Jump to content


About Ammunition...


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
24 replies to this topic

AIM_120_AMRAAM #1 Posted 28 April 2013 - 01:39 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 9641 battles
  • 730
  • [D0LAN] D0LAN
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011
So yeah, basically I got some questions about various types of Ammunition used in WW II and later-on (Captain Obvious, duh!)



1. Why did the Russian 122mm guns have 2-piece Ammunition? I only know seperated shells and shell propellants from high-caliber artillery pieces starting in the 152mm range? For example, it seems logical to me, that the 152mm SU/ISU-152 gun was using 2-piece Ammunition because of the weight and size of the shell to enable the Crew to handle it.

While I know that the comparison is off because of the large time difference, a shell I saw and handled in the Tank Museum in Munster (Leopard 2 APDSFS 120mm Shell I believe) weighted slightly less than 20 Kg. I always thought that 2-piece Ammunition was used because of the shell weight with increasing caliber (modern Panzerhaubitze 155mm HE-Shell weighs in at around 80 Kg for the whole cartridge).

Wouldn't it make more sense to use "complete" cartridges in the 122mm gun in order to increase its Rate of Fire? Didn't Soviet Tanks provide enough space to store the cartridges in one piece in the tank?



2. My next question is about rifled guns and HEAT-Ammo. I read somewhere that a HEAT-Shell is less effective when fired from a rifled gun because of the spin imposed on the Shell. The rotation would hinder the creation of the destructive "Metal Spike" and therefore lessening its effectiveness against hardened targets.

How was this counter-acted by tank designers? Since most tanks still used rifled guns after the war (like the Leopard 1) wouldn't it be kinda useless to design a powerful HEAT-Shell only for its effectiveness to be decreased by the very nature of the gun?



3. What kind of "Beyond-Armour Effect" does modern APDSFS-Munition generate? AP and HESH Shells generate (extensive) Spalling, either via detonating on the outside armour, or by fragmenting after penetrating. In WW II the Wehrmacht also had a small HE or Incendiary Filler in their AP-Rounds to maximise the effect upon penetration. HEAT also works via Spalling, while additionally generating Heat and an Overpressure inside the Fighting Compartment of a tank after being penetrated (see Beyond-Armour effect about the AT4)

How does APDSFS Munition "interact" with the interior of a penetrated vehicle? Measuring a few cm in Diameter and being about half a meter long, it seems to me that it was rather optimised to maximise the chances of penetration by channeling all the kinetic energy onto a very small spot when hitting the target. But isn it rather ineffective if you have no problem penetrating the target but are not able to disable/destroy it because of lacking Anti-Personnel effects?

I gathered from a book about a British AH-64 Apache Pilot, which also use similar Munitions known as "Flechettes" for Anti-Personnel Applications to great effect, that because of the high speed of the dart-shaped projectiles you have a destructive and fatal effect even if those miss their target. I think I remember something about the air current of the projectiles being that devastative because of the extremely high speed.

Does this also apply to tank-based APDSFS-Munitions? Or are there some other effects of a solid metal dart travelling at 1.500-1.800 m/s penetrating armour I'm missing? Does "modern" ERA or Composite Armor spall?



Some questions that kept me thinking and where I couldn't come up with a satisfying solution. Please note that I'm not a tank expert and I'd describe myself as rather rudimentary educated on the field of armoured warfare.

Thanks for advance for any enlightening answers,

AIM

com__ #2 Posted 28 April 2013 - 01:43 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 48816 battles
  • 280
  • [HA-TE] HA-TE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2011
Interesting post.

Blue_Badger #3 Posted 28 April 2013 - 02:48 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14731 battles
  • 2,440
  • [3VS27] 3VS27
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012
I'll have a crack, but I'm not an expert by any means.

1) I would guess its all due to the size of the shell. The Russian tanks were extremely cramped and storing 1 piece ammo that large takes up space. Its also hard to handle inside the tank. Some Modern tanks use multi part ammo like the challenger. It takes longer to train the crews how to do it fast but handling numerous, smaller, weights causes less fatigue than 1 massive weight. It may also be due to the design of the gun not allowing 1 part ammo.

2) The copper jet that cuts through armour in a HEAT shell is indeed disrupted by spin. This was solved by the invention of a "slip ring". A ring of low friction polymer placed around the shell. The ring prevents the shell from engaging with the rifling (much) vastly reducing the spin. Even so, I can't think of any HEAT shells being used in modern rifled guns. The same ring is used to convert APFSDS ammo to rifled guns as too much spin destabilised a fin stabilised shell.

3) The penetration causes massive overpressure inside the tank due to the extreme speed of the dart. This alone will kill anyone inside the tank. Compressed air also heats up turning the inside of the tank into a furnace when compressed to the degrees we are talking about. There is also sharp fragments and spalling going too. Its also worth noting that DU penetrators have pyrophoric effects causing its dust (which is caused by penetrating the armour) to explode. In short anything that penetrates into an enclosed space a high speed will turn that space into a kill zone.

Hope this helps. Anything I've missed others will cover I'm sure  :blinky: . Good topic btw.

AIM_120_AMRAAM #4 Posted 28 April 2013 - 03:20 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 9641 battles
  • 730
  • [D0LAN] D0LAN
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011

View PostBlue_Badger, on 28 April 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:

I'll have a crack, but I'm not an expert by any means.

1) I would guess its all due to the size of the shell. The Russian tanks were extremely cramped and storing 1 piece ammo that large takes up space. Its also hard to handle inside the tank. Some Modern tanks use multi part ammo like the challenger. It takes longer to train the crews how to do it fast but handling numerous, smaller, weights causes less fatigue than 1 massive weight. It may also be due to the design of the gun not allowing 1 part ammo.


Ah, that's an interesting point. So basically, with the ammuntion split into two or more pieces you decrease your effectiveness in combat while increasing the endurance of the crew in drawn-out engagements. That sounds quite reasonable. I suppose there are only very few occasions where you ride in like the cavalry of old, massacre some stuff and then be back in camp before dinner, eh?

View PostBlue_Badger, on 28 April 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:

2) The copper jet that cuts through armour in a HEAT shell is indeed disrupted by spin. This was solved by the invention of a "slip ring". A ring of low friction polymer placed around the shell. The ring prevents the shell from engaging with the rifling (much) vastly reducing the spin. Even so, I can't think of any HEAT shells being used in modern rifled guns. The same ring is used to convert APFSDS ammo to rifled guns as too much spin destabilised a fin stabilised shell.


And another interesting point. It seems that military planners thought of everything.

Though I wonder: Doesn't that additional ring increase the stress put on the rifling and the barrel, decreasing its lifespan and therefore increasing maintenance issues? Seems like a little awkward trade-off to me. It's not like standard AP-Rounds were not capable of successfully penetrating contemporary tanks, right?

View PostBlue_Badger, on 28 April 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:

3) The penetration causes massive overpressure inside the tank due to the extreme speed of the dart. This alone will kill anyone inside the tank. Compressed air also heats up turning the inside of the tank into a furnace when compressed to the degrees we are talking about. There is also sharp fragments and spalling going too. Its also worth noting that DU penetrators have pyrophoric effects causing its dust (which is caused by penetrating the armour) to explode. In short anything that penetrates into an enclosed space a high speed will turn that space into a kill zone.

Hope this helps. Anything I've missed others will cover I'm sure  :blinky: . Good topic btw.

So basically the air in the vicinity of the hit spot and inside the fighting compartment will heat up to fatal levels right after penetrating the armour because of compression?

If I may raise another question then: Shouldn't the Dart lose most of its kinetic energy while penetrating the armour? And concerning the Spalling: I remember to have read somewhere that a common countermeasure against HESH-Shells, which rely on that effect, is to coat the armour from the inward side with Kevlar or a similarly durable material which is supposed to prevent splinters from entering the fighting compartment.

Does the APFSDS-Dart generate so many or so fast splinters that they can even pierce that "Anti-Spalling" Coating?

Also, what material is most commonly used in KE-Penetrators on tanks? Somehow I have the term "Wolframcarbid/Tungstencarbide" creeping through my brain, but that was in Germany during WW II. Is it still the same for most countries? DU is only used by the USA if I remember correctly. They have nearly every Anti-Armour round filled with that stuff, which boasts one of the highest densities of applicable materials.

And thanks for your answers. Those provided some answers to my questions, but raised some more questions on those answers. I'm hard to please, eh? :smile:

Edit: Just looked it up and saw that "Wolfram" is the term used by us Germans. "Tungsten" seems to be the more common English equivalent?

Edited by AIM_120_AMRAAM, 28 April 2013 - 03:22 PM.


