T-80B vs M1 ABRAMS | THE MOST UNIQUE APFSDS vs NERA | 3BM26 Composite Armour Penetration Simulation
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.ย. 2024
- The simulation presents the unique 3BM26 APFSDS projectile impacting the composite hull armour of the M1 Abrams, at 2km.
The 3BM26 Armour-Piercing Fin-Stabilised Discarding-Sabot (APFSDS) projectile entered service in 1983, featuring a unique design with a penetrating core mounted in the rear, with an air gap in front of it. This was done to avoid the issues that front-mounted cores faced, where they could be dislodged or shattered when striking oblique or spaced armour. Based on information on Tankograd (thesovietarmourblog), the core was also changed to a tungsten alloy (WHA) to increase its toughness and density over tungsten carbide. A steel follower rod is placed behind the core to increase its penetrative power. The air gap is to allow the core and follower to maintain their terminal velocity while the body decelerated during penetration. It is intended that they will only stike the armour once the body has eroded, maximising their penetration. A thin aluminium spacer has been placed in the cavity which acts to retain the core during transport and flight, but is not strong enough to impede it during penetration. The front of the projectile features a tungsten alloy penetrating cap to increase penetration and to prevent the steel body from shattering upon impact. Its quoted that 3BM26 can penetrate 420-490mm of Rolled Homogenous Armour (RHA) at 2km, at 0°.
*The M1 Abrams armour array in the simulation has been based on diagrams available online and is likely only representative of early M1 variants or their prototypes*. More modern armour arrays remain classified. Plate thicknesses have been approximated from the diagrams and materials inferred from similar armour packages. The Non-Energetic Reactive Armour (NERA) panels have been approximated as 5.5mm HHA - 5.5mm Rubber - 5.5mm HHA, based on pixel measurements from the diagram. The High-Hardness Armour (HHA) has been modelled with a 500BHN hardness, with the front 32mm plate being 400BHN RHA, and the rear 102mm plate being 300BHN RHA. These are approximated hardnesses as the true plate properties are not known.
Documents available online show that the hull armour of the initial M1 Abrams provided about 350mm of protection against kinetic projectiles. The 3BM26 manages to penetrate the array but without a singificant residual mass; the fuel tanks and internal armour plates may have been able to absorb the residual penetrator (if it struck to the sides of the driver).
Amazing thumbnail artwork from: Evgeny Fedotov www.artstation...
Its refreshing to simulate an APFSDS projectile which isnt just a simple cylinder...
This is excelent. Love your sims.
Hi, where do you gather the info for the nera armour or chobham. Im searching info for my thesis
@@javiervb1329 On the field of course. Real life experience beats book smarts.
Could you try to reproduce the protection scheme of the Abrams tank, which is used in the Ukrainian army? For example, standard Abrams armor + dynamic protection "Contact 1"? Or instead of "Contact 1", you can try "Nizh" KHSCHKV-34 / KHSCHKV-19 ( "Ніж" ХСЧКВ-34 / ХСЧКВ-19 ).
I am sure that many people will be interested in watching such a video.
Thanks for the vid! I have an idea for another one, I thought it would be interesting to see how ERA (for example kontakt 5) works at different angles of attack, against both HEAT and APFSDS rounds. I know that ERA works best at relatively high angles and it's effectiveness diminishes at more straight angles, it would be great to see how its performance change.
I used to sit right behind that.
We're all counting our lucky stars...
Terrifying thought brother.
Spooky to think that the only real reason you'd shoot at M1's LFP was to mobility kill it by Thanos snapping the driver out of reality
This is the original M1 with 105mm and shorter turret. Only CENTCOM knows what M1A1/2 and other models have.
Yeah, glad the balloon didn't go up or we would have all died. I would have been drafted in some later wave of conscription because of my health problems. Even with that the government would have seen to it that I would get killed.
Very interesting how the first tungsten slug decimates the NERA. Reflects and/or emulates the performance of the M774 against the Leopard 2AV's turret.
The initial Abrams composite array was heavily biased towards defeating shaped charges so it makes sense. IIRC the kinetic protection was only designed to protect against 115mm APFSDS from 800m or something along those lines.
@@signs80 was it?
I say that because the Abrams while got improved with IP was likely going to face steel stuff.
Yes there was Tungsten and DU, but the Americans probably took an 115mm round from a captured Syrian tank and extrapolated to 125mm and designed around that. Its not perfect but my point is that they knew soviets had bigger guns for a while now.
@@gerfand They knew soviets had the 125mm at that point but IIRC they didn't think it was feasible with current technology to increase the protection to stop 125mm while staying under the weight limit. The design criteria was actually to protect against future 115mm APFSDS (by using tungsten 105mm that was supercharged) at 1200m and 125mm HEAT if I remember right.
@@signs80 uhn... Well it still is a good criteria, as tungsten, did not knew that.
Either way at least the armor became proof against 3BM22 as steel, US probably did not knew what they were facing on the best sabot tech
@@gerfand
@signs80 is right. BRL-1 (M1 armour) was designed with CE protection in mind. BRL-2 (M1E1, M1, M1A1) was a stopgap improvement to increase KE protection until HAP-1 of the Heavy Armo(u)r Package series came with the M1A1 HA.
"HIT" 100 silver 10exp, Driver is unconscious!
Nah, he would just turn yellow.
Топлевные баки
@@LiezAllLiez _maybe_ turn the commander yellow too if a tiny piece of rogue spall manages to make it far enough.
"Negating some of it's effectiveness" - well, the fact that it punched straight through the hull armour seems pretty effective to me, what, were we expecting it to go out the other end of the tank?
Some people actually calculate like that, and while its clear its a pretty "emotional" event for the crew, wondering if that slug is going to continue onto the engine bay and or damage other components of a hopefully recoverable vehicle doesn't hurt to speculate on.
If goes straight through its pretty useless. Happened with Tiger crew in WW2 against British or American tank, where the tiger shell went in from one side and out of other with clean holes.
what he means by that is that spreading the energy of the round laterally increases the effectiveness of armour. in this case the shell is still more than capable of penetrating. If it was the same amount of classic rolled armour it may well have gone in and straight out the back of the tank
It's basically a tandem APFSDS, that's brilliant
Has less pen than normal APFSDS but it comes in at half the cost, soviet min maxing is insane
M1 Abrams Armor today compare would be very interesting
Pls leak documents
Various three letter agencies would be interested in anyone who would have the documents about the modern Abrams armor
Time to talk smack about how Abrams armor sucks on WT forums and wait for the secret documents
Armor have depleted Uranium after the M1A1 HC model so they have better effectiveness.
@@arkadiuszrucinski2020as if they didn't had it already
Eye opening. That was brutal.
@@davidwood2205 don't fall for soviet propaganda
@@WotansCry Too bad, i always fall for Soviet Propaganda.
@@WotansCry You’ll kys when you see what happened to 20 years plus evolution of this very same tank xD
@@WotansCrysoviet union died like 60 years ago tf
Blud thinks we're in 2050 💀
Earlier soviet apfsds were so weird... The first ones literally being like fin stabilized APCR, carrying a tiny tungsten penetrator inside a large steel body.
If you think thats bad, imagine sitting in a Challenger 1/2 with no NERA on the lower front plate at all
This is what the US should have fought against in 1985 had the cold war gone hot or in 1991. Not the hopelessly outdated stuff Iraq had.
Air superiority doesn't care about front armor thickness...
@@geiers6013very true
@@geiers6013if you think air superiority is possible for both sides you're clearly wrong, both air forces will suffer tremendous casualties, NATO will never be able to rain bombs as free as they did in Iraq 1991
Even if NATO planes are better, the soviets had a larger air force, and a sophisticated interception and air defense network
The Mig-29, Su-27, later Mig-23s, and the Mig-31 are all not to be underestimated as well
Remember, the US has never fought the Soviet Air Force at it's peak
Tankers going into Iraq in 1982 were expecting a hard fight because on paper Iraqi T72s were a threat. I heard them comment on how much easier it was thanks to disruption and demoralization the Iraqi forces suffered.
