
@@ThisFeatureKindaSucks thanks
Очень интересные видео, но
Это же все рассматривается в идеальных условиях
В реальных же - только экипаж расскажет
Simply, It would kill the driver or badly wounded
Ist klar, aber ein T62 schafft nicht die Top Platte oberhalb vom Bug zu penetrieren…..
I might be wrong, but this looks WAY off, tigers 88mm gun muzzle velocity is about 1100m/s so it would take 4 seconds to reach the target, so 2 seconds up and 2 seconds down, which means at the peak hight half way it would have been 23 or so meters up. So the round dropped 23 meters while flying 2.25 km, which means the angle at which the round would have reached T34 would have been 1 degree or less. Not 45 like in the video
*"We haven't nailed it!"*
What about T-72B?
Would 100% stop it, but by then the M833 and the M829 would be the most commonly encountered threats.
@@miquelescribanoivars5049 Ok
0:57 интересная часть.
Малый удельный вес снаряд сам выгорает нужно увеличивать поперечник
Depends on the ammo you use, I know that Israel makes very good ammo for 105 mm guns.
я так понял экипажу даже от такой мелочи песда
Мехводу скорее всего да, остальным - нет
@@saint_alucardwarthunder759 , ну неизвестно заброневое действие какое
противоосколочный как себя поведёт, тут ещё стимуляция без д/з
@@user-kp6zg9re7f никакое. это лом, а не каморник
@@VIONICK08 , от мелких осколков брони и самого лома, делов будет, отто кариуса почитай, снаряд броню не пробил, зато заклепки в лицо, а здесь явное пробитие
M1A2 Abram no T72
Тут старая, трехслойная броня на Т-72. На Т-72Б3 используется новая, 5-ти слойная
Пушка то тоде старая 105мм