DU (especially) and MBT Armor undergoes a process called adiabatic shearing. These bands of shear are 5-500 micrometers which is way thinner than a millimeter. The bands change the metallurgy of the target and it behaves Ike pressurized fluid.
Recently, large diameter (25-27mm LRP bodies 120mm+ for NATO and Russian MBT cannons) LRPs don’t push target material ahead of them. It is sloughed back into the entry channel while undergoing this transformation.The tips tend to narrow or neck down. If you see tests of a Lot of ammunition and can compare the perforation, the holes narrow slightly. The LRP forms a cusp at the tip that constantly sloughs back to the channel. A point forms. Under 100+ enlargement, the adiabatic bands appears as a white material all the way around the penetration.
A mathematical hypothesis and subsequent test developed by test engineers revealed the following:
the impact of the sample on the steel plate at 1300 m/s resulted in an impact pressure of 9.12 GPa with an average impact temperature rise of 796.75 °C.
A strain rate of around 2891 s−1 was determined to be the threshold value required to trigger the appearance of adiabatic shear bands for the U-0.75 wt % Ti alloy.
This temperature is certainly sufficient to transform the material to a γ-phase and increased the flow stress in the U-0.75 wt % Ti.
(source tonight: An Investigation on the Adiabatic Shear Bands in Depleted U-0.75 wt % Ti Alloy under Dynamic Loading)
Bo Wang, Guangyan, Dong published February 2018
For an end-to-end penetration, a round has to be very close. The reporter is highly placed in the US Army Center for Military History. I also know this story from a USMC crewman in Kuwait City 1991: “Two T-72 popped up and we turned toward them. The lead vehicle fired and missed. We fired one SABOT (105mm M833) that penetrated to the left of the driver’s head and passed through the vehicle. It exited the first vehicle and struck the second. A primary perforation occurred, and entered the second tank. It did not exit the second tank. It did not exit the tank, but wandered about for a few tours of the turret, according to the markings. Both began to burn from fuel.
ALL Jumbos started as M4A3E2. Bolting on an HVSS did not make it an E8. There were only six E8 made at Chrysler tank plant. The Jumbo is a mod (E2), called the US Army Tank, Medium, M4A3E2 VVSS (or HVSS) with the 105mm howitzer mounted. I’ll get a pic of a data plate.
Unless I am mistaken, THIS is what Damraska is referring to: M4A3E8 (105mm)
As for the M10 Booker, it is an assualt gun by defining its role, not necessarily its design. In some armies it would be a MBT. For US Air-deployable forces, it is an assault tank, with many different roles including, but not primarily, fighting enemy MBT’s. Infantry support.
An internet search for M4A3E8 105mm will reveal lots of pictures of the machine I refer to. In my opinion, Jumbos were designed for a somewhat different mission, more akin to a M1 with TUSK. (In time, M10s with something akin to TUSK will appear if a mission prioritizes survival over mobility.)
Infantry support machines all follow a similar development trajectory. For example, the Sturmgeschutz III originally carried a short barrel, 75mm gun with a good high explosive round. High explosive rounds are great for knocking down buildings, taking out machine gun positions, and dealing with things infantry normally deal with. When tanks became a major problem for infantry, follow on Sturmgeshutz models were given a long barrel 75mm with a good armor piercing round.
Coming into World War II, the United States Army anticipated the same problem and developed a number of vehicles armed with a good high explosive round. The 105mm gun was well suited for the support role and many M4 mediums carried one. If I recall correctly, a decent anti tank round was developed for the 105mm and all relevant tanks carried some. The 105mm armor piercing round might not kill a Panther head on at long range, but it could kill a Panzer IV in most situations. The M4A3E8(105) was late to the game but one of the best American infantry support tanks in World War II, pairing the very good 105mm gun with the best M4 medium chassis.
Based on what I have read, the new M10 is designed for the exact same role as the M4A3E8(105). It will hang out with the infantry, blowing up buildings, knocking out machine guns, and dealing with problem targets in a fast paced war of maneuver. When loaded with an anti tank round, the gun is sufficient to knock out most but not all tanks. I presume this is part of Army restructuring to fight opponents with a proper military in a maneuver battle, as opposed to insurgents.
Dunno. Could be wrong. No plan survives contact with the enemy and all that.
IKV 91 (InfanteriKanonVagn 91), Infantry Cannon Wagon 91 where 91 means the first such type with a gun caliber 90 mm or larger (90 and 1, if we had designed or bought another it would have been IKV 92 (90 and 2))
You made my point. That is one of the reasons I shared my opinion as why I was against deploying American MBTs to this conflict. I felt that the Abrams should not have been sent, where it could be captured and analyzed by any potential enemy, even though it’s an older version.
Edro
PS, I enjoy making people laugh, I hope you enjoyed yours and Thanks
The 105 was built mostly on Chrysler hulls, and thus are M4A3E2 by Ordnance Bureau designation. They were developed from a program signed off in March of 1943. The M4A3E2 design finalized in March 1944.
