Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
Mike E wrote:I disagree... Their figures may be off in some areas but they are the the closest thing we have to the real deal. They also show the basic armor profiles very well.
Mike E wrote:These are estimations just like theirs... In fact they are probably more accurate give the people behind them are working more a company and not just their own site.
Plus I don't really see how they are over-optimistic... Maybe for HEAT figures but certainty not KE ones.
I see no reference specifically to the spectacular claims about the security. Actually even painfully unclear on what tool armor "1960 mm" this been tested?
Like I said, these figures are insane for one toy. Like this -
Posted a picture of Challanger 2 armor values of Steel Beats.
?!? sauce for the cancellation? even if the round were insufficient against the newly arrived threat(T-14) its still going to be ordered simply because its better than what they have. say what you want about US procurement, but they strive real hard to provide best tools(or at least what they deem as best) for their people.Mike E wrote:
Pretty interesting stuff...especially because the now-cancelled M829E4 was going to be triple-segmented.
The e-Book as a whole has a TON of ballistic information on just about everything... If you have time go through it.
For their people....you gotta be kidding.collegeboy16 wrote:?!? sauce for the cancellation? even if the round were insufficient against the newly arrived threat(T-14) its still going to be ordered simply because its better than what they have. say what you want about US procurement, but they strive real hard to provide best tools(or at least what they deem as best) for their people.Mike E wrote:
Pretty interesting stuff...especially because the now-cancelled M829E4 was going to be triple-segmented.
The e-Book as a whole has a TON of ballistic information on just about everything... If you have time go through it.
for their people... to become better people killers(which is like their job as a soldier). there, much better?Mike E wrote:
For their people....you gotta be kidding.
again, i havent read anything anywhere but here that its cancelled. and its much wiser to reserve judgement on the new round- the Russians themselves certainly dont underestimate the Americans, why should we.Mike E wrote:
They canceled the development of the E4 years so, mostly due to budgetary concerns. My guess would be they will reboot the program for the A3... In about a decade.
The E4 will be triple segmented... To be honest I have a feeling these kind of rounds won't do well against Relikt.
um, E means experimental you know, once it enters service its replaced by A.Mike E wrote:Better...
I've heard that it's been canceled, and that it is in testing. Either way I have a feeling it will be delayed because multi-segmented rounds are not ready for the limelight.
Possibly they will issue an E4 variant now and they improved A4 later.
Does not matter... It is still experimental and I will call it as such.collegeboy16 wrote:um, E means experimental you know, once it enters service its replaced by A.Mike E wrote:Better...
I've heard that it's been canceled, and that it is in testing. Either way I have a feeling it will be delayed because multi-segmented rounds are not ready for the limelight.
Possibly they will issue an E4 variant now and they improved A4 later.
also, it doesnt make sense for them to continue to test something that has been canceled, doesnt it? and what makes you say multi-segmented rounds are not yet ready? sure the spaced segmented penetrators arent ready yet- you have to have above 2km/s impact velocity to produce holes wide enough to not interfere with following segments, but the nonspaced ones are. rounds as early as mango have the latter; it has 2 tungsten penetrator segments.
more RHAe penetrated does not always mean better round. who cares if your round could penetrate 1m of armor if it snaps like a twig upon encountering heavy ERA/NERA because its so long and thin like a rapier blade. you need to increase resilience of your round then, easiest way is to increase thickness- deducting lengths and consequently penetration. another way is segmented penetrators, as what they are trying to do with m829e4.Mike E wrote:
Does not matter... It is still experimental and I will call it as such.
They were planning a next-generation round that was supposed to penetrate far more RHAe than the A3... Maybe this was the current-E4 project before some changes. maybe not.
They are not ready because they have not proven themselves... In fact, their performance versus composites and ERA may be inferior to a solid projectile (tests have been on RHA as with most rounds).
my point is that the concept of nonspaced segmented penetrator is proven for decades- its not half-baked. but now that i think about it maybe they were having spaced segmented penetrator for m829e4, not likely, tho imo, since the gun cant provide the necessary muzzle velocity. but we'll see.Mike E wrote:
and the Mango was a rather unimpressive round...your point?
The DOD has spent millions developing a new round that is no better than their current round... Sounds about right.
Spaced-models are in theory superior. We will have to wait and see. There are other technologies that should be invested in instead TBH.
the weakspot limits the impact transmitted to the other segments- they would shear off before the adjacent segment is affected. if its a monobloc however the whole round is affected.and when it does the whole thing is off center and cracks develop before it even reaches the main armor if it isnt in pieces. at least with the segmented penetrator you have some segments that are still ok.Mike E wrote:Yes...but that doesn't do you any justice. The E4 will penetrate the *same amount of RHA* as the A3, but *it may end off being less effective against composites and/or ERA.
The overall strength in the round has less to do with segmentation and more to do with material and design... To be honest all segmentation does to the "strength" of the round is negative. - Case in point; the E4 uses a soft-metal buffer in between the rod segments, I do not see how this could not be a weakspot. Once hit by ERA it should (in theory?) cause the round to split in half, due to the placed weakspot.
how is it less effective against composites and ERA if its more resilient to those, ie retains more of its original penetrating power after armor effects. in my extremes of an example the round capable of 1m penetration in RHAe would only scratch the surface of a modern armor array's base armor since it was snapped into itty bitty pieces by the outer reactive shell.Mike E wrote:
It's not half-baked yet it shows no clear advantages *AND* still has yet to be proven effective v. a normal round. The ideas behind such a round seem smart but practice... I don't know.
you are assuming that there are only 2 segments, and both are of equal sizes. i think a more ideal setup would be more than 2 segments; the smaller segments at the front for the reactive shell and one longsegment, almost like a monobloc's in construction at the back. the smaller segments occupy a length equal to how far along the penetrator the ERA effect reaches. the reactive outer layer will chew on the smaller segments and some would fail, but then the penetrator train still goes on.Mike E wrote:The weakspot is weak, but that does not mean it cannot transfer energy. A solid-rod would have a greater chance of surviving the ERA as a whole, assuming it is a round of at least some quality. This segmentation guarantees the rod with "break" into halves.
As soon as the frontal-segment is slowed by the immediate armor (ie the solid material that typically is outside of the composite, with or without reactive armor) the following segments will transfer their energy. Think of it like this... After the first segments begin to penetrate, the following segment will begin to push on it. This is alright, but as soon as the two hit a composite the energy loss will be dramatic. In a single-rod the loss of energy would be a slope of sorts (continueslly falling though starting at a higher point) versus a more angular shape for segmented rods (lower-energy to begin with, then a "boost" via the other segment).
That sounds super ridiculous....but the simplest way for me to say it is the energy from the first segment will be less than half of the single-round (half the mass segment along with the added weight of a buffer) followed by another "less than half" transfer of energy. *Because the original segment will have less immediate mass behind it, it will decelerate much faster than the single-rod. Even when the extra-energy "kicks in", energy will have been lost due to the aforementioned loss in penetration AND energy consumed in the process. The buffer may be weak but that itself will (as you basically said) absorb some of the energy. (1/2 energy -> lower penetration -> less momentum -> 1/2 energy -> energy is consumed during transfer -> continued penetration).
This would work well against RHA because it isn't hard to penetrate by default, however denser and stronger composites would require the extra momentum and energy behind that round to be successful penetrated. To be honest this was all done in my head, but to my defense, energy would indeed be lost.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
