Abrams M829A3 vs T-72B3 | Armor Penetration Simulation
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 сер 2023
- Simulation of a M1A2 Abrams projectile hitting the frontal armor of T-72B3.
120mm M829A3 APFSDS (~25mm DU penetrator + steel tip) at 1500 m/s
vs
T-72B3 hull front armor:
Kontakt-5 ERA (HHA plate, 12 x 4S22 explosive elements)
+
60mm SHA + 10mm HHA + 10mm HHA + 20mm HHA + 20mm HHA + 50mm SHA at 68 degrees
120mm muzzle velocity (M829A3) - 1555 m/s. 1500 m/s refers to a distance of approximately 1.1 km.
SHA - Semi Hardened Steel (+400 BHN RHA)
Projectile model is based on patent, photos+ weight and length data
The T-72B3 armor model refers to the tank from Tank Biathlon 2015. - Наука та технологія
It seems that the most destructive impact of the ERA occurred somewhere between the steel tip and the penetrator. The tip of the penetrator was slightly knocked off its trajectory. The key seems to be the larger diameter of the rod, which prevented significant deflection of the projectile.
Thats my impression as well but a control shot without the steel tip will clarify things a lot more.
Oh and before i forget, a further control shot with the ERA not detonating would be very nice as well. So we can see the difference ERA and steel tip can do separetly.
Thx . Plz do a video on m829a4 Vs t80bvm or t90m upper glacis next
@@Fv4005_enjoyer We don´t even know how M829A4 is supposed to work.
@@alanch90 I'm probably guessing a higher muzzle velocity due to a possible different propellant which probably doesn't chain ignite similar to 120mm dm63 and has probably multiple layers of deformable tip or maybe is made from a composite like jm33, which either way is better at defeating better kinds of era like relikt or fy4. Again this is just speculation but my other channel is about tanks (not animations tho)
M829A3 was designed specifically to defeat Kontakt-5 after discovering its predecessor, M829A2 was defeated by Kontakt-5.
I wouldn't speak in absolute terms but sure
M829a2 failed to pen k5 1/3 of the time that means a2 was pening 2/3 of the time
@@colejones594 Do you have a source for this ? I know that per S. Zaloga, M829A1 failed to penetrate the front armor of a T-72B equipped with Kontakt-5 but i don't know about M829A2.
@@thomaslebourdonnec4139 cant share links on youtube thry fucked the comments all up on this app but yeah there are declassified us documents about this if you look into it
@@thomaslebourdonnec4139Glenn girona, a former tanker at the Aberdeen test grounds, got to test the M829A2 against the T-90 or T-80’s turret with Kontakt-5 around the year 2000. He’s written about it on Quora.
What a monster of a round.
most of the modern rounds are like this really it just depends on the material
It’s the longest penetrator in active service
@@petrikchamula1670
It also depends on the rod length and diameter.
Good quality du perform better than good quality w against monolithic target but no one is shooting at monolithic target.
Against complex target, du has advantage more often.
Then the more advance service rod.
The French, German, Polish, American, all had datalink for their AP.
Why would you need datalink for inert round, you probably don't.
M829A4 is even longer
And it's fired from an L/44 too
Can't believe that a specialized rebar can do this much damage
Even a rebar at this speed is a high tier weapon. Low cost atleast ! 😅
8500$ per round @@OrIoN1989
My favorite comments in these are always the ones that point out that we just looped back to flinging arrows at each other.
@@SilentHunter7 my favorite one was where a guy said "armored tractors throwing metal darts at each other"
I do sometimes like seeing these complete penetrations. I know a lot think "barely stopped" is the most interesting simulation but sometimes an easy passthrough is just as cool.
The point of simulation at around limit of either the armor or the projectile is they provide the most amount of information.
"Barely stopped" is also the one, that is most prone to errors as slight changes change the outcome the most. ;)
Well the coolest is when russian junk gets penetrated easily ngl xD
Nice result, it's surprising how much of the penetrator was left after penetrating the whole array.
I think it's too early and hard to simulate the Relikt against the same round, we know the M829A4 was made to defeat the more advance reactive armor out there, but still...it's for science and curiosity😁
What good? So the fascists can win. I do not know what adequate person can be on the side of the United States.
Wasn't M829A4 just M829A2 with the steel tip and a vague "data link" feature while M829A3 was M829A1 with the steel tip?
@@thermalvision203
A1 and A2 has the same rod.
@@thermalvision203M829A4 is an enhanced version of M829A3
@@thermalvision203youre fuckin smoking crack
Would be interesting to see the m829a3 against the t-80u's upper front plate armor profile, its got a good chunk of textolite in there compared to the t-72B3.
Given how much of the penetrator was left after that many different layers and K5, I'd say it's safe to assume T-80U is also toast.
Yeah...I don't think much would change. Most of the round was in good shape after punching through all that T-72B3 armor. Textolite and Ceramic of the T-80U/UD won't stop the round from penetrating the entire tank
Maybe test against heavier ERA then, like Ukrainian Nozh.
I'm from the future. None of Soviet/Russian tanks will survive such a hit. The entire families of: T-80s, T-72s, T-90s all done.
@@HanSolo__ they'll just slap on even thicker ERA as compensation, maybe even weld a leopard upper front plate ontop of it (if they ran out of era)
holy mother of god, that's what i call a penetrating round
His t90 armor is absurdly thin. America failed to kill an Asad babyl in 2003.
mmm why i smell cope
Quiet fking kid@@mustang1912
@@mustang1912 1) It's a T72.
2) The armour layout of the T72 is well documented, and this is accurate.
3) what on earth does that gibberish about Asad babyl mean?
@@TheInfamousMrFoxdon't talk on facts the guy has now nowhere to hide
You modeled K-5 ERA. But M829A3 was introduced in 2003 and was developed against K-5 (which is about 20 years older). The result is predictible.
But it's more interesting to see Relikt (introduced in 2006).
T72B3 doesn't have Relikt. Does it?
@@sert87 Not standard I believe but we have seen updated models with relik IIRC.
@@snipermakedonskithe updated models has relikt but just on its sides de t72b3m
@@KkaksAamsmIt has explosive elements from the relict era.
The M829a3 has the option of not activating the K-5 due to its inferior explosives, compared to the relict.
So the results of this test would be much worse if there was an old explosive in the K-5.
@@LukaBlazevic3 the thing that made relikt So good its because it use 2 heavy plates kontakt 5 have Just 1 plate, yes it would improve but not at relikt level
Interesting result.
Btw is there any simulation comparing WHA and DU long rod penetrators against a composite array like the one of the Leopard 2AV, otherwise it might be interesting to simulate.
I will do simulation of monoblock apfsds vs Leo2AV.
I thought it's going to barely make it through but that round did not care about ERA one bit. Curious about it's performance against a BVM's front.
The T-80BVM has worse base composite armour that the T-72B3, but maybe the Relikt ERA can compensate. The hull composite armour on the T-80B and T72A is similar, and that used on T-72B was considered an ungrade
@@levilastun829 The effect of Relikt is mainly what I'm interested in.
50x3 has roughly same protection against rod as this array afaik.
Whatever this array gain by having more steel is offset by nera like material feeding on the 50x3 array.
As far as relikt goes, that sim is likely coming.
@@levilastun829 the T-72B does have better base armour than T-80BV, but the T-80B and T-80BV hull armor are not the same, T-80BV is still an upgrade.
@@enriqueouro9 from what I can find, many T-80B's were upgraded to become T-80BV's and retained the same hull armour, but received kontakt-1 ERA. Apparently the newly built T-80BV's received a different hull armour
Very interesting. I would suggest that a control shot needs to be added: same target, same DU penetrator and impact velocity but without the steel tip. That should tell what actual difference the tip makes.
the tip makes no difference other than just a ballistic shape to cover the blunt nose of the rod.
@@thewhitehousevietsubarchiv2625 While its not that obvious from the simulation, if you watch it frame by frame you see that the tip absorbs the initial "shock" of the flying plate starting to move. While it doesn´t seem like such a dramatic difference, the tip also allows the penetrator to come into contact with the base armor with relative low deformation.
However, this is just my impression (i´m not any kind of engineer) and thats why a control shot without the steel tip will clarify its effects.
@@alanch90 You are exactly correct as the steel tip was added specifically to defeat Kontakt-5 style heavy ERA and no other reason.
@@thermalvision203 Yes i agree to that and its been a long known fact taken from the projectile patent. However i maintain that to fully appreciate its mechanism, a control shot is needed.
@@thewhitehousevietsubarchiv2625 no. It sets off the k-5
💙 how the steel tip just gives up all hope right away...
Makes me curious if Relikt ERA would make a bigger difference against this modern projectile than K-5?
Yes
It would certainly degrade it more, but I'm not sure whether it would actually stop it or not
100%
cool, can you make another one of Type 10 APFSDS vs. Kontakt-5 ?
Shouldn't this be now named APFSDSC? Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarded Sabot Capped?
What about a SU 100Y vs the strumtiger front glacies
Textolite armour was ment to defuse the energy of HESH or HEAT rounds to compensate the energy but it seems the APFSDS slows down as it penetrates deeper into the armour
I didn't expect that, but a comment yesterday notified me about the break-off tip in this round and it performed as advertised.
Is there any way to determine how much kinetic energy was left in the part of the penetrator that made it through the armor? I don't know the software enough to know if it's possible or just very difficult, but is there some way to form a boundary around the part that made it through and evaluate its properties? It would be nice to know how much mass is left, how fast it's going, and then compare that to some reference projectiles so we have an idea of how bad things are going to be for anything behind it. I think that's the only thing that could make these videos better, just some numbers to provide perspective since you can't really grasp how fast things are going given the necessarily high frame rate.
At 0:45, we have a view that removes perspective and provide a velocity plot.
Rod diameter is known from the simulation discription. Rod material density is also known.
You can do fairly good estimation with those data.
Everything is calculated. There are views that gives energy, he just didn't put it into the video.
Looks like 900-1100 on the chart
If i had this sim i'd be experimenting all day
It seems that a thicker rod would make H-ERA less effective, as observed on the 3BM22 simulation as well; wonder how the H-ERA types would do against traditional full caliber rounds, like the 128mm PzGr.
Probably doesn't do much at all to full calibre AP. But such rounds have no chance of defeating the main armour array anyway.
Yes thicker rod does make single fly plate era with relatively thin fly plate less useful.
There are different strategies of how to improve a single fly plate era.
Making the gap between era and main armor larger. Making 2 layer of era flying at the same direction. Making 2 layer of era flying at opposite direction. Making longer fly plate. Making thicker fly plate. Setting the era at a higher angle.
Most of them are not mutually exclusive.
There are also different era design. Like one using efp. One using composite fly plate...
Most era would have minimal impact to efficacy of many full caliber projectile, especially 12cm class projectile.
The pushing away of rod and erosion is the 2 main mechanism of how era defeat rod. The delta of fly plate weight snd the projectile weight is substantial. I'm not sure about the erosion but I doubt such a thin plate can cause many damage.
Hell, the ap likely will clear most of the era before it can act on the projectile.
Awesome simulation
Is the purpose of the steel tip to take the sheering action of the ERA saving the DU rod?
Probably. But it appears the tip didn't do much of anything as the increase rod thickness alone is enough to counter any adverse effect.
Its always a good day when seeing a more modern simulation! Good shit!
What really surprises me is the warping of the glacias plates when the ERA goes off.
Wow that's a lot of energy. DU is so dense.
I thought getting accurate modeling of the properties of DU was very difficult to achieve? Also it's crazy the thick outter layer flexes to the point of crashing into the next layer just from the K5
Modeling of reactive armor is rather conditional, it does not take into account all the processes that are going on there.
This is a simplification. I dont think we ever will be 100% accurate because its super hard to model it perfect AND be able to simulate. Its like the weather system. We make approximations that maye miss some %, buts it is better than no sim.
Verification happens on the battlefield at the latest. It would be good to have some idea before then.
Данные расчёты произведены исходя из параметров какого расстояния выстрела?
1100m
di i see that corectly that the era basicly weakend the outer armor plate and bend it inside ? It removed the airgap petween the first two plates negating its armor effect of airgap
i think this is because its only a part of armour, not whole front plate ("контакт" explosion is too weak for this kinda deformation)
I don't think it works like that
Anti kinetic ERA function to shatter or bend the Apfsds round so it will not have 100% it's penetration potential
Though in this case it doesn't work because M289A3 was made specifically to defeat Kontakt-5 ERA
@@NoName-fm6ew the Simulation however suggest it can 🤷♂️
@@WotansCry its only 0.3 kilogrammes of trotyl , really small amount for such deformation, if it was a bmp i would believe ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@NoName-fm6ew of course not...
