Arjun vs T90 MBT

pmaitra

New Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
Well apparentely he didn't read them... oh how easy it comes to criticize the three of us, when nobody reads what we provide. :rolleyes:
No I will read them when I go home.



Sorry but you get linkt to the what acually? To one short web page without sources.
Are you kidding me? :rolleyes:

Did you mentioned "small" diffrencs between your one small web page and my sources -dozen od pdfs written between 1987-2010 and all od them ae about debritsand spall beyond armour. Your sources is weak and..in fact it's not a source. I provide sources, and Methos have right,and your argument was invaild.Sorry but you are in mistake.


You had wrote "Spalling happens with HEP rounds, not AP rounds as you claim." sory but it is not true and spalls and debrits are present in APFSDS, SC and other amunition.

ps. Did you read even one of that pdfs? :)

@militarysta, what makes you think I am kidding? No sources you say? Please go back and check the link again. Of course, you have reason to reject that article became it shows your poor understanding and usage of the term 'spalling.'

I will read your links, but let me guess you are confusing debris with spalling. They are similar, not the same.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
The people who design armor, armored fighting vehicles and armor piercing ammunition, call this debris as a spall, and the effect as spalling. Spall are just fragments of armor and projectile that get inside vehicle with the projectile main mass that remained. I think that this is simplest explanation.
 

pmaitra

New Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
The people who design armor, armored fighting vehicles and armor piercing ammunition, call this debris as a spall, and the effect as spalling. Spall are just fragments of armor and projectile that get inside vehicle with the projectile main mass that remained. I think that this is simplest explanation.
No Sir, that is a flawed understanding. Spalling shall contain no portion of projectile. Spalling is typically the consequence of an exploding pizza shaped plastic explosive that is completely different from a Sabot needle. It is also opposite in direction of explosion when compared with Munroe effect of HEAT.
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Well, then go, write a letter to all these people working around the world on AFV's, their armor protection and ammunition that defeats armor, that they are all wrong, but please, if anyone will answer to you, post his answer here. ;)
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
SPALL RING DIAMETER AND PATHS OF A
PERIPHERAL SPALL PARTICLES FROM SHAPED
CHARGE JET PERFORATION OF ARMOR PLATE

This is a title of this document.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a045585.pdf

Document is from BRL - Ballistic Research Laboratory, so is written by people that dedicated their lifes to understood and work with these things. You think you know better than them?
 

pmaitra

New Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
SPALL RING DIAMETER AND PATHS OF A
PERIPHERAL SPALL PARTICLES FROM SHAPED
CHARGE JET PERFORATION OF ARMOR PLATE

This is a title of this document.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a045585.pdf
And this proves that when a Sabot needle disintegrates, it is called spalling? Did you see the title says "shaped charge jet?" It is talking about Munroe effect (HEAT) not Sabot. My and your previous comments were about Sabot needles.

Either you don't know the difference between Sabot and HEAT or you are deliberately trying to confuse people.

Now go back a few pages and see I said spalling happens on one side of the wall when explosion happens on the other side.

I have a feeling, when I go back home and read that article, it will only confirm what I have said.

Will respond back.
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
You were first talking only about HEP/HESH ammunition, this document says that spalling happens also with HEAT, but spalling also happens with kinetic energy projectiles.



This GIF shows a small projectile hitting armor plate. It is not checmical energy projectile, but kinetic energy projectile, and what it does? It makes spall.

The same applies to APFSDS ammunition.



Here we have photographs of APFSDS penetrators just after perforating armor plate, what we see around penetrator? Yes it is a spall.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a267255.pdf

And here I found a document about tests on M113A3 and spall liners, it is said that spall was generated by TOW, VIPER and 30mm APDS (which is similiar to APFSDS but do not have fins).

I will seek more.
 
Last edited:

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
No I will read them when I go home.
Please do it...

militarysta, what makes you think I am kidding? No sources you say? Please go back and check the link again.
Yes, and chack again what is that "article" (big word in that context) are sources -it's one ""Military Operations - Tips for Tankers," from 1970
It was even before Yom Kippur war!. It's just outadet.
Please read, or just take a look about that pdf's whit I posted. They are "fresh" -from last 15-18 yers, and written by armour scientists.

It's quality diffrence in sources.


Of course, you have reason to reject that article became it shows your poor understanding and usage of the term 'spalling.'
You know, I was born and went to school in sucht stupid years in Poland (1980s.) when communist system was dying -so nobody cares to te russian language lession (language of the occupier) and english and frencht lesson where rare and as "secondary choise", so maybe my english is far from perfect, but definietly I used "debrits" "spall" and "behind armour effect" as it was used in that pdfs.
So conider on what acuaally my knowledge is based.
 
Last edited:

pmaitra

New Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
@Damian

Sorry if my earlier comment came across as rude.

I wonder why there is such context switching. We had @methos bring spalling in armour piercing, and while we are debating this, you post about debris from projectile and then suddenly jump into Munroe effect?

Why so much context switching?

Hey, if it is all about confusing the opponent with plenty of details, I am fair game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
It is not jumping nor confusing. It is a widely known fact in the west and former warsaw pact and soviet union, that spall is generated by:

1) Kinetic Energy projectiles.
2) Chemical Energy projectiles (HEAT, HESH/HEP).
3) Non penetrating/perforating hits from KE and CE projectiles.

This is a fact, I do not understand why you fight with this.

In fact I am surprised that you are standing against us, because for me as a reasonable man, you being another reasonable man, is standing against facts that are widely known and accepted in our countries.
 

pmaitra

New Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
You know, I was born and went to school in sucht stupid years in Poland (1980s.) when communist system was dying -so nobody cares to te russian language lession (language of the occupier) and english and frencht lesson where rare and as "secondary choise", so maybe my english is far from perfect, but definietly I used "debrits" "spall" and "behind armour effect" as it was used in that pdfs.
So conider on what acuaally my knowledge is based.
Thank you.

There are lots of links provided, and it will take me a while to read through all of them, but of all the tests I have read (I acknowledge not many), spalling has always been the effect of HEP, and as I said before, first time I heard spalling as an effect of a Sabot needle making a hole in the metal wall.

Anyway, let us look at what effect the different types of munititions have:


Sabot Needle: A long and sharp metal rod punches a hole in the armour. The effect look like this. Most of the debris inside the tank is due to the sabot needle disintegrating.


HEAT: This is the Munroe effect of a HEAT round. Notice that since most of the explosion is directed into the metal wall. it melts a hole in the metal, while the small amount of non-directed explosion might have some spalling effect, but it is minimal, and very localized. (I had already said that spalling will occur when there is explosion on the other side)


HEP or HESH: This is a good example of spalling. The explosive was a pizza shaped charge on the other side of the metal wall, and it explodes, tearing off bits of metal on the inside.

This is where I disagree with using spalling as a terminology w.r.t. Sabot needle.

I will, as promised, read your links and probably respond back later.
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Sabot Needle: A long and sharp metal rod punches a hole in the armour. The effect look like this. Most of the debris inside the tank is due to the sabot needle disintegrating.
Not a needle, but penetrator, this is how properly it is called a penetrator. And penetrator penetrating, is pushing some of the armor mass in front of itself, so there is spalling effect, although not so big as in case of HEP/HESH.

HEAT: This is the Munroe effect of a HEAT round. Notice that since most of the explosion is directed into the metal wall. it melts a hole in the metal, while the small amount of non-directed explosion might have some spalling effect, but it is minimal, and very localized. (I had already said that spalling will occur when there is explosion on the other side)
Oh no, not that melting nonsense again. Shaped charge jet penetration process is more similiar to APFSDS penetrator, although achieved by different means. The shaped charge jet itself is not very hot, it's temperature is below melting temperature of copper, and the explosion itself is two quick to melt down a copper liner from which jet forms. In fact the jet itself is deformed and proppeled by explosion copper liner. As for penetration process itself, the guys who actually have greater knowledge about it, says that due to pressure and velocity if the shaped charge jet, the process is closer to hydrodynamics. But there is no melting.

HEP or HESH: This is a good example of spalling. The explosive was a pizza shaped charge on the other side of the metal wall, and it explodes, tearing off bits of metal on the inside.
Yes but all three of these types of ammunition, creates spall.
 

pmaitra

New Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
Not a needle, but penetrator, this is how properly it is called a penetrator. And penetrator penetrating, is pushing some of the armor mass in front of itself, so there is spalling effect, although not so big as in case of HEP/HESH.
Yes, a penetrator, whatever you want to call it. Another forum was using the term 'rod,' but you know what I mean. Sabot is a projectile within a projectile. The outside projectile separates (Sabot Petals) and the inside projectile makes a hole in the target (Sabot Penetrator).

Oh no, not that melting nonsense again. Shaped charge jet penetration process is more similiar to APFSDS penetrator, although achieved by different means. The shaped charge jet itself is not very hot, it's temperature is below melting temperature of copper, and the explosion itself is two quick to melt down a copper liner from which jet forms. In fact the jet itself is deformed and proppeled by explosion copper liner. As for penetration process itself, the guys who actually have greater knowledge about it, says that due to pressure and velocity if the shaped charge jet, the process is closer to hydrodynamics. But there is no melting.
I will let the following two images answer your point:

Munroe Effect:

Source: https://www.llnl.gov/str/Baum.html

Misnay–Schardin effect:

Source: IED's EFP's - the Alphabet soup of low cost and dirty weapons - Iranian ? - Patel - 02-14-07

Regarding melting:




The theory of tungsten copper military shaped charge liner is called cavity effect .When the armor-piercing projectile detonates, the high temperature and high pressure instantaniously melting shaped charge ,then forming high temperature and speed metal jet which can sear even burnthrough the armored steel. So it is show that armor-piercing projectile take effective action by the cavity effect rather than rely on the kinetic energy.
Source: Tungsten Copper Military-Tungsten Copper Military Shaped charge liner

Yes but all three of these types of ammunition, creates spall.
If you use the terminology "spall" for all kinds of debris yes, but as I said, that terminology is only used for HEP, and not for HEAT or Sabot (I am yet to read the documents provided by @militarysta, but that is according to what I have read so far.).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Yes, a penetrator, whatever you want to call it. Another forum was using the term 'rod,' but you know what I mean. Sabot is a projectile within a projectile. The outside projectile separates (Sabot Petals) and the inside projectile makes a hole in the target (Sabot Penetrator).
Penetrator or rod are only, acceptable terms. And no, sabot is only a filler between subcalliber penetrator and the gun barrel, not a projectile within projectile. Sabot litteraly means shoe.

As for shaped charge jet:

Shaped charge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contrary to a widespread misconception, the shaped charge does not depend in any way on heating or melting for its effectiveness, that is, the jet from a shaped charge does not melt its way through armor, as its effect is purely kinetic in nature.
Shaped Charge

Hydrodynamic penetration is a complex mechanism which begins to appear when the strike velocity exceeds a critical value, typically about 1,150m/s for current penetrators against rolled homogenous armor (RHA) targets. Full hydrodynamic behavior does not occur until the strike velocity reaches several kilometers per second, such as occurs with shaped charge munitions. At strike velocities less than about 1,150m/s penetration of metal armor occurs mainly through the mechanism of plastic deformation. A typical penetrator achieves a strike velocity around 1,500m/s to 1,700m/s, depending on range, and therefore target effects generally exhibit both hydrodynamic behaviour and plastic deformation.

A number of models of varying degrees of complexity have been developed to predict long rod penetrator performance. A common feature that emerges from these models is the importance of a high strike velocity to exploit more fully the hydrodynamic penetration mechanism, which, in turn, is further improved by the use of longer penetrators having higher densities relative to the target material density. This is amply supported by experimental work.

Shaped charge is indeed an extraordinary phenomenon that is beyond the scale of normal physics, which explains why its fundamental theoretical mechanism is by no means fully understood.

The shaped charge jet tip reaches 10 kms-l some 40 �s after detonation, giving a cone tip acceleration of about 25 million g. At this acceleration the tip would reach the speed of light, were this possible, in around 1.5 seconds. But of course, it reaches a terminal velocity after only 40 millionths of a second. It is difficult to think of any other terrestrial event as fast as a shaped charge jet tip. The jet tail has a velocity of 2-5 kms-l and so the jet stretches out to a length of about 8 cone diameters (CDs) before particulation occurs. The stretching occurs at a high strain rate, requiring the cone material to have excellent dynamic ductility at temperatures up to about 450�C. On reaching a target, the pressure developed between the jet tip and the forming crater can be as high as 10 Mbar (10 million atmospheres), several times the highest pressure predicted in the Earth's core.

It is universally agreed that conical liner collapse and target penetration both occur by hydrodynamic flow. However, it has been established by X-ray diffraction that the jet is solid metal and not molten. Additionally, best estimates of jet temperature by incandescence colour suggest a mean value of about 450�C, and copper melts at 1083�C at atmospheric pressure. So the following conundrum is the first confusion: The jet appears to behave like a fluid, and yet it is known to be a solid. One recent theory that would help explain this is that the jet has a molten core but with a solid outer sheath.

The hypervelocity hydrodynamic impact (unlike lower speed KE penetration) results in a mushroom head penetration, such that the hole diameter is larger than the penetrator diameter. The dynamic compressive yield stress of the target is exceeded by a factor of at least one thousand times, so that only the densities of the target and jet materials are important. Both materials flow as if they were fluids and the penetration event can be modelled quite accurately using the Bernoulli equation for incompressible flow to give the well known hydrodynamic penetration equation.
http://www.preterhuman.net/texts/te...ped Charge Concept, An Overview - Walters.pdf

Detailed discussions of the shaped charge concept and an extensive list of sources (too
numerous to list here) are available elsewhere, e. g., [1], [2], [3], [4]. This concept is not
well understood by people outside the warhead community. For example, the jet is not a
"cutting plasma", it is not a liquefied or molten metal jet, the cone does not impact the
armor intact, the jet temperature is not 20,000 C, and the density of the jet is not several
times that of steel, and the jet does not burn its way through armor, as reported in many
newspaper, TV, and even semi-technical journal articles. Some confusion may arise due
to the fact that shaped charge devices are sometimes called HEAT rounds. HEAT is an
acronym for High Explosive Anti-Tank and does not relate to thermal effects [4].
So your source is wrong, as a more proffesional sources, says exactly, that this is not molten metal, this is not very hot, and neither is melting armor.

https://www.llnl.gov/str/Baum.html

This source of yours actually do not say anything about melting.

If you use the terminology "spall" for all kinds of debris yes, but as I said, that terminology is only used for HEP, and not for HEAT or Sabot (I am yet to read the documents provided by @militarysta, but that is according to what I have read so far.).
Spall is general term used by AFV's designers, by armor designers, by ammunition designers, by AFV's crew members, and the whole community that is around AFV's topic.
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
Do you know the words "spall", "splash" and "cook off"?



It is not. This has been said already more than 10 pages ago. It depends on the situation. Arjun's ammo and hydraulics is unisolated and spread widely in the whole tank's volume. T-90's ammunition is all stored in hull and the tank is fitted with multipurpose liners decreasing spalling.



In fact the first batch of Leopard 2's did have thermal sights. Just not all tanks, the first ~180 - 200 (of 380) could not be fitted with thermals sights as there were supply problems.
How does spall get over the cap of ammo storage? it is much more diffused and weaker than the penetration effect where the whole energy of the shell is pointed over a small area of the turret.
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
How does spall get over the cap of ammo storage? it is much more diffused and weaker than the penetration effect where the whole energy of the shell is pointed over a small area of the turret.
Well ask how it was possible that flames and spall reached propelant charges closed inside armored bins with bulkheads filled with extuinguishing liquid, inside a Challenger 2, when HESH fired mistakenly from other Challenger 2, hit commander cupola and hatch area (important note, HESH did not explode inside a vehicle, but outside, as I said hitting a hatch and cupola). And how this happend.

 

pmaitra

New Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
Penetrator or rod are only, acceptable terms. And no, sabot is only a filler between subcalliber penetrator and the gun barrel, not a projectile within projectile. Sabot litteraly means shoe.
A needle is more appropriate than a rod. It may not be acceptable to you, but that is not my concern.

Anything that penetrates is a penetrator, so even a jet of shaped charge (Munroe effect) penetrates and can be called a penetrator. Let's not play with semantics.

Sabot literally means shoe, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that a Sabot Round is a projectile within a projectile.

Etymology of Sabot: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sabotage


Source: Sabot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for shaped charge jet:

Shaped charge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Shaped Charge



http://www.preterhuman.net/texts/te...ped Charge Concept, An Overview - Walters.pdf



So your source is wrong, as a more proffesional sources, says exactly, that this is not molten metal, this is not very hot, and neither is melting armor.

https://www.llnl.gov/str/Baum.html

This source of yours actually do not say anything about melting.
My source does mention 'melting' quite explicitly, and my source is correct. You were wrong by saying 'melting' is nonsense.

Don't worry about melting point of copper. It changes under high pressure and kinematic dynamics. When shaped charge detonantes, it creates a momentary plasma, which acts like a fluid. Plasma is one of the 5 states of matter.



Spall is general term used by AFV's designers, by armor designers, by ammunition designers, by AFV's crew members, and the whole community that is around AFV's topic.
Spall is not a general term in tank ballistics, and that is why it is only used for HEP. There is possibility of error in transliteration of your sources.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
Well ask how it was possible that flames and spall reached propelant charges closed inside armored bins with bulkheads filled with extuinguishing liquid, inside a Challenger 2, when HESH fired mistakenly from other Challenger 2, hit commander cupola and hatch area (important note, HESH did not explode inside a vehicle, but outside, as I said hitting a hatch and cupola). And how this happend.

it may be a rare one off incidence and there may be any other factor behind it.

See the so called spall has a remote chance of doing this to arjun which has some protection in mk-1 atleast( mk-2 has world's modern standard protection) compared to surefire chance of this happening in T-90.
 

Global Defence

Articles

Top