I was thinking of making some estimates of equivalent protection or mass efficiency, but it's hard to compare the performance of a projectile with the core for such armor and uniform armor plate. The core is quickly neutralized by shattering, but has its effect on penetration, making it easier for the steel penetrator to penetrate the first layers of armor.
It would be great to see the penetration potential of Soviet ATGM over the Leopard 2 front armor like this, to settle the turret blowing of Leopard 2 in Syria in their war with Turkey.
@@michaelbelonio3342The blown apart Turkish Leo's were destroyed either by the Turkish air force to prevent capture or by the Kurds with tons of explosives. There's simply not enough explosives inside a Leopard to cause such catastrophic damage as we've seen in those photographs. What's more, NATO ammunition uses insensitive propellant, it doesn't blow up when it catches fire. So that leaves only the HE shells' warhead as a potential cause for an explosion, and there's not enough kaboom in there to even dislodge the turret let alone rip apart the hull like it was hit by a naval canon.
As I understand it, at the moment Leopards cannot be considered seriously armored vehicles at all. At least look at the photo where they were broken just by jumping on the roof.
@@TheJohn_Highway Do you live in Europe? Do you understand that you live in a total lie? You literally put in jail for an opinion different from the statements of your masters. No, the Leopard is a lightly armored vehicle. Both the T-90 and Abrams are much better protected - and there are banal mathematical reasons for that.
@@MultiNike79 You sure thats not Russia youre talking about? Who gets jailed for a different opinion? And what "masters" are you talking about? If you know so much more about the truth, please explain and inform me, I'm genuinely curious
@@MultiNike79 you idiots literally let your government take you away in vans for protesting against the war. Congrats on having the half the rights Americans had half a decade ago 👑
Think of it as “deflecting” the shot, the armor is forcing the penetrator to waste energy by moving it’s direction, thus lowering it’s chances of penetrating the turret.
@@gremie442 Look at the figures given in the vid. All the plates are relatively thin. It's the spacing arrangement and angling that makes them hard to pen.
Can't stop watching these vids yet in real life every damaged/destroyed tank I've seen was the victim of anything but a hit from another tank. Landmines, artillery, ATGM's and FPV drones are the real threat.
Are the real threat *now* . There were no loitering drones in the 80s. And if you look at the latest Leopard 2 variant they very well adapted to the new enviroment. Extra roof and side armor, APS and mine protection plates. The sword changes and so does the shield. Also if you are looking for _plenty_ of tanks taken out by other tanks take a look at Desert Storm.
it's worth mentioning that there could well be a degree of survivorship bias here. Is it really that the threat to tanks is from mines and drones and such, or is it that the armour is doing it's job against enemy tanks. I suspect ATGMs and drones and such account for the vast majority of tank kills in Ukraine partly because of their effectiveness, partly because tanks are geared primarily towards surviving other tanks, and partly because there's a shortage of tanks on both sides and the tanks that are available are designed to be the best protected against tank-fire, as opposed to a top-attack munition like a Javelin or Drone.
@@daredemontriple6 Are there any proofs that Javelin was able to knock something out at all? I have not seen any such video. A significant problem is the cluster homing projectiles used by Russia and NATO. But it is not yet clear how to defend against them. The leopard is most vulnerable to them.
@MultiNike79 I'm not sure there's any 'proof' as such, at least not publicly available, but there's been hundreds of tanks knocked out and reportedly by AT teams armed with Javelins. I don't think anyone's doubting Javelin's effectiveness. It has proven to be very effective in testing against modern threats, let alone whatever 40 year old kit (and older even!) the Russians are resorting to now. As for cluster homing munitions, I've never heard of them. Closest thing to that I know of is the British Starstreak system, but that's more of a guided missile with a scatter warhead. Either way, I doubt that either side is using them in any great number, if they even exist. Russia is struggling to produce enough cruise missiles to satiate its needs, even with ramped up production. As for Leopard being the most vulnerable to such a weapon - any reason you say that? It seems to me like T-90s and T-72s are all around less protected than Western armour. T-80 late models such as UM and BVM are probably the most comparable to say Leopard 2A7, but still likely not as well protected. And before anyone says "What about the T-14?", if T-14 was any good, it would have been deployed by now. Clearly, it's got a lot of issues and likely does not have very high survivability. It's all bark and no bite. A showpiece meant to demonstrate that Russia can still compete with the West and has very modern designs - but Ukraine has demonstrated otherwise
No, against the T-62. The first generation of shells for the T-72 really could not penetrate the Leo2, but all subsequent ones could do it. In addition, the T-72 obviously has a larger radius of destruction than the Leopards.
The armor requirement is simply "Russian presumed next generation tank mounted anti tank gun at roughly combat distance". What that translated to is using a penetrator similar to m735 (the prototype version for mbt70 152mm gun) at roughly 1500m/s.
@@MultiNike79Leopard 2 is superior to T-72 in everything! What's that mumbling about a bigger destruction zone?? The Rheinmetal L44 is more powerfull than that on the T-Series Tanks. And its sensor array is much better too. Also first hit chance is at 96% on Leopard 2 ->while on the move! There is nothing absolutely nothing where a T-72 would beat a Leopard 2... Except if course Turret tossing .. Leopard 2 fails to do that entirely..
@@AKUJIVALDOTurkish leopards were hit with ambushes with ATGMS and suffered from poorly trained crews and improper combined arms tactics often sent into combat alone
Since you've done railgun and relativistic-speed impact simulations, it would be interesting to compare the effects of big+slow vs light+fast projectiles with the same kinetic energy on the same armor. For example, as far as I have calculated, Yamato main gun shell had a little below 450 MJ of energy (780 m/s, 1460 kg), and the same energy is posessed by a 1g projectile flying at 1000 km/s if i am not mistaken. Would be interesting to see if the damage is somehow comparable due to energy being same.
I think the curve is going to go up very quickly at first, level off at about 1.5-2.5 km/s, drop off as energy lost in shattering weakens the performance, and stabilize for awhile as the projectile essentially just explodes spherically on impact beyond a certain speed. However, as the speed gets even higher, the projectile will begin to clip through the target as each atom acts more like penetrating radiation. At this point, the projectile's penetration is determined almost solely by its speed and composition rather than its energy. As things get increasingly relativistic though, fusion-inducing nuclear collisions may become an issue, and at even higher speeds, collisions with nucleii cause a narrow cone of radiation shower from relativistic momentum transfer, losing something like 0.1% of the momentum of the particle per collision. Even so, cosmic rays are detectable from a submarine, so it's possible that you can get very impressive levels of penetration at Oh My God particle level speeds. Potentially kilometers but it is somewhat random. At some point though, the damage will start getting less impressive. A .30 cal airgun round and the OMG particle have similar energies, but I suspect that the damage from being shot in the torso by a Hatsan Blitz is much worse than being run through by a single very angry proton which might not even hit a single nucleus on its way through you, and wouldn't seriously injure you if it did (because even ejecta cascade is going too fast to interact with you). Things probably get a bit weirder if you begin to demand speeds faster than the speed at which a single nucleon can contain the energy if your projectile. Leptons do not behave in the same way and Neutrinos especially don't behave in the same way. Obviously Photons function on a completely different basis as they just move at C and don't experience any time, but beyond a certain point (roughly kinetic energy equivalent to 1000 lb of TNT) a photon's frequency would reach the point where it is below the Planck length, and below the radius of the event horizon for a black hole of equivalent energy. From an external perspective, putting the kinetic energy of the Gustav gun or the planes from 9/11 into a single photon would cause odd effects, likely including the development of an event horizon from the perspective of an external observer. How the projectile becoming a lightspeed Kugelblitz black hole effects penetration is hard to predict, but only relevant for projectiles at Gustav gun level energies and above.
@@petersmythe6462 Wow, thanks much kind sir Einstein, i did not expect such a detailed analysis. Really interesting. So for the sake of pure damage it may be better to stop at lower speeds and instead increase the mass (if we don't count those possible tiny thermonuclear explosions from high-speed impacts)?
How similar is this armour profile to Leopard 2A4? How might it withstand more modern 3BM42 Mango that is commonly being used in tanks on both sides of Ukraine conflict?
AV had weaker and lighter armor array compared to production variant of 2a4, also mango at that angle would most likely penetrate 2a4 cheek but at face forward angle im not so sure propably not especially at realistic for tank engagement ranges
@@jPlanerv2 Early 2A4 had almost same armor as 2Vs, only later production runs actually received updated "Chobham" armor plates.. so in reality, there are two different 2A4s out there.. those with early armor package, and those with late armor package..
@@joe125ful that's not true. it is different from spaced armour, which is supposed to prevent heat from impacting on the main armour. it is harder to exit and re-enter the same material several times over than to perforate a homogenous rolled plate.
It’s a crude comparison, but it reminds me of the fascines made of bundled saplings slung over the sides of wooden gunboats in the late 18th c. As an iron round shot penetrated one the flexible saplings would displace perpendicularly to the line of travel, dissipating energy. A friend and I did a real world experiment with a 1-1/2” bore cannon and a mocked up section of oak boat hull with 2” planking. Minus the fascine the shot punched through and disappeared. With the fascine it left an inch deep dent and fell to the ground. Similar effect seems to be happening here. Lateral displacement of layers and corresponding loss of kinetic energy.
The opposing angles is quite smart, starts deflecting the projectile downward and then forces it to go the other way with the second lot. Which would help rob energy from the penetrator
Would a second round fired (not using the same hole the first one made) go through? Is the structure of the surrounding area compromised by absorbing an impact like this? I know armor fatigue is a thing, I just don't know pronounced it would be with composite armor such as this.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Nato tanks have incredible tracking software in the gunners optics hitting isn't a problem hitting it in the exact same place however is still virtually impossible
@@grahamwebb7885 Even M1 and Leopard 2 who have currently the smallest dispersion when firing APFSDS in NATO and on the planet have a dispersion of about 70cm radius around the aimpoint on 2000m. you are aiming at the tank not at certain weakspots or areas.
the 3BM15 is a 1972 projectile made to fight second generation MBTs... not prototypes of 3rd gen MBTs that would be introduced much later (1979 for the leopard 2) the maranging steel penetrator with the frontal tungsten carbide core is not efficient against NERA arrays as the core would be eroded upon penetration and the NERA arrays would simply shatter the maranging steel penetrator due to lateral stresses... the 3bm26 is the first soviet APFSDS built to be effective against NERA arrays by moving the tungsten core to the back... it would be curious to see how the projectile fares against the B composite and the BRL 1 of the leo 2 and M1 abrams respectively aswell as the 3BM29 and 3bm32 and 42
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 correct... but this is like putting the panther up against the 76mm zis-3/F34 and expecting good results... the composite B and BRL-1 are both designed to counter maraging steel penetrators via application of lateral stress... in other words results are pretty much expected a true test begins with the 3BM-26 and the subsequent 3BM29/32/42
@@geraldmuntuerto5769 Both xm1 and leo2av requirement were set using some form of tungsten alloy rod, not tungsten carbide, not steel. xm1 most likely use a version of xm735 precursor, which is a steel jacket with tungsten alloy core. It is unknown which threat german used to test their armor against, but it is probably the smoothbore 105 m735 tungsten counter part (which reportedly is a tungsten rod without jacket). Anyway, your premise is not correct anyways, lateral stress will exist for all rod, regardless of armor material. The difference is the threshold when something will deform catastrophically. This is a function of the rod geometry, the rod site of stress, the internal stress when rod break through the resistance armor, the rod material, etc. The list is not exhaustive, nor arrange in any particular order. The russian also did not use maraging steel penetrator afaik. They simply use tool steel. The specific hardness and toughness was altered for different rod.
@@jintsuubest9331 err no what im saying is that all soviet projectiles prior to the 3BM26 utilized tungsten carbide with maraging cores before switching to the superior tungsten nickel iron alloy likewise steel is more vulnerable to lateral stresses than tungsten cores as seen here "Generally speaking, steel long rod projectiles will perform very badly against NERA armour or sloped spaced armour relative to monobloc tungsten alloy or depleted uranium alloy projectiles due to the comparatively low yield strength of steel. As explained in Part 2 of this T-72 article, NERA plates and sloped space armour will defeat long rod projectiles via the destruction of the rod through the application of lateral stresses. In short, the lower yield strength of steel makes it more susceptible to structural failure when it experiences strong lateral stresses as it exits the back of a sloped spaced steel plate or as it passes through a NERA array. The tail usually survives the experience, but when the front part of the rod is broken up, the penetration of the tail may not be enough to defeat the back plate of the armour array. For a more holistic understanding of the concept, please visit Part 2." lastly correction... it uses neither tool nor maraging steel... rather it uses 35KhZNM structural steel for the steel core... the maraging steel was for the jackets on the jacketed APFSDS source: thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html#ap
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 3BM22 and 3BM26 would be interesting for this scenario to see how much the rear core improves against NERA, and also highly sloped plates, maybe Leo 2 UFP
I might make another comment for the warthunder armchair generals - in all these comparisons you see tanks hitting frontal and turret plates as if these are the main ways tanks are taken out. Yet have you ever stopped to think that despite such realism in penetration in warthunder, simple damage like tracks etc are abstracted to a thirty second repair timer? Well that's because reality is not so fun - in reality, such 'minor' damage is all it takes to disable a tank and force a crew to bail in an assault or while under artillery fire. There's no "30 second repair" to a track while being shelled in the real world, and simply damaging the exterior workings of a tank is sufficient. This is why tanks are such vulnerable weapons that can never be fully protected - because when you're lobbing large explosives at the other side and it's armoured vehicles, something will always inevitably give and without sufficient assault mass, defeat an armoured thrust. In the battle of the bulge, aviation absolutely decimated Germany's armoured columns, yet tanks were rarely if ever actually penetrated - simply destroying parts of their working gear, setting them on fire or destroying their support vehicles was sufficient. Even the best tank will always be easily destroyed when not utilised amongst a preponderance of force
We used 3BM15 in the Eighties. It was rarely fired during Exercises. During Training in the Soviet Union, we were introduced to the new 3BM42. We saw Shot Tests. Last Doubts were cleared.
Dejmian ive been your fan for a long time i love your vids can you please do a m18 hellcat vs the tiger 1 upper plate at a range where the hellcat can penetrate it
Нее это слишком ты загнул))) Надо БР-412 было! Если ссать в уши людям то только так)) Тут так принято: самое г-но с навороченным самым, сравнивать и хоть ты че делай он тебя игнорить будет)))
@@MultiNike79 А это просто мнение или мне его тоже не высказывать? Я не спорю что тут нет лжи, просто имхо сравнивал бы с тем что было на тот момент,а мне кажется на тот момент было что то другое либо первый леопард,либо М60, ладно все как есть будет пусть...
Not much. It will still have to pass through the next plate. If it is instead deflected down through the gap, then it has already lost so much energy that there is no way it can go through the second array.
Can someone please help me understand what the rubber and bulging plate are for? Am i wrong in thinking that they are supposed to sort of move with the projectile to "catch" it? Or is it more to enact plate feeding? Or something else entirely?
They expand, not only increasing slightly the distance the penetrator has to travel, but also providing resistance in different planes, disrupting the momentum, alignment and shape of the penetrator. This all aids in defeating it. This is known as 'Non Explosive Reactive Armour'.
it's protection against HEAT. The rubber accumulates energy of the impact and transfers it to the bulging plate, pushing it out, and it disturbs the jet
I'm no expert, but I imagine it a bit like a glass plate in a frame. Glass is harder than most steel blades, but you can punch through it. However, if the glass plate is kept in place by a frame then you won't be able to stab through it, even if the frame itself can be penetrated easily with your dagger. Now, if you shoot a bottle, you'll see a fountain coming out of the entrance hole. Imagine it to be glass shards and you can instantly see how this could decrease the penetration... Now, with a plastic sandwiched in between steel plates, what would happen if you try to cut it with a blow torch? The plastic will heat up until parts of it become a gas and the rest will be a jet of molten plastic hitting you! (That's actually something some safes do!)
There is a new video of leopard getting hit in the side of the turret by some kinda of atgm (probably helicopter launched) and surviving the hit. Can you do a simulation to see at what angle it can be stopped?
It's hard to tell exactly what the rubber is for. I'm sure there's a very good reason the engineers put it in, I just would like to know. I assume it's to catch or slow down the microscopic armor and projectile fragments?
Main function is to provide a different density medium to produce a angling effect on kinetic penetrators. Also its probably a superior material against HEAT
The rubber expands under pressure, causing the steel plates to bulge, which in turn imparts shear stress on the KE-penetrator. At least that what I read somewhere.
This is the basis of the functioning of the NERA armor. NERA was developed mainly against HEAT warheads, for which uniform steel armor was not a problem. The rubber accumulates the impact energy and transfers it to the bulging plate, pushing it out. The bulging plate disturb jet.
@@RichelieuUnlimited NERA against kinetic projectiles has a slightly different design. Thin and soft plates will do nothing to the penetrator. The plates must be thicker and hard, but then they will not deform, but will "swing" more. Then, on both sides of the "rubber", the plates must be active so that they do not block themselfs, as in Abrams NERA, Leo 2A5 wedges
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Is there really an "impact" for HEAT warhead? And is rubber "bulging reaction" fast enough either for HEAT jet or APDS kinetic penetrator?
Wasn't the 2AV the prototype that was rejected because it's armor was "too light"? It's ofc not realy composite armor, but it's interesting to see how it's supposed to work. I reckon the 2A4 was a huge upgrade over this turret design, not to mention the 2A5 and upwards.
not really, it met the standards set before it, the 2A4 came out 10 years later and of course it had better armor but the projectiles were also much better
@@biba5609 How so? APFSDS rounds are still used by all militaries, right? Is there something about this specific round that makes it different? I'm genuinely curious.
Wow, I've seen some RUclips channel saying that the armor plating for leopard is designed to absorb shaped charges and ATGMs not kinetic rounds. I was very surprised how the frontal armor ate that round. This tank is a beast and the armor composition really shows German quality
You see well, but not completely. The model consists of elements, and even if there are ten million of them, it has a limited ability to separate into fragments. When the penetrator breaks down too much, the simulator converts the elements into free particles that retain the mass of the elements. They can be made visible, but then the view is blurred.
It should be noted that this is the altered version of the AV armor that was only ever a ballistic test. Using this armor package, the Leopard 2AV would have weighted 63 short tons instead of 59. The armor that would be used on the Leopard 2 Series was considerably less than this.
Can you prove this? According to actual German documents, there was no lightening in the terms of armour protection when it came to composite armour, they kept the requirement from the Leopard 2AV so it would perform similarly or identically to what we're seeing here, and saved the weight in other places such as engine cover going from 40mm to 20mm etc. I'm not even sure why people keep repeating this lie over and over again.
@@eyyze What do you mean? The blue prints literally say "Geänderte Konstruktion" meaning "Modified construction". The AV already had it's spaced non special armor array rated for 115mm apfsds protection like initialy required. The LOS was decreases a bit but that is what was retained for Series production. That is why they could extend the hull, thin a few plates and keep the weight at 60 tons.
@@STGN01 2AV's armour was rated for 105mm APFSDS at @200m and 120mm at @1500mm per the requirements from 1974, the armour we're seeing in this simulation is the "last evolution" that was created after the failure of the 1976 version (the hull's which instead of being only composite/special armour, had a fuel tank mounted) and which would be adopted on the serial vehicles in one way or another. I've yet to see the blueprints you're speaking about (mind sending a link?). Was the construction modified compared to the earlier iterations that lacked composite and were only using spaced armour? Or was it the serial vehicles that were modified in comparison to the 2AV? Where was LoS decreased too? The turret hasn't changed it's LoS at all, the hull, despite a different geometry is also equeal in thickness on serial variants when compared to the 2AV (based on declassified blueprints of the Leopard 2A1). The only thing changed was they replaced the composite upper plate with a simple RHAe plate but angled it more.
@@eyyze The AV was built to US specifications of 800-1200m 115mm APFSDS protection at 30 degrees from the front. If you look at that chart, I am assuming you are looking at, you will see at the bottom there is a note that says 115mm=120mm KE. Google is your friend Search for "Leopard 2AV armor" it's in the first 20 results I get. The story seems to be that the Germans didn't have Special Armor, so they were given the least effective version for follow up trials. Yes, the LOS was decreased too but from the inside, the AV was rather cramped, so they took a few inches off. If you find a good picture of the top of the AV and compare it to the Series it's obvious. Though a guy posted fotos where he deceivingly used close ups and angled his measuring stick, so it appeared series had AV LOS, but if you actually lign up the photos it's easy to see he cheated. I haven't seen Leopard 2 A1 Hull blueprint when was that declasified? The Series hull is 27 cm longer than the AV hull.
@@bastikolaski8111 Russia’s military has never been weaker. Russia’s newest tank is a design from the 90’s with its gun downgraded to an even older gun, and that design they can’t even get into large scale production. Their newest jet is a 4th generation fighter with some 5th generation detection equipment, but it’s not really a huge improvement over existing Russian jets because it isn’t a 5th gen fighter and can’t get through radar like a 5th gen would, again it’s only in small scale production. America holds a technological edge when it comes to stealth aircraft, and until someone equal the radar absorption of US aircraft nobody will ever be able to compete, through China is trying to, and it has the money, Russia does not.
probably. Real life isn't a computer game. You don't use your armor as a "resources", you don't have hit points degrading. Except against smal arms fire, the armor of a tank is a last insurance, a life line, in case you get hit, so the crew has a chance to survive. I don't even want to know, what a stopped 4 to 5 million joule impact will do to the sensors and moving parts.
@@HarrisonSD03 a Lancet kamkaze drone struck a leopard on the cheek of the tower, and this is documented. It is impossible to make thick armor on all sides. ruclips.net/user/shortsJOwEolvNtwM
@@VVV85650 and all the white smoke that you see, is most likely from the smoke grenades, which where struck. So the clip is way to short to tell the whole damage. It might have been a pen but on that side is "only" the commander or maybe the gunners head. So if it penned there, there might be cre casualty. However, there is nothing that could ignite in the Leopard 2A6 at this place.
@jPlanerv2 3bm32/42 would be way to much and the leopard 2a4 would be a better pick against it. 3bm22 was released 3 years earlier than the leopard 2av was accepted. 3bm15 would likely be commonly used on export tanks and also Warsaw pact nations so in a conflict it's likely that it would have been been used against the 2av.
@@jPlanerv2 it's not an outrageous request, 3bm22 is from 1976 and the Leo2AV is from 1977. It was still interesting to see the 3bm15 test, now it would be good to use the armor model for more videos, and 3bm22 is a logical next one.
@@reentrysfs6317 3bm22 would still be fine to show imo but its same situation as comparing leo2a7 facing 3mb60, the round exist and is in use since like 2010s but how many tanks actually use them not that many, so showing the most common shell in use by they year of tank creation is absolutely fine an i prefere it this way
do you think projectile with secondary explosion inside armor layout like this will f up the layer ? like 40mm or 57mm auto cannon or maybe 75 auto canon i think if the projectile can penetrate the first layer and explode inside it, it will f up the armor layer config
@@o-hogameplay185at that point you’re looking at the shockwave and pressure causing issues, especially on the upper hill roof next to the driver’s brain case, rather than “would this penetrate LOS/destroy the NERA”.
@@o-hogameplay185 He doesn't do HE simulations for a good reason, unless he can gets his hands on a supercomputer. But such a massive shell I can imagine quite a bit of secondary damage. You don't need to destroy a tank for a tank kill. If you blow off a track, it's pretty useless.
@@etuanno "He doesn't do HE simulations".... hmm, let's see! ruclips.net/video/AZmtofsK7u0/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ZoBOHQ_aONc/видео.html ruclips.net/video/-XikZT7uMHw/видео.html ruclips.net/video/dluaCnv6hGA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/StHD4i1LcTo/видео.html ruclips.net/video/puRdlrj4vjM/видео.html ruclips.net/video/cU79JJtk_HU/видео.html, and most likely more, i was just lazy to scroll back more
Does the spinning of the rod also be taken into calculation ? Woulda be interesting to see it wiggle around more or is it not significant to end result?
3БМ15 ЭТО СОВЕТСКИЙ БРОНЕБОЙНО ОПЕРЁННО ПОДКАЛИБЕРНЫЙ СНАРЯД ОБРАЗЦА 1962 ГОДА!!! Вы бы ещё снаряд второй мировой бы взяли! Лучше уж снимать видео с 3бм46 или 3бм50
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 yea, Russians try to cope hard at the moment. Just watched a few of their propaganda videos ranting about the Leopard 2 😀 Pure comedy gold.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Its a proven fact that the Leos are performing very poorly in Ukraine at the moment. The losses are insane compared to the pure fiction and propaganda used to create this "best tank in the world" image the leos had. Embarrassing is an understatement.
@@AlphaBravoCheeseCake If such a tank is not used properly, it will be destroyed even by a WW2 tank. Of course, those who write nonsense like above have no idea if the tank was involved in a tank battle. They don't even know how why to destroy such a tank, nor what was responsible for it. They write words that are a sign of ignorance, without careful scrutiny beforehand.
Depends on which ERA where talking about, of you're talking about something like Ukrainian Norzh or Duplet then that will definitely make a difference considering that Norzh uses shaped charges to literally slice the projectile in half and Duplet is 2 or 3 layers of Norzh
You could've predicted the result just by the complexity of the design. It's "language" is confidence. It's funny when you take supposed stats, like 1,200mm of penetration, and compare it to this, like 250mm, and it can't go through? You see that its all exaggerated. The design looks pretty good, but I think thicker plates are better than multiple thin ones. BTW, I just noticed this was on the turret. I've wondered about what that cavity could hold, and how it could potentially be upgraded as needed. It does add some weight, but how much really? The Russian tank just opts to put the crew in the hull instead, which seems fine too. Can this turret be operated manually? Probably not, so there's not much benefit to crew being inside of it. I also find it funny that people have schematics for the armor.
yes but then to make things fair, you would need to change the tank armour array to reflect AV6 or 7. this is a protype, and its germany they have actual prototypes, its the russians with their Armata that confuse protypes with opperational equipment
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 But 3BM22 would have been a better test, Leopard 2AV is from 1977, even later than 3BM22, 3BM15 is from 1972, 5 years earlier than Leopard 2AV
The russians don't use 3BM15 though, 3BM42 is their oldest round in circulation and it outperforms the 3BM15 by a big margin, mostly they use 3BM46 & 3BM60 wich are the modern equivalents.
Leopards are designed to maximize mobility, especially on the tactical and operational level, in order to provide optimal performance in a QRF role. This was their whole point from the start, before a single design was drafted. Their job was to poke enemy spearheads, soften them up and leave before they'd be tied down in a commited engagement. Hence it's quite silly to argue that it is somehow lesser because it does not trump other vehicles in armor protection, or because it performs worse when pressed into roles it was not designed for. The design, from the start, was centered around the unique requirement that the german Bundeswehr had for an Armored Vehicle that was mobile enough to fight a fighting retreat over roughly a hundred kilometers of frontline. It is protected against snapshots and glancing hits, but in an actual engagement, it's main protection was meant to be Stealth and Evasion. If you take those two away, you get a significantly flustered tank. As seen in both Turkey and Ukraine, treating the Leopard like a Challenger or Abrams will only result in failure. Wether that's a failing of the tank's design or a failure of the army fielding it is a matter of discussion.
Have you seen the video of the first meeting of a modern T tank with a modern Leopard? Single T tank shot 2 Leopards and 6 armored vehicles that accompanied them. And then they just left for the awards.
@@MultiNike79 And i'm sure you can Source that video and verify it's validity? Just admit you're post-truth, it's clear you've stopped caring about what's actually right and wrong and are just posturing for approval.
@@acceptablecasualty5319 You see, your problem, as during the Third Reich and before, is that you fundamentally do not respect human rights. I understand that this is a feature of European culture, the root cause of its criminality. Yes, you have been brainwashed since childhood and comfortable conditions contribute to cognitive distortions. Unfortunately, this can be cured only by forceful control of Europe by Russia. Only during these periods do Europeans become human.
@@MultiNike79 for once I have a serious question for you. In your honest opinion, what will or should Putin do, after winning his 3 day special military operation? What will or should he do with the Jewish, people of color, Muslim and LGBTQ population of the western nations, after "defeating the NAZI'S of the west"?
leopard 2 cardboard tank. in addition to the forehead of the tower and the body, he no longer has armor in other places, the roof of the tower is generally 15-20 mm, but the tower in the upper projection is more than 3 \ 4 of the total length without a gun!
@@Mr79dream proof the roof of the tower 15-20мм, ruclips.net/video/8qPuunlSOFw/видео.html the upper part of the side is 20+40mm , the lower part of the side of the chassis rollers is 38mm Any T-72, 80 hull side is 80 mmttps://ruclips.net/video/8qPuunlSOFw/видео.html
@@Mr79dream Have you seen your German iron? The leopard is twice as large in size as the T-72. 80, -3 man crew. and not 4, due to the automatic loader, the internal volume is smaller, which means the tank is better armored, yes, the leopard may have better protection from the forehead, but from all other sides it is much worse armored than any Soviet and Russian tank, in fact the leopard can be safely destroyed even by a 120mm mortar shell, because the roof of the tower is not it will withstand an explosion on its surface. The Russian tanks have a 40 mm tower roof plus dynamic protection units, and the size of the tower from the upper projection is 2.5 times smaller
Spaced armor can act more effectively on a damaged round than even RHA in some cases, so to give the whole turret cheek an even armor profile (meaning the effective thickness doesn't change depending on where you hit on the turret cheek) they made the middle straight, plus it also prevents blowout allowing the armor to take more shots
I'm unconvinced by your hypothesis. Uniform of protection across the surface. Regardless of how you mount the plate, at the same impact angle, it will have the same protection across the surface at that angle. Blowout? Roughly the same area of armor is compromised regardless how you mount the plate. If anything, you want more of the plate destroyed since that means taking more energy away from the penetrator. Spaced array does more damage to damaged penetrator than rha. Well, spaced array tend to be made out of rha, and damage penetrator is not one thing. Test show if you are dealing with multiple pieces across a larger surface area, it is better to have a singular thicker plate than multiple thin plate. Test also show spaced array present no significant advantage, and sometimes disadvantage if they are not angled.
Do kontact1 era but with 30mm steel armour mounted on top(make shift heavy era) and compare to normal K1 era and test vs apfsds to see if how much more protection it give over 30mm
Can anyone say Leopard 2A4 or 2AV's turret cheeks have how many mm kinetic energy protection? As I know turret cheeks have roughly 750 mm kinetic energy protection.
All tanks have "poor" armor on the sides. You can't possibly build a tank with perfect all around protection, you have to save weight somewhere. Side armor needs to protect from 20 and 30mm autocannons or stuff like RPG 7, that's all
Everyone saying that a t-72 or even a t-64a could not penetrate the leo 4. I dont wanna bring the t-64b in to this because it would be ,cheating' bc it got 3bm42 and it would destroy the leo in 1 shot. T-72a can use 3bm22 as well and the leo's hull and gunner port on the turret is very weak. And yeah the leo's loader is the most portected and angled part on the tank. Well Done!
war thunder presumably treats the core rod the same as the solid rod, while as a solid rod having the same penetration of the steel plate as the core rod will cope better with such armor
Wow one guy makes a simulation where Leo armor is not hollow chamber or "disclaimer: my best guess guys" and the comments bubble up. Contrary to popular belief Western experts always overestimated Soviet technology. Bradley was built as a response to early leaks of BMP1 for example, we can see how they compare now.
Wait, what? It's not really fair to compare a BMP1 to a Bradley. They are worlds apart. Seems like the US did overestimate the Soviets by quite a large margin.
Technique does not make sense to compare 1 to 1. It is all closely related to the economy and the proposed tactics of action. There were 3,000 Bradleys made and they are very large - hard to camouflage and easy to hit. BMP-1 - 20,000 items. We are heading for a nuclear war, the infantry does not live in its conditions, so the maximum amount of special equipment is needed. Therefore, Russia has so many tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. Western military thought is based on colonial strategy - fighting against weak countries. Therefore, less number of vehicles is needed there, but more efficient.
Mmm well in net says T-72A can use 3BM42 i think, so maybe you can always do the best ammo of that tank(or second on) to do this test, cuz normally is what they will use
nonsense, the T-72B appeared before the 3BM42 appeared. in theory, you can put APDS and HEAT with 400mm of penetration into the IS-2, but that doesn't mean you can shoot at the Tiger 2 with it
@@miguelpericas6154 lol I didn't write that it can't. I wrote that shooting ammunition at a tank that no longer existed when this ammunition was introduced is pointless. Why are you even suggesting this?
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 i cant follow u, my english is a bit bad, if im not wrong u telling something like why shot to something with 3bm46 in this case when leopard2av would not face it?
42** it is from 86, leopard2av idk, or 2k but well.. maybe it was just a suggestion about use the best ammo on that tank or one of them, it is ur sim so u can do what u want
The russian decixed to use 21-6-3 for t72 nera. If possible, just for the lols, is it possible to switch the 30-4-4 nera with 21-6-3 nera and see if any real difference occur? Or test it with abrams 5.5*3 nera?
it would make sense to compare the two choices for the HEAT jet, but when it comes to kinetic projectiles you can actually throw it away and you won't notice the difference
I was thinking of making some estimates of equivalent protection or mass efficiency, but it's hard to compare the performance of a projectile with the core for such armor and uniform armor plate. The core is quickly neutralized by shattering, but has its effect on penetration, making it easier for the steel penetrator to penetrate the first layers of armor.
It would be great to see the penetration potential of Soviet ATGM over the Leopard 2 front armor like this, to settle the turret blowing of Leopard 2 in Syria in their war with Turkey.
@@michaelbelonio3342
1. There is no diagram for service vehicle
2. Scj sim crash with 2 layer.
@@jintsuubest9331 HEAT couldn't be simulated? I saw quite a lot of simulation that depicted HEAT?
@@michaelbelonio3342
Emm... did you look through this channel? Scj sim always have simple configuration against not interesting target?
@@michaelbelonio3342The blown apart Turkish Leo's were destroyed either by the Turkish air force to prevent capture or by the Kurds with tons of explosives. There's simply not enough explosives inside a Leopard to cause such catastrophic damage as we've seen in those photographs. What's more, NATO ammunition uses insensitive propellant, it doesn't blow up when it catches fire. So that leaves only the HE shells' warhead as a potential cause for an explosion, and there's not enough kaboom in there to even dislodge the turret let alone rip apart the hull like it was hit by a naval canon.
That’s a surprisingly clear result. Makes me wonder how understated the performance of more modern armor arrays is.
As I understand it, at the moment Leopards cannot be considered seriously armored vehicles at all. At least look at the photo where they were broken just by jumping on the roof.
@@MultiNike79
If the most heavily armored MBT series in the planet isn't armored at all then nothing is
@@TheJohn_Highway Do you live in Europe? Do you understand that you live in a total lie? You literally put in jail for an opinion different from the statements of your masters.
No, the Leopard is a lightly armored vehicle. Both the T-90 and Abrams are much better protected - and there are banal mathematical reasons for that.
@@MultiNike79 You sure thats not Russia youre talking about? Who gets jailed for a different opinion? And what "masters" are you talking about? If you know so much more about the truth, please explain and inform me, I'm genuinely curious
@@MultiNike79 you idiots literally let your government take you away in vans for protesting against the war. Congrats on having the half the rights Americans had half a decade ago 👑
Its crazy to see how effective a bunch of thin plates with rubber and special arrangement are able to stop a slug of metal going nearly 1800m/s.
Think of it as “deflecting” the shot, the armor is forcing the penetrator to waste energy by moving it’s direction, thus lowering it’s chances of penetrating the turret.
Thin plates?
@@gremie442 Look at the figures given in the vid. All the plates are relatively thin. It's the spacing arrangement and angling that makes them hard to pen.
@@gremie442composit of thin layers.
it is 1560 m/s, you have itliterally that info in the description of the video...
Can't stop watching these vids yet in real life every damaged/destroyed tank I've seen was the victim of anything but a hit from another tank. Landmines, artillery, ATGM's and FPV drones are the real threat.
Are the real threat *now* . There were no loitering drones in the 80s. And if you look at the latest Leopard 2 variant they very well adapted to the new enviroment. Extra roof and side armor, APS and mine protection plates. The sword changes and so does the shield.
Also if you are looking for _plenty_ of tanks taken out by other tanks take a look at Desert Storm.
That's the point bro. Btw abrams eas designed as a tank killer but now is facing lots of troubles with versatility
it's worth mentioning that there could well be a degree of survivorship bias here. Is it really that the threat to tanks is from mines and drones and such, or is it that the armour is doing it's job against enemy tanks.
I suspect ATGMs and drones and such account for the vast majority of tank kills in Ukraine partly because of their effectiveness, partly because tanks are geared primarily towards surviving other tanks, and partly because there's a shortage of tanks on both sides and the tanks that are available are designed to be the best protected against tank-fire, as opposed to a top-attack munition like a Javelin or Drone.
@@daredemontriple6 Are there any proofs that Javelin was able to knock something out at all? I have not seen any such video.
A significant problem is the cluster homing projectiles used by Russia and NATO. But it is not yet clear how to defend against them. The leopard is most vulnerable to them.
@MultiNike79 I'm not sure there's any 'proof' as such, at least not publicly available, but there's been hundreds of tanks knocked out and reportedly by AT teams armed with Javelins.
I don't think anyone's doubting Javelin's effectiveness. It has proven to be very effective in testing against modern threats, let alone whatever 40 year old kit (and older even!) the Russians are resorting to now.
As for cluster homing munitions, I've never heard of them. Closest thing to that I know of is the British Starstreak system, but that's more of a guided missile with a scatter warhead. Either way, I doubt that either side is using them in any great number, if they even exist. Russia is struggling to produce enough cruise missiles to satiate its needs, even with ramped up production.
As for Leopard being the most vulnerable to such a weapon - any reason you say that? It seems to me like T-90s and T-72s are all around less protected than Western armour. T-80 late models such as UM and BVM are probably the most comparable to say Leopard 2A7, but still likely not as well protected.
And before anyone says "What about the T-14?", if T-14 was any good, it would have been deployed by now. Clearly, it's got a lot of issues and likely does not have very high survivability. It's all bark and no bite. A showpiece meant to demonstrate that Russia can still compete with the West and has very modern designs - but Ukraine has demonstrated otherwise
Not that surprising to be honest, as the early Leopard 2 variants where designed to counter the Soviet T-72.
No, against the T-62. The first generation of shells for the T-72 really could not penetrate the Leo2, but all subsequent ones could do it. In addition, the T-72 obviously has a larger radius of destruction than the Leopards.
The armor requirement is simply "Russian presumed next generation tank mounted anti tank gun at roughly combat distance".
What that translated to is using a penetrator similar to m735 (the prototype version for mbt70 152mm gun) at roughly 1500m/s.
@@MultiNike79Leopard 2 is superior to T-72 in everything!
What's that mumbling about a bigger destruction zone??
The Rheinmetal L44 is more powerfull than that on the T-Series Tanks.
And its sensor array is much better too.
Also first hit chance is at 96% on Leopard 2 ->while on the move!
There is nothing absolutely nothing where a T-72 would beat a Leopard 2...
Except if course Turret tossing ..
Leopard 2 fails to do that entirely..
@@WotansCrytell that to Turkish Leopards...
@@AKUJIVALDOTurkish leopards were hit with ambushes with ATGMS and suffered from poorly trained crews and improper combined arms tactics often sent into combat alone
Since you've done railgun and relativistic-speed impact simulations, it would be interesting to compare the effects of big+slow vs light+fast projectiles with the same kinetic energy on the same armor. For example, as far as I have calculated, Yamato main gun shell had a little below 450 MJ of energy (780 m/s, 1460 kg), and the same energy is posessed by a 1g projectile flying at 1000 km/s if i am not mistaken. Would be interesting to see if the damage is somehow comparable due to energy being same.
I think the curve is going to go up very quickly at first, level off at about 1.5-2.5 km/s, drop off as energy lost in shattering weakens the performance, and stabilize for awhile as the projectile essentially just explodes spherically on impact beyond a certain speed. However, as the speed gets even higher, the projectile will begin to clip through the target as each atom acts more like penetrating radiation. At this point, the projectile's penetration is determined almost solely by its speed and composition rather than its energy. As things get increasingly relativistic though, fusion-inducing nuclear collisions may become an issue, and at even higher speeds, collisions with nucleii cause a narrow cone of radiation shower from relativistic momentum transfer, losing something like 0.1% of the momentum of the particle per collision. Even so, cosmic rays are detectable from a submarine, so it's possible that you can get very impressive levels of penetration at Oh My God particle level speeds. Potentially kilometers but it is somewhat random.
At some point though, the damage will start getting less impressive. A .30 cal airgun round and the OMG particle have similar energies, but I suspect that the damage from being shot in the torso by a Hatsan Blitz is much worse than being run through by a single very angry proton which might not even hit a single nucleus on its way through you, and wouldn't seriously injure you if it did (because even ejecta cascade is going too fast to interact with you).
Things probably get a bit weirder if you begin to demand speeds faster than the speed at which a single nucleon can contain the energy if your projectile. Leptons do not behave in the same way and Neutrinos especially don't behave in the same way. Obviously Photons function on a completely different basis as they just move at C and don't experience any time, but beyond a certain point (roughly kinetic energy equivalent to 1000 lb of TNT) a photon's frequency would reach the point where it is below the Planck length, and below the radius of the event horizon for a black hole of equivalent energy. From an external perspective, putting the kinetic energy of the Gustav gun or the planes from 9/11 into a single photon would cause odd effects, likely including the development of an event horizon from the perspective of an external observer. How the projectile becoming a lightspeed Kugelblitz black hole effects penetration is hard to predict, but only relevant for projectiles at Gustav gun level energies and above.
@@petersmythe6462 Wow, thanks much kind sir Einstein, i did not expect such a detailed analysis. Really interesting. So for the sake of pure damage it may be better to stop at lower speeds and instead increase the mass (if we don't count those possible tiny thermonuclear explosions from high-speed impacts)?
He said the confidence level of those relativistic speed impact is... minimal.
There are also no literature to fact check the sim.
I believe sectional density is a better approximation of penetration performance than energy.
Did smth happen in war Thunder again, Leopard 2 AV is a weird one to test out of the blue
Who plays Trash Thunder in 2023?
@@TheJohn_Highway me I do
@@tungsten6474 Then go touch some grass
@@TheJohn_Highway *shit thunder
@@TheJohn_HighwayWT sucks but there are no better multiplayer tank games. Other option is WoT 🤢
How similar is this armour profile to Leopard 2A4? How might it withstand more modern 3BM42 Mango that is commonly being used in tanks on both sides of Ukraine conflict?
I don't have any real data for the A4, there are only guesses and rumors
AV had weaker and lighter armor array compared to production variant of 2a4, also mango at that angle would most likely penetrate 2a4 cheek but at face forward angle im not so sure propably not especially at realistic for tank engagement ranges
@@jPlanerv2 Early 2A4 had almost same armor as 2Vs, only later production runs actually received updated "Chobham" armor plates.. so in reality, there are two different 2A4s out there.. those with early armor package, and those with late armor package..
@@JaM-R2TR4 you might be right to me when it comes to 2a4 i always assume the 1980+ in terms of armor
3BM42 is a way better shell, wouldn't be surprised if it could penetrate at this angle
That is a clever composite layout
It is mainly for HEAT those spaces.
@@joe125ful that's not true. it is different from spaced armour, which is supposed to prevent heat from impacting on the main armour. it is harder to exit and re-enter the same material several times over than to perforate a homogenous rolled plate.
@@thatguy4305 Intersting iam not tank expert you know...
@@joe125ful it is really interesting. if you like that kind of stuff, i would recommend you to read up on it. it's a rabbithole :D
It’s a crude comparison, but it reminds me of the fascines made of bundled saplings slung over the sides of wooden gunboats in the late 18th c. As an iron round shot penetrated one the flexible saplings would displace perpendicularly to the line of travel, dissipating energy.
A friend and I did a real world experiment with a 1-1/2” bore cannon and a mocked up section of oak boat hull with 2” planking. Minus the fascine the shot punched through and disappeared. With the fascine it left an inch deep dent and fell to the ground.
Similar effect seems to be happening here. Lateral displacement of layers and corresponding loss of kinetic energy.
The opposing angles is quite smart, starts deflecting the projectile downward and then forces it to go the other way with the second lot. Which would help rob energy from the penetrator
Morons in comments not realising the round and armour are contemporary.
Excellent work 👍
3БМ15? Это 1972 год.
Would a second round fired (not using the same hole the first one made) go through? Is the structure of the surrounding area compromised by absorbing an impact like this? I know armor fatigue is a thing, I just don't know pronounced it would be with composite armor such as this.
It would be like aiming for a single spot on a running dalmatian (virtually impossible)
a t-72 has a spread of more than 1.5m on 2000m. he is lucky if he even hits the vehicle
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Nato tanks have incredible tracking software in the gunners optics hitting isn't a problem hitting it in the exact same place however is still virtually impossible
@@grahamwebb7885 Even M1 and Leopard 2 who have currently the smallest dispersion when firing APFSDS in NATO and on the planet have a dispersion of about 70cm radius around the aimpoint on 2000m.
you are aiming at the tank not at certain weakspots or areas.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 yeah
the 3BM15 is a 1972 projectile made to fight second generation MBTs... not prototypes of 3rd gen MBTs that would be introduced much later (1979 for the leopard 2)
the maranging steel penetrator with the frontal tungsten carbide core is not efficient against NERA arrays as the core would be eroded upon penetration and the NERA arrays would simply shatter the maranging steel penetrator due to lateral stresses... the 3bm26 is the first soviet APFSDS built to be effective against NERA arrays by moving the tungsten core to the back... it would be curious to see how the projectile fares against the B composite and the BRL 1 of the leo 2 and M1 abrams respectively aswell as the 3BM29 and 3bm32 and 42
the armor is from 1976, the Soviet arsenal was filled with 3BM15 at that time, because the successor had just appeared
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 correct... but this is like putting the panther up against the 76mm zis-3/F34 and expecting good results... the composite B and BRL-1 are both designed to counter maraging steel penetrators via application of lateral stress... in other words results are pretty much expected
a true test begins with the 3BM-26 and the subsequent 3BM29/32/42
@@geraldmuntuerto5769
Both xm1 and leo2av requirement were set using some form of tungsten alloy rod, not tungsten carbide, not steel.
xm1 most likely use a version of xm735 precursor, which is a steel jacket with tungsten alloy core.
It is unknown which threat german used to test their armor against, but it is probably the smoothbore 105 m735 tungsten counter part (which reportedly is a tungsten rod without jacket).
Anyway, your premise is not correct anyways, lateral stress will exist for all rod, regardless of armor material. The difference is the threshold when something will deform catastrophically. This is a function of the rod geometry, the rod site of stress, the internal stress when rod break through the resistance armor, the rod material, etc. The list is not exhaustive, nor arrange in any particular order.
The russian also did not use maraging steel penetrator afaik. They simply use tool steel. The specific hardness and toughness was altered for different rod.
@@jintsuubest9331 err no what im saying is that all soviet projectiles prior to the 3BM26 utilized tungsten carbide with maraging cores before switching to the superior tungsten nickel iron alloy
likewise steel is more vulnerable to lateral stresses than tungsten cores as seen here
"Generally speaking, steel long rod projectiles will perform very badly against NERA armour or sloped spaced armour relative to monobloc tungsten alloy or depleted uranium alloy projectiles due to the comparatively low yield strength of steel. As explained in Part 2 of this T-72 article, NERA plates and sloped space armour will defeat long rod projectiles via the destruction of the rod through the application of lateral stresses. In short, the lower yield strength of steel makes it more susceptible to structural failure when it experiences strong lateral stresses as it exits the back of a sloped spaced steel plate or as it passes through a NERA array. The tail usually survives the experience, but when the front part of the rod is broken up, the penetration of the tail may not be enough to defeat the back plate of the armour array. For a more holistic understanding of the concept, please visit Part 2."
lastly correction... it uses neither tool nor maraging steel... rather it uses 35KhZNM structural steel for the steel core... the maraging steel was for the jackets on the jacketed APFSDS
source:
thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html#ap
I was always wondering how they fix that hole. Do they just weld it, or reassemble the whole turret?
You just leave it.
Take the Block out, put a new one in. Those composits are basically in a box
Test 3BM22 and 3BM42 against Leopard 2AV
3BM22 could be, but before 3BM42 came Leo2A0, A1, A2, A3 were produced and A4 was arriving
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 3BM22 and 3BM26 would be interesting for this scenario to see how much the rear core improves against NERA, and also highly sloped plates, maybe Leo 2 UFP
I might make another comment for the warthunder armchair generals - in all these comparisons you see tanks hitting frontal and turret plates as if these are the main ways tanks are taken out.
Yet have you ever stopped to think that despite such realism in penetration in warthunder, simple damage like tracks etc are abstracted to a thirty second repair timer?
Well that's because reality is not so fun - in reality, such 'minor' damage is all it takes to disable a tank and force a crew to bail in an assault or while under artillery fire.
There's no "30 second repair" to a track while being shelled in the real world, and simply damaging the exterior workings of a tank is sufficient.
This is why tanks are such vulnerable weapons that can never be fully protected - because when you're lobbing large explosives at the other side and it's armoured vehicles, something will always inevitably give and without sufficient assault mass, defeat an armoured thrust.
In the battle of the bulge, aviation absolutely decimated Germany's armoured columns, yet tanks were rarely if ever actually penetrated - simply destroying parts of their working gear, setting them on fire or destroying their support vehicles was sufficient.
Even the best tank will always be easily destroyed when not utilised amongst a preponderance of force
One correction, wt projectile armor is anything but realistic.
We used 3BM15 in the Eighties. It was rarely fired during Exercises. During Training in the Soviet Union, we were introduced to the new 3BM42. We saw Shot Tests. Last Doubts were cleared.
1976 ...
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 1989!
@@tomrabe8037 1976!!!!!!!!
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174BITE OF 87?!?!?!
@0:29 I love how the Force goes ahead of the projectile
Dejmian ive been your fan for a long time i love your vids can you please do a m18 hellcat vs the tiger 1 upper plate at a range where the hellcat can penetrate it
Ok
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174little shlt
@@manu210 ?
@@manu210 u crazy
Надо было еще более древний ломик взять, 3бм9 например. Сейчас самый распространённый снаряд, манго-м, и шьет он данную модификацию леопарда на ура.
ответ автора такой: так и модификация древняя, как бы вообще не ранний прототип.
Нее это слишком ты загнул))) Надо БР-412 было! Если ссать в уши людям то только так)) Тут так принято: самое г-но с навороченным самым, сравнивать и хоть ты че делай он тебя игнорить будет)))
@@Fulcrum683 это просто эмуляция. Хоть от мосинки - не нравится, не смотри. Тут никакой лжи нет.
@@MultiNike79 А это просто мнение или мне его тоже не высказывать? Я не спорю что тут нет лжи, просто имхо сравнивал бы с тем что было на тот момент,а мне кажется на тот момент было что то другое либо первый леопард,либо М60, ладно все как есть будет пусть...
@@Fulcrum683 просто странно прибегать на канал, где показывают эмуляции и возмущаться.
I'm curious how different the result would be if the penetrator would hit in between the slanted plates.
Not much. It will still have to pass through the next plate. If it is instead deflected down through the gap, then it has already lost so much energy that there is no way it can go through the second array.
Thank you for your work.
I wonder how compromised that section would be to another hit somewhere close to the first one.
Can someone please help me understand what the rubber and bulging plate are for? Am i wrong in thinking that they are supposed to sort of move with the projectile to "catch" it? Or is it more to enact plate feeding? Or something else entirely?
They expand, not only increasing slightly the distance the penetrator has to travel, but also providing resistance in different planes, disrupting the momentum, alignment and shape of the penetrator. This all aids in defeating it. This is known as 'Non Explosive Reactive Armour'.
it's protection against HEAT. The rubber accumulates energy of the impact and transfers it to the bulging plate, pushing it out, and it disturbs the jet
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174It seemed to disturb the APFSDS pretty well also
I'm no expert, but I imagine it a bit like a glass plate in a frame. Glass is harder than most steel blades, but you can punch through it. However, if the glass plate is kept in place by a frame then you won't be able to stab through it, even if the frame itself can be penetrated easily with your dagger.
Now, if you shoot a bottle, you'll see a fountain coming out of the entrance hole. Imagine it to be glass shards and you can instantly see how this could decrease the penetration...
Now, with a plastic sandwiched in between steel plates, what would happen if you try to cut it with a blow torch?
The plastic will heat up until parts of it become a gas and the rest will be a jet of molten plastic hitting you! (That's actually something some safes do!)
@@edi9892
That's how ceramic based plate works, at least that's what found to have an effect on protection. But not relevant in current discussion.
There is a new video of leopard getting hit in the side of the turret by some kinda of atgm (probably helicopter launched) and surviving the hit.
Can you do a simulation to see at what angle it can be stopped?
It's hard to tell exactly what the rubber is for. I'm sure there's a very good reason the engineers put it in, I just would like to know.
I assume it's to catch or slow down the microscopic armor and projectile fragments?
Main function is to provide a different density medium to produce a angling effect on kinetic penetrators. Also its probably a superior material against HEAT
The rubber expands under pressure, causing the steel plates to bulge, which in turn imparts shear stress on the KE-penetrator. At least that what I read somewhere.
This is the basis of the functioning of the NERA armor. NERA was developed mainly against HEAT warheads, for which uniform steel armor was not a problem. The rubber accumulates the impact energy and transfers it to the bulging plate, pushing it out. The bulging plate disturb jet.
@@RichelieuUnlimited NERA against kinetic projectiles has a slightly different design. Thin and soft plates will do nothing to the penetrator. The plates must be thicker and hard, but then they will not deform, but will "swing" more. Then, on both sides of the "rubber", the plates must be active so that they do not block themselfs, as in Abrams NERA, Leo 2A5 wedges
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Is there really an "impact" for HEAT warhead? And is rubber "bulging reaction" fast enough either for HEAT jet or APDS kinetic penetrator?
Wasn't the 2AV the prototype that was rejected because it's armor was "too light"?
It's ofc not realy composite armor, but it's interesting to see how it's supposed to work. I reckon the 2A4 was a huge upgrade over this turret design, not to mention the 2A5 and upwards.
not really, it met the standards set before it, the 2A4 came out 10 years later and of course it had better armor but the projectiles were also much better
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 interesting
no pen AT ALL
Big fan! Great work.
IS7 vs Leopard 2AV ?
Is possible to save result and use it for another shot ?
No
could you do the same but with 3bm42?
Он пробьёт, тот снаряд что показан в видео почти не имеет вольфрама
2AV is a pretty old one right?
1976
Wow! 1500 m/s and stopped in less than 1 m.
Imagine the "knock" on turret ring.
Only now this projectile is not even fired at the training ground, because it is totally outdated.
@@biba5609 How so? APFSDS rounds are still used by all militaries, right? Is there something about this specific round that makes it different? I'm genuinely curious.
@@doggonemess1 Yes APFSDS are still used. This is just old and better sabot designs have been made.
@@noballsbigshaft4486 Weird - you would think that supersonic pointy spikes couldn't be improved. XD
A video with an old APCBC hitting Leopard 2 front turret plate?
Wow, I've seen some RUclips channel saying that the armor plating for leopard is designed to absorb shaped charges and ATGMs not kinetic rounds. I was very surprised how the frontal armor ate that round. This tank is a beast and the armor composition really shows German quality
But that armour only on tank turret, the hull is much worse protected. I think this is a serious problem.
@@tamerlantl746NATO tanks are designed for defense, and being used in hull down positions, so you're not supposed to expose it just like that
@@thezig2078 but, everyone who now uses NATO tanks is doing exactly the opposite to your words)
@@tamerlantl746 Even the swiftest horse is cooked when there's a fool on top
@@tamerlantl746 the inital hull armor of Leo2 was as thick as M1´s initial turret armor. thats not weak thats pretty massive.
Am i crazy or is there a small chunk of *invisible* metal thats going faster than the main projectile and penetrating more?
You see well, but not completely. The model consists of elements, and even if there are ten million of them, it has a limited ability to separate into fragments. When the penetrator breaks down too much, the simulator converts the elements into free particles that retain the mass of the elements. They can be made visible, but then the view is blurred.
It should be noted that this is the altered version of the AV armor that was only ever a ballistic test. Using this armor package, the Leopard 2AV would have weighted 63 short tons instead of 59. The armor that would be used on the Leopard 2 Series was considerably less than this.
And this is a very early projectile, and not a contemporary of this armor.
Can you prove this?
According to actual German documents, there was no lightening in the terms of armour protection when it came to composite armour, they kept the requirement from the Leopard 2AV so it would perform similarly or identically to what we're seeing here, and saved the weight in other places such as engine cover going from 40mm to 20mm etc. I'm not even sure why people keep repeating this lie over and over again.
@@eyyze What do you mean? The blue prints literally say "Geänderte Konstruktion" meaning "Modified construction". The AV already had it's spaced non special armor array rated for 115mm apfsds protection like initialy required. The LOS was decreases a bit but that is what was retained for Series production. That is why they could extend the hull, thin a few plates and keep the weight at 60 tons.
@@STGN01 2AV's armour was rated for 105mm APFSDS at @200m and 120mm at @1500mm per the requirements from 1974, the armour we're seeing in this simulation is the "last evolution" that was created after the failure of the 1976 version (the hull's which instead of being only composite/special armour, had a fuel tank mounted) and which would be adopted on the serial vehicles in one way or another.
I've yet to see the blueprints you're speaking about (mind sending a link?). Was the construction modified compared to the earlier iterations that lacked composite and were only using spaced armour? Or was it the serial vehicles that were modified in comparison to the 2AV?
Where was LoS decreased too? The turret hasn't changed it's LoS at all, the hull, despite a different geometry is also equeal in thickness on serial variants when compared to the 2AV (based on declassified blueprints of the Leopard 2A1). The only thing changed was they replaced the composite upper plate with a simple RHAe plate but angled it more.
@@eyyze The AV was built to US specifications of 800-1200m 115mm APFSDS protection at 30 degrees from the front. If you look at that chart, I am assuming you are looking at, you will see at the bottom there is a note that says 115mm=120mm KE.
Google is your friend Search for "Leopard 2AV armor" it's in the first 20 results I get.
The story seems to be that the Germans didn't have Special Armor, so they were given the least effective version for follow up trials.
Yes, the LOS was decreased too but from the inside, the AV was rather cramped, so they took a few inches off. If you find a good picture of the top of the AV and compare it to the Series it's obvious. Though a guy posted fotos where he deceivingly used close ups and angled his measuring stick, so it appeared series had AV LOS, but if you actually lign up the photos it's easy to see he cheated. I haven't seen Leopard 2 A1 Hull blueprint when was that declasified? The Series hull is 27 cm longer than the AV hull.
I did say it won't go through, but I guarantee a more modern one would, mayyybee 3bm22
Most definitely.
There is a reason 3BM15 was removed from service in mid 1970s.
Testing it in War Thunder it goes right through, shows you the level of 'realism' that game has
It's called making NATO tank's armor perform worse artificially.
@charlieyes4946 actually Nato tanks and planes benefits from War Thunder "buffs"
@@bastikolaski8111 you sure? Top tier Russia looking pretty strong right now.
@@charlieyes4946 because it is in reality
@@bastikolaski8111 Russia’s military has never been weaker. Russia’s newest tank is a design from the 90’s with its gun downgraded to an even older gun, and that design they can’t even get into large scale production. Their newest jet is a 4th generation fighter with some 5th generation detection equipment, but it’s not really a huge improvement over existing Russian jets because it isn’t a 5th gen fighter and can’t get through radar like a 5th gen would, again it’s only in small scale production. America holds a technological edge when it comes to stealth aircraft, and until someone equal the radar absorption of US aircraft nobody will ever be able to compete, through China is trying to, and it has the money, Russia does not.
It’s great that it stopped the round, but is that turret cheek compromised now entirely? Will a hit anywhere near that penetration enter the turret?
probably.
Real life isn't a computer game.
You don't use your armor as a "resources", you don't have hit points degrading.
Except against smal arms fire, the armor of a tank is a last insurance, a life line, in case you get hit, so the crew has a chance to survive.
I don't even want to know, what a stopped 4 to 5 million joule impact will do to the sensors and moving parts.
@@Mr79dream I totally get that. But I'm saying that a hit like that compromises the armor. I want to know to what extent it is compromised.
@@HarrisonSD03 a Lancet kamkaze drone struck a leopard on the cheek of the tower, and this is documented. It is impossible to make thick armor on all sides. ruclips.net/user/shortsJOwEolvNtwM
@@VVV85650 and all the white smoke that you see, is most likely from the smoke grenades, which where struck.
So the clip is way to short to tell the whole damage.
It might have been a pen but on that side is "only" the commander or maybe the gunners head.
So if it penned there, there might be cre casualty.
However, there is nothing that could ignite in the Leopard 2A6 at this place.
@@Mr79dream The white smoke was a fire suppression system, not grenades. This means that there was a penetration and the fire was inside.
Для реалистичности необходимо смоделировать попалание ракеты Вихрь, выпущенной с 10км вертрлетом ка-52 в борт, после подрыва Леопарда на мине тм-62)
imagine in what way they’re going to get that apfsds round out of the armour
They probably don't. They just replace the armor insets for that section entirely.
bruh 3bm15? use atleast 3bm22 of 42
why its a test on old leo2 prototype with old armor array so using rounds from 1970s is more than fine
@jPlanerv2 3bm32/42 would be way to much and the leopard 2a4 would be a better pick against it.
3bm22 was released 3 years earlier than the leopard 2av was accepted.
3bm15 would likely be commonly used on export tanks and also Warsaw pact nations so in a conflict it's likely that it would have been been used against the 2av.
@@jPlanerv2 it's not an outrageous request, 3bm22 is from 1976 and the Leo2AV is from 1977.
It was still interesting to see the 3bm15 test, now it would be good to use the armor model for more videos, and 3bm22 is a logical next one.
@@reentrysfs6317 3bm22 would still be fine to show imo but its same situation as comparing leo2a7 facing 3mb60, the round exist and is in use since like 2010s but how many tanks actually use them not that many, so showing the most common shell in use by they year of tank creation is absolutely fine an i prefere it this way
Do 3BM60 VS Abrams or Leopard upper front plate.
Сегодняшние дни полностью опровергли это видео).
Считают ли сейчас россияне башни Т-90 спутниками воздушной разведки?
@@Mr79dream Собераются ли украинцы выплачивать долги за проёманую западную технику? Уничтожение Т-90, тем более Т-90М "Прорыв" единичные случаи.
@@Tun299 69 отдельных случаев
35 T-90A: (1, destroyed) (2, destroyed) (3, destroyed) (4, destroyed) (5, destroyed) (6, destroyed) (7, destroyed) (8, destroyed) (9, abandoned and later destroyed) (10, destroyed) (11, destroyed) (12, destroyed) (13, destroyed) (14, destroyed) (15, destroyed) (16, destroyed) (17, destroyed) (18, destroyed) (19, destroyed) (20, destroyed) (1, damaged) (1, abandoned) (2, damaged and abandoned) (1, captured) (2, captured) (3, captured) (4, captured) (5, captured) (6, captured) (7, captured) (8, captured) (9, captured) (10 and 11, captured) (12, captured)
1 T-90AK: (1, captured)
7 T-90S: (1, destroyed) (2, destroyed) (3 and 4, destroyed) (5, destroyed) (1, damaged and abandoned) (1, captured)
26 T-90M: (1, destroyed) (2, destroyed) (3, destroyed) (4, destroyed) (5, destroyed) (6, destroyed) (7, destroyed) (8, destroyed) (9, destroyed) (10, destroyed) (11, destroyed) (12, destroyed) (13, destroyed) (14, destroyed) (15, destroyed) (16, destroyed) (1, damaged) (2, damaged) (3, damaged) (4, damaged) (5, damaged) (6, damaged) (1, damaged and abandoned) (2, damaged and abandoned) (1, captured) (2, captured)
@@Mr79dreamкогда "Оплот" будет участвовать в бою?
@@Mr79dream методы партизанской войны дают в данной ситуации плоды по уничтожению техники, но мало что представляют, если брать всю ширину фронта.
do you think projectile with secondary explosion inside armor layout like this will f up the layer ? like 40mm or 57mm auto cannon or maybe 75 auto canon i think if the projectile can penetrate the first layer and explode inside it, it will f up the armor layer config
Maybe a little? No more than high-energy non-explosive projectile
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 what about if it gets hit by a KV-2 anti-concrete round with like 5kg of tnt inside?
@@o-hogameplay185at that point you’re looking at the shockwave and pressure causing issues, especially on the upper hill roof next to the driver’s brain case, rather than “would this penetrate LOS/destroy the NERA”.
@@o-hogameplay185 He doesn't do HE simulations for a good reason, unless he can gets his hands on a supercomputer. But such a massive shell I can imagine quite a bit of secondary damage.
You don't need to destroy a tank for a tank kill. If you blow off a track, it's pretty useless.
@@etuanno "He doesn't do HE simulations"....
hmm, let's see!
ruclips.net/video/AZmtofsK7u0/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ZoBOHQ_aONc/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/-XikZT7uMHw/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/dluaCnv6hGA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/StHD4i1LcTo/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/puRdlrj4vjM/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/cU79JJtk_HU/видео.html, and most likely more, i was just lazy to scroll back more
Mate, we need Leopard 1A5 L7A3 105mm DM33 and DM63 against T-72B1 Kontact1 Hull and Turret front and sides
😮 comment for algorytm
Does the spinning of the rod also be taken into calculation ? Woulda be interesting to see it wiggle around more or is it not significant to end result?
Spinning is what they want to avoid actually. It takes away energy.
APFSDS fired from a smoothbore gun does not spin. APFSDS is stabilized by the rods fins so spinning is not required.
Now imagine repairing this...💀
I imagine that changing the armor is pretty simple
@@nicojokelin5547 Nothing on a tank is "simple" 😃
@@xendk
Lots of things are simple
wasnt 2av the model with air instead of armour?
Yeah
@@lexyc7126 well, it aint modelled here though
mmm......hyeta...
3BM15 is a very old (ancient) projectile! Try simulation with the most common Russian projectile for 125 mm tank gun - 3BM-42 Mango.
Lol this armor od ancient
This armor is the best of the human world!
@@YK-gm7vg 3BM15 is the best penetrator the world has ever known
3БМ15 ЭТО СОВЕТСКИЙ БРОНЕБОЙНО ОПЕРЁННО ПОДКАЛИБЕРНЫЙ СНАРЯД ОБРАЗЦА 1962 ГОДА!!! Вы бы ещё снаряд второй мировой бы взяли! Лучше уж снимать видео с 3бм46 или 3бм50
@user-ct9sj3rh8p😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
К моменту появления данной модификации 3БМ15 был основным БОПСом в советской армии.
soooo we could just make another modular block of this armour and just add it around the turret right? x2 protection :)
Current combat experience of using leopard armour shows A LOT more different pictures. Short: leopard tanks are waste of money.
I have a feeling that mental kids are now trying to get revenge for laughing at the mass destruction of Russian tanks
Look he didn't test the apdsfs currently used in the simulation 3bm15 is older and i think it has steel core
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 yea, Russians try to cope hard at the moment.
Just watched a few of their propaganda videos ranting about the Leopard 2 😀
Pure comedy gold.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Its a proven fact that the Leos are performing very poorly in Ukraine at the moment. The losses are insane compared to the pure fiction and propaganda used to create this "best tank in the world" image the leos had. Embarrassing is an understatement.
@@AlphaBravoCheeseCake If such a tank is not used properly, it will be destroyed even by a WW2 tank. Of course, those who write nonsense like above have no idea if the tank was involved in a tank battle. They don't even know how why to destroy such a tank, nor what was responsible for it. They write words that are a sign of ignorance, without careful scrutiny beforehand.
now put an ERA brick in front of it to test how much it would matter
Depends on which ERA where talking about, of you're talking about something like Ukrainian Norzh or Duplet then that will definitely make a difference considering that Norzh uses shaped charges to literally slice the projectile in half and Duplet is 2 or 3 layers of Norzh
Put there Russuian Contact 5 stuff...
its really old projectile
and old armor array on proto leo2
Armor is as old as projectile
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 You can use 3BM22 as it was introduced year after L2AV
@@Zadlo14 the impact angle was not preferential for the Leo so the 3BM15 is fair
You could've predicted the result just by the complexity of the design. It's "language" is confidence. It's funny when you take supposed stats, like 1,200mm of penetration, and compare it to this, like 250mm, and it can't go through? You see that its all exaggerated.
The design looks pretty good, but I think thicker plates are better than multiple thin ones.
BTW, I just noticed this was on the turret. I've wondered about what that cavity could hold, and how it could potentially be upgraded as needed. It does add some weight, but how much really? The Russian tank just opts to put the crew in the hull instead, which seems fine too. Can this turret be operated manually? Probably not, so there's not much benefit to crew being inside of it.
I also find it funny that people have schematics for the armor.
You had the opportunity to compare it with BM42 or 44, being the APFSDS more used by the Russians it would have been much more interesting
Yes 3BM42 is widely used... nowadays. Why should I compare it to a fifty-year-old prototype.
then he would have to use actuall leo2a4 turret armor array not proto versions from 1970s
yes but then to make things fair, you would need to change the tank armour array to reflect AV6 or 7. this is a protype, and its germany they have actual prototypes, its the russians with their Armata that confuse protypes with opperational equipment
it's hard to find real penetration, and even harder to find real thickness of modern ammo and tanks's armor
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 But 3BM22 would have been a better test, Leopard 2AV is from 1977, even later than 3BM22, 3BM15 is from 1972, 5 years earlier than Leopard 2AV
The russians don't use 3BM15 though, 3BM42 is their oldest round in circulation and it outperforms the 3BM15 by a big margin, mostly they use 3BM46 & 3BM60 wich are the modern equivalents.
The Germans have not used the Leopard 2AV for 45 years.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 fair point
Leopards burn beautifully tough
learn to spell vatnik
@@pooddly9637 but they still burn
Is that the "mango" round?
*lancet is laughing in the corner*
There is footage of Leo getting hit by Lancet. Just a scratch
Leopards are designed to maximize mobility, especially on the tactical and operational level, in order to provide optimal performance in a QRF role. This was their whole point from the start, before a single design was drafted.
Their job was to poke enemy spearheads, soften them up and leave before they'd be tied down in a commited engagement.
Hence it's quite silly to argue that it is somehow lesser because it does not trump other vehicles in armor protection, or because it performs worse when pressed into roles it was not designed for.
The design, from the start, was centered around the unique requirement that the german Bundeswehr had for an Armored Vehicle that was mobile enough to fight a fighting retreat over roughly a hundred kilometers of frontline. It is protected against snapshots and glancing hits, but in an actual engagement, it's main protection was meant to be Stealth and Evasion. If you take those two away, you get a significantly flustered tank.
As seen in both Turkey and Ukraine, treating the Leopard like a Challenger or Abrams will only result in failure. Wether that's a failing of the tank's design or a failure of the army fielding it is a matter of discussion.
Have you seen the video of the first meeting of a modern T tank with a modern Leopard? Single T tank shot 2 Leopards and 6 armored vehicles that accompanied them. And then they just left for the awards.
@@MultiNike79 And i'm sure you can Source that video and verify it's validity? Just admit you're post-truth, it's clear you've stopped caring about what's actually right and wrong and are just posturing for approval.
@@acceptablecasualty5319 You see, your problem, as during the Third Reich and before, is that you fundamentally do not respect human rights.
I understand that this is a feature of European culture, the root cause of its criminality. Yes, you have been brainwashed since childhood and comfortable conditions contribute to cognitive distortions.
Unfortunately, this can be cured only by forceful control of Europe by Russia. Only during these periods do Europeans become human.
@@MultiNike79 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
You can't even distiguish soviet tanks from western 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
@@MultiNike79 for once I have a serious question for you. In your honest opinion, what will or should Putin do, after winning his 3 day special military operation? What will or should he do with the Jewish, people of color, Muslim and LGBTQ population of the western nations, after "defeating the NAZI'S of the west"?
leopard 2 cardboard tank. in addition to the forehead of the tower and the body, he no longer has armor in other places, the roof of the tower is generally 15-20 mm, but the tower in the upper projection is more than 3 \ 4 of the total length without a gun!
lol
@@Mr79dream proof
the roof of the tower 15-20мм,
ruclips.net/video/8qPuunlSOFw/видео.html
the upper part of the side is 20+40mm
, the lower part of the side of the chassis rollers is 38mm
Any T-72, 80 hull side is 80 mmttps://ruclips.net/video/8qPuunlSOFw/видео.html
@@макслюлюкин as I sayd, LOL.
80mm all round, lol, not with that weight.
@@макслюлюкин this ^ guy is Nazy. They are inadequat.
@@Mr79dream Have you seen your German iron? The leopard is twice as large in size as the T-72. 80, -3 man crew. and not 4, due to the automatic loader, the internal volume is smaller, which means the tank is better armored, yes, the leopard may have better protection from the forehead, but from all other sides it is much worse armored than any Soviet and Russian tank, in fact the leopard can be safely destroyed even by a 120mm mortar shell, because the roof of the tower is not it will withstand an explosion on its surface. The Russian tanks have a 40 mm tower roof plus dynamic protection units, and the size of the tower from the upper projection is 2.5 times smaller
aren't this armor is supposed to be hit at angle too?
А оказалось что реальность отличается от стимуляции и горят леопарды на украине как в 42....🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@leotoledochacabuco the Falklands where allways british and are still british 😛
@@Mr79dream thieves
да здравствует россия! поздравления из Аргентины
@@leotoledochacabuco it's spelled "winner"
So does the ruSSians tanks on 41 ;)
killed by Lancet ahahahaha
Is there any reason to make the middle compartment flat instead of angled mount like the other 2 compartment?
Spaced armor can act more effectively on a damaged round than even RHA in some cases, so to give the whole turret cheek an even armor profile (meaning the effective thickness doesn't change depending on where you hit on the turret cheek) they made the middle straight, plus it also prevents blowout allowing the armor to take more shots
I'm unconvinced by your hypothesis.
Uniform of protection across the surface. Regardless of how you mount the plate, at the same impact angle, it will have the same protection across the surface at that angle.
Blowout? Roughly the same area of armor is compromised regardless how you mount the plate. If anything, you want more of the plate destroyed since that means taking more energy away from the penetrator.
Spaced array does more damage to damaged penetrator than rha. Well, spaced array tend to be made out of rha, and damage penetrator is not one thing.
Test show if you are dealing with multiple pieces across a larger surface area, it is better to have a singular thicker plate than multiple thin plate.
Test also show spaced array present no significant advantage, and sometimes disadvantage if they are not angled.
Very impressive.
make pls the same with 3bm42
Concrete layers here? Corundum balls?aluminium copper plates?😂
Now, no pen unlike older designs and models in other channels
Why not the 3BM22?
what was used to make this?
Do kontact1 era but with 30mm steel armour mounted on top(make shift heavy era) and compare to normal K1 era and test vs apfsds to see if how much more protection it give over 30mm
Leopards in Ukraine getting a armor from t72 kontact 1 era !
Okgrdytr
Detendra el proyectil de un T-90M o un Armata? Porque no creo que detenga un kornet o un RPG-29.
Я не могу сказать точно, но мне кажется не остановит, потому что т90м использует гораздо более современное орудие, а про армату я вобще молчу.
the T-90M came out like 40 years after this prototype, it's more advanced than it, it wouldn't stop it's shots
How do you do the simulations
Почему старые 3бм15 а не 3бм22?
@user-ct9sj3rh8p м-да
Потому, что за год просто не возможно насытить армию, тем более советскую, новыми БОПСами.
whats the simulator used?
Ok, that blew me away.
Can anyone say Leopard 2A4 or 2AV's turret cheeks have how many mm kinetic energy protection? As I know turret cheeks have roughly 750 mm kinetic energy protection.
Leopards have poor armor on the sides. It's worth testing shots to the weak points as well
All tanks have "poor" armor on the sides. You can't possibly build a tank with perfect all around protection, you have to save weight somewhere. Side armor needs to protect from 20 and 30mm autocannons or stuff like RPG 7, that's all
What’s the difference between this and the normal 2A4
it's 10 years older and a test vehicle for the US military1
@@Mr79dream ohhh ok thanks
@@Abdullahkhan00881 Mr79dream is a crazy Nazi, he is insane.
This version has slightly thicker armor than the one that went into production.
Everyone saying that a t-72 or even a t-64a could not penetrate the leo 4. I dont wanna bring the t-64b in to this because it would be ,cheating' bc it got 3bm42 and it would destroy the leo in 1 shot. T-72a can use 3bm22 as well and the leo's hull and gunner port on the turret is very weak. And yeah the leo's loader is the most portected and angled part on the tank. Well Done!
What makes the lancet 3 so effective?
that it isn't used against the front!
That is the whole point of all modern anti tank weapons!
Can you try this but with HEAT ?
Lol, and war thunder says it goes straight through. I wonder if all armour has a weaker model in war thunder or if it's just Western tanks
war thunder presumably treats the core rod the same as the solid rod, while
as a solid rod having the same penetration of the steel plate as the core rod will cope better with such armor
Wow one guy makes a simulation where Leo armor is not hollow chamber or "disclaimer: my best guess guys" and the comments bubble up.
Contrary to popular belief Western experts always overestimated Soviet technology. Bradley was built as a response to early leaks of BMP1 for example, we can see how they compare now.
Wait, what? It's not really fair to compare a BMP1 to a Bradley. They are worlds apart. Seems like the US did overestimate the Soviets by quite a large margin.
Technique does not make sense to compare 1 to 1. It is all closely related to the economy and the proposed tactics of action.
There were 3,000 Bradleys made and they are very large - hard to camouflage and easy to hit. BMP-1 - 20,000 items.
We are heading for a nuclear war, the infantry does not live in its conditions, so the maximum amount of special equipment is needed. Therefore, Russia has so many tanks and infantry fighting vehicles.
Western military thought is based on colonial strategy - fighting against weak countries. Therefore, less number of vehicles is needed there, but more efficient.
What happens if you add ERA?
There was no ERA back then. It is few years before ERA.
3BM42 "Mango" could've gone differently.
Why not direct frontal impact?
because I don't have the computing power.
war thunder need to see this
Mmm well in net says T-72A can use 3BM42 i think, so maybe you can always do the best ammo of that tank(or second on) to do this test, cuz normally is what they will use
nonsense, the T-72B appeared before the 3BM42 appeared. in theory, you can put APDS and HEAT with 400mm of penetration into the IS-2, but that doesn't mean you can shoot at the Tiger 2 with it
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 that he appear before doesnt mean they cant use ammo, f15's appeared before aim120 and they can use it
@@miguelpericas6154 lol I didn't write that it can't. I wrote that shooting ammunition at a tank that no longer existed when this ammunition was introduced is pointless. Why are you even suggesting this?
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 i cant follow u, my english is a bit bad, if im not wrong u telling something like why shot to something with 3bm46 in this case when leopard2av would not face it?
42** it is from 86, leopard2av idk, or 2k but well.. maybe it was just a suggestion about use the best ammo on that tank or one of them, it is ur sim so u can do what u want
The russian decixed to use 21-6-3 for t72 nera.
If possible, just for the lols, is it possible to switch the 30-4-4 nera with 21-6-3 nera and see if any real difference occur?
Or test it with abrams 5.5*3 nera?
it would make sense to compare the two choices for the HEAT jet, but when it comes to kinetic projectiles you can actually throw it away and you won't notice the difference
Great shape !
so how come a grenade dropped by a drone blows these guys up? is it that much thinner on top?
Hatch open, or smoke launchers being set off making it look like an explosion.