Page 361 of 497
Posted:
Mon Mar 23, 2020 11:26 pmby Austrasien
New Vihenia wrote:So, to justify the cost and reduction of payload of precision munitions like guided shell. There is accuracy argument where the amount of the munitions expended per targets can be reduced.
If it is determined that a large subset of targets are best engaged with accurate guided weapons rather than large weights of shells/rockets is more than anything an indication you have less need for conventional shells and rockets.
Posted:
Tue Mar 24, 2020 2:09 amby Shanghai industrial complex
New Vihenia wrote:So, to justify the cost and reduction of payload of precision munitions like guided shell. There is accuracy argument where the amount of the munitions expended per targets can be reduced. The issue is to put it into some quantities one can see.
One way to address it is by using the SSKP (Single Shot Kill Probability). The equation is basically developed for nuclear exchange but hey.. despite the difference in how it generate explosion, the blast principles remains the same. So in order to calculate the "benefit" of precision munition's accuracy vs how many rounds to be expended.
So here is the bit of a result, could be suitable for well anyone advertising munitions.
So we have long range M549 RAP (Rocket Assisted Projectile) shell, lobbed to 30 Km.. will have CEP of 267 m. It has like 15 Kg of explosive filler. Assuming 5 PSI target hardness which is a typical house and 15 Kg of filler which in turn equivalent to about 19.5 Kg of TNT.
The conventional artillery with that shell have like 0.054% of Single shot kill probability against that target. and to get the amount of rounds required to be expended i divided 100% or 1 with that percentage. So it would be like :
R=1/0.00054
R=1846
So 1846 rounds have to be expended to kill that target.
In the other hand we have precision munition, which half of it are seeker and GPS, the fillings are reduced to mere 3 Kg, of same composition which would mean it would yield about the same as 3.9 Kg of TNT. With 3 m CEP which should be what it's like when it has laser illuminating the target. The SSKP would be 76 %. So at most only 2 rounds need to be expended for every target.
But i wonder if there is a better method.
what about Precision guided rocket?WS-2D,made in china.150kg charge, multiple warheads available.Range 480km.Equipped with inertial guidance and Chinese version GPS.The effective killing radius is 105 meters.One car can hold 8 pieces, large quantity and low price.Now it's exported to Turkey.It can carry out saturated strike and relatively accurate strike on the specified target.
Posted:
Tue Mar 24, 2020 2:40 amby Greater Kazar
The Manticoran Empire wrote:Is the ROAD structure from the 1970s still a viable structure for armored and mechanized divisions? Is it a structure that can absorb the advancements in C4ISR technologies?
1st question. While out of step with the current organizational trend to BCTize, sure, ROAD is still viable. In some respects it may even be better (ADA battalion and additional organic artillery).
2nd question. Sure, why not? In order to be effective, C4ISR requires greater participation on the part of higher HQs to establish, operate and maintain the "network". Without that, all that stuff is just pretty/interesting technology.
The implied question seems to be is the division still a viable HQs with an important role/mission. Oh yes. That is why, in the US Army, there is a creep back towards things like DIVARTY vice an assigned Fires Bde.
Posted:
Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:25 amby New Vihenia
Austrasien wrote:If it is determined that a large subset of targets are best engaged with accurate guided weapons rather than large weights of shells/rockets is more than anything an indication you have less need for conventional shells and rockets.
I see. I'm more concerned on the method i use tho to get the amount of used munitions.
Shanghai industrial complex wrote:what about Precision guided rocket?WS-2D,made in china.150kg charge, multiple warheads available.Range 480km.Equipped with inertial guidance and Chinese version GPS.The effective killing radius is 105 meters.One car can hold 8 pieces, large quantity and low price.Now it's exported to Turkey.It can carry out saturated strike and relatively accurate strike on the specified target.
and your point being ?
Naturally guided munitions will be more expensive compared to unguided one. The guided WS-2D will be more expensive compared to the unguided version of the same rocket.
I am discussing the method that i use to provide example on how to quantify the impact of employment of precision munitions compared to its unguided analogue.
Posted:
Tue Mar 24, 2020 1:00 pmby Austrasien
The best assumption is the projectile must detonate inside the structure to guarantee effects.
Nuclear effects are not useful at all. If a nuclear shockwave at a particular distance produces an overpressure of say 5 PSI it can be said with confidence it will collapse a wall which cannot sustain that loading - and then collapse an arbitrary number of subsequent walls of equal or lesser strength. So a building will be wiped away once its strongest supports give way.
