Tank Guns and Ammunition

Dejawolf

New Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
579
Likes
241
the americans swapped FROM the L7-based rifled 105mm M68 gun, fitted in the original M1 and IPM1 , to a smoothbore german rheinmetall 120mm gun on the M1A1.
the british had a 120mm L11 rifled gun since 1966, while the smoothbore was put into service in the late 70s.
at any point in time they could have gone for the rifled option, done the same thing they did with the L7, but they didn't.
 

pmaitra

New Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
A very nice article discussing Tank Rounds

Link: USS Clueless - More on the T-72

Rifle vs Smoothbore
Rifled guns are more accurate.
By the late 1960's when the T-72 was in design, the advantages of smoothbore guns were apparent. But the Soviet implementation was incomplete. The advantage of rifling is accuracy; the projectile stays oriented in the direction of flight and doesn't slew as much. A projectile fired from a smoothbore gun doesn't stabilize itself as much and is less accurate.

The other piece which is needed to make this work is, for lack of a better term, "avionics". (We need a term like avionics to apply to tanks.) You have to have a better targeting system. You need sophisticated electronics to aim the gun and compensate for all the things which could cause the projectile to miss, and the M1 has it. The firing system on the M1 is unbelievably sophisticated, with many different sensors and highly complex algorithms. It does things like keep count of the number of rounds fired from the gun, to calculate the effects of wear on the inside of the barrel. It has a direct sensor to measure how much the barrel is sagging. It's doing a lot of other things, too, which they won't tell us about. They can fire it while moving rapidly over broken terrain and score a direct hit on a target which is also moving, at very long range. That's non-trivial.

The M1's gun is uncannily accurate. The T-72's gun isn't. The targeting system in it isn't up to the job. It's not that I think that switching to a smoothbore gun was wrong because rifling is superior, but rather that I think they switched to a smoothbore gun before they had all the pieces to do it right.
The T-72's smoothbore gun is also inaccurate firing HE; a rifled gun would be much better. By switching to a smoothbore gun before they had a targeting system that could make it work, what they did was to pull most of the teeth on their newest tank.
On HEAT from a Rifle
@Keshav Murali, you said that the spinning of the projectile disturbs the charge. I do not think so. The charge is usually of very high viscosity, and for the short few seconds it gets to spin, it cannot disturb that dough like substance. The reason is below:
First, what HEAT forms is a jet of molten copper, rather than a jet of plasma. The forward surface of the shaped charge is a cone-shaped cavity, and it's covered with a thin layer of copper. The power of the charge melts the copper and the wave dynamics of the shape of the charge squeezes the copper together and then squirts it out forward, at extremely high speed.
I did not know that in fact HEAT rounds also work better when they're not spinning very fast. Apparently the spin interferes somewhat with the formation of the molten copper jet, and HEAT rounds intended for rifled guns also use things like plastic sleeves. It is HESH rounds that benefit most from use of a rifled gun.
On Sabot
Should give an indication why Sabot manufacturing needs a lot of precision engineering, and why it is expensive.
With a sabot round, the size of the pencil is not related to the caliber of the gun barrel. (And there's an optimum size for the penetrator; making it bigger may decrease its effectiveness.) In the shell, the penetrator is surrounded on both sides by two half-cylinders, the sabots, which seal the gun barrel so that the power of the shell's charge can be efficiently converted into kinetic energy. Once the round emerges from the gun barrel, the sabots fall away (which is why they're known as "discarding sabots") leaving the projectile to fly on its way to the target. The trick is making the sabots discard cleanly without deflecting the projectile.

Ståle claims that sabot rounds can't be fired out of a rifled gun. That's not actually true. The original 105 mm gun for the M1 was rifled and could fire sabot rounds.
Why Indian Army loves HESH
This is what @Keshav Murali said, and is confirmed by the reason below.
But there's more to it than that. Everyone concentrates on tank-versus-tank, but most tanks spend most of their time firing at other things, usually ones which aren't moving, and against those they usually fire HE. When a tank is shooting at a pillbox, or a machine gun nest, or a building, or a concentration of enemy infantry in hard cover, they shoot good old high explosive.
Why Depleted Uranium is best for Sabot Rounds
I had mentioned this earlier in the other thread (Link: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...e-tanks-armour-technology-361.html#post716392) the reason is it undergoes adiabatic change. The explanation below is a much better one:
The primary reason why depleted uranium is such a good choice as a material for penetrator darts is that it is self-sharpening. Penetrators made of steel or tungsten compress when they strike armor, and the tip which begins sharp becomes wide and blunt, which drastically decreases its ability to penetrate. Uranium, on the other hand, burns/melts away and the tip of the penetrator remains sharp. It's also more dense which means you can put more mass in the penetrator without making it physically bigger and altering its aerodynamic characteristics.
Chobham armour, what is it?
I have read so many articles using this term that it is now generally accepted as correct, and I have to say, Wikipedia is also correct, as we should just get used to it. I know @Damian would differ,but it is the way it is. Not denying "Burlington" either. Also, @average american, those terms mentioned by @Damian are correct (from a different source), but the name Chobham has stuck, just like the term "Indian" has stuck for the Native Americans. No more fighting over it. Let's move on.
In the 1960's, a British research group located in Chobham, England, began to reconsider the entire concept of steel plate for armor. There had been improvements in the quality of the steel and the way it was forged which had improved its resistance some, but that was a matter of diminishing returns, and just piling more metal on was also subject to diminishing returns. So the Chobham group started over. They came up with an entirely new concept, which is now known as Chobham armor, which was shared with their allies including us. All modern NATO tanks, including the M1, use it and that's the reason they all seem to be kind of boxy, with facets and angles, instead of the curves of earlier tanks like the M-60. Chobham armor has to be created in plates and fitted together. The details of Chobham armor are classified but the general approach is known: it is a series of layers of steel, ceramic and air gaps.
Edit: According to one tank commander of the M1, the M1 can fire on the move at the speed of 30-35 mph and get a first round hit. It is unclear whether the M1 perform well enough at speeds above that. (see spoiler below)

Additional Reference:

[HR][/HR]

So, @Keshav Murali asked a question whether we should stick to HESH and HEAT, or should we invest more in Sabots. What is your opinion @Kunal Biswas?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Last Stand

New Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
1,406
Likes
980
Country flag
On HEAT from a Rifle
@Keshav Murali, you said that the spinning of the projectile disturbs the charge. I don not think so. The charge is usually of very high viscosity, and for the short few seconds it gets to spin, it cannot disturb that dough like substance. The reason is below:

Hear this. The 88 mm HEAT-FS round (around 0.5 kg of explosive filling) fired from the smoothbore RPzB 54/1 penetrated 200+ mm of RHA. The legendary 88 mm Pak 43's HEAT round (1+ kg of filling) penetrated 90 mm.

wikipedia said:
HEAT warheads become much less effective if they are rapidly spinning, which became a challenge for weapon designers – for a long time, spinning the shell was the most standard method for obtaining good accuracy, as with any rifled gun. However, the centrifugal force of a spinning shell disperses the charge jet. Consequently, most hollow charge projectiles are fin-stabilized and not spin-stabilized.[4]
Since the jet of the shaped charge does not form properly when spin is imparted, penetration is greatly reduced. Of course my example is from WW2 weapons. Plastic sleeves (like in the Royal ordnance L7) and ball bearing mounted warheads in the Obus-G (105 mm Modele F1) (thanks @Damian) penetrate slightly lesser than their APFSDS counterparts. Manufacturing HEAT rounds for rifled guns therefore becomes a pain in the neck. The Obus-G could contain very little explosive which means that a HEAT round has to be lengthened for more filling to achieve penetration comparable to sabots in a rifled gun. Plastic sleeves won't cut it for us if we use HEAT in an anti-armour role. For multi-purposes uses however it will be more than necessary.

The L7's HEAT round penetrated around ~350 mm RHA (IIRC). USMC M60's destroyed hundreds of T-72M1's which offer protection of 420 mm against APFSDS with those very same rounds. Even more modern DU rounds will be capable of ~500 mm. HEAT is much less effective when fired from rifled bore.

Regards,
Keshav
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Akim

New Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
10,353
Likes
8,645
Country flag
Do not know which theme to put. Disposable UAV."Falcon-2" 125/130/152 mm caliber. Available from ATGM and guns (tank and Gaube). Distance of 20 km. Automatically scans the local and defines goals.
 
Last edited:

pmaitra

New Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
Hear this. The 88 mm HEAT-FS round (around 0.5 kg of explosive filling) fired from the smoothbore RPzB 54/1 penetrated 200+ mm of RHA. The legendary 88 mm Pak 43's HEAT round (1+ kg of filling) penetrated 90 mm.



Since the jet of the shaped charge does not form properly when spin is imparted, penetration is greatly reduced. Of course my example is from WW2 weapons. Plastic sleeves (like in the Royal ordnance L7) and ball bearing mounted warheads in the Obus-G (105 mm Modele F1) (thanks @Damian) penetrate slightly lesser than their APFSDS counterparts. Manufacturing HEAT rounds for rifled guns therefore becomes a pain in the neck. The Obus-G could contain very little explosive which means that a HEAT round has to be lengthened for more filling to achieve penetration comparable to sabots in a rifled gun. Plastic sleeves won't cut it for us if we use HEAT in an anti-armour role. For multi-purposes uses however it will be more than necessary.

The L7's HEAT round penetrated around ~350 mm RHA (IIRC). USMC M60's destroyed hundreds of T-72M1's which offer protection of 420 mm against APFSDS with those very same rounds. Even more modern DU rounds will be capable of ~500 mm. HEAT is much less effective when fired from rifled bore.

Regards,
Keshav

So what is your opinion? What should India do? Stick to HESH and HEAT, or go with the more expensive Sabot? Also, what are our capabilities for making DU penetrators? It's useless to make them using steel or tungsten.

@Keshav Murali, regarding that spinning HEAT, which you said was from WWII, I think what you said is true even now. The laws of physics have not changed since WWII, so yes, it is the centrifugal force that forces the molten copper to move away from the centre. If they are concentrated on the centre, the molten copper jet will concentrate all their energy into one small area of the armour, thus penetrating more. Makes total sense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Last Stand

New Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
1,406
Likes
980
Country flag
So what is your opinion? What should India do? Stick to HESH and HEAT, or go with the more expensive Sabot? Also, what are our capabilities for making DU penetrators? It's useless to make them using steel or tungsten.
India doesn't use HESH for anti-armour purposes - let it remain as long as we have a rifled gun. New HESH rounds are being designed for the Challenger 2 and the ARDE can study those rounds to make better ones. As for HEAT, using sleeves or ball bearings might make it costlier than the APFSDS rounds we produce now.

APFSDS - the problem is Depleted Uranium is getting a bad image from the public.
India is one of few comprehensive MBT users that has not gone for DU sabots. We use tungsten alloys (steel is useless and hasn't been used by a real army in 50 years) which satisfy our requirements (500 mm maybe).

APFSDS rounds like the DM63 and 53(tungsten based) can be adapted for firing in rifled barrels. The Germans have been increasingly willing to participate in defence deals and they might give us the designs.

AFAIK DM63 penetrates upwards of ~750 mm which is more than enough for us. The L/52 gun will handle the pressure easily.

Also there is no such thing as DU penetrating substantially more or being a more suitable penetrator than tungsten - Read methos's posts on http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/208-main-battle-tanks-armour-technology-189.html - Page 189

Modern tungsten alloys are excellent
 

The Last Stand

New Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
1,406
Likes
980
Country flag
M829A3 and DM63 Information - Armor Scientific Forum - Tanknet

On tanknet has well written article by steve. Says that DM53 fired from L/55 barrel penetrates upwards of 720 mm. In the last few posts on the page, steve says that he used density of normal tungsten alloys. He admits that the perforation could be underestimated since Rheinmetall claims that it uses a classified special alloy
 
Last edited:

pmaitra

New Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
Also there is no such thing as DU penetrating substantially more or being a more suitable penetrator than tungsten - Read methos's posts on http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/208-main-battle-tanks-armour-technology-189.html - Page 189

Modern tungsten alloys are excellent
Tungsten's thermal conductivity is significantly higher than DU, so of course DU is a better penetrator, by a large margin. Then there is specific gravity. I saw @methos's post, but he rejects research based conclusion. I believe in research based conclusion. I will read his post again (it's late now), but I am more convinced DU is far better than Tungsten. Tungsten alloy, might be different, but will it be any close to DU?

Check this out: Thermal Conductivity of Metals
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Last Stand

New Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
1,406
Likes
980
Country flag
Read the tanknet forum's 4th page. Tungsten offers better stress resistance than DU. DU is much more brittle (prone to breaking/snapping) than tungsten
 
Last edited:

The Last Stand

New Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
1,406
Likes
980
Country flag
1980's dU & WHA
A COMPARISON OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DEPLETED URANIUM AND TUNGSTEN ALLOY AS PENETRATOR MATERIALS, Richard P. Davitt, June 1980
WHA (TUNGSTEN)

Advantages

High Toughness (50% Higher) with High Strength
Proven High Volume Production Facility
More Potential on Technical Limits for Component
Disadvantages
High Cost Raw Mat'l
Myth of Limited Availability
Never Quite Equals DU Penetration
Limited US Reduction Capability

dU

Advantages

Better Penetration Against Complex Targets
Low Initial Costs of Mat'l
Std Metallurgy of Quench & Age Alloy
Higher Ductility w/High Strength
Conventional Extrusion/Roll Process

Disadvantages

Handling Restrictions
Restricted R&D, Production, Training Firings
No Proven High Volume Production, H2O Quench, Straightening
More Reactive Metal
Experience with High Quality, Ductile, Tough, Coated) Only in DOE
Goes through Temp Transition
I respect Tanknet as a source and "handling restrictions" is more than enough reason for tungsten for me.
 

The Last Stand

New Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
1,406
Likes
980
Country flag
Depleted uranium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See that too. When DU impacts armour some parts turn into aerosol and mix with air. Anyone who breathes will be affected and their children will get birth defects.

wikipedia said:
Iraqi population
Since 2001, medical personnel at the Basra hospital in southern Iraq have reported a sharp increase in the incidence of child leukemia and genetic malformation among babies born in the decade following the Gulf War. Iraqi doctors attributed these malformations to possible long-term effects of DU, an opinion that was echoed by several newspapers.[76][105][106][107] In 2004, Iraq had the highest mortality rate due to leukemia of any country.[108] The International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW) has made a call to support an epidemiological study in the Basra region, as asked for by Iraqi doctors,[109] but no peer-reviewed study has yet been undertaken in Basra.

A medical survey, "Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005–2009" published in July 2010, states that the "Increase in cancer and birth defects"¦are alarmingly high" and that infant mortality 2009/2010 has reached 13.6%. The group compares the dramatic increase, five years after the actual war 2004, or exposure, with the lymphoma Italian peacekeepers[110] developed after the Balkan wars, and the increased cancer risk in certain parts of Sweden due to the Chernobyl fallout. The origin and time of introduction of the carcinogenic agent causing the genetic stress, the group will address in a separate report.[111]
Basra birth defect rate:
 
Last edited:

sayareakd

New Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,953
Country flag
India doesn't use HESH for anti-armour purposes - let it remain as long as we have a rifled gun. New HESH rounds are being designed for the Challenger 2 and the ARDE can study those rounds to make better ones. As for HEAT, using sleeves or ball bearings might make it costlier than the APFSDS rounds we produce now.
HESH

High Explosive Squash Head (HESH) is the secondary ammunition for Arjun and is effective against a variety of soft targets, tanks, fortifications, etc. The complete HESH round consists of a semi-combustible cartridge case, primer with steel obturating cup, and a single-base propellant. The optimised explosive composition of HESH defeats rolled homogenous armour plate detaching a scab of about 9 kg mass moving with a velocity of 100 to 120 m/s. Besides the scabbing effect, blast and shock imparts a tremendous jolt to the enemy tank stripping off explosive reactive armour and incapacitating the crew severely, thereby affecting their fighting capabilities. The accuracy of the HESH is of the order of 0.25 mil standard deviation.



