|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Feb 16, 2017 18:25:23 GMT
You can stop the 5 ton, 1.5TJ slugs with less than 10m of nitrile rubber, if that makes you feel any better. Most of the energy they have seems to vanish on impact. Doesn't even leave glowing craters in the rubber. Hypervelocity slugs have a tendency to obliterate itself against the shockwave of the front layer of the slug and top layer of armor vaporizing each other. You can end up making a shallow crater instead of a hole. If that projectile was completely annihilated in its own schockwave, should release the energy of at least a few hundred tons of tnt. 10m of nitrile rubber shouldn't withstand that. Additionally, the immense impulse of the round must be conserved, so the armor must absorb it. If it can't, the armor will rupture or shatter, regardless of what happens to the projectile. Even if it can, the impulse must be spread, causing more deformation than a high KE low impulse round and thus making a deeper crater and causing more structural instability. Further more, Armor and projectile are vaporized in similar amounts. If the projectile is significantly more massive than the armor it must pass through, not all of it will be shocked into plasma (because not all of the projectile will hit the armor before it is no longer capable of resisting the impact), thus allowing it to penetrate. The reason the 1.5TJ/5t slug does little damage is because armor is bugged. This is clearly seen by the impact marks it leaves, that make clear that it shatters before hitting the target. This might be because the game calculates kinetic damage on a point based system, rather than area, which doesn't work for 20m diameter slugs.
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Feb 16, 2017 22:52:01 GMT
Random thought: has anyone tried firing rubber bullets of any size from any launcher?
|
|
|
Post by theholyinquisition on Feb 17, 2017 22:26:26 GMT
Don't write in other people's quote boxes.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Feb 18, 2017 0:32:49 GMT
Don't write in other people's quote boxes. Or if you do clearly illustrate your added responses or text in a simple and overt manner capable of distinguishing the new authors additions
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Feb 19, 2017 0:23:27 GMT
Don't write in other people's quote boxes. Or if you do clearly illustrate your added responses or text in a simple and overt manner capable of distinguishing the new authors additionsBut you generally don't want to because it looks super sketchy.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Feb 19, 2017 22:04:57 GMT
But you generally don't want to because it looks super sketchy. Yeah i mainly do it because when replying to an immense chunk of text-argument i find it easier to break it up into sub points and riposte to those in sequence as opposed to simply writing out my own text wall. That is where i find in quotations useful, i still colourise them as well to make it obvious. But if it is a shorter post of a few lines than in quotations can seem like you are editing what the original person said.
|
|
|
Post by nerd1000 on Feb 20, 2017 10:13:17 GMT
Weaker material gets blasted in plasma expanding in all directions before the main penetrator hits the armour, I assume the stronger material can survive the plasma shock wave mostly intact. ___ _-_ _-_ _-_ _-_ thats what I mean by APCR where _ represents weaker material and - represents stronger material At extremely high velocities, crossectional density is more important than strength. This makes APCR a good choice. The hard, dense inner core of the projectile can be long and thin (thus high cross sectional density) without sacrificing the bore diameter needed to accelerate the projectile in a reasonable barrel length without something breaking. Of course this is only the relevant if your enemy has strong armour. in COADE we generally use small caliber 'sandblaster' pellet guns because nobody has enough armour to survive 5,000 pellets that all hit pretty much the same spot at 30 km/s...
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 20, 2017 17:01:05 GMT
At extremely high velocities, crossectional density is more important than strength. This makes APCR a good choice. The hard, dense inner core of the projectile can be long and thin (thus high cross sectional density) without sacrificing the bore diameter needed to accelerate the projectile in a reasonable barrel length without something breaking. Of course this is only the relevant if your enemy has strong armour. in COADE we generally use small caliber 'sandblaster' pellet guns because nobody has enough armour to survive 5,000 pellets that all hit pretty much the same spot at 30 km/s... the lone "true" sandblaster I have could fire 5000 pellets in... (5000/1666.6667) 3 seconds
|
|
|
Post by lieste on Feb 20, 2017 17:16:51 GMT
The bug you wilfully exploit, despite the issue being explained to you many times, permits that broken weapon to fire 1667 rps. The true capability of a sandcaster is likely to be well below 100rps (And I have some doubts about the realism of even that proposition)
The same principle applies to heavier shot fired from coilguns, where rates of fire should often be below 1 rps sometimes significantly so.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 20, 2017 19:26:13 GMT
The bug you wilfully exploit, despite the issue being explained to you many times, permits that broken weapon to fire 1667 rps. The true capability of a sandcaster is likely to be well below 100rps (And I have some doubts about the realism of even that proposition) The same principle applies to heavier shot fired from coilguns, where rates of fire should often be below 1 rps sometimes significantly so. If I could make it use the 750Mw to be physics compliant I would, I can't though so I leave it to remember to tell everyone to come up with ways to prevent <100% effiecently, even lasers suffer from this (100% efficent frequency doublers)
|
|
|
Post by nerd1000 on Feb 21, 2017 2:45:26 GMT
The bug you wilfully exploit, despite the issue being explained to you many times, permits that broken weapon to fire 1667 rps. The true capability of a sandcaster is likely to be well below 100rps (And I have some doubts about the realism of even that proposition) The same principle applies to heavier shot fired from coilguns, where rates of fire should often be below 1 rps sometimes significantly so. The M61 Vulcan cannon used by most US fighter jets fires at 100 rps (6000rpm). Of course it is a 6 barreled gatling gun, and a similar multi-barrel setup might be needed to get such a rate of fire from railguns or coilguns too.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 21, 2017 3:02:30 GMT
The bug you wilfully exploit, despite the issue being explained to you many times, permits that broken weapon to fire 1667 rps. The true capability of a sandcaster is likely to be well below 100rps (And I have some doubts about the realism of even that proposition) The same principle applies to heavier shot fired from coilguns, where rates of fire should often be below 1 rps sometimes significantly so. The M61 Vulcan cannon used by most US fighter jets fires at 100 rps (6000rpm). Of course it is a 6 barreled gatling gun, and a similar multi-barrel setup might be needed to get such a rate of fire from railguns or coilguns too. its more of a matter of discharging energy effectivly
|
|
|
Post by lieste on Feb 21, 2017 3:04:31 GMT
A significant difference is the delivery of power to the projectile, each cartridge is supplied with it's own pre-packaged supply of propellant, while the powerplant needs to deliver sufficient energy for each shot, usually from a much lower delivered average power. As performance increases the power requirement increases steeply, partly to accomodate the rise in shot energy, partly to deliver the increased energy in the shorter duration 'in barrel', and partly due to increasing losses at high delivery rates. With similar supply side power, the rates of fire of high performance EM weapons *must* fall as velocity increases, and the heavier shots, although using relatively slow projectiles have significantly higher muzzle energy and thus power draw than they are currently portrayed as having.
Having more chambers does nothing to reduce the power supply requirements, when the power is delivered by a low powered reactor (in this context this includes 100MW supply side feeding a 1MJ, 1g, 45km/s example with a 10m rail - this would require power delivery in excess of 18GW from an intermediate storage, and at 50% *rail* efficiency, and 50% charging efficiency (maximum possible from the integration of energy storage into capacitors) an absolute maximum rate of fire of 25rps. Having two rails does permit each to cool for twice as long between shots, but the combined firing rate cannot exceed that of a maximum rate of fire from single rail supplied the same 100MW supply.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 21, 2017 12:46:37 GMT
you might have a bank of capacitors too discharge energy rapidly and another to fire faster
|
|
|
Post by lieste on Feb 21, 2017 16:38:05 GMT
They would fill slower if there was no more supply side power increase. This is the primary limitation. Adding more complexity to the gun system does nothing to solve this aspect of the energy balance.
Adding more capacitor banks or using high energy storage (middling power delivery) permits rapid firing of a very small number of shots before exhaustion, but the time to recharge all for another burst of shots becomes the same as that to recharge the same number of single shots at the normal slow rate.
There are advantages to burst firing - most of the advantages of a rapid fire weapon, with less potential to overheat, to recoil off target, to expend inordinate amounts of ammunition to prosecute small/weak targets, but they remain only able to average the normal slow firing rate overall, so have limited ability to kill large/hard/complex targets.
|
|