Armor and Projectile Abbreviations

[rexford]

This post is from another thread but is used with a new topic to bring it to the attention of more folks.

AP is an armor piercing round that is shaped for penetration effectiveness but has a poor shape in terms of air resistance. AP is good against medium hardness homogeneous armor (same hardness all the way through the plate thickness), but loses velocity and penetration somewhat quickly with range.

AP stinks against face-hardened armor, where a thin surface layer is much harder than the steel projectile nose. Face-hardened armor tends to damage the nose of AP rounds, significantly decreasing the penetration capability.

APBC is a blunt nose Russian round that penetrates more face-hardened armor than homogeneous at 76.2mm diameter. The APBC is somewhat soft but it has very good impact resistance or toughness. The ballistic windscreen cap on APBC cuts air resistance very nicely.

So 76.2mm APBC penetrates face-hardened armor very well by suddenly unloading a tremendous impact on the hard surface layer, and APBC penetrates homogeneous plate by tearing the armor around the outside of the impact area. I've seen pictures of blunt nose ammo penetrating homogeneous plate and it really does tear the armor and pushes a plug of steel out through the plate.

Is 76.2mm APBC a really good idea?

A T34 firing 76.2mm APBC at 662 m/s can penetrate about 72mm of homogeneous armor and 76mm of face-hardened armor at 500m.

A Sherman firing 75mm APCBC at 619 m/s can penetrate 81mm homogeneous and 95mm face-hardened at 500m. APCBC is an armor piercing round with a ballistic windscreen to cut air resistance and an armor piercing cap which absorbs the large impact when rounds hit the hard face-hardened layer.

The Sherman round, fired at a lower velocity, is better in many ways.

Armor piercing caps are a solid layer of steel that overlays the projectile nose and spreads the impact over a bigger area, and the caps even have an air space over the projectile nose to further protect that sensitive spot.

One of the big advantages of APBC over AP is that the flat nose tends to dig into homogeneous armor when it is sloped, which counters the ricochet effect. So APBC is very good against sloped plate.

122mm AP penetrated the Panther glacis at 700m during initial combats, 122mm APBC would penetrate at 1500m due to the flat nose surface and the windscreen that reduces velocity/penetration loss with distance.

APBC does not have a total flat nose, the area that is flat ranges from 20% of total diameter on 122mm APBC to 40% on 76.2mm APBC. American tests with flat noses that made up about 80% or more of the diameter showed that those rounds tended to break up against armor thicknesses greater than the projectile diameter.

[Soddball]

Rexford, I'd like to post this information in the FAQ thread. Is that OK?

Would you also consider doing a bit of info (just a line or two) on the other ammo types for me to include?

[rexford]

Okay to post anywhere. Good idea.

Additional definitions follow:

APCR or HVAP

Armor Piercing Composite Rigid and Hyper-Velocity Armor Piercing ammo.

There are limits on penetration capability of steel projectiles, the noses shatter at high velocity and they weight too much to accelerate to very high velocity.

Tungsten is dense and hard, doesn't shatter on really high velocity hits against vertical armor and a small core can be contained in a light weight full diameter carrier that has little overall weight.

Problem is that light weight and full diameter leads to higher than normal velocity loss with range. Tungsten rounds also tend to break easily against sloped armor (high hardness comes with low impact resistance), leading to high slope effects.

76mm APCBC hitting 80mm at 55 degrees is resisted by 202mm vertical equivalent, 76mm and 90mm HVAP hitting same armor is resisted by 276mm vertical. Since 76mm HVAP penetrated 208mm at 500m, Panther glacis would be a very difficult target and American 76mm gun with HVAP was definitely not the answer against Panther.

Against vertical armor 76mm and 90mm HVAP penetrate 239mm and 306mm at 100m, so rounds are definitely more effective against armor at low slope.

Germans and Russians used arrowhead APCR, which had poor aerodynamic shape although cut-out area behind nose saved weight. Germans replaced early arrowhead shape with more conventional and aerodynamic design, Russians stuck with arrowhead which was copied from Germans.

