ACTIVE PROTECTION vs APFSDS | Explosively Formed Penetrator vs APFSDS | Afghanit APS

Explosively formed penetrators being used as active protection systems have the potential to defeat kinetic rounds, as well as chemical ones, but how effective are they...

This video uses an EFP based on scaled geometry from [3] to mimic the POTENTIAL design of the Armata's Afghanit active protection system [1, 2].

To Note:
While [2] states that the EFP's velocity is between 2-3km/s, the experimental value of 1750m/s was used from [3], as well as steel being used as the material -likely being more effective than traditional copper. The dimensions of the actual Afghanit EFPs are most likely different as well, but unavailable.
The impact occurs 1m from the vehicle, which is most likely closer than in reality, but was done to keep the simulation short; a larger distance would increase effectiveness.
The chosen angle of 10° is an approximation to the intercept angle, especially if the apfsds is fired at the hull, with the EFP launchers on the turret; a larger angle would probably increase effectiveness.

Aspects which would increase effectiveness: Increased EFP mass, velocity, angle, impact distance, L/D ratio

Sources:
[1] Afghanit: https://topwar.ru/31710-sistemy-aktivnoy-zaschity-bronetehniki.html
[2] Afghanit Design: https://patents.google.com/patent/RU2263268C2/en
[3] EFP Study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214914714000348

Видео ACTIVE PROTECTION vs APFSDS | Explosively Formed Penetrator vs APFSDS | Afghanit APS канала SY Simulations