Scorpion Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 I am trying to find information on how a dense material such as sand will be much less effective in stopping a panzerfaust round than spaced armor, and might actually be effective in assisting the round through focusing more energy into the main armor. I would prefer a primary source rather than an explanation. Can anyone assist? I know this might be more appropriate in the CMBB forum, but I thought I would ask. Cheers, -Scorp 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarkus Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Although there are people on this board who I suspect would be fully capable of explaining both the data, the theory, AND the tactical deployement of the Panzerfaust, or the shape charge concept for that matter, Here is an interesting stater that you may already know about... HTH Best. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorpion Posted October 8, 2004 Author Share Posted October 8, 2004 Thanks, I have read that site. I am familiar with Herr Hoffbauer's work, and it is quite impressive. However, I have pulled up an old thread here (which I can't find at the moment) which indicated a general agreement that the way in which shaped charge weapons worked was affected by dense material between the standoff point of activation and the target armor in such a way that it could actually increase the penetration of said armor. I am VERY interested in learning more about this, and M. Hoffbauer's site seems to indicate the opposite. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 You need to head over either to the CMBB forum to catch lorrin/rexford or to tank-net.org. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirReal Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Disclaimer: I'm not a grog, this is from memory, orignially from a swedish army book on shaped charges. The jet will disperse in air. Liquids (for example diesel fuel) will interfere with the jet stream, "falling into" the jet stream breaking it up. Ceramics does the same, interfering with the stream (thus layered armor, Chobham etc). Ceramics are of course very hard, so they're good for blunting KE projectiles as well, but that's another story and post WW2... Being surrounded by homogenous steel is just what the stream needs to keep it's focus and keep on burning a hole in a straight line. /SirReal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorpion Posted October 8, 2004 Author Share Posted October 8, 2004 Will do, thanks! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Questions like this will have answers depending on the individual warhead. How exactly HEAT reacts to different standoff distances and different material is highly depended on warhead details. This is why you need to head over to forums where people have access to data from actual firing trials. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorpion Posted October 11, 2004 Author Share Posted October 11, 2004 Thanks, I was most interested in the Panzerfaust. I asked over at tank-net.org with no response, if that is what you mean. Did you mean another site? Thanks, -Scorp 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 Like I told you, if you used a crappy headline like in the CMBB forum it's no wonder. You need to do something fancy like "Sand compared to air as a standoff against HEAT?" and not just "panzerfaust". Or try "Marines suck, but does sand as a standoff for HEAT suck, too?". That'll do the responses trick. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.