|
Post by jjtt11 on Jul 27, 2017 6:38:19 GMT
Recently I purchased the game and for my first module created I decided to make a Cannon that fired depleted uranium slugs. From what I've seen the effectiveness is quite good, at least, with what I have now (a muzzle velocity of about 3 km/s with a 2 gram slug). But is there better ammunition than DU?
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Jul 27, 2017 7:17:34 GMT
Recently I purchased the game and for my first module created I decided to make a Cannon that fired depleted uranium slugs. From what I've seen the effectiveness is quite good, at least, with what I have now (a muzzle velocity of about 3 km/s with a 2 gram slug). But is there better ammunition than DU? Velocity, mass and cross-sectional density of the projectile are more important than material strength of the projectile as soon as the impact velocity is above ~0.5 km/s. Osmium is excellent ammunition because it's dense while not breaking the bank. Denser ammo means less volume for a similar mass of ammunition. It's one of the reasons why I always use octogen.
|
|
|
Post by jjtt11 on Jul 27, 2017 7:31:18 GMT
Velocity, mass and cross-sectional density of the projectile are more important than material strength of the projectile as soon as the impact velocity is above ~0.5 km/s. Osmium is excellent ammunition because it's dense while not breaking the bank. Denser ammo means less volume for a similar mass of ammunition. It's one of the reasons why I always use octogen. Thanks, if its not much trouble may I ask what you mean by Cross-sectional Density?
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Jul 27, 2017 8:02:40 GMT
Velocity, mass and cross-sectional density of the projectile are more important than material strength of the projectile as soon as the impact velocity is above ~0.5 km/s. Osmium is excellent ammunition because it's dense while not breaking the bank. Denser ammo means less volume for a similar mass of ammunition. It's one of the reasons why I always use octogen. Thanks, if its not much trouble may I ask what you mean by Cross-sectional Density? The mass per forward surface. E.g. a projectile with a 2 m radius has a frontal surface of pi*(2 m)² = 12.57 m². If it has a mass of 1000 kg, the cross-sectional density is 1000 kg/12.57 m² = 79.6 kg/m².
|
|
|
Post by jjtt11 on Jul 27, 2017 10:06:49 GMT
Thanks, if its not much trouble may I ask what you mean by Cross-sectional Density? The mass per forward surface. E.g. a projectile with a 2 m radius has a frontal surface of pi*(2 m)² = 12.57 m². If it has a mass of 1000 kg, the cross-sectional density is 1000 kg/12.57 m² = 79.6 kg/m².To To put it in simple terms, I want the CS Density to go up to increase effectiveness?
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Jul 27, 2017 12:49:10 GMT
To put it in simple terms, I want the CS Density to go up to increase effectiveness? High cross-sectional density means high penetration, since it puts more mass against the same surface of enemy armor. So thin projectiles are best. High density materials give you the same cross-sectional density in a much shorter projectile (If you used selenium instead of osmium, it would be 5 times the length. You can do that if you don't mind larger volume). IRL, tungsten rods are considered for orbital bombardment weapons; in that case the "armor" is atmosphere and ground. Osmium is a very resilient material, and not that much more expensive than comparable options like platinum (ammo is normally not a huge portion of cost), so it's the usual pick.
|
|
|
Post by jjtt11 on Jul 27, 2017 23:25:03 GMT
To put it in simple terms, I want the CS Density to go up to increase effectiveness? High cross-sectional density means high penetration, since it puts more mass against the same surface of enemy armor. So thin projectiles are best. High density materials give you the same cross-sectional density in a much shorter projectile (If you used selenium instead of osmium, it would be 5 times the length. You can do that if you don't mind larger volume). IRL, tungsten rods are considered for orbital bombardment weapons; in that case the "armor" is atmosphere and ground. Osmium is a very resilient material, and not that much more expensive than comparable options like platinum (ammo is normally not a huge portion of cost), so it's the usual pick. I see, thanks alot.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jul 27, 2017 23:39:18 GMT
DU has the benefits of being self-sharpening and when it hits 02 it can catch fire
|
|
|
Post by someusername6 on Jul 28, 2017 16:52:46 GMT
DU has the benefits of being self-sharpening and when it hits 02 it can catch fire ... in space?
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jul 28, 2017 17:20:40 GMT
DU has the benefits of being self-sharpening and when it hits 02 it can catch fire ... in space? you know, crew modules and LOX tanks
|
|
|
Post by n2maniac on Jul 29, 2017 4:45:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Jul 29, 2017 10:26:18 GMT
At the velocities that are usually achieved, the ability to catch fire is irrelevant, as the materials that come into contact are shocked into plasma, making chemical reactions impossible.
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Jul 29, 2017 21:55:04 GMT
To put it in simple terms, I want the CS Density to go up to increase effectiveness? High cross-sectional density means high penetration, since it puts more mass against the same surface of enemy armor. So thin projectiles are best. High density materials give you the same cross-sectional density in a much shorter projectile (If you used selenium instead of osmium, it would be 5 times the length. You can do that if you don't mind larger volume). IRL, tungsten rods are considered for orbital bombardment weapons; in that case the "armor" is atmosphere and ground. Osmium is a very resilient material, and not that much more expensive than comparable options like platinum (ammo is normally not a huge portion of cost), so it's the usual pick. Our superguns fire rounds with such high energy we could probably make the shells out of alumminum and still shrek any practical armor scheme, though.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jul 30, 2017 0:37:21 GMT
High cross-sectional density means high penetration, since it puts more mass against the same surface of enemy armor. So thin projectiles are best. High density materials give you the same cross-sectional density in a much shorter projectile (If you used selenium instead of osmium, it would be 5 times the length. You can do that if you don't mind larger volume). IRL, tungsten rods are considered for orbital bombardment weapons; in that case the "armor" is atmosphere and ground. Osmium is a very resilient material, and not that much more expensive than comparable options like platinum (ammo is normally not a huge portion of cost), so it's the usual pick. Our superguns fire rounds with such high energy we could probably make the shells out of alumminum and still shrek any practical armor scheme, though. the alumminum wouldn't make it out the barrel in one lump
|
|
|
Post by linkxsc on Aug 2, 2017 14:48:46 GMT
So wait, does the game actually respect projectile length vs penetration depth? Is firing needles instead of coins actually better at penetrating?
Even more than that, does it respect overmatching of armor? (Though I doubt the coins a lot of people's guns are firing can really overmatch any angled armor IRL)
|
|