Jump to content

A-10 vs F-35 - taking (virtual) bets  

118 members have voted

  1. 1. A-10 vs F-35 - taking (virtual) bets

    • A-10
      72
    • F-35
      46


Recommended Posts

Posted

OutOnTheOP's ridiculous assertion that little heat is generated by modern AP munition (esp. HEAT rounds which litterally project a molten jet of metal inside the tank) upon impact is quite laughable, but I guess he just missed that large flash & shower of sparks you will see when witnessing an APFSDS projectile impact armour.

 

Incase you're wondering what it looks like:

 

 

 

Yeah... that's not hot at all right? :doh:

 

Except that's not an APFSDS round, that's an 84mm Carl Gustav HEAT 751 Shaped Charge tandem warhead.

[ame=http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c76_1413344150]LiveLeak.com - 84mm Shaped Charge Tandem Warhead Slow Motion[/ame]

  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
2nd picture in spoiler is APFSDS.

 

Here's a similar video showing APFSDS vs concrete and a car:

coWJDfcdR60

 

Got a source on that because the only confirmation I get that your spoilered picture is an APFSDS round is a single post on the Warthunder forums, whereas every other one with a link to that picture clearly calls it a shaped cahrge...

 

https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZiv-UHseSgVCiZR6bYQ-Jxu5ALE2is3zy1t2wChDoYIAa9ebe9JhQF8CA3WVtuDeRR5muSMzgV1O1Zl3n0Mrghc4I6fbDDMKCNLyPZFGgb0DWkeabPHFLoou9QW8yROaRX2ksENX9dXvSq6PQj6BhQO77EKNQRf00kNNcRnKK9ywGEB6AC_1widcCpo188rSBKsZ-uA8O5yXKByS7Hts8KeXR1XVPrVQ_12nf157mPDKymYQS3rs0KuP8V3EnLmtLQLpgmaqi48jZm3qhXGXselYHjI4VYDt6pexc-GHwzf-vPWN29Y2cdmVHj5-GaG4EgEbXJOEfqGz62uUOa5DnfA5JDZ_1hygiom0SOg7wwGA20kjwW1wBZDBJvkG_12g930uYtpF1rvbskrR1vtKhbf0g3DVHxA96JatPcjZYQLAZjhyfK524YcbGI69YR4cZb_1X2e9_1AR5hzl9eLbwea7mFi6vRClZb_1Y-jhyuBa7nW_1b4YtK8hmjIeZCBTZUdEdI51zS12ahSEXJyWGuIygmTztR1U484jyQr1t56em9Wnxae-WOyqxILydnRsnQ-tzlM52GuV_1Z02B4JVK2OnLyTxIBVTyv2zJW6jNyh-BONx1rm3xZLAAkhUbodb81PCn2TnH2ITofki9Arm9gKMHp_1rTAjaVydkHY7apY1gX1Q7iyYPNVjGQaR5TFj3uFq7XZWAWoFT2LcbKFs4Bgjtk79yCFZzOPuZ2lV9ukB2M7CJIvvmNjLnQJ_1OK3H43Hc-tmFOiUvam_17FP-9OX-5MUQH9f9gcY2HFp51bZxazduJR_1DOTemqTyBPwExP3asMYm0F45alCsZ_1eUzM8Q9kSiMmApWKNiFL38cpK-mJmIHGGXIPjazY8MkXdxQQ-qXm2cbM-WW55s8wTO9Xx24Ssfl7G3YNaUc3LeqmA2TIyvP6QZOGIuXNstPulfUBUjRa-yE3kKAEtko5doV3nZIr3dBhRq4nAYMTTnn0JvIOnKOP4K2IwK4aXD6iUYKpar7-SIEplkhmu9srKoGoUKa2X2hTslgypIsCdKdQdQ0sRZ_16dMPvoIoELo7lbrP29XN1lOPIm-ozuMGu7ordbXvmBRHBzE35VVBebHfpGVJsjnGYkXDqZB-2VXiE5HEkLLzetEOmTdGeWBqEBhjKdXJ3KQeM-vwXouIbOIiWkWEtgGQuSbS0m0b5vH_1JPFgLJ0eUaIXcBn-t-pUVHRyFxAF-Od5OvnQYNAjrr4190ketFRoxUcviv2CDCZ0zdsL0MTV-KsSth7dH0BmftSHAZS85QAznKJyFfeBb2pFYZuxcyMHQ86KRT35jGmE_1X8-CgTnOUGJ0VlhJTjcpkGr90G4LxkVzeTaTMEk7_1ur-vCoMiFDkuUBE3yQw-utSLEM3mWvTGVKmKWHENVn7GMh9lc2r9dBmmGqnwtPCouVNmSU-Uyb5BVpsOpTIsbW3THhIT79zmEGADSN44w_1qQOutOv8ciCJ3Q7Q1z9pt-glWluOgvDn2491pXg9vEoH-a-afBIL9HzNCwObcMGXaYVdkY-Atf3yU6uCSrD2MxRka5b-22xYhdG-AJzO8Yb4UnPGC2s-LMk008ZfxPSkAW0InRCoXzxJTB6PP76BAKKW0K32fAxpe1TbjfM_1R_1KapUSd6UdU6sLI9b0lY2di6QCez1bXL3Kwiu-FCbjHHf_1U-w2scQ8YSMoRQ2dBgdBs4&btnG=Search%20by%20image&hl=en

