M829A3 vs Relikt | Abrams vs best T-90/T-80 Explosive Armor

[@velvetthundr]

This is just the first layer of the hull right that is penetrated? Not accounting the entire composite armor structure.

[@dejmianxyzsimulations4174]

penetrators are being tested, not the tank's armor You can see the difference when the penetrator passes through the ERA, but is it particularly positive for the steel tip penetrator? I have my doubts. Would anyone complicate the design of a penetrator when it won't be noticeably better? I doubt it too.

[@_blackdeep_3518]

​@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174But isn't you comparing round ability to go through ERA ? So isn't it's would be better for us to see is it effective against this ERA or it's still not enough to penetrate ERA and armour ?

[@dejmianxyzsimulations4174]

@@_blackdeep_3518 what armor? If the armor is thick it won't penetrate, but if it is thin it will penetrate. This has nothing to do with what ERA will do to the penetrator, which is what I wanted to test.

[@_blackdeep_3518]

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 For example upper plate of T80BVM . Since some people was saying that M829A3 was designed to deal with Relikt ERA so that's why I and probably the guy who started this thread interested will it penetrate actual armour of tank on which this ERA usually installed

[@nikitakhmelevskyi6257]

@@_blackdeep_3518 It`s kinda another type of question what author want to say. This video is just simulation test, not the actual model of pen/non pen of t80/t90 armor

[@Dastancool]

i really want to see ERA vs heat and see how effective it is or heat vs apfsds against ERA

[@JPduclerc]

I think NASA might have the computing power needed for that.

[@RadD710]

​@@JPduclerc😂

[@tirushone6446]

@@JPduclerc FEM when shaped charges: *confused screming*

[@TornadoADV]

The steel tip seems like it's there to address edge cases we're not privy to and makes it hard to do a comparison test. (For those situations)

[@lake258]

So judging by the pics, steel tip results in a smaller hole in the armor plate, meaning lesst spread of the projectile energy over the armor area. Had it been the whole armor package, it would have higher chance to pen.

[@shepardpolska]

To me it looks like the rod with the steel tip got bend more, so the hit on a second armor plate would be at a way worse angle. If there was a second plate it might hit it sideways and would be unlikely to perforate.

[@youmumyon1880]

​@@shepardpolska the first bend is come from steel tip breaking off for the rest of the penetrator to stay align

[@shepardpolska]

@@youmumyon1880 I can see in the after perforation pictures that the leftover rod with the steel tip is angled upwards, while the other one is more straight. From the looks of it it's because the extra lenght from the steel tip activated the ERA faster, making it affect the main part of the penetrator earlier. Edit: From what I see the steel tip one has less mass after it went throught the plate.

[@superliga1]

Hard to tell, the part of the ERA that does most damage to the rod, is the plate flying away, imparting lots of stress on the tail-end of the penetrator. This is the greatest contributor to destabilize, yaw or even break the rod. Should be tested against an infite plate to make any real conclusions

[@dejmianxyzsimulations4174]

It seemed to me that if the design makes sense, there would be no need to measure the penetration down to the millimeter, it would just be clearly visible

[@superliga1]

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Maybe not, but even a minor change in angle can have a huge impact on penetration. Also, i'm curious, if you run the same simulation with exactly the same specs several times, will the result be 100% the same, or is there some small variations?

[@dejmianxyzsimulations4174]

@@superliga1 Failure model, cracks may appear elsewhere, but in general there may be a constant random distribution over several simulation runs

[@tirushone6446]

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 I think it would work if the "tip" was acctually the out steel layer of a telescoping rod giving it a slot ~1 meter of stand of distance against the era, but yeah I doubt the "anti-era" capibilities of what is basicley a steel balistic cap.

[@Priehten]

How about you put in the description your pc config and how much time it took for this to render? Or may some additional info about implementation of the simulation itself.

[@ukuskota4106]

Id like it too

[@xeonkitcat1119]

I would also like this.

