For those of those that might cry about *"But all m1 abrams models are 82 degrees and 1 extra degree completely changes everything!"* I pixel measured every flat image I could and I always got 83 degrees while i got 82 degrees on the previous abrams version. It would be logical for it to be 83 degrees on a new model because that one degree makes a huge difference and the engineers with simulation software know this.
Im a little on the fence about this simulation. The drivers hatch sticking out like that and being nothing but a flat plate with a bevel at the edges seems a little oversimplified. The vision blocks are missing in this simulation too. Im curious how those would affect the round as it glances over the plate and things like spalling ont he inside, since the instruments would be in the way and there would likely also be spall liner on the inside
Dude this entire "simulation" is total nonsense, even the angle of the plate is wrong, this doesn't even look like 83°. This channel is known for making bs content, just look at his other videos, it's a shitpost channel
It's called physics. APFSDS is incredibly thin and hard by design, if it meets a surface too sloped for it to bite into it almost immediately plasticizes and breaks apart essentially becoming a non-threat to an armored surface leaving minimal damage.
That's because they use full licenses and can make super dense meshes, but even SY with a 83 degree angle got a similar reflection with basically a scratch.
Copium "extreme is more sophisticated, a Pzgr. 39 indeed totally can't pen a M4A2 Sherman from the front. He has to have the most sophisticated simulations"
Congratulations to the author, this clip has completely fulfilled its role. Although it's better to have a keyboard war than a radioactive wasteland of a real encounter.
Для нерусских 3БМ69 не производится и по сути не существует как и 2А83 так как это единичные экземпляры для испытаний, которые прошли уже 35 лет назад,.
I dont even have a college degree and realize how DUMB that design choice is unless they up-armor the front to the same level as the Glacius, which they cant.
Since we know nothing about the Abrams-X, it’s hard to say how effective it is. But, with the current Abrams SEP V3, it seems the upper front armor is roughly 35-40mm thick, which is pretty shit. If any tank had even the slightest bit of elevation advantage against that Abrams, a modern HEAT shell would penetrate right through it, such as the 3BK29M, with it’s maximum 800mm penetration, depending on the angle. That’s probably one of the major downfalls of the Abrams.
Abrams are not meant to fight head on in mass numbers which is what the Russian doctrine is. The Abrams doctrine is always hull down. That is where the turret shows its capability in dishing out fire with hide and fire tactics. Using Commanders CITV, like a submarine it surfaces for a short moment to unleash depleted uranium at up to 4km. Abrams that go out into the open would have air support and infantry scouts already in the front lines engaging to take away the threat of getting focus fire on the moving tanks
the UFP probably has gotten some composites instead of being RHA,which would increase the protection, although if it hasnt gotten upgraded, then i absolutely agree.
There's zero way of actually knowing how thick not only the upper front plate is but any armor on the tank besides the physical measurements taken on the older models, you and everyone defiantly do not know anything about the SEP V3. Like seriously, where are you getting this information? You must also think that all the figures that Russia publishes for their armor and penetration for projectiles is accurate, don't you? Even though the Soviets built tanks half the weight of the Abrams but apparently manage to build better armor? Unless the manufactor provides physcial tests showing penetration or anything else, *it is all claims made by companies that profit from inflating their weapon capabilities, please don't be so damn naive.*
@@Austin-cx2xeкакие именно танки вдвое тяжелее Абрамса построил союз ? Любой серийный советский танк легче Абрамса и гораздо менее уязвим в лобовой проекции
@@ostiariusalpha Good luck to abrams sniping from "over the horizon". Fools like you, for all the shitton of evidence that tanks don't really fight like that, still talk shit about "my tank will snipe your tank". That isn't gonna happen because before it can even attempt such a thing one of them will be obliterated by artillery before they get into such a scenario in 99% of situations.
Ye, would be surprising if the people who designed it weren't planning to have a similar thing as the original Abrams where the upper plate is there to shatter apfsds rounds. Hatch should be changed tho, it's basically flat with the hull in any clip u see.
Если лом попадает выше? В проекцию люка или над люком в изгиб? Кажется он пролетит на сквозь вес танк. Или с расстояния более километра, где траектория полеты не будет такой горизонтальной?
Quick answer: Yes. AbramsX using a modified M1 hull will not suddenly have more armour on the upper plate, especially as it's just a tech demonstrator. And it has been proven in a different simulation how 3BM42, let alone 3BM60, can easily penetrate the shatter plate.
@@愛を込めてロシアから возможно, кривость переводчика, которым я пользуюсь, дала о себе знать. Ты сказал что абрамс "условно не уязвим с фронта", я написал что нет неуязвимых машин, даже с фронта.
Why use it old round 3BM-42M Lakalo is rear round...Russians have new one 3BM-59 DU and 3BM-60 Tungsteen....put them against same plate...also round will not go trough the air in strait line it will have on 1500m arc line and it will hit that plate under different angle. Keep it at mine mate...
С учетом скорости полета БОПСов, такая парабола там минимизирована. К тому, же, угол верхней лобовой детали достаточно острый, чтобы даже в таком случае был рикошет. Но, как говорится, стреляй под башню/нижнюю лобовую деталь. И ГГ.
Угол выставлен для практически идеальных условий. В реальном бою угол встречи лома и ВЛД однозначно будет другим из-за неровностей местности. Например если мало ли абрамса подловят на спуске с возвышенности там вообще лом его навылет через днище прошибёт вместе с мехводом.
Всё это компьютерная проекция и они приводят пример попадания в нужную точку, чуть выше или ниже и результат будет другим... Смешно просто смотреть на их мечты, им нужно там мишень нарисовать =)))
I am pretty certain that the front plate of the Abrams X isn't just RHA, as depicted here. Hell, even us Germans got wise and the Leopard 2 A6 and up have much improved additional composite armor protection across the front plate. Not to forget the anti-spall liner that is certain to be there.
This is a rather older round. 3BM60/59 may have different impacts. One thing for sure is that the driver is a goner. The chest caved in and a large portion of shrapnel hit his face and likely eyes. That tank isn't going anywhere anytime soon. If this is what a round that is effectively a modified mango round can do imagine what a more modern one could do.
I feel like this could be easily avoided by having a small extension added to the armor just in front of the driver's hatch. It would be a ramp that is flush with the UFP at its farthest from the driver and flush with the top of the hatch when it meets the hatch. This might increase the chance of a round penetrating this special additional portion itself but I still think it would be angled enough to avoid this. Alternatively, the designers could just make the portion of the UFP that is adjacent to the hatch a flat 90 degrees to absolutely minimize the weakness of the hatch. I don't think it would be too hard to move the driver slightly lower or have him recline a bit more to accommodate this change. The turret ring would be just a tad more exposed from the front though.
YES ! That's what Ive been saying ! Why don't they just add a slightly angled, but mostly vertical wedge of armor about half a food high that sticks out from the tank on horizontal Pylons ? It could be about 1.5-2 feet in front of the front part of the tank, and would give some distance to lessen the impact before it hits the drivers area and maybe even deflect most of the blast upwards
Now the Abrams X is gonna have all Crew in the weak frontal compartment, which is dumb. If anything it should be in the back in an armored "bathtub" like the Israeli tank. Engine in the front
And them having 4 crew per tank is absurd. That means if the tank is destroyed you lose 1/4 more many personnel as needed. They should only have a Driver, Commander and Gunner.
With a three man crew they can use the extra personnel to remotely man drone support and they can have support drones and remote operating light vehicle that have stand-alone APS that goes with the tank or ahead of it
Who knows, honestly. Any modern HEAT shell could easily penetrate the top, frontal armor and even the side armor. Side skirts are very thin steel plates, with the side armor being made of simple, rolled steel. Side shots would kill the Abrams pretty quick, or at least disable it.
to be honest, ALL tanks need upgrades,the modern battlefield isnt just who has the gun with more penetrating power. sights, range, APS, protection against drones,and more are all things that current fielded tanks need to be relevant (And APS systems like trophy or arena dont count,as far as we know they could both be useless)
Isn't supposed that a t90A would use at least more modern APFSDS like Svinets. And iven Svinets 1 and 2 because as far as I'm aware the t90A uses the 2a46-m4 canon
@@jPlanerv2 смотря во что стрелять, в Х не будут из пневматики стрелять возьмут ломы длинные, не получится, возьмут 152 фугас или бетонобой, не получится, с дрона кумулятивную гранату на крышу положат, ка 52 вихрь пришлёт, и это при условии стоять лбом к противнику как на счёт курсовых углов? борт? в стимуляции держит, а практика покажет.
@@jPlanerv2 they aren't using Svinets because Mango and Vant with ~550mm and Lekado with ~650 are more than enough for early t72 and any t64 Apart we a re talking about an Abrams X. Is like we put an m1a2 sev with m829 against a t14
@@ser43_OLDC Abrams x is just technology demonstrator not actual tank and its hull upper plate is the same as on other M1a2s so using the most common AT shell for 125mm is fair in this sim.
Why would they use anything more modern than mango if it does a good job on anything Ukraine has had thus far? Imagine the stupidity of using up all the overpowered newer munitions only for newer enemy tanks to enter the battlefield.
These drones are not used "against plate". It's too hard to use them this way, you roughly steer them into the tank, trying any side that isn't a front. So the VALID simulation would be 15-35 degree angle on hull/turret side and rear. They also use WW2 era PTAB 2.5-1.5 anti-tank HEAT bombs. Back in the days, plane would drop a batches of 192 roughly over the convoy. Quad drones allow to drop these more or less precisely against stationary targets. These require 87-90 degrees tests against roofs. Also, it's kinda funny how military industrial complex kept chugging the very expensive toys anywhere from $2500 to $85000 while top keks are delivered by wish-grade kit taped to printed coat hangers (Gets even funnier with lancet drones - it's literally a stronger fan jammed into a piece of square vent with a mount for camera knob, with two explosive charges (Essentially it's trench digging charge being cut in two pieces: Initial shaped one goes to the front and heavy finisher is in the back) spray foamed together.
Ну таких сказок я еще не видел Единственное что такое возможно только при условии что эта плита сделана из урана или вольфрама и то не ясно как снаряд из такого же материала может так изгибаться не прорезая метал острием и кинетической энергией А так куда он девается в конце ведь при таком рикошете как тут у него все еще огромнейшая кинетика, которую он должен обо что-то гасить
1) deflected APFSDS will not disappear. Instead it will damage or jam M1's turret ring. 2) HE-Frag round for 125-mm guns. While much less sophisticated compared to HE-MPAT M1A2 uses, russian 125-mm Frag is just artillery shell with powerful explosive. The only m1a2's frontal detail vulnerable to HE shells is exactly the drivers slope. In simulations i've seen it was close to second worst thing for M1A2
The use of German and American tanks in the invasion of Syria and Yemen showed that they are more vulnerable than Russian ones. Very weak side projections and unprotected projectiles make them vulnerable in a war where the defenders are not completely overwhelmed by the air, as in Iraq. The public loves the cliche about throwing a tower, but in the conditions of a similar defeat, any tank will be bad. Also, Western tanks are effective when they drive forward and fire anti-tank rounds, which is not possible in modern warfare. And if they carry out ambush missions with land mines, it suddenly turns out that Russian tanks have shells hidden below and behind the armor, while Western ones do not.
It can also be noted that Russian tanks are about three times as long-range, so if there is a correction from a drone, it will shoot any Western tank long before it enters the danger zone.
Меня другое больше прикалывает) Почему люди считают что в влд по таким диким углом кто то будет вообще стрелять?)) Там БМ8 из Д10Т2С в погон башни достаточно будет))) Конструкция с момента создания не менялась), А главное этих симуляций с попаданием именно в ВЛД куча....
@@ГлебИгнатов-ф9т ага действительно какая тут реальность он еще даже на свет не появился но ему уже пророчат что он будет неубиваемым через различные интернет ресурсы.... А Т-55 есть и по сей день и очень много.
All fun and good Until a Shape chrage hit the plate with shoulder fuse that heat jet wont care about any angle it just cares about the thickness in terms of chemical protection and i cann tell you a simple steel plate wont have a good chemical protection even angled like that maybe its 300mm but most heat rounds have way over that
Hot molten metal traveling at god knows how much faster than a bullet. I’m genuinely curious how thick these spall liners have to be to stop this shit.
Came here to say this. The T90 is not that short, the M1 is not that tall, and there's no arc so this takes place at point blank range? In a realistic scenario, either the T90 is shooting down into the plate or from range where it's arcing down into the plate. It's physically impossible for a round from a T90 to impact the way its depicted here.
@@92HazelMocha The arc is much less than you think. It makes virtually no difference in impact result at engagement distances these tanks experience. This is a common mistake because it's counter-intuitive how little the angle changes.
Even if this is an old Mango, looks strange that it bounced like that. Should have dented the surface, like simulations with current Abrams show (many times the projectile goes trough if it is the thin plate version)
Танкам для выживания нужно обрастать всеракурсной пассивной защитой, активной защитой, блоками ДЗ, РЭБом, иметь хорошую ситуативную осведомленность за счёт оптики, видео, дрон -детекторов, а так же за счёт информации от соседних машин и подразделений. А кроме того выростают дистанции боя, что требует освоения стрельбы с закрытых огневых позиций, изменения к подходам живучести ствола, углов наведения, номенклатуры боекомплекта. Это повысит живучесть, но...цена танка, его технологичность, цикл производства резко увеличатся. Вместо тысяч единиц, будут сотни. Или десятки. Это резко снижает возможность наступательных операций бронетанковых сил на большую глубину, просто потому что их мало, а огневых средств и сенсоров у противника много. И дальше количество дронов будет только наростать. Выхода пока не вижу. Если противник имеет волю к сопротивлению остановить ударные подразделения он сможет. Делать лёгкие танки не выход, ибо это не улучшит ситуацию с ценой, технологичностью, но ликвидирует последний рубеж обороны - пассивную защиту.
why not add another really thin plate like 5-10mm just to stop the miniscule amount of spall that still gets created? edit: nvm, the majority of the spall is from the optics anyway, no point in a plate there....
@@Kagero91 ну дойдут и до 34, когда закончатся детальки на т62. Знаешь немцы в конце войны тоже использовали танки первой мировой, на все шли, а уж в государстве с продутым производством и загнанным в коррупцию на всех фронтах о каком производстве речь?
They should take inspiration from thr BMP-1, adding ridges to the upper front plate would deflect off the round so it doesnt hit the drivers hatch, also im preety sure the upper front plate isnt just completely indestructible.
Serio aż tak mocno rykoszetuje? Nawet jeśli tak, to wystarczy zaatakować choćby z minimalnego przewyższenia (~2° ) i już ten pancerz nie wytrzyma. Podczas ataków z dachów niskich budynków (10-20°) to nawet RPG-7 wystarczy z zapasem.
For those of those that might cry about *"But all m1 abrams models are 82 degrees and 1 extra degree completely changes everything!"* I pixel measured every flat image I could and I always got 83 degrees while i got 82 degrees on the previous abrams version. It would be logical for it to be 83 degrees on a new model because that one degree makes a huge difference and the engineers with simulation software know this.
Was it UFP always 50mm? I thought the OG models had like 38mm did they change it?
How do you know the Amor composition?
@@ravenkk4816 its pretty easy to find out the Thickness of plates but its harder to find the actual materials used if at all
@@reacteddesert7187 I think after m1a2 it was upgraded to 50mm
@@ravenkk4816 The video of the tank has an open hatch and you could pixel measure it.
Don't worry, the driver only turns red, not black or dead
Looks like an orange drive to me, or at least an orange driver if I was shooting at the enemy.
but what if the driver is african-american?
Just push + button and revive red mothderfaker
@@boyteebah3794 war thunder meme bruh
@@efekanuyguner6513 i think he knew
Driver did a dental surgery speedrun
Pretty sure he got a world record
Pretty sure his brains are blown out-
Wash off makeup speedrun at the same time😲😲😲
he got a free concussion, so lucky
Lol
Im a little on the fence about this simulation. The drivers hatch sticking out like that and being nothing but a flat plate with a bevel at the edges seems a little oversimplified. The vision blocks are missing in this simulation too. Im curious how those would affect the round as it glances over the plate and things like spalling ont he inside, since the instruments would be in the way and there would likely also be spall liner on the inside
Im on the fence about this whole thing since we know nothing about this tank obviously
Like the previous guy just said, we don't know shit so this could very well be inaccurate and most likely is to an extent at least
Dude this entire "simulation" is total nonsense, even the angle of the plate is wrong, this doesn't even look like 83°. This channel is known for making bs content, just look at his other videos, it's a shitpost channel
@@warthunderenjoyer Yeah there's extra magic physics-defying armor on that UFP that we don't know about
За них может снаряд зацепиться и всë, капут
A simulation that has nothing to do with reality))
The tungsten rod just ricocheted without leaving a trace? What is this tank made of? Vibranium?
No, Freedomium apparently 🥴
No, it's called basic physics
It's called physics. APFSDS is incredibly thin and hard by design, if it meets a surface too sloped for it to bite into it almost immediately plasticizes and breaks apart essentially becoming a non-threat to an armored surface leaving minimal damage.
@@ThatGuyOrby this one looks more realistic
ruclips.net/video/0c5XkP1ywpk/видео.html
Trumpium.
I don't see any kind of deformation on the hull where the apfsds hit, the sims done by sy and extreme seemed more sophisticated.
That's because they use full licenses and can make super dense meshes, but even SY with a 83 degree angle got a similar reflection with basically a scratch.
@@simulationbros You can just pirate a full version, I don't see why you are limiting yourself like that.
Copium "extreme is more sophisticated, a Pzgr. 39 indeed totally can't pen a M4A2 Sherman from the front. He has to have the most sophisticated simulations"
i haven't checked his channel since that video.... He actually revisited it...... and has it that even the 88 doesn't pen..... bro... lmao
@@BladezAndrewangry wehraboo Jesus. Go cry about your nazi tanks historical accuracy somwhere else
The steel didn't even bend or have any sort of reaction for its thickness. I feel like this simulation is over exaggerated and inaccurate
if youre gonna move everyone into the hull, logic would dictate reduce armor in the turret and add more protection in the hull, so it makes sense
i mean like if someone breaks the turret you cant really do much now.
@@a_bad_channel but the crew is alive, and thats the most important thing
@@Godsjudgement12 yea true, an experienced crew is irreplaceable
hey, it would be cool to see the same render but with the turret modeled, to see what damage the round will do to the turret after ricoshetting
Yeah not much lol
@@looke3392its the main problem with the abrams their turret neck kinda exposed and something like trap shot sometimes happen in test
ricocheting
Congratulations to the author, this clip has completely fulfilled its role.
Although it's better to have a keyboard war than a radioactive wasteland of a real encounter.
hmmm, how bout 2A82 125mm with 3BM60? it could does much more damage (and penetration)
2A83 use 3BM69 not 3BM60.
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa oh, I didn't know that, tks
2A83 is 152mm gun
@@KashtanGreg mistype
Для нерусских 3БМ69 не производится и по сути не существует как и 2А83 так как это единичные экземпляры для испытаний, которые прошли уже 35 лет назад,.
Great, with the new design, all 3 crews now sit at the front where the weak spot is.
I dont even have a college degree and realize how DUMB that design choice is unless they up-armor the front to the same level as the Glacius, which they cant.
@@ArilMavenchat can you build a tank yourself
Since we know nothing about the Abrams-X, it’s hard to say how effective it is. But, with the current Abrams SEP V3, it seems the upper front armor is roughly 35-40mm thick, which is pretty shit. If any tank had even the slightest bit of elevation advantage against that Abrams, a modern HEAT shell would penetrate right through it, such as the 3BK29M, with it’s maximum 800mm penetration, depending on the angle. That’s probably one of the major downfalls of the Abrams.
Abrams are not meant to fight head on in mass numbers which is what the Russian doctrine is.
The Abrams doctrine is always hull down. That is where the turret shows its capability in dishing out fire with hide and fire tactics.
Using Commanders CITV, like a submarine it surfaces for a short moment to unleash depleted uranium at up to 4km.
Abrams that go out into the open would have air support and infantry scouts already in the front lines engaging to take away the threat of getting focus fire on the moving tanks
the UFP probably has gotten some composites instead of being RHA,which would increase the protection, although if it hasnt gotten upgraded, then i absolutely agree.
There's zero way of actually knowing how thick not only the upper front plate is but any armor on the tank besides the physical measurements taken on the older models, you and everyone defiantly do not know anything about the SEP V3. Like seriously, where are you getting this information? You must also think that all the figures that Russia publishes for their armor and penetration for projectiles is accurate, don't you? Even though the Soviets built tanks half the weight of the Abrams but apparently manage to build better armor? Unless the manufactor provides physcial tests showing penetration or anything else, *it is all claims made by companies that profit from inflating their weapon capabilities, please don't be so damn naive.*
You three are naive because it did at the time your comments are made.
@@Austin-cx2xeкакие именно танки вдвое тяжелее Абрамса построил союз ? Любой серийный советский танк легче Абрамса и гораздо менее уязвим в лобовой проекции
Tips for any t-90 driver:always target the turret ring since is penetrable and spotted easily
Also assuming said T-90 got the drop on them, and didn't get sniped from over the horizon by the AbramsX.
Tank drivers had been taught that for decades. It's not just an Abrams and T-90 thing.
@@ostiariusalpha lol yea good luck.
@@Max_Da_G Lucky for who?
@@ostiariusalpha Good luck to abrams sniping from "over the horizon". Fools like you, for all the shitton of evidence that tanks don't really fight like that, still talk shit about "my tank will snipe your tank". That isn't gonna happen because before it can even attempt such a thing one of them will be obliterated by artillery before they get into such a scenario in 99% of situations.
"The driver is unconscious!"
Meanwhile, the driver literally has a hole in his chest
Ye, would be surprising if the people who designed it weren't planning to have a similar thing as the original Abrams where the upper plate is there to shatter apfsds rounds. Hatch should be changed tho, it's basically flat with the hull in any clip u see.
Nice pfp
Если лом попадает выше? В проекцию люка или над люком в изгиб? Кажется он пролетит на сквозь вес танк. Или с расстояния более километра, где траектория полеты не будет такой горизонтальной?
What if you stuck a 120 mm HE there?
Это имеет смысл при таклй маленькой толщине брони
Quick answer: Yes.
AbramsX using a modified M1 hull will not suddenly have more armour on the upper plate, especially as it's just a tech demonstrator. And it has been proven in a different simulation how 3BM42, let alone 3BM60, can easily penetrate the shatter plate.
Pictures prove otherwise. Abrams variants further than M1A1 has 50mm of UFP armor contrary to popular belief. Which was spread by war thunder.
@@Phapchamp This is false, it has been disproven time and time again, even according to active M1A2 crewmen.
@@HSSdkthis is not false, there’s literally pictures with rulers by crewman that show that yes it’s a misconception by warthunder 😂
I know its popular round - Mango but given its from the 80s and is now almost 30 years old, I would expect a bit more modern rounds to be fired at M1.
If you want to know what it is then 3BM60 in combat in the Ukrainian War and 1990s 3BM46
it's not so important, Abrams is conditionally invulnerable from the front, but any hit in what is not the front is a one hundred percent success
@@愛を込めてロシアから любой танк уязвим с фронта
@@shum5078 не пон
@@愛を込めてロシアから возможно, кривость переводчика, которым я пользуюсь, дала о себе знать. Ты сказал что абрамс "условно не уязвим с фронта", я написал что нет неуязвимых машин, даже с фронта.
Why use it old round 3BM-42M Lakalo is rear round...Russians have new one 3BM-59 DU and 3BM-60 Tungsteen....put them against same plate...also round will not go trough the air in strait line it will have on 1500m arc line and it will hit that plate under different angle. Keep it at mine mate...
The remaining part of the projectile could potentially continue Up into the bottom of the turret front or worse, the ring
*turret ring. Stupid autocorrect
Someone been playing too much war thunder
@Burnt Toaster yeah lol, apfsds would not be able to pen the turret ring after getting shattered
Представьте что там с башней…
А также неверно выставлен угол, снаряд летит параболически, а не прямо
С учетом скорости полета БОПСов, такая парабола там минимизирована. К тому, же, угол верхней лобовой детали достаточно острый, чтобы даже в таком случае был рикошет.
Но, как говорится, стреляй под башню/нижнюю лобовую деталь. И ГГ.
Угол выставлен для практически идеальных условий. В реальном бою угол встречи лома и ВЛД однозначно будет другим из-за неровностей местности. Например если мало ли абрамса подловят на спуске с возвышенности там вообще лом его навылет через днище прошибёт вместе с мехводом.
А как насчет попадания ОФС в эту зону?
@@АлександрКузнецов-ч4ъ2случше бронебойно-кумулятивным
Всё это компьютерная проекция и они приводят пример попадания в нужную точку, чуть выше или ниже и результат будет другим...
Смешно просто смотреть на их мечты, им нужно там мишень нарисовать =)))
I am pretty certain that the front plate of the Abrams X isn't just RHA, as depicted here. Hell, even us Germans got wise and the Leopard 2 A6 and up have much improved additional composite armor protection across the front plate. Not to forget the anti-spall liner that is certain to be there.
it actually is a 38mm thick plate of RHA (steel), and so far there is no proof that Abrams tanks are equipped with spall liners
This is a rather older round.
3BM60/59 may have different impacts.
One thing for sure is that the driver is a goner. The chest caved in and a large portion of shrapnel hit his face and likely eyes.
That tank isn't going anywhere anytime soon. If this is what a round that is effectively a modified mango round can do imagine what a more modern one could do.
Yeah.. imagine what the 3BK29M would do.
Crazy! This time the front plate remained unscathed, yet the driver was killed by the hatch spall. The front needs an extra spall shield!
I feel like this could be easily avoided by having a small extension added to the armor just in front of the driver's hatch. It would be a ramp that is flush with the UFP at its farthest from the driver and flush with the top of the hatch when it meets the hatch. This might increase the chance of a round penetrating this special additional portion itself but I still think it would be angled enough to avoid this.
