UNCLASSIFIED

AD NUMBER

AD-A950 590

CLASSIFICATION CHANGES

TO UNCLASSIFIED

FROM CONFIDENTIAL

AUTHORITY

OCA; Dec 31, 1986

THIS PAGE IS UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

AD NUMBER

AD-A950 590

NEW LIMITATION CHANGETO

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT: A

Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited.

LIMITATION CODE: 1

FROM No DoD Distr Scty Cntrl St'mt Provided

AUTHORITY

Cmdr, Watertown Arsenal Labs; Oct 31, 1987

THIS PAGE IS UNCLASSIFIED

W ATERTOWN ARSENAL LABORATORIES

BALLISTIC EVALUATION OF ROLLED HMtOGE14EOUS STEEL ASWKRf VITH TUNGSTEN CARBIDE AND TITANIUM CARBIDE FACING (U)

TECHNICAL REPORT NO. WAL TR 181.3/1 (C)

NNlNIC A. FICCIONE

K99MM ISO

in ansf>ino Mli MSm#

z ~ 4C!LFILCOPY

%x~ A 4- 1&(QAT

AsTIA AVAILABILITr NOTICE

U. S. military *#Ajeie a ay obteal eyfil* ofthis report diroatiy frew Arned Service Thee haleIaterwatieo A,#*ncp. Arlisrtto Sol$ Station.Arlingtos 13, Virtli&. Other q..lIfJed AS27Ausers ashuld request throughi Coassandia*i Offitar.latertowo Arseoel. Watertewn 12. 10eenehweettat

AffVZON:Chief. Technical Rim forwatice Sectlos.

315,0,1 TION 15 TIIugTIONS

Mei class ifiled report uill he eostroyed Ja &~er~wsowith AN 3-S whoa soc fastener required.

All othesr oeifd?,assev

Mei report aents,iua Irderut iae effeetind the m.tioas)"0,004*e of the Veited steatee withio the weoning of theIsplemage Loce, rti tle * .C.c., aaetios* Y"3 a"E ris4,tho treawseieiie or, rov*Ict'leae of uhih in Sol- ceeaoto ow wnawtkeri se pcrs'a Is p#*ehibited by low. 01ccIM Ahowgor re"cirodo thisi deemecot mewet 6a, "trS*4e . tier

to WeetuArvocel! of to 9the tantle~etips cubeor.

"ai

* Terminal listios,testing

Ballistic limits -

protection

STIC ALUATION OF 2LLED QOOENEOUS U•rEEL •4•OR"Nff CARBIDE TIT U WCA SIDE-ACIM ,

Technical ýep&.bo. WAL-Th-161.3/l(C)

By

Dominic A./ piooone /

W COD: 5010.11.80901 - Materials fbr Armor andProtection against other Hazards

- /

TITLE , 7BALLISTIC EVALUATION OF ROLLED HOMOGENEOUS STEEL AiNOR

WITH TrM=STEN CARBIDE AND TITANIf•M CARBIDE FACING (U)

ABSTRACT (U)

(C) Ballistic testing was conducted to determine the comparativeperformance of tungsten carbide steel and titanium carbide steel compositearmor when attacked by cal. .40 H19B WC cores, cal. .0 AP W2 projectiles,ZOIN fragment simulating projectiles, and cal. .40 AP T33 scale modelprojectiles, at various obliquities. On an areal density basis the TiCcomposite armor was approximately equivalent to steel, while the VE com-posite armor was inferior tc steel. The results obtained do not justifyconsideration of these armor configurations for Ordnance applications.

"•DOINIC A. PICCIOQIMechanical Iginser

T. SULLIVAN

rectorertown Arsenal Laboratories

Aecosslon For

NTIS GRA&IDTIC TAR 0Unanounced REPORT APPROV.,juastification-~-RPR PRVDate. 9,5 •wt"/

A/ e........WAL Board of ReviewDistributIA-/ 0'hairrnan-;• • .

_vLtlab:1t' Codes_S .-n,. or

ut: k

4 WS

INTRODUCTION (U)

(C) Kennametal Corporation, under Contract DA-19-066-ORD-2641, co .-ducted preliminary tests to determine the effectiveness of tungsten car-bide (WC) and titanium carbide (TIC) facing on steel armor for the defeatof steel and tungsten carbide projectiles. Cal. .40 steel and WC projec-tiles were fired at 1-3/4-inch-thick steel armor, placed at 300 obliquity,without facing and with 1/4-inch-thick VC and TiC facings. The resultsobtained indicated that the use of a hard facing material might improvethe ballistic performance of steel armor. It must be pointed out, however,that for these tests the difference in areal density between the uncoatedand coated plates was not taken into account. No direct comparison couldbe made between the composite armor and solid steel of the same arealdensity since the ballistic limits were above the muzzle veloci•y of theavailable guns.