"Russians placed a mercury compound in their APCR rounds, which held core to carrier and the compound was vaporized by frictional forces when core penetrated target. Result was a toxic gas released inside the penetrated vehicle, which could sicken and kill crew members (after gas settled vehicle could be re-entered)." Preceding discussion paraphrased from the following reference for 45mm APCR characteristics: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Base/1852/57mm.html#24

Tungsten core diameter is about half gun diameter for U.S. and British rounds, Russian 76.2mm and 85mm cores are just under 28mm width.

APDS

The somewhat poor aerodynamics of HVAP and APCR can be improved by having the carrier of the core fall away after it leaves the barrel. APDS stands for Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot.

British APDS, both 6 and 17 pounder types, often had irregular flight path and unstable trajectory, causing wild errors at all ranges and cases where rounds would bounce off armor they should have easily defeated. Possible cause may have been uneven shedding of the carrier on one side.

British tests with 17 pounder APDS showed that it could penetrate Panther glacis at 700 yards when it worked properly. Americans were given 6 pdr APDS rounds which were used with 57mm anti-tank guns, results varied from most effective at hitting and penetrating to couldn't hit a target very much during penetration tests.

Squeezebore

German 28/20 gun is an example of the Gerlich or squeezebore concept. Tungsten ammo placed in gun is 28mm wide and is squeezed down as it travels barrel to 20mm. Result is a very high velocity round which is small, light and loses velocity relatively quickly.

[ April 30, 2003, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: rexford ]

[rexford]

Spaced Armor

Germans used spaced armor on PzKpfw III, where 50mm main armor on turret and driver plate had a 20mm spaced plate mounted.

The spacing was designed to defeat hits by:

1. detonate HE burster in projectile after penetration of 20mm plate, where face-hardening on 50mm plate would survive fragments

2. dull uncapped AP rounds on 20mm plate which would reduce penetration against face-hardened 50mm

3. remove armor piercing cap from APC and APCBC hits, reducing face-hardened penetration

4. cause rounds to fracture on angled hits as they were suddenly jerked penetrating 20mm plate

There may also be some advantages against HEAT rounds. As an aside, HEAT penetration is decreased when the Brinell Hardness of the plate is higher than 240.

Russian tests with 122mm ammo showed that 20mm spaced plate and 50mm main armor defeated hits by exploding the round between the plates. British tests with 75mm APCBC showed same result, which lead them to remove HE bursters from round and replace filler with inert material.

The down side of spaced plate? The 20mm plate was either 350 or 400 Brinell Hardness, very brittle, and could not take many hits without serious cracking and eventual destruction.

A tanker who fought in Africa pointed out to me that many pictures of PzKpfw III that came with spaced armor are missing either the turret or hull spaced plate, or both.

[ParaBellum]

Excellent post rexford, much appreciated!

Just saved it to my HD for future reference.

[Herr Oberst]

Rexford, you keep giving away the milk, and no-one will buy the cow... er, book.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by rexford:

AP stinks

Did rexford just get colloquial on our asses? :eek: :eek:

[rexford]

Homogeneous Armor

Homogeneous armor is designed for the same hardness all the way through the thickness, but can be medium or high hardness. ABout 375 Brinell Hardness is often used as the boundary between machineable quality armor (machined with normal tools) and the high hardness stuff.

PzKpfw II and T34 used high hardness armor that exceeded 400 Brinell Hardness, and the armor performed well when the projectile diameter was smaller than the armor thickness. American tests with U.S. and Russian armor plate showed that when

projectiles were wider than the armor was thick, the high hardness stuff was less resistant than medium hardness armor.

If T34 glacis were good quality medium hardness RHA (rolled homogeneous armor), 75L43 would be limited to a 500m penetration range. Reports in Jentz' Panzertruppen books indicate a 1000m max penetration range for 75L43 against T34 in one case, and a 1600m max range in another combat where hits at 1200m penetrated regardless of impact angle.