This will not be the case in a conventional explosion. The first wall encountered will create significant attenuation. For a traditional building with load-bearing walls that a blast penetrated the outer wall does not mean it will continue onward destroying everything inside. Quite likely the blast will be so attenuated overcoming the thick outer wall the main danger on the other side will be from the spallation of the outer wall.
Posted:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:34 pmby Doppio Giudici
If the front arc of a vehicle is protected against 14.5mm, meaning the Soviet HMG round, is it also protected against .50 Cal SLAP?
Posted:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 8:42 pmby The Manticoran Empire
Doppio Giudici wrote:If the front arc of a vehicle is protected against 14.5mm, meaning the Soviet HMG round, is it also protected against .50 Cal SLAP?
No.
Posted:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 9:56 pmby Gallia-
Doppio Giudici wrote:If the front arc of a vehicle is protected against 14.5mm, meaning the Soviet HMG round, is it also protected against .50 Cal SLAP?
The saboted .50 AP has similar levels of penetration to WW2 era 14.5mm API rounds against a monolithic target, so I'd imagine so, since machine gun protection is generally monolithic steel.
In oddball cases like Stryker it is sandwiched composites so it would require actual testing, but the answer is still "probably". If anything, it should perform better against the smaller projectile.
Posted:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 10:58 pmby North Arkana
M903(962) SLAP(-t) is rated for 19mm of high hardness homogeneous armor at 1500 meters, so I'm inclined to say it will do better than 14.5mm's 30-32 at 500 meters.
Posted:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 10:59 pmby Gallia-
It's literally the same performance as WW2 KPV ammo lol.
Posted:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 11:46 pmby New Vihenia
There is this.
Posted:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 11:50 pmby Gallia-
Makes me wonder what a 14.5mm saboted round could do. SLAP is closer in performance to the WW2 KPV steel ammo than the WC stuff, obviously, so a sub caliber 14.5mm WC round would be rather impressive for most purposes I suspect. Maybe better than the WC 20mm even. Would be very likely to defeat any "14.5mm" protected vehicle in inventory, mayhaps, since the protection standard uses the WW2 era steel stuff AFAIK.
Posted:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:27 amby North Arkana
I DeMarre'd and longrods calc'd for a 15.5x106mm F-APDS and got like 50mm @ 450 meters by benchmarking to known values for other rounds.
End result being I decided rating vs 15.5x106mm F-APDS for light armor was dumb and would defeat the point of light armor, so instead used 15.5x106mm AP as the round to rate against.
Posted:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:56 amby Doppio Giudici
Would I get as much mileage out of 14.5mm HMGs firing the 14.5mm saboted round, as 20mm autocannons? Would the ammo cost so much it wouldn't be worth the weight and ammunition size savings for the vehicle gun? Would it be a good compromise between a 12.7mm HMG on a tank and a 20mm or larger auto-cannon like on some tanks?
Posted:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:41 amby New Vihenia
The only concern would be the fact that Saboted munition may not be desirable for general use as it just penetrate armor and not much else. Against unarmored target it may just penetrate on one side and exit from the other without causing much damage.
If cost is a concern, one would get the biggest gun practical for the platform. e.g 30mm for light vehicle, something like 40-57mm for heavy IFV's while for tanks, whatever the 12.7mm or 7.62mm can't kill it's worth main gun's ammo.
Posted:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:55 amby Gallia-
North Arkana wrote:I DeMarre'd and longrods calc'd for a 15.5x106mm F-APDS and got like 50mm @ 450 meters by benchmarking to known values for other rounds.
End result being I decided rating vs 15.5x106mm F-APDS for light armor was dumb and would defeat the point of light armor, so instead used 15.5x106mm AP as the round to rate against.
That's not how machine gun sabots work.
A .50 sabot is just a .30 caliber WC AP bullet.
A 14.5mm sabot would probably be a .40 caliber.
New Vihenia wrote:The only concern would be the fact that Saboted munition may not be desirable for general use as it just penetrate armor and not much else. Against unarmored target it may just penetrate on one side and exit from the other without causing much damage.
If cost is a concern, one would get the biggest gun practical for the platform. e.g 30mm for light vehicle, something like 40-57mm for heavy IFV's while for tanks, whatever the 12.7mm or 7.62mm can't kill it's worth main gun's ammo.
It's a machine gun for killing armored cars tho.
14.5mm straddles the line between "light cannon" and "machine gun" like Astolfo though.
Posted:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 2:00 amby Theodosiya
When 57mm autocannon for IFV and SPAAG can be good again?
