h a l f b a k e r yWhy did I think of that?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
It occurred to Voice that reactive armor can be got
around by
having a very long spring-loaded telescoping rod at the
front of the penetrator. It would save weight over
tandem rounds. This
isn't a proposal of the well-known principal of "longer
and
thinner is better". Let me say that again
because
someone
will read the title, think that's the idea, and m-f-d or
bone on
that basis. This is not a proposal of the general,
well-known principal of "longer and thinner is better".
This extra rod wouldn't be intended to actually
penetrate
anything: It would be just strong enough not to shatter
with
the wind. Its purpose would be to make reactive armor
detonate prematurely, allowing the penetrator to do its
thing
better.
edit: spelling
edit: clarification
A baked alternative to this not-baked idea
http://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Tandem-charge
[Voice, Mar 20 2015]
Protective cage
http://ts4.mm.bing....&qlt=90&o=4&pid=1.7
[21 Quest, Mar 20 2015]
Drag-resistant aerospike
https://en.wikipedi...resistant_aerospike
If the projectile is supersonic, the rod could also reduce drag. [notexactly, Mar 21 2015]
Useless against second generation reactive armor
http://fofanov.armo...s/EQP/kontakt5.html
"In addition, thanks to their heavier (15 mm hard steel) front plate, the Kontakt-5 elements are harder to trigger by the precursor charges of tandem warheads" [Voice, Mar 21 2015]
[link]
|
| |
Unless they have an anti-penetrator cage around the target, which causes the round itself to detonate prematurely. See link. |
|
| |
[21 Quest], this seems to be a kinetic energy penetrator
(based on references to the "longer and thinner is better"
principle); there's nothing in the penetrator that could
detonate. |
|
| |
Presumably the "telescopic" portion deploys after the projectile
has left the barrel ? |
|
| |
NotE, I simply meant that it isn't going to do any
good against such armor tactics. |
|
| |
Even better: a pace car bullet that flies ahead of the
real deal and whacks into the armor. Then there is
no risk that any ensuing blowingupedness hurts your
armor piercing round which is following at a safe
distance. |
|
| |
Tssk. All this trouble. Why not simply wait for the
tank to go away? |
|
| |
You might have a long wait. Tanks are notoriously unreliable;
most stops they make are non-elective. |
|
| |
A stationary tank in the open is very vulnerable. Primary reasons
for
stopping are (a) equipment breakdown, (b) low or no fuel, or (c)
bogged and in need of a tow. If forced to stop, they generally try
to conceal themselves, which is non-trivial with a tracked vehicle
weighing upwards of 50 tonnes. Plan B is to scarper off to the
nearest bit of cover and brew up some tea. |
|
| |
[bungston], that's essentially Voice's first link. |
|
| |
Surely the most effective antitank weapon would be
a cluster bomb that deployed its individual munitions
in a rectangular pattern a couple of metres in front
of the tank, thereby creating a steep-sided tank-
shaped hole in the ground? |
|
| |
Not good for urban fight since you can not turn a loooonnnnnng tank around easily. |
|
| |
One solution to the impenetrable object vs. unstoppable force battle could be simply to not shoot at eachother. |
|
| |
I think in the impenetrable object vs unstoppable force batter the impenetrable object gets carrier along by the unstoppable force. |
|
| |
I can see a fine and funny short story along those lines. The folks in the impenetrable tank have to keep adding in the vectors of the various unstoppable forces pushing on their tank to tack about where they want to be. |
|
| |
What happens if you just cover a tank in a 6ft layer
of rubber? (Apart from its not being able to make
baby tanks, obviously.) |
|
| |
//What happens if you just cover a tank in a 6ft layer of rubber// |
|
| |
Can't see, can't shoot, can't fit down streets, probably too heavy to move. |
|
| |
As far as I'm aware, latest gen composite armours plus reactive add-on cells are generally thought to capable of withstanding multiple frontal hits from modern gen APFSDS and HEAP rounds from tank main guns. So Armour seems to be winning the race right now (which is different to how it was for some time). Add in to that mix the emergent active protection systems that are coming online, and armoured warfare is going to be dominated by defensive technologies until some breakthroughs are made. |
|
| |
Making projectiles arbitrarily long just makes them easier to defeat with ERA and active protection systems. Also makes them arbitrarily hard to launch. |
|
| |
I think that short term, the use of support fire and/or top-attack missiles will become the norm for tank warfare until the next major development in tank guns is made (ie railgun, high energy propellants, or some other third technology). |
|
| |
This whole process of armour development and
weapon development could be done much more
economically in software. |
|
| |
//weapon development could be done much more
economically in software// |
|
| |
Military software development programs are traditionally
inexpensive and reliable. |
|
| |