Talk:Kinetic energy penetrator

message: See also: http://russianarmor.info/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/overview.html -- Pelavarre (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also RussianArmor.Info 

message: "A uranium rod is also self-sharpening on impact due to its adiabatic properties: it doesn't "mushroom" like unjacketed tungsten does." I don't understand this. What part of the impact is adiabatic? Does it mean that the process of mechanical deformation upon impact occurs without the DU heating up? How does that prevent mushrooming? Tom Harrison (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I've tried to incorporate this, but I wish someone who understands it better than I do would rewrite it. Tom Harrison Talk 00:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I know a few and they assure me that you are basically right. Optimising this effect is an important line of research, despite foul play by the tungsten lobby, which is behind most of the scare stories.--MWAK 16:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adiabatic? 

message: After reading a handful of articles I do not fully understand, I believe the term "adiabatic" refers to adiabatic shear bands.  These regions are termed adiabatic since there is no significant heat transfer to material outside the shear band.  Temperatures within the band increase greatly due to shear deformation.  In DU penetrators, heat transfer is limited since the deformation process is extremely rapid.  The self-sharpening effect occurs because bits of DU break off along these shear bands.  This prevents the formation of a mushroom head.  Or so I've been led to believe.  Is there a doctor of materials science in the house?  --Ryanrs 13:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know a few and they assure me that you are basically right. Optimising this effect is an important line of research, despite foul play by the tungsten lobby, which is behind most of the scare stories.--MWAK 16:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrote DU adiabatic stuff

message: I read an article which gives some insights on new trends, and it mentions the Uran vs. Tungsten issue. To make a long story short, "nanolayers of tungsten and metallic glass" were used as material for kinetic penetrators to achive same performance (no "mushrooming") as with DU, without the negative side-effects associated with the use of DU in ammunition. Research was done at the Ames Laboratory. I got two references for this, one in German (this news site is rather "liberal" or "left", hence the biased comments)
http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/24/24598/1.html
the second being the original Press Release (atm only available in the Google Cache)
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:OIgzLcD1dxsJ:www.external.ameslab.gov/final/News/2007rel/KEP.htm+metallic+glass+tungsten&hl=de&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Maybe someone could review this information and incorporate it into the article if he things it's useful. I think it is, especially due to the use of this new "class" of materials, metallic glasses. 84.166.214.42 14:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ames Lab research results for DU replacement 

message: The objective of any weapon is to neutralize the opposing threat. We are specifically talking about the anti-armour weaponry. They go about their various ways to achieve this penetrating power and is always well documented in the Wikipeda articles. Although they always lack description of where the actual kill comes from. What does it do once it penetrates the armour? How does it disable?  --Turbinator 18:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Transfer of kinetic energy and putting a "big ol' hole" in it. ;) --Falcorian (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would take a few shots to get someone in it. After it makes a hole, does it continue moving inside? Seems like there is something more to it. For a good example of what I am looking for in the description of the actual kill effect look at this Thermobaric weapon article. --Turbinator 19:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does this weapon actualy kill? 

message: There's a topic of discussion I would like to raise.  Is there anyone else out there who finds the traditional dichotoly between "Kinetic Energy" penetrators (APDS etc) and "Chemical Energy" Penetrators (HEAT) annoying and just plain wrong?  So called called Chemical Energy rounds penetrate armor the same way that Kenetic Energy rounds do: they concentrate a large amount of kinetic energy in on a small area.  Ineede, broadly speaking, KE and CE warheads work the same way: the conversion of chemical energy into kinetic energy.  The difference is WHERE the conversion of chemical energy to kinetic energy takes place.  For APDS rounds and the like, the conversion takes place in the chamber of the gun, where the chemical energy of the propellant is turned into the kinetic energy of the round.  For HEAT rounds, the conversion takes place when the round hits the target, and the chemical energy stored in the explosive is released by the explosion and is used to impart kinetic energy to the particles of explosive and the liner material, if any.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.201.80 (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  KE vs CE Misleading? 

message: Wasn't first tank using this kind of ammunition and smoothbore gun (105mm) T-62A of soviet army? I think soviets were the first to see advantages and other countries followed them afterwise.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.41.200.255 (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Tank using APFDS and smoothbore gun = T-62? 

message: The lead paragraph suggests that 'the' fin round (not specified which one...) has a velocity of 975m/s, which is rather slow. There is a cited figure later on describing a projectile with nearly twice that velocity. Jellyfish dave (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  975m/s? 

message: I propose merging this with Discarding sabot since they seem to cover a lot of the same ground.  I'm not sure they're not separate enough concepts, but content-wise they have converged.  If merge isn't appropriate than at least the APDS/APFDS etc should be moved to one or the other. Knotnic (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The discarding sabot is a specific type of round, were as a KE round is a broad catagory of rounds. They should not be merged.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninja Igoo (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Discussion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kinetic energy penetrator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718112901/http://xbradtc.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/heat-rounds-and-sabots/ to http://xbradtc.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/heat-rounds-and-sabots
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified