Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 527
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

New here, but I've followed this thread (and Mech Warfare) for a good while.   I attend the United States Military Academy and it is branch week here. Armor brought an M1A2 SEPv2 which, whil

Was posted on otvaga - diploma work on ramjet APFSDS design (in russian). PDF    

18 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

Did the 740mm penetration figure for CHARM 3 originate from a publication(?) called JCollins?

 

JCollins aka Jake Collins is a member of several wargaming communities, he is not a publication. He used to post on the Tank-Net, but stopped some years ago. He had a reference guide for wargaming on his websites with estimated/guessed protection and penetration values, all of them really, really questionable (for example he falsely believed that Leopard 1A1A1 and Leopard 1A5 have different armor types and Leopard 1A5 turret had some 400-500 mm RHA vs KE...). Once his website was quoted on Tank-Net, where he mentioned that it is not meant for anything besides wargaming and does not reflect reality.

 

That said some of the penetration values in the table might be based on his website...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The tip is not useful against composite armor as it's designed as an anti-ERA measure. It'll just go off very quickly.

Extensive NxRA/NERA arrays will attempt to bend and break the rod over and over again as it passes through more reactive layers, not as a single depleting armor plate.

 

Hence, a thinner rod, or in other words; one with higher L/D ratio, will be more susceptible to bending and subsequently breaking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The needle tip on the German APFSDS designs, as I understand it, is for making a small hole in heavy ERA like K5 without detonating the explosive.  The rest of the penetrator can then follow through this small hole undisturbed.  This approach works because the explosives in ERA have to be fairly insensitive for safety reasons and so the ERA protection can't get stripped off the tank with small arms fire or a single artillery airburst.

 

Since NERA gets its energy from the penetrator, this approach seems like it would work against NERA as well.  The needle tip would poke a hole in the initial layers of NERA, but because it is narrower, it isn't providing as much energy to the elastomer layer, and therefore vaporizes less of it.  Since there is less vaporization, less metal is fed into the path of the penetrator.

 

I'm not sure that high L/D penetrators are longer because they are thinner than low L/D ones.  Rather, I think they get their high L/D by being just as (or almost as) thick, and being a bit slower.  At APFSDS velocities the gun is really inefficient, because it's starting to get close to the velocity ceiling of the propellant.  So you can actually add quite a bit of projectile mass for relatively little loss in velocity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how that works. The big penetrator rod will not be able to fit into the small hole made by the needle tip, so the rod will inevitably detonate the ERA or activate the NERA when it impacts. Rather, I think that the needle tip is supposed to be made of some softer metal, and it mushrooms out upon impact to create a relatively large hole in the front plate of ERA like Kontakt-5. The mushrooming effect will create this hole gradually as opposed to simply pricking a hole, thus decreasing the impulse transferred to the explosive charge underneath, while simultaneously creating a hole large enough for the rod to fit through. In this version of events, I imagine that the rod will penetrate the explosive layer and be halfway through before it detonates, and when it detonates, the flyer plate will maybe only catch the fins at the tail of the rod.

 

Also, feeding metal into the penetrator is probably not how ERA and NERA work. The flyer plate will definitely get a big oval hole gouged into it, but what actually happens is the flyer plate impacts the penetrator laterally, and the penetrator gets bent by the impact and becomes yawed. For shaped charges, the flyer plate works by hitting the middle and tail section of the cumulative jet, thus disrupting its shape. If feeding metal is the mechanism at play, then why is a backwards-flying flyer plate less effective than a forwards-flying flyer plate when both are the same mass, same thickness, same material, same obliquity and travelling at the same speed except in different directions?

 

vs+cumulative+jet,+NERA,+backwards.pngvs+cumulative+jet,+NERA.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Iron Drapes said:

I don't see how that works. The big penetrator rod will not be able to fit into the small hole made by the needle tip, so the rod will inevitably detonate the ERA or activate the NERA when it impacts. Rather, I think that the needle tip is supposed to be made of some softer metal, and it mushrooms out upon impact to create a relatively large hole in the front plate of ERA like Kontakt-5. The mushrooming effect will create this hole gradually as opposed to simply pricking a hole, thus decreasing the impulse transferred to the explosive charge underneath, while simultaneously creating a hole large enough for the rod to fit through. In this version of events, I imagine that the rod will penetrate the explosive layer and be halfway through before it detonates, and when it detonates, the flyer plate will maybe only catch the fins at the tail of the rod.

The explosive compound in ERA (well, any military explosive compound) will only detonate when a certain pressure is reached. If the impact does not reach that pressure, the explosive will not detonate. As long as the pressure doesn't go above a certain threshold it doesn't matter what's hitting the explosive, it simply won't explode. I suppose there's a way to poke a hole through ERA without setting it off, but I haven't yet figured out how exactly.

 

1 hour ago, Iron Drapes said:

Also, feeding metal into the penetrator is probably not how ERA and NERA work. The flyer plate will definitely get a big oval hole gouged into it, but what actually happens is the flyer plate impacts the penetrator laterally, and the penetrator gets bent by the impact and becomes yawed. For shaped charges, the flyer plate works by hitting the middle and tail section of the cumulative jet, thus disrupting its shape. If feeding metal is the mechanism at play, then why is a backwards-flying flyer plate less effective than a forwards-flying flyer plate when both are the same mass, same thickness, same material, same obliquity and travelling at the same speed except in different directions?

 

vs+cumulative+jet,+NERA,+backwards.pngvs+cumulative+jet,+NERA.png

It is. 

 

If you look at various tests with actual ERA, you'll see that the jet isn't noticeably being yawed/deflected, no matter the ERA angle:

3fc5bd8abf.jpg

You can however see that the higher the angle of the ERA compared to the jet, the more disturbed the jet is. This is simply because the ERA is capable of feeding more material into the jet, degrading it.

 

Actually, here are a bunch of photos of a shaped charge jets versus NERA at different angles:

6bd274f4eb.jpg

 

And again, the more material is fed into the jet, the worse it becomes. 

 

 

However, ERA and NERA do actually deflect the jet, but only very slightly. I'm talking about ~50 m/s down for a 55 degree angle ERA sandwich. 50 m/s might sound a lot, until you realise that these jets move forward at a few thousand meters per second. So the downward velocity is negligible.

fbea76a062.jpg

 

 

The reason the forwards moving flyer plate caused more damage to the jet is because of... vectors, basically..

 

Or as Kobylkin and Dorokhov put it:

Quote

 

1. Based on the analysis of SCJ interaction with moving reactive armor plates, the lateral impulse transferred to the SCJ by the plates moving at an angle was estimated. The main feature of the interaction of the SCJ with the reactive armor plates is that for the same time interval, the SCJ element interacting with the front plate is of greater length than that interacting with the rear plate.

2. Since the transverse velocity imparted to the SCJ during interaction with the front plate is lower than the plate velocity component perpendicular to the SCJ, the interaction of the main part of the SCJ with the front plate has a continuous nature and leads to wearing of SCJ in the transverse direction (reduction in the SCJ diameter) and a small deflection by an angle α.

3. In the interaction of the SCJ with the rear plate, the transverse velocity acquired by the SCJ exceeds the plate velocity component perpendicular to the SCJ, so that the SCJ periodically bounces off the plate and the interaction of the SCJ with the rear plate has a nonstationary discrete nature and forms transverse perturbations in the SCJ , which, developing, lead to its distortion and subsequent destruction.

4. The transverse perturbations arising in the SCJ can be considered as shear waves in a string in a plastic state. Due to the low velocity of their propagation (≈ 100 m/s), these waves are localized, and their development leads to rapid destruction of the deformed parts of the SCJ.

 

 

Also, this is what the paper says about the pictures you linked:

5228f84ba3.png

 

Here are the pictures in higher res by the way, for future use:

ea62e4fa16.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid that there must either be some misunderstanding or you are attributing effects to the wrong causes. By saying that NERA works by feeding metal into the path of the jet, Collimatrix is saying that it is not proactively reducing the penetration of the jet by disturbing it, but only making it "use up" its penetration potential into a thin metal plate by making the thin metal plate move at some angle to the jet to somehow increase its LOS thickness, which is plain wrong. I am saying that the movement of the thin plate disrupts the shape of the jet, making it collapse. This is what Kobylkin and Dorokhov meant - that the lateral movement of a plate across the path of a cumulative jet causes disturbances. I don't know which specific statement you are pointing to, so let me break them all down:

 

Statement 1 says nothing about feeding more material into the jet, only saying that the front plate of the ERA interacts with a longer segment of the cumulative jet than the rear plate.

 

Statement 2 says that for the front plate, the transverse velocity induced into the jet is lesser than the lateral velocity induced into the jet. In statement 3, he says the opposite - that for the rear plate, the transverse velocity induced into the jet is greater than the lateral velocity. He then goes on to report that the transverse perturbations in the jet, leading to its destruction, and further clarifies this in statement 4. These statements explain why you see parts of the jet broken off and going up and down, while some other parts are perfectly fine and still fly straight. As it is said in statement 4: the waves of transverse perturbations are localized. Localized means that some parts of the jet are affected and some are not. This totally supports my claim that ERA and NERA work by disrupting the shape of the jet, not by feeding metal into it. I never said that ERA and NERA work by changing the direction of the jet or by causing it to yaw.

 

 

I don't know what you mean by quoting the paragraph about the backwards/forward plates. The paragraph is not saying that the disturbances caused in the tip of the jet attacked by the forward moving plate (b) was due to the explosion that propelled the plate. It is saying that about the backwards moving plate (a). Can you clarify?

 

Actually, it would be even better if you could clarify what is meant by "metal is fed into the path of the penetrator" in the first place. Are you saying that the amount of metal that the jet has to go through when it penetrates a ERA or NERA module is increased by the movement of the plate? Are you saying that a 3mm steel plate from a NERA can have 100mm of LOS armour value because it moves in some direction to the jet?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Iron Drapes said:

I'm afraid that there must either be some misunderstanding or you are attributing effects to the wrong causes. By saying that ERA and NERA works by feeding more material into the jet, you are saying that it is not really reducing the penetration of the jet, but only making it "use up" its penetration potential into a thin plate by making the thin plate move at some angle to the jet. I am saying that the movement of the thin plate disrupts the shape of the jet, making it collapse. This is what Kobylkin and Dorokhov meant - that the lateral movement of a plate across the path of a cumulative jet causes disturbances. I don't know which specific statement you are pointing to, so let me break them all down:

 

Statement 1 says nothing about feeding more material into the jet, only saying that the front plate of the ERA interacts with a longer segment of the cumulative jet than the rear plate.

 

Statement 2 says that for the front plate, the transverse velocity induced into the jet is lesser than the lateral velocity induced into the jet. In statement 3, he says the opposite - that for the rear plate, the transverse velocity induced into the jet is greater than the lateral velocity. He then goes on to report that the transverse perturbations in the jet, leading to its destruction, and further clarifies this in statement 4. These statements explain why you see parts of the jet broken off and going up and down, while some other parts are perfectly fine and still fly straight. As it is said in statement 4: the waves of transverse perturbations are localized. Localized means that some parts of the jet are affected and some are not. This totally supports my claim that ERA and NERA work by disrupting the shape of the jet, not by feeding more material into it. I never said that ERA and NERA work by changing the direction of the jet or by causing it to yaw.

 

 

I don't know what you mean by quoting the paragraph about the backwards/forward plates. The paragraph is not saying that the disturbances caused in the tip of the jet attacked by the forward moving plate (b) was due to the explosion that propelled the plate. It is saying that about the backwards moving plate (a). Can you clarify?

 

Actually, it would be even better if you could clarify what you mean by "feeding material into the SCJ" in the first place. Are you saying that the amount of metal that the jet has to go through when it penetrates a ERA or NERA module is increased by the movement of the plate? Are you saying that a 3mm steel plate from a NERA can have 100mm of LOS armour value because it moves in some direction to the jet?

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:

3c2267c589.jpg

And the faster the plate goes, the longer Lslit will be. To be specific, it can be calculated with this formula:7da476705d.jpg

 

The jet will also pass through more material if the angle of the ERA/NERA is increased:

ace9cd1ae5.jpg

 

And what happens when you increase the thickness of the FMP and BMP?

9d4d4290a3.jpg

795f2602ea.jpg

(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:

83f1c1926e.png

 

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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"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."

 

How are you not aware that what Kobylkin wrote completely contradicts your theory? He not only states the differences between the front flyer plate and rear flyer plate, he also specifies their method of operation quite clearly. He very clearly said that:

 

"transverse perturbations in the SCJ , which, developing, lead to its distortion and subsequent destruction"

 

Notice the keywords "distortion" and "destruction". He is saying very clearly - and I must repeat, VERY clearly that the moving plate distorts and destroys parts of the jet as it passes through the plate. He doesn't say that the jet is "depleted" or "spent" or "bleeds energy" into the plate. He says that the jet is destroyed by the plate. Please, please, please read carefully!!!!

 

When you recover from your headache, take another look at all of those papers and realize that all of them explain that the effect of moving plates on cumulative jets is disruption and destruction. This statement: "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" is simply unsupported by any research, because what you are saying implies that the jet itself is unharmed. That the jet flies as straight and true as ever before, only that it is penetrating into something else instead of the main armour. That is not what we see in any of the research done on this topic. In every experiment, what we see is the movement of the flyer plate/bulging plate basically breaking off the jet in the middle so that only small segments slip through intermittently. Take a look at this again: 

 

 

ea62e4fa16.jpg

 

 

How does a backward moving plate feed less armour into the jet than a forward moving plate? Both are angled at the same obliquity, both plates are the same thickness, both are propelled at the same velocity, and both are angled in the same plane, only the direction of attack is not the same. 'x' plate thickness ÷ cos θ° will equal the same LOS thickness for both plates, no matter which direction they go. In fact, go and look at the graphs of penetration vs thickness you posted, and you will not be able to reconcile your wild fantasy theory. You cannot turn a flyer plate of 100x50x3 (LxWxH) dimensions into 200mm of armour by moving it at an angle to a plate, no matter how hard you try.

 

If you actually measure Lslit, you can see that it is much, much too little armour to account for the huge decrease in armour penetration after the jet passes through the ERA. We can conclude very easily and painlessly that the primary factor here has nothing to do with feeding armour into the jet at all. A cursory Google search reveals this very quickly: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/article.aspx?articleid=1421015 

 

"The main features of the defeat mechanisms of the armor are therefore well known. The origin of the irregular disturbances on the shaped charge jet, which leads to the severe fragmentation and scattering of the jet, is however not described in literature. As this scattering of the jet provides the main protection mechanism of the armor, it is of interest to understand the details of the interaction and the origin of the disturbances. Some experimental observations have been made showing that the backward moving plate often displaces the jet relatively smoothly while it is the interaction with the forward moving plate that causes the disturbances that leads to fragmentation and scattering of the jet. In this work, a mechanism for the interaction is proposed based on the theory of Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities, which explains the origin of the disturbances on the jet due to the interaction with the forward moving plate. "

 

Please read carefully. The most important part is: "irregular disturbances on the shaped charge jet, which leads to the severe fragmentation and scattering of the jet". It is amply clear that the protective mechanism comes from attacking and destroying the cumulative jet, not by pacifying it by feeding it metal. I suggest that you actually stop to read the text in those journals and papers you have open instead of posting raw data that proves nothing for anyone, neither you or me. If you read the analysis done by the researchers instead of coming up with wild theories of your own, you will see that they say that the method of operation of flyer plates and bulging plates is exactly how I have been repeating.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Iron Drapes said:

"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."

 

How are you not aware that what Kobylkin wrote completely contradicts your theory? He not only states the differences between the front flyer plate and rear flyer plate, he also specifies their method of operation quite clearly. He very clearly said that:

 

"transverse perturbations in the SCJ , which, developing, lead to its distortion and subsequent destruction"

 

Notice the keywords "distortion" and "destruction". He is saying very clearly - and I must repeat, VERY clearly that the moving plate distorts and destroys parts of the jet as it passes through the plate. He doesn't say that the jet is "depleted" or "spent" or "bleeds energy" into the plate. He says that the jet is destroyed by the plate. Please, please, please read carefully!!!!

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):

Quote

The detonation products accelerate the plates, which impacts at an angle the SCJ. This leads to deflection, destruction or wearing of the SCJ, resulting in a significant reduction in the depth of penetration of the main part of the target located behind the reactive armor.

 

Mickovic:

Quote

When a shaped charge jet hits the cassette, the explosive is detonated and the plates are pushed to the side. The movement of the plates causes the impact point of the jet to constantly shift to new untouched regions, increasing the dynamic effective thickness of the plates

 

Hazell:

Quote

Because the jet is moving at a velocity within the range of 6–10mm/ms (the jet will be stretching with the tip moving more rapidly than the slug), it is necessary to accelerate the plates to a very high velocity to maximize the amount of material offered to the jet.

 

Hazell, again in a different publication:

Quote

Therefore, the outer steel plate moves across the path of the jet thereby continually offering fresh steel to perforate – cutting a slot in the moving plate or plates.

 

Kobylkin, again:

Quote

Motion of the plate at an angle to the SCJ head-on or co-directionally to the SCJ leads to impact contact of the edge of the hole in the plate with the side face of the next elements of the SCJ. This leads to partial (or entire) wearing of the SCJ element

 

Held:

Quote

The tip of the jet creates an elliptical hole in the target or in the sandwich plates and the edge of the hole needs some time before the bulging plates are touching the passing jet the first time and are creating the first deviation. By the interaction of the bulging plate with the jet, the plate is now a little more eroded or more consumed and the plate has to move again some distance that the edge of the slit in the plate interferes a second time with the passing jet. This process is iteratively continuing and gives the multiple eruptions along the jet.

 

 

21 hours ago, Iron Drapes said:

This statement: "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" is simply unsupported by any research

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:

107ff55343.png

^ HEAT jet penetration formula

 

1eeeda3da8.png

^ Hydrodynamic penetration formula

 

Both formulas are from Hazell's excellent book called "Armour; Materials, Design, and Theory".

 

21 hours ago, Iron Drapes said:

How does a backward moving plate feed less armour into the jet than a forward moving plate? Both are angled at the same obliquity, both plates are the same thickness, both are propelled at the same velocity, and both are angled in the same plane, only the direction of attack is not the same.

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?

 

21 hours ago, Iron Drapes said:

 'x' plate thickness ÷ cos θ° will equal the same LOS thickness for both plates, no matter which direction they go

Evidently not.

 

Hey here's a hint: THE JET IS MOVING TOO

 

LIKE

 

REALLY REALLY FAST

 

21 hours ago, Iron Drapes said:

If you actually measure Lslit, you can see that it is much, much too little armour to account for the huge decrease in armour penetration after the jet passes through the ERA. We can conclude very easily and painlessly that the primary factor here has nothing to do with feeding armour into the jet at all. A cursory Google search reveals this very quickly: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/article.aspx?articleid=1421015 

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:

1de3aa1eb4.jpg

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!

f16fa6c692.jpg

 

So no, ERA/NERA does not fucking work if you don't feed material into the jet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude... Of course ERA/NERA does not work if you don't feed material into the jet. Where have I said that ERA/NERA can work even if the flyer plate/bulging plate does not touch the penetrator? What point are you trying to make? You think I don't understand that when a cumulative jet perforates a plate moving laterally across it, it creates a slit into the plate? You are trying so hard to prove me wrong that you don't really read what I am saying. Yes, moving material into the path of the jet at a lateral angle is what causes the reduction in the penetration of the jet, and what I am saying is that moving material into the path of the jet has the effect of disturbing and destabilizing the jet, to the point of destruction. What are you trying to dispute? Every single quote you gave supports this. Yes, moving the plate increases the dynamic thickness, because the jet is presented with a new facet of the plate as it moves against it, but if you read further, you will see that this is not the point that the authors were trying to make. It is simply an observed phenomenon. It is not the REASON why ERA/NERA is effective at reducing the penetration of the jet. It is a BYPRODUCT of it. The REASON why ERA/NERA is effective at reducing the penetration of the jet is because, as you quoted:

 

The detonation products accelerate the plates, which impacts at an angle the SCJ. This leads to deflection, destruction or wearing of the SCJ, resulting in a significant reduction in the depth of penetration of the main part of the target located behind the reactive armor.

 

This is the only thing that I have been trying to say all this while. That the impact of the moving plate with the cumulative jet reduces the penetration of the cumulative jet by interfering with its structure, so that it is no longer a stable projectile and is destroyed in flight. Why do you keep thinking that I am disputing the fact that the movement of the flyer plate/bulging plate increases the amount of plate material that interacts with the jet? I am saying, and I repeat, that the reason for the reduction in penetration of the jet is not because it spends its penetration potential by penetrating into the plate, but because the plate attacks and destroys the jet. What you are saying is something like "a lot of heat is generated at the point of impact, therefore we can conclude that the shaped charge penetrates the target by melting its way through". Do you get me? Cutting a slit into the moving plate is merely a BYPRODUCT of the interaction, the intention and underlying mechanism of which is to destroy the jet. The moving plate/bulging plate destroys the jet by moving against it at an angle.

 

Here's an analogy for you:

 

A rod of something is flying at a 1000mm block of steel at tremendous speed, and it penetrates 600mm into it. ERA and NERA works by chipping off parts of the rod, blunting the tip, creating a fracture down the middle and giving it a yaw of 5 degrees. When the rod hits the block of steel, most of it shatters and a little bit of it penetrates 100mm.

 

You are saying that ERA/NERA works by adding 500mm of steel in front of the block, so that the rod has to penetrate 500mm of extra steel before it hits the block, so the effect is that it can only penetrate 100mm into the block. This is asinine, of course, and I simply cannot believe that you believe this... do you? I am completely flabbergasted that you think that I am thinking that ERA/NERA works without the jet touching the flyer plate/bulging plate.

 

Here's another analogy:

 

Me:

 

Step 1: Move plate at an angle in such a way that it intersects with the jet.

Step 2: Interaction between plate and jet causes destruction of the jet.

Step 3: Jet loses penetration potential.

 

You:

 

Step 1: Move plate at an angle in such a way that it intersects with the jet.

Step 1: Jet loses penetration potential.

 

By the way, I actually do have that document, but I can't copy and paste from it because it is a scan, so I used a free excerpt that I found as I scoured for a pdf version.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

19 hours ago, Iron Drapes said:

You are saying that ERA/NERA works by adding 500mm of steel in front of the block, so that the rod has to penetrate 500mm of extra steel before it hits the block, so the effect is that it can only penetrate 100mm into the block. This is asinine, of course, and I simply cannot believe that you believe this... do you?

Yes, that is exactly how the effectiveness of ERA is measured:

9ecc562c16.jpg

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 you are reading instead of trying to be all high and mighty about how great and smart you are.

 

Yes, I see where you took that equation from (p. 60), and you are assuming that I know nothing about it. You are trying to fool me and everyone reading by bullshitting me and outright lying to everyone. That equation has nothing to do with finding out penetration of SCJ after interaction with ERA, and you are trying to conceal that fact by omitting information. Read the sentence below that equation:

 

7tq2H0B.png

 

In other words, the equation is designed to find out the difference in results when the distance from the target, Z0, is compared to Z0' in the NERA code, NERA code being a computer code for simulating ERA. A single glance at the equation already tells you that it will give you a ratio, not a figure of armour penetration. That's because this paper is dealing with verifying NERA computer code with experimental results, not to find out why ERA works the way it does.

 

And no, ERA still doesn't work the way you think it works just because you are throwing a temper tantrum. For example, this is something Held stated:

 

One effective protection method used at present is disturbance of the SCJ stabilities by additional armour to reduce the SCJ's penetration ability prior to attacking the main armour. Explosive reactive armours are widely used in tanks because of their excellent interference ability

 

The keywords are "disturbance of the SCJ stabilities" and "interference ability". Yes, feeding material into the jet is how the disturbance and interference is achieved. How else do you get the jet and the plate to interact? However, that is simply not the reason why ERA works, and it is one of the main reasons why ERA cannot be modeled as a fixed figure of extra steel armour on top of the base armour, which is what you are suggesting. You are deliberately ignoring what happens to the jet itself when it passes through the ERA: the stable flow of the jet material (copper) from the tail to the tip (accelerating along the way) is cut by the moving plates of the ERA. The cutting action produces shockwaves in the jet, causing it to disintegrate. The tip, which moves at hypervelocity, usually escapes the interaction with the moving plate and will continue to penetrate some small amount of armour.

 

Maybe you are having some sort of crisis because you have been believing that ERA works like some magical extra armour your whole life. But please, don't post blatant lies. It makes you look bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 standoff distance Z0, jet tip velocity vj0, cutoff velocity vjc, plate velocities vPI and NATO angle of the ERA sandwich. The dynamic thickness is presented as functions of the different parameters for the front plate – flying against the shaped charge jet – and the rear plate – flying with the shaped charge jet. But the dynamic thickness is only one of the reduction factors of ERA sandwiches.

 

In the introduction he says this;

 

The remarkable reduction of the shaped charge jet penetration can be explained by three different phenomenological effects [5]:

  • increased dynamic plate thickness
  • jet deflection by the interference of the flying plates wit hthe passing shaped charge jet [6]
  • introduced detonative shock waves into the stretching jetand the interaction of the reaction products with passingjet sections [7]

 

These are all his words verbatim:

 

"As mentioned in the introduction, the reason for the disturbances of shaped charge jets and KE rounds by ERA sandwiches are split, into the dynamic thickness, described in detail here, the jet deflection and the interaction with the reaction products of the detonating high explosive charge.Besides smaller interacting effects, like not at all or less disturbed jet tip regions [12], the main effect comes from vaporising and sputtering of the passing shaped charge jet, as it touches iteratively the edge of the flying plates. This is summarised under the term deflection effect. Partially the jet and especially KE rounds are also lifted up by the transferred momentum [13]. This explains the experimental findings that thicker slower flying plates with less achieved dynamic thickness have at least the same or more effect against shaped charge jets and KE rounds. The dynamic plate thickness is definitely also one part of the effects, which disturb shaped charge jets and KE rounds,but does not give the full story for the defeat mechanisms of ERA sandwiches."

 

"In a numerical example these diagrams should be explained. Using 270 mm as one typical Z0 value for the virtual origin of a shaped charge to an ERA sandwich, a jet tip velocity of 9 mm/ms and a cutoff velocity of vjc of 3 mm/ms under a typical NATO angle of 608, the dynamic thickness Ds of the plate flying with the jet ± rear plate ± is 206 mm and against the jet 63 mm, therefore in total around 270 mm. The used values correspond typically to an add-on reactive armour sandwich of equal layer thicknesses with 3/3/3 mm. Independent of the standoff against a 100 mm shaped charge such a sandwich gives a penetration reduction of 560 mm compared to the standard penetration of 800 mm. The perforation through a reactive armour plate means a reduction of 70%. But the dynamic thickness would give only a value of about 30%. Assuming a heavy reactive armour which is typically using thicker plates with slower velocities in the range of 0.4 mm/ms, the dynamic plate thickness is much less. According to Fig. 3 the sum of the dynamic thickness of the front and rear plates gives around 100 mm. This means a reduction of about 10% to 15%. But in reality it is again 70% and more. These numerical examples show that the dynamic thickness of the flying plates explains only partially the reduction effects of ERA sandwiches."

 

So the major reason why SCJs have a reduced penetration when interacting with ERA is because it is actually damaged and destroyed. A minor reason is that it has to penetrate the plate itself and deplete itself that way.

 

 

Compare you, genius of Sturgeonshouse forum, expert in terminal ballistics, who said this:

 

"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."

 

To Manfred Held, father of ERA:

 

"These numerical examples show that the dynamic thickness of the flying plates explains only partially the reduction effects of ERA sandwiches."

 

"the main effect comes from vaporising and sputtering of the passing shaped charge jet, as it touches iteratively the edge of the flying plates. This is summarised under the term deflection effect."

 

 

But I guess Dr. Held is just a senile window licking old man. What does he know? Curb your egotism and stop insulting people just because they disagree with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bronezhilet, I give you permission to disengage with Iron Drapes. You have won the argument. You've provided more sources, documentation, and reasoning. At this point, there's nothing left for you to do, so take a victory rest.

@Iron Drapes, You have lost this discussion to Bronezhilet, because your density of sources, citations, and facts were low compared to the degree of negative attitude you displayed. I recommend you also take a breather, and work on refining whatever it is you want to say so that it comes across more intelligibly and politely. I also recommend just taking your lumps here and not forcing this issue with me, because if pushed to choose between you or Bronezhilet, well, you haven't been here very long and he has.

You both can revisit this technical discussion later, for now, as the Admin I recommend you both take some earned time off from the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

@Bronezhilet, I give you permission to disengage with Iron Drapes. You have won the argument. You've provided more sources, documentation, and reasoning. At this point, there's nothing left for you to do, so take a victory rest.

@Iron Drapes, You have lost this discussion to Bronezhilet, because your density of sources, citations, and facts were low compared to the degree of negative attitude you displayed. I recommend you also take a breather, and work on refining whatever it is you want to say so that it comes across more intelligibly and politely. I also recommend just taking your lumps here and not forcing this issue with me, because if pushed to choose between you or Bronezhilet, well, you haven't been here very long and he has.

You both can revisit this technical discussion later, for now, as the Admin I recommend you both take some earned time off from the subject.

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Iron Drapes said:

 

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.

 

I see three links from you (which is good - we like links here, especially ones to real papers - so a sincere commendation on that), and a citation of Kobylkin and Dorokhov, which Bronez cited first. I see 5 or 6 citations from Bronez, with no links but I assume one could easily find the papers themselves via Google or another resource. Beyond this, you were, in my estimation, a bit ruder, although Bronez towards the end also lost civility a little (that, I admit, was partly my fault - I told him he didn't have to be gentle with you). I also happen to be more well aware of Bronez's expertise in the field.

I am not an expert on the subject, so I'll leave it at that.

 

It sounds like you might have something to offer here, but in the future you'll want to keep technical disagreements as passionless as possible. It can be tough - you probably care about the subject. But Bronez does not know you, and I don't know you, so it's still important.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By SH_MM
      [title image]
       
      Hollow charges and armor protection - their alternating progression
       
      The term "hollow charges", which is commonly used in German, is not very accurate for the explosives so called. The somewhat more general American term "shaped charge" is a better description of the measures necessary to achieve the desired effects with these charges. Apart from the explosives used by glider pilots at Fort Emeal, it is of great importance for the vast majority of the extensive and versatile range of applications of shaped charges developed since the Second World War that their suitably shaped surface is covered with a layer of inert materials, preferably metals.  The individual elements of the liner are accelerated to velocities of several km/sec and, through special selection of the initial shape and dimensions, it is possible to transform these liner bodies into projectile-like structures which are best suited to combat the respective target.
      This possibility of adapting the effector to the structure of the target to be engaged is very important for the use of hollow charges, but the application potential of these charges, given their early and impulsive nature, is far from exhausted by what has been developed in this field so far. This is particularly true when it comes to combating targets whose design is already tailored to protect against the known hollow charges.
      This will be explained in more detail below; in addition, examples will be used to illustrate the many different ways in which explosives can be used to obtain targeted effects and counteractions.
       
      The effect of explosive devices attached to armour panels - the "spalling effect"
       
      In most cases of using detonating explosives, the energy released by the detonation is transferred to inert materials. In the case of armour plates on which explosives are detonated, the direct effect is relatively small. Although the detonation pressure exceeds the strength of the armour material many times over, the material goes into a state of fluidity and is slightly pressed in at the surface - something similar happens when damp clay is pressed. The depressions that occur are small because the time during which the detonation pressure is sustained and the material is in a flowing state is very short. This only lasts until the relaxation of the highly compressed explosive decomposition products towards the free surface of the detonator has taken place. If, for example, an explosive layer of 2 cm thickness is placed on an armour plate, the impact time on a surface element of the plate during detonation is about 2/800000 sec, i.e. 2.5 µsec. During this time only a slight displacement of the plate material can occur. The example of an explosive layer applied to the surface of an armour plate and detonated there is also suitable for explaining a phenomenon that is very important and is referred to several times in the context of the present comments:
       
      [Figure 1]
       
      Under certain conditions, material parts detach from the rear side of the armour plate and are propelled at quite high speed into the space behind the plate. This so-called " spalling effect " occurs whenever a limited area in a body, where the material is under very high pressure, reaches a free surface of the body (see figure 1). There, the material parts compressed under high pressure relax and advance perpendicular to the surface. The relaxation is thus associated with acceleration. While the relaxation spreads into the interior of the pressure area, all material parts that have been compressed by it are accelerated. If the relaxation wave reaches the rear end of the pressure area, i.e. the zone in which the material particles are not compressed and therefore remain at rest, the parts that have been set in motion by the relaxation break off at this point and continue their motion only outside, provided that the tensile stress that occurs exceeds the tensile strength of the material.
      In the case of the spalling effect, one observes a separation of disc-shaped plate parts on the back of an armour plate exactly opposite the surface covered by the explosive on the upper side (see also Figure 15). This surface must not be less than a certain size, because the accelerated, spalling parts must not only overcome the tensile strength of the detachment from the inner plate parts, which remain at rest, but also the shear stresses at the edge of the spalling plate. In general, this is only then the case when the diameter of the overlying explosive layer exceeds the thickness of the armour plate, otherwise a " bulge" appears on the underside of the plate.
      The effect of the " squash head " projectiles is based on this spalling effect. The explosive in the bullet cap is released when the projectiles impact on of the armour plate is spread and then detonated. 1)
       
      The effect of unshaped, uncontained explosive charges in the free atmosphere

      If an uninsulated explosive device is detonated in the open atmosphere without any special design or arrangement, its effect is relatively small at a distance from the source of detonation. Although the pressure behind the detonation front, which in modern explosives can reach speeds of is advancing at about 8 km/sec, is quite high. It is in the order of several hundred thousand atmospheres, but it rapidly decays as it spreads in all directions, distributing energy and momentum over areas that grow quadratically with distance.
      By contrast, special arrangements, which should be mentioned here because they are to a certain extent related to hollow charges, can be used to achieve a sufficient pressure effect even with unshaped, unchecked explosive charges at greater distances, for example against flying targets.  If, for example explosive charges are arranged at the corners of a regular polygon and detonated simultaneously, a very effective superimposition of the pressure occurs on the axis of symmetry of the arrangement at distances of up to several diameters of the polygon - in the so-called Mach area. Towards the end of the Second World War, the possibility of using such charge arrangements from the ground against enemy aircraft flying in pulks had been considered. In model tests with 6 charges of 50 kg trinitrotoluene (TNT) each, regularly distributed on a circle of 100 m diameter, a pressure of about ~15 bar was measured 350 m above the ground in the vicinity of the axis of symmetry.
       
      Protective effect of multilayer armour

      In order to be protected against the spalling effect of squashing head projectiles and similarly acting warheads, it is advisable to provide armour which consists of at least two layers with a gap between them. For this reason alone, the development of anti-tank ammunition was therefore based on paying special attention to multilayered armour. The requirement for penetration of structured armour with air gaps is also indispensable in other respects. The same conditions apply, for example, when an armour is hit by a plate covering the running gear or by a "skirt" attached to the running gear. In the case of more or less abrupt impact, the point at which the ignition of a shaped charge warhead takes place can then be up to several metres away from the point at which its main effect should begin. In addition to standard single-layer targets, the testing of hollow-charge ammunition therefore includes targets consisting of several plates spaced at certain distances from each other (see Figure 2).
       
      [Figure 2]
       
      In principle, the mode of action of hollow charges meets the above-mentioned requirements very well, much better than is the case with conventional impact projectiles. When a kinetic projectile hits a armour surface, a high pressure is created in both the armour material and the projectile. Starting at the tip, a pressure condition is built up in the bullet, which leads to the phenomenon described earlier in the treatment of the spalling effect on the free surface of the bullet. Tensile stresses occur which begin to tear the bullet body before it has penetrated the target surface. They can cause the bullet to disintegrate into individual parts after penetrating the first plate, which are then stopped by a second plate of a multilayer target (see Figure 3 a and b).
       
      [Figure 3]
       
      If, on the other hand, hollow charges with a lined cavity are detonated on the target surface, the so-called hollow charge jet is generated, which is sometimes called a "spike" because it is initially coherent and usually occurs in a solid state. With the hollow charges commonly used today, the jet disintegrates as it advances into a series of small - often spindle-shaped - very fast projectiles, whose frontal velocities can reach about 10 km/sec; the last ones still achieve about 2 km/sec. When the first particle hits the surface of the shell, a pressure in the order of 1 million atmospheres is created there; the shell material begins to flow and an approximately tulip-shaped crater is formed, similar to the penetration of a body of high velocity into water. The volume occupied by the crater is released by displacing the armour material towards the free surface. When the second jet particle hits the bottom of the crater, repeat the process, as well as the impact of the following particles. Each particle continues the displacement of the target material where the previous one stopped until schliefilich creates a channel of penetration through the whole plate.
      The flow of the material particles associated with the displacement of the target material ends at the free surface. Partly at the upper side, partly at the lower side of the armour plate and partly also at the already created penetration channel, which is subsequently narrowed again slightly.
       
      The following jet particles not consumed during penetration continue their path after passing through the penetration channel and act on obstacles that are on their path. If they hit another armoured plate, they can continue the penetration process there undisturbed.
      In contrast to the behaviour of the compact kinetic projectile, the individual elements act on the armour one after the other, independently of each other, and it does not seem so important at first whether the armour is massive or in separate parts, because a disturbance at the tip of the projectile does not affect the following parts.
      Nevertheless, the so-called "bulkhead armour", in which a number of thinner armour plates are arranged with air gaps between them, also provides increased protection against hollow charges: The penetration channel created by the impact of the particles of the hollow-charge projectile is relatively narrow and is of the same order of magnitude as the plate thickness when using thinner plates of the bulkhead armour. When the hollow-charge particles strike these thin plates, the hole in the plate is created essentially by the fact that the material elements of the plate which are caught by the high dynamic pressure are forced away from the plate under the influence of the tensile stress acting perpendicularly to the free surface, both on the upper and the lower side of the plate. The penetration channel therefore runs almost perpendicular to the plate surface, regardless of whether the hollow charge particles generating the pressure impact obliquely or vertically. The tensile stresses induced at the plate surface as a result of the dynamic pressure are in any case perpendicular to the plate and also have an effect in this direction (see Figure 4).
       
      [Figure 4]
       
      If now diagonally incident subsequent particles reach the previously created penetration channel running approximately perpendicular to the surface, they find a much reduced cross-section for their passage compared to the vertical incidence (see Figure 5). There is thus an increased probability that they will come into contact with the wall as a result of path variations, as a result of which their contribution to the penetration performance is lost. The affected particle disintegrates explosively, since - as described above - the high pressure occurring during wall contact induces tensile stresses on the free surface of the particle, causing it to burst. In Figure 6, a TRW image converter camera is used to illustrate how a steel ball of 2 mm diameter is sprayed after it has penetrated a very thin plastic film at very high speed. Figure 7 shows the piece of a hollow charge jet in which a similar burst was triggered on a particle by touching the wall. As can be seen from the figure, the small debris of the disintegrated particle spreads sideways to the direction of the beam, apparently away from the wall that was touched. It is important that the propagation of these fragments into the free space behind the plate is possible. At massive targets this free space is not available, the particle splinters would be held together and their impulse could contribute to the penetration even if the particle had touched the wall before. That's why it's important, armoured plates and air gaps of certain thickness should follow each other.
       
      [Figure 5, figure 6 and figure 7]

      This leads to bulkhead arrangements which, when hitting the wall at an angle, cancel out the effects of a high portion of the hollow charge jet due to the increased probability of the jet particles touching the wall and their subsequent disintegration into the gap. The weight of the armour required for this, in relation to the unit area, is considerably less than in the case of solid armour. It is essential that this provides increased base protection against both balancing projectiles and shaped-charge ammunition, and it is noteworthy that this effect occurs in both cases by inducing the decay phenomenon on impact at high velocity. However, in the case of a balancing projectile, the entire mass of the energy carrier is captured by the destructive tension waves on first impact, whereas in the case of a hollow-charge jet only the mass portion corresponding to the respective impacting jet particles is captured.
       
      Measures to avoid disturbance of the shaped charge jet

      However, it is not clear why rear particles of the hollow charge jet must necessarily come into contact with wall elements of the penetration channel created by the previous ones. Should it not be much more possible to ensure that the particles
      aligned very cleanly and without "staggering" movement exactly on the cavity axis? However, this means that the slightest deviations from central symmetry must be avoided in the structure of the hollow charge. The whole rigor of this requirement is that it relates not only to the dimensions of the charge, but also includes the homogeneity of the materials used and that - as has already been shown - even differences in the size and orientation of the crystals in the explosive and in the copper of the liner have an influence. This requirement is even more stringent if one takes into account that the properties of the crystals mentioned above change over time, i.e. as they age, and that changes are also triggered during processing. A very sensitive influence can also be expected from the way the detonation is initiated.
      With the aforementioned and similar requirements with regard to precision, the production of hollow charges has set goals whose pursuit in the past has already brought about significant progress with regard to the generation of an undisturbed hollow charge jet during detonation, and in the future, through the tireless efforts of research and technology, even further perfection can be expected. In addition to this somewhat utopian-looking reference, however, it must be emphasized that the hollow charge principle is very flexible and includes a wealth of other possibilities for counteracting disturbances which oppose the effective targeted use of the explosive energy released during detonation. For example, it is not necessary for the hollow charge jet to dissolve into a number of particles as it progresses. Some of the irregularities in the behaviour of the particles will only develop during the tear-off process and can be avoided if the hollow charge jet is constructed in such a way that it does not tear.
      The reason for the dissolution of the hollow charge jet into a number of particles of different velocities is that the individual jet elements already have a different velocity when they are formed. In the case of the hollow charges currently in use, there is a velocity gradient in the beam from about 8-10 km at the tip to about 2 km at the end.The consequence is that the jet is constantly stretched as it progresses and eventually dissolves into more or less parts according to the strength properties of the material .2)
       
       
      The programmed shaped charge jet

      By special selection of the parameters of a hollow charge (type and density of the explosive, dimensions and shape of the cavity, wall thickness and material of the cavity lining, shape as well as wall thickness and material of the casing, position and extension of the ignition elements) it can be achieved that differences in the velocity of the individual elements of the jet are prevented at all.
      The relationship between the distribution of mass and velocity in the jet and the charge parameters was already known shortly after the discovery of the
      the lining of the cavity achievable effect by Thomanek quite detailed results. 3)
      This connection is achieved by following each individual sub-process during the detonation of the charge and the deformation of the liner by calculation. When the detonation front reaches the individual zones of the liner body, the material there enters a state of flow under the influence of the detonation pressure and is accelerated inwards. The speed at which the lining elements are accelerated depends on how long the pressure remains at the zone under consideration or, which comes to the same effect as how far the outer surface of the detonator is from this point. Thus, the influence of the width of the explosive coating on the velocity of a panel is obtained.
      For example, consider a cylindrical charge with a cone as a cavity and a diameter of 8 cm. The time required for the dilution wave to reach the top of the cone from the outer surface is then 4 cm/approx. 800000 cm/sec, i.e. approx. 5 microseconds; in the central zones of the cone with an explosive coating of 2 cm, this time is only half as long and the impulse transmitted to the lining elements by the detonation pressure in this time is therefore half as large.
      Of course, the speed also depends on the wall thickness of the lining body at this point and the density of the lining material.  The initial velocity of the lining elements can be specifically influenced by a suitable choice of the wall thickness and it can change at will between the tip and base of the lining cone. One speaks of "progressive" or "degressive" liners, depending on whether the wall thickness increases or decreases towards the base. The influence of the liner's wall thickness/explosive coverage ratio then has a further effect on the jet elements that are emitted when the liner zone converges on the cavity axis. In addition, the mass and velocity of the jet elements formed depend on the angle at which the convergence takes place, i.e. the opening angle of the cavity. Peak angles result in high velocities for small masses, and the opposite is true for obtuse angles.
      The previous remarks should serve to explain, at least by way of indication, how it is possible to determine the dependence of the distribution of mass and velocity in the jet on the charge parameters. With the knowledge of these interrelationships, it now seems possible to create projectile-like structures from the cladding bodies, in which the initial length and the distribution of mass and velocity over this length are predetermined, i.e. the hollow charge jet can be programmed.
       
      Up to now, almost all attempts have been made to obtain a jet with the greatest possible penetration capacity. This led to the familiar design forms: cylindrical on the outside, cavity for example 60° cone with copper liner, initiation of the detonation now often by detonation wave deflection at the rear edge of the detonator, whereby better use of the explosive volume and higher beam tip velocities are achieved (compare also Figure 16). The resulting beam is then a constantly stretched structure with a velocity of up to 10 km/sec at the tip and about 2 km/sec at the end, which is followed more slowly by the rest of the cladding mass, the so-called "slug". 4)
      As already mentioned several times, the differences in the velocity of the individual beam elements cause the initially coherent structure to be broken up into a sequence of particles. Nevertheless, very good results have been achieved with the described type of charges, especially against massive targets.
      Penetration depths of up to 6 charge diameters have been achieved. In contrast, when using targets with air gaps, the distance travelled in the massive parts of the target is greatly reduced. In the future, requirements for the performance of hollow-charge ammunition should be geared to these reduced amounts; this would mean that modern hollow charges should be developed to penetrate structured targets rather than exaggerated penetration performance in massive targets. An attempt should be made to program the hollow-charge jet, i.e. to adapt it to the structure of the target.
      In the following we will try to explain by means of examples that there are many possibilities to modify the beam of the currently used hollow charge.

      A completely different motion sequence of the particles of the beam from this type of charge can be obtained by replacing the centrally symmetrical ignition by a (one-sided) eccentric one.The individual beam particles then no longer move one behind the other on the cavity axis, their paths point in a fan-like manner in different directions (compare Figures 8a and b) 5) The following example is intended to show how even a slight change in the cavity shape can noticeably influence the beam and its effect.  Figure 9a shows a cladding body whose shape can be roughly described as a cone which ends at the base in a spherical zone. Figure 9b shows the penetration channel of an externally cylindrical charge produced using this liner.
       
      [Figure 8 and figure 9]
       
      The explanation for the peculiar shape results from the velocity distribution in the hollow jet. The front part of the jet comes from the cone-shaped part of the cavity and corresponds to the jet from a cone, which stretches as it advances. For the subsequent jet elements, which originate from the spherical zones at the base, it is decisive that the tangent at the cavity becomes steeper and steeper towards the base. The consequence is that the successive jet elements become faster and faster towards the rear, thus approaching each other and leading to a thickening of the jet in this rear area. On impact, the effect is increased in the form of a widening of the penetration channel.
      While with the hollow charge described above, a concentration of energy occurs in the rear jet section, it is also possible to achieve this in the front jet section. For this purpose, the cavity must be spherical at the apex and end in a cone at the base (see Figures 10a and b). The penetration channel is wide at the top and has the shape of a hemisphere followed by a narrow conical part. 6)
      If the cavity, which is essentially delimited by a cone, is spherical at both the apex and the base, the penetration channel will consist of a wide part at the armour surface, followed by a narrow conical part and a further widening at the end. Following these examples, it should be considered possible that the effectiveness of the individual sections of the hollow charge jet can be determined in quite a different way, especially if it is taken into account that other parameters of the hollow charges can also contribute to this by their specific choice.
       
      [Figure 10]
       
      As explained in the previous section, other velocity distributions are possible in addition to the velocity gradient in the jet of the commonly used hollow charges that leads to rupture. It is also possible to achieve that all beam elements have the same velocity, provided that the relevant charge parameters are adjusted to it in each zone of the cavity. If, for example, the wall thickness of the cladding is selected in such a way that it is in the same ratio to the corresponding width of the explosive coating for all zones, the cladding elements of all zones receive the same initial velocity on detonation and thus also all the beam elements that are separated from them when flowing together on the cavity axis.
      As a result, the jet is represented here by an "overlong projectile" with a rather high velocity. A sketch of the principle of such a charge is shown in Figure 11. The nozzle-shaped body attached to the base has the purpose of preventing the decomposition by-products from coming into direct contact with the free atmosphere when the base zone is accelerated, thus avoiding a premature drop in pressure. In a similar way, other causes of disturbance are to be avoided, whereby a number of experiments are always necessary before a principle path can be realized.
       
      [Figure 11]

      Instead of a single rod-like projectile, a sequence of several such rods can be obtained in which the individual elements have the same velocity, with the velocity of the rods differing from each other.
      In addition, from the special solution of the identical velocity of all beam elements, transitions to the common hollow charge with the large velocity gradient in the beam can also be developed. In particular, the case can also be realized in which the difference in the velocity of the following beam elements is so small that the beam is only broken when all obstacles of the target have been overcome. How such a continuous beam reacts to protective measures that disturb a particle-dissolved jet is still to be investigated. In any case, the disturbances caused by the rupture process are avoided here (compare Figure 12).
       
      [Figure 12]

      Also, the range of possible variations in the structure of the shaped charge jet is so wide that an adaptation to very different target compositions seems possible. Not insignificant is the fact that the energy of the effect carriers from a hollow charge can be distributed in a targeted manner to mass and velocity, i.e. the jet can obtain a greater mass at the expense of the velocity of its elements and vice versa.
      As investigations have shown, the protective effect of certain materials depends on the speed of the projectiles. 7) However, such measures need not refer to the entire jet, but can be limited to parts of it, for example to the front or rear parts of the target.
      A special group of shaped charges has not been mentioned so far, namely those with a flat, especially blunt conical cavity. ln contrast to the pointed conical cavity, the attainable velocities are lower here. The speed of the structure previously referred to as the jet is no longer very different from that of the so-called following slug. It can be achieved by methods which will not be discussed in detail here, that the jet and slug components - i.e. the entire mass of the liner - merge into an at least temporarily coherent structure. lf the difference in the speeds of the front and rear parts is sufficiently small, it is absorbed by internal expansion work, and a projectile with a uniform speed of about 2000 m/sec is created. Figure 13 shows a series of such projectiles from charges with a flat cavity, using X-ray flash images.
       
      Figure 14 shows a section through a captured specimen of cohesive projectiles. Such projectiles are particularly characterized by stable flight at long distances and have already found 'a versatile application today, especially as a replacement for natural fragments (see also cover picture and Figure 15).
       
      [Figure 13, figure 14 and figure15]
       
      In connection with the efforts to combat future targets, which may be unknown at present, it should be mentioned that it is possible and possibly very useful to arrange projectile-forming hollow charges in a special way one behind the other. If this is done taking into account all the side effects of the detonation, and if such an arrangement is ignited appropriately, one obtains a sequence of projectiles flying one behind the other at fairly high speed, the mass of which is considerably greater than that of particles of the hollow charge jet.
      It is also possible to combine a projectile-forming charge with a jet-forming charge with an acute-angled cavity. Figure 16 shows such a charge, also known as "tandem charge".
      It was designed to create a strong follow-on effect inside the tank. On detonation, the jet from the rear charge penetrates through an opening in the apex of the front flat-cone charge. Only after this has been done is this charge also detonated; the flat liner body is formed into a projectile which follows the jet from the rear charge through the channel created by it and comes into effect there depending on the intended purpose.
       
      [Figure 16]
       
      These examples are intended to show that there are almost no limits to the imagination when it comes to exploiting the potential inherent in the principle of forming effective projectiles by transferring explosive energy to inert materials. There are many ways to develop explosive charges that can be effective against complex targets and do not necessarily require a gun to reach the target, but can be used in warheads of missiles. Of course, there will always be possibilities to achieve sufficient protection by suitably constructed armour. What should be particularly emphasized here, however, is the view that there is hardly likely to be a miracle cure for all types of shaped charges and that, apart from a temporary predominance on one side or the other, there will probably continue to be mutual efforts to perfect shaped charges on the one hand and protective armour on the other.
       
    • By Ronny
      I see many knowledgeable members here so i decided to make an account to ask some question
      According to many historical accounts, the armor of WW II battleship is very thick: can be between 410-650 mm of steel
      Thick enough that they can even resist penetration  from 12-16 inch canon 


       
      Compared to these massive round, it is probably obvious that missiles such as Harpoon, Exocet will do little or nothing against the armor belt: No penetration and probably nothing more than a small dent.
      Anti tank missiles such as AGM-65, AGM-114 or Brimstone can penetrate the armor but all their warhead will do is penetrating a tiny hole into the massive battleship, it likely will hit nothing significant given that a battleship have massive volume of space). Furthermore, i heard space armor is extremely effective against HEAT warhead as well).
       
      But what if the two are combined? HEAT + explosive warhead: aka BROACH.
      With a frontal shape charged and secondary follow through bomb
      This is the working principles of the system:


       
      BROACH was designed to help small cruise missile penetrate bunkers. So i have some question:
      1- Because concrete and soil are very brittle, unlike steel, I think the precursor charge likely much drill bigger hole in them than it can drill on steel armor belt of a battleship, so even if we use missile with BROACH warhead to hit a battleship, it won't drill a hole big enough to allow the secondary warhead to pass through. Is that a correct assessment?
      2-  Looking at the cutaway of the missiles. How come the detonation of the frontal shaped charge doesn't damage/destroy the secondary warhead or at very least propel it to the opposite direction? 
       
      3-  Can supersonic missiles such as Agm-88 (Mach2) , Asmp-A (Mach3) , Rampage , Asm-3 (Mach 3) , Hawc (Mach 5) penetrate the armor belt of a battleship? or they simply don't have enough velocity and density?
       
       
       
    • By Molota_477
      M1 CATTB
      pic from TankNet.
      I feel uncertain whether its cannon's caliber was 140mm or not, I found a figure at the document AD-A228 389 showed behind, which label the gun as LW 120.But in many ways I've found its data in websites all considered to be 140mm.

      AFAIK,the first xm291(140)demonstrator was based on xm1 tank, and the successor was the''Thumper'' which was fitted with a new turret look like the CATTB but still m1a1 hull(Maybe it was CATTB's predecessor? )

      I will really appreciate if anyone have valuable information to share
    • By Domichan
      Hello all,
      I apologize for the fact that my first post is a question. I am a Dutch collector of medium and large calibre AP ammunition and I recently bought an 105mm APFSDS-T projectile, that is marked with the designation DM53. The 120mm DM53 is well known, but I cannot find any information on the 105mm DM53. I do know the IMI M426/DM63 round exists, for I have seen pictures of that, which would indicate that a DM53 would exist as well, in accordance with the way German ammo designations go. Questions to Rheinmetall, the Bundeswehr and various collector groups have remained unanswered. 
      Among the experts here, is there anyone who has information on this type of APFSDS-T Round?
      Thank you in advance,
      Domichan
       

×
×
  • Create New...