Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Iron Drapes

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Iron Drapes

  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 let's not even mention the ERA block that got hit chain-detonating the ERA block beside it. We also have to take into account the fact that SCJs are not always continuous jets. Disturbance can cause it to break up and particulate. For example, in the armour array of an M1 Abrams, there NERA plates are located behind a simple spaced steel front wall. Impacting the front wall and emerging into the air gap behind it will cause an SCJ to partially particulate, and the behaviour of the jet will not be the same as a continuous jet when it impacts the NERA plates. Particulated jets will be easy to deflect by the moving plate of the NERA because the jet will tend to "splash" on the surface of the plate itself instead of going through, so sometimes there is very little penetration into the plate itself, and therefore almost no material being "fed". I suspect that you may see this at the end of a stack of NERA plates, when the jet is more or less expended. Older shaped charge warheads like the type you find on the old PG-7V (1961) are not so precise, and antiquated shaped charges like the Panzerfaust and RPG-2 are even more imprecise, so the jet is already a little particulated when it forms and hits the ERA, and less and less material is being "fed", so to speak. So for all intents and purposes, the value of ERA comes from disruption of the SCJ. BTW I think we all should use "dynamic plate thickness" instead of "feeding material". The former is an established scientific term and it is more specific than the latter.
  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 the penetration of the shaped charge warhead. He also said: "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." But you choose to ignore it. So if the total effect of ERA can be expressed as a 70% reduction in the penetration of ERA, and various methods of identifying the factors in the reduction tell us that the dynamic plate thickness has an effect of between only 30% and 10-15%.... Yes, I consider that as a minor factor compared to the disruption and interference of the jet. It is not the primary mechanism of defeat. I never said that ERA can have an effect on a cumulative jet without any of the moving plates touching it, as if the plate simply disappears into thin air when it is touched by the jet. That is simply your imagination of what I am saying. I have said many, many times that the effect comes from the destabilization, disruption, interference, etc, etc of the jet as the moving plate impacts and cuts through it. Some of the effect comes from the thickness of the plate itself, yes, I never disputed that, because it would be stupid to do so, because no, I am not stupid enough to not realize that the plate itself has some thickness, and that moving it laterally across a jet or some other penetrator increases that thickness. Ask and ye sh- blah blah blah. And I wasn't even talking to you when I posted that. So in the context of this discussion, it has absolutely 0 relevance. Besides, the picture was from you, and you did not give the sources for any of the three pictures you posted. Don't make it harder for yourself.
  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 had to lift up the turret to pull the entire cannon out, and once the turret was off, you might as well do some work on the autoloader anyway.
  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 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.
  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 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: 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.
  12. I am not saying that barrel weight is the culprit, but barrel thickness, and I also mentioned the long recoil operation and unsupported barrel. There is a very, very good reason why most of the turrets using the 2A72 include some sort of frame to support the barrel. BTR-3U, BTR-4, BMP-3, Uran-9, 30mm RCWS from Tigr-M and so on. The barrel of the 2A72 is not supposed to be unsupported, because accuracy drops very fast when you start shooting. Every 2A72 barrel has a pair of guide rings around them, and they are supposed to fit inside a support sleeve. So yes, 2A72 is indeed less accurate, and everyone knows it. Look at the ZBL-09 and ZBD-05.
  13. 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.
  14. What? That RT video isn't reporting news or anything, it was a livestream covering the biathlon. Biased as RT is, how good do you think they are at editing live footage in real time to show that the Chinese team missed a couple of their shots? What value does that even have, and why would they want to do that? You think that the Russian government wants to spark a dispute with China over something as petty editing the scores in a shooting competition via RT? What are you smoking? It's just a livestream of the event, and the Chinese team did not hit as many targets as they should have given the advanced armour and skilled crews they brought to the biathlon. That is what I am saying. You are projecting whatever delusions you have into my statement. Now, back to the Suvorov Attack: I am not talking about the score sheet, and I am not talking about the Chinese team winning overall, because the Type-86 IFV is clearly faster than the BMP-2. I am talking about the shooting accuracy of the Chinese team at 3:15 of the video: https://youtu.be/R1IhN07EJtI and https://youtu.be/R1IhN07EJtI. The 2A72 is not known for its accuracy, and AFAIK Type-86 doesn't have a ballistic computer, so I suspect something fishy. Maybe the Chinese team used APDS or APFSDS or something like they did in the 2014 tank biathlon when they used 125mm APFSDS instead of 125mm HEAT like everyone else. And how come we don't see any tracers and we hardly see any signs of impacts? Take a look at these two instances of the Chinese team doing their shooting in the 2016 Suvorov Attack: https://youtu.be/feUNb8pmI3g?t=12m48s and https://youtu.be/ulRAOOUqqgM. In both examples, we clearly see tracers, but none during the shooting in the 2017 event. Now look at the Angolan team's shooting at 56:02: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1IhN07EJtI&feature=youtu.be?. Here, you can see multiple tracers flying over the target as they miss again and again. Why? Now I strongly suspect that it is because Chinese team got some higher velocity ammo like APFSDS, and since APFSDS is so fast, you can't see the tracer. So yes, it is very suspicious to me. No, I am not blaming the misses the Angolan team made on sabotage, because I know that the competency of the Angolan crew is very low, and they are not very familiar with the vehicle as they had some problem before commencing the shooting stage and Chinese technicians had to assist them. No, I don't care that the Russian team missed one of the targets when it was their turn to shoot, because that is already considered quite a good result by the standards of the BMP-2, which has a very crude FCS. BTW, Russians were not using 2A72 in the same trial, because BMP-2 is equipped with 2A42. 2A42 has a fixed 38.5 kg barrel measuring 2416mm with short stroke recoil dampening device, and the 2A72 has a 36 kg barrel measuring 2500mm in length and it uses long recoil action with an unsupported cantilever barrel. You tell me: All things considered, which cannon will tend to have better accuracy? I feel that these are very constructive comments indeed. This is a PLA discussion thread, not a PLA glorification thread, right? Right?
  15. I don't know what you are talking about. I am merely stating that the 2A72 has horrendous accuracy and is unsuitable for long range shooting, even in single shot mode, and it is incredible that the Chinese team could somehow hit so many targets with them. I am not even talking about the Type-86A, just the gun itself, which is known without a doubt to be terribly inaccurate. If you cannot even consider my comment without accusing me of subversion or whatever, then maybe you are seeing this as a "Chinese can beat Russian Uberman any day" thread.
  16. Does anyone know if there is a patent for Relikt? I may have found something that essentially describes Relikt and gives many additional details and many diagrams.
  17. "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: 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.
  18. 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?
  19. 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?
  20. Are those IFV targets somehow different? Because 2A72 is NOT capable of such accuracy. In fact, the Chinese team had quite miserable shooting results at the Suvorov attack competition in Russia last year.
×
×
  • Create New...