M1 Abrams vs Leopard 2AV | M774 | Armor Penetration Simulation
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 сер 2023
- Simulation of a M1 Abrams projectile hitting turret frontal armor of Leopard 2AV.
105mm M774 APFSDS (3.4kg DU penetrator, 23-26mm diameter) at 1400 m/s
vs
Leopard 2AV turret cheek (perpendicular to the armor, 710mm LOS):
30mm SHA + 190mm NERA + 25mm SHA + 23mm air + 12mm HHA + 23mm air + 12mm HHA + 23mm air + 25mm SHA + 23mm air + 12mm HHA + 23mm air + 12mm HHA + 23mm air + 25mm SHA + 190mm NERA + 35mm SHA
front NERA - 30mm SHA + 4mm rubber + 4mm steel bulging plate
back NERA - 30mm SHA + 4mm rubber + 1.5mm steel bulging plate
~380mm steel in LoS
105mm M68 gun muzzle velocity (M774) - 1508 m/s. 1400 m/s refers to a distance of approximately 1.7 km.
SHA/HHA = RHA from 400 to 490 BHN - Наука та технологія
M774 1400 m/s penetration:
0° ~ 340mm RHA
30° ~ 350mm LoS (Line of sight) RHA
Assuming 10mm as residual armor strength, Leopard 2 AV protection:
350mm 0° RHA plate equivalnet /
360mm 30° LoS RHA plate equivalnet
(=min frontal arc protection)
protection in the axis of the vehicle:
425mm 0° RHA plate equivalnet /
440mm 30° LoS RHA plate equivalnet
RHA mass efficiency for 30° ~ 0.95
RHA thickness equivalnet for 30° ~ 0.5
It is implied that lighter and less complex armor was chosen for the Leo 2A0 (1979).
T-64B turret for comparison:
protection in the axis of the vehicle:
(middle part of the turret cheek)
430-450mm LoS 30° RHA plate equivalnet
min frontal arc protection:
375mm LoS 30° RHA plate equivalnet
RHA mass efficiency for 30° ~ 0.95
RHA thickness equivalnet for 30° ~ 0.8
do you have a discord server or anything of the sort where we could talk about the simulations, give recommendations and talk about the topic of armour in general?
is Not 1509 m/s?
@@philneal3750 here lol
Wait, im confused. So they will both have slightly less or more protection their monolithic counter part?
@@jintsuubest9331 it turned out to be, which is rather unsurprising considering that spaced armor doesn't work effectively against monoblocks with good durability
Unforgetable experience for the crew
Whoever was behind that plate probably got some wounds but considering there is barely any shrapnel it's not completely fatal.
@@AlreadyTakenTag for the exact case there is also spall liner underneath
Spall liner would absorb the spall
Or as the Chieftain would have put it: "a significant emotional event".
I bet that no one writing about the spall liner checked whether it was actually installed in this tank.
Absolutely love it when armor barely catches the projectile - perfect work, no less, no more.
yes this composite array that barely managed to protect from 105mm in a way where spalling probably swiss cheesed some crew members would have definitely stopped soviet 125mm sabot perfectly
@@kmriifps ever heard of a spall liner, homecook cheesemaker?
@@kmriifps Should be fine with the addition of the Arrow Head spaced armor.
there's no such thing as "perfect work" for armor. this simulation has a suspicious lack of witness plate
@@stigmautomata velocity of shrapnel should be a sufficient indicator. Don't think the author would share these numbers though, here you are correct
Wild to think that the entire experience could be boiled down to the crew hearing a loud bang and seeing the armor deform instantaneously.
There's still fragments sent inside. Probably unpleasant if you happen to be right in front
@@samarkand1585the spall liner would Stop them beforee they can hit the crew
Would be interesting to compare to a single plate of the same total thickness.
I’ll just spoil that video for you, no perforation.
Id be more interested to see a plate of equal WEIGHT.
@@supremegreaser2399 Yeah, I know these early spaced arrays would keep most but not all of the strength of a single plate against kinetic penetrators while increasing resistance against chemical penetrators... And 380 mm is way too much for an M774 in any case. But it would still be interesting to see!
point of composite armour is to reduce weight by using more space@@rare_kumiko
Go watch the Maus vs T-62, would be a similar result.
