|
Post by 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖒𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖈𝖑𝖊 on Jun 26, 2017 9:37:00 GMT
Im talking about real things that we could stick in front of warheads that would be better at destroying enemy ships than normal metal flak, such as Nuclear waste flak or something else
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Jun 26, 2017 13:24:22 GMT
Fluorine, antimatter and radioactive isotopes could be effective assuming no overpenetration, otherwise it will perform comparable to conventional flak. A steel wire net (spreading damage in a controlled fashion, cutting lines in armour) would definitely be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jun 26, 2017 13:50:44 GMT
Nuclear waste would be nearly useless at destroying ships. It's just heavy metal. Chlorine Trifluoride might be of interest due to it's ability to even ignite glass and asbestos at room temperature. It was planned to be used in flamethrowers by the Nazis in WWII. These Flamethrowers were supposed to melt bunkers. Otherwise I would suggest tungsten darts with a Tungsten Carbide tip.
|
|
|
Post by thorneel on Jun 26, 2017 20:33:10 GMT
Nuclear waste would be nearly useless at destroying ships. It's just heavy metal. Chlorine Trifluoride might be of interest due to it's ability to even ignite glass and asbestos at room temperature. It was planned to be used in flamethrowers by the Nazis in WWII. These Flamethrowers were supposed to melt bunkers. Otherwise I would suggest tungsten darts with a Tungsten Carbide tip. Oh yeah, the stuff even the Nazis thought was too horribly dangerous to use.
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Jun 26, 2017 23:42:20 GMT
Oh yeah, the stuff even the Nazis thought was too horribly dangerous to use. OXIDIZE. EVERYTHING. EVEN OXYGEN.
|
|
|
Post by 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖒𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖈𝖑𝖊 on Jun 27, 2017 6:13:32 GMT
Oh yeah, the stuff even the Nazis thought was too horribly dangerous to use. OXIDIZE. EVERYTHING. EVEN OXYGEN.How about that in a teflon container would it ignite?
|
|
|
Post by 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖒𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖈𝖑𝖊 on Jun 27, 2017 6:23:12 GMT
Nuclear waste would be nearly useless at destroying ships. It's just heavy metal. Chlorine Trifluoride might be of interest due to it's ability to even ignite glass and asbestos at room temperature. It was planned to be used in flamethrowers by the Nazis in WWII. These Flamethrowers were supposed to melt bunkers. Otherwise I would suggest tungsten darts with a Tungsten Carbide tip. if nuclear waste didnt overpenetrate, it would get stuck inside causing long term damage which might be more expensive to repair
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Jun 27, 2017 6:59:07 GMT
Can we please stop calling fragmenting warheads flak? I'm sure most people are aware, but FlaK, being an acronym for Flug Abwehr Kanone in german, meaning air Defence cannon, is a designation for the role of an armament. While special munitions were designed for use as anti air munitions (namely air burst munitions in the FlaK 88, which are technically similar to the flak in game) these were also used as artillery shells. Many flaks didn't even have air burst munitions due to the limited shell size, since a lot of FlaK were 20-40mm auto cannons. Only a technicality, but it still annoys me to no end.
As for stuff that would be usefully in fragmentation warheads: there is no advantage that I can see for adding anything to the fragments. Anything that has an additional effect would be far more effective if used as a warhead payload itself. Frag warheads themselves are only useful if hitting a target is hard and a spread of high velocity shrapnel ensures both hitting and damaging the target. This means hundreds or thousands of sub gram projectiles, rendering anything but antimatter negligible in its effect.
As for ClF3, it would be interesting to see if projectiles filled with the stuff would be effective. Incendiary munitions have always been popular in anti vehicular roles and may prove useful in low energy guns, anti drone weapons and as a performance booster for KKVs
|
|
|
Post by 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖒𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖈𝖑𝖊 on Jun 28, 2017 3:11:01 GMT
Can we please stop calling fragmenting warheads flak? I'm sure most people are aware, but FlaK, being an acronym for Flug Abwehr Kanone in german, meaning air Defence cannon, is a designation for the role of an armament. While special munitions were designed for use as anti air munitions (namely air burst munitions in the FlaK 88, which are technically similar to the flak in game) these were also used as artillery shells. Many flaks didn't even have air burst munitions due to the limited shell size, since a lot of FlaK were 20-40mm auto cannons. Only a technicality, but it still annoys me to no end. As for stuff that would be usefully in fragmentation warheads: there is no advantage that I can see for adding anything to the fragments. Anything that has an additional effect would be far more effective if used as a warhead payload itself. Frag warheads themselves are only useful if hitting a target is hard and a spread of high velocity shrapnel ensures both hitting and damaging the target. This means hundreds or thousands of sub gram projectiles, rendering anything but antimatter negligible in its effect. As for ClF3, it would be interesting to see if projectiles filled with the stuff would be effective. Incendiary munitions have always been popular in anti vehicular roles and may prove useful in low energy guns, anti drone weapons and as a performance booster for KKVs Flak; noun: antiaircraft fire. Anything that is meant to shoot at the enemy ships can be considered flak, but we generally only call the frag warheads flak as otherwise we would have to call everything flak.
|
|
|
Post by n2maniac on Jun 28, 2017 4:55:49 GMT
Once you hit hypervelocity speeds the energy available with chemical reactions is not really a factor anymore. The kinetic energy just greatly exceed the effects from the chemicals themselves unless they are several times more potent by some other means (eg. contamination, metallurgical or biological poisons).
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Jun 28, 2017 6:11:01 GMT
Can we please stop calling fragmenting warheads flak? I'm sure most people are aware, but FlaK, being an acronym for Flug Abwehr Kanone in german, meaning air Defence cannon, is a designation for the role of an armament. While special munitions were designed for use as anti air munitions (namely air burst munitions in the FlaK 88, which are technically similar to the flak in game) these were also used as artillery shells. Many flaks didn't even have air burst munitions due to the limited shell size, since a lot of FlaK were 20-40mm auto cannons. Only a technicality, but it still annoys me to no end. As for stuff that would be usefully in fragmentation warheads: there is no advantage that I can see for adding anything to the fragments. Anything that has an additional effect would be far more effective if used as a warhead payload itself. Frag warheads themselves are only useful if hitting a target is hard and a spread of high velocity shrapnel ensures both hitting and damaging the target. This means hundreds or thousands of sub gram projectiles, rendering anything but antimatter negligible in its effect. As for ClF3, it would be interesting to see if projectiles filled with the stuff would be effective. Incendiary munitions have always been popular in anti vehicular roles and may prove useful in low energy guns, anti drone weapons and as a performance booster for KKVs Flak; noun: antiaircraft fire. Anything that is meant to shoot at the enemy ships can be considered flak, but we generally only call the frag warheads flak as otherwise we would have to call everything flak. I can confirm that flak means air defence cannon or gun or more litterely form the older definition gun meant to shoot down airplanes (see the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flak_(disambiguation)link and en.wiktionary.org/wiki/flak). So, unless you plan to use spitfires as missiles the term flak doesn't realy apply. Technically all cannons missiles and lasers we use would be classed as orbital defence weapons. As for launching ClF 3 containers as schrapnel, the design outlined in this thread would make it possible if you mod in ClF 3 (which can be found here). It won't do anything though, as I don't believe chemical reactions are modeled on armor/internals during combat.
|
|
|
Post by 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖒𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖈𝖑𝖊 on Jun 28, 2017 10:32:06 GMT
Flak; noun: antiaircraft fire. Anything that is meant to shoot at the enemy ships can be considered flak, but we generally only call the frag warheads flak as otherwise we would have to call everything flak. I can confirm that flak means air defence cannon or gun or more litterely form the older definition gun meant to shoot down airplanes (see the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flak_(disambiguation)link and en.wiktionary.org/wiki/flak). So, unless you plan to use spitfires as missiles the term flak doesn't realy apply. Technically all cannons missiles and lasers we use would be classed as orbital defence weapons. As for launching ClF 3 containers as schrapnel, the design outlined in this thread would make it possible if you mod in ClF 3 (which can be found here). It won't do anything though, as I don't believe chemical reactions are modeled on armor/internals during combat. First defenition on the list and it's not even from Wikipedia www.dictionary.com/browse/flak
|
|
|
Post by Dhan on Jun 28, 2017 16:20:07 GMT
That definition isn't very useful. According to it, pistol bullets can be considered flak if directed at an aircraft. Besides, there is no point getting caught up in the technicalities of a word that hasn't had the chance to be applied to space combat yet.
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Jun 29, 2017 8:24:01 GMT
I can confirm that flak means air defence cannon or gun or more litterely form the older definition gun meant to shoot down airplanes (see the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flak_(disambiguation)link and en.wiktionary.org/wiki/flak). So, unless you plan to use spitfires as missiles the term flak doesn't realy apply. Technically all cannons missiles and lasers we use would be classed as orbital defence weapons. As for launching ClF 3 containers as schrapnel, the design outlined in this thread would make it possible if you mod in ClF 3 (which can be found here). It won't do anything though, as I don't believe chemical reactions are modeled on armor/internals during combat. First defenition on the list and it's not even from Wikipedia www.dictionary.com/browse/flakI think it's worth distinguishing between Flak as it has been adopted into the English language, and the original German technical term. The one came from the other: English-sense 'Flak' being the stuff fired by 'Flak Guns', which got their name from the German technical designation of Flak (Air Defense Cannon). See also the interesting coincidence between another period English term for hostile anti-air weaponry ("Ack-Ack") and the informal German name for the sort of heavy gun that Bomber crews had to fear ("Acht-Acht", Eight-Eight (88mm caliber)). Now, the reason I suspect Flak was adopted in usage for space-borne fragmentation weapons is that they're both cases where the intention is to shred a fast moving vehicle with a storm of fragments - they have bursting charges, but those are an intermediate step to create the actual lethal effect, and any direct damage they may cause in a very precise hit is incidental.
|
|
|
Post by leerooooooy on Jun 29, 2017 16:59:14 GMT
Can we please stop calling fragmenting warheads flak? no because "flak" is 4 letters while "fragmenting warheads" is 19
|
|