Each ERA box contains 12 explosive elements of 0.28 kg of explosives each.
and it is not trotyl, but explosive material based on RDX...
I think your first play through of the simulation in each video should be the side view.
It's teasing)
Out of curiosity, what’s the reason behind the steel tip on the round? Does that act almost like a ‘cap’ would in a second world war era APC round? Or is the DU long rod capped with steel for an entirely different reason?
It's there to trigger ERA early and protect the core from it's explosion, therefore neutralizing the protection it provides
@@thezig2078 interesting, so it’s like armor for the main DU body of the penetrator itself. Is it anything to do with the relative hardness of steel compared to DU? I think high grade steel is harder than depleted uranium but I have no idea where I got that information or if it’s even true.
@@tobyj762 that's a good question I hadn't really considered. I'm not sure if there's a reason it needs to be steel. My assumption was always that they make the sacrificial tip a separate piece instead of just making the penetrator longer because having the tip be a separate piece from the penetrator means the ERA acting in the tip doesn't disturb the penetrator as much since the tip isn't actually part of the penetrator and just sortof pops off. I always figured they just used steel because it's relatively cheap but I'm not sure now.
@@MrMrsirr I think it’s probably the cheapness aspect, but it’d be really interesting if there was also a material aspect behind the usage of steel
@@tobyj762 The entire point of the tip is to add standoff distance so when the ERA detonates, it is affecting less of the actual penetrator. The density of steel is about 2.4x lower than depleted uranium, meaning the tip can be 2.4x longer (what you want) and increase the standoff distance by 100mm without decreasing the penetrative ability of the actual DU rod by much (~4% compared to a purely DU penetrator)
Can you make the same sim, but with Relikt ERA?
Silver Bullet: or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Depleted Uranium Long Rod Penetrator.
The T-series have a larger range, and they often shoot Western vehicles from safe distances.
There is a funny option - not to attack Russia and not create immediate existential threats to it. But for some reason, every new Western conqueror cannot simply stop at conquering Europe. Napoleon, Hitler, now the Americans.
Lol russian copium@@MultiNike79
T series tanks are such a joke compared to western tech. Are you forgetting, Russia invaded Ukraine. Not the other way around!@@MultiNike79
you are such a joke lol@@MultiNike79
cry@@BlockOrDeleteMeansIOwnYou
You mention you have difficulties simulating HEAT projectiles. Does this issue also exist simulating EFP's?
partially
Would it be effective against leo2a7 turret?
Request: medium caliber dart against a very specific target. ERA perpendicular to the dart, at a 60° angle to the dart, and a 30° angle to the dart. Behind the ERA is 400mm RHA.
The goal of this would be to visualize the change in effectiveness in ERA when at various angles. Ex. Would ERA lose it's effectiveness at 90° impact angle?
Yes. The performance lost depends on a huge variety of factors including the penetrator itself.
IIRC that round was introduced in 2003, making it 20 years old. That's a very good performance.
The A4 variant went into production in 2016, nearly a decade ago. That could even have a better performance.
And why does the T-72B3 have the T-72B armor package of the 1985 model, and not the T-72B of the 1989 model? After all, these models have different armor resistance without dynamic protection!
of course, 89' has less armor resistance than 84' without active protection.
Besides, there is no photo of the T-72B3 with 89' armor, but the T-72B3 with 84' armor was shown at the 2015 tank biathlon
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174less armor resistance!? 110 mm steel>170mm steel😮
@@versusandbattles-2781 60+20+20+10+10+50=110mm?? 😮😮
can you do thr t80 bvm if you cant try the t80u
T-80U is 100% toast, but I'd be interested to see how close the pen is for BVM
Uranium fewer has gone and got me down
I observed the tip does little?
Would a hollow tip with reduce weight and and increase velocity did better?
I bet hollowed tip would create air drag. It has to trigger ERA, not penetrate the armor
@@thezig2078
Ballistic cap with hollow space has been in used for over a century.
@@jintsuubest9331 i misunderstood then, my bad
I think not, because such a steel tip is a few percent of the weight, the increase in speed would be minimal. I think such a tip would be quite useful against the two-plate Relikt
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174
Does that mean we will be expecting your PC going up in flame with the same setup with relikt?
Yep, like a knife through butter
thats exactly what i said when he did the survey yesterday, great minds think alike.
My thoughts exactly. Impressive!
what happens if we increase or decrease the projectile velocity against ERA?
in 1984, tests of the DZ "Kontakt-5" were carried out, which showed controversial results. When using the 4C20 design with the explosive PVV-5A, the probability of triggering the DZ at a shock velocity of 1,700-1,800 m / s was 80-85%, at a shock velocity of about 1,400-1,500 m / s - 50%, and at a shock velocity of 1,300 m/ s and less, there was no initiation
wonder if they could use nuclear explosive ERA at that point or something, because du is upping the ante, you would need to up the ante with a more powerful explosive or something.
(60 + 2х10 + 2х20 + 50) mm / 78 deg = 818 mm
(60 + (2x10 + 2x20) x 1.15 + 50) / 78 deg = 865 mm
and ERA...
Is it realistic simulation?
78?😅
It should be 68°
@@mr.waffentrager4400 really 68 deg, thank you!
450-480 mm + ERA
I wish you could show some data. How much energy pass through, absorbed or deflected. in energy and %. Maybe show how mush the different layers absorb? Great videos.
83% check the community tab
How are these simulations created?
Where is this data sourced from?
M829A3 vs T-72B3 with relict ERA?
M829A3 to the russian tank crew inside: Bonjour!
Could you do t-80bvm vs dm63?
Dm53
Whenever this round gets into War Thunder, can we reference this video?😅
could someone perhaps enlighten me on what S.H.A stands for? i searched on google and got no results.
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. In the description it is mentioned to which hardness of RHA SHA refers.
Would the ERA explode fast enough irl?
well IRL they are filled with cardboard or wood, so NO XD
yes it would, m829a3 is actually slowed down in effort for era to chop of only the very first part and the rest would just go straight threw
If they were real and not filled with anything to save money then yes it does.
@@N1lavyes in our western media😂😂
@@N1lavThey weren't wood or cardboard. Iirc it was actually some type of liner material. It just looked like cardboard. As for the actual explosives, can't comment. If given enough time, they may remove it to sabotage the abandoned vehicle. But otherwise that's time consuming so would rarely be done.
I need this thing facing the T-80BVM
Dm53 next time?
Damn! Round still be able to pen another tank behind.
Would love to see this against T90M with relikt
What software is this
WHERE DO I FIND THIS
It it made out of uranium?
what is the distance ??
Russian”Change Kontact-5 into T-34’s hatch.”
M829 “hit”
Isn’t the DU round self sharpening as it cuts through armor?
This is just a popular simplification. DU is characterized by more effective shearing of erosion products accumulating around the flattened tip. I mentioned "more effective" because the phenomenon also occurs in the case of tungsten and steel, based on the theory of adiabatic shear bands.
it went like butter
I would like to see such a projectile against water.
the black plate litteraly made the projectile even more penetrating because it removed the fins
damn, it tricked te Era into twisting it into the armor
I think it'll buff right out
nice video, can you simulate the "нож" its ukrainian ERA? i have never seen it in real life or at least a normal simulation , it could be interesting for viewers
Hard to do because it's based on HEAT warheads
Maybe 3BM42 or 3BM60 vs T-64BM with nozh
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 true, but maybe someday you will have enough time
@@NoName-fm6ew
Time is the keyword here.
I think the simulation time exploded into thousands of hours.
Thousands of hours is... not optimal.
@@jintsuubest9331 you'd need NASA supercomputer to simulate that lol
Reason why gaijin not giving US M829A3 in WT
crappy 1980s armor even with Relikt won't save it lol (T80BVM), Gayjin in a nutshell
@@somerandomboibackup6086 indeed
bruh, was hull made of textolite/glass?
bruh, you think that in fifty years of development of Russian tanks, textolite was always packed into each one?
How do you know that frontal armor can be penetrated by that projectile?
I didn't paint it, it's a physical simulator
The computer did tons and tons of math based on the given parameters and determined that it could in fact be penetrated by the projectile
Imagine a world where era activated on impact and not a 4k degree cone of plasma
Interesting to see how M829A3's design to negate K-5 actually works
M829A3 vs T-80 or T-90 next?
T-80BVM
and the turret goes Boom!
