Steel, UMWPE and ceramic behave differently. They also behave differently when the projectiles are made of different materials.
When we talk about armour penetration, we need to talk about the armour itself. In this case, the current issue and the driving force behind US development is personal armour made of ceramic. NATO, which is based on cold war threats, measure the distance of penetration based on CRISAT titanium and Kevlar testing plate.
We have a generation of rounds like M855, 4.6, 5.7.... that is measured against penetration of CRISAT plate. And the designs to defeat CRISAT plates favor high velocity rounds
But just because something is optimized to defeat CRIST plate, doesn't mean it is good against ceramic - what people wear in the real world now. In other words, is CRISAT plate a good proxy of ceramic armour. Apparently it is not - that is why the US is investing in new 7.62 AP round. Ceramic doesn't behave the same way as titanium plates and Kevlar, or steel for that matter.
I don't have my own finite element analysis software or a Master degree thesis to spend couple months on inputing different shape, material properties..etc to write a paper on this. It is not just the amount of energy, but also the method, the effect and the rate of energy transfer. My observations of what it is going on points to that core hardness is a more "economic" and "practical" way to defeat ceramic than getting to the velocity needed, but even with a high density hardened core there is still a minimum threshold of mass needed to defeat L4, within an envelope that is useable as a general purpose individual small arms cartridge. Yes, we can have an ultra high velocity tungsten core "SLAP" round with a lighter bullet that penetrate L4, but is it practical? No, it has been proven not. Why don't we use 338LM or NM - well, they are not practical individual GP rounds. Is 6.5 a better platform to get a "better" balance between core hardness, velocity and mass to defeat L4? I don't know - that goes back to finite element analysis software and some R&D.
When we talk about armour penetration, we need to talk about the armour itself. In this case, the current issue and the driving force behind US development is personal armour made of ceramic. NATO, which is based on cold war threats, measure the distance of penetration based on CRISAT titanium and Kevlar testing plate.
We have a generation of rounds like M855, 4.6, 5.7.... that is measured against penetration of CRISAT plate. And the designs to defeat CRISAT plates favor high velocity rounds
But just because something is optimized to defeat CRIST plate, doesn't mean it is good against ceramic - what people wear in the real world now. In other words, is CRISAT plate a good proxy of ceramic armour. Apparently it is not - that is why the US is investing in new 7.62 AP round. Ceramic doesn't behave the same way as titanium plates and Kevlar, or steel for that matter.
I don't have my own finite element analysis software or a Master degree thesis to spend couple months on inputing different shape, material properties..etc to write a paper on this. It is not just the amount of energy, but also the method, the effect and the rate of energy transfer. My observations of what it is going on points to that core hardness is a more "economic" and "practical" way to defeat ceramic than getting to the velocity needed, but even with a high density hardened core there is still a minimum threshold of mass needed to defeat L4, within an envelope that is useable as a general purpose individual small arms cartridge. Yes, we can have an ultra high velocity tungsten core "SLAP" round with a lighter bullet that penetrate L4, but is it practical? No, it has been proven not. Why don't we use 338LM or NM - well, they are not practical individual GP rounds. Is 6.5 a better platform to get a "better" balance between core hardness, velocity and mass to defeat L4? I don't know - that goes back to finite element analysis software and some R&D.
Last edited:
