Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Bronezhilet

Forum Nobility
  • Content count

    2,701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

Bronezhilet last won the day on August 8

Bronezhilet had the most liked content!

About Bronezhilet

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

540 profile views
  1. General AFV Thread

    Most likely a precaution. In the spoiler there's a Cent with snorkels while driving on ice.
  2. Syrian conflict.

  3. Tanks guns and ammunition.

    I'm a mechanical engineer. At the moment weapons research is a hobby, but I am trying to make it my job. Sadly we don't really have a proper weapons industry. Oh, and we have horrid weapons laws, so I can't actually make/test anything.
  4. Tanks guns and ammunition.

    Posting this here to not contaminate the PLA thread any further: If you truly worry about my degree of expertise, maybe you shouldn't cite me on your blog.
  5. Tanks guns and ammunition.

    Unfortunately, Manfred Held passed away in 2011. Asking him is going to be a little tricky. Or are you perchance trying to tell me to kill myself?
  6. Tanks guns and ammunition.

    What are you trying to say here? In a previous post you said that the equation 34 will give a ratio. It will not. Just take a look at equation 26 too. If you check the units used in the formula, PR has a distance unit: You can do the same for equation 34 with the same result. And actually, yes, we do want to know Ptot since that predicts the total penetration of the HEAT jet in the target. The standard penetration of the HEAT jet is called Pnom in this paper: Shit, they even give the equation to calculate the efficiency of ERA: If Ptot is the penetration of the HEAT jet, and Pnom is also the penetration of the HEAT jet, that means that ERA has an efficiency of 0. Of course, the 10-15% is from a test with a different type of ERA. You're misreading Held here. Lemme quote him again so we don't have to switch between pages to read it: Simply put, a HEAT jet with a standard penetration of 800mm had its penetration reduced by 560 mm, so its actual penetration was 240 mm. The expected reduction from the dynamic plate thickness was ~270 mm. Now, I might be bad at maths at times, but 270 mm is still around 48% of 560 mm. So the dynamic plate thickness counts for 48% of the actual loss in penetration. How is that minor? So first you take an unsourced picture at face value, and then you repost it trying to strengthen your argument? Nice meme. I didn't even use it in an argument there, I posted it because it was interesting. If sourcing interesting stuff/pictures is a requirement now... well, lets just say Loooser has a fuckton of work to do. Also Well fuck me sideways, I'm not allowed to reply when someone talks about me in a public forum? What did you expect by trying to play a blame game with an admin on a public forum? But... we had already established that HEAT doesn't really give a shit about a simple plate? In the following photo the jet of a 56mm shaped charge is still smooth and intact even after penetrating two 3 mm thick steel plates: (Yes, I know this is a NERA array, but non-angled NERA might as well be a simple plate) It's from here by the way: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/prep.201200172/full At hydrodynamic velocities the strength of both the penetrator and armour may be considered to be zero (https://www.amazon.com/Armour-Materials-Paul-J-Hazell/dp/1482238292), which means that it's literally impossible for the jet to "splash".
  7. Tanks guns and ammunition.

    How are you supposed to designate target penetration as a ratio? Since the equation contains Ptot', which has a unit, multiplied by a ratio the answer most definitely has a unit too. I love how you quote Held saying "But the dynamic thickness is only one of the reduction factors of ERA sandwiches." but you explain that as "it is a minor factor compared to the disruption and interference of the jet itself". See the difference? Held says that dynamic thickness is one of the reduction factors while you claim he said it is a minor reduction factor. In his example he says that with an ERA sandwich that gives a reduction of 70%, the dynamic plate thickness is responsible for 30%. That's almost half of the total reduction. With multiple other effects being responsible for the other 40%. How do you manage to read that as "minor"? Fact of the matter is that if the plates do not move into the path of the jet, ERA doesn't work. No interaction between plates and jet = no effect*. And since hydrodynamic penetration is a thing, you have to keep the plates moving into the jet. Ask and ye shall receive, but thou hath not asked. But since we're going to play the blame-game, it was you who started posting pictures without citations. * Okay okay okay, the pressure wave from the detonation will have a tiny effect on the jet Oh well. Back to work.
  8. Ah yes, of course the heavier barrel will be the most accurate one! Time for lead barrels, everyone! Iron Portieres has spoken! I can't wait to see the looks on the soldiers' faces because they have to carry lead barrels around because Iron Accouterments has concluded that weight takes a vital role in the accuracy of a weapon! Iron Shutters, does this also mean that we can make a short lead barreled just as accurate as a long special steel alloyed barrel? Because if that is the case, Steely Toggeries, we can make very short weapons, which is obviously great news! Everyone, meet Pig Buggeries, our newest weapons expert!
  9. For those wondering why the main gun shells arc so much, I can link you to this analysis I did of a Soviet HEAT shell (similar to the one being used in the Tank Biathlon): Sorry not sorry for the shameless self-promotion.
  10. Tanks guns and ammunition.

    Okay you've got me. Time to stop this discussion. You totally and absolutely got me. I have no words for this. Mainly because I simply cannot understand the level of your knowledge because it's simply too low. Congratulations, you're one of the very few people that are so retarded I physically cannot have a discussion with you. You manage to mix truths, lies and bullshit to get to an even higher level of bullshit that's not even related to the subject in the first place. The only thing I'm going to reply to is this: Yes, that is exactly how the effectiveness of ERA is measured: So get fucked, and take the fucking bus off of this forum and don't like the fucking windows please. You can come back after you understand the basics of armour penetration. Which will be never.
  11. Tanks guns and ammunition.

    I never even took the words "depleted", "spent" or "bleed energy" in my mouth. Maybe you should read carefully? Kobylkin also says this (in the same paper): Mickovic: Hazell: Hazell, again in a different publication: Kobylkin, again: Held: Eehhh... hello? Eroding a penetrator is a basic hydrodynamic interaction principle? Unsupported by any research? Fuck me sideways, hydrodynamic interaction between a penetrator and armour is where any decent researcher will start. If someone doesn't understand hydrodynamic interactions it's nearly impossible to understand the penetration mechanics behind APFSDS and HEAT. The penetration formula for a HEAT jet is basically the same fucking formula as the one used for hydrodynamic penetration: ^ HEAT jet penetration formula ^ Hydrodynamic penetration formula Both formulas are from Hazell's excellent book called "Armour; Materials, Design, and Theory". Hello again, are you even reading what you type? You're literally giving the answer to your own question: vectors Do you understand how those work? Evidently not. Hey here's a hint: THE JET IS MOVING TOO LIKE REALLY REALLY FAST Maybe you shouldn't base your rambling on a single source you apparently do not even have access to which is also fully focussed on figuring out a single aspect of HEAT vs ERA interaction. Shit, if you actually properly read the conclusion of the paper you linked you'd have noticed that it starts with "It is proposed that [...]". For some reason you read that as "IT ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY IS THIS". Since we're apparently going to sling journals and papers around, here's a thing for you to read (well, multiple things actually): Everything a fellow called Manfred Held has ever written on ERA, since he was one of the people who invented the fucking thing. But anyway, you just stay you and keep claiming that ERA works by magically interfering with the jet. You correctly said that an impact will create a larger crater than the diameter of the penetrator. Which means that if the plates aren't moving into the path of the jet, ERA/NERA will have no effect. As can be seen in the picture I've posted before: See? No effect on the penetrator what-so-ever. But guess what, if you angle the ERA/NERA so that the plates will actually intersect the jet, things happen! So no, ERA/NERA does not fucking work if you don't feed material into the jet.
  12. Tanks guns and ammunition.

    The bit I quoted from Kobylkin was directed at your question about why the FMP has a different effect than the BMP, not at whether or not feeding material into the jet lowers penetration. Anyway, yes, the main reason why ERA/NERA works is due to feeding material into the jet. Since a penetrator can only penetrate a finite amount of armour, you can lower the thickness of main armour it can penetrate by feeding material (armour) into its path. The faster a plate moves, the more material it can feed into the jet before the jet has passed the plate. A plate basically looks like this after the jet has gone through it: And the faster the plate goes, the longer Lslit will be. To be specific, it can be calculated with this formula: The jet will also pass through more material if the angle of the ERA/NERA is increased: And what happens when you increase the thickness of the FMP and BMP? (Note that the BMP in the FMP test is 8 mm thick while the FMP in the BMP test is 1 mm) Anyway, there's lots more I want to say, but I'm a bit ill at the moment so staring at journals and papers isn't the smartest thing to do, I'm already getting a headache and yet I only have a few journals open: I'll get back to this when I'm feeling better, I'm sorry for not being able to give a concise answer at the moment. Or maybe @Collimatrix can take over, he knows about as much as I do on this subject.
×