Challenger 2 VS T-80UD | Armour Piercing Simulation

This simulation shows the impact of the 120mm L27 A1 (CHARM 3) APFSDS with a Depleted Uranium penetrator being fired from a British Challenger 2 at a range of 0.6km, targeting the turret of a Ukrainian T-80UD tank.
The Challenger 2 was actually developed as the Chieftain’s replacement, and it entered service over 15 years after the Chieftain’s designed replacement date. The cancellation of one major weapons programme and the chequered career of another were major factors that extended the Chieftain’s career into the early 1990s.
The Kontakt-5 uses heavier and highly sloped plates to provide better defense against APFSDS rounds. The Russians specifically designed it as a quick and cheap way to bolster the ineffective protection of their tanks in face of more potent 120mm rounds. At its introduction in the mid 80's, it truly was fearsome.

[@antonov5463]

It is actually amazing how much armour that little T-80 has managed to squeeze in such small space.

[@petrkdn8224]

Tbf it's a rounded turret so the more to the side you shoot the more armor is gonna be behind it, and also the cramped conditions inside the tank also help the armor

[@BoleDaPole]

None of that armor matters when hit with a 150mm artillery round from the top or getting tracked after running over a mine and then finished off with a ATGM. Many a leopard 1/2s, T tanks and now Abrams learned that lesson in the Ukriane.

[@gerfand]

​@@BoleDaPolethis argument is irrelevant for armor existing

[@valdemarhoejlund6506]

A smaller tank has a smaller surface area, which means thicker armour for the same weight.

[@gerfand]

@@valdemarhoejlund6506 then we get T-14 with All or Nothing

[@ashleymcknight8870]

A great channel is extremely underrated and one of the few channels that actually makes Contant that I’m interested in 11/10

[@hotlanta35]

@ashleymcknight8870 When someone says “underrated “ that is code word for someone just recently discovering a particular

[@Isler_]

testing metal foam vs homogeneus would be really interesting

[@Squareswishla1478]

I concur wholeheartedly!

[@evanbrown793]

Result is not surprising at that angle. Very nice work!

[@sluttybutt]

That angle and on the thickest single part of the protection on the vehicle. Would be interesting to see results of a shot on a more likely targeted point on the tank rather than its hardest point.

[@Im_Mr_Unknown]

How effective is the protection of the T-80UD turret without the K-5 against contemporary HEAT ordnance?

[@gh_27170]

bad, but we are not talking about it without k5

[@user-ov3qg6of1n]

Средне. Комбинированную и разнесенную броню никто не отменял.

[@somerandomboibackup6086]

very, the replacement of textolite for ceramics are better due to spaced armor being presented

[@cactuslietuva]

pretty good, none NATO tank can pen with heat shell

[@quan-uo5ws]

Very good, composite armour was specifically made to counter HEAT, and the T-80UD had one of the best composite armors of its time.

[@uroskostic8570]

When narrator says "to bolster innefective protection of their tanks"... Soviet tanks always had more thicker armor than NATO tanks until 1991. T80U was superior in armor than anything west had in 80s. Abrams was built to counter T80U, not other way around. Soviets brought into the service T64 and T72 when Americans had M60, British ahd Centurion and Germans had Leopard 1. Later after that, Soviets introduced T72B, T64B and T80B and U which were SUPERIOR in every aspect than those mentioned wester tanks. Abrams, Challenger and Leopard-2,Leclerc evened the MBT ratio. Russian T90 was just T72B with T80U package on it. They first called it T72BU but switched to T90. Second series was T90A with welded turret of doubled thickness and T90M with Relikt ERA. Now they have T80BVM which is T90M package on T80B.

[@datmedetbek5165]

First. Why do you use non contemporaries vehicles in your comparison? For instance, M60 had better protection than t62 in upper glacis, the M60a1 had better protection both in turret front and upper glacis than T62, both tanks were contemporaries. How can Abrams be built to counter T80U which entered service in 1985 when Abrams entered service in 1980? Second. You do understand that ineffective protection means that it's ineffective against anti-tanks weaponry and not that it compares soviet armor with western armor of that time?

[@nicolassmithlemaire1232]

another great video with good explanations

[@janflorovic5880]

You should do these 4 rounds vs Panther Glacis (80mm at 55 degrees) 90mm T33 APBC (10.61kg penetrator + 0.3kg windshield) with 853m/s muzzle velocity [M26 Pershing] 85mm BR-365K APHE (9.152kg penetrator + 48g HE filler) with 792m/s muzzle velocity [T-34-85] 17 Pounder AP (7.71kg penetrator) with 884m/s muzzle velocity [Sherman Firefly] 75mm Type 1 AP (6.615kg shell)) with 850m/s muzzle velocity [Chi-To]

[@SimulationPlus]

Well, these are great suggestions for the next simulations.

