Project Reality Forums

Dev1200 wrote:IIRC heat rounds aren't designed to pierce armor. Armor Piercing rounds, emphasis on piercing, lol, are.


So unless you have evidence that HE rounds go through certain apcs and kill the people on the inside.. please post

A Source:

HEI ammunition has also been used on the battlefield against tanks and other armoured vehicles, but this has become impractical due to the invention of modern armour systems such as Chobham and explosive reactive armour, which can absorb most high-explosive rounds currently used.

High explosive incendiary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HEAT...

AT...

I wonder what that mean...

McLuv wrote:That's exactly the point. That picture is of Hotrod :/

No, the point is that you guys are comparing something in-game that is different from real-life. What I mean is, if you want to hurt the armored vehicles' crew, make them first hurt the people who are not inside any vehicle at all.

When a HEI hit the armor, it blows, when it blow it make the armor itself became lethal.

What i mean by lethal is that the explosion will make the armor curve, violently, wich mean the inner armor itself will broke into shrapnel. APC/IFV aren't as strong as people seems to believe. I can't tell you the tickness of the armor [cause i aint sure if its classified or not] on the LAV25, but believe me, it will produce shrapnel. It might not pierce the armor, but it will kill/badly injure people inside.

And of course i'm not talking about a Leopard 2/M1A2/CR2 armor, i'm only talking about light armor vehicle.

Marine LAV-25's have a spall liner included in a armour upgrade that the USMC undertook in 2005-2008

Survivability upgrades have also been incorporated in an automatic fire suppression system and ballistic protection upgrade package (add-on armor and spall liners).

Light Armored Vehicle 25 (LAV-25)

HEAT Wont penetrate the armor of a tank or APC ... thats why it is called HEAT AP round...

Anti personel round ... it wouldnt be possible ..

umm... you realize the AT part of that HEAT means anti tank?

I hope this will clearify what you people dosent seems to understand. That how HEI work. No matter how you call it, High Explosive Inciendiary, High Explosive Anti-Tank, High Explosive Fragmentation Round... ETC ETC. That the way it work. After all, i just work all day long, 5 days a week, since 4 months... with LAV25 and M242 Bushmaster, who the hell i'm to telling you how it work huh ?

That picture needs to go in the manual...

sounds like a good idea to me, it's tight in there even for the larger ones. there are also lots of things that might come loose and fly across the interior winging you in the head

also it's true it wont penetrate, but it will stress and bend the metal cause small fragments to break off on the inside. that's also why during WW1 some riflemen would pull the bullet out of the casing, and replace it backwards as that cause more force and ended up having a similar effect on shielded emplacements.

Hotrod525 wrote:I hope this will clearify what you people dosent seems to understand. That how HEI work. No matter how you call it, High Explosive Inciendiary, High Explosive Anti-Tank, High Explosive Fragmentation Round... ETC ETC. That the way it work. After all, i just work all day long, 5 days a week, since 4 months... with LAV25 and M242 Bushmaster, who the hell i'm to telling you how it work huh ?

That's called spalling.

Hotrod525 wrote:When a HEI hit the armor, it blows, when it blow it make the armor itself became lethal.

What i mean by lethal is that the explosion will make the armor curve, violently, wich mean the inner armor itself will broke into shrapnel. APC/IFV aren't as strong as people seems to believe. I can't tell you the tickness of the armor [cause i aint sure if its classified or not] on the LAV25, but believe me, it will produce shrapnel. It might not pierce the armor, but it will kill/badly injure people inside.

And of course i'm not talking about a Leopard 2/M1A2/CR2 armor, i'm only talking about light armor vehicle.

Wrong, HEI-T stands for High Explosive Incendiary Tracers-which are used for anti personal it would simply shatter against armor. Especially against up armored IFVs such as western countries use.

gazzthompson wrote:umm... you realize the AT part of that HEAT means anti tank?

HEAT is something Tanks mainly use... I thought we were talking about HEI-T... But if a APC gets hit by lets say 125mm HEAT...its gone even with up armor. As we saw in the Gulf War and Invasion of Iraq 2003. But I do believe we are talking about HEI-T so...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M242_Bushmaster

It shows some common ammo types for lower caliber weapons such as the Bushmaster (not MBT cannons)

Teek wrote:Marine LAV-25's have a spall liner included in a armour upgrade that the USMC undertook in 2005-2008



Light Armored Vehicle 25 (LAV-25)

correct! I heard other western countries upgraded their armor but I know for sure the USMC has upgraded their LAVs with some pretty high tech stuff... mainly anti sprawling material on the inside to protect the crew and passengers from AP. Once again HEI-T fired from other IFV or APC at the LAV would do nothing to the personal on the inside. It is the AP rounds to worry about... or HEAT fired from MBTs.

but I am sure the Devs know this... I talked to a guy a while back who was in USArmy Armor and he really knew his shit.

I think the important question is how well do spall liners protect against spalling? For any of the frontline vehicles and their spall liners, this information is certainly classified.

However, in the 30 minutes of research I just did, I did not find a single article or presentation that claimed that a spall liner would catch all of the fragments created by a shaped charge warhead of RPG-7 size or greater. However, I found no information on explosive rounds smaller than the RPG-7's 40mm, and the most detailed were over 15 years old (1993). I doubt that there is anything useful on 25mm/30mm HE effectiveness against western vehicles (LAV/Warrior/Scimitar/Stryker), although there might be some tests on eastern bloc vehicles.

Although technically inconclusive, given Hotrod's comments and the various test results which I found, I would be inclined to agree that some sort of spall simulation system would be realistic. However, actually implementing it correctly(i.e. only for crew members/passengers in certain armored vehicles vehicles) would be a serious PITA, especially given the way that crew member positions have already been manipulated to avoid the molotov bug.

The two sources I looked at most:
http://www.sealsolutions.com.au/downloa ... e_V2.0.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD ... etTRDoc.pd

Bringerof_D wrote:that's also why during WW1 some riflemen would pull the bullet out of the casing, and replace it backwards as that cause more force and ended up having a similar effect on shielded emplacements.

Source? I have never heard this before, and all of the data I found in my travels showed limited or no spalling caused by non-explosive rounds, including 30mm APDS rounds. I highly doubt that even a large caliber rifle round would cause significant spalling without some sort of explosive assistance.

*Edit* Somewhat ninjaed by USMCMIDN

USMCMIDN wrote:Wrong, HEI-T stands for High Explosive Incendiary Tracers-which are used for anti personal it would simply shatter against armor. Especially against up armored IFVs such as western countries use.

I don't have a clue what the weight of HE in an HEI round is, but I'm extremely skeptical of comments that follow the lines of "your rounds can't hurt my armored vehicle". Time and again this has proved untrue, though MBTs like the CR2 are giving the saying a good run for its money. Regardless, PR includes a wide range of vehicles, some of which would not be uparmored in any way (militia faction comes to mind), and many of which are fairly old designs, and would be extremely vulnerable to spalling (as they like both exterior up-armoring and spall liners). So even assuming that US/UK/IDF/Russian/MEC vehicles are immune to spalling (which is one heck of a leap), it still deserves a legitimate discussion.

[R-COM]BloodBane611 wrote:I don't have a clue what the weight of HE in an HEI round is, but I'm extremely skeptical of comments that follow the lines of "your rounds can't hurt my armored vehicle". Time and again this has proved untrue, though MBTs like the CR2 are giving the saying a good run for its money. Regardless, PR includes a wide range of vehicles, some of which would not be uparmored in any way (militia faction comes to mind), and many of which are fairly old designs, and would be extremely vulnerable to spalling (as they like both exterior up-armoring and spall liners). So even assuming that US/UK/IDF/Russian/MEC vehicles are immune to spalling (which is one heck of a leap), it still deserves a legitimate discussion.

Copied from another thread.

Bolded parts are relevant

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m792.htm wrote:The M792 HEI-T round offers the accuracy and performance needed for light materiel and fire suppression. This round is used to destroy lightly armored vehicles and helicopters (armored and unarmored) and to suppress antitank guided missile (ATGM) positions, crew served weapons, dismounted infantry, and likely enemy positions past coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun range out to a distance of 3,000 meters. The HEI-T cartridge is a fixed type, percussion primed round. The cartridge consists of a high explosive incendiary (HEI) filled, one piece projectile body crimped to a steel cartridge case. The projectile body consists of a hollow steel body, M758 fuse, 32 grams of an HEI mix, and pressed in tracer. This round is fuzed with the M758 Point Detonating Self-Destruct (PDSD) fuze, developed and produced exclusively by Alliant Techsystems. The M758 provides superior arming delay, graze and extended range sensitivity, and self-destruct compared to existing medium caliber fuzes. Gases produced by the burning propellant discharge the projectile from the gun at 1,100 meters per second ( plus or minus 20 meters per second). On impact the fuse (M75 functions and the HEI filler detonates, dispersing the incendiary mixture in a 5 meter radius. If the projectile has not impacted at about 3,000 meters, the mechanical fuse will self detonate the round.

As you can see the blast effect from HEI is largely incendiary and one would assume the HE is to disperse the incendiary agent, as opposed to HEAT which uses a shaped HE charge to form a molten metallic penetrator.

The OP claims that HEAT, HEI, HEF are all the same when they clearly have different effects and his claim to using real world experience as a source are void, because I'm willing to bet he hasn't actually sat inside an APC whilst taking a variety of incoming rounds.

...Why has no one realized that this is greatly applicable to less-armor vehicles (Civilian cars, HMMWVs, WMIKs) as well?

Vehicle + HEAT/HEI-T = Live Vehicle, dead occupants?

Sustained AP fire from smaller calibers is one of the things that is well known to fuck with Chobram and ERA, HE-I and ERA even more so. It would be naive and hopelessly wishful to think that modern armoured vehicles are immune to spalling, but it does seem to be a much lower priority than other things.

There's kinda a lot of pressure in the impact of anything going as fast as a HEAT round. Doesn't matter if it's a rock hitting the side of the APC/IFV, at the speed it's going, the shockwave probably does some serious damage.

Lol at people arguing with a LAV crewman.

Hmmm I wonder who I would believe? A LAV crewman who's been in the job 5 months and has only been taught the need to knows to complete his job or the scientists and engineers who invest hundreds of hours of research into these effects. I'll take the experts thanks.

Kim Jong ill wrote:Hmmm I wonder who I would believe? A LAV crewman who's been in the job 5 months and has only been taught the need to knows to complete his job or the scientists and engineers who invest hundreds of hours of research into these effects. I'll take the experts thanks.

I have yet to see any expert opinions offered in this thread, did I miss something?

So far what we have is conjecture, don't misrepresent guesswork as facts and figures.