Functionality test of the cap used for British tungsten alloy APDS. 120mm L15 APDS tungsten alloy core at 1310 m/s. (0.9km distance) vs 300mm steel armor (~280 BHN, average toughness) Both projectiles have the same total mass.
It looks like the cap is helping to concentrate the force of the shell, and helping to prevent it from mushrooming. Even when the cap shreds off, it's already helped to force-form the slug itself into an "arrow" shape.
Not really. A shot trap is when armor (typically on the lower turret) is angled in such a way as to enable a round to ricochet off of it and into a thinner plate of armor. Prime example is the late war modifications of the Panther where the turret lost its rounded bottom mantlet. @@quigglebert
@osurulz2010 fair enough, my understanding was a shot trap effectively guided the shot in from what otherwise would have been a bounce, I.e the separation between Hull and turret, thus my thinking the ballistic cap effectively is a deployable shot trap from the shells side of the equation
Maybe the cap focuses the energy of the projectile more into one place of the armor, leading to better penetration, while without the cap the energy spreads out more?
Roundy tries to push everything forward, pointy moves material to the sides, even deep inside the hole it keeps rolling inside out (like a prepuce), if the cap had different color maybe we can see what is going on
The cap is primary designed to reduce ricochet. As it strikes the armour, the cap bites and turns the penetrator into the armour. We thats what they told us a the RAC gunnery school
Not known to many, but, the cap was designed so that when it strikes oblique angles of armor, the nose of the cap turns away and the base of the cap ‘knocks’ the tip of the penetrator towards the armor
My guess is any discrepancies between the simulation and real world test figures would be correlated to inaccuracy or improper reactions of the propellant used in the original calculations
seems to me like the cap almost kind of "greased" the projectile by deforming and sliding along the sides of the projectile. probably not accurate at all but that was what it looked like
is there a way of "coloring" each part so we can see where that mass ends up? something i dont understand is why the shell in light grey seems to lose mass, i dont know where that goes, i assume it spreads like butter lining the hole but its confusing to me. anyway i still enjoy the videos haha also the plug at the end in the caped shell seems to retain some of the original shell's shape, can you put a "grid" to show how the mass of the target shifts as the shell pushes trough? im probably asking for too much nvm
Another follow up question. Assume non monolithic steel layers. Does it exist an optimal array, of course with better mass efficiency compare to monolithic plate, that can consume the cap and turn the capped projectile back to the uncapped one?
Yes but its used for traditional APC or APCBC rounds. Its called a decapping plate. Its basically a spaced layer thick enough to decap the round. The space need to sufficient for the cap to properly detach though. For these reasons it only exist on ships.
@@dejmianxyzsimulations4174 This projectile. But Im sure about the next part. I don't think my question is very well thought out. Maybe try it against the composite block upgrade on t55?
So, this is not unknown. We alsp observe similar effect with wc penetrator. My question is to what extend does the cap material effect the final result. Can you test that?
Can you make a simulation of TOW 2 missle vs T-72M1 front plate covered in ERAWA 2 ERA? There was a test of such combination against Panzerfaust 3, and it actually stopped the jet. I'm curious if it could save crew from heavier warhead.
@@v4skunk739 There is a transition zone of impact angle roughly up to 40 degree from horizontal where the frontal condition of the projectile still play some part in the penetration. Beyond that it is almost exclusively about mass/area that get smash onto the armor. Everything else being equal, capped projectile tend to have more mass getting kick away than uncapped one. Of course you can modify the projectile geometry, intentional weakspot, differential hardness, etc to allow capped projectile to have more mass smash into the armor.
Could you do Mark IV vs A7V, frontal armor, at 250m; PTRD vs Panzer III side turret/armor at 200m; and ( I know it is hard) but Volksturm vs T-34-85 [Panzerfaust 60 vs side turret of T-34) OR -75/88mm Pak 40 (HE) against t-34 top frontal armor -10.5 cm LeFh 18 vs frontal/armor t-34 -15cm Schwere field howitzer 18 vs top t-34/ I-2/ su 122
@@ivan5595 I was thinking roof armor and what 10.5/15cm HE can do to it. And a similar video but with the top armor of a T-72 by a 155/152mm HE shell (plunging fire).
The superslow really hides the fact the people behind the spalling are gonna have a real bad time Id be interested in seeing a faster speed of the shot to really ram that point home that you get spallong, you get dead
Capped AP rounds date all the way back to before WW2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour-piercing%2C_capped%2C_ballistic_capped_shell#Armour-piercing_cap Perhaps the same mechanism is at work on the British tungsten alloy APDS?
Its probably there to defeat Kontakt and the like. Looks to me like it deflects the blast from ERA for a fraction of a second, and thus prevents or reduces deflection of the main penetrator.