Damn so capable armour at that distance
I realise the sim complexity is already likely insane but this would've been a perfect candidate for a witness plate, it looks to me like there perhaps would have been some spall though possibly within the capabilities of anti-spall liners to catch?
I knew it would be protected. But this close? Holy fuck
and its the first gen of leopards 2 we are at over 9 now
Im not sure if you will see this but I have a request/suggestion.
Could we get a simulation of a dud round impacting armour?
So what I mean is a... say HEAT round hitting a plate and not exploding (even if it normally should). So its not like a bad angle for the shaped charge but rather what sort of impact such a shell would have with just kinetic energy.
I'd expect an issue with it being less dense than a WW1/2 shell while the hollow core might just deform and send it skyward. But if it also hits say- the side... i feel it would still leave a sizable dent with spalling.....
Maybe more than one test if its possible of a frontal shot and a side shot? But please don't let me add more work
Exactly as expected. Fantastic work!
The spaced arrays of the early 3rd gen performed fantastic against HEAT, and Early APFSDS. Even some WU had trouble against these arrays. Monoblock DU rounds are a different story against complex spaced arrays. Rounds that significantly outperform the M774 and esp M833 against RHA, don't come close to their performance against spaced arrays.
That's not too surprising. We know WC core AP has insane flat performance against monolithic material, since like the 40s.
I'm sure if we made some using today chemistry, they will likely still perform better than rod if the target is monolithic material.
Against complex array, it is complicated.
Iirc there was once a test of 3bm32 and 3bm42. Yes, it is not a apple to apple comparison but still useful to get some data point.
Against the specific test target, iirc I'd some 7 layer of non homogenous material, 3bm42 perform better, but against monolithic target, 3bm32 perform better.
@@jintsuubest9331 Yes and no.
The 7-layer target in this test was layers of steel and textolite.
Not a complex spaced array ( NERA like set up like the T-72B?), where the 3bm-32 outperformed the 3bm-42 by a rather large degree.
The M833 would probably outperform the 3Bm-42 against complex spaced arrays.
7 layer of steel and textolite is complex. But let's not argue about definition of complexity. T72 nera is literally just steel rubber sandwich with spaces in between, more or less what the array on screen is. Hell, I think the angled plate proportion is almost identical.
Anyway, I said, it is not apple to apple comparison. 833 is much longer and rod, build out of much better alloy (the alloy does not need jacket to hold together). Of course it will perform better than 3bm42 against practically all target.
My point is to demonstrate you cannot simply say du rod is always going to be better than w rod.
I mean why Russian chose to produce more 3bm42 than 3bm32? Russia has plenty of nuclear power plant, raw material is least of their concern. Japan still chose W for their latest rod, despite having use du rod before, I believed.
@@jintsuubest9331 The 3BM-42 overall is a bit longer, and has the penetrating cap. It was developed based on assumptions about NATO armor that turned out not to be correct. It was good against complex spaced arrays.
The issue with the 3BM-32 was twofold more related to manufacturing than performance. Alloying DU is difficult and achieving consistent results was/is very hard when quality control kinks were being worked out.
Also while DU is not radioactive, the industrial process to create a LRP out of DU can result in a great deal of toxic metal byproducts and potential exposure to workers. Facilities need to be designed with this in mind to reach mass production.
Working with WA was a more mature area of expertise, with limitations inherent to the material limiting its introduction.
The USSR for these reasons, didn't really get mass production of the 3BM-32/42 until 1988/1990, by then most funding had dried up.
The USA for example had to create a whole new facility (in Idaho) in the mid 1980s to manufacture the DU armor packages for the M1A1.
google "Specific Manufacturing Capabilities (SMC) Project DU Armor" to learn more.
Damn I always forget how strong M774 really was, I was so sure it would get stopped entirely.
The 2AV was a down armored version of the leopard 2 meant to serve in the us army, I’d say if it can’t even penetrate this it’s not a good round
@@finnkraus5824 2AVs armor shown on the simulation is it's standard armor, the composite was completely taken out of the turret for the trails in US because of the "time constraints" as Germans called it.
@@morgus9892 Ok, not my point tho
@@morgus9892 Unless you’re referring to the 2av having standard Leo 2 armor, which it obviously didnt
on the contrary, I was entirely sure it would go right through lmao
Absolute beatiful armour u can see how parts of da projectike get shredded away from all the slanted plates inside and spreading out
Have a cast structure of type hexagons in the middle of it. Great increase in protection, sure harder manufacturing but totally doable by a team willing to innovate.
I don't remember what I voted for in the survey, but I think it was pretty even between penetration and holding. We got the result the people voted for I guess.
Pretty impressive penetration for such a long range shot I have to say.
Interesting results to compare with the T-72's shot.
This show also the difference between the two type of APFSDS.
The issue is that the 3BM15 is from 1972 while this M774 is from 1980.
For a comparison, the 3BM22 from 1976 has similar performance to the M774.
A more closer comparison, in terms of year released, would be the 3BM29 from 1982. It was an early depleted-Uranium round that had inferior 0 degree performance, but largely improved angled penetrating performance over the BM22.
@@SnoutBaron Pretty sure the point of the 2 videos was different lol. The BM15 one was indicative of what the 2AV would have faced if the cold war went hot when it was in use, the M774 vid is more just to show how long rod DU APFSDS from around that era would perform.
Please add an cut view through the centerplane of the projectile. It is really hard to see the interactions while most is obscured by non interacting material.
The 7,7 cm 7kg 230g filler Saphe-T K. Gr. 15 m. P. m. L. at 465m/s or higher (from the L/35 barrle) against a Mark V or so would be nice. There is one in the british tank museum with such a hole through it.
bump
Could you do a simulation of an APHE or APFSDS against a fuel tank or water tank? Would be interesting to see the results
Using the Arrow-Head of the Leopard as a fuel tank, and the fuel as armor. This would mean the projectile could need to cross 70 cm of fuel before hitting the armor. I was thinking about this too.
@@karstenschuhmann8334abrams also has fuel tanks as armor, could be interesting to see
All this fancy advancement should give better resistance for equal weight. I would like to see how regular RHA with the same weight stop this bullet.
maybe a future simulation could be one of the tungsten balls from a M30A1 gmlrs warhead
Bro how.
And then imagine that the newer leopards have that massive spaced armor triangle effectively forcing this angle even head-on.
Gaijin plz nerf
The projectile in the video is old and outdated.
nerf what?
Even the armor us outdated.
@@raptorwarrior yeah, that would be exciting
@@raptorwarriorit would be interesting to see that "piercing" of T-90 with Kontakt or Relict on USA's real tests🌚 i suppose results would be not very patriotic for America
Clearly shows that good spall liner can be wery usefull, preventing possible injury of crewman entirely
Well I'm just glad no one got hurt.
That's hella close.
always fun to see depleted uranium penetrators
hope whichever crew member is on the other side of that brought spare pants
M1 Abrams 105 mm vs T-64B must be interesting.
Could you do a Japanese lunge mine vs the side armor of a Sherman?
Could you do a comparison video between RHA and Composite armor of eqivalent mass so that x and y dimensions are the same (surface area perpendicular to the velocity vector of the penetrator should be equal)
By doing this you could compare various armor designes Leo 2, Abrams, T72, T80 etc..
Penetration in a homogeneous plate can be calculated, which I do, so I don't see the point of several dozen hours of simulation calculations. The more so that I have already checked during the study of the model process that the Odermatt equations coincides quite well with the results of the simulation.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 What about other part of the suggestion. You could give comparison between various armor profile for the given projectile and analyse the results.
Lets say armor arragment A is performing better than armor arragment B but for the same surface area armor B has less mass..
Then you could modify armor B by adding something to compensate for the mass and test it to see the results.
I know this is huge amount of hours of processing power but this could provide few videos and give some insight about design characteristics.
Best regards!
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 And one more suggestion, every projectile has some Angle of Attack. I haven't seen a simulation of APFSDS hitting some armor with AoA. That would be great! :)
I'm from Brazil, sorry for my bad English, but what software do you use? how did you make these simulations?
Ansys
could you try the m829a4 vs the leopard 2 cheek
I just checked your other Leopard 2AV simulation, with the T72A one. M774 performed better but in WT, T72A's sabot (3BM15) is superior compared to this LOL
you know what it is
Cored or brittle penetrators will perform worse vs spaced armor compared to monoblocks with good ductility even if perform better vs RHA
War Thunder uses MUCH simplified penetration simulation, both because it needs to do it in an instant and in order to not confuse the players about the physics involved.
@@BigPapaKaiser War thunder doesn't even sim the projectiles in game, the game has the penetration numbers hard-baked into the files for each projectile (it is possible to make something absurd like a 20mm gun that fires ammo at 50m/s yet has 1200mm of KE penetration). They use a formula to approximate a simulation (poorly) then apply those to the individual ammo files.
@@BigPapaKaiserWar Thunder is correct on that regard though. The real problem of war thunder is that it gets zero account for certain shenanigans. For example, soviet 85mm APHE shell violently underperforms against sloped armor because knickers are not modeled. On the other note, contact cladding for APDS projectiles is ignored, resulting in projectile shatter and APDS being almost useless.
There are also problems of high caliber cannons not causing fires despite carrying a lot of nasty liquids in their hydraulic dampeners, breeches barely generating shards, no account for accumulator blocks being violently flammable and lack of commander vulnerability when using commander binoculars on early tanks, as well as still having it with commander dead.
Can you do a 105mm DM63 against T-80U
Amusing how 4mm of this and 15mm of that is what makes up modern composite
A bit of rubber, a bit of air and a bit of metal, you’ve got a strong mixture right there
I dont dont know if you will see this, but if you do can you maybe try to simulate Duplet ERA? It's a very unique ERA made by ukraine that uses small shaped charges to stop projectiles. Not only that its also double layered meaning that behind it is another Duplet ERA plate. Duplet ERA i think is only mounted on ukraine's BM Oplot mbt that is based on the t84 oplot which was based on the t80 hull so its base armor is going to be composite.
He tried it before. Sim crashed.
@@jintsuubest9331 Fr?
Is it possible for the simulator to simulate high speed plasma? The USAF experimented with a weapon that could fire a 2 mg plasma torus, 1 meter in diameter, at a speed of 10,000 km/s (~3% the speed of light). Reportedly, it could deliver 9.5 MJ, which is not quite as impressive as a modern APFSDS round, but still quite close.
possible, although he would have to delve into the subject
The spall liner just saved the loader's life 😮
What about Uranium dust coming into tank?
How to make simulation like this?
Is armor layout official or leaked from Ruskies?
Curious, since M1A2 is still secret, AFAIK. And Leo2/M1A2 are roughly comparable tanks....
I uploaded the original documents in the community tab
Do type 99a vs M1 Abraham pls
Afaik the actual 2AV had no armor on it when it was delivered. Might be wrong.
Isn't there something missing?
The Crew: "Hoppla, wir leben noch!"
T-34 bullet vs T-64?
Can you simulate the M1A1 vs t90 hull armor?
I'm sure if you drop an m1 on a t90, both will be broken.
What does SHA stand for? I’ve never seen this term before.
Semi-Hardened Armor. This is a popular term for hardened armor, with a lower hardness than High Hardness Armor. In fact, they are all RHA with many different hardnesses. Grouping hardness seems to be more intuitive for the viewer than naming everything RHA. The description mentions what RHA hardness relates to SHA.
Medium hardness RHA 250-350BHN, Semi hardned RHA 350-450BHN, High hardness RHA 450-550BHN
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Thank you! I suspected it to be something like that but I wasn't sure. Keep up the awesome work!
You got a civil war going on
Rather vehicle captured by the enemy?
The crew drowned in its own sweat.
