What's new
British Ordnance Collectors Network

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Penetrator vs. Flechette

They may not be so similar actually- aside from the fins on modern models, there is a big difference in construction and mission.
No one expects a small-arms or gravity propelled flechette to penetrate armor, and no one really plans on using 120mm APFSDS rounds against a single person wearing body armor....
Flechettes also seem to be made pretty simply- a single piece of metal hammered into a sharp point with some integral fins.
Penetrators are optimized for material density with metals like tungsten or depleted uranium- but, only in the penetrator portion, which usually has a dull, rounded point, protected by a ballistic windshield with a very sharp point, made of a softer metal, that acts like a "shock absorber" to prevent the hard material of the penetrator itself from shattering on impact with armor.
Optimized design for hard-material defeat, compared to simple metal designs- maybe this, and the target intended is the defining point between the two.....

This falls back to the beginning of the thread and the thought of anti-personnel /material vs anti-armor, which I believe remains the most easily supported definition. I take exception to your point, however, that flechettes are somehow less engineered that AP rounds. If you jump to the Flechette thread, you may note that flechettes are not always simple wire with fins instead of a nail head.

When you compare Flechettes to AP rounds as "simple metal designs vs optimized design" you are ignoring decades of research and hundreds of specialized loadings, done by the US and many countries in Europe, not to mention the little we know about experiments and use in Russia and the Far East.

There have been flechetes with tracers, rocket assist, explosive loads and toxic loads. Loads for artillery, mortars, rockets, bombs, submunitions, shotguns, rifles and "special devices". Fin stabilized, fin/spin stabilized, mass stabilized - You even have current issue mixed loads with very large flechettes for building penetration mixed with very small for anti-personnel purposes (PAWS).

To categorize all flechettes as "a single piece of metal hammered into a sharp point with some integral fins" is akin to calling all APDS rounds a "hardened bullet with a fall-away sabot". Not much design work there.

I think that the two types of rounds are much more similar than most realize, they follow a very similar design train, with the primary difference being what has already been discussed, the target. Beware of over simplifying though, there have been a lot of unusual pieces out there, on big stuff as much as the little. Remember that "darts" were not limited to AP rounds. There was a 155mm discarding sabot experimented with, an 8-inch, and as I recall, for a period the US loaded 280mm projos into sabots for the 16-inch gun. While I don't think anyone would call these flechettes, it still brings you to the question - why not? Target remains the easiest answer.
 
Penetrator vs. Flechett

I agree with all that the intended target an easy way to classify any round, however it presumes a complete understanding of the INTENT of the piece, which is not always discernible when you have an isolated piece in hand.

Hypothetically you could have two identical "darts", one is made of softer metal for anti-personnel use, and one the second you change the metal to tungsten. By the standard we just laid out the first one would be a flechette, and the second would be a penetrator, since we are using intended target as the defining characteristic.

It would seem to me that there should be some sort of characteristic (such as size, for example) that would delineate the difference...also agreeing that you would not likely use a 120mm 'penetrator' on individuals (unless they are behind fortification) which is done frequently.
 
he intended target seems to be the most logical arguement for classification.
lol-
reminds me of two stories from Iraq, actually;
the first is the 120mm round used against the individual- only it was an HE round. An IED emplacer was digging under the road and spotted by a tank pulling overwatch on that particular stretch of road- they called and got permission to engage him with the main gun- they lased him, and fired. Got him at the small of his back. I was called to deal with whatever IED he had in his car- only found one of his hands (it was under the road when he got hit). Pink mist over a 50 square meter area. took forever to clean my boots!
the second is when a young e-4 (me) upsets a room full of e-7. An infantry e-7 comes by our shop on the base with a spent 7.62 bullet in a ziplock baggie. it had been pulled out of the armor of a turret gunner (who was just fine thanks to his vest). Infantry NCO explains that, since the soldier kept shooting after getting shot, he is up for an award- an Army Commendation Medal if it is a "ball" round, BUT a Bronze Star WITH Valor, IF it was an AP round. After 30 minutes oh "hmmm-ing" and "hawwww-ing"- the EOD e-7 tell Infantryman that there is "no way to tell". Young e-4 (me) gets a brainstorm, gets up from his computer, grabs a magnet from the drinks' refrigerator, and applies it to said "bullet in a baggie"- it "clicks" to it instantly- "look! It's steel-cored, that means it's an AP round!" e-4 then slinks out of the building with every e-7 staring daggers at him.......but, young turret gunner got the Bronze Star!!
 
Top