Abrams vs T-80UD turret ceramic armor inserts | Armor Penetration
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 чер 2023
- Simulation of a M1A2 Abrams projectile hitting turret frontal armor of T-80UD.
120mm M829A2 APFSDS (~4.9kg projectile, ~21mm diameter, 4.74kg DU penetrator) at 1620 m/s
vs
T-80UD turret front armor:
~100mm cast armor + 30mm air gap + 25mm steel + 40 mm SIC + 25mm steel + 40mm SIC + 50 steel armor + 50mm Semi Hardened Steel (+400 BHN RHA) + 190mm cast armor at angle of impact (800mm LOS)
120mm muzzle velocity (M829A2) - 1680 m/s. 1620 m/s refers to a distance of approximately 1.2 km. - Наука та технологія
The angle of impact was set to test base armor with inserts without removing Kontakt-5. (More armor to defeat, but without negative effect of explosive armor). The results can be translated for more favorable impact angles which I did.
If someone doesn't understand why I wrote about perforation limit of 750mm when the rod penetrated 700mm, it because steel armor is weakened as the tip of the rod approaches its end. Using the EXAMPLE numbers, if armor was 750mm thick, it would start weaken when the rod reached 650mm deep. A rod that could penetrate another 50mm would encounter 100mm thick armor which was weakened to 50mm equivalnet. If the armor is 800mm thick, it starts to weaken at 700mm. (100mm i just example)
that's very interesting with armor weakening. Never knew of such a phenomenon but seems to make sense.
when the soviets made contact 1 . era is directly installed on all tanks so it's unlikely we'll ever see the t80 contactless 5 on the Battlefield.
@@carkawalakhatulistiwaK1 ERA, dosent protect against kinetic energy, only against chemical...K5 is made to redused penetration of kinetic energy projectiles plus chemical....Relikct is even batter and protect against tandem warhead of ATGMs.
The M829A2 might perform better then calculations suggest.
According to a report completed in 1990 referring to the development of new alloys for the follow on to the M829A1.
"The new ternary element additions
impart additional strengths by a solid solution strengthening
mechanism. The special mechanical working and textured schemes
impart added strength to the standard alloy by unique deformation
strengthening mechanisms."
"These mechanical properties are substantial
improvements over the standard U - 3/4 Ti alloy and can be
expected to conservatively provide a 3% to 7% improvement in
terminal ballistic performance for RHA penetration (zero
obliquity"
the new ternary alloys these special mechanical working
treatments would result in the following mechanical properties
for a DU alloy (density range of 18.4 - 18.6 g/cc):
300 ksi Comprehensive Yield Strength
250 ksi Ultimate Tensile Strength
175 ksi Tensile Yield Strength
45-50 Rockwell C Hardness
Hope this helps.
2 sims I Would love to see
Aircraft dropped bombs at different distance and sizes
Finish Molotov cocktail vs t-34 engine deck
Bro's sims are gonna be crazy by the end of the war.
What would the end of the war change?
@@kamov52510the beggining of it
I have about 5 simulations planned and I'm going back to the 30s-60s
T34 85 vs is3 😂😂😂
@@Beni-zq2ewI dont see why Germany would even bother repurposing a T34-85 to fight against the hypothetical threat of IS3’s.
The gunner is happy he wont have to turn yellow again 😊
This simulation took a lot of hard work and calculation, and the results were impressive.
Really interesting, it looked like the particles from the shattered ceramic inserts were eroding the sides of the penetrator rod as it passed them.
That's the idea of having the ceramic. The pieces are very hard and gouge at the rod as it moves through, slowing and altering it's trajectory
Without actually doing the math, the effect is minimal at best.
The more noticeable effect ceramic layer provide is making the penetrator going a non straight path.
@@jintsuubest9331 The effect is strong enough that it is visible and it is a pretty interesting phenomenon regardless of its actual effect on the integrity of the rod.
@@HelSeher
I fail to registered where it being visible.
Granted I didn't do frame by frame comparison but the width of the rod looks more or less the same accounted for rendering artifact.
@@jintsuubest9331 I mean I saw it in the simulation on the video and it looked like that was the case to me.
0:38, I really like this shot. It even tells us the how much lighter it is and how much thicker it needs to be. Really helps give a lot of context to how effective composites are.
