Talk:Armour-piercing discarding sabot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Firearms (Rated Deferred-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms 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.
 Deferred  This article has been rated as Deferred-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

In-depth information[edit]

As for my other contributions, this entry is to provide in-depth infomation to people who do not, or have not had experience in the weapons testing field. Please, if you do modifiy the text just add or improve the entry (my spelling and grammar aren't brilliant). Please don't chop loads out as you think a shorter version would be better, we have no problems with space here!

Some images would be a nice improvement, I have loads myself, but I'm not sure of the legality of their use (they are not classified, just from other websites)--NeilGibson 08:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The APFSDS info was removed from this article as this article is about APDS and FAPDS projectiles. The F in FAPDS being for frangible, not FINNED! For more info on APFSDS rounds see the seperate Wikipedia entry. NeilGibson 19:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks for correcting me on the difference of APDS and APFSDS i was using them interchangably.thepillarfreak

I have no idea about the math stuff, but what I want to know is why the part coming off helps it? -- 01:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

All the Sabot petals do is hold the Kinetic Energy Projectile in place within the bore of the gun while the round is being fired. One the projectile leaves the bore the petals peel away. Being able to launch a kinetic energy projectile out of a gun that is a larger caliber than the projectile itself alows a massive terminal mussle velocity (ex. the 120mm main gun of the M1A1 Abrams). Wildcard34 05:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to sugest a dumbed down discription of how it works, basicly "the round is encased in somthing the width of the barrel, and after it is fired, the case falls away, so a thin, heavy round can be shot from a wider barrel to get enough power to be usable". that way, people who don't have engineering degrees (yet) can understand. Githyan (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge with sabot?[edit]

Both articles have good information and diagrams, but you're talking about the same thing as far as I can tell. Please consider a merge. Dhatfield (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Brandt projectiles[edit]

The Brandt ammunition wasn't a discarding sabot shot, as the sabot was retained after firing, the sabot merely being a lightweight collar making the heavy, small diameter, shot up to the full bore of the weapon, the lightweight collar allowing greater area for the propellant gases to impinge upon. Although increasing the muzzle velocity, this projectile had the drawback of increased aerodynamic drag while in flight which reduced the range and penetrating power, hence the British development of the discarding sabot round, where the collar broke-up and dropped away upon exiting the barrel, leaving the 'clean' projectile with greatly increased muzzle velocity and carrying-power (range). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Olint10.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:Olint10.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)