Chapter 685 - Hello everyone, the explanation of "Stable Detent Dehulling Armor Piercing Bullet

Before discussing this issue, let me explain another small problem.

Some book friends questioned the rationality of the wartime rationing system. This is a real thing that happened in history. I have a book in my hand, "The Last Year of World War I" written by an American writer.

It is also true that capitalists hoard supplies to make money.

During World War I, Britain, France and Germany all had detailed records of their wartime rationing systems. During World War II, Britain and Germany also had wartime rationing systems, especially Britain which was blockaded by German submarines.

I would like to add that during the special period of war, everyone is in a state of panic. At this time, the self-regulating function of the market has failed, and many things can only rely on state enforcement and distribution to ensure order.

Just like the mask period, the war period will be no exception.

We certainly cannot completely deny the "rationing system" and assert that it is unreasonable just because a certain reform failed in ancient times. The fact is that the wartime rationing system helped many countries overcome difficulties.

…

Now, let’s get back to the topic of “taking off and putting on”.

The first problem is the technological problem of making the "penetrating" arrow-shaped long-rod bullet.

Many book lovers assert that it was impossible to create "Strip and Wear" during World War I.

However, the fact is that there were mature tungsten alloy shells before the outbreak of World War I, but they were used in the navy at that time, and large-caliber tungsten alloy armor-piercing shells were used to penetrate enemy battleships.

When tanks appeared on land during World War I, the army immediately popularized tungsten alloy armor-piercing projectiles because the technology was mature and only needed to be transplanted.

Therefore, World War I was the period when tungsten alloy armor-piercing bullets were widely used.

The "penetrating" shells are made of tungsten alloy (most countries do). Only the United States chooses cheap but radioactive depleted uranium shells, which will cause irreversible radiation damage to tank soldiers. But we all know that capitalists don't care about this.

(Note: Although tungsten alloy and depleted uranium bullets are hard and extremely tough, it does not mean that their tips will not break. These two metals are very special. They are "self-sharpening", that is, when the tip breaks, it peels off in pieces, so that the sharp head always remains sharp, so the penetration depth is terrifying)

Therefore, there was no problem of insufficient workmanship and technology in the production of "penetrating" during World War I. It was purely unexpected that tank guns were using rifled guns for quite a long time.

…

Now comes the key point. Some book friends believe that it was impossible to build a smoothbore cannon that could fire "penetration" bullets during World War I.

I think it is understandable for book lovers who hold this idea, because modern smoothbore cannons are a manifestation of high technology, and only 3.5 countries in the world possess related technology.

China, Russia, Germany.

The other half of the country is the United States, which has obtained authorization from Germany and mastered the relevant technology to produce its own tank guns.

All other countries are unable to produce it. European countries, including Japan and South Korea, all use smoothbore guns licensed from Germany or purchased directly.

It stands to reason that in modern times only 3.5 countries have mastered the relevant technology. Even the United States wants to learn it. How could it be possible to develop a smoothbore cannon that could fire a "penetrating" weapon during World War I?

This brings us to two key technologies that have stumped a large number of countries today: electroslag remelting and single-wall self-tightening.

You don’t need to read the following content in brackets, which is an introduction to the functions of these two technologies and will not affect your judgment. However, the author recommends that readers read it, because China has long been the world’s top, while many public intellectuals on the Internet clamor that “Chinese tank guns are not good.”

(Electroslag remelting.

Simply put, it is to use high voltage electricity to melt the gun steel again to make it more uniform overall.

Tank guns have to withstand very high chamber pressure. If the density of the steel is uneven, the denser part will be equivalent to an "impurity". After violent vibration, tiny cracks will be generated around the "impurity" as the center.

With repeated firing, the cracks will become more and more numerous and larger, until the barrel explodes.

Single wall self-tightening.

The barrel of a cannon has thickness. When subjected to chamber pressure and thermal expansion, the inner circle heats up more and expands more, while the outer circle heats up slowly and less and expands less.

There is also the factor of angle: even if they are equally heated, if the inner barrel expands only a little, the outer barrel will need to expand more to accommodate it.

I don't know how to explain it for the moment, but you can think of it this way: the arc lengths of the inner circle and outer circle corresponding to the same angle are different. As long as the inner circle expands a little bit, the outer circle will be stretched and cracked.

The single-wall self-tightening technology solves this problem. It makes the density inside and outside of the barrel different, making it self-tightening from the outside to the inside.

Therefore, when firing and the barrel expands due to heat, part of the expansion force will be offset by "self-tightening", making the barrel less likely to explode and increasing its lifespan.

）

These two technologies are simple to talk about, but there are only 3.5 companies in the world that have truly achieved them. The Japanese have tried many times to develop them on their own but all ended in failure.

But why was this type of smoothbore cannon available during World War I?

To sum up, these two technologies are used to reduce barrel bursting and increase service life, and have nothing to do with whether it can be fired or not.

not to mention……

Tank guns and tank armor are a "spear" and a "shield".

When the "shield" is thicker, the power of the "spear" needs to be greater.

The equivalent armor thickness of modern tanks is often hundreds or even thousands of millimeters.

To "penetrate" such a thick "shield", we must strengthen the power of the "spear".

To increase the power of the "spear", it is necessary to increase the propellant, and the barrel will be subjected to greater chamber pressure, making it more likely to explode and shortening its lifespan.

then……

The "strip-off gun" was invented during World War II. It was first developed and used by Britain in 1941. At that time, the "strip-off gun" and smoothbore gun had no craftsmanship or advanced technology.

(The second from the left in the above picture is the "strip-on" invented by the UK in 1941)

(The picture above shows a 17-pounder gun firing a "penetration" in 1941. When firing a "penetration", it can penetrate 187MM armor at a distance of 500 meters, and 170MM armor at a distance of 1000 meters. Even at a distance of 2000 meters, the penetration depth is still 135MM)

Finally, let’s summarize:

The modern need to "penetrate" thousands of millimeters of armor requires advanced technical support, and requires "electroslag remelting" and "single-wall self-tightening".

During World War II, the only tanks to be dealt with were the Tiger or King Tiger tanks, and it was sufficient to use ordinary smoothbore guns + tungsten alloy to penetrate them.

During World War I, when dealing with armor of dozens of millimeters...did we still need to worry about insufficient technology to produce it?

To deal with a weaker "shield", the required "spear" will certainly not have such high requirements!