Meanwhile, T-72 for the army of Nicaragua, driver's seat. Note the automatic transmission.
Post
Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:34 am
#167
You can shorten the barrel only so much before firing it becomes equal in force to an impact
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
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
Better have a barrel of double the length and halve the power and have more reliable powertronics.
Re: Tanks
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
More propellant charges, higher speed!outlander wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:16 amMore 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
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
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
Better have a barrel of double the length and halve the power and have more reliable powertronics.
Post
Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:21 am
#168
Re: Tanks
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?
(Also doubles as spare ERA plates. )
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?
(Also doubles as spare ERA plates. )
Post
Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:11 pm
#169
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.
Re: Tanks
Also, more propellant = longer burn time.Cornflakes_91 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:34 amMore propellant charges, higher speed!
Why not use gigantic powder charges to get identical exhaust velocities from much shorter barrels?
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.
<Cuisinart8> apparently without the demon driving him around Silver has the intelligence of a botched lobotomy patient ~ Mar 04 2020
console.log(`What's all ${this} ${Date.now()}`);
console.log(`What's all ${this} ${Date.now()}`);
Post
Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:15 pm
#170
Re: Tanks
*waves hands* don't forget the sci-fi setting! New materials and stuff!
Narwhalz, so, turn the tanks into a massive frag grenade...
Narwhalz, so, turn the tanks into a massive frag grenade...
Post
Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:23 pm
#171
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.
Re: Tanks
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.0111narwhalz wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:21 amWhat 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?
(Also doubles as spare ERA plates. )
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
Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:11 pm
#172
Re: Tanks
................█ (͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
███۞███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▃
▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂
I███████████████████].
◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤...
███۞███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▃
▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂
I███████████████████].
◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤...
Post
Fri Oct 06, 2017 4:00 am
#174
Re: Tanks
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
Survivor of the Josh Parnell Blackout of 2015.
Post
Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:21 am
#175
Re: Tanks
Also a tank (I'm told):
Survivor of the Josh Parnell Blackout of 2015.
Post
Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:38 am
#176
Re: Tanks
A nice render of T-14 with its winter coat on
Survivor of the Josh Parnell Blackout of 2015.
Post
Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:50 am
#177
Progress on my 3 tank collection - the T-34 and T-90, one has yet to be painted.
T-14 being painted with the T-34 now.
Re: Tanks
*Orgasmic Moans*
Progress on my 3 tank collection - the T-34 and T-90, one has yet to be painted.
T-14 being painted with the T-34 now.