3BM42 APFSDS-T Vs Challenger 2 Frontal Hull Armor
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.ย. 2024
- This video presents the soviet 3BM42 APFSDS-T Perforation against British Challenger 2 frontal hull armor. This video presents the various penetration angles.
Armor: Challenger 2 is a third generation British main battle tank in service with the armies of the United Kingdom and Oman.
Projectile: 3BM42 Mango is an advanced Soviet long-rod APFSDS-T round that entered service in 1986, Specifically designed to defeat modern composite (NERA) armor arrays.
Please subscribe to our channel: / @extremeengineeringsim...
Music Credits: www.bensound.com/
Other Similar Videos:
1. 125mm BM15 APFSDS Projectile Vs 250 BHN RHA #Armor Piercing Simulation
• 125mm BM15 APFSDS Proj...
2. Bullet Penetration Vs Aluminum Plate #Failed Armor Penetration
• Bullet Penetration Vs ...
3.120 mm KE M829A2 APFSDS Vs T44 Tank Armor Inclined Plate
• 120 mm KE M829 APFSDS ...
4. 7.62 NATO x 51mm Bullet Penetration on Aluminum Plate # Finite Element Analysis , Failed Penetration2
• 7.62 NATO x 51mm Bulle...
5.7.62 NATO X 50 mm Bullet Vs Armor Steel Plate # Armor Penetration Simulation
• 7.62 X 51mm NATO Bulle...
6. BM15 APFSDS Vs 250 BHN RHA #Armor Piercing Simulation
• BM15 APFSDS Vs 250 BHN...
7.Shot, fixed A.P.T 90 mm T33 Vs Reinforced Concrete and Steel Bars # Armor Piercing Ammunition
• Shot, fixed A.P.T 90 m...
8.7_62X51 mm NATO Vs Bulletproof Steel Vest #Armor Piercing Simulation
• 7.62X51 mm NATO Vs Bul...
9.120 mm M829 APFSDS Vs 125 mm BM 15 APFSDS # APFSDS Collision # Armor Piercing Simulation.
• 120 mm M829 APFSDS Vs ...
10.Low Quality Armor Vs Reinforced Concrete and Steel Bars # Armor Piercing simulation
• Bomb (Kinetic Energy P...
11. Pz Kpfw V (Panther) Tank Vs Shot, A.P., 90mm, T33 # Armor Penetration simulation
• 90 mm t33 Vs German Pz...
12.125 mm 3BM9 APFSDS-T Vs Leopard 2 # Armor Penetration Simulation
• 125 mm 3BM9 APFSDS-T V...
13. 3VBM3/3BM9 APFSDS Vs M829 APFSDS #APFSDS Collision
• 125 mm 3BM9 APFSDS Vs ...
14. APFSDS Vs NERA #Non Explosive Reactive Armor
• APFSDS Vs NERA #Non En...
15. 125 mm 3BM9 APFSDS-T Vs Leopard 2 # Armor Penetration Simulation
• 125 mm 3BM9 APFSDS-T V...
16. 105 mm APFSDS-T M900 Vs Leopard 2 # Ballistic Simulation
• 105 mm APFSDS-T M900 ...
17. 120 mm K276 APFSDS-T Vs Armour Plate #Ballistic Simulation
• 120 mm K276 APFSDS-T V...
18. 120 mm M829A2 APFSDS-T Vs Leopard 2 Turret # Armor Piercing Simulation Part-1
• 120 mm M829A2 APFSDS-T...
![Challenger 2 OES Review - Should You Buy It? Not Terrible, But Not Good [War Thunder]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WPd_wsssn5k/mqdefault.jpg)
"armour references are taken from war thunder"
Oh so it's made of tissue paper
Very strange angle of attack. In normal situation Ch2 frontal hull armor would be much more sloped as long as enemy would not fire from much higher ground.
depending on distance gravity will drag down even APFSDS so the angle is okay.
@@PiconPrimeKnight Shell drop is practically neglicable, especially for darts
Ch2 front hull armor is sloped, about 60 degrees measured from vertical plane. In theoretical scenario, tank vs tank, front vs front, no firing from the hill into the valley, angle of impact would be around 30 degrees. APFSDS trajectory is very flat, even at long distance it would not add much to impact angle. But in this simulation angle of impact is circa 60 degrees, like hull front was sloped only 30 degrees from vertical plane. In such situation armor would work as designed.
A tank cant always stay hull down.
Apfsds don't get very influenced by the slope of the armor anyway.
"Here's a totally useless video containing fictional armour". Seriously what's the point in this? Why waste your time on this other than to generate views?
It's hard to tell from the visuals, but the NERA plates do not appear to be bulging as they should. NERA works thanks to the rubber (the reactive element) pushing the front and back plates apart. This (among other things) feeds the back plate into the path of the penetrator, which is a large part of why NERA is effective against APFSDS rounds. As for the angling of the NERA packages themselves - they work best at an angle of about 70 degrees, so that aspect looks okay.
It’s gonna go through your chally easily bro…
@@profacecreator3810 No it wont lmao. The armour is taken from War Thunder. A game which never was realistic. Its not even svinets 2...
@@almightybogza Bro, 3bm42 is gonna slice through your chally's armor like butter.
@@profacecreator3810 Less War thunder and russian bias and more facts, 3bm42 mango was put into service in 1986, Russians themselves report that it penetrated less than 500mm RHA at 2km, Dorchester armor appeared in the early 90's and it was the newest and best armor pack available on the earth right next to the American Heavy armor package of the 2nd generation. You literally have to be a idiot to learn from War thunder-based armor simulations ...
@@profacecreator3810 Keep dreaming mate. Unless it hits weakspots its highly unlikely it will pen. If it hits the turret its literally imposible for the round to pen. Russians have weaker dart rounds anyway.
Construction of 3BM-42
532mm Penetrator (420 + 112)
420mm x 31mm Steel (215BHN)
420mm x 18mm WHA Core
112mm x 22mm WHA piercing cap also acting as penetrator
Muzzle Velocity: 1700m/s
Velocity at 2000m: 1530m/s
"the armor references are taken from the warthunder game" 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
link armor arrays here
it seems rather absurd that the interior plates (NERA? ) are at a rather useless angle to offer any resistance to any incoming rounds. What is the point of putting them there? As someone else mentioned this doesnt seem like the correct front hull armor angling.
Its for heat
Those composite/NERA plates are mainly for protection against HEAT projectiles. if you watch a T72a simulation You'll see that composite armor usually preforms worse than RHA against kinetic penetrators, however they do provide some spalling protection
Also the angle of the round impact probably worsened the protection offered from the plates
@@76456 Your missing the point.
If the plates are not arranged 90deg from the incoming projectile or blast they aren't going to do anything.
Look at a Leo 2A6, it has multiple plates arranged vertically so a shot coming in horizontally from the front has to punch through all the plates to get to the actual turret armor.
The plates in this demo are placed edge toward the incoming projectile and that is wrong. Instead of the projectile having to punch through all the plates it just slides between them. The projectile should have to go through the plates. I understand that there is a plastic filler between the plates to help dissipate HEAT round. But the metal plates are not arranged to offer any resistance to a long rod penetrator.
@@Anlushac11 there not metal there rubber. So no no matter what there will be almost no effect on a kinetic energy weapon only the steel is effective or tungsten/Du found in abrams armour aluminum would help slightly but over in modern tanks kinetic energy protection is pretty low on the bar due to so many heat projectiles flying around really the only thing firing armour piercing is other tanks. And assume a standard battle ground your talking a couple hundred tanks at most vs several to 10k plus infantry assuming a each squad has 1 heat round for every 2 guys so your talking odds of 5/1 at best of taking a heat round over a kinetic energy round. Not even including attack helicopters and ifvs. So at worst could be 100-1 odds in many situations of modern warfare. And you can't have a 150 ton monster made of solid Du and steel so you have to make a compromise use light weight materials proven to stop heat rounds. Aka a thin peice of metal (5mm ish) with a thick peice of rubber and another peice of thin metal encased in roughly on average 150-300mm of rha steel and in some cases as stated with DU or tungsten of some sort mashed in there magically to be better at stopping kinetic energy or in Russias case lots of era... more era then you can shake a stick at. And some very piss pour armour behind it in most cases infsct id argue take the era off every single Russian tank besides t14(can't comment due too nothing being known about it truely) are the worst armoured vehicles in the world they might as well be scrap
@@Anlushac11 the model is curret how coul they have many layers in sich a small space.
They wpuld have to be thin, or be only one, very thick.
They choose to angle a plate, you can see the projectile hts an entire layer.
If you dont like it, blame the british who did a bad design fpr AP.
the back plate is 50mm not 80mm, and the tank has a 50mm dorchester backingplate for mounting, so it should be 50mm - nera - 50mm - 50mm, hull is at 60 degrees, why is the nera angled so much that it becomes irrelevant, is that intentional? also the nera is 200mm thick.
60 degree
The 80 mm back plate is the chieftain tank hull armor.
@@markcorrigan3930 it’s not, the hull is new build, it’s a flat 80mm plate shown here: i.imgur.com/MwEpUVB.jpg
Your composition of Dorchester 2 is completely wrong. There is no empty space.
Hardened Ceramic matrix are what fill the voids.
It is a solid block of High hardness rolled steel. Ceramic and composite.
This is incorrect on a couple of fronts. Firstly, NERA arrays need air gaps to work. Secondly, encased ceramic armour arrays are generally the stuff of breathless reporting, while steel and rubber NERA arrays have been the main form of composite armour in Western tanks for decades.
@@sangomasmith: NERA arrays use Air as a way to save weight. Over the equivalent solid steel counterpart in achieving Depth over HEAT jets and allowing deviation of the projectiles vector.
Soviet arrays don’t have any air gaps.
Dorchester (not Cobham as seen in this video) was the development of a more dense array; in order to combat modern threats.
As this simulation shows; it fucking sucks ass because there is nothing to shatter and deviate the Rod.
In order to Deviate or shatter a tungsten or depleted uranium rod. You need something of equivalent density.
Dorchester achieves it with Silicone Carbide disks layered in Graphene. Wedged between rubber and steel.
Burlington achieves it with Depleted uranium disks sandwiched between rubber and steel.
Do you really think the most complicated armours known to man are literally just fucking steel plates and thin air?
This is effectively just Toddler still brew.
You’re really talking out of your arse.
@@jugganaut33 The certainty of the ignorant is always fascinating. Go and look at the publicly-available photos of Leopard 2, Abrams at al. Go read the actual literature on the topic. NERA is what it says on the tin: a non-explosive reactive armour array, made up of highly-angled bulging cassettes. You need the air gaps to allow the plates to bulge. This childish idea that mass-produced armour for mass-produced vehicles is some sort of super-material made from magic ceramic composites is just false. Most of your boxy, western armour is just that: boxes with stacks of highly angled sandwich plates inside.
@@sangomasmith its especially funny because what makes leopard 2s turret (A5 and upwards) nearly impenetrable is literally just a 1m air gap with some highly angled rha plates in front
@@sangomasmith Seems to be this way up until recently. Even if ceramics are used, they are only a part of the array. I suspect that the M1IP and M1A1 incorperated ceramics into the arrays as the described "KE backpacks" made of high density material.
could you do 3bm60 against leo2a6 frontal turret or hull please?
So this simulation is assuming Dorchester is the same composition as the original Chobham developed 2 decades prior. The original; Chobham was indeed just a series of steel and polymer plates as we know via the documents released to the British national archives in 2009. There is no reason to believe that Dorchester resembles that armour, especially considering the original composition is declassified information. Also, to note. Dorchester's level 2 refers to add on armour packages. The internal armour is Dorchester level 1.
They are all shite
Most of the projectile comes through the other side. I guess this means that if the actual armour is 50% thicker, the projectile will likely penetrate.
3bm42 is not penetrating thats all im saying
Penetration not linear with distance or speed.
That can also mean that the simulation isn't very accurate.
I believe Chobham is a form of cermet (metal-ceramic composite). It is a material which has fracture properties like a ceramic, but once the energy is dissipated it will form back into a solid thanks to the metal component. An odd property of ceramics is that they are unable to fracture across other fracture-lines, so if a 2nd round hits in the same place it will just make the fractures smaller and smaller until its essentially dust, while still absorbing the same energy or even more energy sometimes.
Cermets also have some pretty cool properties related to their how "bouncy" they are, so they are sometimes used for the tips of golfclubs.
(This is unclassified, though not widely known. I studied chemistry.)
Oh Jesus, be careful if you are correct, the MI5 and MI6 might get you
You are 100% wrong
@@markcorrigan3930 explain
@@officerjuggernautgaming all modern western and russian special/composite armor is metal. No other material is useful for armor. The russians used ceramic or glass for part of the armor in older tanks but no more. Modern armor is Non explosive reactive armor. Which means metal with plastic that expand the plate armor but dont contribute to the armor.
Stick to playing your games Mr Corrigan. Your ignorance is outstanding. 😂😂
why the angle of collision isnt 60° as UFP constructed?
It is just a test of a 90 degree sim. Normally the performance of proyectiles are tested in 90 60 and 30 degrees
@@ser43_OLDC you wouldnt get a 90 degree angle on a test from the tank when the armor is built at a 60 degree angle unless the enemy was above them a significant amount
@@masterhacker7065 is just a test buddy
The simulation looks great , but there are so many unknown variables involved , relating to the actual armour package , as to make it meaningless .
Why create a simulation when you have no actual knowlege of the armour? The fundimental premise is flawed making your simulation completly imaginary.
why do you say that? because the armor failed and was penetrated?
M774 vs Chally 2 Front Armor next? Kinda want to know it.
Chally haha
No ceramic plates, no party.
In war thunder nera 200mm, not 150mm, mistake
Remind me not buy my tanks from a computer game... They appear to have plasticine armour.
Remember to always take these tests with a pinch of salt, armour is classified for good reason and as he says in the video this is based on information from War Thunder.
They also got the information from War Thunder wrong as well
This 100%
I’m just glad this channel actually tells everyone it’s from War Thunder specs vs the others that don’t and try to play it as the actual specs. In my opinion the only tanks that are accurate in war thunder are 1970s and older maybe 1960s and older.
Dumb question. What software is this and how do you download it?
"NERA" really just refers to the plastic or rubber sandwich which expands when it gets hit and disrupts HEAT jets.
The entire armour assembly is just called a composite array, or if there were no gaps and the armour was just bonded in layers, it would be a laminate.
I think War thunder over-uses the term NERA.
Guys, you all forgot that Challenger 2 has the biggest lower front part if compared to modern tanks from other nations. I really don’t understand why someone should aim at upper front part, if lower one isn’t reinforced at all, there is just ~80 mm plate.
real life is not a game, the gunner does not aim at the weakspots on battlefield, he simply places the crosshair in the center of the enemy vehicle, lase and opens fire - maybe it will hit the turret, maybe the hull ...
The long distance from the target, sight magnification and the time on the battlefield do not allow you to aim at the weakspots. Also, the British started installing a thick Dorchester armor block on the lower plate after 2006, so it's not a weakspot and will always be equipped with it before going on missions.
@@Viktor-fl5mv sure the gunner aint aiming but chally 2 still has the largest LFP making it easier to hit out of any other tank. the UFP itself is not even that good and will be penned by any modern APFSDS. it has a massive weakspot in the middle of the UFP too thats larger than those on russian tanks which will also be easily penned. and 1/3 of its turret is mantlet which has shit armor and can be penned by anything also.
@@Phantom-bh5ru warthunder is not a source
@@Olip87 which part of what I said comes from warthunder? Rub your last 2 brain cells together.
those plates are angled in a very weird way and I feel would be completely useless in stopping anything that isn't fired from directly above the tank.
Pointless simulation since you have no idea as to the actual composition of Dorchester. And even if you were able to model it accurately it means nothing without providing range data.
What mesh did you use? and what was its density size?
Chopham is old, Dorchester is their new composite armor, apparently big diff.
The model is all wrong, your 60deg for front and back plate should be from vertical not horizontal. IRL the LOS thickness of the armour is approx 1000mm and the composite layers parallel with front/back plate.
Один вопросик автору....С какого такого чуда, 3БМ42 выпущен с вертолета и прилетел с высоты в 5 км без угла во фронтальную броню Челленджера? Где угол наклона корпуса?))
Considering the only thing that’s been able to destroy one so far is another challenger. I beg to differ
What must be realised is that no challenger mk1 or 2 have been subject to K Kill. There have been several Mobility kills but all the crews were uninjured.
Yeah because they didnt receive any tank fire duh
In Iraq a Challenger II front plate was perforated by a rpg-29 warhead and the driver was serious injuried (lost his foot). It's a well documented story.
Never faced an kinetic arrow but just Yellow charge rpg.
That's cap, once a challenger 2 got hit by an RPG 29 from the front and the driver was mawed, so crew members were killed on challenger 2s
@@TrsIT-jn7oh Its Because the lower plate is like 50 mm. they tried to fix that with upgrades. However not the entire fleet has them and most that got upgraded only got heat protection.
does it even matter testing the hull armor when theres a massive shoot here slot that has no composite protection?
wtf is that angle of attack supposed to be
There’s farm more armor behind that plus it’s a higher degree of angle than that
please tell what program you are using
Sure. Dream on.
waht program do yuou use
Can you make simulation M6A1 APHE ~100m vs Churchill VII front armor
Looks like most of the time, the russian armour wins and western armour looses. While in iraq, it was the ither way around
A bit of a Meh simulation sorry to say. I expect these take a lot of set up. The fact the NERA is nothing like what is even rumoured to be in Dorchester makes it a bit useless. I really doubt that the armour would not erode the penetrator or divert it significantly.
Can it stop the Maus shell?
I thought there were meant to be pre-compressed ceramic layers in there.
I'm also assuming that the designers would have had Mango in mind when designing the armour, so we could probably assume it's Mango-proof, and then find a combination of layers that can resist that round.
They say nothing that i can tell of distance? Or maybe im over looking something......
so, would the round have been fired from a Russian tank flying overhead? maybe next you can simulate the top of a T-90MS turret versus an M829
Hate to break it to you but nothing will penetrate Dorchester.
Wow absolutely no shrapnell just the round thats a very good fail safe
What means RHA?
What is the hardness of nera plates?
That armour is definitely not accurate warthundrr is not an accurate representation of armour also the attack angle Is wrong it wouldn't come in at a 90degree flat on angle in a realistic environment
No one knows what the armour is made of. We cannot state if its accurate or not. The same issue that the video has. Its only tanks like the T72/T80 were everyone know how they are made.
What is the name of the music?
Are you able to simulate ceramic
Chally 2 doesn't even use Chobham, it uses Dorchester which is a highly refined development of Chobham. In addition the angle of attack shows C2 armour to be near flat and vertical which is isn't
Theres also supposedly ceramic in the armor
Very realistic.
Figures, there goes my tax dollars waisted on a senseless war.
What if the challenger tank were fitted with ERA ?
That is interesting. It's safe to assume that the actual armor has some strange properties (hence it being classified), but at the same time, this round was developed in like the mid 80's, so I'm sure the Russkies also updated it. Very interesting work.
Только хотел сказать, передовой снаряд МАНГО легко пробьёт!
It has not really, both western and russian "special" armor is ALL metal. The plastic is to space, expand and hold the parts togheter only. NERA is reactive explosive armor without explosive, the "explosive" part is the plastic that expands. The only special material is that the nera thin plates might be of very high hardness. Also the challenger base hull armor seems to be that of the chieftain tank, hence 82 mm armor sloped at 70 degrees.
@@markcorrigan3930 это понятно, помимо 3бм42 есть 3бм60 смысл в том, что универсальной защиты против бопсов просто нет в природе. Пока что нет.
@@markcorrigan3930 The 'secret' part of Chobham/Dorchester is the ceramic/heavy metal layers. Challenger 1 is of welded plate construction other than the turret front, Chieftain is mostly cast steel.
@@markcorrigan3930NERA says it all here. Non Explosive REACTIVE Armour. It cannot be a solid plate if it does not react. If I remember correctly Chobham consists of several layers of this NERA material wedged between steel plates, and Dorchester is a (heavily classified) improvement of that.
It's a assumed that the challenger 2s hull has over 500mm of Kinetic protection, there aren't many tanks with as much armour as the challenger 2
Because that is translated in more weight
There aren’t also many tank with as much slow mobility as the challenger 2
@@profacecreator3810 that's a rather big overexertion , I could probably name 30 off the top of my head
@@rotoface5469 Yeah Leopard 2A7V for example around 700-800mm upper and middle hull and 400-500 lower hull. Turret is more or less impenetrable frontally. Challenger has good armour but that the lower front plate is just 50mm or 100mm raw rha is a bit stupid. I mean i get it you not that likely to get hit there but a Tiger I from 1942 could penetrate the Challenger frontally...
@@rotoface5469 LMAO in terms of MBTS it's literally the slowest...
I'm still waiting for my armor suggestion vs 3BM59 round from 1km. The armor specs (simple version angled in 45°) is: 50mm steel 500 bhn, 50mm boron/tungsten carbide, 25mm 600bhn steel, 30mm uhmwpe, 50mm steel 600bhn.
