LEOPARD 2A4 vs T-72B (1985) | 120mm DM33 APFSDS Armour Piercing Simulation
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 фев 2025
- The Leopard 2A4 and T-72B are both mass produced MBTs, with the leopard 2 featuring the widespread Rh-120mm smoothbore cannon. The simiulation presents a ~1987 engagement scenario, with the impact of a DM33 APFSDS on the upper plate, from a range of ~1.5km, at a point where there is a gap in the ERA (such as around the towing eyes). It should be noted that impacting the ERA would have little effect on the result as it is Kontakt-1 which was designed to counter shaped charges, not APFSDS.
This simulation does not represent a modern engagement between a Leopard 2 and a T-72, as both have improved greatly in firepower and protection, since the 80's
The performance of DM33 was purely derived from a Lanz-Odermatt calculation based off the diagram linked below. At 1500m the 1537.5m/s velocity was determined from a 75m/s drop over 1000m value given online (1650m/s muzzle velocity). At this velocity, the resultant LoS perforation against a 270BHN plate at 68° is 531mm (199mm thick plate). The plate is almost at the limit of penetration, aligning quite well with live-fire testing of 3BM32 Vant on Tankograd (195mm perforation limit failed to breach the plate). This gives the mass effectiveness of the armour at around 1.18, which is also close to the cited estimated value.
DM33 Diagram: sun9-32.userap...
T-72B armour arrangement & performance: Tankograd T-72 Part 2
Amazing Thumbnail artwork from: Air-fox www.cgtrader.c...
Just to clarify, this isnt representative of a modern Leopard 2 & T-72 engagement, but a ~1987 one
Also, a correction, the 2A4 entered service in 1985, 1979 was the first Leopard 2 variant
It would be interesting T-72B3M or T-90M vs. Leopard 1A5 (i think the russian apdfsd will be easily repelled by the good german steal armour, even on the side or from the back and unter 100m distance)😆
Ok i am joking
Ok back to reality:
T-72B3M vs. Leo 1A5 frontal (thickest plates/ best angle) 2500m
I think even at 2500m will the russian apdfsd penetrate the leo like a hot knife through butter.
@@Neonblue84 increase that to past 5+km. Leopard 1 armor is really little in terms of protection even against older shell types (APDS and steel APFSDS), it was not thinked to stops anything bigger than an autocannon fire from the front.
Leopard 2a4 vs bm42
Literally same thing when you consider same tanks firing same ammunitions will be facing each other soon
DM53 next ? ( cause thats what we can expect to be used Soon™ ) 👍
I'd say this would be an unforgettable experience for the driver.
a significant emotional event, one could say
Quite suboptimal
Less than ideal
he'd just be amber
really where exactly on the front plate it hits but i doubt it incapacitates the driver
I honestly didn’t expect it not to have a full penetration, was quite close though
Look at the range. I’ve noticed a lot of the tests on this channel are at the cusp of where they would be expected to penetrate. The M829A2 and L23A1 were the same
Metals like steel, tungsten, or uranium is usually better than ceramics/rubber/fiberglass when it comes to stopping KE projectiles.
Dude, the simulation is bullshit lol
Its more interesting when its just at the limit ;)
@@eraldorh why?
Thanks for speeding it up at the end; I can begin to see what a dynamic process it is.
Somewhere at mechanical plant:
"Have you seen this, comrade? We should add another 16mm plate..."
they actually did this on the t-80b's except it was a 30mm HHA
Basically the super dolly parton turret, 20mm of extra IIRC
@@lightningstrike5024 yes but the T-72A's recieved the 16mm plate
应该在加一块爆炸反应装甲就行了
@@MingyeZou t72b 已经有爆炸反应装甲了
Honestly held up better than I thought. I do however wonder if the T-72's composite materials have a shell life so to speak. I'm curious to know if age plays a role in their ability to stop rounds, especially chemical rounds.
Not sure about textolite, but this hasn't got anything but steel anyway. And i would assume as the steel rusts, it weakens slightly?
Thats actually interesting topic that i never thought about , armor inserts on MBTs have to degrade in some way especially when they were not replaces for over a 40 years and thats same for Any leo2a4 and T72/T80, simple termal expansion and shrinking over they years had to have some negative effect on armor integrity
@@SYsimulations Hey can you include texolite in this simulation, just to see if it makes difference?
As far as I know, hulls do have lifespans
@@krumpirko8888gaming he has done other configurations of the t72 which include the material.
Can you also simulate 2 shots in a row, one by one, with damage from the first hit preserved, but the second hit is in a slightly different place nearby. That would be extremely interesting!
*аха, думаешь немец доживёт до второго выстрела???😁 не забывай, здесь не учли динамическую защиту "Контакт1", на те годы.🤦♂ на современные танки ставят "Контакт5 и Реликт"*
@@ВашеВеличество-в5б I do.
@@ВашеВеличество-в5б Russian tanks cant hit shit😂
@@sebastiansuteu1829 _ты реально думаешь, что мадярам достанется часть украины??? Россия даже Львов полякам не отдаст😁_
@Trockner Yes as proven in desert storm and decades of combat. Great first shot capability on its FCS
U should make a witness plate, so we can see how much damage and spalling will hit the tank crew ...
T-72B has internal NBC padding, that should contain this amount of spalling.
If you want to see spawl damage you also have to simulate the spawl liner,which I heard was quite difficult to do.
It would be interesting to see how DM53 from L/55 would fare against this array with added Kontakt-5.
The LKE II penetrators alloy should be of lower density than pure tungsten but show some adiabatic shear similar to uranium while having increased resistance to tangential shear forces.
The penetrator should weight ~5kg (overall 8,35kg) and have a length of 646mm (overall 745mm) and a diameter of ~20,8mm (+sheath I’m guessing overall ~24,5mm) Muzzle velocity should be ~1750m/s.
Edit: It would also be interesting to see how DM73 would fare. It should use the same penetrator but have a muzzle velocity of ~1810m/s.
Dm53 will fly right through. A big part of the push for the Leo2A6, L55, gun, and later rounds like DM43 and DM53 was specifically due to the fact that the L44 paired with Dm33 could not penetrate the T72 and T80 tanks.
@@92HazelMocha Not really - T-72B mod89 has NERA plus K5. These increase protection by about 25%. So DM43 would certainly have issues.
Pls, make simulation
I'm not buying it unless you cut open one of them.
Rheinmetall themself said newer generation of rod are optimized to deal with complex target with active element, and will not perform as well as previous generation if shooting against a block of steel.
Just about every experiment shows a long stick alone, within reasonable dimension and launch parameter, is not enough to defeat complex target in this day and age.
1800m/s is approaching unreasonable launch parameter with modern current widespread powder.
If the rod is not overwhelming longer than 829a2, which it is not, it will not be a solid stick. But how much it differ from a solid stick is of anyone guesses, unless you got a contact in Rheinmetall.
can you post some classified military documents and the actual picture of the shell please?
A nice addition to these videos would be a display of the timescale (e.g. 30x slower than real time) although I'm not sure how difficult that would be to add. Just a thought, been enjoying your videos for a while!
Thanks! theres a timescale in the upper left corner, this whole event takes 0.001s, so a ~10s clip means its 10,000x slower than real time :)
Imagine being the driver and seeing a 120mm APFSDS show its head through a crack it just made
Immediate cardiac arrest
"Cyka Blyat Nakhui "
A war thunder driver would just angle the tank so the next projectile don't peak at him.
Would love to see the Leopard 2 A5/A6 turret
In sims with textolite intermediaries you can see they actually help in deflecting the penetrator and reducing its effect. This here doesn't seem to be doing any of that. Projectile stays straight as an arrow and it's basically just the nominal armor thickness that is doing anything.
i think the alternating composites here were just dropped for air despite them being the actual MVPs in redirecting longrod (and HEAT jet) energies
One small criticism, I think you should either have a key for acronyms at the beginning of the video (eg "RHA = Rolled Homogenous Armour") or include the full names instead of the acronym the first time they're discussed in the annotations. Mainly because a lot of these terms are informal or have different meanings in different countries or contexts. Searching BHN brings you straight to the relevant wikipedia article but HHA (which I assume is High Hardness Armour?) has a zillion different meanings and wikipedia's disambiguation page doesn't even have a military article listed.
Apologies, you're correct, it would definitely be clearer. There's not space in the video but I'll add it to the description next time if i remember
@@SYsimulations Thank you!
Kontact does reduce the impact of APFSDS rounds but that reduction is only in order of 5-10%. The back plate was not thick enough to really impact the direction of the sabot round. Hence only a small inc of protection offered.
That kontakt 1. For kontakt 5 it does significantly reduce on a scale of 20 to 30%
Kontakt 1 was made to stop Shaped Charges, while the kontakt 5 is able to "stop" the kinetic energy from APFSDS rounds, sorry for my bad english
while the effect of the kontact 1 era might be minimal in this case it actually might have been enough
maybe it slightly deforming the projectile could save the rearmost plate
It's still a few more mm of metal. It will not explode, but will make it harder.
range is too big...
@@viz12345wdym range is too big?
Correction: Leo2A4 first appeared towards the end of 1985, ~same time as T-72B /1985, not 1979. Earlier versions were upgraded to A4 standard later on.
..also the claim that ERA Kontakt-1 would have zero effect is questionable. Looks like Leo2A4 had zero chance of penetrating actual T-72B with ERA.
@@SuperIv7 He is right, K-2 ERA provides basically zero protection against APFSDS.
You're correct, video meant to say Leo 2 entered service, not Leo 2A4. I did another video on the T-64BV with K-1 and you can see it basically has no effect
@@SuperIv7 this is why the l44 cannon replaced to l55... what similary effectless against t72b3.
This looks like a partial penetration with minimal spalling. And if this shot was aimed near the towing eyes like the video description suggests, then the schrapnel would very likely enter the fuel tank keeping the crew safe. The driver would have had an interesting day though.
The poor drivers always have the most interesting days...
Can you model 3BM26 against the M1 or M1IP?
It was the first soviet projectile especially designed to penetrate composite armor.
You can't find schemes or info on armor composition for that tank. Only M1 armor scheme we have is for base M1 hull armor.
@@Phapchamp The original M1 armor array is available from the same source of the hull armor
@@Ropetor IP in M1IP stands for Improved Protection and it has the same armor as M1A1. So it's not same as M1. Although i didn't see M1 in your original comment so apologies in that regard.
these simulations are fascinating
At the range of 1500 it is definitely good, less than that and it would perforate.
2km was the expected distance for tank batles cold war. And this doesnt include Kontack 5 ERA wich equiped this tanks
@@76456 well it is still better than nothing, these tanks can still fuck up anything but a tank.
@ᛗᛟᚾᛁᛊᛃ the T-72B didn't have kontakt-5 (edit: until the 1989 version), that was only on the t-80u at that time afaik. It had kontakt-1 though, which would have an insignificant effect
@@SYsimulations yes. It was the mod 1989 that had k-5.
@@SYsimulations Even Kontakt 1 had small effect on Kinetic projectiles not significant true but in this sim round barely penetrated last plate so i think it would change the outcome
Very interesting to see your simulations.
I'm pretty sure a two-degree elevation increase of the projectile would make it go through
if ERA was installed it might have ofsett the elevation degree by pushing it of course
@@ImXs1p3r with era it wouldn't go through for sure
"Hans, go drive to the top of that hill over there"
@@pacocinco Hans remember, hull down . 😎
@@1222dss it would, kontakt 1 isnt made for apfsds
i love how people are so invested in whether or not a projectile perforates a target…. it’s a simulation…. 4 fun…. on yt
would be interesting to compare this with the Leo 2A6 with the L/55 gun, see what difference the longer gun makes
At the same range, this projectile would go through, and any newer projectile would too
They are sending the 1987 version up there, the same that got blown away in Turkey some years ago. They don´t stand a chance against modern APFDS from a T-72B3 or T-80.
It's the 1985 version, and by the performace of the T-80bvms and T-72b3 against old Ukraine scrap matel like the T-64bv, it will performe just fine.
@@marius-arnoldpeper9228 do you have any videos of T-64 killing a T-80? because there are a lot the other way around. lol
A little surprised by the result but the T-72B UFP armor was a massive upgrades for the T-72 family, just like the turret made with reflective plates and then the use of Kontakt-5 with the mod.1989.
It would be interesting to see the same armor layout plus the Kontakt-1 against a general ATGM, not a tandem one since it will easily overcome both ERA and composite protection (maybe trying with the basic TOW-2🤓).
Russian tanks aren't good. Majority of the russian tanks being used dont have thermal for commander. While western tanks have been using both thermal for commander and gunner. T90m is the only russian tank in current active service, that is the first tank in russian service, that have commanders own sight. The ERA isn't doing much anyways.
@@travismccraw6013 just go write slava ukrainii on "Sun" channel
@@travismccraw6013 russian tanks are good
@@travismccraw6013 this is in the 80s. At that Time the soviets had tanks which were Just as good if not better but also had much more than The west
@@travismccraw6013 i don't get what your comment have to do with mine, where i'm suggesting a possible different scenario (basic single shaped charge ATGM against same UFP armor plus the Kontakt-1), and the off topic parts about thermals, electronic and FCS components.
Are you trying to made up a flame?
It’s cool seeing the sabot get shorter as it made its way through the armour.
Good, can we see 2A6 vs T90M next?
Terminator-2 (BMPT) vs M2 Bradley
Indeed, like the poster says, this is not a modern representation, since most T-72B's all have been upgraded with relikt. It would be interesting to know what relikt does to penetrators, as it can in theory reduce it's effect significantly, and what modern rounds have been developed to counter relikt. Also to note is that the thickest armor is not on the glacis but in the front of the turret, that would be interesting to see too, since that is usually the most exposed part of the tank in an engagement.
Not a relikt, but kontact-5
You should do this vid with DM43, 33 is too old, man
This is a sim for Cold War configurations. Plus, I am not sure if we have the specs for current weapons.
😂😂 t72b ‘85 is very new…
@@oohhboy-funhouse Cold War? lol... Man, today's realities show that the russians are actively using the T-72B on the battlefield. Leopard tanks will soon be delivered to Ukraine, which will obviously oppose the russian T-72B and other modifications of the T-72 tank, so personally I would be more interested to see a more realistic version of this video with DM 43
@@ark_dd438 Ummm... T-72B are still fighting on the battlefield in Ukraine, DM 33 is an old ammunition that most likely will no longer be used in the Leopards that will be transferred to Ukraine. Based on this, it becomes obvious that the T-72B will oppose DM 43, and maybe even 53 or 63.
@@jakessu5712 SY has explicitly stated this was based on Cold War configurations. If you have a problem take it up with him.
Rehinmetall is testing it´s new L51 130mm, tanks are going to need A LOT of armor to survive a hit of that thing.
Интересная симуляция. Скоро мы узнаем, как это в реальности выглядит (лучше бы это оставалось только на компьютере).
not really, there will be shooting at much shorter ranges...
@@viz12345 Well we will see on either side, but also, Soviets and Russia added a significant degree of Kinetic protection since 1989 to their T-72s by installing more rubber composite plates and use of Kontakt-5 ERA, and are compatible for usage with Relikt which is said to be twice as effective as Kontakt-5. As far as I understand, the Russian APFSDS produced since 1996, probably have no trouble penetrating the Leopard 2A4 at the common engagement ranges in this conflict..
@@michalis7023 True, but turret protection and reverse speeds are likely a bit more important atm.
One, if you’re not aiming for hull-down in a defensive war, you’re doing something wrong. Plus, the T72 can’t fire a round and quickly reverse out of a dangerous position. And tank-tank kills are pretty rare in Ukraine atm. It’s mostly precision artillery and ATGMs killing tanks. So having better frontal protection won’t help in most situations.
The advantages a 2A4+ brings can outweigh the drawback of the lack in frontal hull armor.
@@theglitch312 That is true, the Leopard I and II are both notoriously mobile vehicles with quite capable engines, and their is no denying the value of having the ability to reverse quickly after engaging a target. That being said, I think the main issue really is simply the weight of these vehicles being beyond anything the Ukrainian state ever could have considered realistically whilst building their roads and bridges. Ukraine, as a nation which people would like to imagine as "western" (at least, compared to Russia) was still a part of the warsaw pact for a long time, and the infrastructure throughout the nation is designed to handle the common tanks fielded by the Soviet, and now Ukrainian (and Russian) militaries.
@@michalis7023 Yup, how these fat beasts will operate using Ukrainian infrastructure remains to be seen. They’re meant to operate in the Fulda gap. So plains and mud shouldn’t be a problem. But they’ll tear up roads and bridges so moving quickly from A to B might be an issue…
The T72 isn’t a perfect tank by any means. But it’s light and small. Two things the Leo definitely isn’t.
Weird to see this, the T-72B we used for shot testing the Leo 2A4 in Denmark was completely penetrated on the turret front, with the arrow being almost intact inside the hull, apart from it being bent and a bit shorter.
Russians made many "monkey model" t72s and this is a t72b theres a t72 and t72a
Can you send a link to these tests?
@@BobbyB1928 most likely results and materials haven't been made public.
@Douglas Godinich I was just the gunner, we went up and inspected the hulls after firing at them
@@johnlarsen0512 Which round was used?
Imagine being the driver watching as the front inner wall of your tank suddenly bulges inwards and cracks open a little bit
It will be too loud, and the hit will be to strong for driver, he we'll be shocked for a couple of seconds.
He would be dead before even noticing, the spall would shred him to pieces. But turret crew would survive, even if their ears would hurt a bit
@@Manu10900 no. just no.
@@Manu10900 you do realize spall liners exist
@@barbarapitenthusiast7103 I was referring to the fact of the driver seeing the armor opening. But since there is spall liner that wouldn't happen
72b 1989 mod has extra 30 mm UPF plate and contact-1 ERA.
Could you make a simulation of the HE projectile of a KV2 against armor from the second world war? Since this tank was not used against other tanks, only buildings I am curious to know the result.
i think that the su152 fired the same HE projectile
@@roboticrebel4092 I think so, I'm not sure.
The assumption here is that the tank plant didn't embezzle the funds to buy high-hardness armour plate.
What do you mean by that?
T 72 ❤
its funny how we've gone back to using arrows again
This is IF they are built to spec and no corrupt bureaucrat got their hands caught in the cookie jar.
This is a SOVIET vehicle not a russian one
@@barbarapitenthusiast7103 oh yea corruption didn't exist in SOVIET Russia. 🤣
@@shirtdirt1874 the average west european country had 10 Times more corruption than The soviets
@@barbarapitenthusiast7103 cool story bro
@@shirtdirt1874 cool "I have no argument" response.
0:22 - 0:23 This is how sloped plates are not as great as they used to be. The dart erosion has an upper area free to evacuate large volumes of destroyed armour up into the air. It makes a large hole and helps the rod to stay vertical allowing successful penetration to continue.
But, the real winner here is the DU-made rod. The upper area opening helps this type of APFSDS dig deeper as the evacuation of erosion by-product this prevents pinching and counteracts the increasing friction forces.
Can you simulate a 10 kg tungsten railgun projectile flying at 10 km per second against some modern armor, please
100% penetration
@@TeddyKrimsony agree, but I really wanna see that
Are there any operational/fielded railguns anywhere?
@@Burboss afaik only on some battleships because they are extremely power hungry
@@UniverseUA there are none. I know you are referring to Zumwalt class frigates. In case you missed it, it's railguns will be replaced with guided missiles.
why does the projectile seem to rotate? The gun being smoothbore, it should not. Are the fins are tilted so that passage through the air provides some torque to start rotation? Amazing simulations, please keep it up!
fins are canted
Apfsds (even from smoothbores) tend to rotate still (but slower than spin stabilised rounds) as it is to ensure any asymmetric defects wont cause the projectile to yaw in that direction. And yes, it is often done with the leading edge of the fins being tapered slightly
Wasn't T-72B mod 85 was made as a response to DM33 being developed? So this just isn't suprising at all.
Don't think so, dm33 came after the 85, do you mean the T-72 with the extra 16mm as a counter to M111 hetz being developed? (Which is the same as 105mm DM23)
@@SYsimulations I might be confusing them yeah
Why the increase mass effectiveness?
From what I read, there is barely any nera like interaction, so any improvement of performance would be the result of ejecting penetrator mass?
So, what if the internal plate are set at a much higher angle relitive to the external plate?
Yep, from the ejection as you say but also the increased resistance of HHA plates (you can't make a 170mm plate to a uniform high hardness). You're probably right about the increased angle as well, but that's harder to mount
So with even the basic kontakt 1 resctive armour (which was very common on t72B) this round would have been 100% negated.
Imagine how it would fare against relikt + the base armor of the T90M
no kontakt-1 provides very little protection against KE projectiles, a closer range and this tank wouldve been perforated
@@ffgjyx But "very little" would have been enough for this particular scenario.
@@Sveta7 2x10mm plates wouldnt change anything significantly, t-72b ufp has around 530mm of armor with kontakt-1. dm33 at 1.5km has around 500mm of pen, reducing distance to around 1-1.3km would allow it to perforate if not penetrating the entire armor array, most likely injuring the driver from spalling.
@@ffgjyx Haha you just can't admit that you're wrong, like you said yourself it has a small effect on KE rounds which again in THIS screnario would stop the round completely.
Also, a slight horizontal angle, maybe just 5-10° would stop it for well.
People underestimate Soviet/Russian tanks a lot tbh. They're definitely worse than Western tanks due to their less advanced electronics, being more cramped, worse crew survivability, etc., but their armour holds pretty well and their ammunition can punch through what they're likely to face. I mean, I'd much rather crew any western MBT than its Soviet/Ruski equivalent, but I wouldn't underestimate the enemy either.
Yeah. Today some people see a russian tank like an old obsolete one. In the end, russian tanks are good for what they are meant. They are worse than western because they are cheaper, and supposed to be produced on a larger scale than the western ones.
There are so many factors in modern tanks that it's hard to draw proper comparisons as to which are better. Especially seen as outdated vehicles and projectiles are still used regularly
A lot of ppl perceive visually attractive features as a proof of technological superiority. Which is wrong, obviously. Especially, if you apply such approach to equipment designed for very specific purpose, such as tanks.
Only thing that is lacking in Russian tanks is electro-optical systems like CITV high quality sights sit-awareness systems rcws fcs etc. Their armor tech as well as the cannons they use are not flawed at all.
@@Phapchamp They lost a lot of material base in the nineties, the restoration of the electronic industry is difficult for them, but they have already been able to independently master two good therma sights, but of course there is room for improvement
could we see an impact (any arrangement) at real time speed?
Goes too quick, approx 1/1000th of a second.
FYI: The DM33 APFSDS is almost 40 years old and thus outdated. Rheinmetall has since launched the DM43, DM53 and DM63, with a DM73 being tested right now.
The major difference lies the length of the projectiles. For kinetic munition a longer projectile means more penetration, so they become longer and longer with each new generation.
And the ubgrade to the l55 canon witch gives it more energie.
T-72B is also 40 year old.
Would be nice if you made a APFSDS vs Nozh ERA simulation and maybe some APS simulations too
That would be an amazing simulation...but not so nice on the computer
@@SYsimulations true, also curious how large of an effect different ERAs would have on efp warheads like BILL, TOW2B, NLAW, SMART, BONUS etc
@@azisandwich
There are many research on the topic.
For more traditional flyer plate era, the faster and thicker the flyer plate is, the better it is against efp, so basically the same as scj.
But that's generalizing. Since efp can be made out of different material. There is also the spane of efp.
However, realistically, since we are capable of making a missile fly in an arc, so they can have the full 100+ standard tandem scj warhead hitting the roof, is there a point on all those research?
@@petsaa And, IIRC, it still is based on Kontakt-1, thus there will be limitations.
ERA was omitted? Even K1 would have added a bit based on thickness alone. It was mandatory part of the armor package.
Who’s K1?
Most T-72B's on the Russian side are fielded with Kontakt 5 rn
By now they are mostly fielded with kontakt 1
Plenty of regular pre-1989 T-72Bs on both sides.
@@Phapchamp And various versions of A's, M's, M1's and even Urals. Even the tank biathlon version was there (there are like 5 B3 versions alone in the war, original, tank biathlon, 2016 aka B3M and 2x 2022, with and without Sosna sight).
Oh, and PT-91's are coming, and potentially M-84's, all of which have a chance to be captured, used and destroyed/recaptured.
It's a mess.
@@xendk
Actually no, most russian tanks right now in Ukraine have Kontakt-5, the ones with Kontakt-1 are phasing out either because have been destroyed or because this versions undergo upgrade right now.
In fact in the last months there is been a massive tank production in Russia both for new made tanks or upgrading existing ones.
The newest T-72B3M is using a more advance ERA that called Relikt which its been said that its twice as effective than the Kontakt-5 heavy ERA, the latest T-80BMV and T-90M also use Relikt.
@@vadrak6197 Actually no, most russian tanks right now in Ukraine have Kontakt-1 the ones with Kontakt-5 are phasing out either because have been destroyed or because this versions undergo upgrade right now to T-62m.
In fact in the last months there is been a shitty low tank production in Russia both for new made tanks or old shitty ones.
The newest T-72B3M is using a more shitty ERA thats called Relikt which its been said that its twice as ineffective as the Kontakt-5 heavy ERA, the latest T-80BMV and T-90M also use Relikt and are burning somewhere or fleeing over the thousand's of dead orcs
Folks note this is the absolute best case scenario for the projectile, all other angles and there would be much less penetration.
shouldnt it impact the armor under lesser angle? it feels like it should point downwards
You don't even have to completely penetrate the armor of a tank. The blow can cause other problems. There are many tanks that remain blocked. I would always prefer a very maneuverable tank.
German wargames have found the wiesel 'weapons platform' (basically a tankette) out preforms the leopard 2. This is due to small size and higher maneuverability (like 1.5 times the power to weight ratio)
Sir are you missing some videos? Your ribbed armor video is no longer there? And I think some other is missing as well?
Mate, we need Leopard 1A5 L7A3 105mm DM33 and DM63 against T-72B1 Kontact1 Hull and Turret front and sides
And where is the reflection? There should be a sheet on top of all 30mm rolled homogeneous steel.
Wonder what the difference would be for a longer A6 cannon.
С контакт-5 думаю получше будет, да и опять же, Т-72Б проходили модернизацию по программе "отражение" с навариванием 15мм стального листа на лоб корпуса
Путаешь с Т-72а и Т-72м1.
If possible, can we start getting witness plates? Situations like this one or where there's just a touch less penetration would really benefit from one I think
now you have to do one with more modern ammunition
Would there have been enough spall to hurt the crew behind the plate?
Is there any anti-spall liner in these older T-72B’s?
No, but recently Russia has been modernizing lots of T-72B starting last month with Kontact-5 ERA in addition to kontact-1 so the shell would get as far through.
1- so it's a penetration or not? Barely? Unsuccessful? Pilot hurt but tank ok? 2- if adding K-1 plate it should block totally the APFSDS even if it worths just 20-30 mm steel.
It's kinda surprising that 2A4 entered service in 1979
it didn't, entered in 1985. original leo 2 was 1979
Wait isn't there suppose to be ERA on the upper glacis? Because if there was ERA the round wouldn't be able to penetrate it.
on the initial 1985 version there is only kontakt-1, which has little to no effect against APFSDS so was omitted for this simulation. Later versions with Kontakt-5 were much more effective
Сомневаюсь, что внешний и внутренних листы ВЛД RHA имеют твердость 400 ВНN. Полагаю, там 320-330 BHN
Why does it never go through on the simulations but in the real world they have in fact gone through?
Even seen a video from near the start of the war when a t64 de turreted a t72 straight through, low down on the upper front plate.
German 120 mm DM33 APFSDS is supposed to have a segmented penetrator.
If you have seen the beer-video from 1986. Well, that tells which one is still the valid design today....
Can you add a Kontak 5 ERA to the simulation? I would be nice to see what will be the penetration, since most probably the Leopard 2 which will be sent to Ukraine will meet T 72B1 model 1989 and T72B3 model 2011 & 2016. Also maybe you can simulate with more modern Projectiles like DM43 and DM53 which Leopard 2A4 with Rheinmetall L44 can use.
Considering they're using more T90Ms these past months I think it would probably face them more likely than the older T series
I admire the Soviet MBT designs, they are so old and they still resist and walk among different guerrillas.
Can u try (M1A2 Sepv3) m829A4 vs T-90 M
I've heard that round can get through 900mm (or even more) of armor
It's a shame but it looks like it won't be able to pen tanks with kontakt-5
@@predattak DM33 is a 1987 projectile
Wrong. It looks like it won't penetrate when impacting at this specific angle. It doesn't say anything about not being able to penetrate at all.
@@ohauss by saying penetrate "tanks with kontakt-5" I was, obviously, referring to the areas covered by it.
Now can we do a T72 Vs Leopard 2A4?
Could you do M900 vs T-72B 1985 or t-72B 1989 with K5?
Hard to believe it's tungsten alloy APFSDS.
Didn't expect it will not go through.
The power of spaced armor
Some bits fly around the inside - spalling?
Any chance you could run this withe the projectile being fired downwards at 7.5 degrees? Or even 5 degrees.
"THAT ONE WENT RIGHT THROUGH"
I can imagine the driver hearing a very loud cling and then see a tiny hole on a bump and be like "oh"
Do this simulation for the American M829A1 round, pretty sure it would have no problem punching thru…
Can you simulate 120mm/125mm afpsds against thin angled armour, think hitting a hulldown BMP of something similar, for testing whether a ricochet can occur
Love how warthuder says this tank has 500mm of hull protection
What density did you use for the penetrator? DM33 uses a tungsten alloy with a 18,500 kg/m3 density.
DM 33 has not been manufactured for years used or exported to other countries
А почему динамическая защита отсутствует? Все Т-72 имеют динамическую защиту.
Forgot to add Textolite plates between the steel plates
Pretty much shows what was expected from the German Army perspective and what you also can find in the later comparison reports of Bundeswehr Leopard 2 vs NVA T-72B. The big difference has always been in the user interface and the people onboard.
Are you sure that the NVA possessed the T-72B variant?
@@matovicmmilan yes, they appear in the accounting 1990-1994 and are counted separate to the T-72GM. Also e.g. spareparts for them later got exported to Poland. Just the exact numbers vary, from merely 27 to over 150. There is an unknown number of unspecified T-72 variants exported for technical intelligence by other countries, including USA in 1992. (And about 150 older as practice target).
can you do the same but from like 800metres? i would like to know if it can pen if it's a little closer
Would this have sent fragments into the driver?
Also... those tanks would never fight 10m from eachother.
Angle of impact would be smaller due to drop at range. While not much (because APFSDS is very flat flying round), it would be enough to punch through.
You should do an export 120mm round for the Abrams maybe KE-W vs the T-72B3
Can we get a simulation of the most modern german round vs the best armored russian tank please?
Great simulation , is this arrangement less effective against CE rounds due its make up?
thanks! its actually more effective as the kontakt-1 ERA is very effective againist shaped charges but not against APFSDS
Mind telling what dimensions you've used for DM33?
Check the description for a link to the diagram :)
@@SYsimulations Yeh, but I wanna know what dimensions you got from said diagram - wanna crosscheck if they align with what's already on the net.
Oh i see, about 510 length, 28 max thread diam (but its effective diameter is less than that)
@@SYsimulations Yeah that roughly alighs with my measurements, although I did not check the threads - the average diameter I got was roughly ~25mm with the length being 510 - 511mm.
Mind if I send an e-mail to you?
Yeah the bit just before the threads is 25mm, and of course!
The glacis was only rated as being able to withstand BM-22 as per the Russian Institute of Steel. Also the turret was only rated as being able to withstand BM-26. DM-33 should have been able to rip though at range. There is a diagram that shows only the turret cheeks could have been able to withstand BM-26.
The T-72b has around over 500mm of armor, DM-33 has 470mm. The UFP also has around 510mm LoS, so it is slightly less than 500mm, so it makes sense that DM-33 might penetrate.
Would a TOW missile if that time period have defeated that armor?
Any chance for some just for funsies KV-2 or SU-100y matchups? Also taking a look at the AC/DC rounds the Austrailians used might be fun :)