Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Keep out of reach of children.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Extra, extra long kinetic energy penetrator rounds

Lengthen tank rounds and do more damage with them
  [vote for,

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

Voice, Mar 20 2015

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]


       Unless they have an anti-penetrator cage around the target, which causes the round itself to detonate prematurely. See link.
21 Quest, Mar 20 2015

       [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.
notexactly, Mar 21 2015

       Presumably the "telescopic" portion deploys after the projectile has left the barrel ?
8th of 7, Mar 21 2015

       NotE, I simply meant that it isn't going to do any good against such armor tactics.
21 Quest, Mar 21 2015

       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.
bungston, Mar 21 2015

       "Knock knock"
FlyingToaster, Mar 21 2015

       Tssk. All this trouble. Why not simply wait for the tank to go away?
MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 21 2015

       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.
8th of 7, Mar 21 2015

       [bungston], that's essentially Voice's first link.
notexactly, Mar 21 2015

       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?
MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 21 2015

       Not good for urban fight since you can not turn a loooonnnnnng tank around easily.
popbottle, Mar 21 2015

       One solution to the impenetrable object vs. unstoppable force battle could be simply to not shoot at eachother.
RayfordSteele, Mar 23 2015

       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.
bungston, Mar 23 2015

       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.)
MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 23 2015

       //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).
Custardguts, Mar 24 2015

       This whole process of armour development and weapon development could be done much more economically in software.
MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 24 2015

       //weapon development could be done much more economically in software//   

       Military software development programs are traditionally inexpensive and reliable.
bs0u0155, Mar 25 2015


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle