APFSDS (What exactly does it do ?)

CHANDRAN MAHENDRAN

unread,

Dec 14, 1994, 11:03:43 PM12/14/94

to

From cc...@aber.ac.uk (CHANDRAN MAHENDRAN)

Keywords:

I have been reading a number of books on tanks and other armoured vehicles
and it seems that the most common way a tank disables/destroys another tank is
through the use of an APFSDS round. What I would like to know is what the
round exactly does once it penetrates the armour of the intended target.

I would most appreciate any answers to my query.
Thanks in advance.

Paul L. Suh

unread,

Dec 16, 1994, 6:59:40 AM12/16/94

to

From pl...@econ.sas.upenn.edu (Paul L. Suh)

In article <D0u3A...@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com>, cc...@aber.ac.uk
(CHANDRAN MAHENDRAN) wrote:

> I have been reading a number of books on tanks and other armoured vehicles
> and it seems that the most common way a tank disables/destroys another tank is
> through the use of an APFSDS round. What I would like to know is what the
> round exactly does once it penetrates the armour of the intended target.

Three effects:

1) A large hunk of white-hot metal flies through the cramped interior at
high speed, mangling anything in its path. Depending on various factors,
it may blow out the other side or bounce around inside the armored box.

2) This large chunk of metal transfers a shock to the target that can be
pretty impressive. Some reports from Desert Storm speak of a penetrator
blowing off a T-72's turret by kinetic energy alone.

3) Bits of the target's armor and bits of the penetrator, also white-hot
from friction, spray through the tank like a shotgun blast. Some of these
may be aflame, as depleted uranium is pyrophoric and burns like the
devil. Modern tanks have Kevlar liners to reduce this, but it can only do
so much.

Secondary effects come from all this hot stuff setting fuel and ammo on
fire, resulting in a serous *BOOM* anywhere from a few seconds to a minute
later.

Azeez Hayne

unread,

Dec 16, 1994, 6:59:42 AM12/16/94

to

From aha...@cc.swarthmore.edu (Azeez Hayne)

In article <D0u3A...@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com>, cc...@aber.ac.uk (CHANDRAN
MAHENDRAN) wrote:

Here is a selection from Tom Clancy's new book _Armored_Cav_.

"Once through the armor, the remnatnts of the APFSDS round and some armor
fragments (spall) are injected into the tank's interior, with serious
consequences for the occupants: They are literally sitting ducks in a big
steel barrel."

_Armored_Cav_, Tom Clancy(New York: Berkley Books, 1994), p11.

I hope this helps, if you are really interested, get the book, it's
excellent.

John Schilling

unread,

Dec 16, 1994, 6:59:44 AM12/16/94

to

From John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu>

cc...@aber.ac.uk (CHANDRAN MAHENDRAN) writes:

>From cc...@aber.ac.uk (CHANDRAN MAHENDRAN)

>Keywords:

>I have been reading a number of books on tanks and other armoured vehicles
>and it seems that the most common way a tank disables/destroys another tank is
>through the use of an APFSDS round. What I would like to know is what the
>round exactly does once it penetrates the armour of the intended target.

It does about the same thing a bullet does once it penetrates the skin of
the intended target: make a hole, preferably one which passes through
something important. For a number of reasons, tanks are crammed full of
important stuff, with little room left over. There are very few places
one can punch a 4cm or so hole through a tank without penetrating an
engine block, transmission housing, ammunition magazine, crew member,
or something along those lines.

To make matters worse, the projectile is almost certain to knock off chunks
of metal when passing through the armor and internal structure of the tank.
These chunks act as secondary projectiles, causing substantial damage in
their own right.

And, when depleted uranium hits steel at 1,500 meters per second or so, it
strikes sparks in a manner that makes flint-on-steel look tame. If there is
anything flammable lying around after penetration, it is going to burn.

Note that APFSDS is generally *not* used when shooting at trucks, APCs, and
the like. Such vehicles generally have much more open space, and much less
armor to create secondary projectiles and strike sparks. So APFSDS could
concievably pass harmlessly through a lightly-armored vehicle. Explosive
rounds like HEAT and HESH are in order for such cases.

