Jump to content

Talk:Armour-piercing ammunition/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Merge notice

Merged content from Armor piercing round. See old talk page Talk:Armor piercing round Kville105125 17:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Modern Use

This article eroneously claimed that AP rounds are now mostly used in naval warfare, which is incorrect. Modern naval ships have little or no armor, making AP rounds redundant (it was different in the pre-missile age when gun calibre determined how hard a ship could hit). AP rounds are now mainly used in armored warfare.

Also noted the use of AP rounds as a specialized type of small arms ammunition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexington50 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Modern Day

"Contrary to what Adam thinks" - this should probably be clarified or removed, I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.246.13 (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Article is not self-consistent

In the introduction it says "it remains the preferred round in tank warfare", but in the section 'Modern Day' the first sentence starts "Rarely encountered in large-caliber tank guns now".

These statements are contradictory. At least one of them is wrong. Somebody please fix. Thanks. 78.86.229.20 (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the erroneous claim that AP rounds are "rarely encountered in large-caliber tank guns now". The Modern Day section needs further cleanup (it seems to confuse the distinction between chemical and kinetic energy rounds and uses the term "ammunition" when it means "cartridges" or "small arms ammunition", among other problems). I'll update as time allows. Lexington50 (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Why talk about depleted uranium tank rounds in the Small Arms section? SF 22/11/2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.84.22 (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Unrelated Articles

Teflon Coated and armor Piercing are not similar. The teflon coating that was used was to reduce rifling. It has been proven not to be armor piercing. Tank rounds that are armor piercing are called sabot rounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.168.234 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that Teflon Coated is a disparate topic, if for no other reason than the erroneous portrayal in films and mainstream media that Teflon provides armor-piercing capabilities. Once clarified, there is a legitimate chance that the reader will not proceed to Armor Piercing at all, because the Teflon question was resolved as being incorrect. Spawn777 (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

15" shell + cap picture available.

A good picture is available on the HMS Malaya article. The shell, hopefully disarmed, resides in the nave of Genoa Cathedral. JRPG (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Article lacks specificity

This article lacks clarity on the kind of armor that AP bullets can penetrate. For example every rifle round is capable of penetrating level IIIA and below kevlar vests, and indeed they are not rated for it. However the implied meaning is that only those few rounds cited on the page can penetrate "armor". Level III and IV armor are not vests, which most people would consider armor, but plates which can stop rifle rounds. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/223054.pdf Pl3b3z (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Title Change

Due to regulations with Wikipedia and British English, it stands that the title should be renamed from "Armor-piercing shell" to Armour-Piercing Shell or Armour-piercing shell. Dictonary1 (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Armor-piercing shell

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Armor-piercing shell's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "books.google.com":

  • From Shell (projectile): Drawing below photograph on the referred page illustrates the APCNR principle: Popular Science "Tapered Bore Gives This German Gun Its High-Velocity" p. 132
  • From Kh-29: The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems, 1997–1998. Retrieved 23 December 2014.
  • From Ballistics: Herbst, Judith (1 September 2005). "The History of Weapons". Lerner Publications. Retrieved 16 March 2018 – via Google Books.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

For the love of God

1st, capped AC was used during WW1, the soft cap. It didn't perform very well at high angles of the incident to the plate. 2. The cap doesn't cushion shit, it disperses the shock radially in the soft cap, or in the case of a hard cap effectively drills a hole to help the penetration of the AP shell behind it. It is of nost use when used against face hardened armor. You will find more on this with Nathan Oakum's work on NavWeaps. The other stupid rumor, started in of all things BuOrd, was that the soft cap lubricated the incoming AP round. That isn't true either. Fix this or I will delete the sections related to capped AP.Tirronan (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


For the love of God 2

I've been watching this page for 2 years now. There are almost no references listed at all. There are assertions mentioned without documentation. I'll be blunt. This is the type of article that makes Wikipedia a joke. Last warning given, either it improves or I'm going to recommend that this article be deleted. Tirronan (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

And I'll hazard that if you take this to AfD there will be a snow keep. You'd be better flagging it for attention at MilHist. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah you are probably right GraemeLeggett. Or I guess I could challenge it and just delete it. Probably less flack to bring this to MilHist.Tirronan (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Ive watched this page for years as well and i agree with the OP. It needs a full renovation and should honestly just be a family page for several sub-pages. Like APCBC.--Blockhaj (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

ENGVAR

It appears that this article was originally written in British English. Barring a good reason not to, I'm going to bring it in line per MOS:RETAIN. Primergrey (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 23 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Armor-piercing ammunition → Armour-piercing ammunition – moving back to the original ENGVAR title Primergrey (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Take that tea sipping gibberish and take it somewere else. :) Honestly though i dont see why we should have a title with silent letters if there is an alternative.--Blockhaj (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, yes... the world realizes that Americans already struggle with the metric system, shame to have to subject them to this as well. <rolls eyes> - wolf 02:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Webster's spelling reforms were inconsistent (what on earth is "cataloged" and why isn't it "catalogged" like all or most other verbs whose base form ends with a vowel followed by a single g!? And it wouldn't surprise me if the American spelling of words like "analyse" were reason so many people think the /z/ sound is written with "z" in English and the common English plural suffix is actually /s/ and not /z/ and only sometimes /s/) and certainly didn't remove all the silent or redundant letters; growing up in Ireland in the 1990s, I remember my classmates (not me) making fun of the stupid American spelling of "neighbour" that looked like "nay-bore". I think the same argument could be made that the British spelling looks like "nay-bower". It's subjective, and since creating new phonetically consistent English spelling is something we definitely are not allowed do on Wikipedia, all we can do is be consistent. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
There was a redirect so I made a technical request. Primergrey (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
See my comment on your tp. - wolf 19:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

confusion

"Large calibre APFSDS projectiles are usually fired from smooth-bore (unrifled) barrels, though they can be and often are fired from rifled guns." so are they usually fired from unrifled or rifled? Sushorse (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

This is problematic writing agreed. The first segment: "Large calibre APFSDS projectiles are usually fired from smooth-bore (unrifled) barrels" refers to guns firing the smoothbore 120×570mm NATO cartridge (such as the Rheinmetall Rh-120, RUAG 120 mm CTG, etc) and the Soviet smoothbore 115×728mmR and 125×139mm cartridges (such as the 2A20, 2A45, 2A46, 2А75, 2A82, KBA-3, ZPT-98, etc). These are the absolutely most common high caliber (+60mm) cartridges in use today which fires APFSDS conventionally. The next generation of tank guns are also planned as smoothbore etc. The smoothbore barrel allows APFSDS to be fired without a "slipping driving band" on the sabot, which is otherwise needed when firing APFSDS from rifled guns, as the spinning caused by the rifling destroys the fins on the projectile.
As for the other part: "though they can be and often are fired from rifled guns." This refers to APFSDS-projectiles equpped with the above mentioned "slipping driving band" on the sabot for use in rifled guns. Such munition was introduced during the late 1970s for the 105×617mmR NATO cartridge (used in the Royal Ordnance L7 and many others) and during the early 80s for the Soviet 100×695mmR cartidge (used in the 100 mm BS-3, 100 mm vz. 53 and D-10T, etc) and the british Royal Ordnance L11 (which uses two-piece combustable charges instead of cartridges). Such ammunition is getting more rare every year, since the guns using these cartridges are taken out of service, however they do still appear.
--Blockhaj (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armour-piercing_ammunition/Archive_1&oldid=1310570917"