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

[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;29328374]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] From what I've read, it still does a fantastic job collapsing Taliban tunnel systems - or at least their entrances. And it does decent anti-structure/anti-personnel work. I think that the next big war will see it replaced, though.

[QUOTE=archangel125;29323266]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] Technically, A-10's could sustain a burst long enough to empty out all of their ammunition. The weapon system would hold up just fine. However, it would damage the longevity of the barrels. They're designed for a lifetime around 20,000 rounds per barrel; sustaining a long burst doesn't do much but make that a smaller number. Also, the GAU-8 can't stall the A-10 unless the plane was flying at right above stall speed and doesn't feel like upping the throttle a tiny bit when firing. Yeah, it has heavy recoil, but the A-10's weight and engine power are more than enough to keep it moving forward very easily.

I know, but tanks increasingly have the armor to deal with DU AP-I from the GAU-8. I think that with enough time, the A-10 is pretty much relegated to rendering an enemy tank blind by destroying the GPS and CIV. At range 30mm AP-I can only penetrate something like 30mm of RHAe from the distances you can expect to engage tanks at in the A-10.

A-10s were actually going to be removed from service last decade from what I remember. Only reason they kept them around was because they were cost effective for fighting the taliban.

[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;29328639]I know, but tanks increasingly have the armor to deal with DU AP-I from the GAU-8. I think that with enough time, the A-10 is pretty much relegated to rendering an enemy tank blind by destroying the GPS and CIV.[/QUOTE] Heh, that's about as likely as shooting off the track of an MBT.

It's reasonably likely, the GPS and CIV don't have heavy ballistic protection and are both on top of the tank, making them able to be hit by shrapnel and other nasty effects from 30mm HE-I splashing onto the turret roof.

Do you think it's likely that ammunition with better armor-piercing capability can be made for the GAU-8, or is the system going to become obsolete anyway?

How many Hellfire missiles can a single AT Longbow be equipped with?

[QUOTE=Explosions;29338661]How many Hellfire missiles can a single AT Longbow be equipped with?[/QUOTE] You mean an Apache? (The Longbow is just the name for the Radar system) The Apache has four weapon pylons, and each pylon can carry four hellfires. So a total of sixteen hellfires.

[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;29338341]It's reasonably likely, the GPS and CIV don't have heavy ballistic protection and are both on top of the tank, making them able to be hit by shrapnel and other nasty effects from 30mm HE-I splashing onto the turret roof.[/QUOTE] That all depends on the physical location of the components on different tanks. For example on the Leo 2A4 the gunner's primary sight is embedded within the frontal turret, which of course creates a ballistic hole for any decent AP/HEAT weapon to punch through. [QUOTE=archangel125;29338427]Do you think it's likely that ammunition with better armor-piercing capability can be made for the GAU-8, or is the system going to become obsolete anyway?[/QUOTE] Unlikely, as fighting a high-intensity war against a peer opponent isn't as high as a priority in the US military. Besides, armor technology at least what arms manufacturers have been advertising have caught up. [editline]21st April 2011[/editline] This is interesting. Apparently it works against everything including top-attack missiles and kinetic energy penetrators. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m426fLbKh34[/media] [editline]21st April 2011[/editline] And this might give top-attack EFPs a hard time: [url]http://www.ibd-deisenroth-engineering.de/amap-r.html[/url]

[QUOTE=archangel125;29338924]You mean an Apache? (The Longbow is just the name for the Radar system) The Apache has four weapon pylons, and each pylon can carry four hellfires. So a total of sixteen hellfires.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I guess I meant the Apache. I'm not so good with helicopters.

[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;29213731]Time to flex my chemistry muscle. What would be a more feasible anti-personnel explosive would be a hot acid bomb. Low-yield explosive that spatters hot Sulphuric/Nitric/hydrofluoric acid all over, and if you think that there has to be contact for the acid to kill you are forgetting the vile, vile fumes This rapes the geneva treaty right up the ass though.[/QUOTE] Red Fuming Nitric Acid. Nothing else is needed.

How does an AT know when to detonate? Wouldn't it explode when it hit the side of the tank, or does it somehow time itself to explode when it passes the armor? Or does it explode when it hits the armor but it it moving so fast that the main discharge is inside the tank? It seems to me that it would just explode on the outside and just plow a metal rod through the armor.