@@geiers6013 Thats why the Abrams continues to not add more armor and other protection for kinetic and chemical projectiles..... Great comment.
Dayum, no wonder the Abrams was introduced to a hull down doctrine. The hull was the largest weak spot.
Hull, neck and gun mantlet are weak spots on Abrams. We were told to aim there during my army time.
@@nuraly78 Yeah, the turret ring and mantlet were pretty worrisome areas that any Russian tank can use to take down an M1. I’m guessing that most MBTs would engage each other at very large range of 2-3km, so they would be a hard time to hit
@@TheEntwicklungEnthusiast not sure about modern russian tanks. I am from Kazakhstan.
We had soviet made T-72 model 1989. We were told that APFSDS is good up to 2000m. 2000-3000m we were expected to use HEAT. Although our tanks had equipment to launch ATGMs, I haven't seen any.
We studied all major MBTs and their weak spots. But in particular we studied T-72s, ZTZ-96, Abrams and Leopards
@@nuraly78 Oh, thank you for that additional information. In particular what was discussed on russian doctrine of ranged engagement compared to western ranged engagement?
No, the largest weakspot on any tank is the lower side hull. 2/3rds of the Abram's side skirt are a ruse, just thin metal sheets, it is nothing.
now m833 vs t-80b hull
Can pen in less than 1km acording to ghpc lol
@@cykablyat123br9 are you sure? i'm pretty sure it can pen the t-80b out to like 2km or more. m833 has 490mm of pen and the t-80b only has around 400-450mm of armour on the hull.
Cuts clean through
M833 penetrates 375 mm at 2 km. T-80B’s UFP with 30 mm appliqué is equivalent to 380 mm eRHA against monobloc APFSDS. Turret is 420 mm eRHA. Numbers are very close, so it would make for a very interesting video.
@@meesamkhan4767
Numbers are meaningless.
Test report is what we have. Russian tested m111.
We know what m111 is. It is a tungsten rod.
M833 is a du rod exhibit better proportion than m111.
Against the 60-50 hull, m111 can penetrate the hull at over 1500m. With the introduction of the 16mm front plate, the penetration distance is said to be reduced to around 500m (maybe slightly less or more).
In general, at this time period (the 70s and 80s), du rod of identical geometry perform better against all practical real world target than w rod.
The exact number is fuzzy but if you really want some napkin math numbers, here it is.
M833 likely can penetrate the 60-50 hull at over 2000m. With the 16mm extra plate, the penetration distance will be reduce to around 750m.
So this is like the tandem charge equivalent to apfsds
WTF just punched clean through ...
Its the lower glacis of the hull, the turret armor is alot more effective.
@@megabazus1775 don't fall for soviet propaganda
@@WotansCry oh, you mean nato coping that other nations have good engineers too, that build effective weapons for a fraction of the cost ?
@@WotansCry these "soviet"s, are they in the same room as you?
@@campandcook3118 oh thats funny...
Every value ever reported about any russian weapon system from within Russia is to be doubted.
On many occasions russias equipment has failed to perform according to its paper specs. SAMs dont intercept, their cruise missiles dont hit as precise. Their tanks are incinerator coffins on tracks, their radars do not have the claimed reach and to cut back to this propaganda piece video here - their paper penetration values for their tank ammo regardless of type is highly overstated.
It all comes from a communist cleptocraty where lies are accepted and bribe is valid tool to achieve success.
Doubt every value they state!!
Nato Equipment - and that also shows in ukraine is MORE performand than its paper values.
Gepards From the 70s shoot down cruise missiles that are from 4 decades ahead in time.
Iris-T has so far a 100% interception rate. That means every single missile every shot from within ukraine did hit its target.
Ukraine recieved rather old Block II patriot systems and did shoot down russian hYPeRsoniC missiles...
And thats done by troops that got trained in a hurry.
Channels like this one here repeat russian vatnik wet dreams.
They continue to use those corrupt values of their weapons performance "data" sheets.
The vatnik who runs this channel might as well upload a video that shows a russian nanobot grenade defeating a Leopard 2 A8s Turret frontal armor by eating the metal...
Its fairy dust, a soap bubble filled with vatnik ass gases to make it float even better.
Bro I just Had a Dream About This Exact Simulation😂
did you dream on another leaked documents as well
Design restrictions are often what drives engineers to adopt the most creative and interesting methods, I previously didn't know the tip had W, that's interesting. Cool simulation as always.
Thanks for doing this, I always liked 3bm26 for being weird.
This may be surprising to some, but the Iraqi army did not have T-80B tanks or such shells. The T-72A tanks were already outdated by the early 1990s, not to mention the T-55.
Still seems curious that every soviet round is effective against western armor but in reality we see a lot of soviet tanks getting destroyed in direct comparison with western tanks...still something does not add up...
T-80B is slightly newer than the base M1 Abrams for one. And The 120mm can penetrate the T-80 easily too at about this range.
Because it’s not tank to tank combat anymore it’s drone/artillery/atgm vs tanks
Because the chance of an Abrams fighting a t80 in a head on 1v1 is stupidly low amd most blown up t80s are because of missiles drones and arty. Same can be said for the abrams
because in most wars its soviet tanks armed with outdated rounds against modern western tanks... in fact the only time modern russian tanks have entered combat is in ukraine and EVERYONES tanks are dying both western and eastern since the main killer of armor has always been atgms drones and arty
do your research and then come back, you still have a lot to learn about tanks.
Non-explosive Reactive Armor, meet non-explosive "tandem charge" projectile, I guess.
Interesting and education, thanks!
490 mm of penetration at 0 degrees at 2 Kilometers distance, 3BM26 is extremely good for its price and age.
Almost 5000 feet per second for those of us that use Snickers bars and 82 Regals as measuring devices
I'm wondering how kamikaze drones interact with those T tanks and whether spreading wires and ERA all over the roof helps/wont help/worsen the damage.
APFSDS - Armor Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarded Shovel
Much depends on the range, at 500 meters it will penetrate, but at a distance of more than two kilometers it will never penetrate it in the frontal projection.
That's one of the more eventful simulations you've done. Quirky armour Vs quirky projectile
We never got that M829A3 vs Relikt
It's even more interesting what 3BM32 gonna do
The idea is good but on the other hand the total lenght is much shorter, and lenght can be a key factor
That W(tungsten) sure was a W for the APFSDS
Absolutely remarkable design of an APFSDS projectile. I wonder how it would have fared on a more oblique angle, possibly a condition where the target faces presented are just the hull front at an oblique and the turret in some hypothetical hull down situation. Depending on the angle I could honestly see the APFSDS round going in and then out the return roller on the front of the tracks.
reminds me of some of the crazy missiles I used to make in Children of a dead earth
The armor on Abrams was designed with defense in mind with the assumption that by the time NATO counteroffensive happened it would be against reserve T55s because of attrition. As such lower half of the tank was poorly protected against kinetic ammunition as it would be fighting from prepared positions or reverse slopes.
The BRL-1, 2 offered roughly equal protection on the hull and turret fronts alike. Only when the HAP series began did the arrays become much more turret-centric
@@belgianfried the hull remained 350mm/BRL 1 equivalent all the way till the HA
the turret started getting upgrades since the IPM1 with a BRL2 equivalent on the turret (around 450mm)
@@geraldmuntuerto5769 As in hull to turret ratio. I also don't believe the jump in armour quality on the BRL series was that great.
Considering the situation in Ukraine i dont think they were wrong with their assumptions.
@@Phapchamp Ukraine and Russia destroyed their whole stock of like, 2,000 T-64s. Russia has negligently reduced their T-72 fleet by ~1,300 due to bad/no maintenance. Ukraine has deactivated vast amounts of its ~1,000 strong T-80 fleet due to international agreements. That alone reduces front line strength by 10% or more for the whole Soviet stock
Does the M1 Abrams lower glacis hull have depleted uranium armor?
None of them actually. Only some 50 Abrams ever had Depleted uranium armor.
