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

[QUOTE=Alex_DeLarge;29251973][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs[/media] Fuckin magnets, how do they work?[/QUOTE] Do you kind of go around looking for opportunities to post that?

[QUOTE=archangel125;29251866]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[/QUOTE] Good thing I left Windows XP on my desktop. I was disappointed that a lot of 1990s sims refused to run on my laptop in 7.

I just realized how badass Apaches really are. Thank you.

Well, crap, reactive armor would be a bitch to simulate.

[QUOTE=HubmaN;29266724]Well, crap, reactive armor would be a bitch to simulate.[/QUOTE] By physics simulation yes. By other means no. Basically to reduce on resources used: -Munition tracer hits reactive plate surface. -Both models nulled. -Particles released and model of reactive plate replaced. Accounting for momentum of course.

This is a great thread, teach me more.

Updated the OP with a tiny blurb about how missiles are steered. More to come later, I guess.

You didn't go into sufficient depth on the anti-air missiles though: If anyone wants a brief insight, AA missiles explode in a slightly different fashion than conventional HE munitions do by utilizing annular fragmentation. The outer-casing of the missile is comprised of a series of long rods that are alternatingly welded at the ends with a more ductile metal, which allows it to expand in a ring-like/zig-zag formation, rather than as random bits and chunks like normal HE would. As a result, the fragment with its ring-like shape has a greater chance of striking its target and dealing more damage. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Continuous-rod-warhead.gif[/img]

That's pretty devious. Is it good or bad that we are constantly coming up with more ways to kill eachother.

[QUOTE=Falchion;29293130]That's pretty devious. Is it good or bad that we are constantly coming up with more ways to kill eachother.[/QUOTE] It's PROGRESS :science: God's Pimp Hand, may I add that to the OP, Diagram and all?

Isn't the GAU-8 also made for destroying vehicles? And if so, why u no type about GAU-8 :smith:

Just a query. Will a rocket fired from an RPG 7 explode if it hits directly on a human target?

[QUOTE=BCell;29296107]Just a query. Will a rocket fired from an RPG 7 explode if it hits directly on a human target?[/QUOTE] I'd like to know this as well, been wondering this for a while.

I love your threads man, they're nearly always interesting.

[QUOTE=BCell;29296107]Just a query. Will a rocket fired from an RPG 7 explode if it hits directly on a human target?[/QUOTE] It all depends. I actually knew a man (In the British army) who was hit directly by an RPG rocket. It tore out his stomach area but he lived. It didnt explode either after it passed through the jeep door. Pretty amazing stuff really you have to remember, these rockets are designed to explode on impact of something VERY hard (e.g. Tank Armour) not a fleshy body

[QUOTE=archangel125;29294556]It's PROGRESS :science: God's Pimp Hand, may I add that to the OP, Diagram and all?[/QUOTE] Sure. I'd be honored.

[QUOTE=BCell;29296107]Just a query. Will a rocket fired from an RPG 7 explode if it hits directly on a human target?[/QUOTE] It may explode. Or it may punch a hole in a human target and continue on its way. Or just bounce off and the person will die from internal bleeding anyway. Though RPG-7s are SUPPOSED to explode when hitting any target, many of those in use today by militias around the world are way past their best-before date, and so can't be counted on to work as intended.

[QUOTE=archangel125;29210070]I know a fair bit about tank shells and the A-10, but I wanted to focus mostly on rockets and missiles.[/QUOTE] Rockets and missiles? ROCKETS AND MISSILES?!? Wheres a full complement of info on ICBMs? Tomahawks? SCUDS?!? Add some more info on long-range tactical missiles, and add some bombs man, everyone loves bombs (except for those on the receiving end of the bombs)! [editline]20th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Retarded Turtle;29298386]It all depends. I actually knew a man (In the British army) who was hit directly by an RPG rocket. It tore out his stomach area but he lived. It didnt explode either after it passed through the jeep door. Pretty amazing stuff really you have to remember, these rockets are designed to explode on impact of something VERY hard (e.g. Tank Armour) not a fleshy body[/QUOTE] So you have to shoot the RPG at the feet of the fleshy target, but then the rocket may simply bounce up, and skid along the ground while the enemy soldier laughs his ass off...

[QUOTE=archangel125;29304269]It may explode. Or it may punch a hole in a human target and continue on its way. Or just bounce off and the person will die from internal bleeding anyway. Though RPG-7s are SUPPOSED to explode when hitting any target, many of those in use today by militias around the world are way past their best-before date, and so can't be counted on to work as intended.[/QUOTE] I remember 1 scene in black hawk down showing a soldier impaled with a RPG warhead.

[QUOTE=JDB;29208714]how did you forget this? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e1ktRjeOuI[/media][/QUOTE] Eye opening.

[QUOTE=archangel125;29304269]It may explode. Or it may punch a hole in a human target and continue on its way. Or just bounce off and the person will die from internal bleeding anyway. [/QUOTE] Or miss. Wikipedia has a nice table showing the probabilities of it hitting, here it is: [img]http://gyazo.com/407380bdbb681e680d46555f856b1563.png[/img] The probability decreases when there's wind :v:

I never knew attack helicopters worked that way. They don't ever really put themselves in line-of-sight with the enemy, huh?

[QUOTE=Xolo;29321999]I never knew attack helicopters worked that way. They don't ever really put themselves in line-of-sight with the enemy, huh?[/QUOTE] Actually, most do. Very few, like the Apache Longbow, can engage enemies without doing that. Of course, the Apache also uses many line-of-sight weapons, like 70mm unguided rockets, the M230 30mm chain gun, and the AGM-114K laser-guided hellfire.

I like how if a A-10 Pilot(spelling, on IE) fires the GAU-8 for to long he beings to stall because the bullets fly faster than the plane.

[QUOTE=beanhead;29323208]I like how if a A-10 Pilot(spelling, on IE) fires the GAU-8 for to long he beings to stall because the bullets fly faster than the plane.[/QUOTE] Recoil, aye :P It's not a supersonic plane, but that's a very, very big gun, and every type of bullet that isn't meant for suppressed weapons is supersonic. To the best of my knowledge, A-10 bursts can't last longer than five seconds, anyway.

[QUOTE=Xolo;29321999]I never knew attack helicopters worked that way. They don't ever really put themselves in line-of-sight with the enemy, huh?[/QUOTE] Helos like the AH-64 and Mi-28 were originally designed to be basically flying ATGM platforms used against armored formations with the use of pop-up attacks, terrain as cover and such. On the other hand, attack helicopters like the Mi-24 are intended to be used for direct close air support, hence why it's sometimes called a "flying tank" or a rotary [i]shturmovik[/i]. (As an aside, it can't hover very well) Its primary forms of operating are running attacks and its loadout with the ability to even mount bombs reflects that. [editline]20th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;29323094]Actually, most do. Very few, like the Apache Longbow, can engage enemies without doing that. Of course, the Apache also uses many line-of-sight weapons, like 70mm unguided rockets, the M230 30mm chain gun, and the AGM-114K laser-guided hellfire.[/QUOTE] Of course, the original Apache was intended to fire its Hellfires non-LOS. The theory was that you could have an OH-58 or COLT laser designation team paint their lasers on enemy tanks and have the Apache unload its entire missile complement behind a hard obstacle with impunity.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29327035]Helos like the AH-64 and Mi-28 were originally designed to be basically flying ATGM platforms used against armored formations with the use of pop-up attacks, terrain as cover and such. On the other hand, attack helicopters like the Mi-24 are intended to be used for direct close air support, hence why it's sometimes called a "flying tank" or a rotary [i]shturmovik[/i]. (As an aside, it can't hover very well) Its primary forms of operating are running attacks and its loadout with the ability to even mount bombs reflects that. [editline]20th April 2011[/editline] Of course, the original Apache was intended to fire it's Hellfires non-LOS. The theory was that you could have an OH-58 or COLT laser designation team paint their lasers on enemy tanks and have the Apache unload its entire missile complement behind a hard obstacle with impunity.[/QUOTE] Aye, you still can, with the LOAL (Lock-on-after-launch) hellfire mode. It depends on the scenario, I think. [editline]20th April 2011[/editline] Tac, have you ever served in the military? Or are you just a nerd like me? [editline]20th April 2011[/editline] I think stupidass actually uses search to find my posts so he can rate them dumb. Wonder what crawled up his ass.

[QUOTE=archangel125;29327178]Aye, you still can, with the LOAL (Lock-on-after-launch) hellfire mode. It depends on the scenario, I think.[/QUOTE] In theory, the terrain of Central Germany in the 1980s and American assumptions of Soviet military art made the AH-64 w/ LOAL a wonderful weapon against Soviet forces. What they didn't take into account was ERA (solved with subsequent Hellfires introduced after the Cold War), the possibility of raiding or forward detachments destroying FARPS and helicopter bases, and the possibility that the Soviets would have used laser dazzlers against optical devices used by fire support teams and helicopters -- which would have made the playing field more balanced. [editline]20th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;29327178]Tac, have you ever served in the military? Or are you just a nerd like me?[/QUOTE] Nope. Though I'm not your stereotypical "weapons freak". I'm just a history student with interests into 1815-onwards military history and all aspects of post-WWII-to-1991 mechanized warfare. And I happen to read the same books and sources officers use in their staff colleges.

Shape charges and APFSDS behave very similarly in their way of penetrating armor. Basically instead of standard overmatch and momentum, APFSDS and HEAT depend upon the sheer velocity of the metal to make it behave as a fluid, and it basically forces the material it's penetrating apart. However, by doing this, the tip of the penetrator starts eroding, and so it's just a question of how long it takes until the stream of liner breaks up (HEAT), or the penetrator is completely eroded away/too slow to continue penetrating. The TOW-2B and the BILL ATGMs rock, they just detect metal below it and use a prox fuse to send a copper slug flying at mach 5+ into the top of a tank :v: AA guns are completely capable of destroying MBTs, but you need the right ammo and the velocity/warhead mass to get the job done. The Bofors 40mm L/70 with APFSDS can penetrate most any MBT from the side and kill anything inside. Just regular AA guns, like the ZPU 23mm and 20mm Vulcans can do a mission kill by destroying optics, detracking the AFV, destroying the gun tube, and damaging the engine. The GAU-8 honestly is running out of steam as a tank killer. It absolutely requires hits to the engine deck or the top of the turret to have a chance, and it can't be upgraded to APDS or APFSDS for the A-10 because then it'll have the sabot petals be sucked into the engine.

[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;29328374]Shape charges and APFSDS behave very similarly in their way of penetrating armor. Basically instead of standard overmatch and momentum, APFSDS and HEAT depend upon the sheer velocity of the metal to make it behave as a fluid, and it basically forces the material it's penetrating apart. However, by doing this, the tip of the penetrator starts eroding, and so it's just a question of how long it takes until the stream of liner breaks up (HEAT), or the penetrator is completely eroded away/too slow to continue penetrating. The TOW-2B and the BILL ATGMs rock, they just detect metal below it and use a prox fuse to send a copper slug flying at mach 5+ into the top of a tank :v: AA guns are completely capable of destroying MBTs, but you need the right ammo and the velocity/warhead mass to get the job done. The Bofors 40mm L/70 with APFSDS can penetrate most any MBT from the side and kill anything inside. Just regular AA guns, like the ZPU 23mm and 20mm Vulcans can do a mission kill by destroying optics, detracking the AFV, destroying the gun tube, and damaging the engine. The GAU-8 honestly is running out of steam as a tank killer. It absolutely requires hits to the engine deck or the top of the turret to have a chance, and it can't be upgraded to APDS or APFSDS for the A-10 because then it'll have the sabot petals be sucked into the engine.[/QUOTE] The GAU-8 was originally designed to kill T-62s and T-55s. Even then if you've read the link I've posted its DU ammo wasn't expected to penetrate the frontal arc of those tanks.