Posted:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 10:16 amby The Technocratic Syndicalists
New Vihenia wrote:But i wonder if there is a better method.
I think this is what you’re looking for
Posted:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 10:35 amby Gallia-
So good it only hits the inside of a football field at 30 km?
Houses tend to be a lot smaller than that lol.
New Vihenia's postulated CEP is an order of magnitude smaller.
Posted:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:37 amby Austrasien
If you need to one-shot a small target send a GMLRS or a Netfires or a SPIKE-NLOS or whatever. Or drive close enough to hit it with your
sword direct fire.
Once you have accepted the premise that certain fire missions are better fulfilled with 1 or 2 PGMs than a barrage you have really already accepted there is less need than there used to be for guns. The only condition where a gun would be a desirable delivery system for a PGM is when instantaneous acceleration is needed, in other words, in short-range situations like point defence/close-range anti-tank/aerial gunnery.
Otherwise, it's a significant burden that increases the cost and complexity of a PGM.1 Excalibur $$$ = 1 GMLRS $$$ but which is the better house remover? As things stand the extended range GMLRS and Precision strike missile will be in service long before any ramjet shell, or the strategic cannon goes anywhere. Every non-American Excalibur equivalent remains thoroughly vaporware but the Smerch has had trajectory corrected rockets all along, Israel produces a whole family of guided missiles for artillery and guidance kits for artillery rockets. Etc.
The PGK has a lot going for it because it starts with what a shell already has in its favour - high accuracy - and makes minimal changes to eliminate the worst errors. It brings the
average error of the projectile close to the effective radius of ICMs or
fragments. A 1-round per tube salvo from a battery with PGKs is pretty much guaranteed to neutralize anything which
doesn't have overhead cover.
Posted:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:03 pmby Gallia-
Replace all howitzers with unmanned pallets of expendable FOGs, all infantry battalions with rifle platoons with plethoras of UAVs, and all tanks with low signature long range anti-tank missiles, and you're the army of the future.
Or well,
one of them, anyway.
Specifically the one that involves AEROSOL jumping out of planes inside their Humvees and shooting pallets of FOGs at the tank division because the peacetime budget has said 'panzer divisie is kill'.
Posted:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:26 pmby Iltica
Hello all, I was wondering if anyone knew how much more difficult it was to produce jet engines in the 30,000 lb / 130 kN thrust range like the P&W F100 or Saturn AL-31 than ones in the 18,000 lb / 80 kN range like the Klimov RD-33 or GE F404?
I was planning on having 2 main fighters. A smaller single-engine "tactical" fighter that would be cheap enough to risk using for WVR missions and as a strike fighter, complemented by a more expensive twin-engine "strategic" fighter that would focus mainly on BVR combat and air-superiority roles but I haven't really settled on the optimal size for each.
Posted:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 4:06 amby North Arkana
Gallia- wrote:North Arkana wrote:I DeMarre'd and longrods calc'd for a 15.5x106mm F-APDS and got like 50mm @ 450 meters by benchmarking to known values for other rounds.
End result being I decided rating vs 15.5x106mm F-APDS for light armor was dumb and would defeat the point of light armor, so instead used 15.5x106mm AP as the round to rate against.
That's not how machine gun sabots work.
A .50 sabot is just a .30 caliber WC AP bullet.
A 14.5mm sabot would probably be a .40 caliber.
The BRG-15 used a legit APDS style sabot'd projectile, so I went that route. Also the F is for frangible, not fin.
Posted:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:08 amby New Vihenia
Iltica wrote:Hello all, I was wondering if anyone knew how much more difficult it was to produce jet engines in the 30,000 lb / 130 kN thrust range like the P&W F100 or Saturn AL-31 than ones in the 18,000 lb / 80 kN range like the Klimov RD-33 or GE F404?
I was planning on having 2 main fighters. A smaller single-engine "tactical" fighter that would be cheap enough to risk using for WVR missions and as a strike fighter, complemented by a more expensive twin-engine "strategic" fighter that would focus mainly on BVR combat and air-superiority roles but I haven't really settled on the optimal size for each.
The level of difficulty is roughly proportional to Turbine rotor inlet temperature. The higher the more difficult the engine would be to develop and manufacture.
Posted:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:04 pmby United Earthlings
Based on the Armor-piercing chart NV posted would I be correct in my summations that a 20x102mm AP cartridge and a 20x102mm APDS cartridge would at 500/1000 meters have a similar penetration performance to the 14.5x114mm?