(U) In order to evaluate fully the effect of such facing materials,Watertown Arsenal Laboratories has conducted a series of ballistic teststo determine the comparative ballistic performance of IC and TiC facingsplaced on rolled homogeneous steel armor.

MATERIALS (U)

(U) Tungsten carbide facings of 1/16' and 1/80 thicknesses andtitanium carbide facings of 1/160, 1/8" and 1/46 thicknesses were employedin the form of hexagonally shaped platelets (Figure 1) measuring 0.4250across the flats. The tungsten 4arbide consisted of 85% WC * 15% Co nominalcomposition cold pressed and sintered to a hardness of 88 Rockwell A, whilethe titanium carbide consisted of 70% TiC + 30% Ni which was cold pressedand sintered to a hardness of approximately 87 Rockwell A.

(U) Rolled homogeneous steel armor of various thicknesses was out to12" x 120 sizes. Each plate was Blanchard ground to a thickness such thata predetermined areal density would be obtained. All steel armor employedhad previously been quenched to martensite and tempered to a hardness of

00 Bkm subsequent to meeting the requirements of Specification MIL-A-12560.Chemical composition of the steel armor is contained in Table I.

(U) Both types of facing materials and the steel armor were sand-blasted to obtain the clean surfaces necessary for satisfactory bonding.Neither facing nor steel was handled with bare hands subsequent to sand-blasting since oils and moisture transferred to the materials in handlingwould prevent adequate bonding during brazing. A l'-wide steel frme wasplaced along the perimeter of the plate to prevent the facing materialfrom 'floating' off during the brazing operation. Two 68 x 12' strips of0.005"-thick silver solder, having the composition shown in Table I, wereplaced on each plate and flux applied. The platelets were positioned,each plate requiring the placing of approximately 700 dividual pieces.

-3-

The entire assembly was then placed for two hours in a furnace which hadbeen prebeated to 13750 F. The plates were air cooled from the furnacewith no evidence of excessive warping even though the rate of expansionof steel is about twice that of the facing materials used. Photographsof two plates taken prior to ballistic testing are shown in Figures 2and 3.

(U) As a result of the brazing operation, the steel plate was softenedto an average Brinell hardness of 211. Metallographic examination of thesteel revealed that it still consisted of a tempered martenaitic structurewhich indicates that the original structure was not destroyed by the highbrazing temperature since the austenitizing temperature was not exceeded.Photomicrographs representing three steel plates are presented in Figure 4.

(0) Ballistic data were obtained using 20M fragment simulating pro-jectiles, caliber .40 Hg9B VC cores, caliber .50 AP U2 projectiles, andcaliber .40 AP T33 scale model projectiles, at various obliquities. TheWC cores were cold pressed and sintered from 87% VC # 13% Co to a hardnessof 89 Rockwell A. The scale model projectiles were machined from FIS-318steel, water quenched and stress relieved to a hardness of 63 Rockwell C,followed by base tempering to develop a hardness gradient to 45 Rockwell Cat the base. The caliber .50 AP U2 projectiles were standard rounds.Drawings of all projectiles are presented in Figure 5.

BALLISTIC TEST PROCKDURE (U)

(U) The detailed outline of the ballistic test conditions is presentedin Table II.

(U) Ballistic testing was conducted to determine protection-ballisticlimits* consisting of the two highest partial penetrations and the twolowest complete penetrations within a velocity spread of 125 fps. Whenthe velocity spread was greater than 125 fps or when insufficient roundshad been fired, a two-round ballistic limit was computed. Care was exer-cised after each round fired to insure that the next round weauld impacta plate area where the platelets had not been removed by a previous impact.A 0. l000-thick sheet of Hadfield-Manganese steel, having a hardnss of40 Rockwell C, was placed in front of the facing to oonfine th# facingduring impact.

wo*sl 0owe;tim oem *t 0 oi/o "voptfs fietwass Omfsf a OJ.4Meb*A@## of nwshaft #Z.od #11 b&Av thg avwr.

i ____-4-

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (U)

(U) The ballistic data obtained both by Watertown Arsenal Labora-

tories and Keriametal Corporation are presented in Table III. Round by

round results are presented in Appendix A.

Ballistic Perfornance of WC-Steel Armor (Ul

(C) Ballistic data obtained with caliber .40 AP T33 scale modelprojectiles are plotted as a function of areal density in Figure 6. Onthe average, the hard-faced armor was approximately 6% inferior to steeltargets of equal areal densities. Hadfield-Manganese sheet had been usedfor the 45 degree test condition while none had been used for the 30 and60 degree test conditions. The curves clearly show that the hard-facedarmor was nearly equivalent to the steel except for one 30 degree andthree 45 degree obliquity conditions. These data did not fit the curve,falling far below the data obtainad. As this anomaly was noted elsewherea discussion will be presented in a following section. It suffices tosay that the limited data obtained does not indicate that the hard-facedarmor will offer any significant increase in protection.

(C) A graphical presentation of the limited ballistic data obtainedwith caliber .50 AP M2 projectiles is presented in Figure 7. This curveclearly shows the inferiority of the composite armor. At 50 degreesobliquity there is a difference of 1372 fps in the ballistic limit, whichrepresents a 48% difference in performance between the hard-faoed armorand equivalent steel targets. On an areal deusity basis the compositearmor averaged approximately 43% inferior to solid steel armor.

(C) Ballistic data obtained with caliber .40 H19B VC cores is plottedversus obliquity in Figure 8. From this graph it is obvious that thedifference in performance is slight. The ballistic limits ranged from12 - 660 fps less than those of equivalent steel targets. This representsan average difference in performance of approximately

Ballistic Performance of TiC-Steel Armor (U)

(C) Ballistic data obtained with caliber .40 AP T53 scale modelprojectiles is plotted 'as a function of areal density in Figure 9. Onthe average, the hard-faced armor was approximately 2% superior to steeltargets having the same areal density. Inspection of the data revealsthat at an equivalent thickness of 0.700" the 30 and 45 degree ballisticlimits were less than those at 0.600" equivalent thickness. If theseanomalous data points are ignored, the composite armor would still beonly 5% superior to equivalent steel targets, representing at beat a mar-ginal improvement.

(C) Ballistic data obtained with 20M fragment simalating projectiles• is plotted versus areal density in Figure 10. The limited data obtained

indicates that the hard-faced armor is approximately 14% inferior to steel

,. , .-

targets of the same areal density. Inspection of the curves reveals thatthe ballistic limits for the hard-faced armor ranged 300 - 862 fps lessthan those of equivalent steel targets. At only one condition, where noballistic limit was obtained for the hard-faced armor, did it show anyindication of being superior to solid steel targets. Even at this point'it is estimated that the hard-faced armor would have been less than 10%superior to a steel target of equal density. This statement is based onthe fact that a complete penetration was almost obtained, indicative thatthe ballistic limit was nearly reached. From the data obtained a two-round Army ballistic limit* of approximately 4180 fps can be estimated.

Effect of Brazing (U)

(C) Photographs of five plates, two with VC facing and three withTiC facing, are shown in Figures 11 through 15. Figures 11 and 12 areexamples of poor brazing since 85% of the platelets were removed as aresult of only three impacts. Examples of good brazing can be seen inFigures 13 through 15. One plate withstood the impact of twelve roundswhile another withstood six rounds, each round causing the removal of onlysmall localized areas of platelets. The third plate represents an extremecondition of attack, 20M fragment simulating projectiles at 60 degreesobliquity. Even under this saveoe test condition the facing withstoodsix impacts.

(C) Photomicrographs of three randomly selected brazed Joints areshown in Figure 16. These photomicrographs show the presence of manylarge voids and evidence of flux entrapment. This would indicate that inorder to obtain a uniform bond, free of these defects, the brasing shouldbe done in an inert atmosphere or a vacuum. It is felt, however, that thebond obtained was adequate to permit reliable ballistic testing since allbut 7 plates withstood the impact of 5 or more rounds.

G!DIAL CONSIDERATIONS (U)

(C) It was previously mentioned that at several test conditions theballistic data indicated decreasing ballistic resistance with increasingthickness of the hard facing. Since the object of this study is to deter-mine whether the use of hard facing will significantly improve the bal-listic performance of armor, it is beyond the scope of this report toexplain this anomalous behavior. Bowever, a possible reason for the be-havior follows.

0oZ01e .frotion ovews Wi i41 or ths mJietie am bs s ffm a rwofthe 0Ist..

FZFM=

(C) It has been demonstrated by many investigators that projectilenose-shatter generally occurs at obliquities greater than about 25 - 30degrees at velocities above a certain minimum for the projectile and platethickness involved. 1,2, The shatter tendency for a given projectile in-creases with increasing velocity, increasing plate hardness, or increasingplate thickness. When a projectile suffers nose-shatter, it achievespenetration by a shear or punching mechanism involving a minimum of plasticdeformation. The energy required for this plugging or punching process islargely dependent on the armor plate thickness at a constant obliquity ofattack. Furthermore, for a constant obliquity, the velocity at whichshatter occurs is very sensitive to plate thickness. Hence, it is conceiv-.able that the projectile nose fractured into a very few large fragmentsagainst the 0.6000 equivalent steel thickness armor, and shattered intomany small fragments against the 0.7000 equivalent steel thickness armor.It follows, then, that the penetration energies could be nearly equal,with the penetration of the thicker target possibly requiring less eaergy.The greater deformation around the penetrations of the 0.6000 targets lendcredence to this possibility.

(r) Although the use of a hard facing does not appear worthwhile forimprovement of the ballistic performance of armor, the possibility ofemploying a hard material with a high neutron capture cross-se3tion (suchas boron carbide) for radiological protection should be investigated.

CONcLUSIONS (U)

(U) On the basis of the results obtained, the hard-faced armor isinferior to equivalent steel targets.

RCOWEMATIONS (U)

(U) 1. Further ballistic testing of tungsten carbide and titaniumcarbide platelets is not recc mended.

(C) 2. The use of hard facing placed over armor of specificationhardness might increase the ballistic performance, but since the increaseis expected to be marginal, ballistic testing of such an arrangement isnot recommended.

(C) 3. The possibility of employing a hard material with a highneutron capture cross-section (such as boron carbide) for radiologicalprotection should be investigated.

I1W1 0.. Iohui•ss of Jor Pu•w•s I••tc, 0"4 Portl 4.1M ort. Wotrtaoa •r•t/esl Wom",11 9J0 ,Ioid-J, JO darchI"

E 1~~. I., Pr*m4*I9 of Propsettl D"1% fogw r POW"04t40-C0sOBOO Oft4col-Imd fu~fSOOo-b44. Corot, Ilewra& PertI&I1 .0ort, Nat~ertoA irasml loorstort"e, FAA M&/lUJ-1 (0),M October 1"S.

liN.mI01I0, P. #.. M' tlIPfl, P. V Mnetc4lev of Armor Protection, Pijf& Pwtil Reow$,Msenlow Ws i Saiiboretorte, nkLI~ho/so"- (0). Ai my 1M.

TABLE I (U)

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITZ AM=(Weight %)

ST~n AIWOR

o.v, 1.70 0.18 0.017 0.019 Ta 0.o" 0.4aa

,,,,-•t ..us_ a a p-- o ._

Rnmot AJL caa Ci0.0 186. 15.6 18.0 g.o

*ft is safechwervs advertiz-Vd compos ition.

.................

TABLE II (U)

DETAILS OF BALLISTIC TESTS CONDUCTED WITH WC AND TiCCOMPOSITE ARMOR

TUMOSTER CARBIDE

Ar'eal Derit ty Total steelThickness (inch) (P3. Areal Thick- Obliq-

8tePoe lteel DePtete eess u tty

Projectile Platelets Armor Platelets Armor (,Pm (inch) (degrees)

Cal. .40 AP T33 1/18 0.294 4.80 11.52 16.32 0.400 3D/18 0.382 4.80 15.80 20.40 0.8D0 30

1 i/8 0.364 9.60 14.88 94.48 0.800 30V.2/8 0.485 3.00 18.96 2B.856 0.700 30

1 0.204 4.80 11.52 MD. 400 0.000 48S/i8 0.382 4.80 1O.60 24.465 0.800 48

0 I/8 0.364 9.00 14.88 29.564 0.700 48•v/ 0.488 .8O0 18.96 32.640 0.800 48

2 i/1s 0.204 4.60 11.52 16.32 0.400 003/18 0.382 4.80 15.00 2D.46 0.800 80

* 1/8 0.364 9.00 14.86 24.46 0.000 O0

CaL. .80 AP US i/1s 0.380 4.80 18.60 94.480 0.8W0 80a i/iA 0.388 4.80 15.60 S4.480 0.600 48

C.L .40 d= VC Corse i/8 O.T76 6.60 81.20 44Wse 1.100 so* 1/8 0.768 1.00 31.20 44.880 1. 100 46

k1/8 0.766 6.60 31.20 44.638 1.100 00

TITANYUM CARDIDE

Cal. .40 1P T33 1/9 0.408 3.77 16.63 24.480 0.000 0V i/S 0. we 3.77 20.71 30. 88 0.700 01 i/18 0.352 1.80 14.43 60.406 0.500 30