--
*John Schilling * "You can have Peace, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * or you can have Freedom. *
*University of Southern California * Don't ever count on having both *
*Aerospace Engineering Department * at the same time." *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * - Robert A. Heinlein *
*(213)-740-5311 or 747-2527 * Finger for PGP public key *

Todd Jacob Rogers

unread,

Dec 16, 1994, 6:59:46 AM12/16/94

to

From rog...@caedm.et.byu.edu (Todd Jacob Rogers)

In article <D0u3A...@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com>
cc...@aber.ac.uk (CHANDRAN MAHENDRAN) writes:

>I have been reading a number of books on tanks and other armoured vehicles
>and it seems that the most common way a tank disables/destroys another tank is
>through the use of an APFSDS round. What I would like to know is what the
>round exactly does once it penetrates the armour of the intended target.

>I would most appreciate any answers to my query.
>Thanks in advance.

If memory serves APFSDS stands for Armor Peircing Fin Stabalized Discarding
Sabot.

It's basicly a big bullet. When the gun fires the round leaves the barrel.
Then the Sabot (back part of the round) falls off and you have a high velocity
round (less than the 120 mm of the barrel for better aromor penentration).
This flies until it hits the target with a lot of energy and punches a hole
through the armor and causes a bit of a ruckess inside the tank.

rog...@caedm.et.byu.edu
"The world is our runway."
- Det. 855

Eric Weinkam

unread,

Dec 16, 1994, 6:59:48 AM12/16/94

to

From ai...@access.digex.net (Eric Weinkam)

In article <D0u3A...@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com>,

CHANDRAN MAHENDRAN <cc...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>From cc...@aber.ac.uk (CHANDRAN MAHENDRAN)
>
>Keywords:
>
>I have been reading a number of books on tanks and other armoured vehicles
>and it seems that the most common way a tank disables/destroys another tank is
>through the use of an APFSDS round. What I would like to know is what the
>round exactly does once it penetrates the armour of the intended target.

Once the round has discarded the sabot it looks like a large crossbow
bolt. It contains no explosives. It penetrates the armour of the target
by the physics of being very hard, moving very fast, and concentrating
all of its power into a very small point.

At longer ranges and against thicker armour, the round will enter the
vehicle and bounce around inside destroying anything "soft" that it
encounters. Often setting off any ammunition inside the vehicle.

On some occasions, the round will pass in one side and out the other.
When this happens, it creates the effect of a vacuum on an NBC buttoned
vehicle and causes everything loose in the vehicle to try to be sucked
out the exit hole.

In both cases fragments of the vehicle's armour will splatter around
inside the vehicle.
--
"Random Specificity"/ /
ai...@access.digex.net
/////// Eric Weinkam

John B. Meaders Jr.

unread,

Dec 16, 1994, 6:59:50 AM12/16/94

to

From jo...@sun.cis.smu.edu (John B. Meaders Jr.)

In article <D0u3A...@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com>,
CHANDRAN MAHENDRAN <cc...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
>

>I have been reading a number of books on tanks and other armoured vehicles
>and it seems that the most common way a tank disables/destroys another tank is
>through the use of an APFSDS round. What I would like to know is what the
>round exactly does once it penetrates the armour of the intended target.

I'm an old 11H (so all you DAT's out there forgive me if I'm mistaken
:-)) but I'll take a crack at this. APFSDS stands for Armor Piercing
Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot. This is a high velocity sabot round
which utilizes kinetic energy (as opposed to a shaped charge in a HEAT
or High Explosive Anti-Tank round) to kill a tank.

IanMaclure

unread,

Dec 16, 1994, 7:00:28 AM12/16/94

to

From mac...@eos.arc.nasa.gov (IanMaclure)

cc...@aber.ac.uk (CHANDRAN MAHENDRAN) writes:

>From cc...@aber.ac.uk (CHANDRAN MAHENDRAN)

>Keywords:

>I have been reading a number of books on tanks and other armored vehicles

>and it seems that the most common way a tank disables/destroys another tank is
>through the use of an APFSDS round. What I would like to know is what the
>round exactly does once it penetrates the armour of the intended target.

>I would most appreciate any answers to my query.
>Thanks in advance.

APFSDS = Armo(u)r Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot

( For a 105mm gun or thereabouts )
Basically a very large ( 7-8 kg I think ) hard ( Tungsten ? or Depleted
Uranium ) Heavy ( High Density ) arrow travelling at something like
1500 meters/sec. Velocity drops off at something like 50m/s / km.
The Sabot part of the name indicates that the projectile does not fill
the bore of the gun and is supported there by inserts called sabots.
( Sabot = French for wooden shoes, same root as sabotage )
APFSDS projectiles are lighter than a full calibre shell would be and
hence muzzle velocity is much higher.
If the round penetrates the target and doesn't exit the other side it
basically rattles around inside the target and makes jam of the organic
contents. Depeleted Uranium also burns rather spectacularly I gather and
can be ignited by the friction from its passage through armo(u)r.

IBM
--
################ No Times Like The Maritimes, Eh! ######################
# IBM aka # Ian_M...@QMGATE.arc.nasa.gov (desk) #
# Ian B MacLure # maclure@(remulak/eos).arc.nasa.gov (currently) #
########## Opinions expressed here are mine, mine, mine. ###############

David A. Terhune

unread,

Dec 19, 1994, 12:29:17 PM12/19/94

to

From dter...@sprint.uccs.edu (David A. Terhune)

Eric Weinkam (ai...@access.digex.net) wrote:

: On some occasions, the round will pass in one side and out the other.

: When this happens, it creates the effect of a vacuum on an NBC buttoned
: vehicle and causes everything loose in the vehicle to try to be sucked
: out the exit hole.

Just a tiny little nit. Nothing gets sucked out, it gets blown
out from behind. You don't get sucked into a vacuum, you get blown in
by the air rushing into it.

--
David A. Terhune Unfortunately, we ARE on a budget here.
dter...@sprint.uccs.edu -Londo Mollari, "Believers"
finger for PGP public key

Don Johnson

unread,

Dec 19, 1994, 12:29:26 PM12/19/94

to

From Don Johnson <joh...@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil>

In article <D0wJz...@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com> pl...@econ.sas.upenn.edu (Paul L. Suh) writes:
>
>In article <D0u3A...@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com>, cc...@aber.ac.uk
>(CHANDRAN MAHENDRAN) wrote:

>
>Three effects:
>
>1) A large hunk of white-hot metal flies through the cramped interior at
>high speed, mangling anything in its path. Depending on various factors,
>it may blow out the other side or bounce around inside the armored box.

Good description

>2) This large chunk of metal transfers a shock to the target that can be
>pretty impressive. Some reports from Desert Storm speak of a penetrator
>blowing off a T-72's turret by kinetic energy alone.

Please provide some citations for this. All vehicles I saw in
Kuwait had their turrets displaced due to high order detonation
of the main gun ammo. If a penetrator has enough
energy to displace a turret, its going to penetrate. Now if you
want to discuss the reaction caused by a full bore 120mm round,
that's a quite different matter. ;-}

>3) Bits of the target's armor and bits of the penetrator, also white-hot
>from friction, spray through the tank like a shotgun blast. Some of these
>may be aflame, as depleted uranium is pyrophoric and burns like the
>devil. Modern tanks have Kevlar liners to reduce this, but it can only do
>so much.

Spall is a very nasty thing to both personnel and vehicle
components.

>Secondary effects come from all this hot stuff setting fuel and ammo on
>fire, resulting in a serous *BOOM* anywhere from a few seconds to a minute
>later.

Resulting in blown turrets.

Paul L. Suh

unread,

Dec 20, 1994, 10:19:22 AM12/20/94

to

From pl...@econ.sas.upenn.edu (Paul L. Suh)

In article <D12J9...@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com>, Don Johnson
<joh...@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil> wrote:

> In article <D0wJz...@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com> pl...@econ.sas.upenn.edu
(Paul L. Suh) writes:

> >2) This large chunk of metal transfers a shock to the target that can be
> >pretty impressive. Some reports from Desert Storm speak of a penetrator
> >blowing off a T-72's turret by kinetic energy alone.
>
> Please provide some citations for this. All vehicles I saw in
> Kuwait had their turrets displaced due to high order detonation
> of the main gun ammo. If a penetrator has enough
> energy to displace a turret, its going to penetrate. Now if you
> want to discuss the reaction caused by a full bore 120mm round,
> that's a quite different matter. ;-}

I was a bit surprised when I read it myself. The source is the Historical
Notes to the GDW game _Phase Line Smash_, p. 33, in a sidebar titled "The
Abrams Standard."