Stau si ma intreb oare nu exista inca o armura total impenetrabila
nice now the other way around
можешь сделать симуляцию выстрела с РПГ 7 выстрелом пг7вл (самым распространенным) по борту БМП 2 с защитой "контакт 1". Почему я это хочу увидеть? Все просто, очень много фото с фронта, на которых видно БТР 80, БМП 2, мтлб с установленной динамической защитой "контакт 1"
Он говорил что не может для кумулятивных снарядов симуляции делать, не помню почему правда.
@@NameWasStolen Затраты на вычисление выше на несколько порядков, даже если делать это в 2Д
Смысл? Ещё в СССР проводили испытания. Там происходит пролом брони, никакой защиты это не даёт.
@@LT0609 ты говоришь об алюминиевых плитах БМД/БМП 3. Я же говорю об стальной броне бетера и БМП 1/2.
@@gargantuan-wb1br Именно на БМП-1 и БМП-2 в 88 году в НИИ Стали испытывали воздействие ДЗ на броню. Стреляли гранатой ПГ-9В. Произошёл пролом брони. Даже фото есть.
OK, now we know the design case for the M1 Abrams armor - a rerun of WW2 in Europe...
Proof that armor is still (somewhat) relevant.
Step bro i am stuck
i knew the crew's fate once i read the first comment (it turned out to be spalling)
will M833 or M900 do any better? I'm curious
Yes and yes yes
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 I'm guessing M774 was used because it's the only available 105mm APFSDS the US used at the time when testing the Leo 2AV?
@@somerandomboibackup6086 Yes, it is the best US penetrator available before the introduction of the Leo 2A0 serial version.
The array doesn’t seem to destabilize, break and erode the penetrator, instead it seems to slice the penetrator into pieces. So either the publicly available data on how the Leopard 2s armor works, is false, or later armor concepts work in a fundamentally different way to the prototypes armor configuration (possibly increasing performance substantially). 🤔 But still impressive performance considering the less than optimal angle.
Emm...
The rod experience tons of erosion.
Destabilize is a bs myth that I have no idea originated from where.
Breaking rod rely on very energetic angled plate and significant distance after the angled plate, such as era.
@@jintsuubest9331 I‘ve seen/heard the destabilization mentioned several times in different sources, always based around the idea of utilizing a long rods tendency to normalize to cause it to hit subsequent layers at an angle instead of in line with the movement direction of the penetrator. I think we can agree on normalization being a fact, thus this destabilization seems to be a plausible mechanism to defeat APFSDS.
@@RichelieuUnlimited
I'm afraid I cannot agree with you on normalization too. Or the use of term like "long rod".
Rod, for the most part, enter and exit the armor at the same angle.
Sometimes rod will exit the armor at a smaller angle, but that is working in favor of the rod.
Only steel rod or rod using wc shows behavior of being deflected to a larger entry angle, but that is standard behavior of those ap material.
Now, if the decrease of exit angle of the current plate result in increase of impact angle of a second plate, that would make the rod impact overall more material than if they are all of a single angle. But it is still not the denormalizaition through destabilization thing you mentioned.
As far as "long rod" goes, at what point is a rod "long rod"?
@@jintsuubest9331 The idea I was referring to is, that if the penetrator slightly angles itself when hitting an angled plate, increasing its performance against said plate, this can be exploited, as the penetrator is no longer fully in line with its direction of travel, thus decreasing its performance against subsequent armor layers. The long rod, as I‘ve understood it, refers to a monolithic as opposed to a segmented penetrator.
Edit: Like keyholing bullets.
KwK 43 vs M1 abrams side turret
I thought it was M1A2SEP not the M1 with the 105mm.
The Leo 2AV is older than the first Abrams with 105mm lol
Not even close baby
105 mm? Are you living in 70 hs?
As I predicted 😎
I'm guessing the M774 would have penetrated at, say, 1km though
At 1.7km it might be closer than you think
At LOS with the turret front the armor is stronger, but there's like a 10-15% margin of error on these
Man, i bet the Germans wish they had actually put these composites in the 2AV they sent over here to the US for testing, we might have even adopted it. Instead, we got a tank with literally nothing in the turret cheeks, and then the Germans complain that we just adopted the Abrams.
What is SHA?
Semi-Hardened Armor. This is a popular term for hardened armor, with a lower hardness than High Hardness Armor. In fact, they are all RHA with many different hardnesses. Grouping hardness seems to be more intuitive for the viewer than naming everything RHA. The description mentions what RHA hardness relates to SHA.
Medium hardness RHA 250-350BHN, Semi hardned RHA 350-450BHN, High hardness RHA 450-550BHN
when abrams had 105 mm cannon ?
1978-1985
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 thx
WTF is 4mil of rubber gonna do...
This is reactive armor and the active function is performed by rubber, which accumulates energy well. By setting the metal sheet in motion, it destabilizes and interrupts the cumulative jet. Several layers of such armor are more effective than the heaviest solid armor.
Meanwhile M829A4 would go in at one side and out the other 😁
Almost 😂
thats the 105 imagine the 120...
Gib m833
Nein
bruh
bit of schrapnel never killed nobody, leopard wins
When Turkey finally gets kicked out of NATO:
Yeah, except it will be M833A3/A4... likely a LOT meaner rounds, but against substantially improved armor.
TBH I don't understand what this armour array layout was supposed to accomplish.
Protect the crew against chemical and kinetic rounds and reduce vehicle weight
Deflect the incoming projectile to increase the effectiveness of the armour. Kind of like sound-proofing foam that bounces the sound waves around absorbing it, the NERA ricoshettes the round around slowing it down.
Save the tank, it worked
Dejmian just predicted The Sun's next converage of the Russo-Ukrainian war lmao
Does anyone even use rods in ukraine? It seems that every video I watch everyone is just spamming HEATFS
The more simulations i see the more I'm convinced that the best cost/performance array is just armor plates about the same thickness as the KE penetrator slightly spaced and highly angled. all the fancy lattices, spheres etc overcomplicate for negligible increase in performance. Angled array + ERA literally solves all problems at an extremely low cost. Sometimes simple is good.
I'm really interested in the effect of high hardness ceramic plates in the armour, against KE penetrators.
It should be more effective than spaced hardened steel plates or non explosive reactive armour
@@levilastun829 Definitely, multi-layered ceramic + steel angled arrays are probably the best, though armor ceramic is quite expensive
@@AnthraciteGari It's so expensive that the Soviets only used it on their best T-80UD and T-80UM tanks. From what I could find
And we just forget about scj threat?
There is a reason why teams of engineers, that get paid super well, goes to the "over complicated" route.
Military is cheap very cheap in fact. If they can get away with cheap, they will. Whatever armor package we saw is most likely the least complicated and cheapest stuff they can get away with at that time.
Beside, the performance increase is not negligible. The t80 example shows significant chunk of steel bounce back into the path of penetrator because the textolite is there to do that.
Hell, even era design is more complicated than your simple thinking. Starts with 1 fly plate, then multiple fly plate, then fly plate at different direction, fly plate at different angle, fly plate that is not steel, some with no fly plate at all......
There is also a newer threat for a while now. How to protect against stuff falling out of the sky. NERA need lots of space. Era need less space but it still need it nonetheless. So unless you plan to attend another meter to the top of your vehicle, you need different solution.
@@jintsuubest9331 No comment at all is better than one written condescendingly. I won't argue with you.
How to scare your NATO allies with one simple trick:
first
А почему так горят Леопарды от Русских пушек?
Because this version of the abrams I believe uses the 105mm cannon, while the T72s and T90s use the 125mm cannon.
A Nashorn at 4500M against a t-34
Tbh no optics available at the time those could meet would allow reliably/remotely allow a hit at such extreme range.
@@Valks-22Imagine that it shoots at a factory yard where they keep a few thousand T-34s side-by-side
@@Valks-22 I understand what you're saying, but there is an account (story) of a 4500M kill from either a Nashorn or an Elefant doing just this to a T-34. And Both were equipped with an L71 88 with is 100% capable of killing a T-34 at that range. I just want to see the probability of it actually penetrating at that distance.
Simulation bros tested it. Went right through
oh.......ok then. Thanks lol.
The worst thing that'll happen to the crew is the loud sound that's going to make, and a small oxygen hole that'll be blowing small, yet notable wind as they move.