[@dejmianxyzsimulations4174]

Ok

[@evanbrown2594]

Everyone who makes these videos says the patent says steel, however that patent US6662726B1 in 1999 makes no mention of steel. " The first portion is preferably tungsten-based while the second portion is preferably uranium-based." There is a new follow-on Patent regarding a export round that uses a steel tip made popular by the under the turret ring blog. It could be that the Steel performs much better than the tungsten tip.

[@tedarcher9120]

BTW, what if you start the explosion from one end of the plate, making it tumble? Would it make it more effevtive against long rods than just straight up?

[@dejmianxyzsimulations4174]

idk, but this is very theoretical as detonation occurs where the explosive is sheared

[@nerd1000ify]

It looks like the steel tip gets sheared off by the rear flyer plate of the ERA, which reduces the effect of that plate on the nose of the actual rod. Pretty interesting.

[@wildwehraboo6112]

What program do you use to create these simulations? They look quite good and i would like to learb!

[@dejmianxyzsimulations4174]

Ansys

[@venpirethevampire]

Ansys I think

[@wildwehraboo6112]

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 thank you!

[@wildwehraboo6112]

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 how did you manage to get it? It seems like a paid program

[@xxkairzzxx1994]

From my understanding from papers i've read ERA is most effective when detonating around the midway point of the projectile ( as it causes the most damage to the dense core) so i would imagine the additional metal partially works to delay the ERA explosion so it doesnt damage the tungsten/ DU core as much

[@jadog1235]

You have lots of sims with apfsds against nera, but very few against layered steel and ceramic. Could you do a comparison of nera and ceramics?

[@andrewf6711]

This is irrelevant to the video, but what compound of rubber do you use for NERA simulations? If it’s not a specific compound, what are the specifications for the rubber?

[@alanch90]

In addition to what people are asking, I would do a further control shot with a penetrator of the exact length as the reference one but without the steel tip. The steel mass converted into extra length for the DU penetrator obscures the purpuse of the test which is to observe the specific gains of the steel tip vs ERA. The volume/mass conversion of the steel into DU would be valid if you wanted to estimate penetration into raw steel using a mathematical formula such as L-O but here I feel its counter productive. And yes, also running this same test (without the steel mass conversion into extra DU) vs K5 would be appreciated.

[@jintsuubest9331]

I disagree. The question being ask here is give a fix mass, does steel tip make sense from a performance perspective. Since we know the mass, what sense does it make to test a penetrator of lower mass? I argue we should instead test various proportion of steel and du mix, with the same mass.

[@evanbrown2594]

Very interesting. One wonders if the type of steel used would have much influence on the results.

[@JoeKing-_i_am_not_joking]

Please do a Panzer I vs a 120mm APFSDS fired from a M1 Abrams at 10km. Also, which dimensions should have ballistic jello to stop a 75mm Shell fired by a panther at 2000m? Thx man! ❤

[@gerfand]

The lack of the steel tip seens to make it better as the armor behind it cracks, but that is not the point, as its just a test steel. Thr question and yhe steel tip seens to help, is how much does the steel tip makes so the penetrator stays consistent? AKA how much it helps vs subsequent armor

[@whitephosphorus15]

Its pretty hard to tell if the steel tip accomplished much. Would it be easier to tell if the armor plate was thicker and approaching the maximum thickness M839A3 could penetrate after overcoming Relikt?

[@dejmianxyzsimulations4174]

It seemed to me that if the design makes sense, there would be no need to measure the penetration down to the millimeter, it would just be clearly visible

[@obiandthehighground2195]

Would it be hard to simulate a krizhantema rocket or however u spell them, against a abrams turret cheek or something?

[@sauron3671]

Hello, I wanted to know: what program do you use for modulating? I would like to use it for my scientific work.

[@dejmianxyzsimulations4174]

Ansys

[@sauron3671]

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Thank you so much.

[@KennethChang-ry2yi]

watching this got me wondering, how much of an effect does speed have on penetration through ERA? like could you fire an older generation projectile fast enough that even if its broken, the residual KE still results in penetration?

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

Perhaps the same test against. Thick steel block would be better so we can compare the depth of penetration.

[@dejmianxyzsimulations4174]

It seemed to me that if the design makes sense, there would be no need to measure the penetration down to the millimeter, it would just be clearly visible

[@okakokakiev787]

Do you think it's worth it to redo the sim with infinite homogenous armor behind the era? And see how deep it goes. Or does the sim take too long and terminate in process?

[@dejmianxyzsimulations4174]

Too long. I always have trouble modeling ERA with the actual armor behind it, because with such a large model, sudden load spikes stop the simulation. It would take a month to make them.

[@zeroalpha4818]

So steel tip gives no advantage

[@IanAwfuls]

Obviously it does, the projectile trajectory is more stable than without it.

[@ThatSpecificIndividual]

Maybe add some composite behind for a more realistic test.

[@shepardpolska]

@@IanAwfuls The steel tip projectile comes out parallel to the plate it penetrated, it is less stable after hitting ERA. It's a little confusing because sometimes the steel tip is at the top of the video and sometimes at the bottom

[@WandererJester]

That's quite the result. I'm somewhat curious why they wouldn't just use a DU tip over a Steel one given the rod is already DU to begin with. Also, is there anyway of knowing the hardness of the steel tip?

[@dejmianxyzsimulations4174]

if you assume the tip will be lost, you don't need a heavy DU

[@WandererJester]

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Super fair, would having a soft or hard tip on the round make any difference in your opinion?

[@dejmianxyzsimulations4174]

@@WandererJester yes, soft doesn't make sense because it's harder to penetrate the front ERA plate, too hard doesn't make sense either because it will shatter upon impact

[@warellis]

I've heard one reason why they went with the steel tip is that it pokes a hole into ERA without detonating it. I also have heard that the M829A4 has a full DU tip that is designed to break off in a similar manner to the M829A3 steel tip. Which makes me suspect maybe at the time the M829A3 was designed, we didn't have the know-how on how to make a DU tip that could be like that steel tip.

[@okakokakiev787]

Histerically the steel tip is supposed to help vs k5. Relict was supposed to beat randemn weapons and steel tips

[@somerandomboibackup6086]

Supposed doesnt mean 100% will, we only know that K5 is 100% toasted by A3

[@okakokakiev787]

​@@somerandomboibackup6086we don't know that either

[@somerandomboibackup6086]

@@okakokakiev787 watch M829A3 vs T-72B3 bruh

[@moistmike4150]

Me in bed with Tank Girl: "Hey! You said 'Just the tip!'"

[@clueless4096]

Could you check if spaced armor such as meshes on some tanks/IFVs makes Shaped Charges more effective? I've seen speculation online that sometimes they can improve penetration by increasing standoff distance.

[@IvanBaturaChannel]

I think that's only true for very early ones, on later HEAT warheads it would be fixed with longer fuzes/cones

[@jackvogenitz4284]

would you ever consider testing m829a3 vs the entire t80bvm front plate

[@dejmianxyzsimulations4174]

If you provide the technical diagrams of M829A3, I will do it in the next simulation

[@canadianwaffenwaffle2976]

can you do a simulation of overpressure on the 2a7 hull's front roof armor (with the composite plates)? thanks :)

[@tylerromero]

The steel tip seems to be like an APC cap on ild school rounds. Giving a better angle of pen on impact.

[@jintsuubest9331]

Cap on steel apc is to prevent or realistically minimized and delay projectile shattering. They almost always result in worse entry angle compare to uncapped projectile.

[@MarcinP2]

If you hit it lower on the ERA the steel tip would have more effect. You keep assuming ideal case for ERA to function in your ERA tests.

[@handsomeivan1980]

I don't think it's going to go through a T-80, unless it's the turret The projectile looks pretty rough after just that bit there

[@MikeJames-kt5dw]

i have some ideas! Mark V male vs A7V at 250 M; bundle of steilhandgrenaten bundle vs front of FT-17

[@NoName-md5zb]

I just downloaded ansys. Will try to do these sims. Do you have 3D models for projectiles? Where do you get data for them?

[@jintsuubest9331]

Lots of googling, pixel measurement, material science course, and math.

[@mustang1912]

It came close to deflecting, if you added more spacing it would deflect

[@okakokakiev787]

Wowc nice 👍. Good illustration to relikt

[@Ninja_7O713]

Where do you find the software

[@AyOuB.God-soldier]

Make RPG7- PG-7VR vs merkava tank please

[@matiasforero5227]

Can You do object 120 vs maus?

[@fizzachzy]

do a hollow jet model made of titanium peppered by an explosive warhead of an aim9 or something

[@Foxx-oh9tj]

with as little as i actually know about any of this stuff when u look at the side by side comparison of the holes they produced in the steel to me it looks like the projectile without the steel cap did better produced a larger hole in the steel and greater shrapnel my uneducated guess would be that the steel cap on the projectile is mainly there for aerodynamics?

[@abas656thegodemperor9]

the ballistic cap is for aerodynamics,the steel tip is to help defeat ERA,but they didnt put the armor behind the ERA so the test doesnt actually show the difference.

[@dejmianxyzsimulations4174]

@@abas656thegodemperor9 What makes the difference is what happens when the penetrator passes through the ERA... If you don't see a difference when the penetrator passes through the ERA, it won't magically appear when it passes through the armor

[@somerandomboibackup6086]

So from what I can observe Relikt is about as dangerous to M829A3 as K5 to A2? The back plate didnt really do anything to the penetrator

[@gerfand]

Not necessarly, remember this is just comparing 2 different penetrators not K-5 and Relitik.

[@jintsuubest9331]

Notice how the penetrator bent and has multiple cracks? It is the result of the penetrator cannot cope with 2 opposing force acting on it simultaneously on different end.

[@somerandomboibackup6086]

@@jintsuubest9331 yes but that’s the job of the top plate isn’t it

[@somerandomboibackup6086]

@@jintsuubest9331 the trajectory seems to follow what M829A3 does to T-72B3

[@spacewalk3046]

Next do shahid belt armour simulation plz.

[@alexeyn4748]

The protection scheme is incorrect. This is one of three armored plates. Тhis projectile is not capable of penetrating such protection

[@shiyian]

Its demonstrating the difference in penetrator not the armor read the pinned comment

[@EpicThe112]

Interesting results here and let me guess you would have actually copied what they would have done inside Aberdeen Maryland which would be using the same setup as yours because there are captured Russian tanks in Ukraine that are sent to the United States via Ramstein AFB

[@HanSolo__]

I still think you could add a few degrees of ballistic arc if simulating real (ish) scenarios. A always great material. Thanks a lot for your work.

[@dejmianxyzsimulations4174]

A few degrees? This is unattainable for APFSDS for real distances. ~0.5 degree for such a situation. The ballistic curve for all reasonable conditions is compensated by the side angle, because it is practically impossible to hit perfectly with the tank's axis.

[@sarazayet6425]

simulation name?

[@combatvet1307]

Either way, you still get a Turret Lolly Pop!!!

[@mclukas44lol25]

This is Kontakt 5, not Relikt. Relikt launches 2 plates.

[@dejmianxyzsimulations4174]

Everything's fine, you just have no idea what K-5 and Relikt look like. There are two plates as it should be.

[@mclukas44lol25]

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 You have no idea. I also forget to mention that Relikt is spaced away from the hull so the second plate can detonate under. Therefor your render is wrong. EDIT: I just saw the second plate, it exists but not put how it is intended. It looks more like the bottom cover of the ERA block.

[@dejmianxyzsimulations4174]

@@mclukas44lol25 Maybe on the third comment you'll notice that the backplate is away from the hull as it should be. Moreover, no one who knows anything about the subject will say that the rear plate resembles the bottom cover of the ERA, because it is too thick and the K-5 mounted on the hulls does not have it at all. In addition, the K-5 has three times more internal space. Someone who points out my mistakes should know this perfectly well.