* i/8 0.40m 3.77 18.63 2M.4* O..00 O30f 1/8 0.808 3.77 20.71 23.50* 0.700 30X 1/4 0.520 7.54 21.02 32.64" 0.800 301 1/4 0.618 7.54 25.10 36.729 0.900 303 i/9 0.4D0 3.77 16.03 24.480 O.W0G 461 i/8 0.0we 3.77 20.71 23.58o 0.700 481 i1/i 0.352 1-89 *4.43 2D.404 0.800 80

• i/8 0.406 3.77 16.63 24.48' 0.000 001/8 0.a6 3.177 20.71 30.80' 0.700 00

i p ,/1s 0.1"4 L. 0 .27 6 1.581 0.300 30* i/18 0.352 1.0 14.43 20.40$ 0. a0.0 30

3 i/18s 0.14 1.86 6.27 12. 30 0.300 00*i/iS 0.383 1L66 14.48 20.40' 0.800 60

*I O.000-tAhch Ia4f.I#1d--*4taf@•R4*sheet was used.

I

TABLE III (C)

COMPARATIVE BALLISTIC DATA OF WC AND TiC COMPOSITE AMIORAND ROLLED HOMOGENEOUS STEEL ARMOR (U)

TUNGSTEN CARBIDE FACINOProtection (Vao)

Thickness (inch) Eqivalemt % Superiority-- Steel or Composite

Equivalent Steel Obliquity (FPS) Composite ArmorProjectile Steel Faotn Ai'mor (derees) (e. 3) ( OPS) Over steel

Cal. .40 AP 0.400 1/18 0.284 30 2390 2485** 4.4,133 0.60 1/8 0.382 30 20 WK 3002* .8

S .600 ,0 i1 0.364 O3 3400 3320' -0.80.700 I/S . 4045 30 4020 40000* 1.0

* 0.500 L/1. 1 0. 284 46 3380 8217 -4.0

• 0.600 1/18 0.382 48 4030 3290 -18.1S 0.1700 1/ 0. 384 48 4640 8873 -2D.8

* 0.800 1/8 0.485 46 5440 4218 -28.80 4i 0.2/4 80 3400 3059* 3.00.500 1/18 0.382 80 4350 40086e -7.80 . 60)0 1/8 0. 364 00 6110 004e -2.10.780. -- 0.750 30 4W00O$ - -1 .22a 4 1/4 0.750 30 - 4800 W* .-

C.& 8.D P 0. . 1/i18 0.382 30 BOW 1486 -48.0U2 0.830 i/1s 0.382 48 34 amWO p >-US.4

CIAL .40 1.200 i/V 0.785 D0 2840 356 -13.83ia 83 1. ,AO0 1/8 0.786 48 3160 8148 -0.4coare 1.100 i/8 0.785 80 w513 448 vW >-11.9

TITANIUM CARBIDE FPCjWN

Cal. .4o AP 0.000 1/S 0.406 0 2400 2004 13.3T33 0.700 1/8 0.508 0 1700 3576 32.4

6 0.500 1/16 0.362 30 2938 2589 -12.60 0.800 1/8 0.408 30 3490 386 4.8a 0.700 1/8 O. •e 30 4020 386D -9.9a 0.900 1/4 0.520 30 4810 8008 4.10 0.90 1/4 0.615 30 o0 4780 LC --a 0.000 i/8 0.408 45 4030 419 4.3a 0.700 1/a 0.50o 45 4640 4127 -11.2a 0.800 1/9 0.408 80 5110 5215 2.1 18 O."o00 1/i 0.508 80 4380 4 0 P >0.4

a 0.750. -- 0.750 30 4800 -- -a 0.9350 1/4 0.7a0 30 -- 4110 up --

2m W o.Fpo vis 0.184 30 1840 140 -18.60 000 3/16 0.352 30 2973 2588 -13.60 0.3Oo Vi/ O.i15 80 2640 1765 -30.40 0. 00 1/1s 0.382 80 4230 4410 HP >4.6

Cal. .40 Vc 1.0000 - 1.000 30 NSW*ee - --Co0re 1.1880 1/4 1.0004) 30 - >38seC -

~&ru IP I~g~ut opltsa %&.tratiops

01*mwsetGI Coorration data.00Ie Sad! eld-Mi&yOOeS0 $host U10d.

I 11-

C V!

0. ino

0.123"

0..4250'q0

DIMENSION OF FACING USED FOR FABRICATION OF COMPOSITE ARMOR

-13- ,FGURE I

'F"'.

AAFFA

uJan)

40

FIUR

06

atd

c-

; (j

C91be

~, j

FIUR

-ozt

X 1000X1000

ETCHANT 4% PICRAL + I DROP NC!

PHOTOMICROGRAPHS OF STEEL ARMOR PLATE AFTER BRAZING

-16-- FIGURE 14

CALIBER 0.40 AP T31

201W FRAGMENT SIMULATING PROECTILE

CALIBER 0.40 Kill W. CuE

CALIBER @A@f AP N2

* PROJECTILES USED TO DETERMINE BALLISTIC IPERFORMANCEOF VC AND TIC COMPOSITE ARMR

-17- FIGURE 5

0 - EQ I V A TE

TT '7 t ; I

jg~ #%1 i

Iij, Tt I

0 o 0- EQUIVALENT STEEL '

NP - NIAIIEST PARTIAL PENETRATON

itti

I i' It

COMPARATIVE BALLISICPFOMAC OFIlOPlIEAMRWINATCESY~... CALI.. 0.5.A...P..CT E

-19-. FIGURE..

11 itAL

lj; LOTES: fl t

NP HIGHEST PARTIAL PENETRATIO75

I~ I t

COMARAI4 fAliSTCPROMNEO CCPST RO INATCEDY CAllBE ooNIBSt OE

I20 FRGURE

1 11 11)JilIl ll'' D i t I A11- 1 it I ~ d S I ___________

(FCr -IDENTIAL

NOTES:o -E9UiVII.ENT STEEL

N?- PONEST PARTIAL. PENETRAT'P /6 -LC - LOWEST CWKIPEE PENaETRATION~-cou~mA~I] I ,

I':T

lil

ilkEA ((UIT ilk IPl

COPAAIV BLISI PRFRANEOFTI S0 IIN TACUS CLIE O.OAll l3 RJC ilt

-23- FIURl

CC ~ :1 D TIAlk I_

400 STEELS:0' -EQUIVALU.TSTE

IX - COW~OSITE I.RMOR

'11 HP -HIGHEST PARTIAL PENETRATO

I..

4L, iii 14 il II lit Hiii I Tilll %! il 111 !1 1 11'

jtj II

AREALITH 1111T;(s~

lid FIUR 110 1191 !

1 4

VA

NADFIED-MNOANNESE SHEET

TUNGSTEA CARBIDE COMPOSITE ARMOR PLATE ATTACKED BY CALIBER 0.50AP M2 PROJECTILES AT 1450 OBLIQUITY

FIGURE 11

GOL 4

44-4KAD"LD-MNIANH IE

TU GS E C R ID OM O IT RM R PL T A T CK D BY C LI E 0 4

H)9BWC ORE$AT 00 0L~qi-*y

-24- Fi ~.1

co

NAPFIELD-MAN8ANESE MHET

TITANIUM CARBIDE COMPOSITE ARMOR PLATE ATTACKED BY CALIBER 0.40 AP T33

PROJECTILES AT 0O OBLIQUJITY

FIGURE 13

4 j

4ý

HADFIELD-HANGAMESE SHEET

TITANIUM CARBIDE COMPOSITE ARMOR PLATE ATTACKED BY -OALIBER 0.40AP T33 PROJECTILES AT 300 OBLIQUITY

- 28f- FIGURE 1~4

IOFI

HADF IELD-MANGANESE SHEET

TITANIUM CARBIDE COMPOSITE ARMOR PLATE ATTACKED BY 20MM FRAGMENTSIMULATING PROJECTILES AT 600 OBLIQUITY

-27- FIGURE 15

TiC [ *-'~STEEL

UNETCHED 150

STEEL

UN ETCHED 150

STEEL

UN ETCHED 150

PtIOTOMICROGRAPHS OF BRAZED JOINTS

-28- FIGURE 18

APPEN~DIX A

ROUND BY ROUND BALLISTIC DATA FOR WC AND TiC COMPOSITE A1ThIR /

TUNGSTE CARB IDE

•Diuvalmt DimmmoUt.

jkcznes , liquity VelooityProjoet(le (inch) dor (pes) Lemgth width

caliber .40 Ap 0. 40 8D 010 (•2510 cp a

mwo pr a

o.uo0 a a m pow - -

meow• - -

m IL 1 - -Maw - -0.80 8O so 0.846 : •

loss PIP

0.700 so 4180 a aaa ow 4 46as$ p - .