Russian tests with 75L43 showed penetrations of T34 glacis at 1000m and 30 degrees side angle, which is consistent with a 24% decrease in resistance relative to medium hardness rolled plate.

Cast armor is homogeneous armor but is not rolled, which weakens the structure relative to rolled armor. A 2" casting hit by 75mm APCBC is 13% less resistant than 2" of rolled armor, and a 4" casting would be 5% less resistant, so the armor thickness/projectile diameter ratio is coming into play again.

When two medium hardness homogeneous armor plates are placed in contact, such as the Sherman jumbo, the resistance is less than a single plate with the same overall thickness. This result is due to the fact that the resistance of homogeneous plates is less at the surface, where the material isn't constrained from movement as much as the interior (the projectile has an easier time pushing surface material out of the way). When two plates are against each other there's twice the surface area of a single plate.

[ May 01, 2003, 06:47 AM: Message edited by: rexford ]

[flamingknives]

If you'll excuse my sticking an oar in, I'd like to make a few comments on AP rounds, as I understand it.

AP rounds basically shear through the armour plate and as such can be regarded as a machine tool punch in terms of mathematical modelling.

The force required to punch through a sheet is proportional to the diameter of the tool so a thinner tool, making a smaller hole, requires less force (which translates easily into energy) to penetrate a particular sheet than a wider one.

This works well enough for flat ended tools.

The point on the projectile also has an effect on armour penetration as it acts like a wedge to force the armour apart, the sharper the better. (more acute point angle) The problem here is that a long, thin point is more prone to shatter, forcing the projectile to act as a flat ended punch which reduces its efficiency. In a similar vein, face hardened armour is designed to shatter the point of an incoming projectile, reducing its AP performance.

The basic AP projectile has to have a point sufficient to retain its integrity on impact, which would explain why it is fairly blunt.

Capping a projectile (APC) provides a soft metal cap that supports the point on impact but sloughs away easily once the point has 'bitten' into the armour plate. This allows the core of the projectile to be sharper, hence giving a better AP performance. The down side of this is that the front of the shell has to be much blunter (almost flat) to provide support to the point from the first impact. Obviously this is lousy for Aerodynamics so we see...

... Ballistic Cap being added to the existing composite shell. (APCBC) The ballistic cap is a lightweight aerodynamic nose cone, designed to reduce frictional losses in flight. On impact, this shatters or otherwise goes away, so as not to impede the function of the APC main body of the projectile.

As far as I can work it out, APBC is a particularly blunt-nosed AP projectile with an aerodynamic cap. The bluntness would provide a better supported point when used against FH armour.

Feel free to correct anything you feel is horreendously wrong, I'm just trying to put reasons behind shell design.

[Meach]

Fantastic posts, Guys. This is exactly the kind of info I was needing to help me understand all the technical aspects and physics of tank warfare.

[rexford]

FACE HARDENED ARMOR

Face-hardened armor is abbreviated FHA.

The theory as I understand it is that the very hard surface layer, which can vary from 450 to 600 Brinell Hardness on German tanks, causes the nose of uncapped AP to break. The softer plate material behind the face-hardened layer absorbs the energy in the fragments.

The existence of the softer ductile material behind the face-hardened layer prevents the kind of situation that exists when a 450 Brinell plate on a T34 (45mm thick) is hit by a 75mm round and loses 24% of its resistance. The combination of a hard thin surface layer and a softer backing assure that 50mm of face-hardened armor resists 45mm and 75mm hits like 50mm of face-hardened armor.

Face-hardened armor is best against small rounds, and becomes less effective as the AP diameter increases. 2 pdr AP penetrates 62mm face-hardened and 82mm homogeneous at 100m, for a 1.32 ratio (homogeneous/face-hardened penetration).

17 pdr AP penetrates 200mm homogeneous and 164mm face-hardened at 100m, for a 1.22 ratio.

U.S. Cal .30 M2 AP bullets penetrates 19.8mm homogeneous and 12.2mm face-hardened at 0m, for 1 1.63 ratio.

I read somewhere that the Germans face-hardened their anti-tank gun shields while the British did not, which resulted in greater effectiveness for German tank machine guns when they confronted ATG.

German U-Boats may have used face-hardened conning towers to better resist 20mm cannor fire.

Using face-hardened armor on German tanks made alot of sense in Afrika until the Allies starting placing armor piercing caps on the ammo.

A Sherman firing 75mm M72 solid shot AP can penetrate 93mm homogeneous and 75mm face-hardened at 500m, while the same gun shooting APCBC-HE penetrates 81mm homogeneous and 95mm face-hardened.

The armor piercing cap protects the projectile nose from the face-hardened layer and improves performance against that armor, but also reduces homogeneous penetration.

One of the raging controversies concerns the effective resistance of layered face-hardened armor. British tests in Africa resulted in penetration ranges that are associated with 69mm single plate resistance when a 32mm face-hard plate is bolted to 30mm face-hard on Pzkpfw IIIH front hulls.

The angle of the tests is not given, could be 0 degrees side angle or could be 30 degrees. If the angle was 30 degrees from firer to hull facing, than the 32mm/30mm FHA combo would be equivalent to a single FHA plate of 57mm thickness. Which would suggest that layered FHA plates resist with less than their total combined thickness.

German statements regarding layered FHA armor indicate that two FHA plates in contact offer less resistance than a single FHA plate of same overall thickness, which supports the 57mm result and a 30 degree side angle during the tests.

This would impact the resistance of the PzKpfw IVG with 30mm/50mm layered FHA armor on the front hull, and suggest that the 30mm/50mm combo was equivalent to about 76mm single FHA plate resistance.

The German use of bolted on 32mm FHA plates atop 30mm FHA created a maintenance problem, as angled hits would bend and shear the bolts. Welding was used but required considerable set-up care.

German use of face-hardened armor may have continued after the Allies started to use armor piercing caps because the Russians did not use that sort of cap during the war. This could have convinced the Germans that face-hardening was worth the extra effort and must have increased the armor resistance to Russian rounds compared to homogeneous armor plate.

Calculations for 45mm AP and APBC indicate that face-hardened armor would decrease the penetration range that applied to homogeneous armor, although 76.2mm APBC would penetrate more face-hardened armor at all ranges. Panther D and early Panther A had face-hardened side hull armor, which offered some protection against 45mm hits but made the tank more vulnerable to side hits by 76.2mm field guns and T34 tanks.

One interesting fact that suggests that the Germans did not appreciate the performance of Russian ammo is the way Russian penetration figures were used in German calculations.

The Germans used Russian penetration figures, which are against face-hardened armor, to compute penetration ranges against panzers with homogeneous armor. In the case of 122mm AP, the 166mm face-hardened penetration figure at 0m resulted in the conclusion that IS-2 tanks could not penetrate the glacis of Panther A and G at point blank range.

The problem is that the 166mm penetration figure for IS-2 AP is related to 80% success, and converts to 175mm at 50% success. And the homogeneous penetration of 122mm AP would be much greater than the face-hardened figure, where we estimate that 122mm AP could penetrate 201mm of homogeneous armor at point blank.

A similar calculation was made for SU 100 AP would have underestimate the ammo performance against Panther tanks.

On the battlefield, IS-2 tanks penetrated the Panther glacis at 700m.

Miles Krogfus' article in the May-Aug. issue of aFV News allows one to compute Russian penetration against face-hardened armor at 80% success, and multiplying the result by 1.06 converts to 50% success (half the hits completely pierce the armor).

Face-hardened armor was used on front of PzKpfw III, PzKpfw IVF1 through IVJ, StuG III, Panther D (glacis and nose, hull side) and early Panther A (nose and hull side). Face-hardening of PzKpfw IV armor ended June 1944.

[ May 01, 2003, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: rexford ]

[rexford]

Flamingknives made some very good points regarding armor penetration.

The DeMarre equation relates penetration to the weight, diameter and velocity of rounds in the following manner:

velocity raised to 1.43 power times

diameter raised to 1.07143 power time

(weight/diameter cubed) raised to 0.7143 power times a constant

If 40mm solid AP and 75mm solid AP rounds hit and penetrate an 80mm vertical plate on half the hits, and the weight/diameter cubed ratio is the same for both AP, the 75mm round will penetrate at about half of the velocity needed for 40mm AP to succeed.

In terms of energy needed to penetrate the 80mm plate, 40mm AP would require 36% less impact energy than 75mm AP (75mm succeeds at about half the striking velocity of 40mm but weighs almost six times more).

75mm M72 AP penetrates 114mm homogeneous at 2030 fps (619 m/s), 40mm 2 pdr AP penetrates 87mm at 2600 fps (792 m/s).

Projectile size counts alot when it comes to penetrating a given thickness of armor, but smaller rounds are better at transferring energy into effectiveness.

[ May 01, 2003, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: rexford ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by rexford:

[snips]

Additional definitions follow:

[snips]

Squeezebore

We may as well compete the collection of alphabet soup and add the designation APCNR (Armour Piercing Composite non-Rigid) for the Gerlich and Littlejohn squeezebore rounds.

Has HEAT been listed yet? We might also add HESH and APFSDS just for completeness, although no rounds of either type saw service during WW2.

All the best,

John.

[Kiff01]

The following is a bit off topic. I am a regular lurker at the AFV News Forum and have noted a great deal of skepticism there regarding Lorrin Birds (aka Rexford) research methodologies. The following URL is one such example:

http://www.activevr.com/afv/cgi_bin/web-bbs/webbbs_config.pl?read=38632

[KanaljeFätter]

hmm hasn't HEAT been left out? I'm no grog but HEAT is important to this day, so here goes (correct, clarify and expound etc. if need be): High Explosive Anti Tank shells contain a shaped charge that focus a beam of superheated plasma onto the armor plate, melting through. HEAT penetrations are total show-stoppers for AFVs and their crews. (I know I wouldn't like being sprayed with plasma ). HEAT can have (some) trouble with FHA and skirts; skirts trigger the plasma ray which depends on tight focus to melt through, and it will lose focus in the gap between skirt and armor. The experimental reactive armor has no effect on HEAT however, and importantly, NEITHER DOES sloping (except for increasing the depth to penetration). HEAT is used in many modern infantry AT weapons, and in modern AFV shells (alongside a host of others like Sabot and APDU)

[KanaljeFätter]

We might also add HESH and APFSDS just for completeness, although no rounds of either type saw service during WW2.

heh, what about APDU? don't think they had that in WW2 lol

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by KanaljeFätter:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> We might also add HESH and APFSDS just for completeness, although no rounds of either type saw service during WW2.

heh, what about APDU? don't think they had that in WW2 lol </font>

[KanaljeFätter]

APDU = Armor Piercing Depleted Uranium

It was used by the Americans during Desert Storm... Uranium is extremely heavy, carrying a lot of kinetic energy with less loss to friction, and is soft so it 'melts' through almost like HEAT. Plus you can experience poisoning effects from uranium dust on penetration (though it won't kill like, say, plutonium dust would).

[rexford]

Originally posted by Kiff01:

The following is a bit off topic. I am a regular lurker at the AFV News Forum and have noted a great deal of skepticism there regarding Lorrin Birds (aka Rexford) research methodologies. The following URL is one such example:

http://www.activevr.com/afv/cgi_bin/web-bbs/webbbs_config.pl?read=38632

Good post that is on topic. If my research ability, methods and emotional stability is questioned on another forum it is good to bring it out into the open on CMBB, given the amount of my work that has found its way into CMBB.

Please see my response to Erickson's posts on the AFV News site.

I have some theories regarding why my stuff is attacked so much, but that is something that shouldn't be aired in public.

