apfsds does not change directions.
It is quite inconvenient to get to / open up. It is almost never used for any reason and remains empty on 99% of vehicles. The sole purpose would be to sneak things back from deployments here and there cuz no one bothers to check it.
2 Likes
casually ignoring the second image
Never thought about stowing shit in it since we didn’t exactly get to pull them off the ships. Aside from pogie bait and maybe personal items. But yeah, it takes a long time to pull rounds. We had a couple we kept in Korea, but they stopped after they found some swollen from humidity.
Usually they’re used to stow stuff when coming back from overseas not going out
1 Like
Here is at least one instance a hull rack that detonated.
I know the engine was destroyed in the process, but I’m not sure if this was due to the ammo fire, or the initial weapon destroying the tank.
Additionally I believe the fire was isolated and did not reach into the crew compartment. I do not know for certain, if this was friendly fire, a scuttling event, or enemy fire
1 Like
What you posted literally say it cuts off 5-6 cm of the rod to make it blunt. Which is exactly what i was talking about not having the same effect on DU rods do to their self sharpening abilities.
Which leds me to conclude that munitions made of other metals can see 50% protection against KE but not DU munitions. Hence why they put it in parentheses, and worded it in a way of speculation.
1 Like
An article i read stated that “blunt the head” and “deflect the direction”.
Again APFSDS can not be deflected. And DU is a self sharpening rod which leds me to conclude who ever made this article does not have much understanding of DU penitrators.
That being said it never uses the word deflect so it is possible they are insinuating it causes the round to tumble. I’m not sure if this is possible especially with the way DU likes to sheer and melt, but i would have to see the U.S test results to be sure.
This is your source?
Yeah, he’s from Kiev, independent reporters, and most of his source stated true, also, take a look at my previous post for more about 3rd party source.
And what you reply is a “russian language version” instead of his original is .kiev for Ukrainian.
1 Like
I appreciate the information provided, thank you.
My conclusion from what is know is that K-5 is extremely effective against non-DU penitrators. Hence the wording from the U.S test. K-5 also presented a problem for M829a1 do to it removing 5 to 6cm of the rod. This would cause a lost of penetration do to the rod having less material to melt through the armor. Which is why for a2 to counter K5 they made it longer to make up for the lost material.
1 Like
I don’t care where they are from - an extremely amateur website that hasn’t been updated since 2009 is hardly concrete evidence. Being third-party doesn’t make him reliable.
1 Like
Sure, keep that think for yourself, that’s the style of most easterm europe forum/websties, they are just lazy to code a proper website.
Except uranium is alpha radioactive which is DEADLY ☢️. The rest aren’t
Yes that’s very different
Material entering is one thing. But also active itself. However it would take 15+ years of exposure to du to cause cancer i believe. Still uranium enrichment workers have health considerations
considering a youtube channel ran by us military personel says your wrong about it not having spall liner ima have to say your wrong
1 Like
