Explaining Explosive Ordnance - How rockets and missiles (of various roles) work. - General

OP, you going to update the thread OP with more stuff?

[QUOTE=archangel125;29210795]Oh, sure. Just not practical in military applications. I've only ever seen tiny amounts of sodium reacting with water, but I'm not entirely certain it can be used effectively in larger bombs. Why do you ask? [editline]16th April 2011[/editline] You kill it with armor-penetrating saboted shells, anything with a high density and velocity, or an anti-tank warhead. [editline]16th April 2011[/editline] Was that even a serious question?[/QUOTE] I've been wondering why sodium bombs weren't common. It wasn't until you told me that it occurred to me that rain is h2o

[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;29242991]Back in school, my chemistry teacher was gonna dispose of some old sodium, and I asked her if we could use it in a more creative way. Basically we threw 5 liters of water on 1kg of sodium from like 50m away. [B]It was the scariest thing of my life.[/B][/QUOTE] You should have wrapped it into only slowly leaking paper warp and flushed it into school toilet. [editline]17th April 2011[/editline] I can guarantee it would be the most drastic toilet prank in history of your school.

I like how people dumb my comment but don't respond to it.

Dont most missiles nowdays have proximity explosion ?

[QUOTE=TheForeigner;29245559]Dont most missiles nowdays have proximity explosion ?[/QUOTE] Some anti air missiles do, but not all of them. Antitank missiles don't have a proximity fuze.

[QUOTE=mokkan;29241236]I've been wondering why sodium bombs weren't common. It wasn't until you told me that it occurred to me that rain is h2o[/QUOTE] Not to mention there is a fair amount of water in the atmosphere.

[QUOTE=Ignhelper;29239695]OP, you going to update the thread OP with more stuff?[/QUOTE] Yeah, okay. Coming right up.

[QUOTE=Shostakovich;29232087]Would it be feasible to make a disorientation weapon, like a scaled up flashbang? Something that destroys the windows and deafens all people within a tightly controlled radius? Would this be practical, or does this already exist?[/QUOTE] Just fly supersonic jets really close the ground.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;29222346]Thermite burns too slowly to be shot in form of antitank or other rounds.[/QUOTE] While not effective in missile form it can make a pretty good tank killer in a pinch if properly placed.

[QUOTE=archangel125;29245608] Antitank missiles don't have a proximity fuze.[/QUOTE] Makes sense, imagine if it would detonate on proximity. Stream of molten copper right at the poor sod that was standing next to the tank.

This thread blows

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;29246418]This thread blows[/QUOTE] :downsbravo:

[QUOTE=archangel125;29245608]Some anti air missiles do, but not all of them. Antitank missiles don't have a proximity fuze.[/QUOTE] There are actually a few ATGMs that have a proximity fuze. The 9K121 Vikhr has the option of using one against airborne targets. The Swedish RBS-56 BILL uses a proximity fuze to make sure its 30° downward angled warhead hits the top of its target, so does the TOW-2B.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29211400] Read this: [url]http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_053c.html[/url][/QUOTE] "You dumb shit an A-10 will not fit underneath a T-62 tank and remain airborne" "Calm down studly flyer, your chances of hitting the barrel are about as good as you leaving Bangkok with a "red barron" pasted to your forehead" This thing is hilarious :v:

[QUOTE=Maximo13;29246339]Makes sense, imagine if it would detonate on proximity. Stream of molten copper right at the poor sod that was standing next to the tank.[/QUOTE] Actually, the liner of a shaped charge [i]does not[/i] melt when it collapses. This is a quote from a guide Andrew Jaremkow wrote for Steel Beasts: [quote]HEAT warheads, at their most basic level, are a cylinder of high explosive. The front face of the cylinder has a conical cavity carved out of it, and a thin conical metal liner (typically made of copper) is fitted tightly against the walls of the cavity. The cylinder of explosive is detonated from the rear, causing a high pressure shock wave to rush forward towards the liner at speeds of about 8,000 m/s. When the explosion front passes along the liner it forces it to collapse inwards, starting from the narrow tip of the cone. As the walls of the collapsing liner slam together they generate pressure so far above the yield strength of the liner material that the metal flows in a fluid fashion [b](even though it is still well below the melting point)[/b] and a long jet of liner material squirts forward through the open end of the cone. This narrow jet is moving so quickly (around 10,000 m/s at the tip) that its impact pressure forces any armor it strikes to flow to the sides, opening a long narrow crater in the path of the jet.[/quote] [editline]17th April 2011[/editline] About the Apache Longbow, I remember an retired officer who was assigned to the US Army's Opposing Force when it depicted a "Soviet Motorized Rifle Regiment" at the National Training Center during the 1990s, telling how the regiment made a flight of Longbows launch their Hellfires at [i]burn barrels[/i] since they were using thermal sights all the time. Let me find it.

Bookmarking for future reference.

