Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Zach9889

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. https://www.serdp-estcp.org/content/download/34366/332230/file/WP-200805-FR.pdf Demonstration of Tungsten Nanocomposite Alternatives to Depleted Uranium in Anti-Armor Penetrators A more recent comparison of DU and WA penetrator performance.
  2. Both photos are of the same projectile, stills taken at different points of the video linked below: https://youtu.be/zW7A98atUn0
  3. My dude, as soon as you start framing your arguments with insults you lose regardless of the actual content of your post. I come to this site for discussion not insults. Please stop polluting this forum.
  4. Would you be able to provide this source you are quoting from?
  5. Perhaps it was an effort in increasing protection against 152mm/155mm fragments at closer impact ranges?
  6. I don't think the projectile could get any longer based on the limitations of the cartridge. It may appear longer though if the rod diameter was reduced from the A3 to the A4. The tip protruding from the sabot petals appears to have retained the same diameter though.
  7. Perhaps the 161mm @60°/320mm-340mm figures are for protection along the frontal arc of the turret (+30°). This would put the those figures roughly in line (~393mm) with the 400mm cited by the CIA if they were only considering 0° impact obliquity. This is kind of obvious. I believe there was a underestimation of Soviet KE projectiles by NATO going into the 80's that snared both M1 and Leo 2 protection development. You can see both designs upgrade their inadequate armor through the 80's to compensate for those deficiencies.
  • Create New...