[@guntimusprimer1999]

That was the situation Abrams can face to face with T90 or T80 :v

[@azothemtcplayer]

T90M ufp vs M829A3 at 2km away is just a week away, can you believe it guys!!11!!1!??????!111!???

[@o-hogameplay185]

a joke test idea: use relikt, but add a thin layer of diamond to each side of both plates

[@moistmike4150]

Steel tip or not, both tanks just as dead

[@ВатнаяфабрикаимениКрасныхпарти]

0:35 Какая-то странная симуляция внизу...

[@ViperBenchmarks]

PT91 vs T72

[@dejmianxyzsimulations4174]

I wonder what the PT-91 shoots with. The implementation of modern ammunition with long tungsten penetrators has been discontinued. 3BM15 remaining...

[@anderoo9260]

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 3WBM3, 3WBM6, 3WBM7, 3WBM8 (ap,sabot, carbide core), Ryś (tungsten core), 3WBK7, 3WBK10 (HEAT) i 3WOF22 (HE)

[@ViperBenchmarks]

@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 Probably yes, maybe Ukrainians have something better idk. In early 2000s new ammo was tested "Ryś" with Israelis tungsten penetrator but was too powerful [too high pressure] for 2A46. Also can you test ERAWA armour ?Can PT91 turret survive direct hit from RU T72B3 ?

[@anderoo9260]

Supposedly* Ryś APFSDS-T, were produced around 2002 r, Declared to do 630 mm of RHA. There are only about 6 ryś rounds per tank though. And there is no info on the quality control of the materials for the core. More likely the penetration is around 500-550. The problem is the heavy sabot weighing 3.85 kg, there were no capabilities to produce modern composite sabot in Poland. Whole round is 7.55kg The core weight is 3.7kg, muzzle velocity is 1650m/s RHA pen at 2000m is ~500mm

[@romankovalev7894]

Abrams lives on the Ukrainian battlefield for an average of half an hour. Abrams won’t even see the T90 - it will be destroyed much faster. And here you are finding out the penetration capabilities of tanks. Of the 100 tanks destroyed - 15% were mines, 40% were artillery, 45% were ATGMs (including helicopters) and FPV drones. And perhaps one random tank is hit by another tank and it will not be included in the statistics. It’s time for the author to expand the video line and show the drone’s arrival at the top plane of the tank

[@anderoo9260]

First abrams appeared on the front lines in November 2023, so far 9 abrams were lost, averaging 1,3 per month. Russia lost between 50-67 t90m since beginning of the invasion, averaging 2-2,5 per month. If abrams lives an hour, then t90m lives 25 minutes.

[@romankovalev7894]

@@anderoo9260 Ok, we're your Abrams dude? 25 min, very funny 🤫🤫🤫🤕🤕🤕🤡

[@anderoo9260]

@@romankovalev7894 these are your words, not mine. Both Abrams and the t90m live much longer than an hour on the battlefield. I wish I owned an abrams, bold of you to assume I supplied more than 30 of them to Ukraine. If I owned them, I really wouldn't do that. To answer, more than 20 are still in use by the Ukrainian forces, duh. Don't worry vatnik, the t90m may be worse than even the 90s NATO tech but it's still a better tank than t64 will ever be. Both t90 and t64 date back to the 1951 obj430- they are nearly 80 year old tech. Only in the 2010s did Russia manage to put blowout panels on a tank and to this day relies on ERA. not even NERA. Just ERA. And their targeting system is just knock off French gen 2+ thermals. Russia will most likely win the war in Ukraine, but their army is mediocre at best and wouldn't stand a chance against NATO.

[@romankovalev7894]

@@anderoo9260 Don't worry nаzi

[@anderoo9260]

@@romankovalev7894 vatnik destroyed with basic facts lmao you failed baaaaaaad.

[@dumbcommentslol]

M829A3 and A4 teoreticaly shouldnt activate era or it shuld down their performence bcs of antiera tip etc.