Alternatively, the designers could just make the portion of the UFP that is adjacent to the hatch a flat 90 degrees to absolutely minimize the weakness of the hatch. I don't think it would be too hard to move the driver slightly lower or have him recline a bit more to accommodate this change. The turret ring would be just a tad more exposed from the front though.
YES ! That's what Ive been saying ! Why don't they just add a slightly angled, but mostly vertical wedge of armor about half a food high that sticks out from the tank on horizontal Pylons ? It could be about 1.5-2 feet in front of the front part of the tank, and would give some distance to lessen the impact before it hits the drivers area and maybe even deflect most of the blast upwards
Now the Abrams X is gonna have all Crew in the weak frontal compartment, which is dumb. If anything it should be in the back in an armored "bathtub" like the Israeli tank. Engine in the front
And them having 4 crew per tank is absurd. That means if the tank is destroyed you lose 1/4 more many personnel as needed. They should only have a Driver, Commander and Gunner.
With a three man crew they can use the extra personnel to remotely man drone support and they can have support drones and remote operating light vehicle that have stand-alone APS that goes with the tank or ahead of it
Серьёзно?))) броня просто проломиться под воздействием лома, часть конечно отрекошетит, но пролом будет, и пролом сильный)))
So the driver's face became jello ?
I wonder when they would finally fix the weak spots on Abrams.
Who knows, honestly. Any modern HEAT shell could easily penetrate the top, frontal armor and even the side armor. Side skirts are very thin steel plates, with the side armor being made of simple, rolled steel. Side shots would kill the Abrams pretty quick, or at least disable it.
to be honest, ALL tanks need upgrades,the modern battlefield isnt just who has the gun with more penetrating power. sights, range, APS, protection against drones,and more are all things that current fielded tanks need to be relevant (And APS systems like trophy or arena dont count,as far as we know they could both be useless)
There’s still a shot trap in the turret ring but at least there’s no one inside to harm in the AbramsX.
The pen literally shattered no trap shot
APFSDS shatters, it's not a ricochet
@@ireallycant4416The splinters are still dangerous..
they are probably gonna be moving too slow to damage anything inside, but sights might get damaged@@BARelement
Can you try it with Svinets-2? It should pen because the critical angle isn’t effected as much as Mango
Definitely penetrates.
When this thing is in the army, it’s gonna up against T-14 Armata.
t14 is gonna broke down before it reaches the front lines lol
@@p4ntom87and what do you base that on?
Eh he just got a little tickle he good
The question is can it after ricochet pen turret ring ?
100% that turret is now jammed and inoperable
@@Phantom-bh5ru probably
Besides the incorrect thickness, the fact that the penetrator didnt even leave a dent shows how laughably inaccurate this "simulation" is.
All that for the shell to fully bounce off only to recieve shotgun pellets into your face because of the cupola 💀
Isn't supposed that a t90A would use at least more modern APFSDS like Svinets. And iven Svinets 1 and 2 because as far as I'm aware the t90A uses the 2a46-m4 canon
They dont use them in Ukraine so mango is fair choice
@@jPlanerv2 смотря во что стрелять, в Х не будут из пневматики стрелять возьмут ломы длинные, не получится, возьмут 152 фугас или бетонобой, не получится, с дрона кумулятивную гранату на крышу положат, ка 52 вихрь пришлёт, и это при условии стоять лбом к противнику как на счёт курсовых углов? борт? в стимуляции держит, а практика покажет.
@@jPlanerv2 they aren't using Svinets because Mango and Vant with ~550mm and Lekado with ~650 are more than enough for early t72 and any t64
Apart we a re talking about an Abrams X. Is like we put an m1a2 sev with m829 against a t14
@@ser43_OLDC Abrams x is just technology demonstrator not actual tank and its hull upper plate is the same as on other M1a2s so using the most common AT shell for 125mm is fair in this sim.
Why would they use anything more modern than mango if it does a good job on anything Ukraine has had thus far? Imagine the stupidity of using up all the overpowered newer munitions only for newer enemy tanks to enter the battlefield.
Do keep in mind that tanks have spall liners
Some
Russia don’t use 3bm42. Only 3bm60 and newer modifications.
Holy shit, that angle is insane 😮, i didnt look into perspective what it would actually look like side to side
Механик-водитель скончался??!?!!
in Ukraine they have started to use simple drones with RPG 7 attached to belly. wonder what an arial attack would do to drivers plate
These drones are not used "against plate". It's too hard to use them this way, you roughly steer them into the tank, trying any side that isn't a front. So the VALID simulation would be 15-35 degree angle on hull/turret side and rear.
They also use WW2 era PTAB 2.5-1.5 anti-tank HEAT bombs. Back in the days, plane would drop a batches of 192 roughly over the convoy. Quad drones allow to drop these more or less precisely against stationary targets. These require 87-90 degrees tests against roofs.
Also, it's kinda funny how military industrial complex kept chugging the very expensive toys anywhere from $2500 to $85000 while top keks are delivered by wish-grade kit taped to printed coat hangers (Gets even funnier with lancet drones - it's literally a stronger fan jammed into a piece of square vent with a mount for camera knob, with two explosive charges (Essentially it's trench digging charge being cut in two pieces: Initial shaped one goes to the front and heavy finisher is in the back) spray foamed together.
Gaijin will see this and think, ah Yes. Bye Turret ring, Gunner, Commander... AND ENGINE
The solution to this invincible upper front : 105mm HESH.
What about 183mm. Hesh
@@Santander_wowsFV215b(183) one shot - one kill.
3bm42 mango is from the '80s, we cannot expect it to pen a tank that has not even been put on mass production in 2023
mango is 3bm60
3bm42 is
@@th3kgbdog385 Okay, I got mango and lead mixed up. I haven't played war thunder for a long time
According to the author, the crowbar is made of plasticine
Ну таких сказок я еще не видел
Единственное что такое возможно только при условии что эта плита сделана из урана или вольфрама и то не ясно как снаряд из такого же материала может так изгибаться не прорезая метал острием и кинетической энергией
А так куда он девается в конце ведь при таком рикошете как тут у него все еще огромнейшая кинетика, которую он должен обо что-то гасить
Это проекция сделана на простых сплавах, а не тех, что на т90м
What? Your telling me this DEMONSTRATION vehicle might not be combat ready? Who could've fucking guessed?!
That 3BM42 is fucking giant, it's longer than the torso of the driver!
Why 3BM-42 when for t 90A 3BM60 is recomended for targets with combine armor?
Абрамс Х один и тот макет, логичнее сравнивать с Т14.
This is why 1stSgt reminds us to not forget your flak and eye pro.
1) deflected APFSDS will not disappear. Instead it will damage or jam M1's turret ring.
2) HE-Frag round for 125-mm guns. While much less sophisticated compared to HE-MPAT M1A2 uses, russian 125-mm Frag is just artillery shell with powerful explosive. The only m1a2's frontal detail vulnerable to HE shells is exactly the drivers slope. In simulations i've seen it was close to second worst thing for M1A2
The use of German and American tanks in the invasion of Syria and Yemen showed that they are more vulnerable than Russian ones. Very weak side projections and unprotected projectiles make them vulnerable in a war where the defenders are not completely overwhelmed by the air, as in Iraq.
The public loves the cliche about throwing a tower, but in the conditions of a similar defeat, any tank will be bad. Also, Western tanks are effective when they drive forward and fire anti-tank rounds, which is not possible in modern warfare. And if they carry out ambush missions with land mines, it suddenly turns out that Russian tanks have shells hidden below and behind the armor, while Western ones do not.
It can also be noted that Russian tanks are about three times as long-range, so if there is a correction from a drone, it will shoot any Western tank long before it enters the danger zone.
Can you make 3BM59 Svinetz-1 (740 mm DU at 1750 m/s) vs the frontal underside of the hull a M1A2?
Driver is dead, so stuck in position. and another round incoming.
why is the projectilecoming horizontally? The turret is higher, therefore there must be at least 3-5 decree downward angle
Meanwhile if it on War Thunder :
Crew Knock Down
Credit: SovietStronger (T-90A)
the shell looks like it's a ball with a trail and the ball is the tip of the shell
Could you try some old projectile like the is 7 130 mm to this plate
Wouldnt this still be a shot trap?
Would it have a Kevlar liner?
Even if it did it was the hatch that caused fatal shrapnel.
@@simulationbros I’m wondering if hatch itself would be lined, you’d think it would be.
3бм-60 и т-90м* должны быть, т-90м уже давно серийный
Более пробивной 3-БМ59 из урана
Меня другое больше прикалывает) Почему люди считают что в влд по таким диким углом кто то будет вообще стрелять?)) Там БМ8 из Д10Т2С в погон башни достаточно будет))) Конструкция с момента создания не менялась), А главное этих симуляций с попаданием именно в ВЛД куча....
@@ЮрийКозин-ю3м Da dazhe 42 probyot etu VLD. To chto tut snaryad rikoshetit - huynya.
@@Fulcrum683 потому что реальность - не тундра
@@ГлебИгнатов-ф9т ага действительно какая тут реальность он еще даже на свет не появился но ему уже пророчат что он будет неубиваемым через различные интернет ресурсы.... А Т-55 есть и по сей день и очень много.
All fun and good
Until a Shape chrage hit the plate with shoulder fuse that heat jet wont care about any angle it just cares about the thickness in terms of chemical protection and i cann tell you a simple steel plate wont have a good chemical protection even angled like that maybe its 300mm but most heat rounds have way over that
Keep in mind that abrmasX ill probably never getvused by us army
How would it fare against 3BM-59 or 3BM-60?
i think that with the kevlar lining the crew in the hull really won't be hurt
Hot molten metal traveling at god knows how much faster than a bullet. I’m genuinely curious how thick these spall liners have to be to stop this shit.
@@ratatatatata5290
Kevlar has a pretty high heat resistance, and shrapnel is WWWAAAYYY easier to stop than bullets.
В реале снаряд бы пробил броню Абрамса
Abrams-X just don't exist, is it a joke?
Ты получше снаряд не пробовал брать?
The fact is that the APFSDS will not hit the tank at 0* angle…
Came here to say this. The T90 is not that short, the M1 is not that tall, and there's no arc so this takes place at point blank range? In a realistic scenario, either the T90 is shooting down into the plate or from range where it's arcing down into the plate. It's physically impossible for a round from a T90 to impact the way its depicted here.
@@92HazelMocha The arc is much less than you think. It makes virtually no difference in impact result at engagement distances these tanks experience. This is a common mistake because it's counter-intuitive how little the angle changes.
ОК, Abrams for T90a, is a like terminator for Kyle Reese. You have to find that THAT point, my young padawan.
Yikes the spalls be peppering the driver's face like bukkake
T-34 driver hatch: *pathetic*
in the real video you can perfectly see that it passes directly through
DM23? that not standard 25mm thin better more 32mm and overmatched ammonition 50mm+ not be or will be?
yep 39mm armor is nothing
this idiot calculating 82 degrees will be add +10x greater =39x10=390mm this is bullshit
3BM-42M was the best the Russians had in the 80s. There are at least 4 or 5 other, more advanced types that were developed years after.
"Russians" were "Soviets" in 80s btw
@@manender1020 You know what the joke is? In every other comment I make sure to call them Soviets. The one time I don't, someone points it out.
@@Firespectrum122 :3
Even if this is an old Mango, looks strange that it bounced like that. Should have dented the surface, like simulations with current Abrams show (many times the projectile goes trough if it is the thin plate version)
Uhh that doesn't feel right, I feel like it should at least leave a dent.
ruclips.net/video/mQHSlZfjbng/видео.html&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE
let's try 125mm HE
Просто мультик будет некрасивый! Если чють выше крышка мехаода проломит корпус и убьет мехаода!
It always amazed me (in a bad way) that they made upper plate so thin. Hide in defilades or be on high ground is the main tactic for this tank?
Even if it doesn’t penetrate the armor, the turret will suffer serious damage and probably be forced to retreat for repair.
I still think the safest way still operating tank like a drone
that driver really got peppered hard
Танкам для выживания нужно обрастать всеракурсной пассивной защитой, активной защитой, блоками ДЗ, РЭБом, иметь хорошую ситуативную осведомленность за счёт оптики, видео, дрон -детекторов, а так же за счёт информации от соседних машин и подразделений. А кроме того выростают дистанции боя, что требует освоения стрельбы с закрытых огневых позиций, изменения к подходам живучести ствола, углов наведения, номенклатуры боекомплекта. Это повысит живучесть, но...цена танка, его технологичность, цикл производства резко увеличатся. Вместо тысяч единиц, будут сотни. Или десятки. Это резко снижает возможность наступательных операций бронетанковых сил на большую глубину, просто потому что их мало, а огневых средств и сенсоров у противника много. И дальше количество дронов будет только наростать.
Выхода пока не вижу. Если противник имеет волю к сопротивлению остановить ударные подразделения он сможет.
Делать лёгкие танки не выход, ибо это не улучшит ситуацию с ценой, технологичностью, но ликвидирует последний рубеж обороны - пассивную защиту.
Стоит помнить, что прежде, чем произойдет танковая битва, каждый из танков должен поймать с десяток дронов.
why not add another really thin plate like 5-10mm just to stop the miniscule amount of spall that still gets created?
edit: nvm, the majority of the spall is from the optics anyway, no point in a plate there....
What is it made of?
Ask the Democrats. Everything seems to bounce off.
На одних симуляциях броня как пластилин и снаряд доворачивает еще против рикошета. Тут даже люк не пострадал) Где правда?
правда в том, что когда ты сядешь в т62 по мобилизации, сразу и проверишь) а это всего-лишь программа
@@Ricky_Spanishhhh пожелаем тебе удачи в этом опыте)
@@winterwind8112 не я больной ублюдок со справкой, так что скорее придется тебе, ну кто-то же должен!
@@Ricky_Spanishhhh а что так мощно? Что сразу не в т-34?
@@Kagero91 ну дойдут и до 34, когда закончатся детальки на т62. Знаешь немцы в конце войны тоже использовали танки первой мировой, на все шли, а уж в государстве с продутым производством и загнанным в коррупцию на всех фронтах о каком производстве речь?
Imagine of the army saw this video😂 they should totally made the hatch thicker😂
Any tank is easier to destroy than its designers think.
So the AbramsX removed the spall liners?
Abrams never had spall liners, the crews usually wear flak vests though
Can you do french 47mm sa 37 vs t34 front hull at 500m ?
They should take inspiration from thr BMP-1, adding ridges to the upper front plate would deflect off the round so it doesnt hit the drivers hatch, also im preety sure the upper front plate isnt just completely indestructible.
Я думаю что это передовое влд ноу Хау от люка мехаода т 34-76 War Thunder!
But what about the turret bearing?
Yet i don't see how the Army's gonna bring back the M60s series
Not to worry. Drones will " off " the T90's long before they see a tank to shoot at.
А если фугас 152мм?
and also the 3bm 42 is made from 2 pieces of Tungsten core. although the first core turns up the second core will go down
Not 3bm 42M
а как можно просчитать модель бронепробития танка, которого ещё не существует?
Можно. Когда очень хочется, то можно.
Serio aż tak mocno rykoszetuje? Nawet jeśli tak, to wystarczy zaatakować choćby z minimalnego przewyższenia (~2° ) i już ten pancerz nie wytrzyma. Podczas ataków z dachów niskich budynków (10-20°) to nawet RPG-7 wystarczy z zapasem.
RPG-7 is still enough for attack any armored vehicle. And its hard to protect even front against RPG.