...while working to day I thought of this explanation. We have two ways to express energy .....as measured as foot pounds, Or the other as a vacuum inducing " hydrostatic " shock. Hydrostatic shock relies on an exit hole to in essence " suck " or aspirated vascular tissue into non viability. Hydrostatic shock not only requires full penetration, it need velocity. These two requirements demand both shot placement, adequate barrel length, and cartridge powder capacity.
"Hydrostatic shock" is a nonsense term invented by non-ballisticians on the internet and has no credible definition in actual wound ballistics. I have never heard or read any such definition as the one you have posted, and I've been deeply involved in the wound ballistics community for nearly 20 years. Furthermore, how one could use a term that quite literally means "liquid" to describe a fictional event such as you describe (i.e., the sucking-out of a tank's crew by the drop in air pressure created by the exit of a high-velocity projectile) is beyond me. Water is liquid, air is gas. Hydraulics (the physics of liquids) do not translate over to the behavior of gases such as air.
When the International Wound Ballistics Association was still extant, several peer-reviewed papers were published in its journal that debunked "hydrostatic shock" as a nonsense term. Now there is such a thing as hydraulic shock, which is what JB described in his earlier post today, and which is essentially the propagation of a physical shock wave through a liquid medium that may cause remote injury. What we are describing then, is a physical shock wave through a liquid medium such as water, blood, or a liquid-filled organ such as the brain, liver, spleen, or urinary bladder. Studying the physics of shock waves teaches us that the energy of the wave diminishes geometrically with distance, so instances of remote injury from a missile (bullet) injury are uncommon at best.
DO NOT confuse the shock wave being discussed here with physiological shock. I note that Wikipedia's article on "hydrostatic shock" makes this error, mixing and conflating physiological shock (reduction or loss of blood pressure in response to a specific type of injury to the body) with the physics of shock waves. Please don't anyone quote any of the confused drivel from that Wikipedia article in this thread.
Originally Posted by Angus1895
Foot pounds of energy are only felt by an animal if the projectile does not fully penetrate the beast. Once it fully penetrates the energy is still in the bullet wasted on the impact of wherever the bullet goes and hits next.
I think Isaac Newton would argue quite convincingly to the contrary.
Originally Posted by Angus1895
I have not read all the posts yet on this thread...
I think perhaps you should.
"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
