It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dorchester Shermans Vs Tiger&King Tiger

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 05:47 AM
link   
" spalling " is technically the disintigration of the armour on the INSIDE surface , the dramatic effect of HESH [ High Explosive Squash Head ] arheads against RHA [ Rolled Homogenous Armour ] demonstrates this best .

" do depleted uranium sabots break up ? " they can but they are designed to benefit from the property of Pyrophoricity which makes DU essentially " self sharpening"

the simple answer is that for every thibkness of armour they penetrate , they loose a given percentage of thier lenght and diameter [ this is where the deadly " DU dust " comes from ]

so depending on the thinkness and composition of the armour it strikes , a DU penetrator will often penertare " essentially intact "

this is a deliberatly simplistic answer , using as few technical terms as possible

hope this helps .

lastly , can a DU peneyrator fire " through and through " a tank ? hell yes


consider this picture :



please pay particular attention to the notation where it shows the point where the dart passed through the berm that was supposedly protecting the tank , and then the exit track on the port side of the vehicle [ nearest the camera ]




posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
There was an article circulating around the internet about a M829A1 going through two T-72 tanks


LOL, let me guess you can't find it.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 11:50 PM
link   
More smokescreens from our friend rouge1.

You claimed that
"It wouldn't be possible for a sabot, especially a US DU round to hvae a through and through."

PROVEN WRONG, ONCE AGAIN


Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, let me guess you can't find it.


Find WHAT?????

You mean the story??


In one incident in the Gulf, a DU round penetrated both walls of a T-72 tank, exploding it, and then went on to destroy another T-72.

Link


and in another incident, a DU shell penetrated one Iraqi T-72 tank, passing straight through to destroy it's neighbour

Link

There are other stories about a DU round going through a sand berm and still killing the T-72 behind it.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

In one incident in the Gulf, a DU round penetrated both walls of a T-72 tank, exploding it, and then went on to destroy another T-72.

Link


and in another incident, a DU shell penetrated one Iraqi T-72 tank, passing straight through to destroy it's neighbour

Link

There are other stories about a DU round going through a sand berm and still killing the T-72 behind it.


AS I said it didn't go straight through 2 T-72's as you claimed, your sources back me up



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Now its, didn't go though two tanks while you claimed it couldn't even go through one

Like this
"It wouldn't be possible for a sabot, especially a US DU round to hvae a through and through." ?

More selective wordings



Originally posted by rogue1
AS I said it didn't go straight through 2 T-72's as you claimed, your sources back me up
.

Dont mix words, and include extra words

I didn't say "straight through". I said THROUGH two tanks which refers to the fact that you claimed a DU round couldn't go through a tank. I was the one which brought up the story and is well versed in what i said and meant by it



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, let me guess you can't find it.


A valiant attempt at deflection but no one is buying it.

Some people are incapable of admitting they were wrong, just a general comment of course, no one specific in mind - a sign of zero integrity.

[edit on 9-9-2006 by Retseh]



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
I didn't say "straight through". I said THROUGH two tanks which refers to the fact that you claimed a DU round couldn't go through a tank. I was the one which brought up the story and is well versed in what i said and meant by it




You don't have to say straight through, when you say " though " it implies straight through, look it up in a dictinionary
Simple.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   
You arent going to change the subject here. I did not mean straight through, side stepping your first argument about DU rounds?

And my meaning was through its armour, It could well have gone "straight through" two T-72s tank but i did not claim so. Do i need to explain everything down to the last word?



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
It wouldn't be possible for a sabot, especially a US DU round to hvae a through and through. Simply because on entering the turrent, teh sabot would break up and burn. The DU Sabot rounds didn't even g straight through the turrets of old T-55's during the first gulf war.


Hello, remember me ?

Do you still stand by your original statement, or are you finally willing to correct yourself ?



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   
The crews of AFVs, especially tanks, spend hour after hours banging their big guns
and, here in the UK you can see them doing Battle Runs at Lulwoth Cove in Dorset and Castle Martin in Wales.

I have watched them shoot on the move and whilst stationary and have never failled to be amazed at the accuracy of the main weapon.

However, they are firing Training Ammunition which according to the gunners are about 5% less accurate than war shots. [Why, I simply have no idea]

With regards to tank ammunition, it should be remembered that HESH tends to curve through the air much like an arrow flies through the air, whilst APFSDS-T has a much flatter trajectory.

It is this flatter trajectory that gives the sabot it's penetrating power, much the same as the German 8.8 cm Pak 43 /3 L/71 mounted on the Jagdpanther V.

Because of it's penetrating power, it is quite feasible that an APFSDS-T round could, given the right circumstances, penetrate two vehicles one after the other and retain enough energy to strike a third vehicle and seriously damage it.

I saw a programme on UK Channel 5 about six months ago about the Battle for Normandy in 1944.

An officer of 1 RTR mounted on an M4 Sherman spotted a half troop of Panthers about 1200 yards from his position. He ordered his driver to reverse behind a farmhouse, intending to take them in the flank. His tank had been spotted however and the next thing he knew, a round had passed through the farmhouse and destroyed his tank.

The weapon in question, was the 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70 gun that most of the Panthers were armed with.

I hope this illustrates the power of tank rounds.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   
EDIT: Fritz

His tank had been spotted however and the next thing he knew, a round had passed through the farmhouse and destroyed his tank.

The weapon in question, was the 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70 gun that most of the Panthers were armed with.

I hope this illustrates the power of tank rounds.


Since i am not adding much in this post anyways i had a good laugh at the assumption being made here.
Why are we not wondering about the quality of French construction! Just my bit as it's always strange to see people assume such superiority in the Germans ( which is not 'wrong', but.... ) when they could easily just call their opposition mostly incompetent.


The idea is to laugh about this and if you feel compelled to respond i probably missed the mark.




Originally posted by chinawhite
You arent going to change the subject here. I did not mean straight through, side stepping your first argument about DU rounds?

And my meaning was through its armour, It could well have gone "straight through" two T-72s tank but i did not claims so. Do i need to explain everything down to the last word?


Rogue has never once( well i never noticed so maybe he sneaked in a partial sorry somewhere) admitted that he got something even partially wrong and i frequently had to correct him ten to fifteen times in a single post..... My biggest mistake on this forum is probably that i am not vindictive enough to pursue the fools who are consistently wrong but never admit to it. I wish there was a system in place by which people could mark something as being a fact ( like the quote tags) and then gain or lose points on the basis of how often others could show up mistakes. Within mere days we would be able to tell the boys from the men ( Girls/women) as people start carefully considering when to use the function and when not.

But since this place is just like all the other forums and i am no lobbyist....

Stellar


[edit on 11-9-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Rogue has never once( well i never noticed so maybe he sneaked in a partial sorry somewhere) admitted that he got something even partially wrong and i frequently had to correct him ten to fifteen times in a single post.....


LOL, when dealing with your bizarre rants, I am never wrong. 10-15 times LMAO, give me a break. It's kinda funny but whenever you post in a thr3ead where I am you seem to make these childish remarks - insecurity I guess.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   
A total of 5 people in the last 2-3 days have told you your full of it. Yet you still try and divert to you happy zone? You already have two warnings in the last 2-3 days as well.

Here are some quotes

Retseh
"A valiant attempt at deflection but no one is buying it.
Hello, remember me ?
Do you still stand by your original statement, or are you finally willing to correct yourself ?"

Hooshang
"again rogue1, you have failed to post an article proving that iran used cw and yet you claim that i have no idea what i am talking about?"

Sep
"But then again, if you can't back up a word you say, then please don't say them"

StellarX
Just above

Myself

And iskander has you on his ignore list



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   
LOL, yes I am so hurt. WHy do I care, Iskander just rants, tehn when people pull him up on it he throws a tantrum. His arguments are pointless. Stellarx also talks alot of BS, but occasionally has some good points. And you my friend have nothing worth readig but Chinese nationalist garbage, which I find funny seeing as you live in the countryside in AUstralia and have bugger all personal experience in CHina, lol.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Everyone is wrong except for yourself. Those two warnings I thought would have given you a clue.



still hasn't admitted anything. Still presisting with the country australia talk as well........



nothing worth readig but Chinese nationalist garbage


And yet you keep on replying

You like to quote this "Chinese nationalist garbage"?

[edit on 12-9-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Guys, I think you are all being unfair to Rouge 1.

I also think that you miss many of his points, and I for one, cannot understand why you don't stop picking on him.

I have spent many, many hours debating with him over many of the issues that face us today.

I have always found Rouge 1 to be intelligent, witty, factual and full of it.

That's why I pressed the ignore button. Why don't you?



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
That's why I pressed the ignore button. Why don't you?


. Nice twist



You have voted fritz for the Way Above Top Secret award.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   
You have voted fritz for the Way Above Top Secret award

Thanks Dude, not sure I deserve it though...............................


On the other hand........................... Mr Rogue 1 .....................


[edit on 12-9-2006 by fritz]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   
LOL had a good laugh myself. I think it shows chinawhites childish mentality. I guess he thinks he's scored one small victory in some warped sense. Well good for him, but really who cares



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Yet you still have admitted anything......


Telling of your character



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join