[@janflorovic5880]

@@SimulationPlus According to US tests T33 APBC clapped Panther glacis up to 1100 yards (Source: Lonesentry) My calculation for 17 Pounder AP is that it will penetrate Panther Glacis up to 500m *17 Pdr AP Penetration* 200mm @ 0m at 0 ° - 884m/s 94mm @ 0m at 55 ° 78mm @ 0m at 60 ° - 167mm @ 500m at 0 ° - 780m/s 80mm @ 500m at 55 ° 66mm @ 500m at 60 °

[@thiagorodrigues5211]

add 122mm D25T with BR 471, that would be great too

[@janflorovic5880]

@@thiagorodrigues5211 This is my calculation: 122mm BR-471 APHE 25kg shell at 795m/s [24.84kg penetrator + 160g HE filler] Penetration: 205mm @ 0m at 0 ° *** 118mm @ 0m at 55 ° 97mm @ 0m at 60 ° *** Post-Deformation penetration using Soviet AP quality as reference from 85mm AP having 147mm @ 0m

[@DefinitelyNotBlackOpalDirect]

I’m confused, looks like you shot at the turret dead on in the lead up, but then shows more of a glancing shot not directly at the turret, but more of an off kilter shot which maximizes contact with the armor. Or am I not seeing this correctly. The demonstration looks one way, but seemingly the armor lay out during the penetration part seems to show a different angle of penetration. More like a ‘60 degree shot, where the round isn’t headed toward the center of the turret, but more so towards the edges of the turret, thereby showing no the almost optimum contact with the armor? Thats how it appears to me, but maybe I don’t understand the layout of the armor correctly or what’s trying to be shown.

[@PAUL-ESNEED]

The shot clearly went only slightly to the right of the breech. It's just that he didn't model the remaining armor on the edges of the turret to reduce computation time.

[@MarcinP2]

@@PAUL-ESNEED He is right. the round was going towards the breech of the gun at quite noticeable angle on the 3d animation while on the test it's a shot in-line with the barrel of the t80 but off to the side.

[@mmmmmm3787]

Can you show the effect of an RPG pg7vr or al yassin 105 on a mekava 4 tank?

[@fabriziolucaaimettaenrique3217]

I just noticed the ceramic has actually pretty good properties against tungsten and depleted uranium penetrators.

[@weegeepootis430]

Would love to see the LOSAT missile vs any modern Russian MBT

[@JoãoHenrique_souza]

Seus vídeos são muito bons mano parabéns continue gravando vídeos e suas edições são excelentes seu canal vai fazer cada vez mais sucesso

[@namrehtv2746]

lets try telescope APFSDS

[@alanch90]

Why is the Kontakt 5 modeled with 2 flying plates?

[@adamlazic493]

Well there are 2 plates in this section of the turret

[@AlexBauir]

Well that’s how kantakt 5 works

[@alanch90]

As far as I know, Kontakt 5 has a single flying plate@@AlexBauir

[@AlexBauir]

My sped ass mixed up relickt and konkact 5

[@user-ov3qg6of1n]

​@@alanch90да.

[@yaroslavtyschenko7266]

Great simulation! Could you make one with Ukrainian "Nizh" (eng. knife) ERA? It's interesting to see the impact to APFSDS.

[@hugo8851]

The result of ERA protection are impressive, I wonder why western tanks don't use it.

[@SimulationPlus]

Actually, some NATO tanks are using ERA such as the M-19 Abrams Reactive Armour Tile (ARAT-I). Even Bradleys has the BRAT (Bradley Reactive Armour Tiles).

[@Dominiv262]

plz name every part of the armor

[@SimulationPlus]

Done.

[@tommeakin1732]

So if it'd hit about ten centimetres to the left it'd have stood a good chance of going through 🤔

[@floathua]

I want to repost your video to the Chinese bilibili websie，It means distributing your video to other websites and marking your original link. Of course, all this behavior will not bring me any financial gain. It is all yours.I will not change your video, your video will be distributed to other websites as it is and bring Chinese viewers to your original video，It's all about generating electricity for love. In short, it's a porter. Of course, the machine translation I used may not be accurate when it is directly translated into Chinese?I'm waiting for your reply here

[@bootlegpete7984]

Challenger 2 was a replacement to the Challenger 1, not the Chieftain. The dead giveaway is in the name. 🤦‍♂

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

yes and no. Challenger 1 was not a replacement of chieftain, it just added to the existing fleet. With the introduction of Challenger 2, Chieftain got phased out. (and challenger 1 too)

[@razorcola9833]

L27A1 velocity at 600 m (1592 m/s) is above its real life muzzle velocity of 1585 m/s reached at upper firing temperature limit (51°C).

[@SimulationPlus]

According to "weaponsystems" CHARM 3 has a muzzle velocity of 1650m/s not 1585m/s.

[@razorcola9833]

@@SimulationPlus i.imgur.com/HQ2KsLW.png

[@filipzietek5146]

T-80U could take 1985 ammo without kontakt 5, with konrakt 5 it can withstand modern british ammo

[@sergeidemidenko3089]

Respect to Soviet engineers

[@frarevo]

You just need to aim lower and the T80 explodes.

[@Frostbite124]

How you know?

[@zeffy._440]

It would be a very difficult shot to hit at 2km and unlikely to detonate it at this point in time. Most detonations happened due to the turret ammo as a result the ammo got moved

[@Frostbite124]

@@zeffy._440 you can say anything to people who are biased towards the west.

[@zeffy._440]

@@Frostbite124 true

[@frarevo]

@@zeffy._440 kzbin.info1RXn_5-v2ns

[@eastthinker4343]

Почему ты поставил в пример Т-80УД? он был модифицирован в Харькове на заводе имени Малышева. Он воюет в украинских войсках. А Т-80У или Т-80БВМ воюют в восках РФ. Можно было взять на пример Т-72Б3 или Т-80У. PS. Please translate it for yourself.

[@Edward-jf6sn]

Go BM Oplot

[@narzist]

Doesn't exist

[@Edward-jf6sn]

@narzist, what

[@krhml3092]

T-80UD was created in soviet union, how the hell you consider it to be ukranian?

[@wenomechainsamatumajarbisaun69]

It was designed in kharkiv

[@krhml3092]

@@wenomechainsamatumajarbisaun69 So and? Kharkov was part of USSR

[@wenomechainsamatumajarbisaun69]

@@krhml3092 So and? It was a part of ukraine

[@krhml3092]

@@wenomechainsamatumajarbisaun69 There was no such a country called ukraine before dissolution of USSR

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@krhml3092 well, the UkSSR (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) founded n 1919 as part of the larger UNION of Sovjet Socialist Republics (USSR), of wich the RSFSR (the Russian Socialist Federative Sovjetrepublic) and a few others were also part of. So yes there was always an Ukraine.

[@The_Prince_Of_Crows]

At the time the US was beating it's chest claiming it had defeated the best the Soviets had to offer in Iraq in the Gulf War, this was the best tank the Soviet Union had to offer. Along with several superior versions of the T-72 that were never sold to Iraq, it was never exported. They saw older variants that were not comparable to the Abrams like the T-80 was designed to be. It even had a jet turbine engine like the Abrams. Propaganda is misleading and the Gulf War was full of propaganda too.

[@cczevak5313]

An equally big issue was that Iraqi forces weren't using the most modern ammunition for their tanks, but predominantly earlier export rounds with all steel penetrators, which were ineffective against the Abrams. In Soviet service in the late 80's or early 90's, they would have used primarily the 3BM42, which would have been far more effective.

[@The_Prince_Of_Crows]

@@cczevak5313 👍 true

[@alfredchurchill2328]

Bradley’s destroyed the majority of Iraqi armour. Abrams was a overkill. It’s a better mbt than anything it would have fever from the soviets.

[@The_Prince_Of_Crows]

@@alfredchurchill2328 Wrong, F111 ground attack aircraft killed the most armored vehicles. The Bradley wasn't anywhere close and it's just an IFV and not even a tank. It couldn't even destroy a T-90m if it wanted to. 🤣🤣🤣👏👏👏

[@alfredchurchill2328]

@@The_Prince_Of_Crows oof. Relax there sweetheart. I’m aware of this. I was referring to vehicles. The Bradley destroyed more Iraq armour than anything else. Moreover, the Bradley is also better than anything the Russians are rolling around in they can call an IFV.

[@marek3421]

Wrong but nice work

[@SimulationPlus]

What exactly is "wrong"?

[@CRISPY0317]

Is this wrong because your biased towards the west? Many people are and it seeks like you are one of them. This takes physics and velocity and other things into account. Both are great tanks but they require a good crew pit of all things to make them succeed.

[@romanyalovyi6079]

Great penetration to front. Soviet tank useless.

[@ТурмсоводОбыкновенный]

Tank dont Penetration

[@namrehtv2746]

really​@@ТурмсоводОбыкновенный

[@romanyalovyi6079]

@@ТурмсоводОбыкновенный yes it is. To front.

[@10.huynhphathuy8]

Did you even watch the video, clearly challenger 2 didn’t pen. Perhaps your brain is rotting from all the propaganda

[@SparrowGTt]

You can clearly see armour were not penetrated