But the 20-30% improved penetration after ERA already takes into account the additional penetration from the tip.
According to my calculations, the 630x25 projectile with a tip actually penetrates 20-30% more steel after ERA.
568/437=1.3
524/437=1.2
But according to yours, no.
According to the patents from ATK, such a design increases the penetration into RHS protected by an unkown type of heavy ERA by 20 to 30% compared to the same penetrator without solid steel tip. Against normal RHS not protected by any form of ERA however the penetration increased only by 5 to 10%, which is to be expected due to the steel tip also prodividing penetration.
So instead of having some mind-boggling penetration (for an APFSDS fired with the short L/44 barrel) against all types of armor, the penetration against RHS/composite armor might be as low as ~660 to 700 mm; enough to defeat the main armor of tanks like the T-80U, T-90 and Type 99.
I hope I’ve made the point clear.
It seems to me that you’re not taking into account that the effectiveness of ERA penetration is determined not only by the tip effect, but also by its simple kinetic impact.
The effectiveness is already substracted from the total sum of performance by way of lowering ERA’s performance, the tip does not magically disappear, it increases performance of the projectile, so we need to look at a rod without it (i.e say, 610mm of pen), and a rod with it (performance increased by 1.1 where the final result is ~675mm’ish of perforation at 10m).
Therefore, a rod without the tip will perforate (-120mm from ERA), 490mm of steel, a rod with the tip will perforate 591mm - > ~20% increase in performance over a projectile without the tip.
Justifying M829A3s existence.
This corroborates the 660mm - 700mm figure seen in the article that uses the ATK patent.
But according to yours, no.
lol.
What’s wrong with this calculation?
To be honest, what’s wrong is the fact T-series have their LoS protection coded as flat protection.
After all, 530mm LoS RHAe performance will be vastly less in 0 deg/LoS performance (roughly 440 to 450mm’ish).
A fix to this would corroborate M829A2’s “brute force approach”, in fact.
Once again.
The table showing the difference in penetration after ERA clearly shows that the technical comparison is between a projectile with and without a tip and increased thickness.
This means that this 20-30% difference already accounts for the increase in kinetic energy of the tip, not just the anti-ERA effect.
I did the calculations visually and got 20-30%.
Could you do your own calculations for a 630x25 projectile? So that it matches the document.
Which is pointless, the source states >630, meaning GREATER than 630mm. At no point should we even be considering calculating a projectile of such size, in fact it states the projectile should be >670mm, so the lowest we could use is a 671mm long DU projectile. For any level of comparison to make sense, it has to match the in-flight weight of 7.2kg, the only configuration that achieves it is a 690x25mm DU rod with a 150mm steel tip.
This means that this 20-30% difference already accounts for the increase in kinetic energy of the tip, not just the anti-ERA effect.
And the end-result from my calculation is that the steel-tipped projectile achieves a 20% post-ERA performance compared to a projectile without it.
The table showing the difference in penetration after ERA clearly shows that the technical comparison is between a projectile with and without a tip and increased thickness.
How is it any different from my calculation?
FUNNILY, the patent also states this:
The ammunition system of claim 20 wherein the first
portion of the body has a density Substantially the same as
a density of the Second portion of the body.
So we could all be wrong about the tip being steel, and instead it’s DU/WHA, if it is DU, we could just be extending the penetrator by the reported length of the tip.
If it is DU, then performance increases to 690mm’ish pen at 10m, vastly outmatching any K-5 clad T-series, and matching the 7.2kg in-flight weight.
And you know what? In fact the tip is WHA:
alloys, and tungsten-based composites and having a
first mass of between about 9% and 15% of the pen
etrator mass, and
a Second portion consisting essentially of material
Selected from the group consisting of uranium,
uranium-based alloys, and uranium-based composites
and having a Second mass forming Substantially the rest
of the penetrator mass and positioned aft of the first
portion of the body;
So what we’re looking here for, is a mixed >800mm projectile with DU and WHA, a thickness of AT LEAST 25mm, but somehow you don’t think it could defeat Kontakt-5?
;)
Nice one.
I predict he’ll do one of two things.
Slink off back to his forums until another time. Maybe a different Western tech that he can opine on - we’ve had SAMs, we’ve had British NERA, we’ve now had Darts - what will it be next week? Nuclear Reactors, Western AESA Radars, Stealth, maybe even the meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything?I dunno.
Say that ‘because X Russian APFSDS cannot do this’ - Western round Y cannot. (Because they look the same.) Bonus points if he wheels out a dubious ‘source’ that is completely in Russian but which covers said Western tech.
Will I be right? Will I win an internet cookie?
Stay tuned for next week’s exciting episode of ‘When Ralin Strikes!’
Because it makes money
Ooh wow new shiny vehicle now I have to grind it (some will pay to do so)
Its no different to IRIS-T launch where a ton of people flocked to grind it out.
Being pragmatic - it costs money (in terms of dev time to add new things in) - more so than fixing. Surely?
(Copy-paste Premiums notwithstanding).
Idk, clearly it has a good turnover rate if they continue to do it.
By the way, my calculations simply checked the tip’s effect, and didn’t calculate the 829A3’s penetration.
So this makes sense.
You didn’t win anything, he just conceded.
Ah bugger. I’ll console myself with a literal cookie then.
But if there had been a 100-150mm uranium tip, it would have added more than 10% to conventional armor.
The data here is inconsistent.
What difference does it make what the tip is made of if we know it adds 55mm of penetration to a 630x25 shell against standard armor?
BTW
I didn’t, I added more trivia for you to consider next time you claim you know better.
But if there had been a 100-150mm uranium tip, it would have added more than 10% to conventional armor.
Would it? I’d expect the rod increasing in length by 100mm to roughly correspond to a ~10% increase in performance.
(610/690 - > 12%)
Math checks out, doesn’t it? ;)
This was made by BTTR.
The document literally says this. 10% is the maximum here.
At a distance of 1 km, it’s 5-7%.
And keep in mind that this is relative to a 630x23 projectile, not a 690x25 projectile.
What the increase will be relative to a 690x25 projectile is unknown.
This was made by BTTR.
And keep in mind that this is relative to a 630x23 projectile, not a 690x25 projectile.
According to who?
Can you tell me where is it stated in the origin source?
I’m talking to a wall that only wants to be in the right.
The document we’re both referring to provides data for comparing shells with 630mm of penetration, as far as I remember.
I sent the diagram above.
Again, I’m not saying this is the 829A3 penetrator; your argument about the shell’s weight is quite valid. However, a 5-10% increase in penetration from the tip is recorded relative to the shorter penetrator (630x23). I’ve already calculated that such a shell penetrates 557mm, so the tip provides 30-56mm against conventional armor.
Again, where is that stated.
We refer to one study that takes a 630mm penetrator projectile as an example and compares the <24mm version without a tip and the >24mm version with a tip.
The study doesn’t state the length is 630mm, it states it’s GREATER than 630mm, and that the diameter was increased to better resist effects of ERA.
I think I rest my case here, you barely understand the symbols those sources use, and only use what fits your narrative. Anything beyond this, I’m wasting time.
Then for what penetrator length is the graph given?
This only says that it is preferable to make the projectile this way, and not that this is exactly what was tested.
