![]() I'd also like to point out how silly it is to think that a concept from the 40s would ever outclass anything 70 years later. The MAUS was the concept, of using the same steel that was used on all other tanks and then just using more of it - that's not how modern day protection functions because it's horribly inefficient. Most late Nazi tanks were WAY ahead of their time.Ī MAUS as you may know, it's pretty beast. That is done because each time a penetrator hits it will also create a cloud of aerosol particles of its own material and Urianium is much more poisionous than Tungsten. ![]() Now, Uranium, especially depleted Uranium, is much cheaper in cost than Tungsten, while having a similar density and hardness, yet there are still armies, like the German Army, that use Tungsten (or rather Tungsten-Carbide) penetrators. ![]() It also has a very low melting point of around 327° C, whereas Uranium starts to melt at 1132° C and Tungsten at over 3400° C, meaning the latter two material can much better withstand the heat of the impact without deforming. Yep, lead has very poor hardness, it can usually, at room temperature, be dented by human finger nails, despite its density. ![]() Ofc, hardness also come into it, no point having a really heavy penetrator if it gets squashed or deformed easily. ![]() Messaggio originale di Tankfriend:Depending on how you measure it, it has either the highest or second highest density, with iridium being the other contender.īut density alone doesn't automatically mean that a material makes a good penetrator, because you obviously also have to take into account how much it costs you, if there's other dangers involved with it, how far you can possibly develop the material with alloys and so on. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |