You seem to think that I was comparing A2 and A3. But no.
I am comparing A3 and “potential A3” if instead of a steel tip there was an elongated penetrator.
Wake up at last.
I initially said that I didn’t understand why a tip was needed if a longer penetrator would have the same overall effect instead.
You were definitely were comparing those two lmao. Anyways this just gets worse for you, the “potential A3” would loose more of the round due to the explosion of the era than what it looses due to the tip existing, you would then also be left with a damaged round and blunted tip which would have worse performance. The steel can preform two jobs one it puts less impact pressure on the armor which prevents it from setting itself off, or two can sustain the blast pressure a bit better than the DU can which is what they were trying to explain to you.
Ah, I think something is allowed to be published here.
Here is the patent
so… its always angled at 70 degrees or are you just assuming the best case scenario
because no way a 40mm plate at 0 degrees can provide 120mm of RHA protection
how exactly does an exploded relikt that detonated on the sacrificial tip is doing anything to hinder the main penetrator?
Actually according to the patent I posted, the exact opposite happens. The round uses the outer flyer plate to rotate the round to be more normal. So if we assume the main penetrator has the same dimensions as M829a2 impacting at the same velocity, it would have better penetration when going through the ERA than M829A2 would be striking the plain armor
Maybe im just dumb but is this a response to my question that im just too ignorant to figure out?😅
Yeah.
TLDR: It won’t degrade the penetration. If anything, it will increase the penetration
Just passing by, btw, a long tip increase the dead zone of ERA (so the front plate only interact with tip, not the main rod) and it result in pen probability. Like if u hit a 68-deg front-plate-only ERA with 1.4km/s rod, the plate fly 0.2km/s, 200mm tip, you will have about 143.3mm weak zone where it only bash the tip.
Let ERA be 500mm long, and your main rod will definitely pen it without tip, you will increase the pen prob by 28.6%
Guys check my new issue: Community Bug Reporting System
best Gajin can do is add a new ERA that cancels out all rounds and add another t90 with an extra reverse gear
This has literally nothing to do with the tip shape … let me explain it to you :
First of all , you need to understand how ERA is set off by KE projectiles. As it is written in academic or defense industry publications :
It is the shock wave transferred from the KE projectile to the face plate of the ERA as soon as it enters contact which initiate the ERA tiles. More precisely said shock wave creates spalling which set off the ERA tiles. This is confirmed by TV Zvezda ( Russian MOD official channel ) documentary on the matter :
Now that you understand this crucial detail it’s a matter of energy transfer, not shape, the rest follows naturally.
The design shown here uses an exposed tip with no ballistic cap, and a stepped profile that dramatically increases drag, limiting velocity and energy at range (training round).
Reduced energy is exactly why this design has shown partial insensitivity to Kontakt-5 ( not consistently), at certain ranges (presumably longer ones), where the shock wave transferred was insufficient to trigger the 4S22 tiles.
This is also presumably one reason American designers chose reduced muzzle velocity on the M829A3 relative to the M829A2 as a secondary ( unreliable mechanism ) while the primary mechanism remained the segmented tip design which goal wasn’t to prevent ERA detonation, but to preserve the integrity of the main penetrating body !
Brother you’re not explaining anything to him, lol
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Brother he is literally stating :
‘’ The modified tip design of BM-22 that allowed it to “ignore” Kontakt-5 in testing ‘’
So im totaly explaining everything to him and others who ignore what they are talking about !
Even if hypothetically a different tip shape could prevent ERA detonating, the Adiabatic sheer phase requires a very specific shape of the penetrator, by changing the shape of the tip, you are doing a fair amount of the ERAs work for it anyway, as reforming the tip into the correct shape wastes a massive amount of energy.
As already demonstrated, ERA is triggered by energy transfer, so there is no “inherent” shape that prevents ERA detonation no geometry can prevent energy transfer from occurring during a physical contact. Only insufficient energy can do that .
That said, even granting the fictional premise that some shape could prevent ERA from triggering, it would still be an absurd design choice.
One of the primary working mechanisms of “heavy” ERA like Kontakt-5 ( among bending , fracture and induced yaw ) is to blunt the incoming penetrator’s tip which is precisely why the M829A3 uses a sacrificial tip, to preserve the integrity of the main penetrator segment.
Sacrificing an optimal tip shape to supposedly defeat ERA would therefore negate the very benefit it was meant to provide, as you rightfully pointed out !
Yeah, from what I understand, while there is a number of factors that causes ERA to reduce APFSDS penetration, such as lost mass, compromising structural integrity, deflecting the projectile and so on, but the blunting of the tip and the energy required to reform it is the most significant by far, if I recall correctly that can cost 20% to 30% of the rounds penetration on its own.