Best 120x120x25mm fan that can deliver 70 CFM???

[SUBMAN1]

Update: Still messing with my new sys. The sys as a whole has amazing frame rates in games, but the PSU is a little noisier than I originally anticipated. I am at the point where I think I am going to pull it apart and mod it.

Researching it, there is an ADDA fan in this thing that puts out 85 CFM @ 39.1 dba @ max speed of 2200 RPM. This is a little too loud for my blood, even though it isn't terrible. The box on the Silverstone states 24 dba minimum but at lowest speed it is more like 30 dba before ramping up to the 39.1 dba at the max speed of the fan (So where did they get the 24 dba number from? Advertising gone wrong again)

So the question is, who makes a 120mm x 120mm x 25 mm fan that delivers about 67-70 CFM (I want to stay within 80% of the CFM of the original ADDA that shipped in the Silverstone PSU) and is relatively quiet? I anticipate this will be somewhere around 1600 to 1800 RPM and the max db output should be around 30 dba. This also means that the normal op of the PSU should have a db output of somewhere around the high teens to mid 20's.

I've found a company called Globe that makes one in the range I am looking for, but I can't find where they are sold!!! Ahhhhh! :doh: Anyway, any help you guys can offer would be appreciated.

Thanks,

-S

[jumpy]

I have a couple of DELTA 120 x 120 x 38mm fans going spare :-j
from the blurb:

Welcome to 190 cubic feet of wholesome goodness. It sure "feels" like it too. The FFB1212EHE has "Server Use Only" written all over it. If you do decide to strap this jet engine in a desktop PC, be sure to apply a second sheet of Dynomat to save your ears.

Specifications: 120x120x38mm, -->190.00<-- CFM @ 4000 RPM, 59.0 dBA, 24.00 watts, 2.00 amps, 12v DC, 3+4 pin Molex connectors.

Do not use the Sidewinder Rheostat with this fan. Also note the power requirements of the FFB1212EHE, there is a 3.00 amp startup requirement too.


Go here (http://www.sidewindercomputers.com/index.html) there's loads of fans/water cooling/heatsinks etc to choose from. Pretty decent kit too, if a little to the extreme end of the scale at times hehe ...190cfm lmao what was I thinking?! :doh:


ps. if you get anything like one of those 190cfm monsters, keep yer piggies well away when it's spinning, else it'll have 'em off!

[SUBMAN1]

I have a couple of DELTA 120 x 120 x 38mm fans going spare :-j
from the blurb:

Welcome to 190 cubic feet of wholesome goodness. It sure "feels" like it too. The FFB1212EHE has "Server Use Only" written all over it. If you do decide to strap this jet engine in a desktop PC, be sure to apply a second sheet of Dynomat to save your ears.

Specifications: 120x120x38mm, -->190.00<-- CFM @ 4000 RPM, 59.0 dBA, 24.00 watts, 2.00 amps, 12v DC, 3+4 pin Molex connectors.

Do not use the Sidewinder Rheostat with this fan. Also note the power requirements of the FFB1212EHE, there is a 3.00 amp startup requirement too.


Go here (http://www.sidewindercomputers.com/index.html) there's loads of fans/water cooling/heatsinks etc to choose from. Pretty decent kit too, if a little to the extreme end of the scale at times hehe ...190cfm lmao what was I thinking?! :doh:


ps. if you get anything like one of those 190cfm monsters, keep yer piggies well away when it's spinning, else it'll have 'em off!

What were you thinking? :rotfl: Those Deltas move air but wow! 59 dba!

My last system you could not hear unless you put your ear right next to it, but the new one is just noticable is all. I would like to make a silent system out of it but I have already given in to the fact that my power draw is so high with dual core CPU and x1900 XTX (soon to be 2 XTX's!) that the best I can hope for is relatively quiet.

Those Delta's though - WHIIIRRRRRRRRRRR! That has got to drive you nuts!

-S

[Skybird]

In the 120 departement, the item by Rheinmetall does a significant job in silencing complaints about too hot temperatures.

[SUBMAN1]

In the 120 departement, the item by Rheinmetall does a significant job in silencing complaints about too hot temperatures.

Where I am going is near silent and still able to move some CFM.

