Fun fact: their entire job was to be able to handle the harsh angles of the brand new cold war vehicles, and many people didn’t want to adapt to a “dart” shell because they worried it wouldn’t be able to produce sufficient shrapnel
So that's actually the entire purpose of the segmenting of the penetrator despite the fact that it reduces the sheer penetration capabilities of the round it creates a scenario where each piece of the round makes a slightly flatter place to penetrate and then gets out of the way without pulling the whole projectile with it another way people achieve this is by using a flat nosed penetrator and then some designs even further use a pointed penetrator with a fracture point behind it so that when it hits angled armor the sharp point breaks off and the the now flat round hits
jeah and its a old APFSDS modern ones dosent even care about angles even more thats why the upper plates in most western MBTs are now a weakspot if it gets hit the Dart either will penetrate or bounce off into the turret ring jamming it
The way the shell penetrates the plate is interesting. As far as I can understand, first segments of shell don't penetrate the armor, but create a notch. It might have improved the impact angle for the following segments, which hit that notch and breach through the remaining armor. Or maybe that notch works as a trap for the last segments, so they don't bounce away. Pls correct me if I'm wrong I'm not sure if the shell does internal damage because I don't know inner layout. But remaining shell pieces might jam turret, which is enough to render the tank inoperable in combat
the spot where i penetrated is where the ammo is located and you cann see armor fragments with high speed moving down its a deadly hit might not do a instant cook off but the crew will need to evacuate if the ammo catches fire
Kinda. Think this as machining but you have no plan on recovering the tool after the fact. I think there is a velocity view showing the internal fragment. You decide if that will damage something.
Essentially the notch has a smaller angle at the tip, which the trailing segments bite into. Segment 1 creates a moderate decrease in angle, segment 2 bites further and essentially creates a vertical surface, segment 3 hits the vertical surface, doesn't deflect, and plows forward at it's current height until the slope of the armor puts the plate above the projectile's impact height, resulting in the segment entering the tank.
Looks like the hit is on the right side, where there is an ammo rack. This particular hit would most likely ricochet off the top of the ammo compartment (if it is an armored box like most MBTs have) the fragments would probably travel into the turret basket, killing or maiming the commander. It is unlikely (but possible) this hit would injure the gunner and loader, who are on the other side of the gun breech. While the fragments have less than half the speed of the original projectile, they could still perforate the ammo box, causing a fire or possibly an ammo cookoff. Either way, this hit would be a significant emotional event and almost certainly cause a mission kill for this tank.
Could you do the same again, but with a NERA plate on top? The add-on on swedish/spanish etc. tanks is rougly 50mm, so a NERA array of say 12mm HHA, 8mm rubber, 10mm HHA and a 20mm airgap before the armor plate I know the exact composition is classified (could be ceramic, some alloy or just a single plate), but it is a good place to start Also can you simulate aramid, for spall-liner?
It's a 20x5x20 steel composite steel mix. Coupled with the 45mm thick UFP, it provides a protection of 750mm RHAe vs KE threats as pr. the Swedish Strv122 leaks.
At 1.5 kilometers, this round still kills, very dangerous, like couldnt they just use a 70mm plate, even though it is way heavier it would surely bounce.
There are applique armor kits for the Leopard UFP that would provide frontal immunity to Mango. And given the fact that Mango entered service seven years after the Leopard 2's introduction, I think it did ok.
Well this shot is also incredibly unrealistic. A round at that distance would come at a more downward angle than coming in flat like it does in this sim. Also, at least in static positions, western tanks are meant to be hulled down, so the upper glacis wouldnt be exposed.
Do you think 3BM26 with it's rear mounted core would penetrate this plate? It would be prone to deflection but I wonder if most of the steel body going first wouldn't weaken it enough for the tungsten core to go in.
I do high velocity impact simulations in LS-DYNA. I often observe instability when perforation happens (my model is visually stable with lower energy levels). It would be great if you can provide some suggestions for overcoming this issue. Thanks!
You probably dont have high enough particle count or whatever its called, the individual pieces that make up the models. So it starts going wacky because one or more of the particles have to be in two places at the same time
It seems to me that in reality projectile will not go fully horizontal, it will be a curve descending to the armor, which will make penetration even more
Never understood why NATO tanks relied solely on angle in their upper plates like Abrams Leopard Ariete Type 10/90 and more. At least if they had bit of an armor in their angled plate it would still work against long rods but they are also quite thin. Idk there is probably a reason im not a tank designer.
@@barackafritt740 If that plate was 100mm it would be enough to bounce and absorbs all kinds of projectile. It won't be too heavy too at most like few hundred kilograms more.
i mean consider what the nato tank was expected to be doing. it was expected to be conducting berm drills, tank is in defilade rolls up to a berm fires immediately backs up back into defilade. most berms are going to be slightly inclined so what on a flat abrams or leopard it might be some 82-83 degrees, that incidence angle is now increased. of course the ideal berm would only expose your turret cheeks to the enemy.
Weight requirements. Fucking Abrams is already 70 tons. Russian cope tanks are small and therefore can pack on a lot more armor for a lower weight. Western Tanks are designed for mobility, superior fire control and insane levels of Turret protection. Which is why it’s standard operating procedure to go hull down so only the turret is sticking out. The majority of the Armor protection is on the turrets. These shallow angles are also designed to *shatter* incoming projectiles and make the majority of the Penetrator bounce off, like it did here. Doing so reduced the overall damage the round will do to the tank. The shot in the this vid is the worst possible scenario for a Western MBT and it means something has gone horribly wrong. Which might be the reason this location was picked. I’m not sure if the 3BM42 could pierce through the front turret cheeks of the 2A4, probably could at a closer range.
I´ve also seen a 120mm DM33 penetrate the drivers hatch on a Leopard 1 (30mm at 83 degrees), fired from 800 meters. Entry looked nearly identical to this simulation. The remainding part of the rod hit the inner part of the turret ring, entered the engine room and out the back. (no internals or engine was present)
nice, where could you actualy fire war shots in training? Back in my days it was only Castle Martin and Shilo, unfortunately I didn't get the chance to visit either.
Снаряд имеет сложную конструкцию: в головной части стреловидного тела снаряда установлен баллистический наконечник, под которым располагается бронебойный колпачок, за бронебойным колпачком установлен бронебойный демпфер, который позволяет хорошо «закуситься» снаряду при столкновении с преградой под углом, а так же играет большую роль в пробитии. За демпфером установлены два сердечника из вольфрамового сплава, которые удерживаются внутри рубашкой из легкосплавного металла. Рубашка плавится при столкновении снаряда с преградой, высвобождая сердечники. Тело снаряда имеет ведущее устройство разжимного типа. В хвостовой части снаряда установлен стабилизатор в виде оперения с пятью лопастями, в основании стабилизатора установлен трассер. Так что стимуляция даже близко не приближенная к конструкции ОБПС
Молодец. Вот только ВУ не долетает до цели, никакая рубашка из легкосплавного металла не плавится, так как речь не о температуре плавления, а о легкости сплава...
I don't know if this fits in your content philosophy, but I'd be interested in seeing simulations of events with high contemporary relevance, such as various ammo types in use hitting various parts of the turret on a Leo 2A6 or T-80BVM. Thanks all the same.
T80BVM is worse than T80U. It is cheap modernization of T80B. Firstly they wanted make it on T80U, but after chose easier and cheaper alternative. It's absolutely useless aganist Leopards 2 A5+ (6, 7 and different 5 localization like PL or Swedish). But yes, penteration could be possible in any case, to the back, for example, or to the side at a right angle. But this is an unlikely scenario. Even in the Leopard 2 A4, getting into that part as in the video from 1500+ meters is quite difficult. Moreover, the Russians have already run out of modern sights with French electronics and they are putting junk on those T80s that they are getting out of storage right now.
@@lexaluk123 BVM is built on either B or BV models. The composite on the main production line T-80U was to my knowledge not different from BV, but was constructed in such a way as to be replaceable/upgradeable. Thus the 80s T-80U didn't have substantially different inherent protection than the T-72B, and according to Tankograd, was weaker than the T-90. Upgrading T-80BVM on the base T-80U would not really make much difference to protection compared to upgrading on T-80BV base. Moreover, T-80U can only fire 90s-era projectiles like Mango-M, Lekalo, and Svinets, or older. T-80BVM has wholly upgraded fire control and optics, and can load Svinets-1/2. I do not see the justification for declaring BVM worse than U, nor for dismissing their threat to even modern Leo2 variants.
@@lexaluk123 "T80BVM is worse than T80U. It is cheap modernization of T80B" не видел теплака второго поколения на Т-80У. Реликта тоже. СУО 80БВМ туда же "Firstly they wanted make it on T80U, but after chose easier and cheaper alternative" Глупости, просто 80БВ значительно больше чем малочисленных 80У "It's absolutely useless aganist Leopards 2 A5+" И с чего бы это прям абсолютли?)) СУО и теплак у БВМ так то получше будут, а сносная броня у леопарда есть разве что в башне "Moreover, the Russians have already run out of modern sights with French electronics and they are putting junk on those T80s that they are getting out of storage right now" Еще одна фантазия) От французского в современных соснах осталась лишь родословная. Производство матриц было локализовано лет 5 назад. Ну и затем, чего ж тогда Т-72Б3 и 90М всё еще оснащают той же сосной? Кстати, "мусор", как ты его назвал, что ставят на модернизируемые Т-72Б, 80БВ и 62М - это теплак второго поколения. Он хуже сосны, но все еще лучше чем прицел наводчика леопарда 2 или челли 2
@@ГеоргийМурзич Have you seen videos of Russian thermals? Even the T-90 can barely see out to 1600 meters. I would imagine the thermals being placed on cheap T-62s are even worse.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 I doubt it. The T72 targeting computer places the aiming reticle on top of the enemy tank at 2km. That's over 1.5 meters high. The trajectory will curve up and then go down, negating at least 5 to 10 degree of that high frontal slope. Not to mention that the tip itself is bended down a bit and the inertia, meaning the push force is also at an angle. A 3-5-10 degree change on impact angle, projectile angle and projectile force may change a lot when dealing with highly angled frontal armors. These APFSDS shells are super fast, but they still have to deal with the friction and the rest of the ballistics. The Chieftain has a very good video about T72 and you can see there the projectile drop at long range. ruclips.net/video/gbZokjXgVVA/видео.html Again, it counts when dealing with these high angled frontal armor plates at long range +2000km.
@@cristitanase6130 This is a fact, not an opinion you can doubt. Instead of writing this comment, you could take a piece of paper in your hand and calculate it yourself. It's basic math...
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 A fact that the ballistic computer of the T72 shows a significant deviation at long range. Whatever dude, is not my job to correct your shitty videos online. You're the one that supposedly are all for "accuracy" and all that. Basic math my ass.
@@cristitanase6130 So I just did a rough estimation. The angle of impact at 2000 meters should be roughly 0.2~0.3 degree (a really rough estimation. That's assuming the round flys at about 1400m/s on average, with air neglected and the tip of the round points at its direction of travel. The sight need to rotate upwards for 0.3 degree to hit a target on the same plane at 2000 meters with the impact angle of 0.3 degree). Bear in mind, flying at 1400m/s average to reach 2000 meters will result in roughly a 10-meter drop, so you will perceive the drop to be quite significant from your gunners primary sight (GPS).
I expected this. Heavily sloped thin steel armor is no longer effective even if 3BM42 is technically a old APFSDS. Need to be thicker or composite nowadays
A 40mm steel plate 3 m long X 1,5m wide (approximate dimensions of Leo-2 UFP) X 0,4m deep = 1,8m^3. The density of steel is about 8tons / m^3, which means that your 40mm steel plate would weight some 14 tons. The engine may or may not handle it. The suspension definitely won't.
@@ciuyr2510 The only thing you can doubt is the dimensions of the ufp. I don't have the numbers, so I 'm merely speculating. As for the density of steel, it's 8 tons/m^3. Google it. Even if you cut the UFP area down to 1/3, the weight increase is still too much, especially for the front suspension.
considering main ammo racks of the leo2 series tanks are right nex to the driver. the greatest danger to a leo2 is highground. any enemy tank remotely sitting at a slightly higher position will easily pen this thin plate of armor and ammo rack the tanks
No. The Abrams has its slightly more angled. It's designed to ricochet the projectile into the cheeks or mantlet. 82°/83° is fhe critical deflection angle that causes most long rods to glance off. Had this been the teeniest bit more angled it would've deflected. I don't understand how the tail segment bit in like that. But hey
Three reasons, initial design date, small target (relatively, moreso when using a tank's gun depression- especially when utilizing NATO tactics in prepared earthen bank positions), and weight considerations. Really the big thing is #2, the US and Germany both expect to, when not on the move, be firing from a position behind a hill or other earthwork, which means there is no hitting the UFP in the first place.
@@francoisassatlien8642 There was a shooting trials of the Leopard 2V which also has 40mm at 83°. Penetration with 105mm APFSDS. So what you are saying is not entirely true.
See? This penetration would not destroy the vehicle and probably only kill the driver, but just because of the ammo rack exactly down there, the entire vehicle will blow up. The Leopard 1 and 2 actually sucks, post 2a4 not that much but still has big flaws. The difference is that the Leopard has the biggest marketing and propaganda, despite doing poorly on every single combat it is used. "The problem is always on the user"
Would you be willing to try an apfsds test against an angled plate with and without fins? To a layperson, it almost seems like the fins themselves help angle the rod downwards into the armor. Would you be willing to try a simulation where the apfsds is rotated such that two of the fins hit, instead of just one?
Is there a big difference between the T-80BVM and the T-80U? Since in the Ukraine we have seen footage where a full frontal hit from a T-80BVM vs the Leopard 2A6 basically trashed in a full frontal hit from 2KM distance.
@@user-mt8rr3jk6q From where. The number you gave us is wrong because the turret is 860mm LoS in the first place. While the protection would go down when you factor in capabilities against kinetic vs HEAT, it wouldn't be cut in half.
@@voidtempering8700, The linear dimension of the turret armor is 860 mm, all right. But multi-layer armor of the NERA type, especially early modifications, has a rather large proportion of the air gap, for more efficient operation of anti-cumulative "reflective sheets". For comparison, the T-72B turret, equipped with NERA-type armor, has an armor size of 800 mm, and resistance to kinetic ammunition of 540 mm. Largely due to the fact that the filler contains more steel. The frontal armor of the T-72B turret is closer to the axis of rotation of the turret than on the Leopard-2A4, which makes it possible to design it more massive. Also, the ERA takes over the function of protection against cumulative ammunition on the T-72B, which made it possible to optimize the armor filler in the turret cheekbones to counteract kinetic ammunition. A couple of years ago, documents on the armor of the Abrams, Leopard-2 and Challenger-2 tanks were declassified. This is the Swedish tender for the supply of tanks, and other documents. pp.userapi.com/c844418/v844418125/9f4d/VS1ecPnAoIE.jpg
@@user-mt8rr3jk6q That is Type-B, which was only present on the early production Leopards, the late production ones, as in the ones being sent to Ukraine have a different armor array that offers more protection.
That's true of most tanks, the extreme angle means you typically don't (or rather didn't) need any special armor there. However, long-rod penetrators have changed that a bit and are more likely to penetrate those plates, though that can be overcome with additional armor thrown on top of that plate, which is what many newer models incorporated.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 I mean the U.S. sends their M1A2 to Ukraine because this version doesn't have their top secret depleted uranium armor. They don't want Russia to get their hands on it. If the Russian defense industry doesn't know about this material how can an insignificant RUclipsr with his simulation Software from Amazon know? It doesn't make sense at all.
@@webcrawler9782 It is enough to check where this "secret armor" is, or at least where it cannot be (in the driver's head, for example) instead of taking everything on peasant logic
The A4 is has a design flaw in the ammo compartment. The rounds are not protected like in the Abraams. That penetration would create a cook off. This problem is mitigated in the later variants but Europe doesn’t have A6s-A7s to spare.
That is not a design flaw of the Leopard exclusively. Apart from the M1 (and even the M1 can store a few rounds in the hull) almost every other tank has rounds stored in the hull. And to certain degree it makes sense, because when the tank was designed, it was stored behind thick frontal armor. Also, what the others say, ofen the tanks use hull down positions and the hull ammo is below that level. For sure, that does not give you protection from all angles, and especially against shaped charge mines from the bottom. And nowadays, with all those top attack weapons, storing the ammo like the M1 in the turret might also turn out to be a problem. There is one huge advantage though, and that is the crew protection. On the other hand, if we think operational, even a M1 with its ammo destroyed, has a battle value of zero, as it cannot fulfill its task anymore.
To think the Leo2 A4 had thinner armour than the mk1 challenger 1. The mk3 challenger had even thicker hull armour, even better rated than the A5 Leopard 2. Leopard 2 A6 is when it got much better and pricier with the armour configurations.
It always amazes me that these only just barely go through, and yet the military agencies that are literally paid to run simulations like this don't ever think "you know, for a 5% increase in weight we could stop these shots"
@@Crosshair84 And became the best tank in the war. People underestimate how important armor is, probably because of War Thunder; if the Panther had the first intended armor, it would just be a big and fat - but poorly armored - cat. Just like the useless Leopard 1. What i mean? Basically the Leopard 1/2 is the most stupid and overrated tank that exists. They tried to develop a quick and low armored tank, but in the end had a paper armor, bigger and heavier/slower than soviet tanks tank.
@@igormsh14bidevisualizacoes45 By what conceivable metric was Panther the best tank in the war? The final drive had a 150km lease on life, and in 1944 the Sherman enjoyed a 3.6-to-1 kill ratio advantage over Panther on the 30 engagements between the types recorded in 1944 on the western front. Things like quality optics with stabilization, reliable transmissions, crew ergonomics, visibility matter a hell of a lot more than armor when all empirical research of armored warfare shows the winner is best defined in who gets the first shot, and not who has the thickest armor.
probably not, since even if it hit the turret ring, since it got broken, the energy behind it is much lower, and it needs to hit the turret ring at that point
I made such a simulation with the front plate of the Tiger. A deflected fragment is able to penetrate such armor, but in the case of a modern tank it has no chance.
Can you make right angle impact ? 90deg. That would represent side / rear hit. Im confused as to why people expect hits will come from directly from the front. Most of the time hits come from off angle to sides etc. Or even 45deg hit to side would be very interesting to see.
Nobody focuses on those angles because everyone knows what will happen: guaranteed penetration. Any modern tank getting hit anywhere other than the front by capable APFSDS is going to have a bad day.
The spall and material ejected into the tank is enough to cause major damages, or even worst detonate the hull rack if those fragments are enough hot...
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 i am not too knowledgeable on what's feasible and not, but it could be cool to see some french ww1 tank vs German ww2 tank. Like maybe Saint-Shamond vs Pz.2 or Pz.3
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 how about something like 2 rpg 7 heat rounds (not tandem) hitting nearly the same spot on the front turret of a t72b3 without ERA ( ERA previously destroyed before sim).
Leopard 2's UFP is more likely 45 to 50mm thick, not 40mm. 45mm can be seen on the 2AV diagrams, where the 82 deg area is 45mm thick. The 2AV and 2A0 were similarly rated to give a minimum of 350mm RHAe resistance vs KE threats across the entire front -> 45mm @ 82.5deg is equivalent to that through LOS thickness. Probably still not enough to stop BM42, but the result will look a bit different.
