I was referring to post pen, while at higher speeds like you said DU is slightly worse, anything slower than 2000 Meters Per Second DU is better in every way assuming both rounds are same side and diameter.
Im afraid both have gone full ret-
Why did DM53 outperform M829A2 then? ;)
Could it be that, development in the US is lagging far behind, seeing as they still haven’t produced an alloy as good as the 30 years old WSM 4-1.
Listen, it’s not even like i wholey disagree, for velocities sub-1500m/s, it is clear DU is superior, WHA mushrooms too much, but at cannon scale, they’re generally equal assuming, hence why shorter but heavier DM53 beat the longer but slightly lighter M829A2 in Danish trials, and yes, they did in fact test them both.
Even today, US relies on Germany for tungsten penetrator alloys for the KE-W series like A1 and A4.
2 Likes
Jεcka
source
Interesting point to make seeing as Europe relies heavy on the US defense industry just to keep the nato war machine alive.
Internal damage will always no matter the speed be better, and the lack of mushrooming makes the round less likely to shatter. In your source
you say is superior under this limit all though the Abrams shoots at 1680 M/S compared to the L/55 with 1750 M/S. So its not only faster by just a little bit more and still is worse than the DU. < - (I should’ve clarified but DM53 is what im comparing too)
Both A1 and A4 are DU penetrators and KEW is only for export variants because some nations legally dont allow DU in there armory (Australia)
1670m/s for DM53
Check what cannon Danish 2A5s use :)
For the source, 2002ish Danish trials.
Mushrooming has nothing to do with flexural ability of a KE rod, that is solely relying on thigs like plasticity, areal moment of inertia, young modulus, and flexural rigidity.
KE-W A1, and KE-W A4…
And US defence industry is heavily relying on its European counterparts as well, Tungsten alloys, is one aspect where the US is simply years behind.
1 Like
Well since we are reffering to in game context the 2A7 shoots at 1750 M/S
A4 could mean any round, the reason its KE-W means "Kenetic → (W) or Tungsten on the periodic table.
Its called trade, that’s how it works… But yes in relation to who supplies the most technology and support across the board that medal goes to the US. From computers to transmissions all of NATO relies on US supply.
Mushrooming lowers post pen spall and lowers the integrity of the round leading to more chance of shattering or even non pen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPeO8xGXAw - this it at a flat angle but it does show how DU pens more thx to it keeping its integrity.
Deliberately ignoring ingame 2A5 in order to justify your point.
My my :)
I mixed up the L/55 and L/44, ik the 2A6 uses the L/55 i forgot the 2A5 doesnt.
Even then they shoot at the same speed with worse pen and post damage…
Leopard 2A5DK
Go look up KE-W A1/A4
Mushrooming provides greater break out effect in actual armors
You literally just said “A4” that could be both M829{A4} <----- or KEW {A4} <-------- not my fault for your lack of communicating.
Even today, US relies on Germany for tungsten penetrator alloys for the KE-W series like A1 and A4.
How about reading? I explicitly said KE-W series.
Well no, tungsten rounds are more expensive in the USA that’s the most important area where DU is better
1 Like
Tbh most of your sources aré unreliable and not oficial and have even been roasted before in the forums because they aré straight out lying of exagerating some stuff, at hypervelocity impacts, the penetration mechanism shifts to hydrodynamic flow, so material strength matters less and density dominates, and modern WHA has advanced to higher density domains at around 18.5 to a whooping 19 kg cm³ just aproximates, and not only this but some countries like japan have even added adiabatic shearing to their WHA apfsds trough advanced metallurgy wich gives them the hypervelocity impact advantage over DU while keeping the inherent natural extra penetration from DU
1 Like
I understand where you come from, but the sources are also incredibly old. At the time, the US was really lagging behind the WHA alloy department, and even then, this was based off a tungsten-nickel-iron alloy, which was incredibly basic even at the time (1980s). Comparing that to today’s alloys like the grain-refined WHA with controlled cobalt/nickel ratios, you are comparing 40-year-old research with today’s modern technology. Now, addressing another issue, DU does lose its adiabatic shearing once it starts going faster and faster, and it’s noticeable since the 1600 m/s. The same tests you showed always test both at 1200-1500 m/s, exactly on the speed where DU dominates and becomes the most effective.
“Catastrophic shattering” also describes 1970s tungsten, not modern W-Ni-Co alloys engineered specifically to prevent that.
DM53/DM63 , and this is a real thing, and it’s mostly related to the same issue that modern APFSDS now use much more complex and capable WHA alloys.
You’re citing 1980s papers on generic WHA alloys tested at velocities where DU self-sharpening works best. Modern WHA APFSDS is fired 300-500 m/s faster, entering a regime where DU’s thermal softening increases and WHA’s stable high-strain behavior pays off. Modern WHA rounds like DM53/63 operate at velocities and with alloy formulations that close most of the historical DU advantage gap. The performance difference is narrow enough that nations choose WHA based on non-penetration factors which proves DU isn’t 'flat out better in every way
2 Likes
this is not 100% true, the wider hole and radial stress waves can fracture more material on the far side of the plate, wich in theory produces more spall, now this in theory can also be applied to the DU rod aswell, adiabatic shearing dosent produce more spall and pyrophoric capabilities only heats up the material that is being sent inside the tank, it dosent really produce more spall nor its magical NOR it acts up like thermite melting trough everything, its in very wrong wording just an incendiary round
again you are using a generic rod with no real identity as a modern apfsds, if we are comparing raw material capacity ofc DU its gonna be better in every way, if we are comparing modern alloy with DU its gonna be more likely to match DU performance, specially stuff like higher denisty WHA with adiabatic shearing
here the example JP2003042700A - 高速飛翔体及びその製造方法 - Google Patents
1 Like
No proof
Does he need to make sure he gets every piece of data used to explain DU superiority? You guys are asking for
Information only the governments have again still inconclusive. None of you guys know what actually goes into an APFSDS round. It’s all based on close enough guess work using a calculator.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Overall, this forum shows a couple things.
-Abrams is accurately based of some Swedish trials people provided sources to not some random statements
-WT treats DU rounds with the same metrics as WHA. Because that calculator can’t calculate correctly the sharpening penetration aspect of DU. So in WT DU=WHA for simplicity
-Even though Gajin state’s primary sources are the way to go you can’t stop the “I once heard” or “trust me I’m an APFSDS expert”
I’ll take my leave this is a waste of time
1 Like
Wow that’s really LO even for you.