IL U- SWO."ov0 so $10 (S - 4

4006 PP a ,.an. - -

____W L1W 6 4M

o.wo We op• -L16 - -

0.500 45 amin w - -

131P - .=is -

800 45 sm w - . -

sew0Im - -

00"m 4- amw ar

7400 PP

3&16-51

L2 16 4805

W6ii am a

0*4001. 4000

QOft pp

4 d, r\,

TUNGSTEN~ CARBIDE (Cont'd)

Equivalent Distool 1kbbncbDme,)fo

Thickness Obliquity velocity (nhsProj oct11. (inch) (degrees) (VP'p) Lamgth Width

Caliber .40 AP T33 0.000 s0 5020 0' 0OD70 CP -

4040W PPILL -6004

Caliber M.80 1 0.600 s0 1460 ON 41880W 4 4

ILL -1466

Caliber .40 3183 1.100 30 3680 7p 6K Cores 2545 - -

*1.300 48 31360 3 8311 PIP14

*1.100 s0 4486W p

TITANIM CARBIDECaliber AD A0P T33 0.6a00 - Y -----735 (2'

2 7 35W tlI

*0.400 0 3530 C' 3 2

3570W pp I

ILL - $676*0. 00 so 2m12

.P -20100 CP

O58w 1 2*

DL L USM

* 0.?00 s0 36m C' a

so0 am -P

307 DL-63

L OM407W so It

* .-.e ---

TITANIUM CARBIDE (C!xtd

Eqivle Scabbiti Dimemltou A

Thickness obliquity Velocityprojectile (inch) (degrees) (CPS~) Length width

Caliber .40 hP T33 (.600 46 4215 (P S a4270 CP -

4190W 841W PP 4 6

*0.700 45 41M CP S 24210 CP 2b 34075 PP S I*4060WP Sk

IL I& 41P?

*0. am so 4060 (P30956 pp

16-401

*Oa 0s60 631 688.P 46115W -

*0.700 so 87900 -

mD W V 0,300 30 1580(P 6

*0.80 8 am 3D a a256W - --

*0. 3w 00 Sw C040(

*0.400 60 "SO Op -

101:1. OP - coinflets pfutrationS. POP - trst~al Pre~tvot~if5. IP - ilhost Portial fortrtiston4. X0 - owmat cools~lt ?snOftution

co.& 4

x,'T

I a. 1,

•~~ 11..41 Zl.I 1:e*

,u a i

" 1. 'T1 U. 5 .4 A , . I

"" I 4 I IWO

* 4 .410

14 Z

: 1 •*IA -* .0 ,

o - t J +'1 I • ,ho., wi a-• A. . 4* , SI.e

S0 1 04A0

* 14A

• I

* b.44UII U| !4 • N

i a ,-* '8 all - ,tt .In

: 2o . .al -' A , . X ,I ,

* -N, UN• I -'

04ad 04

CFU .43 17;

Aillt., It• I 1, -[:• I

* *G to **too**

*to,

I II S Ii ii

WATERTCWN ARSDLALWATERTOWN 72, MASS.

TEC1•NICAL REPKRT DISTRIBU•IN

Report No.# Titles Ballistic Evaluation of Rolled Homo-WAL TR 161.3/1 (C) geneous Steel Armor with TungstenDecember 1960 Carbide and Titanium Carbide Faving (U)

Distribution List approved by Ordnance Materials Research Officep1 December 1960.No. ofCopies TO

1 Director, Army Research Office, Department of the Army,Washington 25, D. C.

Chief of Ordnance, Department of the Army, Washington 25, D. 0.

1 ATTN. ORDTB, Materials

Coanding General, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland1 ATTNI Ballistic Researoh Lab.3 ORDER-IM, Technical Library, Bldg. 313

Comanding General, Army Ballistio Missile Agency, RedstoneArsenal, Alabama

1 ATTN. Dr. G. H. Reisig

Commanding General, Trankford Arsenal, Philadelphia 37, Pa.2 ATTN, Pitman-Dann Labs.

Commanding General, Ordnance Tank-Automotive Command, DetroitArsenal, Center Line, Michigan

1 ATTN. OREhMC-RM.I, Mr. Charles Salter

Commanding General, Ordnance Weapons Command, Rock Island, M.1 ATTNs ORDOW-I12 ORDCW-TZ

1 Commanding General, U.S. Army Ordnance Special Weapons Aýni-tion Comnand, Dover, New Jersey

Coinnding General, U.S. Arwq Rocket & Guided Missile Agenicy,Redstone Arsenal, Alabama

1 ATTNs ORD&B-DV5 R=IXR-RGA, Mr. R. L. Wetherington1 O2XJR-RlD, Lt. Z. J. Wilson

Comoanding Officers Detroit Arsenal# Center Line, Michigan1 ATrm ODIMI-BWdI R1-AL

No. ofCo•esa TO

Commander, Naval Ordnance Test Station, China Lake, CaliforniaI ATTNo Code 5557

Director, Naval Research Laboratory, Anacoetia Station,Wanhington, D. C.

1 ATTN. Technical lWormation Officer

Commander, Naval Weapons Laboratory, Dalbi en, Virginia1 ATTN# A & PLabe

Commanders Armed Services Technical Information Agency,Arlington Hall Station, Arlington 12, Virginia

10 ATTa TIPDR

1 V.S. Atomic EZerry Commission, Office of Tochnical Informa-tion Extension, P. 0. Box 62p Oak Ridge, ?emasusee

1 Defense Metals Information Center, Battelle Momorial Institute,ColImbua, Ohio, THRUs Ociandin Officer, Ordnance MaterialsResearch Offioeo Watertown Arsenal, Watertown 72, sas.,ATlXs RPD

1 National Aeronautics & Space Administration, 1520 H Street,N. U., Washington 25, D. 0.

The Director, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Instituteof Technology, Pasadena 3, California

1 ATTN. Dr. L. Jaffe

Dr. W. R. Lucas, George 0. Marshall Space Flight CentersHantsyille, Alabama

1 ATTNs M-SWf-M

fr. W. A. Wilson, Geori Co Marshall Space Flight Center,Huntsville, Alabama

1 ATTI, M-F?&A.-?, Bldg. h720

Camanding General, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland2 ATTNs ORDMO - Dov. & Proof Serv., Armor Br.I ORDBO - Technical Branch1 Ordnance School

Cocmuning Goreral, Continental Aroq CommAd, Fort Monroe, Va.1 ATTN# Xe,. & Der. Section

Ci•mandizi Officer, In#. Rem. & De,. Laboratories,Fort Palvoir, Virginia

1 AI•2:Ks Metdlurgist Tech. Serv. Dept.

,~I | II II

Covoe TO

Commanding Officers Diamond Ordnance Fuse Laboratories,,Washington 25, D. C.

I ATTNs ORDTL .012, Technical Reference Branch

Commanding Officer, Office of Ordnance Research, Doz GI,Duke Station,, Durham, North Carolina

1 ATTN. ORDOR -ED1 Dr. Petar Kosting

Commanding Officer, Ordnance Material~s Research Office,Watertown Arsenal, Watertown 72p Massachusetts

1 ATTN. RPD

Commanding Officer,, Picatinriy Arsenal, Dover, Now JerseyI ATTN. Feitmmn Research Labs

Commanding Officer, Rook Inland Arsenal, Rook Island# Ilinois1. ATTN a Laboratory

- Commanding Officer, Springfield Armory, Springfield 1, Mass*1 ATTN. ORDED-TI

Co.ruuanding Officer, Watervliet Arsenal, Watervliet, Now York1AThfi. ORDE'-RT

1Army Reactor Branch, Division of Research Dsielopment,Atomic Energy Coummission,. Washington 25, D. C.

Commander., Wright Air Development Divisioni, Wright-PattersonAir Force Base, Ohio

1ATTN. WWRCEE

Chief,, Bureau of Ships,, Department of the Navy,Washington 25 D. C.

1 ATTN. Code 3fa 0Chief, Bureau of Naval Weaponsj, Department of the Navy,Room 2225, Munitions Bldg., Washington 25p Do C.

1 ATTN. MV~P

Chief, Office of Naval Research, Department of the Navy,Washington 25, D. 0.

1 ATTNs Coda 4s23

1 Chief, Naval Egnee ring fteiments1 Station, Department ofthe Navy, Annapolis, Maryland

"No. ofCopies TO

1 President, Continen tal. Irm Command, Board No. 2,Fort Knox, Kentucky

1 President, Continental Army Conmands Board No. 3,Fort Benrdtng, Georgia

Office, Ordnance Tech. Rep., United States Arm~ Ottawa,Ontario, Canada

1 ATTNM U.S. Tech. Rep.

Commanding Officer, Watertown Arsenal, Watertown 72, mass.5 ATTm, ORDBE-LfMl, Technical Information Section1 Author

71 TOTAL COPIES DISMIBUM

7, - f yL -~

UNICLASSI-E