Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
#1
Old 08-25-2012, 04:05 AM
BANNED
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 90
SABOT hit on human body

What if a human gets a direct hit from a SABOT round? Will the round go straight through, leaving a huge hole in his/her body? I assume because it is intended for anti-tank purpose the human body would not be much of an obstable for it so it would straigh through until it runs out of energy or hit something hard and explode. What do you think will happen?
#2
Old 08-25-2012, 04:08 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 18,778
The human will die.
#3
Old 08-25-2012, 05:30 AM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,187
I think the sabot would make you holey.
#4
Old 08-25-2012, 05:32 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Newark
Posts: 2,054
A Palestinian was on the news a few years ago when he got hit by an Israeli one and lived. I don't know how long he lived for, but certainly long enough to get to the ICU and be swathed in bandages.
#5
Old 08-25-2012, 05:46 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: East TN Mtns USA,NA,Sol3
Posts: 4,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
The human will die.
I must be an evil person, but I laughed.
#6
Old 08-25-2012, 06:11 AM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,016
Sabot isn't an acronym to be capitalized, it's a term for the sleeve that allows the long and narrow projectile to be fired in a stable manner from a larger barrel. The acronym would be APDS or a variant thereof.

My WAG is that it wouldn't actually do all that much. Nothing in the human body is even remotely up to the task of impeding the passage of the round. I'd guess that the shot would simply go clean through without transferring much kinetic energy, resulting in a fist- to head-sized cylinder punched out, but no Gallagher watermelon explosion or anything. If you didn't need anything that was in the cylinder (limb amputation?) and could get the blood loss handled quickly enough, my money's on it potentially being survivable.
#7
Old 08-25-2012, 08:31 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 18,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mekhazzio View Post
If you didn't need anything that was in the cylinder (limb amputation?) and could get the blood loss handled quickly enough, my money's on it potentially being survivable.
Perhaps, but the OP asks about a "direct hit", which I take to mean basically center mass---ie, the middle of the target's chest. That ain't gonna be survivable even if Hawkeye and Trapper John are there to start triage immediately.
#8
Old 08-25-2012, 08:36 AM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: England.
Posts: 432
My guess is that a human body struck with a Sabot round would burst - splutch, like an overripe peach - due to the shock. Rather like an enlarged version of this Youtube video in which a man shoots a watermelon with a .50 sniper bullet. Or this compilation. Or this clip of a common rifle bullet going through ballistic gel. The killer is hydrostatic shock - the human body is basically a bag of water, and water doesn't compress, it has to get out of the way somehow, so if you pump a huge amount of energy into it (however briefly) you're going to burst that bag.

Yeah, a tank shell goes really quickly - but the tissue and organs etc are still being moved out of the way at enormous speed, with great force.

Last edited by Ashley Pomeroy; 08-25-2012 at 08:36 AM.
#9
Old 08-25-2012, 08:38 AM
Guest
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 2,352
Well, you would be able to stand in front of my TV without blocking my view.
#10
Old 08-25-2012, 10:58 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Creve Coeur, MO
Posts: 6,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by obbn View Post
Well, you would be able to stand in front of my TV without blocking my view.
Yeah, but the mess on the carpet would be a real downer.
#11
Old 08-25-2012, 11:28 AM
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 23,167
Back prior to Desert Storm me and all of the flight crews from my unit were taken to a place where we got to see Soviet built equipment. They wouldn't say how they got the equipment but a lot of it had Egyptian markings. (After DS every unit had a T-72 on static display on the front lawn so it wasn't that big a deal. Anyway...) They had a T-55 with a neat little hole on one side of the turret and a slightly bigger ragged hole on the other side. The sabot round went straight through the commander's station. On the deck of the tank they displayed what was left of the shredded tank commander's uniform. It was found outside of the tank and had been sucked out of the exit hole.
#12
Old 08-25-2012, 11:40 AM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In my house
Posts: 1,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashley Pomeroy View Post
My guess is that a human body struck with a Sabot round would burst - splutch, like an overripe peach - due to the shock. Rather like an enlarged version of this Youtube video in which a man shoots a watermelon with a .50 sniper bullet. Or this compilation. Or this clip of a common rifle bullet going through ballistic gel. The killer is hydrostatic shock - the human body is basically a bag of water, and water doesn't compress, it has to get out of the way somehow, so if you pump a huge amount of energy into it (however briefly) you're going to burst that bag.

Yeah, a tank shell goes really quickly - but the tissue and organs etc are still being moved out of the way at enormous speed, with great force.
A sabot round is essentially a giant flechette, however, and they generate a minimal temporary cavity as they're quite aerodynamic. The bullets in your links are deforming/yawing in the gel, which increases their temporary cavity size and creates the entertaining long-range Gallagher ability. This is a YouTube video of a FMJ bullet in gel, and a flechette's effects are milder than this.

IIRC, a APFSDS round from a 120mm Abrams tank is 40mm in diameter, not counting the four fins which probably add another 40-60mm on top of that. That's bound to hit something important.

Also for the OP, sabot rounds don't explode. They're a solid chunk of metal and are dependent upon striking something, or having fragments of armor that was punched through strike something, inside the target vehicle in order to make a kill.
#13
Old 08-25-2012, 10:24 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,322
You'll be eyeing Sharon Stone until you notice a spot of sun in the middle of your shadow.
#14
Old 08-25-2012, 10:52 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 27,179
I misread this as getting hit with the actual sabot. Sort of like how it's possible to die from a blank or starter round if it's close enough.
#15
Old 08-26-2012, 03:32 AM
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 11,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Back prior to Desert Storm me and all of the flight crews from my unit were taken to a place where we got to see Soviet built equipment. They wouldn't say how they got the equipment but a lot of it had Egyptian markings. (After DS every unit had a T-72 on static display on the front lawn so it wasn't that big a deal. Anyway...) They had a T-55 with a neat little hole on one side of the turret and a slightly bigger ragged hole on the other side. The sabot round went straight through the commander's station. On the deck of the tank they displayed what was left of the shredded tank commander's uniform. It was found outside of the tank and had been sucked out of the exit hole.
Was the weapon Israeli? I know they did a lot for US intelligence by giving goodies from their wars.
#16
Old 08-26-2012, 07:27 AM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Running Back & Forth
Posts: 3,656
Scooped on just about everything I was going to say. I guess my contribution is going to be the word sabot is the French word for shoe, specifically wooden clogs, which is where the military meaning derives from.
#17
Old 08-26-2012, 07:48 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 22,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Bloom View Post
Was the weapon Israeli? I know they did a lot for US intelligence by giving goodies from their wars.
It makes sense if they were. Israel captured so many tanks that at one point they even fielded a few T-55 battalions consisting of refurbished former enemy vehicles.
#18
Old 08-26-2012, 09:20 AM
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 23,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Bloom View Post
Was the weapon Israeli? I know they did a lot for US intelligence by giving goodies from their wars.
That's the assumption.
#19
Old 08-26-2012, 09:26 AM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,818
This if you're lucky, it would be a great conversation starter, but more likely this.
#20
Old 08-26-2012, 10:37 AM
Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: mid-Pacific
Posts: 2,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patch View Post
A sabot round is essentially a giant flechette, however, and they generate a minimal temporary cavity as they're quite aerodynamic. The bullets in your links are deforming/yawing in the gel, which increases their temporary cavity size and creates the entertaining long-range Gallagher ability. This is a YouTube video of a FMJ bullet in gel, and a flechette's effects are milder than this.

IIRC, a APFSDS round from a 120mm Abrams tank is 40mm in diameter, not counting the four fins which probably add another 40-60mm on top of that. That's bound to hit something important.

Also for the OP, sabot rounds don't explode. They're a solid chunk of metal and are dependent upon striking something, or having fragments of armor that was punched through strike something, inside the target vehicle in order to make a kill.
The diameter of the penetrator is smaller (dimensions are wandering into classified territory).

Kill mechanisms inside the target include, in no particular order; spalling metal from the tank's interior wall impacting crew - ammunition - electronics - fuel, the depleted uranium penetrator shedding shards of its skin which are pyrophoric [burn violently in air] (penetrators are machined - let's say not in the air) igniting most anything in the interior, there is a tremendous shock wave/overpressure as the penetrator and armor wall enter your living space unannounced. Recovery teams looking to recover penetrators described bodies as "goo".

A note about DU penetrators. As an ingot, the metal itself doesn't burst into flames. Only fragments from machining or target penetration have the pyrophoric characteristic.
#21
Old 08-26-2012, 10:40 AM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
It makes sense if they were. Israel captured so many tanks that at one point they even fielded a few T-55 battalions consisting of refurbished former enemy vehicles.
Was'nt there an IFV made from from the hull of captured T-55/T-62?
#22
Old 08-26-2012, 12:13 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 22,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Was'nt there an IFV made from from the hull of captured T-55/T-62?
That's where many of them ended up - as the Achzarit HAPC*. A very effective vehicle. It's still in service, although it's gradually being replaced by the Namer in front line units (which means it will probably still be used by reserve units well until the 2040's. The Israeli army hates throwing stuff away).




* Heavy Armored Personnel Carrier.
#23
Old 08-27-2012, 01:43 AM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In my house
Posts: 1,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithsb View Post
The diameter of the penetrator is smaller (dimensions are wandering into classified territory).
I've read 32mm to 40mm over the years, can't remember where it is, but I expect whatever the current version is to be somewhere in that area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smithsb View Post
Kill mechanisms inside the target include, in no particular order; spalling metal from the tank's interior wall impacting crew - ammunition - electronics - fuel, the depleted uranium penetrator shedding shards of its skin which are pyrophoric [burn violently in air] (penetrators are machined - let's say not in the air) igniting most anything in the interior, there is a tremendous shock wave/overpressure as the penetrator and armor wall enter your living space unannounced. Recovery teams looking to recover penetrators described bodies as "goo".
Although you're giving a good description of what happens when the Abram's much-vaunted APFSDSDU penetrator strikes home, I will note that a number of Bradley IFVs were struck by Abrams fire during the first Gulf War and the crews/passengers largely survived. Notions of crew members being sucked out of exit holes I can only regard as so much folklore.
#24
Old 08-27-2012, 08:52 AM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,342
Well, they put blades on a broadhead arrow to sever blood vessels. I assume the fins on the penetrator would have a similar effect, so even if there's no hydrostatic shock to speak of, it would still be very bad for you.
#25
Old 08-27-2012, 09:34 AM
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 23,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patch View Post
I've read 32mm to 40mm over the years, can't remember where it is, but I expect whatever the current version is to be somewhere in that area.



Although you're giving a good description of what happens when the Abram's much-vaunted APFSDSDU penetrator strikes home, I will note that a number of Bradley IFVs were struck by Abrams fire during the first Gulf War and the crews/passengers largely survived. Notions of crew members being sucked out of exit holes I can only regard as so much folklore.
In the example I gave the sabot went through the person in the turret. Not just into the vehicle. I guess you could dismiss what I saw as fokelore. A sabot round is actually much less effective on lighter armored vehicles like the Bradley than on tanks like it was designed for. When going up against APCs its recommended to fire HEAT.
#26
Old 08-27-2012, 02:05 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Running Back & Forth
Posts: 3,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
That's where many of them ended up - as the Achzarit HAPC*. A very effective vehicle. It's still in service, although it's gradually being replaced by the Namer in front line units (which means it will probably still be used by reserve units well until the 2040's. The Israeli army hates throwing stuff away).
Off topic, but I'm surprised the idea of heavy APCs has never really caught on. Aside from Israel, the only other APC made from a converted tank I can think of was the Canadian Kangaroo in WWII which was extremely successful despite their limited numbers. There's a very good case to be made that APCs should be as heavily or even more heavily armored than tanks as their role is to deliver infantry as close as possible to the enemy. There's been a gradual up-armoring of infantry carriers from battle-taxis such as the M-113 to first generation IFVs like the BMP and the constant up-armoring of the Bradley since its introduction in 1981; but actually converting a tank remains a rarity.
#27
Old 08-27-2012, 02:12 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
That's where many of them ended up - as the Achzarit HAPC*. A very effective vehicle. It's still in service, although it's gradually being replaced by the Namer in front line units (which means it will probably still be used by reserve units well until the 2040's. The Israeli army hates throwing stuff away).




* Heavy Armored Personnel Carrier.
Finding spares must be hell. Black market or set up a new production line to fabricate.
#28
Old 08-27-2012, 02:13 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dissonance View Post
but actually converting a tank remains a rarity.
Possibly cost-driven? MBT armor is expensive
#29
Old 08-27-2012, 02:21 PM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bedrock
Posts: 26,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by wedgehed View Post
I think the sabot would make you holey.
Deuteronomy 5:12
#30
Old 08-27-2012, 02:41 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patch View Post
Although you're giving a good description of what happens when the Abram's much-vaunted APFSDSDU penetrator strikes home...
That is the most ridiculous acronym I've ever heard of.
#31
Old 08-27-2012, 02:54 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 22,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Finding spares must be hell. Black market or set up a new production line to fabricate.
Why? The T-54/55 was, I think, the most widely-produced tank in history; it certainly served in the most military forces. You can probably go to any scrap yard in the Eastern Block or Third World and find all the spares you need. I don't know if that's what they do, but it makes sense.
#32
Old 08-27-2012, 03:06 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSquishy View Post
That is the most ridiculous acronym I've ever heard of.
Lots of dead Iraqis would disagree. Armour Piercing Fin Stabalised Discarding Sabot Depleted Uranium.
#33
Old 08-27-2012, 06:21 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Why? The T-54/55 was, I think, the most widely-produced tank in history; it certainly served in the most military forces. You can probably go to any scrap yard in the Eastern Block or Third World and find all the spares you need. I don't know if that's what they do, but it makes sense.
It was quite a pain for Pakistan to get spares for its own fleet; there was quite a political scandal on this back in the 1990's. Basically dealing with very shady characters.
#34
Old 08-27-2012, 06:26 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In my house
Posts: 1,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Lots of dead Iraqis would disagree. Armour Piercing Fin Stabalised Discarding Sabot Depleted Uranium.
Yup, though it's hell to monogram it on handkerchiefs.
#35
Old 08-27-2012, 06:38 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Lots of dead Iraqis would disagree. Armour Piercing Fin Stabalised Discarding Sabot Depleted Uranium.
The acronym is ridiculous. Not the weapon itself. If you have 8 letters in your acronym, it's time to give the thing a nickname. Like "Florence."
#36
Old 08-27-2012, 06:43 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 22,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
It was quite a pain for Pakistan to get spares for its own fleet; there was quite a political scandal on this back in the 1990's. Basically dealing with very shady characters.
I really have no idea about Achzarit parts - they may actually have enough spare parts cannibalized from captured T-55s, without importing new ones. Still, Israel has been developing political and military ties with several countries possessing T-55 fleets. including India, Bulgaria and Georgia. I wouldn't be surprised if some shipments of tank parts have arrived in Israel at some point.

Remember also that engaging with arms smugglers has a long and proud tradition in Israel: the Israeli Air Force's first planes were wrecked Messerschmidts imported as scrap metal, and President Shimon Peres, among others, started his career by "acquiring" weapons from all over the world back in the 1940's. What you call "dealing with shady characters", Israelis call "resourcefulness".
#37
Old 08-27-2012, 06:44 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 22,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakeyrat View Post
The acronym is ridiculous. Not the weapon itself. If you have 8 letters in your acronym, it's time to give the thing a nickname. Like "Florence."
Unless the acronym spells something cool, of course.
#38
Old 08-27-2012, 06:56 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Unless the acronym spells something cool, of course.
Unlike "Florence".
#39
Old 08-28-2012, 04:38 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 22,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dissonance View Post
Off topic, but I'm surprised the idea of heavy APCs has never really caught on. Aside from Israel, the only other APC made from a converted tank I can think of was the Canadian Kangaroo in WWII which was extremely successful despite their limited numbers. There's a very good case to be made that APCs should be as heavily or even more heavily armored than tanks as their role is to deliver infantry as close as possible to the enemy. There's been a gradual up-armoring of infantry carriers from battle-taxis such as the M-113 to first generation IFVs like the BMP and the constant up-armoring of the Bradley since its introduction in 1981; but actually converting a tank remains a rarity.
My WAG? Most armies are dominated by tankers and artillerymen, who think in terms of vehicles with guns. The Israeli army has always been dominated by former special operations types, to whom infantry vehicles are solely for transportation.
#40
Old 08-28-2012, 10:09 AM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,016
It's an issue of priorities, costs and scale. Vehicle design for survivability is in direct conflict with design for transportation. When you make something more durable, you make it slower & less maneuverable and reduce its capacity, which means you have less mobile force to work with. If you go whole hog and balloon the cost up so that the vehicle can do it all at once, you get fewer total vehicles for the same price, which again means less mobile force. When you account that many of the threats to a light transport are still a threat to a heavy transport, it makes a lot of sense to go with light.

If you're planning an operation, you want the quantity and flexibility. If you're the grunts actually stuck in the things, of course you want all the armor and firepower that you can get, but the root problem is that there's not much concern about what grunts want. A fraction of a percent higher casualty rates doesn't have nearly as much political cost associated with it, at least in the US, as an operation that went sour due to insufficient force.

It makes sense that the US Army is going lighter and lighter, and cutting and delaying their IFV replacement program, even without presupposing a tank bias. I'm not sure there is such a thing anyway; the tankers have been out doing patrols in HMMWVs in Iraq & Afghanistan as makeshift infantry to bolster the number of boots. (and they are none too pleased about that, to put it mildly)
#41
Old 08-28-2012, 11:42 AM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Elgin IL
Posts: 8,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dissonance View Post
Scooped on just about everything I was going to say. I guess my contribution is going to be the word sabot is the French word for shoe, specifically wooden clogs, which is where the military meaning derives from.
And with regards to nothing else, this is where we get the term "sabotage" from, workers on strike used to throw wooden shoes into factory machinery to jam them up.
#42
Old 08-28-2012, 11:54 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 22,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mekhazzio View Post
It's an issue of priorities, costs and scale. Vehicle design for survivability is in direct conflict with design for transportation. When you make something more durable, you make it slower & less maneuverable and reduce its capacity, which means you have less mobile force to work with. If you go whole hog and balloon the cost up so that the vehicle can do it all at once, you get fewer total vehicles for the same price, which again means less mobile force. When you account that many of the threats to a light transport are still a threat to a heavy transport, it makes a lot of sense to go with light.

If you're planning an operation, you want the quantity and flexibility. If you're the grunts actually stuck in the things, of course you want all the armor and firepower that you can get, but the root problem is that there's not much concern about what grunts want. A fraction of a percent higher casualty rates doesn't have nearly as much political cost associated with it, at least in the US, as an operation that went sour due to insufficient force.
Except that IFVs like the Bradley are more expensive than the Achzarit/Namer, and almost as heavy, because of their turrets. For basically the same price, an infantry vehicle can have a turret, or it can have lots of armor - but it can't have both. The U.S. went with the Bradley because of doctrine, not cost or mobility, and the Israelis went with the HAPCs for the same reason.

Last edited by Alessan; 08-28-2012 at 11:54 AM.
#43
Old 08-28-2012, 12:08 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashley Pomeroy View Post
My guess is that a human body struck with a Sabot round would burst - splutch, like an overripe peach - due to the shock. Rather like an enlarged version of this Youtube video in which a man shoots a watermelon with a .50 sniper bullet. Or this compilation. Or this clip of a common rifle bullet going through ballistic gel. The killer is hydrostatic shock - the human body is basically a bag of water, and water doesn't compress, it has to get out of the way somehow, so if you pump a huge amount of energy into it (however briefly) you're going to burst that bag.

Yeah, a tank shell goes really quickly - but the tissue and organs etc are still being moved out of the way at enormous speed, with great force.
Hydrostatic shock is a myth that's only theoretical on its best day. There's a lot of water in people, but it's all locked up on a cellular level. The real killer is ripping and punching holes through people, not shockwaves through the body's water - which couldn't even effectively travel owing to the vastly different density and composition of a body's organs and bones.
#44
Old 08-28-2012, 12:19 PM
SDSAB
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 71,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakeyrat View Post
The acronym is ridiculous. Not the weapon itself. If you have 8 letters in your acronym, it's time to give the thing a nickname. Like "Florence."
I would favor "Bruiser" or "Sluggo," myself.
#45
Old 08-28-2012, 12:24 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakeyrat View Post
The acronym is ridiculous. Not the weapon itself. If you have 8 letters in your acronym, it's time to give the thing a nickname. Like "Florence."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
I would favor "Bruiser" or "Sluggo," myself.
"Pierce."
#46
Old 08-28-2012, 12:46 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 10,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patch View Post
I've read 32mm to 40mm over the years, can't remember where it is, but I expect whatever the current version is to be somewhere in that area.
Wikipedia suggests 20-30mm, with a muzzle velocity of around 5000 fps. Compare this with a 50cal sniper rifle: diameter 12.5mm, muzzle velocity just 2500 fps.