I'm Der_Titan, rockets <3

[QUOTE=Explosions;29353601]How does an AT know when to detonate? Wouldn't it explode when it hit the side of the tank, or does it somehow time itself to explode when it passes the armor? Or does it explode when it hits the armor but it it moving so fast that the main discharge is inside the tank? It seems to me that it would just explode on the outside and just plow a metal rod through the armor.[/QUOTE] Depends on what kind of rocket it is. Some rockets can be delayed, some just punch through the armor and/or cook the guys inside the tank.

[QUOTE=Goberfish;29210666]I always found it depressing how effective our weapons are compared to how effective our defences are.[/QUOTE] the best defense is always a good offense

[QUOTE=Explosions;29353601]How does an AT know when to detonate? Wouldn't it explode when it hit the side of the tank, or does it somehow time itself to explode when it passes the armor? Or does it explode when it hits the armor but it it moving so fast that the main discharge is inside the tank? It seems to me that it would just explode on the outside and just plow a metal rod through the armor.[/QUOTE] Well, in truth, AT rockets explode on impact, when hitting the side of the tank. They don't need to penetrate the armor before exploding, because they're meant to drive through armor WHEN they explode. Tandem warheads, as explained in the OP, contain two charges. One charge gets rid of reactive armor and the main charge packs the majority of destructive force, gutting the tank.

[QUOTE=archangel125;29355603]Tandem warheads, as explained in the OP, contain two charges. One charge gets rid of reactive armor and the main charge packs the majority of destructive force, gutting the tank.[/QUOTE] Though more modern types of reactive armor (2nd generation and up) of the traditional concept contain anti-tandem charge measures as a counter. Kontakt-5 ERA as a measure against late-1980s anti-tank missiles like TOW-2A has a heavier 15mm hard steel ([i]not RHA steel[/i]) front plate, making it harder to trigger by the precursor warhead. Of course, the answer to that is to use an even larger precursor warhead and designers of newer ERA packages have kept pace as well. In the Ukraine, there's this ERA called Nozh which has a unique defeat mechanism. The ERA is made up of a series of linear shaped charges which [i]cuts[/i] the kinetic energy penetrator or shaped charge jet. The newer Nozh-2 is designed to work against modern tandem-charge weapons. [img]http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j88/chamotombo/nozh111.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29356250]Though more modern types of reactive armor (2nd generation and up) of the traditional concept contain anti-tandem charge measures as a counter. Kontakt-5 ERA as a measure against late-1980s anti-tank missiles like TOW-2A has a heavier 15mm hard steel ([i]not RHA steel[/i]), making it harder to trigger by the precursor warhead. Of course, the answer to that is to use an even larger precursor warhead and designers of newer ERA packages have kept pace as well. In the Ukraine, there's this ERA called Nozh which has a unique defeat mechanism. The ERA is made up of a series of linear shaped charges which [i]cuts[/i] the kinetic energy penetrator or shaped charge jet. The newer Nozh-2 is designed to work against modern tandem-charge weapons. [img_thumb]http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j88/chamotombo/nozh111.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] You obviously know more about this stuff than I do. Damn.

[QUOTE=Chernzobog;29222099]Is thermite an effective armor melting substance? Could it be used in explosive ordinance and chemical cartridges?[/QUOTE] Thermite only burns at around 1200C, it's not hot enough to melt through modern armour, like the depleted uranium stuff.

Hmmm... the best rocket i've ever seen is like this: 8-----------------D I've used that rocket many times.

[QUOTE=Der_Titan;29365196]Hmmm... the best rocket i've ever seen is like this: 8-----------------D I've used that rocket many times.[/QUOTE] :frog:

[QUOTE=Der_Titan;29365196]Hmmm... the best rocket i've ever seen is like this: 8-----------------D I've used that rocket many times.[/QUOTE] Brilliant! Make one organic to every infantry platoon!

[QUOTE=Der_Titan;29365196]Hmmm... the best rocket i've ever seen is like this: 8-----------------D I've used that rocket many times.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.myonlineruler.com/ruler.png[/img] [B]8-----------------D[/B] That's a real shame.

[QUOTE=archangel125;29377634][img_thumb]http://www.myonlineruler.com/ruler.png[/img_thumb] [B]8-----------------D[/B] That's a real shame.[/QUOTE] Yeah, just like your mom.

What was the first A2A missile, or G2A missile Arch. That would enlighten me, how effective was it?