It seems like fewer, thicker plates is better. With thinner plates there's less strength in the direction of the penetration. Seems obvious. I guess 170mm is not always the same.
The M829A3 projectile has export restrictions.
:(
Most of the M829 shells are restricted. They have the KEW series for export which uses tungsten instead.
Poland bought 60k M829A4 lol
When the friendly dart game gets out of control
@gaijin you know what to add next!!
What does SHA stand for? I know what HHA stands for
For his sim, semi harden steel.
Point is make things less confusing.
He tend to denote
Rha to be 250bhn to 350bhn.
Sha to be about 400bhn.
Hhs to be about 550bhn.
nice. try the same for 90M with relikt era
Now do 3VBM-7 vs Abrams UFP.
Nice.
T72B3 later version use Relikt ERA, not K5....
The only thing worse than having your armor defeated by a round is having your armor be almost good enough to defeat it thus it creates more spalling by the round going through at an angle
I don't think combined armor creates as much spalling though, most of the spalling would probably come from the last plate to be penetrated.
@@IosifStalinsendsyoutoGulag
And the last plate is what?
@@IosifStalinsendsyoutoGulag That's not what they said, because the penetrator is penetrating the last plate at an angle with a greater surface area its going to create more spall from that last plate.
@@jintsuubest9331 The last plate is 50 mm
дистанция?
1.1 км
Years and years of technology evolution and kinect energy is still a trouble for us
until a Ukrainian STUGNA-P hits you, then it doesn’t matter what tank you are in. You die. Or where it gets hit. Plenty of all aspect turret and chassis kills on all types to include t-90m
@@xassasiantorxevery atgm with tandems will kill any tank
Perhaps you should make a version of this with the information in patent # US6662726B1.
Tungsten penetrator DU body, patent in 2003.
"first portion of the body having a first mass of about at least 9% to 15% of a penetrator mass and consisting primarily of a single piece of a tungsten-based material"
Perhaps two versions, one with a Tungsten Carbide tip, the other with a tungsten alloy.
That's an export version isnt it
@@somerandomboibackup6086
I should have wrote DU penetrator body and Tungsten break away tip.
I think the steel tip version is an Export version.
steel tip is the domestic version, export version has the same configuration with tungsten replacing DU in the main penetrating rod, or do you have that patent that I can look at just in case I'm wrong?@@evanbrown2594
this makes me have tingly feelings
I needs this in war thunder
Could you simulate IS-2 ( mod 1944 ) hitting tigers 1 gun mantlet? From what I've seen tiger 1 has a remarkably strong turret and I'd really like too see how Stalin's hammer fairs against it 😅
its scary to see what modern tank ammo can do, now next gen mbts like the KF-51 and t-14 are casually sporting kinetic penetrators with over 1000mm of rha penetration at 2km
Assuming the T-14 actually functions like the claims on paper. Knowing russians, that is quite doubtful.
@@ZayP730but we Russians have the best weapons not only on a paper …
I believe we all see t-14 soon as the best tank for now
@@vladislavpsy yeah assuming it wont break down after 5 minutes
Knowing everything best penetrator is made in depleted uranium 😮
@@ZayP730Assuming that it is built properly, then it shouldn't do that. The last time broke down in 5 minutes was with late war german tanks, but that was because they were too heavy for their parts and they were poorly built. Now we'll see if this is repeated with the T-14 or not.
M829A3:
It will KEEEL.
The rest of the penetrator that made it past the armor still goes about 1,000 meters a second, and since uranium is pyrophoric, the damn thing is imitating a Roman candle, butchering and incinerating everything in the T-72's interior...ouch.
Proves that on modern day tank armor has to be changing constantly, there is no compound that you can't build to pen, your enemy will specifically design for it sooner or later.
Exatly slapping shitty boom boom plates wont fix
@@somerandomboibackup6086theres another way to stop penetrators iirc. One is where you use ERAs and nERAs, and the one I’m talking about is the “deflecting” armor.
Basically, the armor consists of plates that are facing in different directions. Forcing the penetrator to lose energy by changing it’s course, thus losing speed and armor penetration.
Some space industries are working on this type of armor for spacecraft/space stations, the 2AV has a similar armor as well.
Just popping in to say "Hi" to the crew. No big deal. Its just 5 lbs of DU bouncing around at 2000 fps. Hardly even noticeable, really.
Well now we know who win