Ashley Pomeroy's video of a watermelon exploding after being hit by a sniper rifle is an apt demonstration. Now imagine a projectile 2-3 times that diameter, travelling twice as fast, with a tip that's not quite as steeply swept back. Because of the shape and speed of the sabot round, the lateral velocity imparted to the target's tissues will be quite a bit larger than for the sniper round; because of its size, 4-9 times more tissue will have this lateral velocity imparted upon it. The sabot round, being much larger and made of tungsten or DU, will be far, far more massive than the sniper round, and so it will lose relatively little velocity as it passes through the body.

I expect a human being, hit in the torso with a sabot round, would be pretty completely dismembered. I would expect head, arms, and legs to found separately, with the victim's trunk obliterated as completely as that watermelon.
#47
Old 08-28-2012, 03:39 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
The U.S. went with the Bradley because of doctrine, not cost or mobility, and the Israelis went with the HAPCs for the same reason.
That's pretty much my point. The lesson learned from the Bradley is exactly why the US Army is going light instead of continuing down the heavy route. It was developed for a specialized role in a war that was never fought and is an unloved child these days. Instead of expanding or upgrading the Bradley fleet, or investing in a new IFV design, the US Army acquired legions of HMMWVs and Cougars. Even the poorly-armed Stryker is chosen over the Bradley for the IFV role.

All of these are lightly (or un-) armored wheeled vehicles. A certain type of heavy transport hasn't caught on in the US Army because they're not investing in heavy transports at all, of any type. Current doctrine calls for quantity and flexibility instead.
#48
Old 08-28-2012, 04:26 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 22,409
For low-intensity warare, I agree that wheeled armored vehicles are better - and Israel uses plenty of them for that purpose, too (the Israeli army will put armor on anything heavier than a skateboard). But none of those armored HMMVs or M-ATV will be useful in a full-scale, high-intensity war, which is what the Bradley and the HAPC are designed for - and which is still the ID's main purpose. An armored truck will provide protection against IEDs, not ATGMs.

Last edited by Alessan; 08-28-2012 at 04:26 PM.
#49
Old 08-28-2012, 05:05 PM
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 23,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
For low-intensity warare, I agree that wheeled armored vehicles are better - and Israel uses plenty of them for that purpose, too (the Israeli army will put armor on anything heavier than a skateboard). But none of those armored HMMVs or M-ATV will be useful in a full-scale, high-intensity war, which is what the Bradley and the HAPC are designed for - and which is still the ID's main purpose. An armored truck will provide protection against IEDs, not ATGMs.
We have to be ready for the last war not the next one.
#50
Old 08-28-2012, 05:15 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 22,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
We have to be ready for the last war not the next one.
We have to be ready for the most dangerous war.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:32 AM.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: gluing polyethylene sjws are stupid group youtube channels roy pearson judge home shopping forums tycho brahe pronounce drum after joke mylanta discontinued pumpernickel joke dr girlfriend hot is chloroform legal constantly shaking leg aluminum gun post office casuals oh marone half fast teen drinking song rangy lil deactivate security tags pushing 30 backdraft sex scene bowling average score dvt forum red bird tablet could you kindly aragorn sexy truss vs rafter doctors funny keselim definition superbaby cartoon shazam for classical music name of a whale penis something about mary have you seen my baseball estes igniters not working american dad oliver north recipes for people with no teeth sperm banks albany ny swiss army knife with pliers and scissors lying about race on college application what does cresting river mean why did accountants wear visors 3rd grade how old why does teller the magician not speak like white on rice is ashland oregon a good place to live big girl yoga pants oldest coins in circulation latex paint in bathroom adrian rogers 1931 quote why does my cat love me highest score in bowling without a strike cold as a witch's teat window film that you can see out but not in little black sambo song what does cocaine taste like and smell like car door seal leak break these chains of love lady of spain accordion bonneville salt flats winter can't eat as much as i used to where is sylmar ca located putting foil on windows to keep heat out spray to get rid of weed smell in car