You’re right, my mistake.
1 Like
So, I tried adapting the formula using the core weight and 17% of the carrier weight and it works ok for US APCR. I’ll have to check other rounds when I get a chance. I do remember Peasant and Conraire discussing how much of the carrier was applied during penetration but I don’t remember specifi values. I’ll see if I can dig it up.
1 Like
Now I remember why I left out shell mass. Using core weight and 17% of the carrier weight, the BR-365P went from 168mm at muzzle velocity to 244mm at muzzle velocity. I could never find a good compromise to account for it. It would either overestimate Soviet APCR or underestimate US and German APCR.
2 Likes
Well, it’s based on design, so no universal formula is going to fit every APCR round.
What’s important is the mass behind the core. US rounds generally have little to no mass behind the core, thus we can just look at the cores for armor penetration.
That’s my point. No universal formula will work, but ignoring shell mass was closer than trying to apply it.
The “blunt tipped” shells, such as BR-365 have performance comparable to ~1.1CRH (tangent) head projectiles against infinite aluminum targets.
Their shatter resistance is from changing the stress profile, and (associated) their ideal hardness pattern. In real life examples the fuse will tend to fire if the deacceleration is too high.
In 8752 038 where the coefficient of resistance changes steadily with the increase in hardness of the Fascist armor, which clearly indicates the projectile is not shattering.
2-09519 has птп against 230mm plates, псп against 200mm plates. And AHF claims… An птп limit against 180mm?
And I have to ask. What kind of brain compares BR-365 to a cylinder?