Well known problem with armor piercing for a very long time is that increased velocity will often times decrease penetration. At some point the higher velocity causes the bullet to fail, too much stress and dynamics, the physics are all there to cause the bullet to simply shatter, fragment, fail. At some point many rounds have a perfect optimum velocity for penetration, maximum velocity without going over the brink.
This was the cap of standard anti tank high carbon steel armor piercing rounds back in the day. Hyper velocity anti tank rounds didn't come about until they could make tungsten or other hard core material that could withstand impacts at higher velocities without shattering like glass. This meant that standard steel projectiles basically had a velocity ceiling that limited the effectiveness of a caliber, either make a heavier projectile for caliber or build a bigger gun.
Without the right material and build, sometimes faster is worse.
Justin Sanchez
Its just ceramics are too tough for steel.
Modern tank APFSDS are made from tungsten/DU alloya that have tensile strength and elongation than best steels. And they work differently, long rods are eroding penetrators and destroy themselves during penetration. Its just who ends first armor or rod.
Gabriel Cook
Russian nomenclature level IV armour is different from NATO nomenclature level IV, it's rated to stop standard issue 5.45.
KEP development was short term, in a matter of mere years all the major powers had KEP for their front-line armor during the Second World War, keeping a near parallel pace with RHA development. Tungsten has been a strategic resource since before World War One, primarily in mining and high-heat applications, but it's used in KEP development began with the Germans in their Anti-Air shell development, and was swiftly adopted into use in armor by the Brits (APCR) and US (HVAP), with development of the APDS by the Brits debuting in 1943.
Well, for APFSDS is a bit more complicated. Long rod are more recent development and armor thickness has it limitations (in reference to RHA), which is why development in ERA and APS is on the rise, but with that comes segmented long rod penetrators. What makes armors like Dorchester and Chobham so special is their similar function to SAPI carbide based composite plates, as they plates are struck, the composite shatters, causing it to become denser and denser, making penetration a near impossibility as the shatter composite simply absorbs the kinetic energy of the penetrator, cause it to stick in the armor like an arrow.
Cameron James
To carry out that magical feat, it would have to be longer, which would ruin the ability to yaw and create unnecessarily higher chamber pressures. Is it longer? Also learn how to write nigger I can hardly read that tit-for-tat greentext bullshit comment.
Carter Gomez
The purpose of M855A1 was to make a less yaw-sensitive round.
Tyler Moore
It was disinfo spread by intelligence agencies. Chobham is NERA, similar to what Russians and Iraiqis used in their T-72B and and T-55 Enigma.
Actually longer rounds are less stable user. But it doesn't mater because with EPR design (what is now would be used in all bullets and calibers not just M885A1) US went away from tumbling bullets because they are bad and unreliable.
Cameron Wood
It is.
It's using a different powder and while chamber pressures are higher, they are not as high as has been claimed ITT and others. Yes, it's a longer bullet, seated deeper in the case.
I write just fine. Maybe learn how to read, you syrup-sucking butt pirate.
