h a l f b a k e r yFaster than a stationary bullet.
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,
|
|
|
| |
Wasn't someone around here renaming himself with a more manly name? "Wanton Brawn"; things of that sort? "Continuous Rod" should be a consideration. |
|
| |
According to your link, the advantage of the
continuous rod comes from the fact that it
concentrates the force of the explosion into a 2D
plane, resulting in a larger effective radius. |
|
| |
Not that a Hoberman sphere wouldn't be cool... |
|
| |
Hoberman Warhead would be a pretty mean name to change your name to, as well. |
|
| |
//the advantage of the continuous rod comes from
the fact that it concentrates the force of the
explosion into a 2D plane// |
|
| |
Yes, but the bugger of it is that most hostile airforces
now use exclusively 3D planes. |
|
| |
But seriously, I think we're talking about anti-
aircraft munitions here that are proximity
triggered. With a spherically expanding munition,
a simple proximity fuze would be used when the
munition was within range. A continuous rod
munition seems like it would have to have a much
more sophisticated fuse to see detect when the
target was in the plane of destruction. Otherwise
concentrating the destruction into a single plane
would reduce the chance of actually hitting the
target. |
|
| |
Assuming I'm not completely off base above, it
seem like the way you'd want to go is to create a
mostly 1 dimensional explosion. This would of
course need an aiming system as well as a complex
trigger, but when the projectile is close to the
target, if it can swivel and fire, launching half of
its mass in a somewhat narrow cone towards the
target, there could be a much larger margin of
error. Actually, in this case, if the explosive
couple launch a Hoberman sphere a the target,
that might be quite effective. |
|
| |