If you are being served on an abrams which does not have radiation signal inside the crew compartment or you did not had to check radiation measurements during you training your tank does not have DU inside.
IE: The russians measured the abrams wrecks in Ukraine and none of them had DU.
From what i know, Abrams has DU only on the turret
No. And all of the lower glacis of the Abrams models in service have not changed till today.
only the newest sep v3 do
600 SEP v3 confirmed to have, the rest is ambiguity
That is pretty scary, because if we use 3bm60 it would destroy that in pieces
thats why tank armour has improved since
@@stephenallen4635 I’m pretty sure 3bm60/dm53 can easily penetrate even m1a2 sep v2
Is it possible to run a simulation of this round vs the highly sloped 38mm UFP?
Funny that you always show Western tanks getting hit in weak spots, but Russian tanks getting hit in the turret. I'm sure there's no ulterior motive there, right? lmao
"*The M1 Abrams armour array in the simulation has been based on diagrams available online and is likely only representative of early M1 variants or their prototypes*. More modern armour arrays remain classified"
This entire video is make-believe and he says that in the description. People fall for it though
@@joeblowe3180 Judging by the comments, A LOT of people fall for it. You're right, I think
Cry
Hi unfortunately the info on the Tankograd article was based on a misunderstanding. The core in the tail should indeed be WC and not WHA.
So the air gap retains the tungsten core for the base plate. So it’s kinda like a Fin stabilized discarding APCR.
Cant believe all of this is outdated and bygone era.
Now tank guns will be 140 to 152 mm and will engage from kilometers away.
engaging tanks from km away been there since the 60s~70s
Don’t know if your computer is capable of simulating ceramic layers in between those two, but it would be interesting to see what that would look like
Sobering.
wich program do you use for performign this simulations, i would love to recreate my own scenarios tbh
Its Ansys
Its Ansys
And this is why DU armor exists...
A clean kill
Do you know the actual classified details of either of these?
I wanna see American T34 vs Tiger II upper front plate
There is also the fact that artillery is unfair and broken to take into consideration.
This is modeling a point blank shot with zero angle. I reality at combat rang the falling angle would have made a huge differnce.
Cope
What are you basing your model of the armour on?
I would be interested to see how this would model with the introduction of a minor increase of a HHS plate somewhere in the array. It does appear that the M1E1 has a 20mm weight simulator at the front of the Hull. A minor improvement for sure. Mounted Infront of the NERA array it may have been just enough for such rounds.
The armor array of the M1A1 /IPM1 is a mystery but we have enough clues to make a guess atm.
Where is this on the tank again
Very interesting design
Does this simulation prove that composite armor is useless against APFSDS rounds?
Earlier models of NERA on the abrams are most optimized against atgms and RPGS but provide good protection against older generation armor piercing rounds. The turret is a bit stronger but these were at the time cutting edge soviet armor penetrators so the weaker hull would be unlikely to stop it with ease.
@@doobs5342 why are you phrasing it this way "the weaker hull would be unlikely to stop it with ease" 😂 what kind of cope is this, you just watched it cleanly perforate through and it isnt even the best soviet APFSDS round.
there is no "likeliness" it goes straight through irrevocably, and it cannot stop it in any manner or way.
Arnt the fins aluminum? Why do they go through 31mm of RHA?
What velocity is this test and what range is it?
Siempre me he preguntado ¿que pasaria con el plasma de una carga hueca o con la desintegración termica de una flecha KE, si el blindaje espaciado estuviera lleno no de aire, sino de un "refrigerante" como agua, plastico o incluso diesel en un tanque de combustible integrado al casco y a la torreta?
Isn’t this armor classified?
Wait, so laminated armour is largely hollow?
yes
Ну вот тут внезапно кинетику снаряда усилили так, как должно быть.
видать, что то у них там сдохло. При том, что в бою не было зафиксировано обстрелов в лобовую проекцию М1
What is the program?
what is the website name ?
whas that the abrams turret cheek?
I impressed, like armor like apfsds
Is this the armor in the export models sent to UA?
nah, the ones sent to Ukraine are better, atleast for the hulls, it is the same ones A2SEPv3, as those are just A1 hulls
(ion wanna see DU cope, they only existed in prototypes)
@@Ry-bo9hiunfortunately though the results will be the same due to better round's
@@Ry-bo9hi only used in 5 tanks for medical research which was later amended to unlimited use. Meaning DU is used in the most modern Abrams.
@@HDREal to test capability yeah, it's still cope
composite armor arrays means that just about any MBT can be fitted with a slab/s of uranium
that doesn't mean it's a good or practical idea, thats why there be only a handful of them have and the SEPv2/3 still on old-ass hulls
@@BelugaChonky real, the Abrams' hull is very limited in terms of improvement of armor, especially whenever weight is concerned
Let this be a reminder that NO tank is invulnerable. 😢
Is the NERA steel plates modelled as High Hardness Armor?
Clever design
Oh, finally!! Nadezhida!!
Wow
wow...clean
T-72 of the Iraque armour guards couldnt penetrate the M1 during the war in Iraque
wonder how harden Armour rods stacked with enough room to trap the penetrater would work you'd have enough layers stacked so it would slightly deflect the penetrater while pinching it as it slows it down
That’s believed to be how the Abrams depleted uranium armor functions
I have no doubt that this is accurate. The M1 Abrams is a formidable tank with its own strengths and weaknesses. The T-80B was top-of-the-line in 1985, so I believe it could penetrate the M1's lower hull. However, war involves much more than just tanks. The losses on both sides would have been catastrophic. That said, the Soviets would have faced significant challenges in reaching the Rhine within their 7-day timetable. I also believe NATO would have resorted to using tactical nuclear weapons, just as the Soviets intended to do. While I consider the M1 to be superior to the T-80B, there are many more complexities to consider in such a hypothetical scenario.
how is the M1/IPM1 superior to the T-80B obr 83? it loses out on armor protection FCS and even penetration... kinda only wins in terms of ergonomics and crew survivability
In general the complexities of war mean that its rare that one tank can reasonably be declared "superior" to the other. Attempts to do so usually just consist of someone taking a tank they like and a tank they don't like and rating them both based on how much they look like the tank they like. Given the opportunity, the US would not have traded the Abrams for the T-80, nor would the soviets have traded the T-80 for the Abrams. Both tanks serve their purpose within the wider doctrine of the armies they serve in.
@@geraldmuntuerto5769 reverse speed maybe, also i think that T-80 wins in ergonomics due to less crew
@@quan-uo5ws nah ergonomics is in favor of the abrams... even american tankers who are tall easily fit in the tank... meanwhile jingles couldnt fit in a T-72 when he tried
@@geraldmuntuerto5769 maybe because hes fat, the chieftain fits nicely and hes pretty tall
I still see shrapnel behind the armor. Not fully effective
"b-but hull down tank!!!!!"
Abrams would go clean through T-80B upper front plate with M833 as well. Its not a battle of armor but range.
Better than Russian death traps that’s for sure
@@Phapchamp the T-80B obr 83 has a higher threat range to the M1/IPM1 if its not hull down
but overall u shouldnt be relying on armor alone ye
@@HDREal The Americans still have not been able to come up with a projectile capable of piercing a modern Russian tank when even a 40-year-old shell pierces Abrams anywhere
@@愛を込めてロシアから lol
Can you simulate Ceramic and Depleted Uranium?
APFSDS vs Leo 2A5+ Arrowhead Armor pls?
I the tip was steel not tungsten.
Thank God they have the wrong data.
Wrong data?
А тепер спробуй з динамічним захистом
NERA = Non-Explosive Reactive (!) Armour
I love seeing Russian pages showing Russian ammo penetrating everything lmfao
this isnt even a russian channel?
@@xxcabalxx2369 it is though lmfao
'
computer animation edit video is a not real...
better go outside and test it real
always intriguing simulations : soon to be reality for all parties. In any case these cheap drones are detrimental to our tank science ( just kidding ) it is part of the cause and effect operating modes : till someone bring a real leap to the armor systems .
