|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Dec 19, 2016 4:09:25 GMT
I've been staying away from electromagnetic weapons while they're 'in the shop', and at times have despaired of the velocity limitations on conventional cannon. Either you're flinging sliver-plates, or you just can't get the energy behind your projectile to get it going fast. Except, of course, for the magic invention that is the sabot - using payloads and UHMWPE gram-plates behind them, you can set your barrel radius to as high as you darned well need it to be, while still keeping your light and compact projectile. My current weapon of choice is a 100mm cannon firing slugs and shells approximately the size of traditional bullets - at a nice 3km/s, with thin walled cannon. It's fantastic. Sabots, I love you dearly.
|
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Dec 19, 2016 6:28:19 GMT
Discarding Sabot designs work if you have them set as a payload?
|
|
|
|
Post by lieste on Dec 19, 2016 7:34:12 GMT
In the absence of atmosphere they don't need to discard and keeping them attached gives a higher impulse at target which possibly adds to the penetration of the core and increases the area of damage when the target is thin and unarmoured.
APCR is useful at short relative ranges in atmosphere and would remain useful at all ranges in vacuo. It is simpler than APDS, especially when there are no aerodynamic forces to aid separation, and dispersion/accuracy can be higher without the disturbance of petal/pot separation.
|
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Dec 19, 2016 7:51:38 GMT
All the payload armatures seem (?) to disappear after launch, as near as I can tell, at least in prior versions. Haven't been zooming in on little 10-gram slugs to see if they have a gram-weight, ten centimeter disc of plastic on the back, though.
Either way, they play merry hell on foes if they can get into range, which suits me just fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by 123nick on Dec 19, 2016 8:10:53 GMT
do you have a screenshot of a working sabot cannon?
|
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Dec 19, 2016 9:07:50 GMT
do you have a screenshot of a working sabot cannon?  The graphite-gel is still being experimented with, the gun is combat tested against conventional craft but fails hard against serious electromagnetic weapons, as one would expect. Honestly, the gel is there in large part because it's an adorable little death star, but was inspired by the reports that having gimbal 'armor' thick enough to cover rocket injectors improved their nuke tolerance. |
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Dec 19, 2016 20:30:44 GMT
If you're doing Graphite Gel to shield against lasers, I find Aramid Fiber to be way more effective than either Silica or Graphite Gels.
|
|
|
|
Post by morrigi on Dec 19, 2016 20:33:42 GMT
If you're doing Graphite Gel to shield against lasers, I find Aramid Fiber to be way more effective than either Silica or Graphite Gels. Yeah, aramid is the best I know of as well. Rather expensive, though. |
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Dec 19, 2016 20:42:39 GMT
I was mostly doing it for the cheap volume fill, trying to get as much of the surface covered in laser-resistant materials as I could, as they pop conventional guns like noone's business, and I can't just wrap the barrel in a half-centimeter of Aramid, so I tried for the next best option. Really, though, I just want to limit the heating on something with quarter-kilos of TNT being placed in it several times per second as much as possible. And look like an adorable death star.
|
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Dec 19, 2016 20:57:29 GMT
Doesn't silica perform better than graphite anyway? Plus it's cheaper and less dense
I got them confused my bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by phssthpok on Dec 19, 2016 21:21:12 GMT
IIRC, Silica aerogel is significantly denser and quite a bit more expensive than graphite aerogel, but performs much better against lasers and nukes. Graphite aerogel actually has fairly high thermal conductivity, whereas silica aerogel is a nearly magical insulator. Again, not positive; someone might want to check.
|
|
