Return to “Everything & Anything”

Post

Re: Tanks

#167
outlander wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:16 am
No I can't, because physical principles are completely different :squirrel:
But it works for the tiny 5.56mm rounds in the steyr AUG!

You can shorten the barrel only so much before firing it becomes equal in force to an impact :P

outlander wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:16 am
More power to the rails, higher speed. Railguns are quite straightforward, as long as you have all the friction problems solved. That Soviet railgun is actually frictionless; it generates plasma that pushes the projectile. Of course, it all looks really nice and cool but at high energies it tends to generate some heavy low-temperature plasma that erodes the rails really fast. That's the reason the US went for using heavy metal rounds and long rails, but it's also a road that leads to absolutely nowhere. In Trigger's tank, we assumed that these problems are solved
More propellant charges, higher speed!
Why not use gigantic powder charges to get identical exhaust velocities from much shorter barrels?

Because theres a point where the stress rips the thing apart, and those stresses are similar in magnitude for railguns as they are for chemical barrels.
And directly proportional to the accelerator force.
So if you cant keep a chemical explosive contained in your chamber you probably also cant keep the expansive forces contained of an equal force railgun :P

You can also only scale power up so much without needing very specialised power electronics with essentially 0 on-resistance if you want them to stay solid while firing :P
Better have a barrel of double the length and halve the power and have more reliable powertronics.
Post

Re: Tanks

#168
What about those self-forming penetrators? They've pretty short (nonexistent) barrels. Get around the stress problem by increasing the area.
Granted, they're effectively a big circle of sheet metal with an explosive charge behind them, but I'm sure that's worth it for the lack of barrel and tight packing, right? :ghost:
(Also doubles as spare ERA plates. :ghost:)
Post

Re: Tanks

#169
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:34 am
More propellant charges, higher speed!
Why not use gigantic powder charges to get identical exhaust velocities from much shorter barrels?
Also, more propellant = longer burn time.
Requires more barrel length to burn efficiently.


As for Outlander:

More power = rails melting, or projectile melting.
More power requires heavier projectiles so they don't melt before leaving the barrel. Which reduces Muzzle Velocity.

It's a complicated system, with a whole jewish community's worth of variables.
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Toba - A Development Dump
Post

Re: Tanks

#171
0111narwhalz wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:21 am
What about those self-forming penetrators? They've pretty short (nonexistent) barrels. Get around the stress problem by increasing the area.
Granted, they're effectively a big circle of sheet metal with an explosive charge behind them, but I'm sure that's worth it for the lack of barrel and tight packing, right? :ghost:
(Also doubles as spare ERA plates. :ghost:)
HEAT shells' efficiency depends on the amount of explosives you put into them, and they are easily defeated by ERA, composite armour, active protection systems, etc. Explosively Formed Penetrators are better, but are also slow-moving and large, and are susceptible to the same defences.

The whole need for the railgun is to accelerate kinetic penetrators to speeds that allow them to by-pass active defences and ERA. Hypersonic missiles can do that as well, but railgun might be much cheaper and easier to manufacture in the times of war.
Survivor of the Josh Parnell Blackout of 2015.
Post

Re: Tanks

#174
Trigger, I'd put the point defence turrets you have on the sides on top of the over-the-track compartments and move them forward as well. As most threats to the tank come from the forward hemisphere, it makes sense to concentrate point defences there. One such turret behind the main turret would be 'good enough' for protecting the rear hemisphere since most threats there would be RPGs and ATGMs...no, really, if you have enemy tanks coming from the rear or from the side you are probably screwed anyway :D
Survivor of the Josh Parnell Blackout of 2015.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron