Talk:Armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot

Disagree

I don't think typical rifle rounds are moving at 3000fps most are between 2300-2800fps 81.171.110.64 Contributions 18:51, 13 March 2016‎

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Armour-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007233308/http://www.sv.vt.edu/research/batra-stevens/pent.html to http://www.sv.vt.edu/research/batra-stevens/pent.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge with Armour-piercing discarding sabot?

These two pages both are about projectiles which are sufficiently similar I have to question why they warrant separate articles. Much of the information is redundant and what little wholly original content is present in this article could easily be condensed into a subsection of the APDS page. I believe this would also aid in legibility, since as things stand the article is rather bloated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritz1776 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that, but I'd actually go with merging them both into kinetic energy penetrator, as it's the most general term and encompasses both types. WP Ludicer (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Production

I think we need a section on production. Which companies produce these and where ? UK and US and ...France ? Wuerzele (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Evaluation of penetration value

On a lot of APFSDS-related articles we have this text:

Note: There are different ways to measure penetration value. NATO uses the 50% (This means that 50% of the projectile had to go through the plate), while the Soviet/Russia standard is higher (80% had to go through). According to authorities like Paul Lakowski, the difference in performance can reach as much as 8%

We should probably just put this information in one place with concrete standards of what each nation's penetration test entails: distance, slope, thickness, hardness, and of course definition of penetration.

(There's also an utterly uncitable table from some mysterious manual that purports to show that the APFSDS tested their APFSDS on HB 221.5 steel. Just goes to show how different standards can be, I guess.)

Artoria2e5 🌉 07:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)