Not many of the actual darts parts go in But driver will be wounded or even killed tank that cannot move is a bunker Knowing that ukr or rus tank crew usually abandon mobility kill vehicle Imma count it as a kill
i know i’m comparing war thunder to simulation but it’s stupid how the shrapnel goes more down and into the driver here compared to war thunder( my grammar isn’t perfet)
As always,video quite enjoyable and understandable It is not as surprising that such a projectile penetrates that plate,but the armor under it will certainly catch the rest ( *but there is none* )
there is no armor below that, this is the armor. Later verisons of Leopard 2 added more armor here, but this is the oldest currently used Leopard 2 version
@@axlfrhalo no need to use it against T-64’s and such. Now that they are coping because of western tank deliveries (I’m picturing Putin doing the Hitler “NEIN NEIN NEIN” thing lol) They realized their 3BM42 won’t be able to penetrate the 2A6’s and Challenger 2’s that are coming. 2A4’s are older, but properly used they will be able to do some real damage. I expect to see more charred Ivan husks in the coming months.
Different story might happen if this T-80U has to go up against a Leopard 2A4V used by the Ukrainians which has Nozh Explosive Reactive Armour on the front. In the future they will do that to the Western tanks
The ability of APFSDS to pen angles will never cease to amaze me
Fun fact: their entire job was to be able to handle the harsh angles of the brand new cold war vehicles, and many people didn’t want to adapt to a “dart” shell because they worried it wouldn’t be able to produce sufficient shrapnel
@@SquooshyCatboy I think you meant they were worried it would not produce sufficient shrapnel
@@rhubarbs7360
Yeah, that’s what I meant.
So that's actually the entire purpose of the segmenting of the penetrator despite the fact that it reduces the sheer penetration capabilities of the round it creates a scenario where each piece of the round makes a slightly flatter place to penetrate and then gets out of the way without pulling the whole projectile with it another way people achieve this is by using a flat nosed penetrator and then some designs even further use a pointed penetrator with a fracture point behind it so that when it hits angled armor the sharp point breaks off and the the now flat round hits
Yeah, those angled plates either need to be made thicker or be given reactive armor which should work well at these extereme slopes.
crazy angle, still penetrated. I'm really impressed by that, that plate looks like it's impossible to penetrate it
more crazy is that steel APSFDS won't penetrate
jeah and its a old APFSDS
modern ones dosent even care about angles even more thats why the upper plates in most western MBTs are now a weakspot if it gets hit the Dart either will penetrate or bounce off into the turret ring jamming it
Now 3BM60 or 59 is even longer anf heavier meaning it'll do more damage on angled plates.
@@ukuskota4106
If you make a longer and thinner steel rod, it will go through.
God bless segmented apfsds
The way the shell penetrates the plate is interesting. As far as I can understand, first segments of shell don't penetrate the armor, but create a notch. It might have improved the impact angle for the following segments, which hit that notch and breach through the remaining armor. Or maybe that notch works as a trap for the last segments, so they don't bounce away. Pls correct me if I'm wrong
I'm not sure if the shell does internal damage because I don't know inner layout. But remaining shell pieces might jam turret, which is enough to render the tank inoperable in combat
the spot where i penetrated is where the ammo is located and you cann see armor fragments with high speed moving down its a deadly hit might not do a instant cook off but the crew will need to evacuate if the ammo catches fire
@@rayotoxi1509 its crazy that ammo is still not inert
Kinda. Think this as machining but you have no plan on recovering the tool after the fact.
I think there is a velocity view showing the internal fragment. You decide if that will damage something.
Essentially the notch has a smaller angle at the tip, which the trailing segments bite into. Segment 1 creates a moderate decrease in angle, segment 2 bites further and essentially creates a vertical surface, segment 3 hits the vertical surface, doesn't deflect, and plows forward at it's current height until the slope of the armor puts the plate above the projectile's impact height, resulting in the segment entering the tank.
Looks like the hit is on the right side, where there is an ammo rack. This particular hit would most likely ricochet off the top of the ammo compartment (if it is an armored box like most MBTs have) the fragments would probably travel into the turret basket, killing or maiming the commander. It is unlikely (but possible) this hit would injure the gunner and loader, who are on the other side of the gun breech.
While the fragments have less than half the speed of the original projectile, they could still perforate the ammo box, causing a fire or possibly an ammo cookoff. Either way, this hit would be a significant emotional event and almost certainly cause a mission kill for this tank.
Uhhh that's gonna hurt the ammorack for sure
@@lada_niva_1.7i достаточно того что в гильзе загорится порох.
@@lada_niva_1.7i Germany does not export DM53 and DM63.
@@lada_niva_1.7i 2A4. Would go up like those Turkpards
@@lada_niva_1.7i check how it didn´t explode in Syria :/
@@lada_niva_1.7i You are most likely greatly overestimating the dm53s and dm63s resistance to combustion.
surprised and not surprised at the same time lol, great vid like always
There's a reason the early models of the Leopard 2 were supposed to fight from prepared positions...
always very interesting simulations sir, very cool.
I love these. Keep it up!
A solid core would have flexed and deflected off, whereas the segmented projectile was much more effective at that sharp angle. Very interesting!
Could you do the same again, but with a NERA plate on top? The add-on on swedish/spanish etc. tanks is rougly 50mm, so a NERA array of say 12mm HHA, 8mm rubber, 10mm HHA and a 20mm airgap before the armor plate I know the exact composition is classified (could be ceramic, some alloy or just a single plate), but it is a good place to start
Also can you simulate aramid, for spall-liner?
The UFP appliqué armor that is present on Leopard 2A6EX and Strv 122 has no air gaps or rubber. It’s a steel-ceramic sandwich.
It won't penetrate
You must take manga m
It's a 20x5x20 steel composite steel mix. Coupled with the 45mm thick UFP, it provides a protection of 750mm RHAe vs KE threats as pr. the Swedish Strv122 leaks.
At 1.5 kilometers, this round still kills, very dangerous, like couldnt they just use a 70mm plate, even though it is way heavier it would surely bounce.
Well it's easy to say now when you know all the info, back in the day they put what they thought was enough.
There are applique armor kits for the Leopard UFP that would provide frontal immunity to Mango. And given the fact that Mango entered service seven years after the Leopard 2's introduction, I think it did ok.
@@Sveta7 they could use their own creations of 125mm guns, with a powerful ammo, just to test the tanks.