Ah, here it is: [quote]A few years along, and some NTC training rotations turned into Advanced Warfighting Experiment rotations, where the Army would demonstrate the goodness of all their electronically connected sensors, command and control systems, and other expensive doohickies. [b]Along with these they brought the Apache Longbow: a lethal nighttime killer, able to see out to ranges from which no enemy could touch them, and able to deliver massed Hellfire volleys… well, you all know the hype.[/b] Now the OPFOR knew that Longbow companies were coming out on rotation. Don't let anyone lie to you: the OPFOR commanders who execute the missions don't know the whole scenario. They don't cheat. But they're not stupid. And they knew that the Longbows would be used for the deep fight, preferably to engage the OPFOR regiment while it was still on the march. Now Fort Irwin is big, but not big enough that the OPFOR can come marching from all that many kilometers away. They traditionally parked in battalion-sized laager sites, all arrayed in march formation, typically three company columns abreast, a few kilometers from the Blue line of contact. They'd have barbecues the night before an attack, get some rest, then turn over the engines just before SP time and move out into the attack. They'd been doing it for years, and everyone knew they did, and had a darned good idea where to expect to see them once they moved out. (Unit S-2s came out with diagrams of OPFOR laager sites, as if that would do them any good…) So, the first night the Apaches were likely to get into the fight in their deep battle mode, the OPFOR parked all their tracks up in little wadis--not in their nice neat parking lot formations--and shut them down so they'd be cold. (And it *was* cold: I can testify, as I was heading out to the box at about 0330 that morning in the G-2 open HMMWV.) The attack helicopter company transited over us as we drove out, and we could see them with just marker lights setting up in their aerial BPs, at a good stand-off range from the perfectly templated OPFOR laager sites. When the "battle" commenced, the Longbows opened up on the laager sites with their MILES Hellfires, and [b]suddenly the Eagle (aviation observer-controller) net was full of complaints about how they weren't killing anything.[/b] Well, of course, the reason they weren't killing anything was that the OPFOR wasn't there. The OPFOR had had their barbecue, for sure, and had left those cut-down burn barrels, along with enough more to give the signature of three parked MRBs, burning down all night long. So they were nice and toasty to give the perfect heat signature of an entire MRR sitting parked in formation when the Apaches opened up. And meanwhile, of course, the OPFOR was quietly, and with cool engines, just slipping out of their wadis unseen and into the attack, which was completely and devastatingly successful[/quote]

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29248747]Actually, the liner of a shaped charge [i]does not[/i] melt when it collapses. This is a quote from a guide Andrew Jaremkow wrote for Steel Beasts: [/QUOTE] I know, my grandfather also described it to me, he said it was like it. He's an artillery coronel, so I kinda doubt he's seen it though.

[QUOTE=Maximo13;29249335]I know, my grandfather also described it to me, he said it was like it. He's an artillery coronel, so I kinda doubt he's seen it though.[/QUOTE] Soviet artillery pieces were intended to fire HEAT-FS rounds for direct fire if any tanks showed up. Not sure about NATO or Western artillery.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29248896]Ah, here it is:[/QUOTE] Hrm. That would be the AGM-114K hellfire, I'm guessing, the laser-guided variant. But aye, sounds like those pilots were relying too much on FLIR.

[QUOTE=archangel125;29249906]Hrm. That would be the AGM-114K hellfire, I'm guessing, the laser-guided variant. But aye, sounds like those pilots were relying too much on FLIR.[/QUOTE] Nah, it'd be the AGM-114L since the Army was testing every new piece of equipment (even things that didn't enter IOC yet) at the time by wedging them into NTC training sessions.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29249995]Nah, it'd be the AGM-114L since the Army was testing every since new piece of equipment at the time by wedging them into NTC training sessions.[/QUOTE] Huh. But the Longbow radar would've told them they weren't firing at vehicles. It actually tells the operator whether the object they're targeting is a structure, a tracked vehicle, or a vehicle with wheels. Neat stuff about the liner not melting, though. Didn't know that :)

[QUOTE=archangel125;29250023]Huh. But the Longbow radar would've told them they weren't firing at vehicles. It actually tells the operator whether the object they're targeting is a structure, a tracked vehicle, or a vehicle with wheels. Neat stuff about the liner not melting, though. Didn't know that :)[/QUOTE] The Longbow probably received several software upgrades in the 2000s. But then again, it is still an electronic device and it can be fooled.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29250092]The Longbow probably received several software upgrades in the 2000s. But then again, it is an electronic device and it can be fooled.[/QUOTE] Aye. I thought it might be worth mentioning that (at least as far as my research has indicated) longbow hellfires are only capable of engaging Longbow radar contacts, and can't really be directed to hit a laser designator or the object in a TADS picture. For that reason, especially in today's engagements, the Apaches currently in service overseas use the K variant.

[QUOTE=archangel125;29250242]Aye. I thought it might be worth mentioning that (at least as far as my research has indicated) longbow hellfires are only capable of engaging Longbow radar contacts, and can't really be directed to hit a laser designator or the object in a TADS picture. For that reason, especially in today's engagements, the Apaches currently in service overseas use the K variant.[/QUOTE] From Designation Systems: [quote]In 1992 the U.S. Army decided to develop a derivative of the AGM-114K with a new mm-wave (MMW) active radar seeker for use with the AN/APG-78 Longbow radar of the AH-64D. This new missile is known as "Longbow Hellfire" and designated AGM-114L. For short-range or moving targets, [b]the AGM-114L's MMW seeker is locked on the target before launch using data from either the AN/APG-78 or the AH-64D's TADS (Target Acquisition & Designation Sight).[/b] For long-range shots at static targets, the missile is launched in the direction of the target and controlled by its inertial system until the MMW seeker locks on for terminal guidance. Firing tests of the AGM-114L began in 1994, production was authorized in 1995, and the first missiles entered service in 1998. [/quote]

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29250369]From Designation Systems:[/QUOTE] Aah, I see.

On the other hand, now I have a craving for some old helicopter sims. Currently digging out my old copy of Jane's Longbow 2 and an Mi-24 Hind sim.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29251004]On the other hand, now I have a craving for some old helicopter sims. Currently digging out my old copy of Jane's Longbow 2 and an Mi-24 Hind sim.[/QUOTE] I tried running that, but apparently windows 7 is FAR too new to run it, even in compatibility mode. Guess I have to settle for ARMA 2 :C

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs[/media] Fuckin magnets, how do they work?