Thread: SABOT rounds
View Single Post
  #6  
Old November 1st, 2008, 12:47 PM
Suhiir's Avatar

Suhiir Suhiir is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 2,829
Thanks: 542
Thanked 793 Times in 600 Posts
Suhiir is on a distinguished road
Default Re: SABOT rounds

Quote:
Originally Posted by istol View Post
how these SABOT rounds actually work

do they compete against HEAT armor if so how strong is them is SABOT 30 more effective than HEAT 30 round ?
To get back to the origional question...

SABOT rounds are basically a sub-caliber AP penetrator with a discarding casing (the sabot) of a lighter material to make them fit tightly in the bore of the gun. When fired this casing drops away, as it does so it increases the velocity of the penetrator (some physics thing I'll not get into).
Keeping good old E=MC2 in mind this increased velocity make SABOT rounds penetrate much better then normal AP, but as mentioned this penetration drops off with range.
In general an AP or SABOT round will have better penetration then a HEAT round of the same caliber at short to medium ranges. Also as mentioned neither is effected (except to some extent by the most advanced ERA HEAT armors) by HEAT armor.

The key issues are :
AP and SABOT have better penetration then HEAT at short to medium ranges.
The penetration of a HEAT round is not effected by range.
AP and SABOT are generally not effected by HEAT armor.
And, most importantly, AP and 'specially SABOT rounds, are difficult to manufacture and much more expensive then HEAT.

Thus while in general SABOT rounds are superior to HEAT cost means everyone uses HEAT against lighter armored targets (APC's and such) and saves the SABOT ones for opposition tanks.
__________________
Suhiir - Wargame Junkie

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein

Last edited by Suhiir; November 1st, 2008 at 12:50 PM..
Reply With Quote