I can't find these guys that you mention. Do you have a link?

-S

[Skybird]

:lol: Sorry, I was just pulling your leg. Try here:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,SoldierTech_Leopard2A6,,00.html

[TteFAboB]

I was going to make a joke, asking if that's the company that made Hitler's suicide pistol, since they are specialized in silencing complaints about too hot temperatures.

But, now the timing is gone.

[SUBMAN1]

:lol: Sorry, I was just pulling your leg. Try here:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,SoldierTech_Leopard2A6,,00.html

Hahahaha!

Just looking at that Leapard however it would seem the designers made it capable of dishing it out but surely not taking it. That thing has straight sides! No way to deflect an incoming round properly, even with reactive armor!

The Leopard 2 is better and the designers took those ideas into account, but they screwed up again and made what looks like shot traps! Nice tank, but vulnerable to return fire is all I have to say.

-S

[Skybird]

I severly doubt that dedicated anti-tank-rounds, especially SABOT, do "bounce off". It's more likely that the armour is meant to be penetrated, and the shot then get stuck. I once wrongly assumed myself, looking at the wedge of the turret's front of the new Leo2-A5 and A6 series, that the downside of the wedge almost would funnel any incoming frontal shot towards the ring between turret and hull where tanks are said to be vulnerable. But insiders and tankers told me that such ammunition is very unlikely just to bounce off, no matter at what angle it would hit the armor.

Germans know a thing or two about constructing fully competitive tanks ;) I would think the engineers have their reasons why they built the modern Leos the way they are.
I should know. I sim with Steel Beasts Pro! :lol:

[SUBMAN1]

I severly doubt that dedicated anti-tank-rounds, especially SABOT, do "bounce off". It's more likely that the armour is meant to be penetrated, and the shot then get stuck. I once wrongly assumed myself, looking at the wedge of the turret's front of the new Leo2-A5 and A6 series, that the downside of the wedge almost would funnel any incoming frontal shot towards the ring between turret and hull where tanks are said to be vulnerable. But insiders and tankers told me that such ammunition is very unlikely just to bounce off, no matter at what angle it would hit the armor.

Germans know a thing or two about constructing fully competitive tanks ;) I would think the engineers have their reasons why they built the modern Leos the way they are.
I should know. I sim with Steel Beasts Pro! :lol:

I don't agree with that assesment. Point blank maybe not, but at range, some angles with definitely help you. The Germans knew this best in WWII by the way!

Your simple answer to this question to show that angles help you is to simply look at the advances in design between a Leopard 1 and 2. The 2 has big improvements in angles for the very reason of shot deflection and it is very apparent across the entire tank - something sorely lacking on the 1st rev. Maybe they figure that the size of the tank made it a non factor if it got hit? Dunno.

Another example - take a T-90 or American Abrahms. They didn't make those angles for good looks! :)

-S

[Skybird]

that is because of very different kind of armour. i am no specialist for that, but I do know that steel armour, composite armour, chobham armour and what they all have are materials or clusters of materials that cannot be worked on all the same way. Where you can bend steel, you can't do that with certain composite armours, which comes in flat plates - this is why the russian tanks have bubble-turrets, while Abrams, Leo2 and Challenger have more squared surfaces (its also about size, design and components inside the tanks). The wedge at the front of the Leo2A5 for example,. which is new compoared to the A4 - we even do not know what it is, it is top secret. could be massive armour. Could reactive armour. could be hollow. Could be a bluff. I asked for that detail, but people from the Bundeswehr did not answer that and actively refused to do so. Also, the penetration power of projectiles from WWII and the present should,not be compared. In WWII, tank gun-projectiles bounced off hulls eventually, leaving a dent or a bump. If you look at todays armour, where a SABOT or even an uranium poenetrator hit, you see the material immediately penetrating, leaving star-shaped scratches if they were stopped by the armour, leaving a dead tank when they went through.So again, I have gotten confirmation that SABOT rounds do not that easily bounce off modern armour, but tend to heavily react with the surface. A SABOT penetratoris no giant bullet like they used in Napoleon'S times, it is a dart. Where the needle hits, it tries to pierce in. If you want to know more detaisl about that - I am no expert and can only rerpated what has been told to me - you need to visit the Steel Beast forum: lots of still active or ex tankers both from Abrams and Leo crews there that can answer your question with more expertise than I can. Concerning small and medium callibre fire and explosive warheads it maybe is like you say. SSnake (ex-Leo2-tanker) once said the riccocheting rounds that can be seen in Steel Beasts when a shot hits the ground at a shallow angle, or armour, actually are not meant to be the tank cannon rounds themsleves, but just sparkes and splitters. The rounds themselves, he said actually do not reflect off the ground or the armour, but penetrate more or less, always. I also was told that the wedge at the front of the Leo2A5-turret does not reflect rounds from tank cannons. I quote that &quot;as is&quot;.http://www.steelbeasts.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=viewforum&f=5&sid=e4a2593875e0a674e655f0cc271e8b21Do not compare Leo2 and Leo 1. Leo-1 was a heavy-class turret put on top of a medium-class chassis, giving it firepower and mobility/agility at the price of armour. Speed was considered to be a priority in those days of newly introduced AT-missiles that at that time defeated most armour there was. the prsent generation of MBTs are all heavy-class equipment: chassis, turret, and gun. Nevertheless they do not suffer in speed, acceleration and agility, which tells volumes on the developement in engine technology, traction, and tracks. Since the tactics have changed with the shift from M60/Lep1/T72 to M1/Leo2/T80/90 as well, one should not compare these generations to each other. Try Steel Beasts, and get yourself into an old Leo1. You do not stand a single chance to survive the first round that hits you full, even if the shot hits the frontal turret. It is different in the Leo2 A4, and again slightly diffrent in the A5. I also start to get a feeling for the M1 now (but it lags behind in ergonomics, especially for the commander).One wants to assume that the models that are used for these vehicles in the sim are not totally off target due to it's professional target audience.
Hope that Neals fixes the messed up Return-buttons and plenty of
, / and missing text formatting soon. :D

[Skybird]

Is it only me having problems with text formatting, giving links, and printing quotation marks? Also, editing existing posts is a pain, formatting is totally messed up.

[TteFAboB]

Good, an opportunity for another joke, this time with timing:

And here I was, thinking you typed that hole thing in one go, with the compulsion of one who seeks to share his knowledge, but at the same time finds it all too obvious and boring to polish and make the message appealing to the eye, or ears. :|\\

[SUBMAN1]

that is because of very different kind of armour. i am no specialist for that, but I do know that steel armour, composite armour, chobham armour and what they all have are materials or clusters of materials that cannot be worked on all the same way. Where you can bend steel, you can't do that with certain composite armours, which comes in flat plates - this is why the russian tanks have bubble-turrets, while Abrams, Leo2 and Challenger have more squared surfaces (its also about size, design and components inside the tanks). The wedge at the front of the Leo2A5 for example,. which is new compoared to the A4 - we even do not know what it is, it is top secret. could be massive armour. Could reactive armour. could be hollow. Could be a bluff. I asked for that detail, but people from the Bundeswehr did not answer that and actively refused to do so. Also, the penetration power of projectiles from WWII and the present should,not be compared. In WWII, tank gun-projectiles bounced off hulls eventually, leaving a dent or a bump. If you look at todays armour, where a SABOT or even an uranium poenetrator hit, you see the material immediately penetrating, leaving star-shaped scratches if they were stopped by the armour, leaving a dead tank when they went through.So again, I have gotten confirmation that SABOT rounds do not that easily bounce off modern armour, but tend to heavily react with the surface. A SABOT penetratoris no giant bullet like they used in Napoleon'S times, it is a dart. Where the needle hits, it tries to pierce in. If you want to know more detaisl about that - I am no expert and can only rerpated what has been told to me - you need to visit the Steel Beast forum: lots of still active or ex tankers both from Abrams and Leo crews there that can answer your question with more expertise than I can. Concerning small and medium callibre fire and explosive warheads it maybe is like you say. SSnake (ex-Leo2-tanker) once said the riccocheting rounds that can be seen in Steel Beasts when a shot hits the ground at a shallow angle, or armour, actually are not meant to be the tank cannon rounds themsleves, but just sparkes and splitters. The rounds themselves, he said actually do not reflect off the ground or the armour, but penetrate more or less, always. I also was told that the wedge at the front of the Leo2A5-turret does not reflect rounds from tank cannons. I quote that &quot;as is&quot;.http://www.steelbeasts.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=viewforum&f=5&sid=e4a2593875e0a674e655f0cc271e8b21Do not compare Leo2 and Leo 1. Leo-1 was a heavy-class turret put on top of a medium-class chassis, giving it firepower and mobility/agility at the price of armour. Speed was considered to be a priority in those days of newly introduced AT-missiles that at that time defeated most armour there was. the prsent generation of MBTs are all heavy-class equipment: chassis, turret, and gun. Nevertheless they do not suffer in speed, acceleration and agility, which tells volumes on the developement in engine technology, traction, and tracks. Since the tactics have changed with the shift from M60/Lep1/T72 to M1/Leo2/T80/90 as well, one should not compare these generations to each other. Try Steel Beasts, and get yourself into an old Leo1. You do not stand a single chance to survive the first round that hits you full, even if the shot hits the frontal turret. It is different in the Leo2 A4, and again slightly diffrent in the A5. I also start to get a feeling for the M1 now (but it lags behind in ergonomics, especially for the commander).One wants to assume that the models that are used for these vehicles in the sim are not totally off target due to it's professional target audience.
Hope that Neals fixes the messed up Return-buttons and plenty of
, / and missing text formatting soon. :D


Yeah - You make some valid points but the shot defelction part is still a major catagoy in MBT design, but maybe not Medium tank design. The LEo2 is definetly more survivable just by looking at it - it has way better angles to it. The Leo1 just looks like a barn door waiting to be hit!

All Sabot rounds fired from American tanks by the way are made of depleted uranium. Also, shot deflection of a sabot round was a major considration upon the turret design of the XM1 prototype. Here are some notes from that project. I'll add some sabot vs chobam vs angle here after breakfast.

I'm thinking 2 eggs cooked in butter with a lid, some patato cubes + onions and peppers cooked in extra virgin olive oil (Italian) and sprikled with sea salt, Italian sasauge patty, Tazo Zen green tea, and a peice of French bread toast sounds just about right. I'm making myself hungry! I'll be back. :p

-S


Chapter I.3. -- Target Description Methods (*DRAFT*)

By Michael John Muuss , U. S. Army Research Laboratory.
Decomposing the Task of Vulnerability Analysis


The vulnerability of a target to a given threat munition can be thought of as a synthesis of its vulnerabilities over the space of all given attack vectors and velocities. In order to extend the notion of vulnerability into the domain of survivability each individual vulnerability must be weighted by some measure of the probability that a munition will arrive on that attack vector, according to this formula: V(target) = SIGMAi=1..n { V(pi) * w(pi) } where

V() is a function which returns an abstract measure of the vulnerability for a given attack path,
pi is the ith specific attack path,
w() is the weighting function ranging from 0..1 which describes the likelihood that an opponent will be able to attack on a given path, and
n is the number of attack paths being considered.The weighting function w() takes into account the natural geometry of the target and it's relationship with the ground that it sits on, any countermeasures which might make the target more difficult to sight and acquire from certain directions or under certain conditions, and tactical considerations such as the use of cover and defilade . For example, a design with a robust turret but a weak underbelly would be much more valuable to the Army for tank-to-tank combat than a design with a weak turret and a robust underbelly. In this case, the weighting function expresses the fact that it is unlikely that a tank-fired munition will approach the target from below.

The task of evaluating the function V() can be broken into two parts. First, it is necessary to determine the geometry at the point where the threat munition impacts the target, and second, it is necessary to compute the response of the materials of both threat and target to their high-velocity collision. This chapter addresses only the geometric concerns; subsequent chapters will detail the modeling of the material response, and the process of synthesizing the individual shot results into an overall presentation that is meaningful to design engineers and program managers.

[SUBMAN1]

What is with the text limitation? 7500 Characters? Wow!

Here is more to that article, but it seems we are limited on how big a post we can add.

The Shotline as a Model of Projectile Travel


While it has long been understood that projectiles do not fly through the atmosphere in a straight line, their trajectories over short intervals (several meters or less) can be safely approximated by a straight line-segment. This approximation is particularly apt for tank ammunition, which is typically fired at low gun elevations and high velocities. Thus, the attack path pi can be safely described as a mathematical ray, or directed line, emmanating from a starting point P in three-space and proceeding along a given direction vector D. As long as the actual trajectory of the projectile and the matehmatical ray are coincident in the vicinity of the target, the approximation remains valid.
The ray may be expressed in parametric form, such that every point X on the ray has a one-to-one correspondence with some value of the scalar parameter t: X = P + t * Dwhere X, P, and D are 3-tuples, and t is a scalar. t is thus a measure of the distance that the projectile has traveled along the ray.

Each component of the target, or region, may be considered to partition the shotline into intervals along the ray. The start of each interval occurs where the ray enters the component, and the interval ends where the ray exits the component. If two components adjoin one another, a second interval may immediately follow the first.
For each interval, at a minimum it is necessary to be able to provide the parametric distances corresponding to the entry and exit points, and the surface normal at both the entry and exit points. From those values it is possible to compute the line-of-sight thickness through the component, the 3-space coordinates of the entry and exit points, and the obliquity angle of the shot. These are essential inputs into the penetration equations.
When a penetrator passes through an armor plate, it's trajectory is usually deflected somewhat off it's initial course. For the most accurate results, it is necessary to generate a new shotline each time one layer of armor is perforated.

[Skybird]

Sub,
you must discuss this with the guys at SB forum, really. But one thing i can assure you with regard to modern ammunitions: it makes absolutely no sense to constantly compare the design and armour of a Leo 1 to a Leo 2. Do you compare an M60 with an M1 ? An T55 with a T90 ?Certainly not. Deflection of projectiles was a big issue in WWII, it was an important consideration today, but modern SABOT rounds and uranium rounds in special do net get that easily deflected, the angle defines in what way the armour will work to hinder the penetration, but the angle is not able to deflect an incoming shot from a kinetic dedicated tank-killer round, such as Sabot and uranium. That is the reason why in the A5 and A6 type of the Leo 2, and I assume in other mondern tanks as well, the modular replacement abiltiy of asrmour segments got priority. A hit armour segment is not expected just to be bended a bit, bu to be severly shattered, molten, whatever type or armour it is. If you kick your car, you can use a hammer to get the surface flat and even again. If you shoot at it, you will see a very different kind of damage :).

BTW, I do not see the text you gave in explicit support of your theory, nor do I see it questioning what I said. I understand from it that the angle of armour plate influences the way in which the projectile >perforates< it, whcih is nothing new, the more shallow the angle, the more material the round has to pass (in the most simple situation) and the higher the chance that it will get stuck (before it completely changed into being a cloud of burning gas). The text you give itself sais: When a penetrator passes through an armor plate, it's trajectory is usually deflected somewhat off it's initial course. For the most accurate results, it is necessary to generate a new shotline each time one layer of armor is perforated. which is exactly the way I understand the matter.

And finally I believe professional tankers when they told me that today's kinetic ammunition does not tend to get "deflected" like rounds were deflected in WWII when hitting a King Tiger (which was said to deflect both kinetic and ballistic warheads often).

[SUBMAN1]

Sub,
you must discuss this with the guys at SB forum, really. But one thing i can assure you with regard to modern ammunitions: it makes absolutely no sense to constantly compare the design and armour of a Leo 1 to a Leo 2. Do you compare an M60 with an M1 ? An T55 with a T90 ?Certainly not. Deflection of projectiles was a big issue in WWII, it was an important consideration today, but modern SABOT rounds and uranium rounds in special do net get that easily deflected, the angle defines in what way the armour will work to hinder the penetration, but the angle is not able to deflect an incoming shot from a kinetic dedicated tank-killer round, such as Sabot and uranium. That is the reason why in the A5 and A6 type of the Leo 2, and I assume in other mondern tanks as well, the modular replacement abiltiy of asrmour segments got priority. A hit armour segment is not expected just to be bended a bit, bu to be severly shattered, molten, whatever type or armour it is. If you kick your car, you can use a hammer to get the surface flat and even again. If you shoot at it, you will see a very different kind of damage :).

BTW, I do not see the text you gave in explicit support of your theory, nor do I see it questioning what I said. I understand from it that the angle of armour plate influences the way in which the projectile >perforates< it, whcih is nothing new, the more shallow the angle, the more material the round has to pass (in the most simple situation) and the higher the chance that it will get stuck (before it completely changed into being a cloud of burning gas). The text you give itself sais: When a penetrator passes through an armor plate, it's trajectory is usually deflected somewhat off it's initial course. For the most accurate results, it is necessary to generate a new shotline each time one layer of armor is perforated. which is exactly the way I understand the matter.

And finally I believe professional tankers when they told me that today's kinetic ammunition does not tend to get "deflected" like rounds were deflected in WWII when hitting a King Tiger (which was said to deflect both kinetic and ballistic warheads often).

Wrong again! :) This was taken from the M1 Abrahams project for designing defenses against the SABOT round! :)

-S

PS. Why do I always have problems with making the second letter of the first word in a sentence caps? I need to slow down my typing. [fixed]

[Skybird]

Some snippets of comments from the SB forum. http://www.steelbeasts.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=viewforum&f=5&sid=e4a2593875e0a674e655f0cc271e8b21 It is not the first time this issue is discussed there. One wants to assume that some of those guys knows what they are talking about. At least some of them get payed for playing with the real thing.


Quote: "Modern rounds, if anything, turn into the armour as opposed to deflecting away. The 'shot trap' argument is a non-starter. The sharply angled armour destabilises the incoming sabot round so that when it hits the main armour face behind it, the round's effectiveness is drastically reduced." This is a comment on the very sharply angled armour on the front of a Leo2-A5 turret! Armour cannot get much sharper-angled, wouldn't you agree?

Quote: "The armor itself is entirely capable of taking the round in the face and not allowing it to go through - that's the front turret armor at least ..." - That guy said research indicates that eventually a bounce can be seen only if armour gets hit at extremely low angles. In a past discussion, I remember, someone mentioned hit angles of less than 10 degrees. and even then it is more likely that the round be penetrate instead of bouncing off.

Quote: "the basic armour -not the addon extra- is designed to defeat the Kenitic energy of the Sabot or at least slow the effects. As the projectile strikes and enters the armour it is affected by numerious layers and types of protection, the projectile is erroded down and slowed. If the armour is of sufficent strength/layers/material it will stop the penatrator.

I have seen "Sabot" dart strike and rip into the side of a barrel making a 2 foot gouge along it's length, tearing the barrel open and the projectile didn't stop there!

So, to answer your first question. NO! ... FSDS (fin stabilized discarding sabot) enters armour like a hot knife into butter." - My question to him was if modern Sabots could eventually bounce off modern armour if hitting at very low angles.

As I indicated myself, he also says it is possible that explosive warheads eventually may bounce off, or may be exploded away by reactive armour that is put on top off the main armour plates of the tank. But hitting reactive armour does not make any projectile to bounce off, but makes the canister explode and interfere with the explosion that is caused by the warhgead itself. The first is directed away from the tank, while the warhead's explosion of course is directed in opposite direction, towards the tank. So even here you do not see an explosiuve warhead "being deflected", or bouncing off. Instead the desiogn is meant to spread the destructive energy of the explosion over a greater area of the armour surface, making it less destrucive that way. As with regard to explosive tank grenades hitting armour at low angles, here eventually you will see the projectile exploding (contact fuse), but the explosion again being directed "around the armour", if the wargead hits at every low angles. However, a tank would not enage another tank with explosive ammunition as long as he has kinetic ammunition avaulable. Modern tanks cannot be defeated from front with explosive tank grenades. The major armament, for that reason, is kinetic ammunition. the ratio between explosive and kinetic ammunition getting loaded, is depending on mission, and national doctrine.

You think in terms of WWII, light grenades and small callibre rounds versus King Tiger. Your image of armour deflecting ammunition only is valid for small and medium arms callibre. And even medium callibre can enter the top layers of composite armour. You do not understand that these armour types work by effecting the projectile while it enters and travels through the armour, not by keeping it out. Modern SABOT penetrators do what the name says: they penetrate, always, no matter what the armour is, and at what angle. The only question is, if they come to a stop before reaching the inside of the tank.

Now stop being stubborn :lol: and learn this! :-j

Chapter closed! :)

[SUBMAN1]

You are right assuming simple steel - depleted uranium would cut through like butter, even from range (though at much less effectiveness since if you know anything about shot path, only at the very moment a round is leaving the barrel is it at max velocity and it has reduced efffectiveness for every foot traveled from there on). Chobahm is a much different animal. The whole article above is on the M1's ability to stop a kenetic energy round. Angles make a large difference in its ability to stop the round.

Now a simple tanker guy will tell you that his tank will stop all round incoming and his rounds will destroy anything it touches. THis is what I get from all army guys I have ever talked to - their crap is always the best and it always works and can kill anything. I was holding a stinger (live) one time (no I didn't get to fire it) and the Army guy was explaining how no aircraft on the planet can survive being hit by that thing. Same type of mentallity is going on here.

THere is a reason the Army tells their guys these gthings - It instills confidence in the equipment they are using and helps make the man behind the button fire it, regardless if it works 100% of the time or not because that guy believes his crap always works - good for him.

Anyway, who are you going to believe? A tanker? Or the guy who designed the tank, including the round in question? THe very guy that put all the mathmatical models together to defeat a SABOT? These guys created the first computer model to study the flight path of a SABOT and how it hits the M1 so that they could make it survive a frontal hit almost every time. Angles very much come into play on this one - those mathmatical models are from a SABOT round, not a HEAT round. A HEAT round has a much higher arc and hence much higher angle of attack actually making the angles on an M1 almost worse in defeating the HEAT round. A SABOT has a much lower, almost straight line of attack.

Take it or leave it.

-S

[Skybird]

Whatever you say. I prefer to believe in what is been said by people who have seen the effects of these ammunitions in life gunnery or combat. I quopted some of them. If you think you must know better than what they say, so be it.

Even the text you gave indicates that the Sabot projectile does not bounce off, but desintegrates in the process of travelling through the armour. This is why there are different layers of armour, to slow it down and kill it's kinetic energy before it reaches the tank's inside (kinetic energy getting transformed into heat). Nevertheless, the penetrator that has been vaporized and no longer exists as a solid material thing - gets deflected and bounces off. Okay. Anything you say ;)

I'm out of this.

[SUBMAN1]

Whatever you say. I prefer to believe in what is been said by people who have seen the effects of these ammunitions in life gunnery or combat. I quopted some of them. If you think you must know better than what they say, so be it.

Even the text you gave indicates that the Sabot projectile does not bounce off, but desintegrates in the process of travelling through the armour. This is why there are different layers of armour, to slow it down and kill it's kinetic energy before it reaches the tank's inside (kinetic energy getting transformed into heat). Nevertheless, the penetrator that has been vaporized and no longer exists as a solid material thing - gets deflected and bounces off. Okay. Anything you say ;)

I'm out of this.

Exactly - you just contradict yourself right here. It penetrates the layers, but changes angle as it travels through - my exact whole point here - the angles on the tank change the path of travel on the round itself - forcing it to take a path of travel that is not through the tank. THanks for helping me out! :P

-S

[Skybird]

I never said anything different! You just came with the image of projectiles hopping around and hopping back and fourth because they hit some armour at shallow angles! Sabots almost always PENETRATE, no matter the angle. They even penetrate an armour at such a sharp angle like the wedge on front of a Leo2A5's turrets, say the pros. The question only is if they go deep enough before desintegrating. Third time I indicate this now. Won't tell you a fourth time.

Man, you even do not stick to your own line, and this makes discussion useless.

[Konovalov]

What do sabot tank rounds have to do with CPU fans offering high air movement properties at low noise levels? Now that is what I call off topic. :)

[SUBMAN1]

I never said anything different! You just came with the image of projectiles hopping around and hopping back and fourth because they hit some armour at shallow angles! Sabots almost always PENETRATE, no matter the angle. They even penetrate an armour at such a sharp angle like the wedge on front of a Leo2A5's turrets, say the pros. The question only is if they go deep enough before desintegrating. Third time I indicate this now. Won't tell you a fourth time.