"The M829A1 (APFSDS-DU) could go right through a five-foot thick sand
berm, through the glacis of a T-72, and pass out the rear through the
engine block, having blown off the turret on its way through on sheer
kinetic energy alone, even without causing an ammunition explosion."

No primary source was cited for this, but the game is well researched as
far as I can tell otherwise. I highly recommend it to anyone interested
in the land phase of Desert Storm.

--Paul

--
P |\ / S University of Pennsylvania /---------\
| \ / Graduate Economics |/-------\|
| X || . . || My first Macintosh
| / \ Paul L. Suh || \_/ || 512K!
|/ \ D pl...@econ.sas.upenn.edu || ||
+------ Q |\-------/|
|---------|
|_________|

Bob Lyle

unread,

Dec 27, 1994, 3:26:16 PM12/27/94

to

From madr...@metronet.com (Bob Lyle)

David A. Terhune (dter...@sprint.uccs.edu) wrote:

: From dter...@sprint.uccs.edu (David A. Terhune)

: Eric Weinkam (ai...@access.digex.net) wrote:

: : On some occasions, the round will pass in one side and out the other.
: : When this happens, it creates the effect of a vacuum on an NBC buttoned
: : vehicle and causes everything loose in the vehicle to try to be sucked
: : out the exit hole.

: Just a tiny little nit. Nothing gets sucked out, it gets blown
: out from behind. You don't get sucked into a vacuum, you get blown in
: by the air rushing into it.

Some hairs are too fine to split -

Back to the original idea, back in the '70s it was popularly believed by
US tank crew that an APDS passing through a hull would "suck the crew
out though the exit hole." I have never read about this happening in the
Arab/Israeli wars, in Desert Storm, or in reliable texts on weapon
effects.

I think it is an Old Wives' (Sergeants'??) Tale. Does anyone have
reliable evidence to contradict me?

Bob Lyle

Colin Campbell

unread,

Dec 27, 1994, 3:26:50 PM12/27/94

to

From col...@ix.netcom.com (Colin Campbell)

In <D0u3A...@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com> cc...@aber.ac.uk (CHANDRAN
MAHENDRAN) writes:

Armor-Piercing-Fin-Stabilized-Discarding-Sabot is a kenetic-energy
round.

Basically, the projectile consists of a long dart made out of either
high-grade steel (tungsten-carbide), or depleted uranium ("staballoy").

When either of these types of ammunition hit a heavilly-armored
target, the projectile literally pushes its way through the armor. A
couple of other things also happen: both the armor and the projectile
are heated white-hot, then these white-hot fragments ricochet around the
interior at rifle bullet speeds. Unpleasant things happen when these
fragments sever hydralic lines, and strike the fuel or ammunition
storage areas.

The "top of the line" ammunition type is depleted uranium due to its
density (more force over a smaller area), hardness, and the fact that it
both burns _and_ remains its hardness at these tempratures.

Colin Campbell
Master Gunner
B Co. 3/185th Armor

Unknown

unread,

Dec 28, 1994, 2:01:27 PM12/28/94

to

From (Stefan)

madr...@metronet.com (Bob Lyle) writes...

>: Eric Weinkam (ai...@access.digex.net) wrote:
>: : On some occasions, the round will pass in one side and out the other.
>: : When this happens, it creates the effect of a vacuum on an NBC buttoned
>: : vehicle and causes everything loose in the vehicle to try to be sucked
>: : out the exit hole.
>: Just a tiny little nit. Nothing gets sucked out, it gets blown
>: out from behind. You don't get sucked into a vacuum, you get blown in
>: by the air rushing into it.

Cannot see how a vacuum is created since the air behind a shock wave is
high pressure. Maybe the high pressure pushes objects through the entry and
exit holes into ambient air. This can only occur if the round is supersonic
when exiting.

**********************
* Is the line ready? *
**********************

JOHN MCFARLIN

unread,

Dec 30, 1994, 12:40:32 PM12/30/94

to

From mcfa...@nevada.edu (JOHN MCFARLIN)

>From GDW's Game:

: > "The M829A1 (APFSDS-DU) could go right through a five-foot thick sand

: > berm, through the glacis of a T-72, and pass out the rear through the
: > engine block, having blown off the turret on its way through on sheer
: > kinetic energy alone, even without causing an ammunition explosion."