In real life the composite armour layers are parrallel with the front/back plate.
APFSDS vs. 100 meters of ballistic gel.
Imagine technology got so advanced that these simulations can happen in real time in a video game
they can't
the game uses precomputed values, a simulation like this still need a fair bit of time even on a beefy PC
Now meybe uranium apfsdst vs t90a frontal armor ?
J m not speak english😁
cool simulation but ridiculous angle, the Challenger 2 has a highly angled UFP and you've shot it from above, which wont happen unless the enemy tank is flying lol
highly angled is the Abrams Upper front plate which is like 83 degrees. challeneger 2 is not more than 70 degrees
@@HelminthCombos Abrams upper plate is just steel, i'm talking above the drivers head. Most modern APFSDS will pen if hit, it is hard to hit though.
Now we have to wait for that guy who leaked the Chally 2 files on WT to leak it on here a second time making a big fuss about how it’s not accurate
LOL i remember that. He posted shit showing the mantle is way better protected than in the game.
I love the slow, lumbering, awkward chally. It's extra stunted apfsds gets extra penetration points via the rifled barrel. And you can shoot hesh out of it, too. It has amazing winchester armor that is made of diamond nanotubes and mithril carbide. Did you know ths controls of the weapon system are modeled after video game controllers? It means that you can easily master it like War Thunder. Also the controls allow one to simulate the same video game experience. To such a degree that you can pretend that you are using a better tank than the challenger. Similar to War Thunder.
I liked my own comment
That one too
Dont need meds when I am protected by a tank made of varangian steel and literal diamond anvil cells themselves. Chally number one! You can drink tea in it!!!
The rifled barrel doesnt give the apfsds more pen it just complicates the construction the apfsds itself, as well as reducing barrel life
Was being weird and having fun. I just enjoy chally fanbois always talking about their dorchester armor and shit.
Too bad there's not a declassified ballistics chart for something other than point blank velocities.
Do leclerc tank armor pls
That does not look sloped at all
Does the Challenger 2 use ERA armor?
No it uses nera
It can use era and has on deployments but it is only for HEAT round protection and not for apfsds
ERA is included in the TES package, which is installed on CR2 when it goes on missions.
Challenger II withstood 14 RPG 3 hits is Iraq! Drove back to HQ for minor repair.
Russia has developed New rounds since then.
Wow i dont know if 3bm42 from russian can easily defeat modern western tank.
I remember someone leaked classified documents on the armour, could try using those to find the proper layout.
That was just the mantlet.
@@gotanon9659 Ye, the upper mantlet right? The could the proper armour profile and plate layout and use that.
@@wulfleyn6498 Mantlet isn't on the Hull it's the armoured part that surrounds the gun, it would not change anything in this simulation (which is quite bad btw).
@@tigertank1819 Ah, ye, the upper glasis was it?
@@wulfleyn6498 No, Upper Glasis would be the upper front plate of the tanks Hull, again, the leaked document was for the tanks gun mantlet which is a part of the turret that rotates up and down with the main cannon, it literally has nothing to do with the armour of the Hull at all and would change absolutely nothing.
Lol the exact armour thickness wont be classified for lomg knowing wt community
It's been classified for over thirty years.
rename XD to Extreme wrong Engineering Simulation
I would like to see on your simulation how the 3BM69 or 3BM59 would behave vs this high-end NERA armor configuration, angled in 45º (armor config measures will be detailed in 90º you then angle it to 45º on ANSYS).
50mm UHSS or UHHS steel + 5mm rubber + 60mm boron carbide + 5mm rubber + 30mm UHMWPE + 5mm rubber + 50mm UHSS or UHHS steel + 5mm rubber + 30mm aramid + 60mm boron carbide + 5mm rubber + 50mm UHSS or UHHS steel.
Many thanks!
3BM-69/70 vacuum isn’t even in service and the final design isn’t even set in stone.
The best Russia has is 3BM-59 Svinets-1 which is DU and then the export version 3BM-60 Svinets-2 which is a Tungsten copy.
