Inspired by the shell sabot thread. In the Tom Clancy novel, American tankers used high-explosive (HEAT) rounds against Russian main battle tanks, and sabot rounds against command vehicles and smaller armored vehicles. Is this a correct choice of ordnance?
It’s been a while since I read the book, but is it possible that you have the ammunition types reversed? A sabot round has such a large amount of kinetic energy that it would pass right through a lightly armored vehicle without causing much damage to the vehicle or its occupants. On the other hand a HEAT round might not get the job done against a T-80.
Reversed. Sabot round for tanks, lots of speed and KE. HEAT rounds for lighter armored vehicles. Multi-Purpose canister rounds for light buildings, helicopters, troops.
Cannister rounds are a cross between a shotgun shell and a claymore, right?
Strictly speaking it was sabot for tanks and HEAT for everything else in the timeframe depicted in Red Storm Rising. The lack of an actual anti-personnel round for the 120mm gun on the M1A1 was a criticism that wasn’t rectified until later, the M830A1 HEAT-MP-T wasn’t fielded until 1994 and the M1028 canister round in 2005.
If HEAT aren’t for tanks, then why are they called High Explosive Anti-Tank?
Back when it was first developed (early 40s) HEAT was very much a silver bullet tank-killer, in comparison to the solid shot that was in use at the time. It wasn’t until much later that protections were developed that drastically reduced the effectiveness of HEAT, which is why it’s been phased out in the modern era. Explosive reactive armor, for instance, can render a protected surface virtually immune to almost any strength of HEAT attack, but has only a fairly minor effect on KE penetrators. It’s the weapons/armor design cycle continuing.
HEAT is still commonly used in missiles and other long-range projectiles, because it has the advantage of relying purely on chemical energy rather than kinetic. You can launch a big fat missile, or a slow RPG, from any sort of platform without needing to achieve the high speeds needed for effective KE. This too, however, is getting phased out in favor of EFP, which uses the chemical energy to launch a kinetic penetrator once the warhead has reached its target.
The short answer is that sabot would go in one side, and straight out the other, and only do damage to a 2" cylinder described between the in and out holes. The armor on light vehicles isn’t enough to really slow the round down.
HEAT, if it penetrates, will have much the same effect behind the armor on any vehicle, hence the use on lightly armored vehicles.
Won’t there be spalling?
Spalling comes from armor, tin foil doesn’t spall.
Probably not very much, not enough to guarantee a kill anyway.
U.S. Soldier Killed In Tank Accident
There will be some spalling, note the death and injuries from a practice round. US parctice rounds are tungsten carbide to hold up to the launch forces. A depleted uranium round would also create a shower of molten metal shards within the vehicle. Very bad for all.
Actually, my understanding is that high-velocity DU rounds are pyrophoric… so not merely a shower of molten medal shards, but a fireball of explosively deflagrating DU powder. Like thermite but faster burning and mildly radioactive. Yum.
Slight hijack:
I had heard that WC was a better material for a penetrator than DU, but that the Chinese control most of the world’s supply of tungsten and the US has lots of DU. Is that true?
Thanks,
Rob
As I recall from the book, US tankers are using sabots for anti-tank shots at first but eventually have to switch to HEAT because of an ammo shortage.
The shavings off the DU penetrator coming from piercing the armor are pyrophoric, not the entire penetrator. Those were searched for and recovered for 120mm round inpacts in Desert Storm I. DU is a bitch to machine; needs inert atmosphere/oil bath plus it’s hard and tough (not brittle). Minor radiation from US stuff, almost all alpha particles - stopped by skin/paper. You certainly don’t want to eat any though.
I recently re-read the book. It’s never specified why particular ammo types are used, but I suspect Clancy’s use of HEAT on T-80s is because he didn’t know weapons that well.
I think we just use DU for the better beyond-armor effect. Been too long since I’ve poked into this realm.
Sure, but this bears out my point. If both Bradleys were full up with 3 crew and 6 passengers, both were hit, and only one man was killed, 2 had minor enough wounds to be released from the dispensary, and 2 were burned, that points to pretty ineffective hits overall.
Other way around. Tungsten penetrators tend to have only 90-95% the performance of DU in equivalent designs. In this case, the cheaper material (dirt cheap, as DU is a mostly-useless waste product) is better.
Countries choose to use tungsten for reasons entirely independent of combat effectiveness, partly out of uranium woo and partly out of the entirely legitimate concern of not wanting to mist a toxic heavy metal (think lead, mercury, etc) around everything you shoot when everything you’ll be shooting is expected to be on home territory.