Sources:
Pierre-Olivier Busan
Joe Demarco
The original M4A3E2 rode on VVSS. It had 106 wet cells for stowage of 75mm ammunition. LTG Patton, in early 1945, ordered that 100 M4A3 (76)w be modified, and he didn’t care if they had HVSS (E8 kits) or VVSS. The M4A3E2 did not continue with wet storage (Hunnicutt).
Source: Michael Green- American Tanks and AFVs of WWII
All the M4A3(105) armed with the 105mm howitzer were built by Chrysler at Detroit Tank Arsenal. Production started in May 1944,
Horizontal volute suspension was conceived in early M2 and M3 Medium tank design. The actual swap to a robust HVSS commenced in September 1944. OCM (Ordnance Committee Meeting minutes) 21500 recommended construction of the HVSS. The kit was called E8 (next in line), and in March 1944, OCM 23336 recommended the release of the HVSS to production facilities. Most M4A3(76)w arrived in theater wearing VVSS. Fisher Tank Arsenal also built the M4A2(76)w and 75(w), along with CTA and the M4A3. Chrysler began production earliest (March 1944) of the M4A3(76)w.
I don’t wish to sound pedantic. The cross-calls between M4A2 and M4A3 seemed numerous. IF i have trod on learned toes, my apologies.
Part of my difficulty is David Hobbs! HE schooled me for an entire day at the old Sherman Hall in which were located. I won’t blame education on anybody, especially good. Working there creates an angst at times.
The Stingray was always a foreign customers product for Cadillac Gage. There was no US interest before the program started, or afterwards. The Stingray II was also focused on overseas markets.
A separate vehicle was submitted for the AGS trials. It lost the trials against the FMC submittal. Interestingly, my ARNG BN had one M8 for testing, as Strom Thurmond was a powerful member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He wanted two BNs in SC as a show piece. Damn fool.
There was never a Strv 120. The peculiar Swedish designation system (i.e. the system introduced with the first Centurions) is that the first digit/digits is the caliber in blocks of 10 mm and the last digit is just a sequential number.
Strv 81 was thus the first tank in Sweden with a caliber larger than 80 mm but smaller than 90.
Then we upgraded to Strv 101 (the first with a caliber between 100 and 110 mm) which was the Centurion with 105 mm gun.
Strv 102 was the Strv 81 upgraded to 105 mm gun + other stuff. This was the second type with a gun larger than 100 mm
Strv 103 was the third type with a gun larger than 100 mm but it was not an upgrade Centurion.
The Centurion upgrades returned with Strv 104
Strv 121 was the first tank in Sweden with a gun larger than 120 mm (actually exactly 120 mm) and the Strv 122 was the second.
The complete list: Stridsvagn | SPHF
Under Stridsvagn 81 you will find Centurion nr 80342 (Swedish licence plate), was 05BA71 in the UK. Started as Strv 81 May 5th 1953, rebuilt to Strv 102 and finally to Strv 104 in April 1985
I knew that (the simple part anyway), but post-surgery meds are helping me lose track of simple stuff. Thanks for the detailed and insightful explanation of some variations.
Here is the actual designation for that medium tank, and the original Registration Number. The 303752 is several digits short for real US Army RNs. It seems the VFW must’ve painted it inaccurately. The actual RN is 30167037.
I feel like a bashed this thread into something other than “what is it” or “when will we see a model?”
So I have few thoughts in these regards. R&B: here’s the definition of the M10 Booker in a report prepared by CRS (the Congressional Research Service).
it’s not a tank, by policy. We can call it what we like, but the Army provided this to the staff for the white paper to Congress. “The M10 is designed to neutralize enemy prepared positions and bunkers and defeat heavy machine guns and armored vehicle threats during offensive operations, or when conducting defensive operations against attacking enemies.” (CRS 27 Aug 2024: The Army’s M10 Booker)
Currently the Army’s Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCT) do not have a combat vehicle assigned that is capable of providing mobile, protected, direct, offensive fire capability. The MPF solution is an integration of existing mature technologies and components that avoids development which would lengthen the program schedule.
The Light Divisions, Airborne Divisions, and Air Assault Divisions have been redesigned. They are currently transforming to a 2030 completion date. ALL these units are (at best) motorized. ALL the Infantry are Light, with the Air Assault Division having organic lift capability to lift an entire Brigade slice in one action. EACH of these divisions will have one Battalion (52 M10 Booker) as their organic ability to neutralize enemy positions, and defeat heavy machineguns, cannons, and armored vehicle threats. Each BCT (Brigade Combat Team) commander owns one entire M10 Company. She or he will be loath to give it away.
ALL 14 of the 82d Airborne’s Bookers will deliver NLT 30 September 2025 (for D21). They have received the first stick, and there was (of course) a celebratory moment in April of this year. The CPT is a young woman I met a few years ago on Fort Moore when she completed ABOLC. She was one of the first women to choose Armor and Airborne as her professional track. She seems pretty pleased to have received this unique honor, and the Army looks happy too. I know more have been delivered. Congress might jimmy-up (my polite term) funding for this program, but you can’t cure stoopid.