Posted

Also, I assume that when you quote Zaloga, you are referring to his book "M2/M3 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle 1983-95". The only reference he makes to the penetrative capacity of M919 is that it is "apparently able to penetrate over 30mm of armor at 60 degrees/ 2000 meters". Now, mind you that the PGU14 numbers were taken for targets at only THIRTY degrees from square, not 60 degrees. Accounting for the difference in line-of-sight thickness through a 30 degree plate and a a 60 degree one, this means that perforating a 30mm plate set at 60 degrees from square is in fact traveling through 60mm LOS distance (and this, not taking into account the increased tendency to ricochet or disturb the penetrator axially with increasing impact angle).

 

This means that against a plate set at thirty degrees from square, 60mm LOS distance equals 51.96mm against a plate set at 30 degrees. At a full two kilometers. 80-100mm at 1km would be completely consistent with 52mm at 2km.

 

In other words, M919 penetrates, at 2km, what PGU14 must be within 1.2km to penetrate.

 

And since we're apparently taking unclassified estimates used in computer games as gospel, I'll just go to exactly the same source you used to "prove" the Abrams has only 55mm armor over the engine sides (that's not counting the skirt or roadwheels, by the way) to show that M919 does in fact get 100mm RHAe:

 

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=Ammunition_Data#Autocannon

 

You're welcome.

Posted (edited)
Got a source on that because the only confirmation I get that your spoilered picture is an APFSDS round is a single post on the Warthunder forums, whereas every other one with a link to that picture clearly calls it a shaped cahrge...

 

https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZiv-UHseSgVCiZR6bYQ-Jxu5ALE2is3zy1t2wChDoYIAa9ebe9JhQF8CA3WVtuDeRR5muSMzgV1O1Zl3n0Mrghc4I6fbDDMKCNLyPZFGgb0DWkeabPHFLoou9QW8yROaRX2ksENX9dXvSq6PQj6BhQO77EKNQRf00kNNcRnKK9ywGEB6AC_1widcCpo188rSBKsZ-uA8O5yXKByS7Hts8KeXR1XVPrVQ_12nf157mPDKymYQS3rs0KuP8V3EnLmtLQLpgmaqi48jZm3qhXGXselYHjI4VYDt6pexc-GHwzf-vPWN29Y2cdmVHj5-GaG4EgEbXJOEfqGz62uUOa5DnfA5JDZ_1hygiom0SOg7wwGA20kjwW1wBZDBJvkG_12g930uYtpF1rvbskrR1vtKhbf0g3DVHxA96JatPcjZYQLAZjhyfK524YcbGI69YR4cZb_1X2e9_1AR5hzl9eLbwea7mFi6vRClZb_1Y-jhyuBa7nW_1b4YtK8hmjIeZCBTZUdEdI51zS12ahSEXJyWGuIygmTztR1U484jyQr1t56em9Wnxae-WOyqxILydnRsnQ-tzlM52GuV_1Z02B4JVK2OnLyTxIBVTyv2zJW6jNyh-BONx1rm3xZLAAkhUbodb81PCn2TnH2ITofki9Arm9gKMHp_1rTAjaVydkHY7apY1gX1Q7iyYPNVjGQaR5TFj3uFq7XZWAWoFT2LcbKFs4Bgjtk79yCFZzOPuZ2lV9ukB2M7CJIvvmNjLnQJ_1OK3H43Hc-tmFOiUvam_17FP-9OX-5MUQH9f9gcY2HFp51bZxazduJR_1DOTemqTyBPwExP3asMYm0F45alCsZ_1eUzM8Q9kSiMmApWKNiFL38cpK-mJmIHGGXIPjazY8MkXdxQQ-qXm2cbM-WW55s8wTO9Xx24Ssfl7G3YNaUc3LeqmA2TIyvP6QZOGIuXNstPulfUBUjRa-yE3kKAEtko5doV3nZIr3dBhRq4nAYMTTnn0JvIOnKOP4K2IwK4aXD6iUYKpar7-SIEplkhmu9srKoGoUKa2X2hTslgypIsCdKdQdQ0sRZ_16dMPvoIoELo7lbrP29XN1lOPIm-ozuMGu7ordbXvmBRHBzE35VVBebHfpGVJsjnGYkXDqZB-2VXiE5HEkLLzetEOmTdGeWBqEBhjKdXJ3KQeM-vwXouIbOIiWkWEtgGQuSbS0m0b5vH_1JPFgLJ0eUaIXcBn-t-pUVHRyFxAF-Od5OvnQYNAjrr4190ketFRoxUcviv2CDCZ0zdsL0MTV-KsSth7dH0BmftSHAZS85QAznKJyFfeBb2pFYZuxcyMHQ86KRT35jGmE_1X8-CgTnOUGJ0VlhJTjcpkGr90G4LxkVzeTaTMEk7_1ur-vCoMiFDkuUBE3yQw-utSLEM3mWvTGVKmKWHENVn7GMh9lc2r9dBmmGqnwtPCouVNmSU-Uyb5BVpsOpTIsbW3THhIT79zmEGADSN44w_1qQOutOv8ciCJ3Q7Q1z9pt-glWluOgvDn2491pXg9vEoH-a-afBIL9HzNCwObcMGXaYVdkY-Atf3yU6uCSrD2MxRka5b-22xYhdG-AJzO8Yb4UnPGC2s-LMk008ZfxPSkAW0InRCoXzxJTB6PP76BAKKW0K32fAxpe1TbjfM_1R_1KapUSd6UdU6sLI9b0lY2di6QCez1bXL3Kwiu-FCbjHHf_1U-w2scQ8YSMoRQ2dBgdBs4&btnG=Search%20by%20image&hl=en

