Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Iron Drapes

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Iron Drapes

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. What's the story here? Did it freeze up as they were halfway through or something? Or maybe the tank got stuck and they couldn't get it out before the water froze?
  2. Now I'm wondering if you are just trying to spite me because you won't let go of your preconceived notions or if you really have something to say. Held said that the main effect comes from vaporising and sputtering of the passing shaped charge jet, as it touches iteratively the edge of the flying plates. If there is a nearly 50/50 split between the contributions of dynamic plate thickness and jet disruption, he would not attribute greater importance to one mechanism over the other. I am going to sleep. If you want to know something, ask Held.
  3. For a range of ERA plate thicknesses, jet velocities, angles and so on, disrupting the SCJ is by far the biggest mechanism. Feeding material into it is one of the reasons, sure, but it does not contribute to the effect nearly as much as the disruption effect. I predict that for some ERA like the Ukrainian Nozh with something like 2 kg of RDX, the disruption of the tip of the jet might already approach the same significance as the "feeding material effect". 2 kg really is a lot compared to many of the ERAs used in experiments, which have something like 0.2 kg of RDX or PETN or something, and le
  4. As a ratio to the experimental result. Ptot will equal something like 0.983 Ptot' or 1.0143 Ptot', so one over the other will get you a ratio. Sure you could get a fixed answer, and that answer will be the new Ptot but adjusted for the new variable. You can't actually get Ptot from the equation. To do that, you'll need this: PR is useful for finding out the residual penetration, which is what we actually want to know, and Ptot finds out how much the jet penetrates, including the ERA itself, which is not actually a useful value for us anyway because Ptot is basically th
  5. Fun fact: the T-72 uses the "AZ" autoloader, and "AZ" stands for "Avtomat Zaryazhaniya", literally meaning automatic loader. They were not very creative with names. The failure rate of the AZ autoloader as of 1971 was 1 per 448 loading cycles, which was equivalent to the barrel life of 600 EFC of the 2A26M2 cannon when a couple of high pressure APFSDS rounds were mixed into its usual diet of HE-Frag and HEAT. As a rule, the autoloader would be inspected and refurbished whenever the cannon had worn out its barrel. This was convenient, because the 2A26M2 did not have a quick-change barrel. You h
  6. Absolutely. I am sure that window lickers like me will fit right in.
  7. Thank you for being objective. My "resume" can be found here: https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/
  8. Noted. I will be sure to follow this guideline to make high quality posts such as this:
  9. I respect that you are the admin of this entire forum, so I will cease and desist. The truth is up to the audience to decide. I simply express my hope that the criteria for "density of sources, citations and facts" also includes the fact that I actually shared links to the papers I cited so that everyone can benefit by reading them, whereas Bronezhilet did not share a single link or give a page number, or even share the names of the papers he cited.
  10. BTW, Manfred Held has actually done research that deals exactly with the phenomenon that you describe in a paper called "Dynamic Plate Thickness of ERA Sandwiches against Shaped Charge Jets": http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/prep.200400051/epdf Held acknowledges that the relative thickness of the moving plate as it moves laterally across the SCJ is a factor in the reduction in penetration, but it is a minor factor compared to the disruption and interference of the jet itself. This is what he says: The equation for the dynamic plate thickness is derived as a function of
  11. It's almost funny to see you pretending to be of the same caliber as the researchers that you cite, because clearly, you only pick out what you want to read and discard the rest, and it's also funny how you berate me for citing papers that I apparently do not have, because you are just referring to free open source papers like everyone else. I know this because I am reading the same paper that you are reading: "A Model for Explosive Reactive Armor Interaction with Shaped Charge Jet": http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/prep.201500163/epdf At least have the courtesy to share what yo
  • Create New...