Jump to content

Talk:M829

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:M829 (munition))

Confuzing!

[edit]

It can penetrate approximately 1111540 mm rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) at 0 degrees (NATO) and 630 mm RHA at 60 degrees (NATO), at a range of 2,000 m.[citation needed]

This has to be wrong. How can there be greater penetration for inclined armour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.45.101 (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M829A3

[edit]

The last paragraph of that section is in dire need of a citation. A round on itself does not have a muzzle velocity. A round shot from a specific gun does. Which gun? The L/44 of the Abrams (likely), or the L/55 of the Leo 2A6? "Believed to" and "estimated at" by whom? -- DevSolar (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More muzzle v madness?

[edit]

From the M829A3 section:

(...) "Combined these features boost its muzzle velocity by 100 m/s to 1,680 m/s, while operating at slightly lower pressure."


From the M829A3 section:

(...) "It is heavier than the M829A2 and uses a more efficient propellant, RPD-380, giving it a boost in muzzle velocity. (...) Muzzle velocity is estimated at 1,555 m/s (5,100 ft/s)."

Is one of these statements incorrect, or is the A3's muzzle v lower than the A2's because of the longer (thus heavier) impactor, so that the new propellant was badly needed to keep muzzle v above the 5000 mark? - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 14:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penetrator Diameter?

[edit]

What is the diameter of the DU-titanium alloy penetrator. Would the fins expand the size of the hole if the penetrator hit a target other than armor plate of a tank? If so, how much larger would that hole be expected to be. The reason I ask is that I want to be able to show people what kind of hole a 120mm DU penetrator would make in a wall to illustrate the relative uselessness of using the 120mm DU penetrator to blow holes in walls or barricades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhotel1 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Penetrator weight

[edit]

It is claimed that the DU penetrator of the M829A3 is 10Kg, however, considering that DU has a density 19g/cm3 in order for it to weigh 10Kg it would need to have a volume 523cm3. Since the diameter of the penetrator is 25mm, then it would need to have a length of about 1,066mm, exceeding the total length of the ammunition by almost 250mm (and the claimed length of the penetrator by 266mm). Therefore that claim, regardless of the source, should be questioned.

In order for the claim to be valid, then the required diameter of the penetrator would have to be 28.8mm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.181.69.113 (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion arises from the reading the weight of the penetrator plus sabot as the weight of the penetrator alone, which this article does little to clarify. As the entry for the M829A1 reveals, the weight of the penetrator for that round is 4.6 kg. For kinetic energy calculation, one could assume that the sabot weighs 4.4kg for all versions, but that's not appropriate for the wiki. The article could make the distinction clearer, though.NelC (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on M829. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to respond for request article improvement

[edit]

The article has been under request for improvement since 2017. I simply sourced the information from the pdf files available in the public domain regarding the M829 120mm Ammunition and it's variants. The information and the pictures are all available in the public domain, and are declared available for unlimited redistribution by the owner. The pdf files are listed in the references for the sources cited. One of the photos was deleted, because it was marked as coypright infringement, this was an accident. I would like to make the photo available again regarding the M829E4 ADL photo. The article is a combination of a chart and bullet points, which are simply the facts as they stand, so I have not made efforts to break the bullets and combine this into a paragraph format; as I believe that for this subject matter, it would be more confusing and less of a benefit to the learner and researcher, since the subject is ammunition and dealt with in terms of the absolutes with regard to science, such as mass, velocity, physical composition, dimensions. The physical behavior of the ammunition, the internal ballistics, external ballistics, and terminal ballistics of the ammunition are described in a clear and concise manner as possible as to make clear the entire scope of the ammunition itself, without regard to the theory, economic and political. The prior sources listed are second hand, and in terms of 'source' for the purposes of citing references, second-hand source does not qualify as a source; the source is itself the origin - the information obtained in the article, and all of the photographs, are straight from the source, the pdf portfolio of the most current ammunition available as stated by the Department of Defense portfolio and the contractor who manufactures the ammunition; in other words, if the ammunition were a vehicle, the information is akin to be quoted directly from the owner's manual itself, as opposed to a third-party website that is selling or reviewing the vehicle. Putting ego aside, the information provided for the researcher available on the version prior to my revision contains falacies and inaccuracies, and lacks any citations. I could not find any reasons to save the article whatsoever in light of the article I replaced it with. I am not sure what is wrong with the article, because from an education standpoint on the subject of the M829 Ammunition, this is precisely the information provided from the Department of Defense and the contractor itself made available for the public, in the public domain, unclassified, for unlimited redistribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelPeiper0331 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:M829&oldid=1198958157"