Glad it was useful to someone
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174try t80 bvm
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa 80BVM didn't receive turret armor upgrade over 80B (which is the same as on 64B) so it's actually weaker than 80U, the modernization mostly involved modern ERA, FCS and more powerful engine from 80U
Impressive how much the penetrator kept its shape just slowing down and, getting completely eroded just after the whole composite package!
Lovely simulation as usual!
PS
Will ask it again, but would be possible to do 107mm Zis-6 vs Tiger 2 turret front, to compare the gun with the 122mm D25-T. Thank you in any case! :)
I think right now he shud focus on the current conflict. So much interesting duels. Its sad it happens in RL though! Im pro life, pro happyness!
Interesting, I certainly didn't expect the turret to withstand an A2 of all things without K-5 cooking off at battlesight range
There is a chance that M829A3 and M829A4 do not perform significantly better than M829A2 when it comes to armor not protected by ERA. M829A3 has the same dimensions DU rod + sacraficial anti-ERA tip, but noticably lower velocity. M829A4 has the same velocity as M829A2, but shorter and more narrow DU rod, due to presence of a massive sacraficial anti-ERA tip. So if this simulation is to be trusted then T-80UD's turret armor has a chance against even the most modern APFSDS threats.
Also, this is why the newest American APFSDS is made of tungsten instead of uranium, since the length limit for 120 mm shells has been reached and tungsten benefits from increased muzzle velocity much more than DU.
@@argy007 Is it so? Various analyzes point to the larger diameter of the M829A3, which is consistent with the significantly increased mass.
@@argy007 No that "US is switching to tungsten" Is pure BS. Why do you think the euro are trying to introduced a bigger gun in their tanks when the US is simply designing a new round.
Btw we did this test irl and the result with the T-80UD that we see here only happened at 3.5km+.
@@gotanon9659
What?
Tungsten based alloy has higher theoretical performance by increasing the velocity because DU based alloy will erode too fast if exceed certain velocity.
But below the threshold velocity, du consistently shows performance uplift even against more complex target.
It is totally possible to produce a rod with tungsten and du sub rod. Maybe it was being tested, we never know.
Chances are engineer that get paid good money knows more about those stuff than you and me.
Oh, US does not have access to t80ud. Actually, most people including Russian and ukraine have no access to t80ud.
@@gotanon9659 Do you have a link to a video of this IRL test against the T-80UD? I didn't know the US had any to test.
Dejmian:
Publishes a new armour penetration simulation
Me:
(づ｡◕‿‿◕｡)づ
Very enjoyable video. Smart choice of angle to show the effect of the thicker steel. M829A2 is no joke. Hitting it more oblique would probably have yielded very different results.
Not necesarily if you take into account the effects of K5 which wasn't modeled.
@@acheroncyc Modeling DU properly, esp the far more advanced alloys that make up the M829A2 is very difficult with this software. These results seem to align with the KEW-A2/A3. DU performs about 10% better, the alloys that make up the M829A2 perform 3-6% better still than the alloys that make up the M829/A1,M833/M900.
The main issue with the M829A2 was not the performance against armor, but the composite sabot in storage.
Would be very interrsting to also see one day how WWII guns (say, Tiger II) perform against modern composite armour (say, Abrams or T-90), just to see how much better modern armor actually is
An interesting idea: I saw people arguing that IT-1s missile getting detonated on the launch rail would damage the tank. Would it be possible to simulate something similar(can be simplified)?
Since you already got this 3D model set up, would be interesting to have this same shot but for 3BM60 and see how it fares compared to M829A2 at this same distance
Better than I expected
Just checked the thumbnail. With that angle, it's as expected to me.
Id expect with the improved performance of the later M829 rounds it would probably penetrate. Interesting to see though!
It isn’t hard to find the UD array. It sure does look to be improved over the t72. Could you do the t80u array the Swedes used for penetration tests?
Question: What happens after this sort pf non-lethal damage happens to a tank? Is it later repaired/replaced or kept in service as it is?
Sinpmy beautiful. Thanks for yoy hard work
Damn, those ceramic plates really took a tool on the penetrator.
The ceramic plate break before the rod get there.
