Simulating the interaction between a 125mm 3BM32 APFSDS projectile and the turret armor of an unconfirmed variant of the T-64B during its development period can provide some insights, but please note that accurate armor penetration calculations can be complex and dependent on various factors. These factors include the angle of impact, projectile performance, armor composition and quality, and potential variables not covered in your description.
However, I can provide a general estimation based on the information you’ve provided:
Projectile:
- Type: 125mm 3BM32 APFSDS
- Penetrator Mass: ~4.3 kg of depleted uranium (DU)
- Muzzle Velocity: 1710 m/s
Armor:
- Turret Front Armor:
- Option 1: ~150mm Cast Armor
- Option 2: ~210mm Aluminum + Ultra Porcelain
- Option 3: ~160mm Cast Armor
Keep in mind that in armor penetration calculations, the key factor is the kinetic energy of the penetrator. The kinetic energy (KE) formula is KE = 0.5 * mass * velocity^2.
- Calculate the kinetic energy of the 3BM32 penetrator:
KE = 0.5 * 4.3 kg * (1710 m/s)^2 ≈ 6,284,655 Joules - Compare this energy to the armor’s effectiveness using thickness and quality as indicators. Option 1 (150mm Cast Armor):
- Assuming a density of steel, the thickness equivalent would be approximately 150mm of RHA (Rolled Homogeneous Armor).
- However, modern tank armor is designed to defeat projectiles by oblique angles, and the effective thickness can be significantly greater. Option 2 (210mm Aluminum + Ultra Porcelain):
- The composition here is interesting. Aluminum is not as effective as steel or ceramics at stopping penetrators, while ultra porcelain (likely referring to advanced ceramics) can provide good protection.
- The armor’s effectiveness would depend on how well the ceramics are implemented and their overall coverage. Option 3 (160mm Cast Armor):
- Similar to Option 1, assuming a density of steel, the thickness equivalent would be around 160mm of RHA.
Considering these rough estimates, the 3BM32 APFSDS projectile with its high kinetic energy would likely penetrate Option 1 (150mm Cast Armor) and Option 3 (160mm Cast Armor) at closer ranges, while Option 2 (210mm Aluminum + Ultra Porcelain) might provide better resistance due to the potential use of advanced ceramics.
Remember that these calculations are simplified and don’t take into account many factors, including the specific composition of the armor and penetrator, obliquity effects, projectile stability, and more. For accurate and detailed penetration predictions, advanced ballistic simulations and modeling software are required.
The scenario you’re describing involves the impact of a 125mm 3BM22 APFSDS projectile, traveling at 1600 m/s, against the frontal turret armor of a T-62 tank with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armor (ERA) and certain angles involved.
The 3BM22 APFSDS projectile consists of a steel penetrator with a tungsten carbide core and a tungsten alloy cap. Given its kinetic energy and armor-penetrating capabilities, it’s quite formidable against conventional armor. Additionally, the T-62’s turret is equipped with the Kontakt-5 ERA, designed to counteract and defeat incoming projectiles by detonating explosive modules on impact.
The T-62’s turret front has a maximum thickness of 214mm and an estimated effective thickness of 220-230mm when considering the angle of impact. The Kontakt-5 ERA adds an additional layer of protection with its 17mm HHA (High Hardness Armor) plate.
The projectile’s muzzle velocity of 1600 m/s corresponds to a distance of approximately 1.5 km, so let’s analyze the impact:
Projectile Impact: The 3BM22 APFSDS projectile has high kinetic energy due to its velocity and penetrator design. It will strike the T-62’s turret front, and the outer layer of the Kontakt-5 ERA will detonate upon impact, attempting to disrupt the projectile’s penetration.
Kontakt-5 Reaction: The Kontakt-5 ERA’s primary purpose is to disrupt and defeat incoming projectiles by detonating the explosive modules, causing a shockwave and disrupting the penetrator’s shape and velocity. This can reduce the projectile’s penetration capabilities.
Turret Armor: The steel penetrator of the 3BM22 will encounter the T-62’s turret armor. Given the projectile’s high velocity and advanced design, it has the potential to defeat the primary armor layers and the added HHA plate of the Kontakt-5 ERA.
Penetration: The 3BM22’s combination of kinetic energy and penetrator design is intended to defeat heavily armored targets. It’s likely that the projectile will penetrate the turret armor and any ERA components in its path, and potentially cause significant damage inside the turret.
Effects: If the projectile penetrates the armor, it can cause damage to the crew, ammunition, and critical systems within the turret. The penetration could lead to the tank becoming inoperable or even destroyed, depending on the exact circumstances.
Armor Angle: The impact angle plays a crucial role in determining the effective thickness of the armor the projectile encounters. In your scenario, you’ve mentioned an approximate 12° side angle and fall angle. These angles will influence the effective thickness and the potential for penetration.
