Talk:Armour-piercing ammunition/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge notice

Merged content from Armor piercing round. See old talk page Talk:Armor piercing round Kville105125 17:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Modern Use

This article eroneously claimed that AP rounds are now mostly used in naval warfare, which is incorrect. Modern naval ships have little or no armor, making AP rounds redundant (it was different in the pre-missile age when gun calibre determined how hard a ship could hit). AP rounds are now mainly used in armored warfare.

Also noted the use of AP rounds as a specialized type of small arms ammunition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexington50 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Modern Day

"Contrary to what Adam thinks" - this should probably be clarified or removed, I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.246.13 (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Article is not self-consistent

In the introduction it says "it remains the preferred round in tank warfare", but in the section 'Modern Day' the first sentence starts "Rarely encountered in large-caliber tank guns now".

These statements are contradictory. At least one of them is wrong. Somebody please fix. Thanks. 78.86.229.20 (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the erroneous claim that AP rounds are "rarely encountered in large-caliber tank guns now". The Modern Day section needs further cleanup (it seems to confuse the distinction between chemical and kinetic energy rounds and uses the term "ammunition" when it means "cartridges" or "small arms ammunition", among other problems). I'll update as time allows. Lexington50 (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Why talk about depleted uranium tank rounds in the Small Arms section? SF 22/11/2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.84.22 (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Unrelated Articles

Teflon Coated and armor Piercing are not similar. The teflon coating that was used was to reduce rifling. It has been proven not to be armor piercing. Tank rounds that are armor piercing are called sabot rounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.168.234 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that Teflon Coated is a disparate topic, if for no other reason than the erroneous portrayal in films and mainstream media that Teflon provides armor-piercing capabilities. Once clarified, there is a legitimate chance that the reader will not proceed to Armor Piercing at all, because the Teflon question was resolved as being incorrect. Spawn777 (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

15" shell + cap picture available.

A good picture is available on the HMS Malaya article. The shell, hopefully disarmed, resides in the nave of Genoa Cathedral. JRPG (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Article lacks specificity

This article lacks clarity on the kind of armor that AP bullets can penetrate. For example every rifle round is capable of penetrating level IIIA and below kevlar vests, and indeed they are not rated for it. However the implied meaning is that only those few rounds cited on the page can penetrate "armor". Level III and IV armor are not vests, which most people would consider armor, but plates which can stop rifle rounds. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/223054.pdf Pl3b3z (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Title Change

Due to regulations with Wikipedia and British English, it stands that the title should be renamed from "Armor-piercing shell" to Armour-Piercing Shell or Armour-piercing shell. Dictonary1 (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Armour is the most commonly used. Ex nihil ^(talk) 09:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support I'm fairly tolerant of both spellings so long as it's unambiguous but to look professional it should be consistent. Much of the article is in British English. JRPG (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Armor-piercing shell

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Armor-piercing shell's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "books.google.com":

• From Shell (projectile): Drawing below photograph on the referred page illustrates the APCNR principle: Popular Science "Tapered Bore Gives This German Gun Its High-Velocity" p. 132
• From Kh-29: The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems, 1997–1998. Retrieved 23 December 2014.
• From Ballistics: Herbst, Judith (1 September 2005). "The History of Weapons". Lerner Publications. Retrieved 16 March 2018 – via Google Books.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

For the love of God

1st, capped AC was used during WW1, the soft cap. It didn't perform very well at high angles of the incident to the plate. 2. The cap doesn't cushion shit, it disperses the shock radially in the soft cap, or in the case of a hard cap effectively drills a hole to help the penetration of the AP shell behind it. It is of nost use when used against face hardened armor. You will find more on this with Nathan Oakum's work on NavWeaps. The other stupid rumor, started in of all things BuOrd, was that the soft cap lubricated the incoming AP round. That isn't true either. Fix this or I will delete the sections related to capped AP.Tirronan (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)