Talk:Impact depth

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Accuracy of the approximation

Does anyone know how good an approximation this actually is? Or does anyone have a comparison of actual numbers for penetrators of various types into various materials at different speeds?

I suspect it's not great, considering how it doesnt take into account any aeordynamic/flow properties of the interaction. For example, running the numbers on a .50 cal bullet in air gives you (11.3g/cm^3) / (0.0012g/cm^3) * 5.75cm gives a maximum penetration (of air, so range) of about 500m. In reality, it's *lethal* range is over 3km, it's maximum range is quite a bit longer, subject to gravity.

Another possible source of error is the stipulation that the projectile be moving significantly faster than the speed of sound in the target material. This is unusual, with penetrators such as an APFSDS round moving at somewhat less than 2km/s while the speed of sound in steel is 6km/s. 70.70.240.116 (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ridiculous statement about energy

"Such an impactor, at a speed of 59 to 159 km/s, carries less kinetic energy than an explosive warhead of the same mass carries explosive energy."

LOL. Removed.

59 to 159 km/s is extremely fast -- enough to escape from the solar system. Mass moving that fast carries much more kinetic energy than explosives of equal mass in chemical energy. (See Railgun and TNT.)

Even if thie sentence comes from the kinetic bombardment topic, it would be 5.9 to 15.9 km/s, the latter figures would still be somewhat exaggerated, and the statement about kinetic vs. explosive energy would still be false. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 15:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

energy and the intro

"Nothing is said about where the impactor's kinetic energy goes"

It is just heat. Does that even warrant mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.170.233 (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, in the end - yes. But in between Newtons idea (if I grasp it) is that kinetic energy is transfered to other masses - which for practical purposes means that even if the penetrator is stopped the debris may still kill people behind the (non-penetrated) wall (BASE - behind armor secondary effect). In my opinion the more interesting question would be how far any significant part of the original kinetic energy is projected in the direction of the original flight path. But that'S mixing theory and application - and there should be better uses for that approximation than just the obvious military one. --92.195.121.25 (talk) 05:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)JB.[reply]

"high velocity?"

Article says:

"According to Newton's approximation, a uranium projectile at high speed and 1 m in length would punch its way through 6 m of rock (density 3 g/cm³) before coming to a stop."

When we're talking about "high velocity," are we talking about 100m/sec? 1km/sec? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.156.96 (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stopped in mid-air?

A smaller ice cube will be stopped in mid-air and explode. An ice cube with a diameter of 50 m or more, however, may also be stopped in mid-air, as long as it comes in at a very low angle and thus has to pierce through a lot of atmosphere.

How can it be "stopped in mid-air"? Surely it's still moving before it explodes!

Figure error?

If the equation only applies to blunt impactors, why is the impactor on the image pointy? 147.197.140.103 (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It comes to a blunt point, rather than a sharp one.--MajorHazard (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the accuracy of the approximation.

This approximation may be relatively accurate for target/projectile combinations of similar density (same order or magnitude, and provided the velocity is very high. It is true that a APFDS penetrator has a considerably lower velocity than the speed of sound in any of the materials involved in a typical impact. That is the main reason why, in order to create a good model of these type of impacts, several additional parameters must be added, such as the strength of each material etc... For impacts at significantly higher velocities (say >6000m/s) the simple equation becomes the dominant factor, e.g. the penetration of a steel plate by a HEAT jet. For impacts at lower velocities, there is a continuum in which this simple relation becomes less and less dominant. A low velocities its influence becomes non existent, as impacts where the projectile simply bounces off the target. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmshare (talk • contribs) 11:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Impact depth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120326005503/http://hep.ph.liv.ac.uk/~ibailey/target/shielding/tate_1967.pdf to http://hep.ph.liv.ac.uk/~ibailey/target/shielding/tate_1967.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misc.

Xkcd, anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.81.186 (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]