Drones are making tanks obsolescent. They still have their place but they are extremely vulnerable
@@crispy_338 Various laypeople and military analysts have been claiming that tanks have been made obsolete or obsolescent by the latest anti-tank technology since at least World War 2. First it was man portable anti tank weapons like the bazooka or panzerschreck. Then it was HEAT rounds. Then it was ATGMs. Then it was APFSDS rounds. Then it was precision guided munitions. Then fire and forget and top attack munitions. None of these have rendered the tank obsolete. Drones won't either. A counter to them will be developed, and then it will be onto the next thing that people claim will render tanks obsolete. Directed energy weapons? Unmanned ground vehicles? Mech suits?
Like it or not, as long as ground warfare exists, there will be a need for heavily armored mobile direct fire support.
@@MacSalterson Yes they’re needed, I never said anything about that lmao. Tanks are always on the edge of obsolescence because the development of anti-tank weapons usually outpaces the tanks reaction to these weapons. Tbh tanks are easily destroyed now unless they have a massive network of air support, infantry cover, recon, EW, and anti-mine protection. Without just a single one of these the tank is easily picked off and rendered a flaming pile of steel.
It is not going to be reality considering Ukraine only has 4-5 Abrams and they almost exclusively use Soviet vehicles.
@@Phapchamp not referring to Ukr. tanks but OTAN tanks.
Can you model a modified version (longer gap maybe?) where the core catches up at a more ideal time?
Thicc ahhhh APFSDS 😂
Young Jessica Walker Paul Anderson Kevin
Hall Michelle Harris Susan Allen Anna
Depleted Uranium is only used in the cheeks of the turret. It is not found the hull of any variant in service aside from the 5 that are used as training units in tank school.
@@velvetthundr which was later amended for unlimited use meaning DU is being used on the most modern Abrams.
Корпус абрамса:😂😂😂
Башня абрамса:💀💀💀
Советскому фугасу все равно
@@snb333советский фугас Абрамса может убить если рядом поподет
@@Pickles6988 гусля, крыша башни (попасть надо в центр) в люк мехвода
@@qurayinmyheart9797 бок, днище, зад, влд
@@Pickles6988 не, вроде у некоторых абрамсов противоминная есть
So, T-80B could somewhat reliably penetrate M1 frontally? That's something interesting!
It's strange that you're surprised.The result was predictable
I mean the T-80B really isn't a bad tank gun wise. People give Russian tanks a bad reputation because of the turret tossing but if there's something good that they do is the guns and the weight
Well nawh the Soviets made the best tank's in the cold war
Soviet tanks were superior up until mid to late 90s. T-80s would have smashed abrams. Its armor even DU was like butter for 3bm26, 3bm32, 3bm42.
I'd say it was only until the mid 80s where soviet tank were better than nato, because that was when the fall of the soviet union was (or the build up to it) and the increased corruption which lead to even worse military
M1A1HA turret stopped M829A1, the most powerful round in service
You:
DU iS lIkE bUtTeR
I would say late 80s US catched up. We were expecting to dish out and take it in equal measure. We would have taken a bad hiding no doubt. Still counting my lucky stars the balloon never went up so to speak ....
Alright you've watched enough Russia Today, go take your medication
@@somerandomboibackup6086 so did the T-80U with K-5 and the T-72B with K-5
and the M829A1 isnt exactly without peers... the DM43 which came out in 1992 and the 3BM46 which came out in 1991 were fairly comparable to the M829A1
If this is real, I don't get the point of having a 60~65 tons vehicles... I mean it's the front of the tank it should be nearly impenetrable for other land vehicles weapons.
Being unpentrable is a fantasy
T 80B ❤
Westerners make their tank's frontal hull armor stupidly weak and expect the driver to block the penetrator moment.
183mm HESH vs maus
Oh no. We should just give the Russians all our money and women right now🙄...
Women definitely shouldn't be given away🤮
I don't wanna see any US mains complaining in the comments
your asses getting mogged by top tier Italy winrates, git gud