Blue_Badger #5 Posted 28 April 2013 - 04:26 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14731 battles
  • 2,440
  • [3VS27] 3VS27
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012
Rifles barrels do tend to wear faster than smoothbore guns anyway but this isn't a problem with the British L30 as its of a very good quality. The ring does mean that the diameter of the shell has to be reduced slightly.

HEAT and APFSDS became necessary when armour design meant that guns couldn't penetrate tanks without being an impractical size. Its the old evolution of gun vs armour. The armour became drastically better once composites began to be used and to ammunition had to be improved too. This is how they did it. The gains of HEAT and APFSDS are massive over standard AP which isn't even used any more.

Wolfram and Tungsten are the same thing. Tungsten has only recently been changed to Tu from W on the periodic table.

Spall liners are there to shield against the effect of spalling (clues in the name  :blinky: ). How much spalling gets through it depends upon the quality of the liner and the nature of the hit. I can't really answer that. You can guarantee that some splinters will enter the crew compartment with a successful penetration.

Modern APFSDS rounds use either a Tungsten alloy or DU. The Americans aren't the only ones to use DU. Both materials are commonly used and equally good (as far as we can tell). DU lighter weight is balanced by its self sharpening effects and pyrophoric properties, however its been slated of late by the green brigade for being "dangerous". Its a weapon ffs! For clarification it is the penetrator rod which is entirely made of either of these materials.

It may also be worth mentioning that HESH works by detonating against the hull and causing a section of the inner hull to "spall". The resulting fragments spin through the compartment killing everyone and detonating ammo etc. Modern armour is quite effective vs this but it is still very good against obsolete armour.

Kyphe #6 Posted 28 April 2013 - 08:39 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 16253 battles
  • 2,115
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011

View PostAIM_120_AMRAAM, on 28 April 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:


Though I wonder: Doesn't that additional ring increase the stress put on the rifling and the barrel, decreasing its lifespan and therefore increasing maintenance issues? Seems like a little awkward trade-off to me. It's not like standard AP-Rounds were not capable of successfully penetrating contemporary tanks, right?


The ring in question has the same or less impact on the rifling as a standard driving band, the solution to the problem of spin was quite simple as it appeared by itself in the early versions of APSD, One of the reasons for inaccuracy of early APDS was that the friction between the sabot and the projectile was not strong enough to resist the sudden forces put upon it upon firing, and the sabot would simply free spin around the projectile until it discarded.

the boffins then knew when it came down to removing the spin from fin stabilized or HEAT all they needed to do was recreate that effect in a reliable format

Listy #7 Posted 28 April 2013 - 10:59 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 12157 battles
  • 5,727
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View PostAIM_120_AMRAAM, on 28 April 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

1. Why did the Russian 122mm guns have 2-piece Ammunition?

Simply put, the gun was originally a towed howitzer. A new barrel and some other minor modifications were added to fit it into a AFV. As a towed piece split ammo makes sense. Making the ammo single piece means you need to re-design the entire gun.

Mantelman #8 Posted 29 April 2013 - 07:45 AM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 9422 battles
  • 4,395
  • Member since:
    10-28-2010

View PostListy, on 28 April 2013 - 10:59 PM, said:

Simply put, the gun was originally a towed howitzer. A new barrel and some other minor modifications were added to fit it into a AFV. As a towed piece split ammo makes sense. Making the ammo single piece means you need to re-design the entire gun.

In the ISU-122 it was a navy-gun, which had split ammo too.

OniNoKirby #9 Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:53 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 13613 battles
  • 12
  • Member since:
    04-15-2013

Quote

2. My next question is about rifled guns and HEAT-Ammo. I read somewhere that a HEAT-Shell is less effective when fired from a rifled gun because of the spin imposed on the Shell. The rotation would hinder the creation of the destructive "Metal Spike" and therefore lessening its effectiveness against hardened targets.

If you know the angular velocity of the spin you can make the ammo shape the jet in an angular fashion so it evens out.

Quoting Wikipedia. In recent years it has become possible to use shaped charges in spin-stabilised projectiles by imparting an opposite spin on the jet so that the two spins cancel out and result in a non-spinning jet. This is done either using fluted copper liners, which have raised ridges[1] or by manufacturing the liner in such a way that it has a crystalline structure which itself imparts a spin on the jet.

Quote

2) The copper jet that cuts through armour in a HEAT shell is indeed disrupted by spin. This was solved by the invention of a "slip ring". A ring of low friction polymer placed around the shell. The ring prevents the shell from engaging with the rifling (much) vastly reducing the spin. Even so, I can't think of any HEAT shells being used in modern rifled guns. The same ring is used to convert APFSDS ammo to rifled guns as too much spin destabilised a fin stabilised shell.

Recoiless rifles like the Carl Gustav use HEAT.

Leopard 1, M60, Merkava 1/2, Challenger I use rifled barrels + HEAT. Don't know if you consider them modern.

Edited by OniNoKirby, 06 May 2013 - 10:59 PM.


Blue_Badger #10 Posted 07 May 2013 - 01:21 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14731 battles
  • 2,440
  • [3VS27] 3VS27
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

View PostOniNoKirby, on 06 May 2013 - 10:53 PM, said:

If you know the angular velocity of the spin you can make the ammo shape the jet in an angular fashion so it evens out.

Quoting Wikipedia. In recent years it has become possible to use shaped charges in spin-stabilised projectiles by imparting an opposite spin on the jet so that the two spins cancel out and result in a non-spinning jet. This is done either using fluted copper liners, which have raised ridges[1] or by manufacturing the liner in such a way that it has a crystalline structure which itself imparts a spin on the jet.



Recoiless rifles like the Carl Gustav use HEAT.

Leopard 1, M60, Merkava 1/2, Challenger I use rifled barrels + HEAT. Don't know if you consider them modern.

I had heard that the French experimented with using ball bearings inside the shell to even out the spin. I can't remember much on it but I think it limited the size of the warhead or somesuch. I could be wrong.

I have to say I didn't know the Challenger 1 used HEAT. My original comment was sort aimed at weapons currently in use but your examples are modern. Personally I don't hold much faith in the use of HEAT as a gun launched method to kill tanks. The size of the warhead in a HEAT shell simply isn't large enough to counter the most modern armours IMO. Especially as most appear to be directed at defeating shaped charges first and foremost. Its also one of the reasons I think gun launched ATGMs haven't been adopted with much enthusiasm by most nations. Any tank against which you need such range you are unlikely to kill, again IMO.

SirCampAlotNor #11 Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:37 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 1289 battles
  • 236
  • Member since:
    02-20-2011
I would say that the HEAT weapond is still quite effective, given that it does not lose any potensy due to range. If it can penetrate the tank at 100 meters then it can do it at 3000 meters. But like you said, if the armour becomes /has become so good at defeating chemical rounds, then HEAT may lose its use atleast against new generations of tanks.
Ofc, detecting him/hitting him at 3000 meters is a whole other thing :p

Edited by SirCampAlotNor, 07 May 2013 - 09:39 AM.


Malleted11 #12 Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:45 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 13899 battles
  • 577
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View PostBlue_Badger, on 28 April 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:

I'll have a crack, but I'm not an expert by any means.

1) I would guess its all due to the size of the shell. The Russian tanks were extremely cramped and storing 1 piece ammo that large takes up space. Its also hard to handle inside the tank. Some Modern tanks use multi part ammo like the challenger. It takes longer to train the crews how to do it fast but handling numerous, smaller, weights causes less fatigue than 1 massive weight. It may also be due to the design of the gun not allowing 1 part ammo.

2) The copper jet that cuts through armour in a HEAT shell is indeed disrupted by spin. This was solved by the invention of a "slip ring". A ring of low friction polymer placed around the shell. The ring prevents the shell from engaging with the rifling (much) vastly reducing the spin. Even so, I can't think of any HEAT shells being used in modern rifled guns. The same ring is used to convert APFSDS ammo to rifled guns as too much spin destabilised a fin stabilised shell.

3) The penetration causes massive overpressure inside the tank due to the extreme speed of the dart. This alone will kill anyone inside the tank. Compressed air also heats up turning the inside of the tank into a furnace when compressed to the degrees we are talking about. There is also sharp fragments and spalling going too. Its also worth noting that DU penetrators have pyrophoric effects causing its dust (which is caused by penetrating the armour) to explode. In short anything that penetrates into an enclosed space a high speed will turn that space into a kill zone.

Hope this helps. Anything I've missed others will cover I'm sure  :blinky: . Good topic btw.

Furthermore, sudden pressure changes in tanks (overpressure) have a tendency to blow off the turret, (Jack in the Box) which seems to be quite common with russian made tanks & they like to burn alot! (Generally due to hitting the ammo)

If I remember, western made tanks have panels to try & negate this overpressure when their ammo has been hit.

FIN rounds are so powerful that they can split front plates in half & sometimes kill 2 tanks with 1 round.