Man, you even do not stick to your own line, and this makes discussion useless.

THe very article you talk about discusses the SABOT tank projectile and its travel through armor - and the angles forcing it to take a different path of travel. That is what you referenced in the above article and what I am talking about.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

What do sabot tank rounds have to do with CPU fans offering high air movement properties at low noise levels? Now that is what I call off topic. :)

Nothing! :) The tread is hijacked!

-S

[Skybird]

Possible that we stirred the pot all for nothing. The problem is the term "deflection", I know it from my old dictionary and have learned it like that, that it means "ablenken" OR "reflektieren". However, my new PC dictionary, I just looked into it, does not give the meaning of reflecting under deflection anymore. So as I have learned it years ago, and as it is in my old dic from the mid-80s, reflection and deflection are much the same, so I understood you mean the projectiles bounces off the hull like tennis ball whenever you talked of "deflection". I answerd with saying nthat this is nonsens, and that the armour is meant to tear down the kinetic energy, and that the penetration angle only chnages the movement path of the projectiles before it desintegrates (like light beams change their travel path when passing the water surface).Hot air for nothing, it seems.

[SUBMAN1]

Possible that we stirred the pot all for nothing. The problem is the term "deflection", I know it from my old dictionary and have learned it like that, that it means "ablenken" OR "reflektieren". However, my new PC dictionary, I just looked into it, does not give the meaning of reflecting under deflection anymore. So as I have learned it years ago, and as it is in my old dic from the mid-80s, reflection and deflection are much the same, so I understood you mean the projectiles bounces off the hull like tennis ball whenever you talked of "deflection". I answerd with saying nthat this is nonsens, and that the armour is meant to tear down the kinetic energy, and that the penetration angle only chnages the movement path of the projectiles before it desintegrates (like light beams change their travel path when passing the water surface).Hot air for nothing, it seems.

By the way - The LEO upon further examination seems to follow exactly the perfect angle for deflecting a shot - 85 degrees is the optimal angle against a kenetic penetrator. ANything less and you start have deep penetration and against CHobham, it is almost worse to have anything other than an initial angle so as to start it on its path out of the armor. The reason is so that you don't damage surrounding plates and keep the armor intact so as to possibly absorb anopther round.

The further I research this subject, the more I understand the way a SABOT round operates. I also understand the advantages of a DU round since it ignites the air as it penetrates. THe Tungsten round, though more environmentally friendly, actually has an issue in that the head deforms as it penetrates into and deforms to a rounded shape, thus ruducing its effectiveness.

Some stuff I found on CHobham:

This mechanism using the jet's own energy against it, has caused some to compare the effects of Chobham to those of reactive armour. This should not be confused with the effect used in many laminate armours of any kind: that of sandwiching an inert but soft elastic material such as rubber, between two of the armour plates. The impact of either a shaped charge jet or long-rod penetrator, after the first layer has been perforated and the rubber layer is being penetrated, will cause the rubber to deform and expand, so deforming both the back and front plates. Both attack methods will suffer from obstruction to their expected paths, so experiencing a greater thickness of armour than is there is nominally, this lowering penetration. Also for rod penetrations, the transverse force experienced due to the deformation may cause the rod to shatter, bend, or just change its path, again lowering penetration.

Anyway, thanks for the conversation on the subject. I learned a few things here. One being the LEO 2 is a better design than I originally thought since it looks like it has ideal angles.

[Skybird]

The higher density of a DU round essentially gives the gunner a higher shooting range. The Abrams can engage targets with effective fire from roughly 1/4 longer distances than the most advanced German Tungsten round. However, in a certain close and medium range of combat distances, both rounds tend to be of overkill capacity. After that range mark (whereever it is exactly marked) the Tungsten looses destructive potential faster with growin range than the DU-round. I sometimes heared tankers speculating this rnage mark may be at around 1000-1200 meters. In some readings I found evaluations of 600-800 meters. The variance may be due to different dates and thus different ammunitions.

Fascinating stuff this all is. If only it would not be so much about war and killing, then one could even enjoy the matter.