Path: spln!rex!extra.newsguy.com!lotsanews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!gemini.tycho.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Approved: sci-military-moderated@retro.com Return-Path: news@google.com Delivery-Date: Sat Oct 27 16:52:53 2001 Delivery-Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:50:18 -0700 for <sci-military-moderated@retro.com>; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:49:02 -0700 (PDT) for <sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org>; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 23:32:51 GMT (envelope-from news@google.com) for <sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org>; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:32:46 -0700 for <sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org>; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:32:45 -0700 for sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:32:45 -0700 To: sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org From: psl@interchange.ubc.ca (Paul Lakowski) Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated Subject: Re: WWII Armor types Date: 27 Oct 2001 16:32:45 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <de5bf54f.0110271532.871cbf@posting.google.com> References: <i3qB7.152293$5A3.52800604@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com> <a516ee75.0110252036.230ea683@posting.google.com> <5dcb47db.0110260556.1019019@posting.google.com> <de5bf54f.0110261517.55877d2d@posting.google.com> <Xns914770EF9841BaldHeadedJohn@62.172.195.196> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.23.94.196 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com X-NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Oct 2001 23:32:45 GMT Content-Length: 1126 Lines: 31 NNTP-Posting-Host: 536e8cf9.newsreader.tycho.net X-Trace: 1004249345 gemini.tycho.net 433 205.179.181.194 X-Complaints-To: abuse@tycho.net Xref: spln sci.military.moderated:39896 John D Salt <john.salt@NOSPAM.btclick.com> wrote in message news:<Xns914770EF9841BaldHeadedJohn@62.172.195.196>... > > I very much doubt that (and, yes, I am fully aware of the story > behind T-72 gill armour, but HEAT design has come on in leaps and > bounds since WW2). I have never found any figures of optimum > standoff distances for WW2 HEAT rounds, but I doubt that they > would have been more than a few calibres. > "Journal of Battlefield Technology" Vol 1-1 pp 1 a article was published on HEAT developement and standoff penetration chart was published for Steel,Copper and Aluminum cone shaped liners.....here are provisional figures taken from the chart. Standoff in cone diameters Liner | 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 ------------+----------------------------------- Aluminum | 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.4 2.5 2.5 Steel | 2.8 3.1 3.5 3.5 3.2 2.8 Vs mild steel? Steel | 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.1 2.6 2.1 Vs ~180 BHN Copper | 3.1 4.1 4.8 5.0 4.3 3.8 Vs mild steel? Copper | 4.2 4.4 4.2 3.8 3.4 2.8 Vs 340 BHN result is the penetration in cone diameters