CAP vs NO CAP | APCBC vs APBC | Armour Piercing Developments Vol. 1 скачать в хорошем качестве

CAP vs NO CAP | APCBC vs APBC | Armour Piercing Developments Vol. 1

Simulating the benefits of a cap ontop of an armour-piercing shell; a cap has multiple functions in armour penetration, with it improving performance against sloped armour, increasing the critical angle, and reducing the chance of projectile shattering. The video compares the 8.8cm Pzgr. 39 APCBC to a fictional version of it without a cap, with them being tested against sloped armour at 60°, as well as determining their critical ricochet angles. The kinetic energy of both projectiles is kept constant by varying the velocity. References: [1] RHA modified from: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA392... [2] Projectile Steel: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti... [3] Pzgr.39 weight & vel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_...) [4] Pzgr.39 design: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:412... TO NOTE: Projectile shattering and cracking cannot be accounted for due to principal stress failure not being available in Abaqus Explicit. Videos by Dejmian XYZ display this phenomenon well as LS-Dyna can account for them. The armour material properties have also been altered to present more realistic behaviours as most JC material models dont predict shear failure and shear bands well. (these can most easily be seen ahead of the cap in some of the simulations). This model will be improved further in the future.