From:	Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: APDS Vs Hardened Armour?
Date:	Sat, 10 Jun 1995 02:15:43 GMT

> I've always thought there was a difference between what could Pierce body
> Armour, and what could Pierce hardened vehicle Armour, I assumed APDS
> only worked against body armour. Trying to explain FASA's rules.
> Can anyone get an "official" ruling on this, does "Armour
Piercing" mean
> the ammo will better penetrate *any* type of armour?

From a ballistics point of view, to penetrate armour you want maximum possible
velocity, a very hard projectile, and a very high ratio of mass to area.
This is why APFSDS rounds from tanks are so long: to put as much weight
behind a small striking area as possible.

"Greased" and sharply pointed rounds will defeat woven Kevlar armour.
However, since even 4/2 armour (Vest with Plates) has hard inserts of
ceramic or other material, APDS would appear not to rely on this mechanism
overmuch and to be nearer the "true" APDS of tank/anti-tank ammo. Feasable,
to be sure: I could buy saboted ammo for my .45 automatic, at present
legally. (It's noticeably more accurate at longer ranges, or so I am told).
Of course the actual projectile is just a 5.56mm rifle bullet, a lead-core
copper-jacketed bullet: not a tungsten or depleted uranium penetrator,
the point that accounts for the scarcity of APDS.

Looking at current practice and extrapolating, a bullet that would perform
well against rigid personal armour would also perform well against vehicle
armour, and would completely ignore soft personal armour or flak curtains/
spall liners. OTOH, a bullet designed to perform only against soft armours
(Kevlar weaves etc) would be no more or less effective against hardnened
armour than any other.

I do let APDS be very effective against armour: 7.62mm MGs firing APDS have
destroyed BMPs, and .50cal SLAP (Saboted Light Armour Penetrating) has
allegedly disabled main battle tanks with shots through the rear armour,
whereas normal FMJ ammo would have bounced in those cases.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk