How to tell if someone has no idea: they use the word "shrapnell" or claim that a shaped charge is a jet of molten metal. If molten metal were sufficient, you wouldn't have to choose ductile metals like copper or tantalum. The shaped charge spike is surprisingly cool and was measured at 450° Celsius.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Because the correct word experts use is "fragmentation". Shrapnel is a special type in which, to put it simply, a cannon is fired towards the target and then shoots fragments directed forward. No real expert uses the word shrapnell as a substitute for fragments. Wikipedia in German shows a pretty good animation on the subject of Shrapnell. And I worked in the field. In our company I was also involved in projects that dealt with the probability of hitting fragments and their target effect. This is done in different ways. Google (arena test fragmentation) About the shaped charges: Our company also researched this and believe me, the stinger is not liquid and the temperature was measured using infrared.
shot traps dont exist when referring to APFSDS rounds, they just shatter and dont bounce This is one of the worst mistakes in warthunders representation of modern tanks, it depicts rod rounds bouncing instead of shattering
@@joelau2383 does not matter. the highest performing APDS/APHE of the 100mm D-10 gun cant penetrate the armor of Leopard 2A4´s hull and turret (the box turret version). There is a reason why all major players had switched over to APFSDS in the late 70´s for their main guns (except the british), and that is higher energy retention and perforative performence of KE ammunition (fin stabilised darts). As comparison: the highest performing APDS (bullet shaped sub caliber AP shot for the L11A5 120mm L/55 rifled gun of Chieftain MBT and Challenger) is L15A4 APDS. On 2000m it has only 66% of the penetrative performence of DM13 APFSDS (dart like KE round with fins, the first APFSDS round introduced on Leopard 2A0 in 1978, fired from the 120mm L/44 smoothbore of Leopard 2). Both rounds are fired at similar powder charge volumes, the L15A4 is fired from a longer rifled gun, the DM13 from a shorter smoothbore gun and the lighter APFSDS has still a 33% higher effective range and penetrative performence without loss of accuracy. Bullet shaped projectiles with high mass and a small Diameter/Length ratio loose energy faster than dart like projectiles with high Diameter/Length ratio.
@@joelau2383 What if the M60 Patton is attacked by a WW1 42 centimetre Howitzer? The risk of being actually targeted by an anti tank weapon that's basically 70 years old are like close to zero. 100mm guns shooting APHE rounds, if they even exist somewhere in large enough numbers and a viable condition would be almost useless on the battlefield itself. Particularly as you have much much cheaper and convenient to deploy anti tank weapons everywhere which are easier to use compared to some towed 100mm gun with the intention to eventually exploit a possible shot-trap. Seriously, those things are large, require some kind of towing vehicle and several crews to operate it. And there are man portable anti tank weapons offer you better anti tank capability. You're almost always better off not using them and either straping the shell on a drone - which is what Ukraine is doing. Or simply giving the infantry some kind of anti tank missiles. They have better ranges. Better accuracy. Are easier to use and conceal. And will cause more damage to any armour.
It boils down to; projectiles changed, armor changed. Simple, but it answers a question that keeps nagging at you until you know. Now the question is, will someone go back to older tech to try and take advantage? Probably does not fit well into the current gun technology.
Does anyone ever wanna fire a slow AP round against someone who can accurately shot at you from 2000 meters away using sabot rounds just to try the shot trap trick?
@@Ryan66437 Top attack ATGMs are a small minority, even in NATO alone. TOW-2B's overhead EFP is decades old and it hasn't caught on because it's less reliable than a direct hit and is poor against soft targets while true top attack missiles like Javelin are more expensive than an A-10 flyout with a Maverick.
I saw a computer simulation of what happens when the APFSDS penetrator impacts sloped armor and finally understand why it defeats sloped armor. Extremely fascinating.
@@enshk79 It grabs and digs in. Old APHE and APBC was shot out of rifled barrels and the extreme angular momentum of the spin would cause it to bounce. APFSDS just slides on through or shatters
@@nobodyisbest Actually this is a misconception. Sloped armour of the same thickness will be less effective against apfsds cause near exit point projectile will pick path of less resistance and turn against the slope. Altho that is only true to solid steel, some somposites may be more offective at slope for example ones used in T-72b or M1 turrent where rubber pushes slim steel plates at an angle, forcing projective not just to pierce but to cut trough them.
From what I remember of some older videos on youtube the 2A5's wedge armor was only like 500-1000kg of added weight and mostly armored sheets (so indeed spaced). I don't think it was designed to deflect any shell, but instead to destabilize sabot rounds that penetrated the wedge but weren't long enough to bridge the entirety of the spaced armor. Even if an older type of ammo would be fired at it, the question is how sturdy this wedge really is. If it is thin sheet metal, then even older ammo will not have an issue penetrating it and hitting the main armor underneath. In which case there would not be a shot trap since the shell would be able to penetrate the wedge. The main armor would likely have no issues stopping a 70 year old cannon, so I don't even expect a potential weakness here. The side wedges felt to me like they needed to open in order to get the engine out of the tank, not just to store things underneath. When turned 90 degrees to the side, the turret of a 2A4 barely clears the engine cover on top of the back of the hull. That is what it seemed like on some Revell model kits of Leopard 2 at least.
Exactly. I saw the video title and immediately recalled a picture I had seen of the wedges being completely hollow! I'm sure it's a common assumption as I had that they are solid bricks of strong composite but it's rather rare for such a drastic addition of weight and protection be added. "Enigma" comes to mind.
@@ecpgieicg Yes if you can make your armor more deep than the penetrator is long then APFSDS disintegrates because it basically gets chewed up as it travels through the armor and depleted uranium even self sharpens as it wittles away
I mean most rounds from the 70s-80s can pen the front of the leopard 2. Wedge or not. it's just makeup on an ugly girl. doesn't change the fact that the armour was designed to fail.
The simple answer is that this is just spaced armor. Its not a huge extra heavy wall added on the turret, but rather it is a large empty box that weight 500kgs that are sitting in front of the turret and forces incoming enemy shots to travel many extra decimeters before it can start blowing a hole into the main armor of the tank. The enemy projectile lose force before it reach the tank, and armor protection gets increased with a minimal cost of extra weight.
Sabra tank also uses spaced armor, an upgrade kit for M60s. We have used them in Syria against ATGMs, RPGs etc, they outperformed naked 2A4s by far. It really works well, God knows why they aren't more common. Perhaps because financial reasons, as explained in the video add-on armor isn't so easy to implement rather often heavy modifications are needed. So countries are postponing these upgrades, our 2A4s will be upgraded as well but it will take several years. We didn't move gunner sight up but there is add-on armor almost all around including hull front and sides.
Is there no richochet because the 'force' of the projectile (momentum?) is greater than the strength of the armour to deflect the round? I'm trying to get my head around your statement.
@@GarrisonFall APFSDS are thin nail looking rods that go really fast, when they hit sloped armor they basically shatter and lose any capabilites. You can find simulations of apfsds hitting sloped armor on youtube.
Even if someone were to use "old" solid armour-piercing ammunition, the wedge armour would hardly act as a shot trap. The plates, which are only about 2 cm thick, would be too weak for this and would not deflect the impacting projectile. The projectile would simply penetrate and then fail against the main armour. I suspect that the greatest danger here would come from relatively small-calibre ammunition, which would be too weak to penetrate the wedge armour, although this would probably not endanger the tank's ceiling plate either. As far as I know, the statement that the additional armour is primarily effective against HEAT is not true. The armour is actually intended to break the long penetrators. The armour plates of the wedge are two-layered, whereby the two layers can move against each other and thus pinch the relatively thin "arrow" and make it swing so that its tip no longer hits the main armour vertically and breaks.
Well, it does work well against both HEAT and KE penetrators but KE rounds that are over a certain length can mitigate the protection of the spaced armor to a degree.
6 หลายเดือนก่อน +13
Nice to see some more Videos on this. This is a real question peopel ask. I have been asked about this by friends who only know WW2 tanks and who wonder about this.
7:45 - Also Japanese Type 10 I believe has "arrow" shaped turret. Though it is smaller and as such less protection against APFSDS. For APFSDS it is important that projectile is shorter than the space between "armors". Because that makes it tumble (or at least changes angle) after it pierced first layer but before it hits the "real" turret. So it depends on which height it also hits, since right in the middle you have most space. On the edges, much less so and if the round is longer than this space it will "almost" behave like it was going through single piece of armor that has thickness of combined layers (outer "arrowhead" and inner "turret") of armor. "Almost", because there still will be deformation and some additional protection. That means that this armor is very good against even latest Soviet APFSDS rounds, but some Russian ones that are especially long (though from memory autoloader makes rounds above certain length impossible) could defeat it or at least would suffer much smaller "penalty" when trying.
@@dwwolf4636 That as well. I tend to write ridiculously long comments, so I tried to condense as much info as possible. Thank You for adding additional context, though I'd have to check the layout and if it is from all sides/angles and whether there is some play with angles inside it. There was good video on YT couple years ago that talked about it in-depth (I don't think geometric design of "arrowhead" is classified - some materials might be or some other details).
most rounds will go through the leo 2 at any angle today. sadly just the way it is. the composition, thickness, and flat armour is blaintantly inadequate. The arrowhead is a cute cover up for it like makeup on a girl. but it doesn't hide the fact that it was poorly designed. the hull isn't in any better shape either.
@@MajorMorrozov Which "most rounds"? Newest American or German ones? Probably, though not at "any angle". Newest Russian one that can fit into auto-loader - definitely not at every angle, and at the front it will have troubles. And if it hits arrowhead in the widest place, it will tumble and likely not penetrate the rest of armor. AFAIK composition of armor in Leo2 changes depending on the version - it takes long to adapt A4 to A6. It's not just that insides change, but armor composition as well, so it is a big refit. The thing is we don't exactly know said composition apart from marketing materials saying how many mm of RHA it gives in equivalence. And we can make inferences made based on this. I do know (because that was one of the things that weren't classified) that A5 and newer, include additional Tungsten "armor". Though I don't think it was disclosed how much, where and any useful stuff. IDK why you have such a low opinion on Leo 2 specifically.
Also worth mentioning this A5+ addon turret armor is mostly multiple layers of spaced armor not really that thick, an old fashioned APHE shell would probably just crumple the part it hit and bury itself in it or continue on to frontal face which is quite thick on its own. Unlike a very thick panther mantlet where it can ricochet off downards. Also as far as I'm concerned the panther (and tiger II) shot trap issues were, like everything involving german armor, vastly overstated. Aiming a ww2 gun in the heat of battle to specifically take advantage of the mantlet shape is pretty much impossible, they just changed it in production because it wasn't a big deal to change the shape of it (for panther its literally just a different shaped metal plate to bolt on) and it made that concern go away almost entirely. (Hits to turret ring can still go in or at least jam turrets in most tanks in existence.)
5:45 sorry folks, but the wedged armor is primarily against APFSDS. It's purpose is to destabilize the dart, so it hits the turret behind the wedge at an angle and shatters, as that is what these darts do when tumbling, as the expert pointed out so eloquently earlier in the video. The increased distance also has a negative effect on HEAT rounds, but that was gladly taken as a benefit of this kind of armor. Also, the space between wedge and turrent front is so big, that even longer NATO darts will start to tumble, which makes it effective not only against Russian APFSDS but also against NATO APFSDS, which in turn is the reason, why it became so popular in Arabic nations, next to the Abrams M1. Leopards wedged armor is precisely why it's considered to be the best armored turret front in the world. However, that doesn't mean it is the best armored tank in the world. Only the turret front is pretty strong, which makes it a fortress in a hull-down position. Correct me if I am wrong dear tankers, but plz add some sort of source if you do. :)
The arrow wedge armor on the front of the turret was designed to snap/bend specifically the 125mm APFSDS darts before it hits the main turret armor whch is still the flat composite as the 2A4 turrets.
yes, but with 2A5 Leopard 2 got 2. generation chobham style composite armor packages. (slightly new arrangement of the composite armor and introduction of heavy metal backer plates) And on 2A7 there was another upgrade to the armor composition and a switch from MEXAS to AMAP for the applique armor.
The triangular bits at the front of the turret are literally just 20mm steel plates, behind it is a pocket of air... They're supposed to destabilize a sabot once it penetrates, and obviously the molten copper of a HEAT round has to travel more distance + the composite turret (the real armor.) It's a pretty ingenious idea, really; It's cheap and, in theory, makes it much harder for Sabot rounds under a certain length to get through.
I've been wondering this exact question since 10 years ago(thank you WOT Interesting and glad to see someone actually made a video answering the question!
Depleted uranium armor has two features. It's very dense and the material is like super hi strength grinding wheel. It grinds away anything that hits it.
DU is incredibly soft considering what its used for. Kind of like how lead will just deform if you try to push it through steel. DU just deforms the same way if you try the same thing. It's weird how the two very soft metals are very good at putting holes in things much harder than they are. Because you would never expect it handling them.
@@edwardscott3262 You forgot one thing to mention and this is speed ! The Mythbuster one time accelerate a ping pong ball with airpressure and a long tube to a very high velocity (don't ask me how fast) and shot it a a ping pong bat . And it made a clean hole through this wodden bat , although this ball is very fragile it made it through .
@@edwardscott3262 Its because uranium is the densest material next to osmium and lead. Deformation can be a good thing if you could make a tank out of pure gold it would absorb lots of damage because gold is extremely dense and starts to act like a fluid barrier against projectiles.
At sufficiently high velocities, material strength eventually becomes irrelevant. The bonds between atoms/molecules aren't strong enough to affect the result, and everything behaves like a liquid. What matters is the densities of the projectile and the target, and the aspect ratio of the projectile. The projectile will tend to penetrate its own length, times the ratio of the densities. This is Newton's impact depth approximation. Uranium is almost three times the density of steel, and strong enough to hold together as a long, thin rod. Also, it's pretty hard, which is still useful because material strength is still relevant at the speeds involved here. HEAT actually works in essentially the same way: copper is denser than steel (though only about half as dense as uranium), and it's formed into a long thin jet when the round detonates.
It technically is not a fluid and not a jet, HEAT is more like a powder that is speed up to 15x the speed of sound and it only turns fluid on contact with the armor and washes and at the same time punches out the armor.
Another thing... People have the wrong idea how the ricochet works. Most of people think of it as if it was a laser beam bouncing off of a mirror; exit angle is equal to entering angle. Most likely due to video games. Not quite the case... The round will in reality hit a metal plate it can't penetrate, dump almost all of its energy there and then it will kind of slide along the plate with very little energy (and shape cos it will deform) giving it little to no penetration ability left. It's not as I said a laser off a mirror or a tennis ball...
Besides old school AP rounds not being widely used, it's not the base armour, but an add-on spaced one, thus I'm not sure it does ricochet larger rounds the same way as turret itself would.
@@Neonblue84those jammers are not helping at all. If seen like a dozen videos of FPV with Roy warheads slam into Russian tanks with EW antennas all over it. Never saved the tank
Porsche tiger 2 turret shot trap gun mantle yes but side armour on turret had steeper sloped armour than henschel turret giving better protection but caused the TC coupla to be exposed.
you ripp off the arrowhead applique. T-Tanks have not enough precision on their guns to reliably target such an area. (Dispersion is too high, so you aim centermass)
An HE round smacking into that may just go boom and do nothing, possibly poke a hole in it but it's hard to say unless it one day, for some reason, happens
even if a modern military didnt use Apfsds , they would have to have a round that would bounce off the addon armour composite wedge (witch most things can penatrate somewhat) but still retain enough energy to bounce down and into the drivers compartment , (witch isnt exactly paper thin). its not a shot trap as the composite wedge doesnt act as a single slab of armour and apfsds doesnt bounce like that , and to have a round bounce off the outer plate of the add on wedge it would not be able to penatrate the tank from anywhere , im talking like AT rifles to be able to do that
No. Plain and simple. Edit: Maybe in the rear into the engine, but there is no way it'll penetrate to the inside anywhere. Serious damage, yes, but nothing more.
What's the difference between the limited edition and the normal "tank assault" manual. I see the limited edition is over twice as big but what does the extra consist of or what does the normal 'lack'?
the merkava has chains to prevent RPG shots getting into shot traps but then they dont face tank opponents ..... at least not if any of their neighbours have any sense!
If the APDSFS rounds normalise why is the top half of the turret armour sloped at about 45 degrees? If "normalisation" actually works then surely a single verticalish slap like the later turret on the Konigstiger would be easier to manufacture, give more room it the turret, save money and time in production and be just as effective? PS bought the books.
Before watching: I'm just going to guess that any sabot rounds that hit the lower half would easily penetrate the first panel and get caught in the shot trap rather than deflecting. Maybe if there was some kind of weird angle from a really far shot or shooting down on the turret from elevation it might deflect at a super high angle, but at that point it would just hit the hull roof anyway without the panels there. Edit: guess I was basically correct, but now I wonder: what about AFV cannon rounds, would a 30 or 50mm projectile from one of those deflect into the turret ring causing issues?
sovjet 30x165mm APDS has enough penetration to punch through the arrowhead and then be useless against the main armor. most NATO partners have switched to APFSDS rounds on autocannons for higher penetration to combat heavier armor on IFV´s (currently 30x173mm APFSDS penetration is around 110-120mm of RHAe on 1000m)
Wait so this is all about shot traps for full caliber AP rounds? This doesn’t make any sense. The armor isn’t solid on the wedge it’s not strong enough to withstand a full caliber round in order to cause it to bounce down into the tank
"This type of armor is fine today, because modern ammunition work differently." Meanwhile Russia is fielding tanks from the 70's. You might want to reconsider that design.
Like we had the famous "survival bias" before, now we have the "video recording" bias. The reality is that most of the time tanks get eliminated by mines or manpads or just get stuck. Plain mechanical failures are far higher on the list than people realise as well.
As a veteran of multiple moreorless realistic games i can confirm that its not shottrap. Angle too low to bounce but enough to lower amount of penetration a sabot can get so the armor just eats the round
If they send this to the battlefield in Ukraine it would have gotten some sort of a fix to it by adding Nozh ERA like the 2A4 version becoming the 2A4V.
@@FancyPantsOnFire if APDSFS do that, that's not APDSFS It's small and long dart have less bounce surface than normal AP + Leopard wedge are composite (aka another type of Plastic) have too less slope to bounce (slope like STRV, BMP might can)
Normalization isn't real, APFSDS just doesn't get de-normalized when hitting sloped armor like old AP rounds do. When people show simulations to prove APFSDS normalizes against sloped armor its usually against relatively thin plates or thick plates that have parallel outer and inner edges. What is actually occurring is that adiabatic shear bands in front of the penetrator as its traveling through armor create a path of least resistance parallel with the inner edge of the plate. I wish someone would do FEA with solid RHA at a slope on the entrance side and flat on the exit side to show this.
sorry but got to point this out xd. perhaps someone else noticed it already, but whenever you make a live interview, it all seems kinda ackward. As in, you have this expert who is explaining something, then you kinda finish or change the topic by adding some more contextual info (which could be introduced later on editting, for those not quite there with the topic on hand) instead of perhaps asking him to explain the case (as in how does the ammo works) or following on the current topic. Idk, perhaps its a thing of german conversational courtesy, but for the regular english speaker, it feels that way. Thank you very much for the video tho, it was very explicative and knowledgeable as always.
@@Neonblue84Funny that, turrets still on the tanks with crews alive to fight another day. At least Russia got its prorities right, having your entire tank reduced to atoms because they have their crew literally sitting on the ammo reduces the chances of a scawy propoganda photoshoot.
So really what if someone does shoot it with an old shell? I mean its still a shot trap flaw, be pretty bad for a leo2 getting knocked out by a lucky ruski in a t54 or something someone desperate might toss at you.
it is a shot trap for the drones in Ukraine as it will aim the shot right into a weak spot. tank on tank it does not work as a shot trap until the Russian start using the T34/85 again as they brought a bunch from Laos last year as well as t-55 and they are solid shot
Better question would be, what is Bundeswehr smoking that the tanks do not have a ~50 round magazine for APS capable of intercepting drones, ATGMs and so on..
Leopard 2A7V and A8 recieve Trophy APS license produced in germany. Also keep in mind, APS are heavy. Mounting Trophy adds close to 1t extra weight in total to the tank.
You cannot combat myth with myth. Tungsten alloy/DU alloy Rod munition does not shatter even at 89 degree. Steel rod is a different story Rod munition, at least part of it, starts to ricochet at 80+ degree. Ricochet will stop once the rod create a deep enough hole in the armor. For completeness sake, Leo 2, at least one of the pre production version, is tested against 100 full caliber ap. At least the requirement people think it is a legitimate threat.
A lot of people don't know that composite armor has trade offs it can crack from a very big powerful full caliber AP thats why they tested it. Composite armor is good at stopping heat and APFSDS but RHA steel is actually better for stopping full caliber AP because steel is malleable. Composite glass, quartz, textolite etc is very very hard but brittle. I would bet that an old JagdTiger/ISU152 shell would actually do more damage to a modern tank than most people think.
@@off6848 yeah the problem is, that even with the higher succeptability of composite vs full bore or sub caliber AP shot, the composite of for example Leo2A0 is thick enough to stop a 120mm L15A4 APDS on ranges above 700m. Even a T-72A is capable of this. And considering that APDS turns basicly useless on ranges above 1000m vs composite armors due to the high energy loss of APDS and that the other side can shoot your Chieftain/Challenger 1 on 2000+m through the turret face, while you are lumbering into combat range... there is a reason why APDS dissapeared.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Well I was talking about APFSDS which has a little more range but yeah it still loses energy at range so does full caliber AP. HEAT or ATGM ammunition is best for range because its not dependent on velocity.
@@off6848HEAT rounds has a serious disadvantage at long ranges though, the shell travels at about a first of the velocity of APFSDS rounds does, which makes it very hard to get the right lead above 2000 meters. The slightest change of course or speed by the target during the flight time will result in a miss. This is why the Soviet Union made barrel launched ATGMs for long range engagements. Flight times increased even more, but at least the guided missile could be corrected to increase the probability of a hit.
So let me get this straight, I would need to come with my mini tank to within a metre of the front of the Leo, then take aim with my peashooter to utilize that sht trap? Are you bonkers or what?
The basis for the current understanding of HEAT-rounds is due to high-speed x-ray photography conducted at FOA, showing that the copper liner cone is getting inverted and accelerated into a long "needle" by geometry (like the outer rim of a wheel is travelling at a much higher speed than a point near the axle) that travels at speeds between 8000 - 10000 m/s. The temperatur never exceeds 800 °C, which is well below the melting point. The key attribute of the liner is ductility, which allows it to be stretched and compressed without breaking up, which is the reason soft materials like copper is used. The rest of the explanation Bernhard gives is right one point though, at those speeds the materials (penetrating needle and armour) behaves pretty much like high pressure water going into clay, with the length of the needle being approximated as how much water you have before running dry.
Leopard 2 is a modern day successor to the King Tiger. Known as the Emperor King Tiger 3, it is known for it's heavy armour and famed 120mm gun. It is a fearsome tank that brings dreaded fear to the Russians on the Eastern Front.
Except it doesn't do anything but get put on display inMoscow. Its probably the least feared of all western tanks and definitely took the most knockouts
@@danh7411 yep that’s also why t72s get knocked out there’s literally thousands of them on both side (was for Ukraine) but it doesn’t change the fact that Leopards haven’t done anything no western tank has had one successful offensive no videos or claims of any western tanks doing a single thing much less knock out other tanks
Chobham armor and Chobham 2 or Dorchester armor with DU is more advanced than what the Germans have. Leopard 2 is basically a highly mobile hull down tank that needs to be used in that respect in terms of military fighting doctrine. She’s not far off from her leopard 1 predecessor in terms of fighting style.
@@ConstantineJoseph What makes you think the Germans don't have access to DU? DU is a waste byproduct of uranium enrichment, Gronau in Germany is home to one of the largest enrichment facilities in Europe. They even used to ship DU to Russia. The reason they don't use DU for armor or ammo is that modern tungsten alloys simply perform better, both in armor and penetrators. The problem is that tungsten is far more expensive and often imported from China or Australia.
Still think that a T54 with old rounds would cause the shot trap effect. Also, even a WWII tank can be a threat to a modern MBT in urban combat, as optics and range are pretty much out of the equation and modern tanks are often more vulnerable on the sides...
No modern Tank is more vulnerable to the side than the old WWII Tanks. Tanks overall are more vulnerable to the side or back or Top, but the side of a Leopard2 Turret is 300mm composite Amour pretty far to the end of the Turret. There is no older Tank which could penetrate that. This is just not a feasible possibility.
@@Forodir What I meant is that the old tanks had up to 100mm of steel on their flanks, while modern tanks often have no more than 40mm, but with additional add-on armour, which protects from HEAT, but not full caliber shells...
@@edi9892 What serial WWII Tank had a side amour of 100mm overall? And a modern MBT depends on where you stand, modern amour is between 80 to 40mm thick and is much more capable, and you also have side skirts on the first third of the Hull, and of course it protects against a Full caliber shell, just not as good.
The last non-saboted AP rounds for the T-54/55 were probably produced over 60 years ago, though, and there are going to be some serious doubts about whether they can be fired or even transported safely.
Boa die Informationen sind ja ganz toll aber wenn deutsche versuchen, Englisch auszusprechen und nicht mal TH können, ist echt nicht schön, zuzuhören . Bitte nicht als Beleidigung auffassen.
stupid clickbait. nobody ever asked this question. Educated people know that the wegde armor is hollow and not ment to deflect anything bigger than small arms fire. anything bigger is ment to penetrate and expend its energy in the process before it hits the real armor behind.
@@SRDPS2 Leo2 has no hydraulics since 2A5. its all electric drives. and look up what modern german 120mm ammunition like DM63, DM11 etc does.... the powder charge is inert when not triggered by the ignition charge. inert powder -> no ammunition fire -> Hull Ammo Storage is not a problem anymore. In addition to that, the hull ammo storage of Leo2 has quite the substantial armor around it (frontal hull and sides are quite thick)
@@vlad_47 how's that 50,000 shells/say going? Oh wait that's a thing of the past because of game changers you still can't destroy. ( himmars). Should take that advice about humility and apply to yourself
@@alphabravodelta42 Several himars were lost just this month. You people don't even keep up with the combat footage just talk propaganda boring nonsense.
nice makup for a weak girl. The leo 2s armour composition is bad. the thickness of it. is poor. the wedge is thin and not good metal. Hence basically any round from 80-90s is going through from any nation. nevermind modern day. then dont forget the hull which is even thinner. Its a cute coverup for the fact that it still has aweful sights and aweful armour.
One of the most garbage and obvious clickbait videos and a show of decline for the channel. NO SHOT TRAPS ARE NOT A THING they rarely were a thing outside video games.
It has a good mix of mobility and armor. And uses no DU or ERA so its "safer" for infantry to be around.Crew survivability is high. No idea how operational cost plays in, but i guess its okay compared to other western tanks.
EVERYTHING gets destroyed in war, the questions are: * how much effort it takes the opponent to achieve it. * how many of your crew survive that event.
Just out of curiosity, where can i found those photos since im realy interested on watch them and if i search for leopard Tank captured i cant really see any hole on them
@@agr2190red effect made a video 9 days ago about it. He shows footage the Russians released about the tank in question and adds some interesting commentary
ammunition is different. modern day ammunition does not bounce. and in worst case, the impact would just ripp off the applique armor and do nothing else.
Billions spent on both east and west to design tank armor only to be undone by cheap civilian drone with old rpg warhead taped ignoring all the armored areas.
why? you think its better to leave that to the clowns planning the various "strategies" that have been implemented? the ISW or RUSI got nothing on this and some other channels. look at their results.
Get the books: militaryhistorygroup.com
How to tell if someone has no idea: they use the word "shrapnell" or claim that a shaped charge is a jet of molten metal.
If molten metal were sufficient, you wouldn't have to choose ductile metals like copper or tantalum.
The shaped charge spike is surprisingly cool and was measured at 450° Celsius.
@@alestbest > How to tell if someone has no idea: they use the word "shrapnell"
why?
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized
Because the correct word experts use is "fragmentation".
Shrapnel is a special type in which, to put it simply, a cannon is fired towards the target and then shoots fragments directed forward. No real expert uses the word shrapnell as a substitute for fragments. Wikipedia in German shows a pretty good animation on the subject of Shrapnell.
And I worked in the field. In our company I was also involved in projects that dealt with the probability of hitting fragments and their target effect. This is done in different ways. Google (arena test fragmentation)
About the shaped charges:
Our company also researched this and believe me, the stinger is not liquid and the temperature was measured using infrared.
shot traps dont exist when referring to APFSDS rounds, they just shatter and dont bounce
This is one of the worst mistakes in warthunders representation of modern tanks, it depicts rod rounds bouncing instead of shattering
Yeah thats what is said in the Video.
Shot traps are irrelevant
What if they are attacked by old 100mm towed gun APHE?
@@joelau2383 does not matter. the highest performing APDS/APHE of the 100mm D-10 gun cant penetrate the armor of Leopard 2A4´s hull and turret (the box turret version).
There is a reason why all major players had switched over to APFSDS in the late 70´s for their main guns (except the british), and that is higher energy retention and perforative performence of KE ammunition (fin stabilised darts).
As comparison: the highest performing APDS (bullet shaped sub caliber AP shot for the L11A5 120mm L/55 rifled gun of Chieftain MBT and Challenger) is L15A4 APDS.
On 2000m it has only 66% of the penetrative performence of DM13 APFSDS (dart like KE round with fins, the first APFSDS round introduced on Leopard 2A0 in 1978, fired from the 120mm L/44 smoothbore of Leopard 2).
Both rounds are fired at similar powder charge volumes, the L15A4 is fired from a longer rifled gun, the DM13 from a shorter smoothbore gun and the lighter APFSDS has still a 33% higher effective range and penetrative performence without loss of accuracy.
Bullet shaped projectiles with high mass and a small Diameter/Length ratio loose energy faster than dart like projectiles with high Diameter/Length ratio.
@@joelau2383 What if the M60 Patton is attacked by a WW1 42 centimetre Howitzer?
The risk of being actually targeted by an anti tank weapon that's basically 70 years old are like close to zero. 100mm guns shooting APHE rounds, if they even exist somewhere in large enough numbers and a viable condition would be almost useless on the battlefield itself. Particularly as you have much much cheaper and convenient to deploy anti tank weapons everywhere which are easier to use compared to some towed 100mm gun with the intention to eventually exploit a possible shot-trap.
Seriously, those things are large, require some kind of towing vehicle and several crews to operate it. And there are man portable anti tank weapons offer you better anti tank capability.
You're almost always better off not using them and either straping the shell on a drone - which is what Ukraine is doing. Or simply giving the infantry some kind of anti tank missiles. They have better ranges. Better accuracy. Are easier to use and conceal. And will cause more damage to any armour.
It boils down to; projectiles changed, armor changed. Simple, but it answers a question that keeps nagging at you until you know. Now the question is, will someone go back to older tech to try and take advantage? Probably does not fit well into the current gun technology.
Does anyone ever wanna fire a slow AP round against someone who can accurately shot at you from 2000 meters away using sabot rounds just to try the shot trap trick?
A lot of downgrading just to try to exploit one possible weakness in a tank that you might not even face in combat^^
@@chrisblack6258 That's what most hand portable anti tank missiles do. They fly over the tank and then go through the roof.
Leo2s arent in high enough numbers to warrant a change in production to older tech to counter them would be my guess
@@Ryan66437 Top attack ATGMs are a small minority, even in NATO alone. TOW-2B's overhead EFP is decades old and it hasn't caught on because it's less reliable than a direct hit and is poor against soft targets while true top attack missiles like Javelin are more expensive than an A-10 flyout with a Maverick.
I saw a computer simulation of what happens when the APFSDS penetrator impacts sloped armor and finally understand why it defeats sloped armor. Extremely fascinating.
So why doesn’t it?
@@enshk79 It grabs and digs in. Old APHE and APBC was shot out of rifled barrels and the extreme angular momentum of the spin would cause it to bounce. APFSDS just slides on through or shatters
Sloped armor still affects APFSDS in that the round has to penetrate more armor.
@@nobodyisbestthis ☝🏻
@@nobodyisbest Actually this is a misconception. Sloped armour of the same thickness will be less effective against apfsds cause near exit point projectile will pick path of less resistance and turn against the slope. Altho that is only true to solid steel, some somposites may be more offective at slope for example ones used in T-72b or M1 turrent where rubber pushes slim steel plates at an angle, forcing projective not just to pierce but to cut trough them.
From what I remember of some older videos on youtube the 2A5's wedge armor was only like 500-1000kg of added weight and mostly armored sheets (so indeed spaced). I don't think it was designed to deflect any shell, but instead to destabilize sabot rounds that penetrated the wedge but weren't long enough to bridge the entirety of the spaced armor.
Even if an older type of ammo would be fired at it, the question is how sturdy this wedge really is. If it is thin sheet metal, then even older ammo will not have an issue penetrating it and hitting the main armor underneath. In which case there would not be a shot trap since the shell would be able to penetrate the wedge. The main armor would likely have no issues stopping a 70 year old cannon, so I don't even expect a potential weakness here.
The side wedges felt to me like they needed to open in order to get the engine out of the tank, not just to store things underneath. When turned 90 degrees to the side, the turret of a 2A4 barely clears the engine cover on top of the back of the hull. That is what it seemed like on some Revell model kits of Leopard 2 at least.
Exactly. I saw the video title and immediately recalled a picture I had seen of the wedges being completely hollow! I'm sure it's a common assumption as I had that they are solid bricks of strong composite but it's rather rare for such a drastic addition of weight and protection be added. "Enigma" comes to mind.
Presumably, the wedge shape helps with mounting and increases the internal distance to what's required to disrupt the apfsd dart.
@@ecpgieicg Yes if you can make your armor more deep than the penetrator is long then APFSDS disintegrates because it basically gets chewed up as it travels through the armor and depleted uranium even self sharpens as it wittles away
I mean most rounds from the 70s-80s can pen the front of the leopard 2. Wedge or not. it's just makeup on an ugly girl. doesn't change the fact that the armour was designed to fail.
The simple answer is that this is just spaced armor. Its not a huge extra heavy wall added on the turret, but rather it is a large empty box that weight 500kgs that are sitting in front of the turret and forces incoming enemy shots to travel many extra decimeters before it can start blowing a hole into the main armor of the tank.
The enemy projectile lose force before it reach the tank, and armor protection gets increased with a minimal cost of extra weight.
Sabra tank also uses spaced armor, an upgrade kit for M60s. We have used them in Syria against ATGMs, RPGs etc, they outperformed naked 2A4s by far. It really works well, God knows why they aren't more common. Perhaps because financial reasons, as explained in the video add-on armor isn't so easy to implement rather often heavy modifications are needed. So countries are postponing these upgrades, our 2A4s will be upgraded as well but it will take several years. We didn't move gunner sight up but there is add-on armor almost all around including hull front and sides.
Short answer: Modern projectiles don't ricochet. There, I saved you twelve and a half minutes.
Is there no richochet because the 'force' of the projectile (momentum?) is greater than the strength of the armour to deflect the round? I'm trying to get my head around your statement.
@@GarrisonFall APFSDS are thin nail looking rods that go really fast, when they hit sloped armor they basically shatter and lose any capabilites. You can find simulations of apfsds hitting sloped armor on youtube.
Lancett is smiling.
If only Gaijin understood this so my DM53 would stop bouncing off of a sheet of paper angled at 89°.
@@BFP8447 Yeah, the ruzzki fighters sure smile for being forced to fight for Putin's pointless war :D
The T-72 with the "Dolly Parton" compostite armor was very similar.
Even if someone were to use "old" solid armour-piercing ammunition, the wedge armour would hardly act as a shot trap. The plates, which are only about 2 cm thick, would be too weak for this and would not deflect the impacting projectile. The projectile would simply penetrate and then fail against the main armour.
I suspect that the greatest danger here would come from relatively small-calibre ammunition, which would be too weak to penetrate the wedge armour, although this would probably not endanger the tank's ceiling plate either.
As far as I know, the statement that the additional armour is primarily effective against HEAT is not true.
The armour is actually intended to break the long penetrators. The armour plates of the wedge are two-layered, whereby the two layers can move against each other and thus pinch the relatively thin "arrow" and make it swing so that its tip no longer hits the main armour vertically and breaks.
Well, it does work well against both HEAT and KE penetrators but KE rounds that are over a certain length can mitigate the protection of the spaced armor to a degree.
Nice to see some more Videos on this. This is a real question peopel ask. I have been asked about this by friends who only know WW2 tanks and who wonder about this.
7:45 - Also Japanese Type 10 I believe has "arrow" shaped turret. Though it is smaller and as such less protection against APFSDS. For APFSDS it is important that projectile is shorter than the space between "armors". Because that makes it tumble (or at least changes angle) after it pierced first layer but before it hits the "real" turret. So it depends on which height it also hits, since right in the middle you have most space. On the edges, much less so and if the round is longer than this space it will "almost" behave like it was going through single piece of armor that has thickness of combined layers (outer "arrowhead" and inner "turret") of armor. "Almost", because there still will be deformation and some additional protection. That means that this armor is very good against even latest Soviet APFSDS rounds, but some Russian ones that are especially long (though from memory autoloader makes rounds above certain length impossible) could defeat it or at least would suffer much smaller "penalty" when trying.
The Arrow itself is spaced armor...3 plates spaced apart.
@@dwwolf4636 That as well. I tend to write ridiculously long comments, so I tried to condense as much info as possible. Thank You for adding additional context, though I'd have to check the layout and if it is from all sides/angles and whether there is some play with angles inside it. There was good video on YT couple years ago that talked about it in-depth (I don't think geometric design of "arrowhead" is classified - some materials might be or some other details).
most rounds will go through the leo 2 at any angle today. sadly just the way it is. the composition, thickness, and flat armour is blaintantly inadequate. The arrowhead is a cute cover up for it like makeup on a girl. but it doesn't hide the fact that it was poorly designed. the hull isn't in any better shape either.
@@MajorMorrozov Which "most rounds"? Newest American or German ones? Probably, though not at "any angle". Newest Russian one that can fit into auto-loader - definitely not at every angle, and at the front it will have troubles. And if it hits arrowhead in the widest place, it will tumble and likely not penetrate the rest of armor.
AFAIK composition of armor in Leo2 changes depending on the version - it takes long to adapt A4 to A6. It's not just that insides change, but armor composition as well, so it is a big refit. The thing is we don't exactly know said composition apart from marketing materials saying how many mm of RHA it gives in equivalence. And we can make inferences made based on this. I do know (because that was one of the things that weren't classified) that A5 and newer, include additional Tungsten "armor". Though I don't think it was disclosed how much, where and any useful stuff.
IDK why you have such a low opinion on Leo 2 specifically.
@@jannegrey the composition hasn't changed since the 2a4. it's exactly the same.
Thank you Bernhard and Tobias. Most enlightening.
Really interesting. I didn't know about depleted uranium being used for armour.
What I know which aint much but that wedge is kind of empty space and makes APFSDS dart to stumble so it wont hit nose on to main armor.
Now I wanna see Tobias break down every Leopard variant in detail
The Channel @Sabelzahnmowe did a Video on this exact topic ~1 Month ago - would love to see you both collab one day! :)
Also worth mentioning this A5+ addon turret armor is mostly multiple layers of spaced armor not really that thick, an old fashioned APHE shell would probably just crumple the part it hit and bury itself in it or continue on to frontal face which is quite thick on its own. Unlike a very thick panther mantlet where it can ricochet off downards.
Also as far as I'm concerned the panther (and tiger II) shot trap issues were, like everything involving german armor, vastly overstated. Aiming a ww2 gun in the heat of battle to specifically take advantage of the mantlet shape is pretty much impossible, they just changed it in production because it wasn't a big deal to change the shape of it (for panther its literally just a different shaped metal plate to bolt on) and it made that concern go away almost entirely. (Hits to turret ring can still go in or at least jam turrets in most tanks in existence.)
The world has moved on from solid shot.
Theatre Entry Standard = TES and Challenger has Dorchester armour.
Yes, but I haven’t 😂
Its already moved on from APFSDS too
@@off6848 not really, APFSDS is still THE standard anti tank ammunition for MBT´s.
You can "dodge" a missile, but not a super sonic dart.
5:45 sorry folks, but the wedged armor is primarily against APFSDS. It's purpose is to destabilize the dart, so it hits the turret behind the wedge at an angle and shatters, as that is what these darts do when tumbling, as the expert pointed out so eloquently earlier in the video. The increased distance also has a negative effect on HEAT rounds, but that was gladly taken as a benefit of this kind of armor. Also, the space between wedge and turrent front is so big, that even longer NATO darts will start to tumble, which makes it effective not only against Russian APFSDS but also against NATO APFSDS, which in turn is the reason, why it became so popular in Arabic nations, next to the Abrams M1.
Leopards wedged armor is precisely why it's considered to be the best armored turret front in the world. However, that doesn't mean it is the best armored tank in the world. Only the turret front is pretty strong, which makes it a fortress in a hull-down position.
Correct me if I am wrong dear tankers, but plz add some sort of source if you do. :)
The arrow wedge armor on the front of the turret was designed to snap/bend specifically the 125mm APFSDS darts before it hits the main turret armor whch is still the flat composite as the 2A4 turrets.
yes, but with 2A5 Leopard 2 got 2. generation chobham style composite armor packages. (slightly new arrangement of the composite armor and introduction of heavy metal backer plates)
And on 2A7 there was another upgrade to the armor composition and a switch from MEXAS to AMAP for the applique armor.
Great discussion!
The triangular bits at the front of the turret are literally just 20mm steel plates, behind it is a pocket of air... They're supposed to destabilize a sabot once it penetrates, and obviously the molten copper of a HEAT round has to travel more distance + the composite turret (the real armor.) It's a pretty ingenious idea, really; It's cheap and, in theory, makes it much harder for Sabot rounds under a certain length to get through.
I've been wondering this exact question since 10 years ago(thank you WOT
Interesting and glad to see someone actually made a video answering the question!
Thanks, very interesting.
Love tanks, just bought both books, i wish i had seen this sooner because i wanted the limited bilingual edition :(
Depleted uranium armor has two features. It's very dense and the material is like super hi strength grinding wheel. It grinds away anything that hits it.
Yes its molecular structure is polygonal so its always sharp and DU apfsds self sharpens at it penetrates.
DU is incredibly soft considering what its used for.
Kind of like how lead will just deform if you try to push it through steel. DU just deforms the same way if you try the same thing.
It's weird how the two very soft metals are very good at putting holes in things much harder than they are. Because you would never expect it handling them.
@@edwardscott3262 You forgot one thing to mention and this is speed ! The Mythbuster one time accelerate a ping pong ball with airpressure and a long tube to a very high velocity (don't ask me how fast) and shot it a a ping pong bat . And it made a clean hole through this wodden bat , although this ball is very fragile it made it through .
@@edwardscott3262 Its because uranium is the densest material next to osmium and lead. Deformation can be a good thing if you could make a tank out of pure gold it would absorb lots of damage because gold is extremely dense and starts to act like a fluid barrier against projectiles.
At sufficiently high velocities, material strength eventually becomes irrelevant. The bonds between atoms/molecules aren't strong enough to affect the result, and everything behaves like a liquid. What matters is the densities of the projectile and the target, and the aspect ratio of the projectile.
The projectile will tend to penetrate its own length, times the ratio of the densities. This is Newton's impact depth approximation.
Uranium is almost three times the density of steel, and strong enough to hold together as a long, thin rod. Also, it's pretty hard, which is still useful because material strength is still relevant at the speeds involved here.
HEAT actually works in essentially the same way: copper is denser than steel (though only about half as dense as uranium), and it's formed into a long thin jet when the round detonates.
It technically is not a fluid and not a jet, HEAT is more like a powder that is speed up to 15x the speed of sound and it only turns fluid on contact with the armor and washes and at the same time punches out the armor.
I think he explained it quite well. The shaped charge "jet" is -acting- behaving like it was a fluid even though it technicaly is not.
It behaves like a fluid.
@@voidtempering8700You're right, thank you.
Another thing... People have the wrong idea how the ricochet works. Most of people think of it as if it was a laser beam bouncing off of a mirror; exit angle is equal to entering angle. Most likely due to video games. Not quite the case... The round will in reality hit a metal plate it can't penetrate, dump almost all of its energy there and then it will kind of slide along the plate with very little energy (and shape cos it will deform) giving it little to no penetration ability left. It's not as I said a laser off a mirror or a tennis ball...
this has been covered countless times. Even if the APFSDS bounced, that's spaced armor, so it wouldn't bounce.
Porsche: "I was just ahead of my time with KT turret!"
Besides old school AP rounds not being widely used, it's not the base armour, but an add-on spaced one, thus I'm not sure it does ricochet larger rounds the same way as turret itself would.
it wouldnt, those thicker rounds would penetrate the arrowhead, but still wont be able to penetrate the base armor.
The Leopard II and the M1A1/2 had a weakness, the hull roof is only 38 mm thick. A 125 mm HE explosion will blow up the roof
As described the shape charge acts like a plasma wielder/cutter.
APFSDS is an obsolescent threat. Drones are the big killer now, and I have yet to see a Leo upgraded to truly defend against them.
For now until suitable counter UAS technology is developed and proliferated, which is only a matter of time.
@@Ungood-jl5ep sry to say this technology is using by russia right now, called jammer on the turtle tank
there are drones with normal AT-rockets. nothing is obsolete, ever. not even shovels! :) ..usecase might evolve, but it never vanishes completely.
@@Neonblue84those jammers are not helping at all. If seen like a dozen videos of FPV with Roy warheads slam into Russian tanks with EW antennas all over it. Never saved the tank
Even drone gone now you have Artillery problem
tanks are obsolete until it comes one,that has well-functioning (!) active protection
If the new rounds don't bounce off, is there even any use for sloped armour nowadays?
More armour per armour, as some folk have mentioned APDSFS works against it, pretty well too, but even then a good dense angled plate helps a ton
Glad to see the disclaimer at the start. Governments have to have their priorities right.
what is going on in austria with drug laws? are they somehow worse than the rest of europe? never got that impression.
Drug laws? 🤔
Porsche tiger 2 turret shot trap gun mantle yes but side armour on turret had steeper sloped armour than henschel turret giving better protection but caused the TC coupla to be exposed.
Back to the crossbow bolt, it seems just a little bigger :)
Aren't Ricochet's bad for APFSDS? They are very long and thin that they might shatter before it ricochets.
Sı if I only have HE and no AP rounds, and shoot HE to that gap... what happens ?
you ripp off the arrowhead applique.
T-Tanks have not enough precision on their guns to reliably target such an area. (Dispersion is too high, so you aim centermass)
An HE round smacking into that may just go boom and do nothing, possibly poke a hole in it but it's hard to say unless it one day, for some reason, happens
even if a modern military didnt use Apfsds , they would have to have a round that would bounce off the addon armour composite wedge (witch most things can penatrate somewhat) but still retain enough energy to bounce down and into the drivers compartment , (witch isnt exactly paper thin). its not a shot trap as the composite wedge doesnt act as a single slab of armour and apfsds doesnt bounce like that , and to have a round bounce off the outer plate of the add on wedge it would not be able to penatrate the tank from anywhere , im talking like AT rifles to be able to do that
April, 2024. All tanks, and it doesn't matter from which nation, are proven vulnerable to weapons that cost Far less.
In a purely hypothetical scenario would a Jagdtiger be able to penetrate the Leo 2?
No. Plain and simple.
Edit: Maybe in the rear into the engine, but there is no way it'll penetrate to the inside anywhere. Serious damage, yes, but nothing more.
What's the difference between the limited edition and the normal "tank assault" manual. I see the limited edition is over twice as big but what does the extra consist of or what does the normal 'lack'?
It includes the original Russian text as well.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Okayy so I won't actually miss anything crucial if I buy the normal book? Thanks!
I think the hollow charge pressure jet travels at 50k ft second to punch through armour ?
the merkava has chains to prevent RPG shots getting into shot traps but then they dont face tank opponents ..... at least not if any of their neighbours have any sense!
If the APDSFS rounds normalise why is the top half of the turret armour sloped at about 45 degrees? If "normalisation" actually works then surely a single verticalish slap like the later turret on the Konigstiger would be easier to manufacture, give more room it the turret, save money and time in production and be just as effective? PS bought the books.
Before watching: I'm just going to guess that any sabot rounds that hit the lower half would easily penetrate the first panel and get caught in the shot trap rather than deflecting. Maybe if there was some kind of weird angle from a really far shot or shooting down on the turret from elevation it might deflect at a super high angle, but at that point it would just hit the hull roof anyway without the panels there.
Edit: guess I was basically correct, but now I wonder: what about AFV cannon rounds, would a 30 or 50mm projectile from one of those deflect into the turret ring causing issues?
sovjet 30x165mm APDS has enough penetration to punch through the arrowhead and then be useless against the main armor.
most NATO partners have switched to APFSDS rounds on autocannons for higher penetration to combat heavier armor on IFV´s (currently 30x173mm APFSDS penetration is around 110-120mm of RHAe on 1000m)
Wait so this is all about shot traps for full caliber AP rounds? This doesn’t make any sense. The armor isn’t solid on the wedge it’s not strong enough to withstand a full caliber round in order to cause it to bounce down into the tank
"This type of armor is fine today, because modern ammunition work differently." Meanwhile Russia is fielding tanks from the 70's. You might want to reconsider that design.
MBTs main flaws for now is that they become inop by a few thousend dollar of drones. They need some AA feature
Like we had the famous "survival bias" before, now we have the "video recording" bias. The reality is that most of the time tanks get eliminated by mines or manpads or just get stuck. Plain mechanical failures are far higher on the list than people realise as well.
As a veteran of multiple moreorless realistic games i can confirm that its not shottrap. Angle too low to bounce but enough to lower amount of penetration a sabot can get so the armor just eats the round
If they send this to the battlefield in Ukraine it would have gotten some sort of a fix to it by adding Nozh ERA like the 2A4 version becoming the 2A4V.
Ahh yes, the thin metal that makes up the wedge will tooootally deflect an APFSDS Sabot.
It works
@@FancyPantsOnFire if APDSFS do that, that's not APDSFS
It's small and long dart have less bounce surface than normal AP
+ Leopard wedge are composite (aka another type of Plastic) have too less slope to bounce (slope like STRV, BMP might can)
idea of that wedge is not to stop anything , it just helps main armor to do its job better.
Normalization isn't real, APFSDS just doesn't get de-normalized when hitting sloped armor like old AP rounds do. When people show simulations to prove APFSDS normalizes against sloped armor its usually against relatively thin plates or thick plates that have parallel outer and inner edges. What is actually occurring is that adiabatic shear bands in front of the penetrator as its traveling through armor create a path of least resistance parallel with the inner edge of the plate. I wish someone would do FEA with solid RHA at a slope on the entrance side and flat on the exit side to show this.
The CV 90 C is not a tank but it has similar add on armour
I don't care how it identifies itself. It is a tank. A light tank is still a tank.
its a shot trap. assuming your enemy wont adapt is a logic trap.
the wedges are hollow on the inside
sorry but got to point this out xd. perhaps someone else noticed it already, but whenever you make a live interview, it all seems kinda ackward. As in, you have this expert who is explaining something, then you kinda finish or change the topic by adding some more contextual info (which could be introduced later on editting, for those not quite there with the topic on hand) instead of perhaps asking him to explain the case (as in how does the ammo works) or following on the current topic. Idk, perhaps its a thing of german conversational courtesy, but for the regular english speaker, it feels that way. Thank you very much for the video tho, it was very explicative and knowledgeable as always.
The russian Burlak turret is also vedge shaped
is this just for its flight dynamics ?
@@adamrudling1339 you mean burned out leos, Challenger 2 or the mighty but useless abrams (the parade of trophies in Moskow was very interesting)
@@Neonblue84Funny that, turrets still on the tanks with crews alive to fight another day.
At least Russia got its prorities right, having your entire tank reduced to atoms because they have their crew literally sitting on the ammo reduces the chances of a scawy propoganda photoshoot.
Find out what “road craft” Is
My tv says that the Leopards are wonder weapons and the Russians fight with shovels and old washing machines. I believe my tv.
Shot trap revisiting àn old defect of ww2.
So really what if someone does shoot it with an old shell?
I mean its still a shot trap flaw, be pretty bad for a leo2 getting knocked out by a lucky ruski in a t54 or something someone desperate might toss at you.
it is a shot trap for the drones in Ukraine as it will aim the shot right into a weak spot. tank on tank it does not work as a shot trap until the Russian start using the T34/85 again as they brought a bunch from Laos last year as well as t-55 and they are solid shot
Better question would be, what is Bundeswehr smoking that the tanks do not have a ~50 round magazine for APS capable of intercepting drones, ATGMs and so on..
Leopard 2A7V and A8 recieve Trophy APS license produced in germany.
Also keep in mind, APS are heavy.
Mounting Trophy adds close to 1t extra weight in total to the tank.
Tank v tank is unlikely.
no. you havent seen a real p2p war yet...
@@simonschneider5913 We have seen one year ago how they fail. Indeed it wasn't p2p. The Leopard turned out to be the poor mans choice.
Танки с танками не воюют. Удары сыплются с небес
that was cold war thinking
You cannot combat myth with myth.
Tungsten alloy/DU alloy Rod munition does not shatter even at 89 degree. Steel rod is a different story
Rod munition, at least part of it, starts to ricochet at 80+ degree. Ricochet will stop once the rod create a deep enough hole in the armor.
For completeness sake, Leo 2, at least one of the pre production version, is tested against 100 full caliber ap. At least the requirement people think it is a legitimate threat.
A lot of people don't know that composite armor has trade offs it can crack from a very big powerful full caliber AP thats why they tested it. Composite armor is good at stopping heat and APFSDS but RHA steel is actually better for stopping full caliber AP because steel is malleable. Composite glass, quartz, textolite etc is very very hard but brittle.
I would bet that an old JagdTiger/ISU152 shell would actually do more damage to a modern tank than most people think.
@@off6848 yeah the problem is, that even with the higher succeptability of composite vs full bore or sub caliber AP shot, the composite of for example Leo2A0 is thick enough to stop a 120mm L15A4 APDS on ranges above 700m. Even a T-72A is capable of this.
And considering that APDS turns basicly useless on ranges above 1000m vs composite armors due to the high energy loss of APDS and that the other side can shoot your Chieftain/Challenger 1 on 2000+m through the turret face, while you are lumbering into combat range... there is a reason why APDS dissapeared.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Well I was talking about APFSDS which has a little more range but yeah it still loses energy at range so does full caliber AP. HEAT or ATGM ammunition is best for range because its not dependent on velocity.
@@off6848 read my comment again.
you are talking about APCBC and APDS.
Both are quite useless today.
@@off6848HEAT rounds has a serious disadvantage at long ranges though, the shell travels at about a first of the velocity of APFSDS rounds does, which makes it very hard to get the right lead above 2000 meters. The slightest change of course or speed by the target during the flight time will result in a miss. This is why the Soviet Union made barrel launched ATGMs for long range engagements.
Flight times increased even more, but at least the guided missile could be corrected to increase the probability of a hit.
So let me get this straight, I would need to come with my mini tank to within a metre of the front of the Leo, then take aim with my peashooter to utilize that sht trap? Are you bonkers or what?
?
is that a self-report in the last sentence? :)
If you peashooter are high power dart then talk later
+ Shot trap have to done on long distance
+ It's not "straight", that's off track, off topic
You explained HEAT wrong
then correct me
HEAT jets aren't molten. Proven experimentation by shots into water tanks and demonstrated by sophisticated modeling.
The basis for the current understanding of HEAT-rounds is due to high-speed x-ray photography conducted at FOA, showing that the copper liner cone is getting inverted and accelerated into a long "needle" by geometry (like the outer rim of a wheel is travelling at a much higher speed than a point near the axle) that travels at speeds between 8000 - 10000 m/s. The temperatur never exceeds 800 °C, which is well below the melting point. The key attribute of the liner is ductility, which allows it to be stretched and compressed without breaking up, which is the reason soft materials like copper is used.
The rest of the explanation Bernhard gives is right one point though, at those speeds the materials (penetrating needle and armour) behaves pretty much like high pressure water going into clay, with the length of the needle being approximated as how much water you have before running dry.
@@johanmetreus1268 Thank you. Very well-written explanation.
@@ethanmckinney203 Thank you :)
Leopard 2 is a modern day successor to the King Tiger. Known as the Emperor King Tiger 3, it is known for it's heavy armour and famed 120mm gun.
It is a fearsome tank that brings dreaded fear to the Russians on the Eastern Front.
Except it doesn't do anything but get put on display inMoscow. Its probably the least feared of all western tanks and definitely took the most knockouts
@@off6848no shit when Ukraine mainly uses Leo way more often than any other Western tanks.
@@hissingsid6854 3 days SMO!
So why are they losing?
@@danh7411 yep that’s also why t72s get knocked out there’s literally thousands of them on both side (was for Ukraine) but it doesn’t change the fact that Leopards haven’t done anything no western tank has had one successful offensive no videos or claims of any western tanks doing a single thing much less knock out other tanks
New Civ Div video dropped
tanks are obsolete.
Civ div?
Das ist keine verdammte Schwachstelle. Wie oft kommt noch ein Video zu diesem Keil.
👍👍
You dont need to explain how a heat-fs and apfsds work. Anyone watching this knows what those are.
Chobham armor and Chobham 2 or Dorchester armor with DU is more advanced than what the Germans have. Leopard 2 is basically a highly mobile hull down tank that needs to be used in that respect in terms of military fighting doctrine.
She’s not far off from her leopard 1 predecessor in terms of fighting style.
That's why it was proven to be better protected than the Abrams in Swden '94...
@@jonny2954 Abrams has better protection. The Germans don’t have access to DU.
@@ConstantineJoseph What makes you think the Germans don't have access to DU? DU is a waste byproduct of uranium enrichment, Gronau in Germany is home to one of the largest enrichment facilities in Europe. They even used to ship DU to Russia.
The reason they don't use DU for armor or ammo is that modern tungsten alloys simply perform better, both in armor and penetrators. The problem is that tungsten is far more expensive and often imported from China or Australia.
Still think that a T54 with old rounds would cause the shot trap effect. Also, even a WWII tank can be a threat to a modern MBT in urban combat, as optics and range are pretty much out of the equation and modern tanks are often more vulnerable on the sides...
No modern Tank is more vulnerable to the side than the old WWII Tanks. Tanks overall are more vulnerable to the side or back or Top, but the side of a Leopard2 Turret is 300mm composite Amour pretty far to the end of the Turret. There is no older Tank which could penetrate that. This is just not a feasible possibility.
@@Forodir they could still track it which can work great.
@@Forodir What I meant is that the old tanks had up to 100mm of steel on their flanks, while modern tanks often have no more than 40mm, but with additional add-on armour, which protects from HEAT, but not full caliber shells...
@@edi9892
What serial WWII Tank had a side amour of 100mm overall? And a modern MBT depends on where you stand, modern amour is between 80 to 40mm thick and is much more capable, and you also have side skirts on the first third of the Hull, and of course it protects against a Full caliber shell, just not as good.
The last non-saboted AP rounds for the T-54/55 were probably produced over 60 years ago, though, and there are going to be some serious doubts about whether they can be fired or even transported safely.
Boa die Informationen sind ja ganz toll aber wenn deutsche versuchen, Englisch auszusprechen und nicht mal TH können, ist echt nicht schön, zuzuhören . Bitte nicht als Beleidigung auffassen.
stupid clickbait. nobody ever asked this question.
Educated people know that the wegde armor is hollow and not ment to deflect anything bigger than small arms fire.
anything bigger is ment to penetrate and expend its energy in the process before it hits the real armor behind.
With fpv drone ... any projectile is flexibly guided now
I thought the turret had a trap point the first time I saw it! Would be much better with a sloping turret which would deflect a shot!!
The hull ammo is a bigger flaw
One must imagine Germany finally figured out to move all ammo to turret
and hydraulic and other system on the hull
@02suraditpengsaeng41 but they haven't the 2a6 and 2a7(im pretty sure) still have hull ammo that isn't protected by blow out panels
@@SRDPS2 Leo2 has no hydraulics since 2A5. its all electric drives.
and look up what modern german 120mm ammunition like DM63, DM11 etc does.... the powder charge is inert when not triggered by the ignition charge.
inert powder -> no ammunition fire -> Hull Ammo Storage is not a problem anymore.
In addition to that, the hull ammo storage of Leo2 has quite the substantial armor around it (frontal hull and sides are quite thick)
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Evidence from actual usage demonstrates that all those theoretical presumptions are wrong.
It gets taken out by 50 year old TM-62 mines and 300$ FPV Drones.
That's every tank...
@@alphabravodelta42 Robotic response. Would have been nice to see the same humility before last years gamechanger hype and Counter Offensive flop
@@vlad_47 how's that 50,000 shells/say going? Oh wait that's a thing of the past because of game changers you still can't destroy. ( himmars). Should take that advice about humility and apply to yourself
@@alphabravodelta42 🥴
@@alphabravodelta42 Several himars were lost just this month. You people don't even keep up with the combat footage just talk propaganda boring nonsense.
nice makup for a weak girl. The leo 2s armour composition is bad. the thickness of it. is poor. the wedge is thin and not good metal. Hence basically any round from 80-90s is going through from any nation. nevermind modern day. then dont forget the hull which is even thinner. Its a cute coverup for the fact that it still has aweful sights and aweful armour.
One of the most garbage and obvious clickbait videos and a show of decline for the channel. NO SHOT TRAPS ARE NOT A THING they rarely were a thing outside video games.
Even game like WarT hunder have no shot trap for APDSFS
Personally i do not get the love for the LEOPARD and how highly it is rated ,As it has a history of being destroyed
It has a good mix of mobility and armor. And uses no DU or ERA so its "safer" for infantry to be around.Crew survivability is high. No idea how operational cost plays in, but i guess its okay compared to other western tanks.
EVERYTHING gets destroyed in war, the questions are:
* how much effort it takes the opponent to achieve it.
* how many of your crew survive that event.
@@flummi6966 It has utter crap miblity. It's 70t.
blablabla. Did you see the captured Leos? They all had holes in the turret and hull. That whole thing is a shot trap.
Fritzes will never admit the truth, just as they dont about their WW2 era tanks
Just out of curiosity, where can i found those photos since im realy interested on watch them and if i search for leopard Tank captured i cant really see any hole on them
@@agr2190red effect made a video 9 days ago about it. He shows footage the Russians released about the tank in question and adds some interesting commentary
Also, there don’t appear to be any holes in the turret
@@yarnickgoovaerts okay thanks
What is this cope?
Just some "dry land swimming masters" trying to be clever.
Tobias or not to Tobias.
That is the question.
Lol, looks like for WW3 Germany didn't learn from the Panther in WW2.
ammunition is different.
modern day ammunition does not bounce.
and in worst case, the impact would just ripp off the applique armor and do nothing else.
Challenger 2 in UK service also uses DU in its armour system.
APFSDS-DU
the challenger is a joke ask the ukrainians
@@frankrenda2519 ok Ivan
@@clive3490ok woke Ukraine has lost as well as nato
@@frankrenda2519 If Ukraine has lost then how come Russia is losing 1000 men per day? NATO havn't even turned up yet
Oof 😅
Billions spent on both east and west to design tank armor only to be undone by cheap civilian drone with old rpg warhead taped ignoring all the armored areas.
Glad you gave up to give advice about strategy in ukrain war and found to your roots aganin.
why? you think its better to leave that to the clowns planning the various "strategies" that have been implemented? the ISW or RUSI got nothing on this and some other channels. look at their results.
@@simonschneider5913RUSI is very good. Don’t know a better analysis than Justin Bronk