According to the designers of 3BM-59/60 at army expo 2019
3BM-60 (1660ms at 0m / 1530ms at 2km)
Penetrates 300mm @ 2km at 60 degrees (600 LOS) of 260BHN steel
3VBM?/3BM69 "Vacuum-1"
Uses a new sabot. Reported to be uranium alloy. For use on 2A82-1M cannon on T-14 Armata.[7][8]
Country of origin: Russia
Projectile dimension: ?
Round weight: ?
Projectile weight (including sabot): ?
Projectile weight: estimated 11 kg
Muzzle velocity: 2050 m/s[7]
Muzzle energy: 15-24 MJ[7] (described 15MJ probably refer to high-explosive shell)
Penetration: 1,000 mm at 0° at 2000m[7] @@janflorovic5880
what a load of horseshit, 3bm42 shouldn't be able to penetrate that normally. The angle is way too high as well which is probably why.
Ok, now this is stupid.
The amount of cope in the comment section is hilarious
"nooo reeee chally armour better than Russian shell"
Drones pose most danger.
Hovering above at x feet in the sky loaded up with bomb's and rockets into the thin armour over the engine and turret hatch 🐣🐣🐣🐣🐣🐣
Algorithm.
WT MOMENT
even if this aint actual chally 2 armor just know that chally 2 hull armor aint all that good and will be easily penned by any modern projectile. its 500mm kn at best
Come on, it's not plastic.
It's Silicon carbide or Aluminium oxide.
☹
I just don't buy it. 😂
Worlds first APFSDS Vs Maus.
add reactive armor to check if it can stop 3BM42
The ufp of the chally 2 doesn't use era and the era from the lfp is purely for HEAT round stopping
ERA is pretty useless against apfsds. In a perfect situation they might degrade the projectile by around 25-30%
-1
well i remember being told the turret took 12 shots from an abrams during testing without penetration
Turrets are usually quite a fair bit stronger than the hull, especially on Western tanks.
not surprising. turrets on modern MBTs are literally their strongest parts designed specifically to take the shots of other MBTs. saying that one tanks turret can survive a shit from another is BARE requirement nothing to be proud of.
One dead challenger
Soviet tanks are far superior
Lmao.
I think you need to go easy with that crack pipe.
Wow if russian bots are here it means this channel getting popular, that compliment 😁🇵🇱🇺🇦🇪🇸
Soviet tanks have been completely destroyed in almost every conflict they’ve taken part in
in flying turret competitions
@@Viktor-fl5mv, Soviet tanks are fighting more often, and Leopard-2 also threw turrets in Syria
I´ve seen Challenger 2 Tanks fighting against 3BM60 rounds and they just Shattert on the Front Hull in Ukraine, They tried to kill this Tank with Kornet Rockets 5 times just didnt Scratched him, in Iraq 1 Chally 2 fight over 16 Hours against over 35 enemy Tanks who fired with 3BM11 Rounds, 3BM42 Rounds into his Armor, the Tank got tracked from an Mine and even the Rounds canot enter the Side Dorchester Block Armor they just got eaten and done Nothing, the Tank Suvived around 78 Afsds Rounds and the Crew after this Drived this Tank Save home and 5 Hours later they where going on Routine again. Another Challenger 2 Fightet against over 100 Insurgents they tried to kill this Tank with Anti Tank Weaponery like RPF7/74, Tow 2 Rockets and even some Experts analyses Rocket hits from Mi Helicopters on the Front and Roof Protection. The Tank fight over 14 Hours against them and was covered later from Artillery Barages and got driven Home save. In the Bovington Museum you can read a lot of History about this Tank and his Performance. The Challenger 2 has Different Armor Values with the Improved Variants of the Tank. So the Standart Chally 2 and 2E and the First Iraq Variant with Upgraded Romor Armor has around they where not Specific but with a little bit Physic you can calculate it from allone the Power of the Armor from Front upper Hull and Turret front and Side etc. The First Variants wich include theese 3 i read down. In the Lower Hull without any Reactive Explosive Romor Armor was 70-150mm Steel and Nera Plates wich defeat a lot of Projectiles even Rpg7 Hits wich Penetrate a Beton Wall with over 500mm Thickness. The Nera Componets saved 1 Time an Challenger 2 Driver source Bovington Museum even Wikipedia and some other Pages on the Internet. The Front Hull Armor with 2F Level are around 50mm Steel Plate 200-400mm Nera Armor and 80mm Steel Plate. the Power from the Armor is around 500mm-550mm against Apfsds Projectiles. so even an 3BM46 isnt able to Penetrate the Plate cause the Firepwer from the 3Bm46 is around 540mm and this Firepower Penetratet and Challenger 1 Hull btw. in Test Simulations wich the British Army deside to do to Improve the Armor for the Next Gen Tank. Source Bovington Museum. The Turret Armor idk anything even with Mathematiks and Physik but I think is maybe around 900mm against Apfsds. Short Information, Dorchester Armor is Twice as Strong as Chobham Armor against He Projectiles and Half Times stronger against Ap. Even its 2 Times stronger then Steel Armor Against Ap and 6-8 Times stronger against He. The Dorchester Armor against He is and Unbreakable Rekord until Today not even Tungsten or Relict is stronger. But anyways Back to the Upgrades for the Armor Parts wich Comes with the Challenger 2F The Armor parts got Upgraded with Wolframm, Siliziumcarbonat and Uranium. This increased the Armor with around 400mm-450mm Protection against Ap Round and over 1000mm against He Rounds. The Armor got Testet and not even after the Germans revealed their DM63 Round they didnt Penetrated the Front Hull Armor source is the Bovington Museum they have an Statistic Plate where they explain how the Armor works, Even the Book Challenger 2 explain a lot how the Armor works before and after the Upgrades. The Hull Armor got with this Upgrade increased up to 900mm-950mm against Ap Rounds, the Turret Armor got the Same Upgrade for front and Sides. Wich Means nothing fired from a Tank not even the Newest Tanks can Penetrate the Fron Turret Armor. Maybe Double Penetrators like the M829A4 or the DM63A1, not in use DM73, they didnt tested this out but as I know with the Challenger 3 new Armor nothing Penetrate the Armor Parts when we Speak about Penetration as I know I dont have sources for the Chally 3 Armor cause its Generation 4 Armor so yeah I mean Dorchester Armor is Generation 2 Armor and that means a lot cause as I know is the Armor for the Challenger 3 Armor wich is 2-4 Times stronger then Dorchester Armor against Ap and He wich Mean Hell dude a lot. But back to the 2. The Armor Increases Shown in the Ukraine a lot cause even without the Dorchester side Block non reactive explosive Armor the Tank just survive Hits into the Side wich is Armored too with Dorchester Plates in the Inside and Spall Liners wich Covers from the Front Hull until to the Engine the entire Hull Armor and Turret armor too exapt the Turret Ring as I know Source same as the Other Sources too and Official British Armor Dokuments about Values. In the Official List you can find a lot about Abrams, Leo and a lot of other Modern MBT, IFV etc when you want a Link send me and Request when you interested in this. So the Challenger 2 wich got Killed in Ukrain after I have to lie 30 Years of Service form over 4 Kamikaze Drones was the First Challenger 2 who got destroyed from Enemy Fire. In my Opinion the Challenger 2 is the Savest MBT in this World, He fought around 8 Years in the Iraq and around 6 Years in Cosovo and in Oman over 15 Years. Alsmost against weaponery any Tank today fought. After the Battle in Ukraine from the 1 Challenger wich all 6 Crews Members btw Survived btw. The Tank is an Old Legend and a lot of Tanks not even come close to this Immense Power in my Opinion exapt the Leo 2 Tanks cause they Insane too. The Sources I have are from Bovington Museum, from 2 Books about the Chally 2, Sources from Ukraine I see with my Own eyes as a Soldier but I cant proove them, Test Videos are rare to find but they shown a lot in the Bovington Museum about this. Tank Shows maybe you can find some sources in England, Nato Training Standarts explains maybe a Lot about the Skill the Crews use their Tanks from different Countrys in Europe or Nato include. But when you want some Sources About the Armor ask me if you Interested cause I dont send links. I dont want the Risk to get Banned. Thx for reading.
So easy, my t 80 happy
Членинджер 2 самый слабый танк из линейки танков НАТО. Почему пивные и рыбные любители оскорбляются этим фактом мне неведомо, но британские танки на протяжении всей истории были самыми слабыми и с неадекватной концепцией применения.
Every time it's a Western vehicle not performing - you'll see countless cope posts. Very interesting.
is this where Putin get is facts from??? 😆 " Nato tanks wills burn like any other . LOLOLL
They will. Are you vaccinated by any chance?
@@v4skunk739 you must be gay.why are you gay?