Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

[Arkandros]

I'm actually one of the people who brought up metal foam armor. I specifically brought it up because I wanted you to clarify which type of armor you were discussing, because over the course of this you have jumped between types on several occasions and referenced designs that are definitively not foam cell armor, or (in my opinion) even able to be considered perforated armor. The link you are currently using is effectively about spaced armor, which (as you have already observed based on your comment regarding tumbling) does induce yaw and limits penetrations, but it is most definitely NOT perforated armor. A perforation implies, if not outright states, full thickness holes, while spaced armor utilizes void space within the armor itself as a protective feature.
I may seem pedantic by disparaging your liberal use of the word perforated, but I must insist on very precise terminology because it ensures that all parties understand each other clearly, which has been a constant problem throughout this discussion. That said, I think most of us will agree on the following terminology: perforated armor is armor with full thickness, relatively straight bore holes at an approximately 90 degree angle to the strike face or direction of attack, spaced armor is armor with one or more internal voids with cross sectional area equal to or approaching the cross sectional area of the strike face, and metal foam is, well, metal foam, of either closed or open cell type as specified by the poster.
To continue the discussion WRT foam cell designs though, they remain (as I have previously discussed) less volume efficient armor than solid plate, and it is primarily utilized to induce yaw or destruction by deviation in KEPs as they penetrate. If you really intend to continue discussing this, I highly recommend you read through the NC State or UNC research papers into composite metal foam as a structural component.

Edit: As an aside, dredging up unrelated past disagreements regarding the Chad-Libya conflict could probably be considered flamebaiting, especially when you grossly misrepresent another's statements on the topic. I'd ask that you refrain from what is effectively little more than an ad hominem (and an exceptionally low quality one at that)

He's the one who brought up the Chadian thing, again, and I literally directly quoted him, so no, I did not misrepresent his position. It's literally what he said. I've also quoted HIS sources.

This whole thing can be resolved if you can provide a definition of perforated source, say from Marriem's webster or a dictionary source that goes along with your hyper specific definition. If you can find it, I'd love to see it. The reality is the term perforated comes from the industry term for perforated metal, which is applied to any form of metal will holes in it, which can take many, many forms. The industry first made perforated sheets of metal before it was even applied as armor, and this is where the term actually comes from, which is why you find so few definitions outside of it. So, yes, it would be perforated metal.

From the dictionary:
Perforate, from the latin root perforat-, meaning "to punch through" or "punched through". From Webster: to make a hole through. Note the use of through vice in.
Metal foam is entirely different.

[Triplebaconation]

63,000 M-72 law's were used in a single battle in Vietnam for example, and only 2 T-54 tanks and 1 T-62 tank was destroyed.

"According to the Pentagon, during the Spring Offensive, the ARVN forces lost 250 M48A3 tanks, 300 M41 tanks, 1,381 M113 APCs, 1,607 guns, 200 RCL guns and 63,000 M72 LAWs.[36][37]"

36 is "Estimated Number Of Personal Arms Left Behind, 1975."
37 is "Captured U.S. Arms Bolster Vietnam Might...Vietnam's defenses against another nation's tanks and other armor received a boost from the capture of 63,000 U.S. light antitank weapons."

63,000 LAWs weren't used destroying 3 tanks. They were captured by the NVA. In other words, they weren't used at all. They were...lost, just like the Wikipedia article says.

This is why it's pointless to provide sources for you. You can't even interpret your own correctly.

T-55s are vulnerable to LAWs and RPG-7s, especially from the side or rear. The Libyan tanks didn't have composite armor or anything like that. Again, that's just your imagination.

There's no point in further discussion with you until you develop better reading comprehension. Slow down, organize your thoughts, make sure you understand the sources, then post. There's a reason so many people recommend blocking you.

[Spirit of Hope]

63,000 M-72 law's were used in a single battle in Vietnam for example, and only 2 T-54 tanks and 1 T-62 tank was destroyed.

"According to the Pentagon, during the Spring Offensive, the ARVN forces lost 250 M48A3 tanks, 300 M41 tanks, 1,381 M113 APCs, 1,607 guns, 200 RCL guns and 63,000 M72 LAWs.[36][37]"

36 is "Estimated Number Of Personal Arms Left Behind, 1975."
37 is "Captured U.S. Arms Bolster Vietnam Might...Vietnam's defenses against another nation's tanks and other armor received a boost from the capture of 63,000 U.S. light antitank weapons."

63,000 LAWs weren't used destroying 3 tanks. They were captured by the NVA. In other words, they weren't used at all. They were...lost, just like the Wikipedia article says.

This is why it's pointless to provide sources for you. You can't even interpret your own correctly.

T-55s are vulnerable to LAWs and RPG-7s, especially from the side or rear. The Libyan tanks didn't have composite armor or anything like that. Again, that's just your imagination.

There's no point in further discussion with you until you develop better reading comprehension. Slow down, organize your thoughts, make sure you understand the sources, then post. There's a reason so many people recommend blocking you.

Even if all of the LAW's had been fired in combat there is little reason to believe that they were all expanded trying to take out tanks. The LAW makes/made an excellent weapon to fire at fortified positions, troops in cover, or against buildings.

[Khuyesos]

hey guys im pretty new to this like, whole "nationstates" thing xd.

i was thinking like, my nation would become a thing after like a nuclear war and maybe something like whatever the reactor stuff was in stalker (3.6 rontgen, right)

im really not sure where to start, but i guess the best place would be with guns

i was thinking of something like an AK-47 or AKM, but instead of the 7.62 bullets they get something new like 6.8 grendel which they say is replacing 556. im not sure can i do this?

[Krigeinbrung]

hey guys im pretty new to this like, whole "nationstates" thing xd.

i was thinking like, my nation would become a thing after like a nuclear war and maybe something like whatever the reactor stuff was in stalker (3.6 rontgen, right)

im really not sure where to start, but i guess the best place would be with guns

i was thinking of something like an AK-47 or AKM, but instead of the 7.62 bullets they get something new like 6.8 grendel which they say is replacing 556. im not sure can i do this?

uh you mean the mass made soviet rifle the AK-72 and not the prototype ak 47 right

[Triplebaconation]

"According to the Pentagon, during the Spring Offensive, the ARVN forces lost 250 M48A3 tanks, 300 M41 tanks, 1,381 M113 APCs, 1,607 guns, 200 RCL guns and 63,000 M72 LAWs.[36][37]"

36 is "Estimated Number Of Personal Arms Left Behind, 1975."
37 is "Captured U.S. Arms Bolster Vietnam Might...Vietnam's defenses against another nation's tanks and other armor received a boost from the capture of 63,000 U.S. light antitank weapons."

63,000 LAWs weren't used destroying 3 tanks. They were captured by the NVA. In other words, they weren't used at all. They were...lost, just like the Wikipedia article says.

This is why it's pointless to provide sources for you. You can't even interpret your own correctly.

T-55s are vulnerable to LAWs and RPG-7s, especially from the side or rear. The Libyan tanks didn't have composite armor or anything like that. Again, that's just your imagination.

There's no point in further discussion with you until you develop better reading comprehension. Slow down, organize your thoughts, make sure you understand the sources, then post. There's a reason so many people recommend blocking you.

Even if all of the LAW's had been fired in combat there is little reason to believe that they were all expanded trying to take out tanks. The LAW makes/made an excellent weapon to fire at fortified positions, troops in cover, or against buildings.

The "single battle in the Vietnam War" was the Spring Offensive of 1975. Nearly all military equipment in South Vietnam was lost to the North, because the outcome of the campaign was the complete and total dissolution of South Vietnam and the end of the war.

[Kassaran]

Just. Block. Him.
All he does is hog space on the page, drown out actual conversation with others, and serve to be a nuisance. His willing misrepresentation and exaggerations are not productive, not conducive to productive dialogue or conversation, and serves only to give him space.

If he is an individual with an actual mental condition or illness, engaging with him does not assist him or help him. All you do is exacerbate the problem-child that he's become in the thread. If he's not ill, he's a troll and so good at it that he's had you chasing your tail and lowering your standard of debate to sheer definitions of such mundane topics that you become a part of the issue.

JUST. STOP. INTERACTING.

You see him try to engage with someone, very quickly intercept, correct, and remove Manokan from the situation. Do NOT engage with him. It pisses me off that I even have to say this now. You all should know better.

[Crookfur]

hey guys im pretty new to this like, whole "nationstates" thing xd.

i was thinking like, my nation would become a thing after like a nuclear war and maybe something like whatever the reactor stuff was in stalker (3.6 rontgen, right)

im really not sure where to start, but i guess the best place would be with guns

i was thinking of something like an AK-47 or AKM, but instead of the 7.62 bullets they get something new like 6.8 grendel which they say is replacing 556. im not sure can i do this?

You can do what you like.
An AK pattern rifle chambered in 6.8mm SPC or 6.5mm grendel is technically possible.
Such a "solution" would be a rather hard sell to any military, doubly so to one from a nation that sounds like it has been pretty messed up and likely has more pressing needs than trying to establish the logistics systems and manufacturing base to support what is, in the grand scheme of things, very rare ammunition with limited availability.

[Manokan Republic]

63,000 M-72 law's were used in a single battle in Vietnam for example, and only 2 T-54 tanks and 1 T-62 tank was destroyed.

"According to the Pentagon, during the Spring Offensive, the ARVN forces lost 250 M48A3 tanks, 300 M41 tanks, 1,381 M113 APCs, 1,607 guns, 200 RCL guns and 63,000 M72 LAWs.[36][37]"

36 is "Estimated Number Of Personal Arms Left Behind, 1975."
37 is "Captured U.S. Arms Bolster Vietnam Might...Vietnam's defenses against another nation's tanks and other armor received a boost from the capture of 63,000 U.S. light antitank weapons."

63,000 LAWs weren't used destroying 3 tanks. They were captured by the NVA. In other words, they weren't used at all. They were...lost, just like the Wikipedia article says.

This is why it's pointless to provide sources for you. You can't even interpret your own correctly.

T-55s are vulnerable to LAWs and RPG-7s, especially from the side or rear. The Libyan tanks didn't have composite armor or anything like that. Again, that's just your imagination.

There's no point in further discussion with you until you develop better reading comprehension. Slow down, organize your thoughts, make sure you understand the sources, then post. There's a reason so many people recommend blocking you.

The point is not 63,000 laws were fired, but that 63,000 laws were present, and virtually no tanks were destroyed. They weren't even aimed at tanks in order to take them out, they were largely used against buildings and that sort of thing. No, M-72 laws are terrible anti-tank weapons and couldn't defeat the tank armor of most tanks of the era. And again, you ignore all my other points literally about how many MILAN missiles there were, why they wouldn't have dismounted and the fact there is no proof, the fact mobility, range and firepower were all decisive advantages with them (which your own sources confirm), and so on and so forth. All of this ignored to take out of context the idea, that I thought all 63,000 were fired in combat.

Uh, no, the point is that with that many laws, thousands fired in combat, they didn't even tank out more than three enemy tanks, nor did they even really seem to try to aim them at tanks, as that wasn't even considered their intended purpose. They're terrible anti-tank weapons. The Chadians largely defeated enemy tanks with MILAN missiles and 106mm recoil less rifles, not by charging in and launching RPG's and LAW's at 20 meters (the majority of time), of which when they did was largely directed at soft-skinned vehicles and not tanks themselves. They likely wouldn't even penetrate their armor. Like many T-54's and T-55's of the era, libyian tanks also had upgrades, such as explosive reactive armor and so on. All you do is ignore all the other evidence that proves you wrong, focus on a few tiny things, and even so, you tend to get that wrong, like trying to focus on my spelling or something. You'd think after enough time things would start to click.

[Manokan Republic]

Just. Block. Him.
All he does is hog space on the page, drown out actual conversation with others, and serve to be a nuisance. His willing misrepresentation and exaggerations are not productive, not conducive to productive dialogue or conversation, and serves only to give him space.

If he is an individual with an actual mental condition or illness, engaging with him does not assist him or help him. All you do is exacerbate the problem-child that he's become in the thread. If he's not ill, he's a troll and so good at it that he's had you chasing your tail and lowering your standard of debate to sheer definitions of such mundane topics that you become a part of the issue.

JUST. STOP. INTERACTING.

You see him try to engage with someone, very quickly intercept, correct, and remove Manokan from the situation. Do NOT engage with him. It pisses me off that I even have to say this now. You all should know better.

Point to where what I said is even wrong.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

It's more like a gish gallop of wrong and most of us doesn't have the energy to dispute each and every one of your fractally wrong and immensely fact-resistent (that's a good Suedois term there Gaylastan) ideas.

[Manokan Republic]

He's the one who brought up the Chadian thing, again, and I literally directly quoted him, so no, I did not misrepresent his position. It's literally what he said. I've also quoted HIS sources.

This whole thing can be resolved if you can provide a definition of perforated source, say from Marriem's webster or a dictionary source that goes along with your hyper specific definition. If you can find it, I'd love to see it. The reality is the term perforated comes from the industry term for perforated metal, which is applied to any form of metal will holes in it, which can take many, many forms. The industry first made perforated sheets of metal before it was even applied as armor, and this is where the term actually comes from, which is why you find so few definitions outside of it. So, yes, it would be perforated metal.

From the dictionary:
Perforate, from the latin root perforat-, meaning "to punch through" or "punched through". From Webster: to make a hole through. Note the use of through vice in.
Metal foam is entirely different.

Well if going by that definition then, yes, it wouldn't be perforated armor. But neither would perforated armor that was made via using lasers, that was made via a mold instead of punching holes in, or manufactured in other ways that didn't involve punching, drilling, or otherwise making holes in the material (it could have started off with the holes, use chemical etching etc.). At this point it's an arbitrary distinction that has no real practical value, of course. The reason for the term perforated in military contexts comes from the fact the industry name of sheet metal with holes in it, was called perforated sheet metal.

The semantics at the end of the day are irrelevant, as the general concept is just armor with small holes in it that reduce the weight of the armor, but are small enough to not let a bullet pass. Metal foam armor may sort of be at the extreme of the definition given it originally just applied to sheet metal with holes in it so, that one I'm willing to sort of overlook. I know a lot of tanks use perforated armor as a term, that can appear nothing like one might think it should. Further, this definition is still differentiated from other definitions presented in the thread. Given the incredibly nebulous way people can define it, to stick only to one highly specific definition, for example that the holes are only designed to make bullets tumble, is effectively wrong. By your definition it would be the way in which the armor is created, vs. it's intended use as defined by other people in the thread, which is more or less closer to what I had in mind. Given that it can be defined in so many ways, and there is no real official definition for it, it makes overly specific classifications arbitrary, essentially, or random.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

immensely fact-resistent

Though I surmise it's more of a deep seated knowledge resistance as we Swedes say.

[Manokan Republic]

It's more like a gish gallop of wrong and most of us doesn't have the energy to dispute each and every one of your fractally wrong and immensely fact-resistent (that's a good Suedois term there Gaylastan) ideas.

It's mainly just the fact people declare it wrong without any real reason. There's overwhelming evidence that Chadian forces launched missiles from the back of Toyota Trucks, and virtually every single major source confirms this. It's kind of a crazy idea to think they would get off their trucks and get on foot, given they'd be slower, carry less missiles, and take a far longer time to target and engage enemy tanks. Or the idea that they defeated tanks largely by rushing them with anti-tank weapons, on foot, that could barely defeat the enemy armor, if at all.

There's overwhelming evidence that the only purpose of perforated armor is not to make bullet tumble by entering the holes, and that the term perforated just refers to the fact it has holes in it (hence, perforations, and not for example, "tumble-armor"). I mean it's kind of crazy to think perforated armor as a definition only has one highly specific definition, when there is no clear definition to begin with. At best it's an argument of semantics, which makes it irrelevant, and at worst it's hostility just for the sake of it. I'm not resistant to facts, as no facts have been presented giving an official military definition of perforated armor, only that it can be used for certain purposes, but not that by the declaration of any major source it has to be used for that one purpose. It's ludicrous stuff like this that frankly is something I'm just not going to accept. It is not a fact that the term perforated armor can only possibly mean that it is designed to make bullets tumble, perforations refers to the holes, and the armor can stop bullets, by itself, or in a number of configurations. It's just kind of silly.

[Gallia-]

hey guys im pretty new to this like, whole "nationstates" thing xd.

i was thinking like, my nation would become a thing after like a nuclear war and maybe something like whatever the reactor stuff was in stalker (3.6 rontgen, right)

im really not sure where to start, but i guess the best place would be with guns

i was thinking of something like an AK-47 or AKM, but instead of the 7.62 bullets they get something new like 6.8 grendel which they say is replacing 556. im not sure can i do this?

dope avatar

also yes that is fine it should fit in the gun no big problem

[Manokan Republic]

hey guys im pretty new to this like, whole "nationstates" thing xd.

i was thinking like, my nation would become a thing after like a nuclear war and maybe something like whatever the reactor stuff was in stalker (3.6 rontgen, right)

im really not sure where to start, but i guess the best place would be with guns

i was thinking of something like an AK-47 or AKM, but instead of the 7.62 bullets they get something new like 6.8 grendel which they say is replacing 556. im not sure can i do this?

Sure you can, and there is even a VEPR in 6.5mm Grendel, although the 6.8mm refers to the 6.8mm remington. Caliber conversions are common, and there are even some Ak's that use 9mm rounds, among other things. The only drawback is ammunition availability, and if it's meant to be after an apocalypse, you won't be able to find the more rare ammunition as easily as stockpiles of 7.62mm x 39mm, which are already in the billions of rounds.

The U.S. military is experimenting with 6.8mm ammunition, but it's not the grendel.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

hey guys im pretty new to this like, whole "nationstates" thing xd.

i was thinking like, my nation would become a thing after like a nuclear war and maybe something like whatever the reactor stuff was in stalker (3.6 rontgen, right)

im really not sure where to start, but i guess the best place would be with guns

i was thinking of something like an AK-47 or AKM, but instead of the 7.62 bullets they get something new like 6.8 grendel which they say is replacing 556. im not sure can i do this?

The only good 6 mm's are 6.5 mm Arisaka and 6.5 mm Swede. New 6 mm's are terminally hampered by having to fit in a 5.56 compliant magazine.
If you are surviving a nuclear war you haven't got time to minmax the thing you will expend tens of thousands of in peacetime training. Rifle is fine.

[Gallia-]

hey guys im pretty new to this like, whole "nationstates" thing xd.

i was thinking like, my nation would become a thing after like a nuclear war and maybe something like whatever the reactor stuff was in stalker (3.6 rontgen, right)

im really not sure where to start, but i guess the best place would be with guns

i was thinking of something like an AK-47 or AKM, but instead of the 7.62 bullets they get something new like 6.8 grendel which they say is replacing 556. im not sure can i do this?

The only good 6 mm's are 6.5 mm Arisaka and 6.5 mm Swede. New 6 mm's are terminally hampered by having to fit in a 5.56 compliant magazine.
If you are surviving a nuclear war you haven't got time to minmax the thing you will expend tens of thousands of in peacetime training. Rifle is fine.

it's akm so it's not like he's going much bigger than 5.56mm OAL tbh

6.5mm grendel being ultimately based on 7.62x39mm makes it pretty easy a conversion

ak-74 would be better but hey it's whatever

[Manokan Republic]

hey guys im pretty new to this like, whole "nationstates" thing xd.

i was thinking like, my nation would become a thing after like a nuclear war and maybe something like whatever the reactor stuff was in stalker (3.6 rontgen, right)

im really not sure where to start, but i guess the best place would be with guns

i was thinking of something like an AK-47 or AKM, but instead of the 7.62 bullets they get something new like 6.8 grendel which they say is replacing 556. im not sure can i do this?

The only good 6 mm's are 6.5 mm Arisaka and 6.5 mm Swede. New 6 mm's are terminally hampered by having to fit in a 5.56 compliant magazine.
If you are surviving a nuclear war you haven't got time to minmax the thing you will expend tens of thousands of in peacetime training. Rifle is fine.

1. This isn't really a major drawback, as many of the cartridges were just fine despite fitting in 5.56mm guns. You can still get improved performance, like higher power, better accuracy and range. 2. The 6.5mm Creedmoor which has actually been adopted by the Special forces and the 6.8mm which is currently testing are not actually designed to fit in 5.56mm magazines and 3. the Ariska is kind of shit, using extremely old gunpowder and not being designed to cycle in things like machine guns. The 6.5mm Swede is marginally better. The 6.5mm grendel actually has roughly the same ballistics as the 6.5mm Ariska, in a much smaller and lighter weight package, being about 30% heavier than a 5.56mm, while the Ariska uses a far larger, 50mm vs. 39mm length case, and being slightly larger around.

There's no real reason to believe that it being designed to fit in a 5.56mm magazine well really hampers performance all that much. The 6.5mm Grendel for example produces 2600 joules with an 8 gram bullet at roughly 820 m/s, and the 6.8mm remington 2700 joules with a 7.45 gram bullet at around 850 m/s. Neither of these cartridges are really bad, usually having around 1 MOA of accuracy, and higher ballistic coefficients, or a G1 BC of .35 for the 6.8mm and .5 or higher for the 6.5mm, compared to about .2 for the 5.56mm. There's no real drawback in performance, so it's not really automatically a negative. Plenty of cartridges were designed to fit in other weapons or even other cartridge cases (I.E. the .270 for the .30-06 and so on), and they were quite successful. In fact the .30-06 actually came from the .30-03, and the .30-03 from the .30-40 Krag, with the .308 coming from the .30-06 albeit it with a dramatically changed case. The idea that a cartridge based on an existing cartridge would automatically end up doing poorly is a bit strange, or that having to fit inside of another magazine well would somehow make it perform dramatically worse. This just isn't the case, and it's just a good idea to make it easily compatible with existing rifles, rather than designing something brand new from the ground up. The 5.56mm itself came from the .223, which came from the .222, which was actually slightly different, mainly in that it was weaker. The idea that this inhibits the cartridge in anyway has sort of been disproven by the test of time. I don't think it's really a good idea to discount a cartridge just because it designed to have similiar dimensions or be able to fire in similarly dimensioned guns as, another cartridge. In fact most of the great cartridges were all derivatives of something else. The .308 itself was a cut down .30-06 case for example, which continues the tradition down the line of rounds based on other rounds. All of these of course did fine.

[Theodosiya]

How about a 6.5/6.8x51mm?

[Triplebaconation]

Just. Block. Him.
All he does is hog space on the page, drown out actual conversation with others, and serve to be a nuisance. His willing misrepresentation and exaggerations are not productive, not conducive to productive dialogue or conversation, and serves only to give him space.

If he is an individual with an actual mental condition or illness, engaging with him does not assist him or help him.

Good point. Thanks.

[Crookfur]

How about a 6.5/6.8x51mm?

So 6.5mm creed more (or. 260 remington)

[Sevvania]

Point to where what I said is even wrong.

---

This whole thing can be resolved if you can provide a definition of perforated source, say from Marriem's webster or a dictionary source that goes along with your hyper specific definition. If you can find it, I'd love to see it.

"Show me the thing from the dictionary, I want to see it."

From the dictionary:
Perforate, from the latin root perforat-, meaning "to punch through" or "punched through". From Webster: to make a hole through. Note the use of through vice in.
Metal foam is entirely different.

"Here is the thing from the dictionary you wanted to see."

Well if going by that definition then, yes .... At this point it's an arbitrary distinction that has no real practical value, of course

"This is arbitrary and has no value."

[The Manticoran Empire]

Point to where what I said is even wrong.

---

This whole thing can be resolved if you can provide a definition of perforated source, say from Marriem's webster or a dictionary source that goes along with your hyper specific definition. If you can find it, I'd love to see it.

"Show me the thing from the dictionary, I want to see it."

From the dictionary:
Perforate, from the latin root perforat-, meaning "to punch through" or "punched through". From Webster: to make a hole through. Note the use of through vice in.
Metal foam is entirely different.

"Here is the thing from the dictionary you wanted to see."

Well if going by that definition then, yes .... At this point it's an arbitrary distinction that has no real practical value, of course

"This is arbitrary and has no value."

Now you see why I have given up arguing with him and just sort of skip past him to other, more reputable individuals. I have enough stress in my life.

[Arkandros]

Well if going by that definition then, yes, it wouldn't be perforated armor. But neither would perforated armor that was made via using lasers, that was made via a mold instead of punching holes in, or manufactured in other ways that didn't involve punching, drilling, or otherwise making holes in the material (it could have started off with the holes, use chemical etching etc.).

Again, a full thickness perforation does not specify how it is made. The use of "punched through" is not exclusive to a mechanical punch. Your constant shifting of goalposts (and in this case, your outright refusal to acknowledge being incorrect) is honestly deeply infuriating, especially given that you have historically used pedantry over definitions to try and prove yourself correct.

At this point it's an arbitrary distinction that has no real practical value, of course.

It is an extremely important distinction, because the physical properties of a material can change significantly based on how it's constructed. To use a simple example, rebar acts significantly differently than steel cable, even if they are the same alloy and diameter.
Claiming some kind of nebulous definition for perforation in this context means you have failed to adequately explain what you are referring to, variously referring to decorative sheetmetal, spaced armor, metal foam, and armor with lightening cuts as perforated. Even your description has been (potentially intentionally) extremely vague, only referring to holes of smaller diameter than incoming bullets, which, again, could describe at least three of the above four materials, and describes millions of other things besides.

The reason for the term perforated in military contexts comes from the fact the industry name of sheet metal with holes in it, was called perforated sheet metal.

I'm going to squash this now, because you keep coming back to it. The military does not call this perforated sheet metal. They don't call it anything because the "perforated sheet metal" you keep linking to is entirely decorative. The common military parlance for this is stamped steel, which refers to a broad class of sheet metal working including using punches to create patterned holes in metal for things like radiator grilles.

I know a lot of tanks use perforated armor as a term

In the context of tanks, a perforation is generally (and almost exclusively) a penetrating shot.