Thanks for bringing the AFV News discussion to my attention and to other readers on this forum.

[ May 03, 2003, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: rexford ]

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by KanaljeFätter:

[QB] APDU = Armor Piercing Depleted Uranium

It was used by the Americans during Desert Storm.

The correct designation is ArmorPiercing Fin Stabilized Discardiing Sabot with an Depleted Uranium core. More commonly refered to as APFSDS-DU. Ie, the US APFSDS-DU round used during the 1st Gulf conflict was M829A1 APFSDS-DU round.

Regards, John Waters

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by Kiff01:

The following is a bit off topic. I am a regular lurker at the AFV News Forum and have noted a great deal of skepticism there regarding Lorrin Birds (aka Rexford) research methodologies. The following URL is one such example:

Sigh, Kiffo1 I realy think it was pointless to bring this up here. I wont comment on Carey's personel reasons for his posts etc.

What I will comment on is remeber Lorrin research was not done alone his co/author is very well respected, in his own right one Robert Livingston.

Basicly ppl have to realise how minute the research & even intrest is in WW2 ammunition penetration performance is, a small group of us have been researching this for years, I first corosponded with Robert IIRC over 10 years ago, and it was thru he & Jim I first learned of Lorrin's research.

Lorrin & Robert Researched the tech side of penetration, they understand the mathmatical formula mechanichs, much better then I. They have given this small community a ground breaking work IMHO, with their WW II BALLISTICS.

Does this mean ppl are going to universily accept this work as gospel, nope hell Lorrin & I disagree regurly . Is it going to attract it's share of critics ayup, you can see this on this board. Is it a 100% accurate I doubt it, is it as accurate as it could be with the given ammount of data at the time I belive so.

As new data is being found all the time Ie, Miles Krofgus's Demarre & ARTKOM article is fantastic as it finaly sheds light on actual Soviet test plate, calculation of penetration formula etc, that we could only guess at previously. I do know Lorrin is adding new data all the time to his & Robert's book.

Then we have Charles here he is no slouch concerning WW2 penetraion himself, & I highly doubt Charles would incorperate Lorrin & Roberts work into CMBO/CMBB if he had not studied it & agreed wit it. I can say this about Lorrin when he has been proven wrong he has been thre 1st to admit it as well, that speaks words about his integrety in my book.......

Regaqrds, John Waters

[flamingknives]

Posted by: KanaljeFätter

hmm hasn't HEAT been left out? I'm no grog but HEAT is important to this day, so here goes (correct, clarify and expound etc. if need be): High Explosive Anti Tank shells contain a shaped charge that focus a beam of superheated plasma onto the armor plate, melting through. HEAT penetrations are total show-stoppers for AFVs and their crews. (I know I wouldn't like being sprayed with plasma ). HEAT can have (some) trouble with FHA and skirts; skirts trigger the plasma ray which depends on tight focus to melt through, and it will lose focus in the gap between skirt and armor. The experimental reactive armor has no effect on HEAT however, and importantly, NEITHER DOES sloping (except for increasing the depth to penetration). HEAT is used in many modern infantry AT weapons, and in modern AFV shells (alongside a host of others like Sabot and APDU)

A few points here aren't entirely correct, but the basics seem sound.

I'm now going to nitpick

* HEAT penetrations are not the catastrophic events implied, unless the shell is really big. Reports from Sherman crews in Normandy indicated that hits from panzerfausts/panzershrecks only caused serious damage if the plasma jet hit something such as a crew member, ammunition, fuel or engine component. Some crews didn't realise they'd recieved a penetrating hit until later. The reason for this is that the plasma jet, and the amount of material that is forced into the interior is quite small. Modern HEAT warheads are lined with copper, I assume to increase the amount of material going through the hole.