 

If that is the case then I apologize, I only got the capture source.

 

Either way the effect is similar, the heat generated by the impact of an APFSDS round actually generates flames (pyro-phosporic effect IIRC) and combined with the pressure makes the armour behave like a liquid - as a result the occupants of a tank struck are showered by glowing hot fragments of metal.

 

fmqlE8V.jpg

Edited by Hummingbird
Posted
Got a source on that because the only confirmation I get that your spoilered picture is an APFSDS round is a single post on the Warthunder forums, whereas every other one with a link to that picture clearly calls it a shaped cahrge...

 

*sigh*

 

Yes, and if you put a piece of steel against a grinding wheel, it will generate sparks.

 

Do you take this to mean that it is the thermal HEAT of the grinding wheel that is removing material from the piece of steel, or can you understand that it is a side effect of the abrasive surface physically removing material through pure kinetic energy?

Posted
If that is the case then I apologize, I only got the capture source.

 

Either way the effect is similar, the heat generated by the impact of an APFSDS round actually generates flames and combined with the pressure makes the armour behave like a liquid - as a result the occupants of a tank struck a showered by glowing hot pieces of metal.

 

fmqlE8V.jpg

 

The affect is very clearly very different, and to continue to use pictures of a Tandem Warhead and a HEAT shell in your previous post and claiming them to be examples of an APDSFS penetrator is disingenuous at best.

Posted (edited)

Cute un-sourced, un-scholarly cartoons, Hummingbird. Cute, but wrong.

 

Here, let me introduce an actual scholarly article for consideration:

 

[ame]http://eprints.maths.ox.ac.uk/211/1/poole.pdf[/ame]

 

 

Please note on page three, where it clearly states, and I quote: "The main mechanism responsible for the penetration is well-documented to be plas-

ticity of the target material, resulting from the extreme pressure at the tip of the jet. Although the exact temperature profile of the jet is not well understood, the average surface temperature of the jet is of the order 500C (with some local hot-spots) and so the cavity is not a direct result of melting."

You're also welcome to read:

 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a469696.pdf

 

*waiting for you to point out plates 31 and 32 to me. Then waiting for you to actually read the plate titles.

 

Oh, heck, I'll just give you the spoiler: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jap/47/6/10.1063/1.323028

 

I would like to note, while I'm at it, that the temperature of ignition for an average wood is about 500 Celcius. So... you couldn't even light a campfire with that temperature. Oh, and it's about 900 degrees too cold to turn steel molten.

Edited by OutOnTheOP
Posted
The affect is very clearly very different, and to continue to use pictures of a Tandem Warhead and a HEAT shell in your previous post and claiming them to be examples of an APDSFS penetrator is disingenuous at best.

 

Disingenuous? Alright, I guess posting what you believe to be something else equals lying now.

 

The atmosphere on these forums certainly is hostile at times.

 

Also I didn't "continue" to use any pictures, I posted them once.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...