: Hmm.

: Imagine you have this turret sitting on the tank. Imagine you're a
: titan standing some hundred feet tall.

: You pick up the tank, one hand at each end, and twist the ends in
: opposite directions. The ring where the turret meets the hull is
: under stress. You twist harder, the ring gives, and the turret
: pops off.

: Now imagine that instead of being a 100' titan, you're a tanker shooting
: at the thing with a DU round with a muzzle velocity around a mile/second ...

These people have been reading their recent Tom Clancy. Tom Clancy, btw,
and Frank Chadwick got together pover the game Harpoon when it was just
the tabletop version, so GDW and Tom Clancy have that link, too...

But back on topic.

The DU rounds are impressive, and the pyrophoric effect is also
impressive and adds to the already incredible lethality of the round,
but...the 20 or so tons of du deposted on Iraq has had some effects on
our troops, would you not think?

CPL John McFarlin, Jr. USARNG
122d CML Co
Las Vegas, Nv.

Roger Moore

unread,

Jan 2, 1995, 1:22:12 PM1/2/95

to

From r...@alumni.caltech.edu (Roger Moore)

mcfa...@nevada.edu (JOHN MCFARLIN) writes:

>The DU rounds are impressive, and the pyrophoric effect is also
>impressive and adds to the already incredible lethality of the round,
>but...the 20 or so tons of du deposted on Iraq has had some effects on
>our troops, would you not think?

Probably no more than the lead in all of their bullets. The radio-toxicity
of DU is not really that significant- my understanding is that it is more
toxic as a heavy metal toxin (like lead) than as a radio-toxin. I would
suggest that soot from burning oil wells might be more of a hazard to your
health than the DU would be. Combine that with the admission from the DOD
that many troops were injected with experimental vaccines (still undergoing
clinical trials) and you probably have a sufficient basis for the so-called
Gulf War Disease.

Raj
Master of Meaningless Trivia

Colin Campbell

unread,

Jan 2, 1995, 1:22:47 PM1/2/95

to

From col...@ix.netcom.com (Colin Campbell)

In <D1Mx3...@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com> mcfa...@nevada.edu (JOHN
MCFARLIN) writes:

>The DU rounds are impressive, and the pyrophoric effect is also
>impressive and adds to the already incredible lethality of the round,
>but...the 20 or so tons of du deposted on Iraq has had some effects on
>our troops, would you not think?

Actually, DU is designed so the fragments are at least BB sized.
There will be some uranuim-oxide (which is toxic) but this hazard can be
avoided by not approching a destroyed tank for several hours. Another
good idea is to wash your hands before eating or smoking if you were
actually dumb enough to climb around on one of them.

Generally the DU will remain in the form of large metal chunks. In
this form the health hazards are minimal.

This is from a Certified Hndustrial Hygenist (expert on protection
from toxic materials).

Evert-Jan_Duindam

unread,

Jan 6, 1995, 12:34:53 PM1/6/95

to

From dra...@euronet.nl (Evert-Jan_Duindam)

In article <D1Mx3...@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com> mcfa...@nevada.edu (JOHN MCFARLIN) writes:

>From mcfa...@nevada.edu (JOHN MCFARLIN)

>The DU rounds are impressive, and the pyrophoric effect is also
>impressive and adds to the already incredible lethality of the round,
>but...the 20 or so tons of du deposted on Iraq has had some effects on
>our troops, would you not think?

>CPL John McFarlin, Jr. USARNG
>122d CML Co
>Las Vegas, Nv.

As far a I know it is just as likely (if not more so) that coalition troops
were affected by unsufficiently tested anti-chemical/biological weapons drugs,
rather than fumes from DU rounds. Personally the lethal concoction of
chemicals present in those drugsa and administered in those amounts seems like
a more likely solution to me than the effects of the DU. It is just not a
logical option that depleted non-weapons grade Uranium would be the answer to
the effects on coalition troops when those drugs are so much more likely.
Just my (logically and BBC based) opinion. Reactions please!

Evert-Jan C. Duindam (dra...@euronet.nl)