* Reactive armour - I assume Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) - Is a recent (1970s-1980s) development that is primarily effective against HEAT rounds. It consists of small explosive charges that are set off by the plasma jet. The resultant explosion disrupts the jet, greatly reducing effective penetration. More recent HEAT rounds and missiles include tandam warheads. The first detonates the armour, allowing the second to hit 'bare' armour. The Soviet 'Kontakt 5' ERA is reportedly effective against Kinetic energy rounds (as opposed to chemical energy for HEAT).

The plasma jet can also be degraded by the shell spinning (as from a rifled gun) or by certain ceramics.

* HEAT warheads also need a 'stand-off' distance to allow the plasma jet to develop, which is why many modern HEAT projectiles have a probe on the front. Depending on the distance from the hull and the type of warhead, skirts such as those found on WWII German tanks would actually increase the effectiveness of a HEAT round.

And for some non-specific nitpicking.

Depleted Uranium (DU) is in fact very hard, and exceedingly dense (I forget the exact figures, but in the region of twice as dense as lead). This means that you can have the energy of a wide shell carried by a thin one. DU also has an unpleasant incendiary effect - as it passes through sufficiently substantiual armour, it pulverises and the heat generated by the work done to defeat the armour ignites this. Whoomph!

HESH - High Explosive Squash Head. Does not actually penetrate the armour, but is a soft HE shell that 'cowpats' on the armour of the target before detonating. The resultant shockwaves cause severe spalling inside the target. Thje Modern British HE shell of choice as its performance is not degraded by rifling spin.

APFSDS - Armour Piercing, Fin Stabilised, Discarding Sabot. The core penetrator can be a variety of materials, including Tungsten, DU and Maranging Steel (Don't ask me, I've no idea what this actually is). Performance of this sort of projectile is degraded by spin, so the fin stabilised version is designed not to spin (and is stabilised by the fins. Fancy.)

DU is the leftovers from the enriching process to gain fissile material for nuclear reactors. Naturally occuring Uraniam is a mixture of two isotopes, U-235 and U-238. One of these (235, I think) is fissile, whereas the other (which would be 238, if I'm right ) is comparitively inert. The enriching process removes the fissile material and leaves the rest, which is the inert isotope. This isotope is hardly radioactive, so in projectile form is harmless. Once pulverised, however, it is possible to ingest it, allowing any radiation to directly affect live tissue (radiation comes in three flavours, Alpha, Beta and Gamma. Gamma is electromagnetic, like light and X-rays, and will probably go straight through, causing no ill effects. Beta is a single electron, which is a more powerful ioniser, and may cause some damage. Alpha is by far the most powerful ioniser and as such is most likely to do cellular damage, such as start a cancer. It usually isn't a problem as it can be stopped by a sheet of paper. Clothes and skin protect us from external Alpha sources)

I'm done. Hope you enjoyed the random brain splurge.

[Kiff01]

Hello PzKpfw 1:

I'm not sure who you are referring to by ?Carey? although I have seen posts by R. Livingston. The link I posted was from a Zos. I must admit that I have seen numerous postings by members of the AFV Forum that seem less than kindly toward Lorrin's or Rexford's work. The chief complaint seems to be Lorrin's unwillingness to produce references when asked.

Hello Rexford:

Why do you suppose many of your postings on AFV News as well as other armour and tank forums generates this sort of criticism?

Cheers

[KanaljeFätter]

Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

More commonly refered to as APFSDS-DU

Depends on where and by who.. My experience in this is from my time in the Danish army(which has a tendency to 'make up' its own terms because of our dumb tankers ), and we do not use depleted uranium, and thats probably why its excluded from our use of the general term 'sabot'. And APDU is shorter too , and field manuals are crammed bad enough as is. But APFSDS-DU is the accepted international term I guess..

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by Kiff01:

Hello PzKpfw 1:

I'm not sure who you are referring to by ?Carey? although I have seen posts by R. Livingston. The link I posted was from a Zos.

Cheers

The post was from Zos but it was actualy linked to an original post by C.G.Erickson (Carey). I was present on Tanker's during those "discussions" Ie, Flawed Panther glacis etc.

Regards, John Waters