Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Inverted, jacketed, telescopic APFSDS not only has a higher penetration than regular APFSDS but it also has a higher angle performance than regular APFSDS. Would this make NATO frontal hull designs obsolete as the required amount of raw thickness would be too high for (most) tanks reasonably achieve?

 

Video of telescopic APFSDS within a simulation

picture of non inverted telescopic APFSDS 

EA62A715-5363-4B07-92BB-253345B7DAAA.jpeg

Edited by ThatSEPguy
Added Tags for context and preview
Posted

I’d suggest watching the video as the photo isn’t of inverted telescoping APFSDS. Also a bit of a terminology change would be needed as telescopic APFSDS would need to be jacketed so it would probably be better to call it APFSTPMJDS (Armour Piercing, Fin Stabilized, Telescopic Penetrator, Metal Jacket, Discarding Sabot) its long and wonky but its the most accurate to what it is

Posted

There are some interesting comments in the video, on manufacturability of the tungsten tube, and on the consistency of the deployment movement.

Posted
3 minutes ago, sunday said:

There are some interesting comments in the video, on manufacturability of the tungsten tube, and on the consistency of the deployment movement.

I wonder if the deployment system would actually work in real life since the fins on APFSDS is low drag on the front since it would hurt velocity to have high drag fins, which the telescopic APFSDS in the video uses. I also think the weight imbalance would disturb accuracy of the APFSTPMJDS (I’m calling it that now) since the center of mass would be pushed back to the denser penetrator  

Posted
2 hours ago, sunday said:

There are some interesting comments in the video, on manufacturability of the tungsten tube, and on the consistency of the deployment movement.

That comment is a bit confused I think. Tungsten carbide is of course hard to machine, but tungsten alloy as used in APFSDS is not.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, KV7 said:

That comment is a bit confused I think. Tungsten carbide is of course hard to machine, but tungsten alloy as used in APFSDS is not.

Found this supplier of tungsten tubes, they use powder metallurgy.

Edited to add:

Now I wonder how people manufacture tungsten long rod penetrators, as tungsten properties make of it a machinist nightmare: https://mellowpine.com/blog/machining-tungsten/

Perhaps the main process involved is hot forging, Dunno.

Edited by sunday
Posted
6 hours ago, sunday said:

Found this supplier of tungsten tubes, they use powder metallurgy.

Edited to add:

Now I wonder how people manufacture tungsten long rod penetrators, as tungsten properties make of it a machinist nightmare: https://mellowpine.com/blog/machining-tungsten/

Perhaps the main process involved is hot forging, Dunno.

I was being a bit flippant. Compared to most materials it surely is difficult, but it's a difficulty that is largely surmountable by slower and more costly work processes.

Tungsten rod can be produced to high dimensional accuracy and smoothness by turning and then grinding to give a surface finish treatment.

Posted
On 3/10/2023 at 9:32 AM, Mike1158 said:

I  am quite out of date but, can these be 3d printed?

Tungsten and even tungsten carbide can be 3d printed, but it's an inferior production method to machining for this sort of design.

Posted

Thanks mate, I suppose a composite process is possible but no real clue tbh.

Posted (edited)

The question is - Could those ultra fine grain alloys be used to manufacture APFSDS penetrators? I understand penetrators need to be made of a ductile alloy in order to not shatter, if shattering is a problem, of course.

Edited by sunday

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...