Well this shot is also incredibly unrealistic. A round at that distance would come at a more downward angle than coming in flat like it does in this sim.
Also, at least in static positions, western tanks are meant to be hulled down, so the upper glacis wouldnt be exposed.
@@Bitt3rh0lz at that velocity drop angle is negligible
Do you think 3BM26 with it's rear mounted core would penetrate this plate? It would be prone to deflection but I wonder if most of the steel body going first wouldn't weaken it enough for the tungsten core to go in.
Probably
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 make leopard 1a5 with kontakt-1 VS RPG-7 PG-7VL grenade or 30mm 2a42
The steel body of this projectile protects the tank crew from uranium dust.
I do high velocity impact simulations in LS-DYNA. I often observe instability when perforation happens (my model is visually stable with lower energy levels). It would be great if you can provide some suggestions for overcoming this issue. Thanks!
You probably dont have high enough particle count or whatever its called, the individual pieces that make up the models. So it starts going wacky because one or more of the particles have to be in two places at the same time
It seems to me that in reality projectile will not go fully horizontal, it will be a curve descending to the armor, which will make penetration even more
Never understood why NATO tanks relied solely on angle in their upper plates like Abrams Leopard Ariete Type 10/90 and more. At least if they had bit of an armor in their angled plate it would still work against long rods but they are also quite thin. Idk there is probably a reason im not a tank designer.
Maybe to lighten the tank, in truth I don't really know
@@barackafritt740 If that plate was 100mm it would be enough to bounce and absorbs all kinds of projectile. It won't be too heavy too at most like few hundred kilograms more.
@@Phapchamp Imagine if you do soviet doctrine tiny tank in Abrams weight category. Armor will be insane.
i mean consider what the nato tank was expected to be doing. it was expected to be conducting berm drills, tank is in defilade rolls up to a berm fires immediately backs up back into defilade. most berms are going to be slightly inclined so what on a flat abrams or leopard it might be some 82-83 degrees, that incidence angle is now increased. of course the ideal berm would only expose your turret cheeks to the enemy.
Weight requirements.
Fucking Abrams is already 70 tons.
Russian cope tanks are small and therefore can pack on a lot more armor for a lower weight.
Western Tanks are designed for mobility, superior fire control and insane levels of Turret protection.
Which is why it’s standard operating procedure to go hull down so only the turret is sticking out.
The majority of the Armor protection is on the turrets.
These shallow angles are also designed to *shatter* incoming projectiles and make the majority of the Penetrator bounce off, like it did here. Doing so reduced the overall damage the round will do to the tank.
The shot in the this vid is the worst possible scenario for a Western MBT and it means something has gone horribly wrong.
Which might be the reason this location was picked.
I’m not sure if the 3BM42 could pierce through the front turret cheeks of the 2A4, probably could at a closer range.
I´ve also seen a 120mm DM33 penetrate the drivers hatch on a Leopard 1 (30mm at 83 degrees), fired from 800 meters. Entry looked nearly identical to this simulation. The remainding part of the rod hit the inner part of the turret ring, entered the engine room and out the back. (no internals or engine was present)
nice, where could you actualy fire war shots in training?
Back in my days it was only Castle Martin and Shilo, unfortunately I didn't get the chance to visit either.
Снаряд имеет сложную конструкцию: в головной части стреловидного тела снаряда установлен баллистический наконечник, под которым располагается бронебойный колпачок, за бронебойным колпачком установлен бронебойный демпфер, который позволяет хорошо «закуситься» снаряду при столкновении с преградой под углом, а так же играет большую роль в пробитии. За демпфером установлены два сердечника из вольфрамового сплава, которые удерживаются внутри рубашкой из легкосплавного металла. Рубашка плавится при столкновении снаряда с преградой, высвобождая сердечники. Тело снаряда имеет ведущее устройство разжимного типа. В хвостовой части снаряда установлен стабилизатор в виде оперения с пятью лопастями, в основании стабилизатора установлен трассер.
Так что стимуляция даже близко не приближенная к конструкции ОБПС
Молодец.
Вот только ВУ не долетает до цели, никакая рубашка из легкосплавного металла не плавится, так как речь не о температуре плавления, а о легкости сплава...
Can you do sturmtiger rocket vs Nissan micra
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The result will be a big bang.
I don't know if this fits in your content philosophy, but I'd be interested in seeing simulations of events with high contemporary relevance, such as various ammo types in use hitting various parts of the turret on a Leo 2A6 or T-80BVM.
Thanks all the same.
T80BVM is worse than T80U. It is cheap modernization of T80B. Firstly they wanted make it on T80U, but after chose easier and cheaper alternative. It's absolutely useless aganist Leopards 2 A5+ (6, 7 and different 5 localization like PL or Swedish).
But yes, penteration could be possible in any case, to the back, for example, or to the side at a right angle. But this is an unlikely scenario.
Even in the Leopard 2 A4, getting into that part as in the video from 1500+ meters is quite difficult. Moreover, the Russians have already run out of modern sights with French electronics and they are putting junk on those T80s that they are getting out of storage right now.
@@lexaluk123 BVM is built on either B or BV models. The composite on the main production line T-80U was to my knowledge not different from BV, but was constructed in such a way as to be replaceable/upgradeable. Thus the 80s T-80U didn't have substantially different inherent protection than the T-72B, and according to Tankograd, was weaker than the T-90.
Upgrading T-80BVM on the base T-80U would not really make much difference to protection compared to upgrading on T-80BV base.
Moreover, T-80U can only fire 90s-era projectiles like Mango-M, Lekalo, and Svinets, or older. T-80BVM has wholly upgraded fire control and optics, and can load Svinets-1/2.
I do not see the justification for declaring BVM worse than U, nor for dismissing their threat to even modern Leo2 variants.
@@lexaluk123
"T80BVM is worse than T80U. It is cheap modernization of T80B"
не видел теплака второго поколения на Т-80У. Реликта тоже. СУО 80БВМ туда же
"Firstly they wanted make it on T80U, but after chose easier and cheaper alternative"
Глупости, просто 80БВ значительно больше чем малочисленных 80У
"It's absolutely useless aganist Leopards 2 A5+"
И с чего бы это прям абсолютли?)) СУО и теплак у БВМ так то получше будут, а сносная броня у леопарда есть разве что в башне
"Moreover, the Russians have already run out of modern sights with French electronics and they are putting junk on those T80s that they are getting out of storage right now"
Еще одна фантазия) От французского в современных соснах осталась лишь родословная. Производство матриц было локализовано лет 5 назад. Ну и затем, чего ж тогда Т-72Б3 и 90М всё еще оснащают той же сосной?
Кстати, "мусор", как ты его назвал, что ставят на модернизируемые Т-72Б, 80БВ и 62М - это теплак второго поколения. Он хуже сосны, но все еще лучше чем прицел наводчика леопарда 2 или челли 2
@@ГеоргийМурзич Have you seen videos of Russian thermals? Even the T-90 can barely see out to 1600 meters. I would imagine the thermals being placed on cheap T-62s are even worse.
@@Lukyan I have. And I suppose you haven't seen T-80BVMs firing at 4000m at a couple of running ukr soldiers
How's that you don't have 1mil subs?!
Love your work.
Cheers from Mordor... I mean Moscow lol
Depending on the range the shell may come a bit more from above as per balistic drop. It's not a laser. At 2km it got quite a drop.
at such speeds it is negligible to a kilometer, less than one degree
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 I doubt it.
The T72 targeting computer places the aiming reticle on top of the enemy tank at 2km.
That's over 1.5 meters high.
The trajectory will curve up and then go down, negating at least 5 to 10 degree of that high frontal slope.
Not to mention that the tip itself is bended down a bit and the inertia, meaning the push force is also at an angle.
A 3-5-10 degree change on impact angle, projectile angle and projectile force may change a lot when dealing with highly angled frontal armors.
These APFSDS shells are super fast, but they still have to deal with the friction and the rest of the ballistics.
The Chieftain has a very good video about T72 and you can see there the projectile drop at long range.
ruclips.net/video/gbZokjXgVVA/видео.html
Again, it counts when dealing with these high angled frontal armor plates at long range +2000km.
@@cristitanase6130 This is a fact, not an opinion you can doubt. Instead of writing this comment, you could take a piece of paper in your hand and calculate it yourself. It's basic math...
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174
A fact that the ballistic computer of the T72 shows a significant deviation at long range.
Whatever dude, is not my job to correct your shitty videos online. You're the one that supposedly are all for "accuracy" and all that.
Basic math my ass.
@@cristitanase6130 So I just did a rough estimation. The angle of impact at 2000 meters should be roughly 0.2~0.3 degree (a really rough estimation. That's assuming the round flys at about 1400m/s on average, with air neglected and the tip of the round points at its direction of travel. The sight need to rotate upwards for 0.3 degree to hit a target on the same plane at 2000 meters with the impact angle of 0.3 degree). Bear in mind, flying at 1400m/s average to reach 2000 meters will result in roughly a 10-meter drop, so you will perceive the drop to be quite significant from your gunners primary sight (GPS).
When you think about it, we still throw rocks at each other
Please more tests on hull armour of leopard 2 vs 3bm42 and 3bm60
I expected this. Heavily sloped thin steel armor is no longer effective even if 3BM42 is technically a old APFSDS. Need to be thicker or composite nowadays
There is composite under there
@@leopard2109No there isn't.
@@leopard2109
Not in the 2A4
Gonna make some people cry with this one
My question is... Leopard 2a4 has composite under the UFP?
It's more directly behind the lfp iirc.
behind the ufp yes but this is further back towards the turret where there is no composite armor, this shot went right into the ammo rack
@@jonleg12312 ammo rack is lower down, and I'm pretty sure crews are taught to not use the hull ammo rack.
@@Keklord_ so they only take 16 rounds in the tank? 🤡
@@Keklord_ every tank in a combat scenario will have FULL ammo racks, the same is going on right now with the T-72s having ammo everywhere.
time for a hardened 40mm plate super glued to the front upgrade. I`m sure the engine can take it.
Upgrade Packages in nutshell
Old crap cannot beheloed
A 40mm steel plate 3 m long X 1,5m wide (approximate dimensions of Leo-2 UFP) X 0,4m deep = 1,8m^3. The density of steel is about 8tons / m^3, which means that your 40mm steel plate would weight some 14 tons. The engine may or may not handle it. The suspension definitely won't.
@@ProdbyHrima that is 25% of the tanks total weight. I doubt it
@@ciuyr2510 The only thing you can doubt is the dimensions of the ufp. I don't have the numbers, so I 'm merely speculating. As for the density of steel, it's 8 tons/m^3. Google it. Even if you cut the UFP area down to 1/3, the weight increase is still too much, especially for the front suspension.
That rear POV shot was awesome!!
Any plan to do anything as intensive as the side armor impact anytime soon?
Maybe era with oppose fly plate on the side?
Idk
Why? It is obvious it got threw
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 made pls some simalation like this, but with 3-5 degree differences
the head of the dart bounced, not surprised the remaining length got through the initial gouge
considering main ammo racks of the leo2 series tanks are right nex to the driver. the greatest danger to a leo2 is highground. any enemy tank remotely sitting at a slightly higher position will easily pen this thin plate of armor and ammo rack the tanks
I still don’t know why the Abrams and leopard 2 has such thin armor there. Seems so risky.
because 1970s
No. The Abrams has its slightly more angled. It's designed to ricochet the projectile into the cheeks or mantlet. 82°/83° is fhe critical deflection angle that causes most long rods to glance off. Had this been the teeniest bit more angled it would've deflected. I don't understand how the tail segment bit in like that. But hey
What the guy said above
Three reasons, initial design date, small target (relatively, moreso when using a tank's gun depression- especially when utilizing NATO tactics in prepared earthen bank positions), and weight considerations.
Really the big thing is #2, the US and Germany both expect to, when not on the move, be firing from a position behind a hill or other earthwork, which means there is no hitting the UFP in the first place.
@@francoisassatlien8642 There was a shooting trials of the Leopard 2V which also has 40mm at 83°. Penetration with 105mm APFSDS. So what you are saying is not entirely true.
fuck thats like the worst possible angle and it still went through....
APFSDS is scary.
Great simulation !
Can you do a simulation of the il-2s 23mm VYa cannons against a panzer 4's roof armor or a panther
it doesn't penetrate on real combat angles... that is why soviets tried 37mm gun
I like how the fins acted like knives lol!
Nice. Deflected the tip but the back end had enough inertia and bite to penetrate.
i think adding 100 kg more to that armor wouldn't hurt that much compared to the crew inside
See? This penetration would not destroy the vehicle and probably only kill the driver, but just because of the ammo rack exactly down there, the entire vehicle will blow up.
The Leopard 1 and 2 actually sucks, post 2a4 not that much but still has big flaws.
The difference is that the Leopard has the biggest marketing and propaganda, despite doing poorly on every single combat it is used. "The problem is always on the user"
You know that not every hit at the ammo rack means explosion? It depends on the exact point where it hits
@@Losowy Fair enough but its the fact all the ammo is bundled together is the issue. It gives a higher chances for any round to explode.
The driver seeing the hole right beside their head: 😳
What is about a simulation, when 20 tons per second 2.500° hot CO2 and H2O hits special enforced concrete with 2.500 m/sec?
Фугасом туда
You'd think a relatively simple thing like a MEXAS or laminate bolt-on kit would keep that last segment from gettiong enough purchase to go through.
You couldn't add much thickness to that hull roof though because the driver still needs to use his persiscope
@@jameshodgson3656
That's literally what they've done though.
Would you be willing to try an apfsds test against an angled plate with and without fins? To a layperson, it almost seems like the fins themselves help angle the rod downwards into the armor.
Would you be willing to try a simulation where the apfsds is rotated such that two of the fins hit, instead of just one?
The fins are just meant to stabilize the projectile during flight and don't really affect penetration in any way
Can you do the same but with kontakt 5 on the same place?
holy shit the stream started at 10:11 EST and they are STILL gabbing! VOTE FFS!
Nice sim man
But i have a question if we somehow managed to load an APFSDS into an is-2 or 3 cannon would it have more penetration than the t80 ?
Thx
Most modern 122mm ammo was on T-10M. It got APDS with somehow good penetration values. Similar to Conqueror APDS.
83 degrees is pretty rough. Could you try 82 instead?
Nice try sabot, but no we’re not making it easier for you
How much does this software cost?
Is there a big difference between the T-80BVM and the T-80U? Since in the Ukraine we have seen footage where a full frontal hit from a T-80BVM vs the Leopard 2A6 basically trashed in a full frontal hit from 2KM distance.
what?
3BM42 shell can penetrate 500 mm armor. Leopard-2A4 turret has 430 mm in frontal projection
Where did you get these figures from, because they are off.
@@voidtempering8700, it's a german official data
@@user-mt8rr3jk6q From where. The number you gave us is wrong because the turret is 860mm LoS in the first place. While the protection would go down when you factor in capabilities against kinetic vs HEAT, it wouldn't be cut in half.
@@voidtempering8700, The linear dimension of the turret armor is 860 mm, all right. But multi-layer armor of the NERA type, especially early modifications, has a rather large proportion of the air gap, for more efficient operation of anti-cumulative "reflective sheets".
For comparison, the T-72B turret, equipped with NERA-type armor, has an armor size of 800 mm, and resistance to kinetic ammunition of 540 mm. Largely due to the fact that the filler contains more steel. The frontal armor of the T-72B turret is closer to the axis of rotation of the turret than on the Leopard-2A4, which makes it possible to design it more massive. Also, the ERA takes over the function of protection against cumulative ammunition on the T-72B, which made it possible to optimize the armor filler in the turret cheekbones to counteract kinetic ammunition.
A couple of years ago, documents on the armor of the Abrams, Leopard-2 and Challenger-2 tanks were declassified. This is the Swedish tender for the supply of tanks, and other documents.
pp.userapi.com/c844418/v844418125/9f4d/VS1ecPnAoIE.jpg
@@user-mt8rr3jk6q That is Type-B, which was only present on the early production Leopards, the late production ones, as in the ones being sent to Ukraine have a different armor array that offers more protection.
Front Hull in Leo is well know weakens but easy fix is slap so Reactive Armor bricks.
Tandem warhead does the job
I thought leo2a4 used some type of composite armor for it's UFP but it turn outs it's just a 40mm plate 😬
That's true of most tanks, the extreme angle means you typically don't (or rather didn't) need any special armor there. However, long-rod penetrators have changed that a bit and are more likely to penetrate those plates, though that can be overcome with additional armor thrown on top of that plate, which is what many newer models incorporated.
@Ash's Autistic Stuff but 0.5 or 1 degree more slope
That makes 38mm immune
the problem with these simulations is that it's not just steel but kinda secret composite amour
There's no problem with these simulations, the problem is with people who don't want to take the time to research the topic before commenting.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 I mean the U.S. sends their M1A2 to Ukraine because this version doesn't have their top secret depleted uranium armor. They don't want Russia to get their hands on it. If the Russian defense industry doesn't know about this material how can an insignificant RUclipsr with his simulation Software from Amazon know? It doesn't make sense at all.
@@webcrawler9782 It is enough to check where this "secret armor" is, or at least where it cannot be (in the driver's head, for example) instead of taking everything on peasant logic
The A4 is has a design flaw in the ammo compartment. The rounds are not protected like in the Abraams. That penetration would create a cook off. This problem is mitigated in the later variants but Europe doesn’t have A6s-A7s to spare.
That is not a design flaw of the Leopard exclusively. Apart from the M1 (and even the M1 can store a few rounds in the hull) almost every other tank has rounds stored in the hull. And to certain degree it makes sense, because when the tank was designed, it was stored behind thick frontal armor. Also, what the others say, ofen the tanks use hull down positions and the hull ammo is below that level. For sure, that does not give you protection from all angles, and especially against shaped charge mines from the bottom.
And nowadays, with all those top attack weapons, storing the ammo like the M1 in the turret might also turn out to be a problem.
There is one huge advantage though, and that is the crew protection. On the other hand, if we think operational, even a M1 with its ammo destroyed, has a battle value of zero, as it cannot fulfill its task anymore.
To think the Leo2 A4 had thinner armour than the mk1 challenger 1. The mk3 challenger had even thicker hull armour, even better rated than the A5 Leopard 2.
Leopard 2 A6 is when it got much better and pricier with the armour configurations.
It always amazes me that these only just barely go through, and yet the military agencies that are literally paid to run simulations like this don't ever think "you know, for a 5% increase in weight we could stop these shots"
more like 0.1-0.2%. This could be prevented with some mere 1-2cm plate
Well, the later versions of the Leopard 2 do have additional armor over the front.
That sort of thinking is how the Panther ended up overweight and breaking final drives.
@@Crosshair84 And became the best tank in the war.
People underestimate how important armor is, probably because of War Thunder; if the Panther had the first intended armor, it would just be a big and fat - but poorly armored - cat. Just like the useless Leopard 1.
What i mean? Basically the Leopard 1/2 is the most stupid and overrated tank that exists. They tried to develop a quick and low armored tank, but in the end had a paper armor, bigger and heavier/slower than soviet tanks tank.
@@igormsh14bidevisualizacoes45 By what conceivable metric was Panther the best tank in the war? The final drive had a 150km lease on life, and in 1944 the Sherman enjoyed a 3.6-to-1 kill ratio advantage over Panther on the 30 engagements between the types recorded in 1944 on the western front.
Things like quality optics with stabilization, reliable transmissions, crew ergonomics, visibility matter a hell of a lot more than armor when all empirical research of armored warfare shows the winner is best defined in who gets the first shot, and not who has the thickest armor.
interesting that it went through despite most of the rod being wasted
Cool sim
Could the part of the shell that bounced off still pose a threat to the tank turret?
probably not, since even if it hit the turret ring, since it got broken, the energy behind it is much lower, and it needs to hit the turret ring at that point
I made such a simulation with the front plate of the Tiger. A deflected fragment is able to penetrate such armor, but in the case of a modern tank it has no chance.
Why use 3BM42? it would be just HE e.g. 3OF26
Needs added segment of turret ring
Can you make right angle impact ? 90deg.
That would represent side / rear hit.
Im confused as to why people expect hits will come from directly from the front. Most of the time hits come from off angle to sides etc. Or even 45deg hit to side would be very interesting to see.
Nobody focuses on those angles because everyone knows what will happen: guaranteed penetration. Any modern tank getting hit anywhere other than the front by capable APFSDS is going to have a bad day.
does thickening the armor will stop APFSDS?
The spall and material ejected into the tank is enough to cause major damages, or even worst detonate the hull rack if those fragments are enough hot...
I believe that this does not model the composite armour below/behind the UFP, which would likely catch all of the shrapnel.
@@viscounttudon68 What sense would that make? Composite armor is not for catching fragments but for stopping the main force of the projectile.
Turns out the leopard is a Kirkland brand tank lol
That's why only angling is not good and at least 100mm RHA must be contained to outer upper front hull
I'm not surprised at all. But how about the turret?
Knowing that 2A5 version was developed after they've tested T80 ammunition at 2A4, I guess it penetrates turret armor for sure.
There should be easy/cost effective fixes for this weak point?
i wonder why you chose these exact tanks
There is no specific reason
U wonder 😂
If anyone has an idea, they can share, but it must be feasible
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 i am not too knowledgeable on what's feasible and not, but it could be cool to see some french ww1 tank vs German ww2 tank. Like maybe Saint-Shamond vs Pz.2 or Pz.3
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 how about something like 2 rpg 7 heat rounds (not tandem) hitting nearly the same spot on the front turret of a t72b3 without ERA ( ERA previously destroyed before sim).
A hole even in this place? The T-80 has very good shells, although it is not the most technologically advanced tank
Leopard 2's UFP is more likely 45 to 50mm thick, not 40mm. 45mm can be seen on the 2AV diagrams, where the 82 deg area is 45mm thick. The 2AV and 2A0 were similarly rated to give a minimum of 350mm RHAe resistance vs KE threats across the entire front -> 45mm @ 82.5deg is equivalent to that through LOS thickness. Probably still not enough to stop BM42, but the result will look a bit different.
I would expect spall liners and you would think some kind of NERA in this area.
@@williamzk9083 Spall liners were added for the 2A5 forward, some 2A4's might have been retrofitted.
Why 3BM42 not 3BM60 ?
3BM42 not 3BM21?
What simulation software are you using, good sir?
Ansys
I thought ufp was 35mm at 82 degrees
The driver dies and the rest goes to the turret ring.
The drivers going to be at least light orange after this hit
Bob Semple > Leopard 2A7V
Simple as.
T-80U vs Leopard 2A4 (+ ERA) next?
Not many of the actual darts parts go in
But driver will be wounded or even killed
tank that cannot move is a bunker
Knowing that ukr or rus tank crew usually abandon mobility kill vehicle
Imma count it as a kill
And 10 mill roubles to guy who capture it
Could you do a simulation of firing a blunt APFSDS, at that angle on similar armor thickness?
This is actually a blunt apfsds. The front segment is separated so that it could easily detach on such an impact, so the rod did not bounce.
That's pretty amazing. Didn't know they was designed that way. Surprised it got deflected up until the end pushed through.
The Plate is 45 mm thick and its original Angle is 8 degrees....
The plate is 40 mm thick and its orginal angle is 7 degrees.........
To be fair thats a dead driver. Not a tank killer.
got in there...didn't think it would
This tank is blown up all dead in this Simulation
i know i’m comparing war thunder to simulation but it’s stupid how the shrapnel goes more down and into the driver here compared to war thunder( my grammar isn’t perfet)
The loader has been knocked out!
@Dejmain XYZ
Is there composite armor under the plate?
Under this plate is driver, in front of him is composite armor
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 ah okay thank you
If the T-80 can get as close as 1400 m before being killed himself…
Where you know from that the hullplate is only 40mm RHA ?
Just open the driver hatch
Which software do you use?
Ansys
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 thanks
Equal to 217mm at 90 degrees
I guess there's no info about composite?
As always,video quite enjoyable and understandable
It is not as surprising that such a projectile penetrates that plate,but the armor under it will certainly catch the rest ( *but there is none* )
there is no armor below that, this is the armor.
Later verisons of Leopard 2 added more armor here, but this is the oldest currently used Leopard 2 version
What armor?
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 So you are telling me...there is nothing besides crew...
This is not good
Interesting... What about the turret?
extra brain massage for the driver
These projwctiles are like Go's finger, "here must be hole"
And then it is
3BM42 vs Leopard 2a5 hull with composite screen
You should do 3bm60. As seeing as they're issuing more modern ammo due to Nato tanks
I see they using 3BM21. BM42 is fair
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 some photos taken by russian soldiers picturing 3bm60 has surfaced recently, why it's arriving now can only be speculated
@@axlfrhalo no need to use it against T-64’s and such.
Now that they are coping because of western tank deliveries (I’m picturing Putin doing the Hitler “NEIN NEIN NEIN” thing lol)
They realized their 3BM42 won’t be able to penetrate the 2A6’s and Challenger 2’s that are coming.
2A4’s are older, but properly used they will be able to do some real damage.
I expect to see more charred Ivan husks in the coming months.
@@axlfrhalo Probably because, since now, mango was enough to defeat T64s. Now with NATO tanks they are bringing out the real stuff
Would this shatter the dart?
Add some ridge spans and watch it fail tp pen in that situation
Different story might happen if this T-80U has to go up against a Leopard 2A4V used by the Ukrainians which has Nozh Explosive Reactive Armour on the front. In the future they will do that to the Western tanks