The gun/ammunition system has been fully optimised and integrated with the MBT Arjun, meeting the stringent GSQR for consistency, penetration, lethality and high rate of fire. The production in ordnance factories has been well established. Strict quality control measures in the production stage and the final inspection stage are being maintained by DGQA/SQAE to ensure highest standard of quality.
120 Millimetre MBT Arjun Armament System
 

methos

New Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
799
Likes
304
Country flag
Tungsten's thermal conductivity is significantly higher than DU, so of course DU is a better penetrator, by a large margin. Then there is specific gravity. I saw @methos's post, but he rejects research based conclusion. I believe in research based conclusion. I will read his post again (it's late now), but I am more convinced DU is far better than Tungsten. Tungsten alloy, might be different, but will it be any close to DU?

Check this out: Thermal Conductivity of Metals
I do what? Reject research based conclusions? I base my statements on research based conclusions. I provide in numerous posts sources in form of scientific papers from places like the U.S. Army Research Laboratory. Thermal conductivity and grain size of WHA alloys are variable, because the important thing is the alloy and not the base material.

1.) Fact is: The ability of DU alloys to penetrate more armour than a conventional WHA alloy under the same conditions is result of the different behaviour during penetration, i.e. the adabiatic shearing of the DU. (L. S. Magness and T. G. Farrand, "Deformation Behavior and its Relationship to the Penetration Performance of High Density KE Penetrator Materials"). Penetration depth of conventional WHA is 8 to 10% less (R.J. Dowding, M.C. Hogwood, L. Wong, R.L. Woodward. "Tungsten Alloy Properties Relevant to Kinetic Energy Penetrator Performance").

2.) Fact is: Various tungsten alloys developed after 1990 have proven of undergoing adiabatic shear during penetration; examples include W-Ni-Mn, W-Ni-Al-Fe, Ta-W/W-Ta, W-Hf.

3.) Fact is: The penetrator material is only a small factor in a larger equation. As shown in the post quoted by Keshav Murali, other factors like shape and muzzle energy of tungsten APFSDS do often exceed the same factors of contemporary DU APFSDS (DM33 has a higer L/D ratio and a smaller diameter than M829, DM43 has got a much higher muzzle energy and a smaller diameter than M829A1, DM53 has a higher L/D ratio, smaller diameter and higher muzzle energy than M829A2), so even if they did not have (adiabatic) shearing alloys, they still would offer comparable performance because of their better design.

Nice to see that you, a person who believes that "spall" is only used to refer to the spall made by HESH, are inslulting me in a discussion where I didn't even took part.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

average american

New Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
1,540
Likes
441
India's tank fleet lacks ammunition, its air defences are "97 percent obsolete" and its elite forces need essential weapons, the country's army chief wrote in an explosive letter leaked. The letter to the prime minister dated March 12 -- widely reported by the Indian media -- lists shortcomings of the armed forces in embarrassing detail in a serious blow to the government and the Asian giant's military prestige.




The state of the major (fighting) arms i.e. mechanised forces, artillery, air defence, infantry and special forces, as well as the engineers and signals, is indeed alarming. The army's entire tank fleet is "devoid of critical ammunition to defeat enemy tanks", while the air defence system is "97% obsolete and it doesn't give the deemed confidence to protect... from the air,". The infantry is crippled with "deficiencies" and lacks night fighting equipment, while the elite special forces are "woefully short" of "essential weapons."




India remains concerned over China's military build-up along the countries' disputed border -- the trigger for a brief war between the Asian giants in 1962 -- and faces arch-foe Pakistan to its west.




The government this month announced a 17-percent rise in defence spending to $40 billion in its budget for 2012/13 -- following a 12-percent increase in the previous budget. Between 2007 and 2011, India overtook China to be the biggest arms importer, accounting for 10 percent of the global arms market, according to recent data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

India's military is also negotiating to acquire a slew of new equipment from combat aircraft to submarines and artillery. It is currently finalising a deal with France's Dassault Aviation to buy 126 Rafale fighter jets in a contract worth an estimated $12 billion.

Weapon and Technology: India's tank fleet without ammunition
 

average american

New Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
1,540
Likes
441
Think India is buying a billion in tank ammunition from Russia, am curious why India does not make their own tank ammunition.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
HESH is used effectively against IFV / APC and Tanks such as T-59 / 55 / 54, They are effective against enemy ground infrastructure too..
 

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
On tanknet has well written article by steve. Says that DM53 fired from L/55 barrel penetrates upwards of 720 mm. In the last few posts on the page, steve says that he used density of normal tungsten alloys. He admits that the perforation could be underestimated since Rheinmetall claims that it uses a classified special alloy
Greate but they all thought that DM53 is monoblock round. It's not. It's segmented whit 3 segments. It's perform completly diffrent. And DM63 have smaller RHA perforation then DM53.
 

pmaitra

New Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
I do what? Reject research based conclusions? I base my statements on research based conclusions. I provide in numerous posts sources in form of scientific papers from places like the U.S. Army Research Laboratory. Thermal conductivity and grain size of WHA alloys are variable, because the important thing is the alloy and not the base material.

1.) Fact is: The ability of DU alloys to penetrate more armour than a conventional WHA alloy under the same conditions is result of the different behaviour during penetration, i.e. the adabiatic shearing of the DU. (L. S. Magness and T. G. Farrand, "Deformation Behavior and its Relationship to the Penetration Performance of High Density KE Penetrator Materials"). Penetration depth of conventional WHA is 8 to 10% less (R.J. Dowding, M.C. Hogwood, L. Wong, R.L. Woodward. "Tungsten Alloy Properties Relevant to Kinetic Energy Penetrator Performance").

2.) Fact is: Various tungsten alloys developed after 1990 have proven of undergoing adiabatic shear during penetration; examples include W-Ni-Mn, W-Ni-Al-Fe, Ta-W/W-Ta, W-Hf.

3.) Fact is: The penetrator material is only a small factor in a larger equation. As shown in the post quoted by Keshav Murali, other factors like shape and muzzle energy of tungsten APFSDS do often exceed the same factors of contemporary DU APFSDS (DM33 has a higer L/D ratio and a smaller diameter than M829, DM43 has got a much higher muzzle energy and a smaller diameter than M829A1, DM53 has a higher L/D ratio, smaller diameter and higher muzzle energy than M829A2), so even if they did not have (adiabatic) shearing alloys, they still would offer comparable performance because of their better design.

Nice to see that you, a person who believes that "spall" is only used to refer to the spall made by HESH, are inslulting me in a discussion where I didn't even took part.
I got the impression you reject research based conclusions from you post. Read your post again. I also said I was going to read your post once again because it was late and I had to go to bed. Now you are saying you don't reject research based conclusions. Well, that's good to hear.

No need underline alloy. It is obvious Tungsten is worse than DU. That was my question. Do Tungsten alloys perform as well as DU? You claim it does, so fine. Thank you.

Regarding spall, I proved my point with pictures. I stand by what I said. And yes, you were being disrespectful to another person, so you got what you deserved. Take it or leave it.
 

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
Tungsten's thermal conductivity is significantly higher than DU, so of course DU is a better penetrator, by a large margin
No it's not. DU advantage is only 10% max. And what is the most important - DU performs better only against cast steel or stack RHA plates, agains modern multilayerd targets WHA alloys perform better. And now we can ask what looks modern tank armour.
I am more convinced DU is far better than Tungsten. Tungsten alloy, might be different, but will it be any close to DU?
Modern WHA rods have adiabatic shear during penetration. So now ther left only one DU advantage - it's guite cheap metarial.
 

Articles

Top