Quote:
Originally Posted by swiss
Bounce?
It's not about bouncing.
I've seen a a t54 where a flechette went right through it, entering the turret on one side, leaving the hull on the other side just above the tracks.
Leaving just two tiny holes the diameter of a thumb, yet the crew would have 0 chance of survival.
Any penetrator will tear off metal from the exit hole. Those are tiny fragments, with razor sharp edges, at very high speed.
And the best: They are super hot, able to ignite the hydraulics in your tank.
|
You are talking about high energy kinetic penetrators, which has not much to do with rounds fired by aircraft IMHO -the speed and the missile weight are far from anything a wwII aircraft sports. And a round that went right through a T-54 will have had a huge energy surplus after penetrating, and if I am corrcet also partially fragmented and ignited -and that should have killed crew and/or inginted charges. I seroiusly doubt that usual aircraft rounds wil have similar effects -if I am correct in the assumption that neither DU nor tungsten carbide found widespread use (though the Ju87G used WC rounds), and the smaller the calibre, the less spalling should occur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swiss
I never claimed a .50 can cause spalling(although it will go right through an m113 btw, lol), or disable tracks.
 |
But we are talking about effects aircraft bullets can do to tanks, not tank vs. tank gunnery. Tank vs. tank is a different issue IMHO, because of the much greater bullet velocities and masses involved. And if we talk tank vs. tank, then you are right that a penetration should in most cases fatal to the hit AFV -and that even non penetrating hits can do serious damage.