The Mystery of German Concrete-Penetrating Artillery

  • Thread starter Thread starter be unique
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    German Mystery
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the effectiveness of German artillery shells, particularly the Röchling anti-concrete shell, in penetrating significant depths of concrete and earth. Participants analyze the relationship between kinetic energy, velocity, and drag, questioning how a projectile could achieve such penetration when theoretical calculations suggest otherwise. The calculations indicate that while increased velocity should enhance penetration, the figures presented for the Röchling shell seem implausible given the material densities involved. The conversation highlights confusion over the mechanics of penetration and the validity of historical claims regarding the shell's performance. Ultimately, skepticism remains about the feasibility of penetrating 36 meters of concrete based on established physics principles.
be unique
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Hi
This example of KEnergy and resistance seems incorrect.
Sabot. An artillery projectile with narrow core and wide plastic rings to give energy to smaller drag .
.. "This, in combination with the sub-projectiles’ higher sectional density, gives the resulting sub-projectile vastly reduced aerodynamic drag in comparison to the APCR. Both the higher initial velocity and the reduced drag result in high velocity at impact."

For concrete "The penetration depth increases almost linearly with impact velocity in that range . "

Ian V Hogg - 2013 -
"This was the Röchling anti-concrete shell (Rö-Geschoss), ... passing through 3m of Earth cover, 36m of concrete, a layer of broken stone, gun casement and 5m into the Earth .."
----------
Resistance drag in air in given conditions is Area. Velocity sq. A modern sabot is about 5 /18 for core / calibre, core A is 7.5%. As KEnergy is ~ .5 M Vsq then the Area being the size of Mass the velocity sq is the inverse at 1300% . So the sq`/ 13 gives 3.6 times increased Velocity matching the reduced Area giving same drag.

Artillery shells penetrate around .6 m into concrete with solid resistance as ~ *. Mass . Velocity. Area. Penetration rises by about .6 with triple the velocity so raising velocity by 3.6 should double penetration to 1m.
7.5% Area should give 13m. penetration but the advantage of 7.5% Mass in the gun is the same disadvantage in concrete .
How then did the Germans penetrate 36m concrete + 8m earth?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I am going to be honest, I don't understand what you are asking. It sure seems like your question has nothing to do with drag, and I am having a really hard time deciphering the rest of it.
 
As I don't have expertise in this , I gave all the info connected with it. The sabot velocity of 5500 ft /sec shows the increase over normal artillery at 2500-3500 ft/ sec. The KE and drag equations are similar ,~ M.Vsq / ~A.Vsq. suggesting that Velocity is the inverse and can be derived from the sabot proportions. Concrete resistance is the issue . I don't know how Mass relates to penetration of concrete , maybe it's a hemispherical increase. But cutting 36m of concrete seems false. Meteorites make craters rather than tubes. So I'm asking if you agree it's false.
 
For high-velocity objects, a good approximation for their penetration depth is given by comparing their area densities: An object will penetrate as deep as its own length in a material of the same density, through twice that if it has twice the density, and so on. A formula from Newton.

At 2.5 g/cm3 for concrete, an uranium projectile (19 g/cm3) would need a length of 4.7 meters to penetrate 36 meters of rock. That sounds implausible, even for things like a shaped charge.
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...

Similar threads

Back
Top