There are paper from US army documenting this specific issue as recent as 2010s iirc.
In theory, would a more intact ceramic layer provide better protection per weight?
Logically, yes. From one document. Various ceramic steel configurations were presented, also with shock wave damping in front of the steel, but no major benefits were noticed. On the other hand, advantages have been noticed for the case of directly hitting the ceramic instead of the steel plate covering it.
Hey Dejmian, I found something of interest when looking around on WT and I'm curious if it's accurate to reality, and that is the 16mm add-on plate on the UFP of the T-72A.
The reason I find it of interest is because in WT, when you do not have the plate the M111 round as well as the 3BM22 can easily penetrate, however with the 16mm plate both fail to penetrate from the same ranges and angles and I think if this is accurate, it would make for a very interesting test to see how small differences in armor can make big impacts.
That's a real thing. Israel bragged about how it could lol pen T72's in its marketing material after doing it in lebanon. So Russia duct tapped an extra 16mm plate to the front after testing against some captured magachs.
@@masonicrat That's actually really interesting, I'd love to read about it, got a good place for it?
Interesting how due to compression (looks like) caused ceramic to straight up shatter even before penetrator actually touched it
looks neat
if possible could u run a simulation of a ka52 cabin being hit by rifle sized bulets/ 20mm/ or HEF missile warhead?
Could you please consider making a simulation of M829A2 vs the glacis of a T-80UD/T-80UM w/ kontakt-5? Similar to the simulation you did 5 months ago between the M1A2 and T-80U (w/kontakt). I think it would be interesting to have a clear comparison between the textolite and ceramic inserts since you already made a simulation vs the textolite. Of course the velocity and angle would have to be the same. (I'm pretty sure the UD/UM models have ceramic inserts in their hull but correct me if I'm wrong)
I'm not going to, because I haven't found a clear confirmation that ceramics were used in the hull, and I'm convinced that the hull plates are not stiff enough to protect the ceramics from damage, especially during the K-5 explosion
All this versions have same hull and turret armor. T-80UD have diesel engine and 12,7mm on distant control, T-80UM have new thermovision device. Armor wasn't changed
It would be interesting to see if this array gains more from K5 coverage then if the cavity was just all steel.
I don’t usually comment but I really like your content! Have you seen the recent news about the “Titan” submersible? Do you think you could do a simulation of an implosion happening based on the material that the submersible is built out of or allegedly built out of? Would be an interesting branch out!
it would be a fantasy with so little information
I think it was carbon fiber. Expect 150x as much work to code that anisotropic nightmare.
Impressive. I thought its gona go right through even with reactive armor.
If the hit was closer to the gun in the steel only area (which I guess it would be around 700mm LoS) it would have barely penetrated right?
I marked with green lines the possible penetration for other angles of impact, based on the simulation
I don't think it's really possible to model these darts without intimate knowledge. It's not just a chunk of DU...
There was a vid talking about the bunker buster bombs developed in the 00s and they increased the penetrative capabilities of the steel casing by a huge amount just by figuring out how to form the metal through different metal working processes. Same material as previous, but gained tremendous penetrating power through different forming techniques/technology.
Wow, did not expect that without K-5 help.
Can you do this same sim but with the K-5 armor
Didn't even know t80 turret were that thick
I know this isn't related to anything with tanks but maybe do simulation of the submarine that imploded?
Leo 1a5 vs gun mantle on t-90m?
Could you please make a control experiment where the entire cavity replaced with steel?
I did a long time ago many test cases, for the M829A2 too. I will not upload the video, because the content is not attractive enough, I can upload a screenshot for example situation
According to some rumors late ceramic turret armor for T-80U/UD has equal 700-800mm RHA against APFSDS without K-5.
What about shooting mass center of tank?
Wow!
May not of gone though but id imagine still terrifying
with how much of the penetrator was left, i thought for sure it was gonna go thru that last bit of steel. color me surprised.
Would be more effective if the ceramic was more spaced apart as the second layer looked to cracked before the round hit it
Can the Pzgr 43 12.8cm penetrate Maus front turret?
The limit is at least a good 30mm over the armor.
I wish m829a4 info was available.
Can you do a simulation of the baseline T-80U turret with the cellular armor filler? BTVT has some good diagrams of the T-80U's cellular armor that can be used to create the simulation.
I'm definitely going to do this someday
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Nice. The infamous Swedish leak has a page dedicated to the composition of the T-80U turret which gives some exact thicknesses which will make the dimensions of the polymer cells depicted in BTVT's diagrams easier to estimate. That shouldn't be too hard to track down, and I'm in possession of it if you can't find it elsewhere.
@@thermalvision203 I have data from several sources, but the problem is that each one says something different, for example, the Russian factory diagram gives two layers with chambers of about 105 mm each, and the documents from the Swedish tests say about a layer of 100 mm and 60 mm.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 I've noticed that getting good-quality information on the T-80U is particularly difficult. Though from what I know about the Swedish trials and BTVT's less than trustworthy sources, I would go with the factory diagram's numbers over the Swedish documents' as the Swedes were looking at an export T-80U meant to compete with the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams for an export contract, which the Leopard 2 won. As such, the factory diagram is likely for the version used by Soviet and Russian forces (and South Korean forces after Yeltsin paid off some debts to South Korea by giving them T-80Us straight from Russian inventories).
However, check to see which model actually fits the T-80U's turret armor cavity. Also, if you do a Yandex images search for a T-80UK specifically, you can find a set of pictures that give some good close-ups of the Soviet/Russian domestic T-80U's armor insert cavty, which you can use to cross-reference diagrams.
Depleted uranium ?
wait why is there a gap of kontakt 5
Bro do Lancet 3m vs leo 2a6
Uhhhh I thought m829a2 was DU no?
You need straight down vertical simulations. On the roof.
fracture propagates faster than sabot round, interesting
This had to take a shitload of work.
Funny, if the rod snuck past the ERA, it would be hard to even see that the tank was hit.
Does the T-80 and its variants not incorporate NERA into the armor? Modernized T-72 variants and the T-90 have NERA components to their armor packages.
Known versions of the T-80 never used NERA
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Why is that? Seems odd that the arguably less advanced T-72 would get NERA but the T-80 got "simple" ceramic inserts. I know that ceramics are used in the armor of many western tanks, but usually in conjunction with NERA.
@@jaffacalling53 NERA, at least the known versions of it, are good against HEAT warheads, not so much against kinetic rounds. Reverse for armors of T-80,U,UD, T-64A,B, T-72 up to B version
@@jaffacalling53t72 isn't less advanced. Maybe back in the 80s they used to be
@@okakokakiev787 It was supposed to be the easier produce, less complex alternative to the T-64. The first variants only used cast steel in the turrets.
If it was head on, I think it migghhtt jus have enough to go thru unless it hits the ERA
I really though this one in a million shot would penetrate.
What is the difference between the T-80U and T-80UD turret since its hard to get documents in English
T-80UD has ceramic inserts, T-80U polymer pockets, the rest is similar
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174regarding the polymer packets, is that to provide energy absorption like rubber? Or us it to protect from certain forms of radiation?
@@jimtrela7588my guess would be for HEAT protection? Polimers are the best for HEAT from all the aplications they could have been used for there
Pls do RPG 7 + drone vs leopard 2 turret top
It would be cooler if you provided a bit more info on what we are looking at. Usually, a video starts, I try to understand which type if shot hits what type of armour, and the first rendering has already ended. Then the second one is shown, I try to understand what the legend says, and it is already over. If I were you, I would add a bit of an intro on the tank and the ammunition that is being used, then show some simulations, and then add a conclusion as well. Preferrably spoken info.
The most important information is at the beginning of the video, the supplement is in the description.
Is the kinetic energy the most important in shells ?
And length.
Kinetic energy, penetrator length, hardness, density, weight, and rod configuration are all the Major factors (independent of Mass x velocity) of a APFSDS projectile
What happens if you make it longer? That seems to be the solution to the problem.
if you are talking about a projectile, it will become heavier and slower and will not fit in a tank
Tm-62 vs leopard 2a6 please
А теперь представьте, что еще и Контакт-5 сработал.
this crew would experience a significant emotional event...
Talk about close call.
Lancet vs leopard 2 pls
Remeber when a T80 desteoyed a. M1 Abrams in syria?
when the T-80BVMXYZ comes out in fifty years, will you write that too?
The escalation only grows. It's better to compare a school bus or kindergarten to a 20KT nuclear warhead.
I thought the DU rounds are self-sharpening and go through pretty much everything. #mythbusted
So are hits to armor like this reparible? Do factories repair such damage and how
Can the tank be repaired yes. The armor no. It is a factory job. You need to cut the section out and replace it
This is repairable, but you’d have to replace the turret itself in a factory if you want the tank back in action asap (expensive, fast, no loss of turret integrety).
Or you’d have to wait for a factory to cut out the section entirely and repair it (cheaper, slower, tiny loss of turret integrity).
@@xendk Its done in several ways. The simplest one is done by a repair crew near a frontline. They'd just weld in a metal rod. Good enough short term, as the probability of hitting the same spot is very low. At the factory the repair is more extensive. They even might opt to replace the turret, as they are kept as spare parts.
@@Burboss Why are you replying me ??? and you clearly know nothing about it.
@@xendk oh, why don't you share your infinite wisdom and tell others about your crazy tank repair skills )))
try t-84 turret
WHE NIT REACHES THE CERVIX
holy shit i cannot imagine how laggy your PC was after this 💀
but you know that this round is still classified, and its aveliable for public parameters are MUCH lowered
ye, you certainly know that. Why much lowered and not much much much exalted? I know why, because that's how you would like it 🤣🤣
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Because american military, contrary to the russian one, has a history of understating their capabilities. Remember how russians called Su-57 a stealth fighter, for example? Yeah.
@@user-xh9pu2wj6b Still no basis to guarantee the round underperformed here - more sounds like americans being biased for their own tanks that die after the enemy has a 3 degree elevation advantage (though to be fair, every western style MBT (excluding the challenger, dunno if you could call that "western style" though) has the same problem with their paper thin UFPs)
@@user-xh9pu2wj6b Bro seriously wanted to talk about stealth planes and overstated capabilities. The crash of the "invisible-stealth" F-117 bomber near Budzhanovtsy on March 27, 1999 with the help of a prehistoric Russian C-125, 56 year old issue says hello.
@@alexanderwolf8766 ah yes, the sole instance of this aircraft being downed in the past 50+ years, of course! Also, you clearly have no fucking idea what "stealth" means.
Fun fact, according to russians themselves their *modern*, not 50+ years old Su-57 jet has an abysmally fat radar profile of about 1-1.5 m^2 which is about 100-1000 times larger than anything even remotely considered to be a stealth aircraft. And, fun fact, unlike said Su-57, american stealth jets actually saw action and weren't a crudely clubbed together prototypes. Keep coping.
I would like to see the adversary, T80 penetrating M1A2 Abrams next
If you can find him the schematic for the M1A2 armor im sure he will do it
I wonder how rattled the crew would be, and the time it would take to return fire. If the tank who shot hadnt reloaded already.
Why would they be rattled at all?
@@mac2857 Cus the amount of energy imparted from the armour absorbing that hit would be loud as fuck
its called training.
that is just a fire cracker sound for them.
@@georgeb65412 ita not a big pf a deal when you are used to it. And would be worst in ww2 tanks whit tinner armour and full caliber shells
@@novosib9017 they will be a bit hammered cause of the loud sound. They will be out of action for up to a minute
DM-53 and DM-63 is penetrating the t-80ud turret :)
Then, in fact 3bm60 too is penetration the leopard 2a6 turret🤨
This shoot is without k5 so dm53 probably can't
no :) dm53/dm63 was designed to dissarm k-1 and k-5 ERA and to penetrate special armor like in t-80um @@IzakSemrdoii
Fucking amazing outstanding 😅
I really enjoyed this sim. I haven’t researched this particular array. It is ingenious how both sides adapt. It seems to me that we will see most m829aX variants against the best fielded Russian tanks in just a few months, as well as German darts. If this represents Russian philosophy, then Kornet, and the ‘hand of God’ will have to pick up the slack lol.they can both murder all Comers…..
Try this at a 90°angle and see the difference 😉😉😉
but you see there's an ERA there? 😉😉😉
Is it possible in the future to see a simulation with the Ukrainian ERA "nizh" ("knife")? I think it will be very interesting because of the unusual principle of this ERA
I try to bypass the infinite difficulties associated with HEAT warheads
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 godspeed my man as an beginner in dynamic analysis it amazes me how you can manage to get this much of great results
It's "nozh". "Nїyizh" is retardspeak.
@@lake258 forgot to ask russian imbecile 🤦♂
I really wonder how weakened the entire armor array would be on this side of the turret after that hit.
Apperantly the Challenger 2 can remove armor blocks after damage because the ceramic plates shatter. I feel like this would be challenging on the T-80, considering the turret is one big cast steel piece
T-80UD?... T-80Jude?.. Leopard2 is angry now
Anybody know where all the T-80UD went? Not seeing them in the Ukrainia war
T-80U was produced little, a lot of T-80B
From Ukraine to Pakistan in 1990s. Russia have retired them from service in early 2000-s because of ukrainian engine. Some of T-80UD turrents replaced old T-80B turrents, it called T-80UE modification.
@@user-nr3gp2ts2g Thanks for the info!
Try to test "ніж", Ukrainian made era. "Knife"
~625mm at 0
~730mm at 60
What is this?
Wrote above
If hi dynamic defense that small damage
УДха несёт хороший колпак
ага. Повезло, что удар NLAW или Javelin сверху всё равно сносит башню к чертям и поджаривает экипаж.
I can understand the need for bigger guns on future tanks like the MGCS who's pushing for Nexter 140mm or the Panther with his 130mm with Reinmettal
Hold my beer!
152-mm 2A83 cannon with a muzzle velocity of an armor-piercing projectile of 1980 m/с
There is no need for this because in the age of drones, high-precision artillery, tanks do not fight tanks. Against fortifications and infantry 120-125mm is quite enough.
@@tankistrazumisth yes thank you rando from yt who thinkd he has a better understanding of the battlefield than a fuvkin binational arms manufacturer 🙄
@@chocokingchocolate1273 1. Since when do arms manufacturers not make mistakes?
2. We already have the largest war in Europe since ww2 with two thousand tanks destroyed/damaged. How many of them were destroyed in a tank duel? 0.5%?
3. Who started mass-producing tanks with a caliber of more than 125mm? The USA started producing light tanks M8 with 105-120mm, Poland buys Korean K2 and M1A2, Russia produces T-90M and T-14 with 152mm does not exist even as a prototype. It is possible that the KF51 will be produced with a 130mm, but this tank also has kamikaze's drones.
Why tho if you could use TOW-2 or Kornet-M instead?
The Leopard 2A4 will have no chance to beat the T 80BVM in Ukraine with that modern reactive armour.
T80bvm doesn't have this turret , it has the t80b old turret
+
There is a chance that M829A3 and M829A4 do not perform significantly better than M829A2 when it comes to armor not protected by ERA. M829A3 has the same dimensions DU rod + sacraficial anti-ERA tip, but noticably lower velocity. M829A4 has the same velocity as M829A2, but shorter and more narrow DU rod, due to presence of a massive sacraficial anti-ERA tip. So if this simulation is to be trusted then T-80UD's turret armor has a chance against even the most modern APFSDS threats.
Also, this is why the newest American APFSDS is made of tungsten instead of uranium, since the length limit for 120 mm shells has been reached and tungsten benefits from increased muzzle velocity much more than DU.
Where is this information from?As I wrote various analyzes point to the larger diameter of the M829A3, which is consistent with the significantly increased mass.
The fact that T-80U in 1990 could have been outfitted with Kontact-5, Drozd-1 and Shtora-1(but never was with all 3 in full) and would be superior to any real russian tank of 2023 is mind boggling.
As are all the people, who believe that T-80BVM and T-72B3 are somehow better then T-80U and T-90A😂
it wouldnt:
Shtora blocks ERA, weakening the tank armor.
Shtora itself works not great (That why it dropped from all tanks in favor of better ERA coverage)
Drozd - have realy limited angles and cant cover all projectiles
Kontakt-5 is replaced by Relict that FAR superior against kinetic
overall late T-72 and T-90 are just overall better tanks
@@iMost067 In T-80UK Shtora is placed above ERA unlike T-90A.
Lol…the t80 is a pop-tart!
Mad?
Reason why its best to hit a Russian tank low or to the side/rear rather than its turret. Its the only thing on the tank designed to actually take a hit.
Sadly, the one place were all the ammo sits, is not as heavily defended (and i mean this objectively considering current events).
These tanks were always seemingly designed as mobile pill-boxes, they are suppose to find a spot, hull-down (keeping their ammo-ring protected), and wait. Its why so many are easily taken out when in open-ground or while mobile.
It is best to hit any tank low and on the side because most tank are sparsely armored in those area.
Beside, Abram is the only tank in service that can sustain any given combat mission without needing to use the hull stowage.
Unless you are suggesting Abrams is the only tank that's design to act like a tank?
@@jintsuubest9331 British Challengers keep most of their ammo up in the turret with a scattering up in the lower front.
German Leapord does the same. And so does Japan, France, and Sweeden.
Itally, Russia, (and countries useing Russian tanks) all keep almost all of their munitions directly under the turret due to the auto-loader they use.
Israel is the only odd-ball as they keep ammo low and in the rear of their tanks, though thats likely due to them being 'front-facing' by design.
The other tanks that have ammo in the turret generally have it designed to re-direct any hits to that ammo to go up and out away from the crew. When 'all' of the ammo is in the belly.. there's really only way way for it to go.
@@jintsuubest9331 Hitting tanks low and to the side is a good way to disable them, unless your using a explosive round (though most fire FSPD's these days), as you'll damage/destroy engines, fuel-tanks and such... my point though is that when all of the ammo is down there as well.. it makes it nearly catastropic 'every time' a Russian designed tank takes a hit to the side, where tanks like a Leapord or Abrams would likely still survive (albeit, be damaged)
@@Gwydion_Wolf
Abrams hull stowage vent downward. Up is not always the only way to go. Sideward vent is also a thing, I don't know if any made into production vehicle.
Anyway, outside of Abrams, everyone has ammo unprotected ammo scatter about in their hull. The height is generally from the hull floor to the turret ring. Challenger being the worst offender, even worse than Ariete. *Ariete does not have an autoloader.
Merkava, even mk4, has unprotected loose stowage in the fighting compartment. Although they might not use it just like Abrams crew not using the hull stowage. Anything before mk4 has unprotected stowage for ready rack. The 105 M1 also has unprotected loose stowage in the fighting compartment.
Type 90 has unprotected ammo stowed in the turret, behind the gunner. The armor protection in that area is less than 100mm of vertical steel.
So, what makes those other vehicle with similar vulnerability not "mobile pill-boxes"? It appears engineers in general are in agreement that unprotected hull stowage are acceptable risk.
@@Gwydion_Wolf Slight correction, Challengers do not store their whole ammunition load in the turret. They store the rounds in the turret, and the propellant charges are stored in armoured wet stowage (water-filled) boxes in the hull, around the turret ring.
Wishful thinking
you would like 🤣
cannot wait to see the avalanche of american cope about this. every time an american round fails to penetrate their target its always a complete cry fest
"this round is still classified, you dont even know the real characteristic of it YET!" - average murica wunderwaffen enjoyer, probably :))
As usual. Theory and movies. Send them to Ukraine....you will see reality.
They were sent, which is why mental kids have a problem with assessing the situation. Maybe this will be fixed as more western tanks get into combat then you'll wake up to see they can burn just like russian tanks
Aaaannd i called it - again a "western tank on soviet tank non pen scenario"
Good for you and your Vatnik fans.
Your next video with an soviet tank shooting a western/ german tank will again be a pen scenario, right?
Amerimutt propaganda got to this kid
Why are you guys always expecting that western tank will 100% penetrate russian tank?
tell me how i could "better" test this tank's armor
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 its not about doing a better test - what ever system you use beforehand seems to let you produce much more favorable scenarios for Soviet tanks than western/ German ones...
And that stinks my friend. It stinks..
@@WotansCry and that's what I'm asking, how was I supposed to test this armor so that the conditions were not "favourable"
What a shame. This guy is Tankie as hell.
NAFO troll. What do you think he’s doing, adding density to the composite or something? This isn’t secret information. This was a completely fair simulation, and just because the result didn’t show ‘t72 turret toss’ your angry 😂😂😂