Edited by Malleted11, 07 May 2013 - 12:09 PM.


LisbonYoloer #13 Posted 12 May 2013 - 05:24 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 29241 battles
  • 564
  • [POR-1] POR-1
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011

View PostAIM_120_AMRAAM, on 28 April 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

---
I gathered from a book about a British AH-64 Apache Pilot, which also use similar Munitions known as "Flechettes" for Anti-Personnel Applications to great effect, that because of the high speed of the dart-shaped projectiles you have a destructive and fatal effect even if those miss their target. I think I remember something about the air current of the projectiles being that devastative because of the extremely high speed.
---

I cannot give you much better answer than this: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=sMbVBH5kvaY just skip to the 2/3.

Very fatal to troops who do not have solid roof over their heads.

Mantelman #14 Posted 13 May 2013 - 07:20 AM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 9422 battles
  • 4,395
  • Member since:
    10-28-2010

View PostMalleted11, on 07 May 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

Furthermore, sudden pressure changes in tanks (overpressure) have a tendency to blow off the turret, (Jack in the Box) which seems to be quite common with russian made tanks & they like to burn alot! (Generally due to hitting the ammo)

The reason for the "head of" by sowjet/russian tanks is the auto-loader. All of the ammo is stored under the floor of the turret, so a hit in a shell blow him away. A hit in propelling charge doesnt blow up the turret, its "only" start a chain reaction with spectacular flames out of every hole in the tank.

Bob_Mackenzie #15 Posted 26 May 2013 - 08:10 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 23492 battles
  • 78
  • Member since:
    12-26-2012

Quote

I had heard that the French experimented with using ball bearings inside the shell to even out the spin. I can't remember much on it but I think it limited the size of the warhead or somesuch. I could be wrong.

105mm Obus G


Quote

One of the unique features of the AMX-30 was the Obus à Charge Creuse de 105 mm Modèle F1 (Obus G) HEAT projectile and its main gun,[37] the Modèle F1, a monoblock steel 105-millimeter (4.1 in) cannon.[42][43] HEAT warheads suffer when spin stabilized, a product of rifled barrels,[44] causing the French to develop the Obus G,[34] (Gresse).[15] This projectile was composed of two major parts, including the outer shell and a suspended inner shell, divided by ball bearings. This allowed the projectile to be spin-stabilized, and therefore more accurate than a normal fin-stabilized HEAT-round, while the inner shell did not move, allowing the warhead to work at maximum efficiency. The warhead, containing 780 gram hexolite,[45] could penetrate up to 400 millimeters (16 in) of steel armour and was effective against tanks at up to 3,000 meters (3,300 yd).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX-30

Blue_Badger #16 Posted 26 May 2013 - 09:01 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14731 battles
  • 2,440
  • [3VS27] 3VS27
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

View PostBob_Mackenzie, on 26 May 2013 - 08:10 PM, said:


Ah, cheers. That's the one.

Xlucine_NA #17 Posted 18 July 2013 - 01:18 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 51 battles
  • 168
  • Member since:
    07-18-2013

View PostAIM_120_AMRAAM, on 28 April 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

So yeah, basically I got some questions about various types of Ammunition used in WW II and later-on (Captain Obvious, duh!)



1. Why did the Russian 122mm guns have 2-piece Ammunition? I only know seperated shells and shell propellants from high-caliber artillery pieces starting in the 152mm range? For example, it seems logical to me, that the 152mm SU/ISU-152 gun was using 2-piece Ammunition because of the weight and size of the shell to enable the Crew to handle it.

While I know that the comparison is off because of the large time difference, a shell I saw and handled in the Tank Museum in Munster (Leopard 2 APDSFS 120mm Shell I believe) weighted slightly less than 20 Kg. I always thought that 2-piece Ammunition was used because of the shell weight with increasing caliber (modern Panzerhaubitze 155mm HE-Shell weighs in at around 80 Kg for the whole cartridge).

Wouldn't it make more sense to use "complete" cartridges in the 122mm gun in order to increase its Rate of Fire? Didn't Soviet Tanks provide enough space to store the cartridges in one piece in the tank?

The 122mm fired AP, which is much heavier than APFSDS. It also had a cartridge case, which was much heavier than the combustible case of the modern 120mm. IIRC the projectile alone weighed 25kg and the case about the same, so there's no way a loader will manage to lift both at once.

View PostAIM_120_AMRAAM, on 28 April 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

I gathered from a book about a British AH-64 Apache Pilot, which also use similar Munitions known as "Flechettes" for Anti-Personnel Applications to great effect, that because of the high speed of the dart-shaped projectiles you have a destructive and fatal effect even if those miss their target. I think I remember something about the air current of the projectiles being that devastative because of the extremely high speed.

That is a urban legend, air just isn't dense enough to do that.

View PostBlue_Badger, on 28 April 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:

3) The penetration causes massive overpressure inside the tank due to the extreme speed of the dart. This alone will kill anyone inside the tank. Compressed air also heats up turning the inside of the tank into a furnace when compressed to the degrees we are talking about. There is also sharp fragments and spalling going too. Its also worth noting that DU penetrators have pyrophoric effects causing its dust (which is caused by penetrating the armour) to explode. In short anything that penetrates into an enclosed space a high speed will turn that space into a kill zone.

No, the overpressure has very little effect on the behind armour destruction. The only things that do any damage are the fast moving bits of armour and penetrator that make it into the fighting compartment (and DU only burns, it doesn't explode)

View PostOniNoKirby, on 06 May 2013 - 10:53 PM, said:

Leopard 1, M60, Merkava 1/2, Challenger I use rifled barrels + HEAT. Don't know if you consider them modern.

Heat was never accepted by the british for the L11. Only HEP FIN and WP

View PostAIM_120_AMRAAM, on 28 April 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

And concerning the Spalling: I remember to have read somewhere that a common countermeasure against HESH-Shells, which rely on that effect, is to coat the armour from the inward side with Kevlar or a similarly durable material which is supposed to prevent splinters from entering the fighting compartment.
Does the APFSDS-Dart generate so many or so fast splinters that they can even pierce that "Anti-Spalling" Coating?

Spall liners are only effective in reducing the spall, not stopping it entirely - generally it will reduce the spread of fragments so only things in the line of fire get damaged. Big fast moving bits will still get through

TrackAttackerDK #18 Posted 18 July 2013 - 03:51 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 17635 battles
  • 43
  • Member since:
    01-23-2013
It should also be noted that the Germans used two-part ammunition for the 12,8 cm Pak 80. The 12,8 cm Pzgr. 43 shot alone weighed 28.3 kg.

Blue_Badger #19 Posted 18 July 2013 - 07:15 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14731 battles
  • 2,440
  • [3VS27] 3VS27
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

View PostXlucine_NA, on 18 July 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

No, the overpressure has very little effect on the behind armour destruction. The only things that do any damage are the fast moving bits of armour and penetrator that make it into the fighting compartment (and DU only burns, it doesn't explode)

Recheck your definition of "explode". It is highly appropriate when used in this context. And the effects of overpressure caused by a projectile introduced to an enclosed space are well documented. It depends upon the speed of said projectile after penetration. If the concussive force is great enough it will kill.

Xlucine_NA #20 Posted 19 July 2013 - 12:28 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 51 battles
  • 168
  • Member since:
    07-18-2013

View PostBlue_Badger, on 18 July 2013 - 07:15 PM, said:

Recheck your definition of "explode". It is highly appropriate when used in this context.

You won't see turrets popped off from the pyrophoric effect, it'll only make it more likely to set ammo on fire. It falls far short of the mental image of an explosion.

View PostBlue_Badger, on 18 July 2013 - 07:15 PM, said:

And the effects of overpressure caused by a projectile introduced to an enclosed space are well documented. It depends upon the speed of said projectile after penetration. If the concussive force is great enough it will kill.

If overpressure is significant then a bradley struck by a APFSDS from an abrams ought to be a really nasty place - with only thin armour the projectile will still be travelling very fast when it enters the fighting compartment, so it'll have the best possible chance to cause dangerous overpressure. This is shown by friendly fire incidents from the gulf war:

http://www.gulflink..../du_ii_tabh.htm
Spoiler                     

Or maybe not. These accounts are full of bradleys taking FIN projectiles straight through the fighting compartment with the only casualties in the direct line of the projectile. Those soldiers not in the line of fire are generally fine, and most of the time are able to get out the vehicle on their own and provide first aid to the wounded. This is not the actions of someone exposed to "massive overpressure" with the inside of the tank turned "into a furnace".

As further evidence, the tip of the jet from a HEAT projectile will typically be moving around 10km/s (far faster than any FIN round), yet even pyrophoric liners did not cause damage through overpressure in these tests: http://www.dtic.mil/.../u2/a474293.pdf




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users