|
Post by bigbombr on Jun 29, 2017 17:13:47 GMT
Can we please stop calling fragmenting warheads flak? no because "flak" is 4 letters while "fragmenting warheads" is 19 Just use "frag". It's also only 4 letters.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 29, 2017 23:38:47 GMT
frag flak, these are closer to shrapnel
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Jun 30, 2017 4:17:51 GMT
no because "flak" is 4 letters while "fragmenting warheads" is 19 And so language evolves. To be fair we could just use 'frag', as in 'frag gun' or 'frag missile', but I think the reason the term flak was chosen is just that it's more intuitive. The word frag on its own is already used to refer to hand-thrown fragmentation grenades, so that's the sort of image the term evokes — one of a short-range, low-yield bomb. If you say your warship is armed with frags one might come up with some strange ideas (boarding vessel? minelaying lancer?), but if you say flak instead, one immediately understands this to refer to guns that shoot frag warheads. On topic, I can't imagine what would be more effective than normal metal flak being shot at sufficiently high velocity, aside from skipping the step of processing it into metal by just shovelling some asteroid gravel straight into the warheads, since although the material used should ideally be dense, it doesn't really seem to matter much.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Jun 30, 2017 5:48:28 GMT
no because "flak" is 4 letters while "fragmenting warheads" is 19 And so language evolves. To be fair we could just use 'frag', as in 'frag gun' or 'frag missile', but I think the reason the term flak was chosen is just that it's more intuitive. The word frag on its own is already used to refer to hand-thrown fragmentation grenades, so that's the sort of image the term evokes — one of a short-range, low-yield bomb. If you say your warship is armed with frags one might come up with some strange ideas (boarding vessel? minelaying lancer?), but if you say flak instead, one immediately understands this to refer to guns that shoot frag warheads. On topic, I can't imagine what would be more effective than normal metal flak being shot at sufficiently high velocity, aside from skipping the step of processing it into metal by just shovelling some asteroid gravel straight into the warheads, since although the material used should ideally be dense, it doesn't really seem to matter much. A lot of aircraft machine cannon amunition designed to fragment was actually designated as fragmention, though due to the munition having many other properties, its designation was generally an abreviation. As an example HEFI (High Explosive Fragmenting Incindiary) was used, often called HEI today, though there was a difference between those designations in WW2 as far as I can tell. The simplest type of fragmentation rounds were simply called IF or Incediary Fragmentation rounds. So as far as shooting Flak warheads out of cannons gos, there is president to caling them fragmentation fragmenting rounds. (As a side note: the americans never developed a fragmentation round as far as I can tell. They primarily used .50 cals as aircraft guns, which were generally to small to allow for specific fragmentaion mechanisms.) As for more complex flak (frag) material, it might be worth looking into. This is especialy true for the blast launchers being used as "flak", as the release of submuntions is far more controlled and allows for nukes to be used like shrapnels. As pointed out in the relevant thread: it might be very effective to have a missile that first shreads the targets armor with small flak warheads, then exploits the opening with nukes. From my testing, it would be possible to get such designs below 2kg if the controller didn't have a mass of 1kg.
|
|