Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

AC GiantDad

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

AC GiantDad last won the day on March 6

AC GiantDad had the most liked content!

About AC GiantDad

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. the question I've got is what armor package they'll have. After all the NRC licensure process is rather long and tedious, will they use WHA as a uranium substitute like I've heard Australia did(don't quote me on that because I'm not sure) will they have a similar package to the Arab tanks or do you think they actually went through the whole NRC process
  2. @SH_MM If I had to guess, maybe it's kind of like why Uranium alloys won out in the US for penetrators? Abundance and ease of manufacturing. Staballoys are easier to extrude and turn on a lathe than Tungsten alloys, they can also be drawn and cold rolled with less difficulty. WC and WHAs are often both sintered into a near-net shape because of the difficulty of machining them. Comparing between Oak Ridge's guide to machining depleted uranium and Midwest Tungsten Service's machining guide for their MT series heavy alloys, with a density of 17 g/cm3, the tungsten alloy requires a higher spindle speed, a slower feed rate and a slightly shallower depth of cut on roughing. In the worst case for both metals (slowest spindle speed, slowest feed rate, shallowest cut depth), you can turn tungsten at about half the rate of Uranium on a lathe. 1" Uranium bar Roughing: 573 RPM, 0.012"/rev feed, 0.050" cut depth = 1.080 in3/min metal removal rate 1" WHA bar Roughing: 764 RPM, 0.008"/rev feed, 0.030" cut depth = 0.576 in3/min metal removal WHA lets you go significantly faster than uranium on finishing however, again comparing the worst case scenarios for both metals we get 1" Uranium bar Finishing: 1050.423 RPM, 0.002"/rev feed, 0.002" cut depth=0.013 in3/min metal removal 1" WHA bar Finishing: 954.930 RPM, 0.004"/rev feed, 0.010" cut depth=0.120 in3/min metal removal This is why WHA penetrators are manufactured as close to the finished shape as possible while Uranium penetrators can afford to be further off from the complete shape. Tungsten Carbide is an absolute bitch to machine too, requiring specialized inserts like Polycrystalline Cubic Boron Nitride and cutting rates during roughing that approach the finishing speeds of Uranium There is also another difference between the two materials that's worth noting, how they interact with the actual cutting tool. Uranium is frequently compared to austenitic steel in Oak Ridge's literature, described as being susceptible to work hardening and built up edges. Tungsten on the other hand varies between class 4 alloys which behave like a highly abrasive version of grey iron with a risk of chip hammering, to the less dense class 1 and class 2 alloys whose behavior is closer to Uranium.
  3. What's the source of the accompanying photo often used to verify this diagram anyways? Every time I try to reverse search it I hit a wall because it's either a recent post saying 'this is real M829' and not sourcing the image or diagram or it's on a bunch of Chinese language message boards which lead to me hitting a wall because unfortunately I can't read Chinese. Asking because this lack of traceability makes me wonder about how correct this depiction of the 829 penetrator is. Especially considering that the cutaways/mockups of 829 series penetrators that this is often used as a counter-argument to are from General Dynamics/ATK, the manufacturers of the 829 series Update: found source for M774 shape and the diagram, M774 shape is from from Aerojet Corporation promotional material regarding DU penetrators, The diagram is from "FINITE ELEMENT MODELS TO PREDICT THE STRUCTURAI RESPONSE OF 120-mm SABOT/RODS DURING LAUNCH" by D.A Rabern and K.A Bannister However the diagram is left un-sourced in the document and also provides no lead on the photo's origin
×
×
  • Create New...