Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: was Dragon now really digressed missile talk :)
Date: Thu Aug 15 11:50:01 2002
Gurth said,

> To get a larger-diameter HEAT round, which will penetrate
> thicker armor? AFAIK the
> main factors in a HEAT round's armor penetration are the
> cone's diameter and
> angle, not the amount or power of the explosives behind it
> (provided there's
> enough, of course).

First off what is afaik. Second you don't need larger if its more powerful.
A good example is the difference between a US Standard Frag grenade and the
MISAR min Frag. Same Casualty producing ability but the MISAR is half the
size. Granted grenades aren't missiles but your just not understanding my
point. If the normal missile will get through the armor, and you increase
the ability of the explosive charge to do damage by packing more power in
the same space you wont have to have a bigger warhead.

I said,

>>The pip
> Dragon and pip
> > Tow (prior to 3rd gen dragon and tow which are top attack)
> have the dual
> > function anti reactive armor and improved shape charge from
> adding the
> > telescoping (3-6 inches not sure) tip on the front of the missile.

Gurth Responded

> There you go again: you come up with something else than what's under
> discussion :)


Not if it helps me get my point across:)

Gurth continued,

>Yes, a dual-charge round will take care of ERA,
> but you still need a
> large warhead to penetrate the normal armor underneath it.

>>I disagree. We are starting with a missile that can already penetrate
armor. What I'm trying to get across is that you can improve it with out
needing a larger warhead or missile.
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Matthew Bond)
Subject: was Dragon now really digressed missile talk :)
Date: Thu Aug 15 12:45:01 2002
Scott Dean Peterson wrote:
> Gurth said,
>
>> To get a larger-diameter HEAT round, which will penetrate
>> thicker armor? AFAIK the
>> main factors in a HEAT round's armor penetration are the
>> cone's diameter and
>> angle, not the amount or power of the explosives behind it
>> (provided there's
>> enough, of course).
>
> First off what is afaik

AFAIK = As Far As I Know

Matt
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: was Dragon now really digressed missile talk :)
Date: Thu Aug 15 13:15:00 2002
According to Scott Dean Peterson, on Thu, 15 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> First off what is afaik.

As Far As I Know

> Second you don't need larger if its more
> powerful. A good example is the difference between a US Standard Frag
> grenade and the MISAR min Frag. Same Casualty producing ability but the
> MISAR is half the size. Granted grenades aren't missiles but your just
> not understanding my point.

Yes, I am. You are saying that with more explosives in a missile, it will be able
to penetrate more armor. I'm saying that with HEAT warheads, that's probably not
the case. A fragmentation hand grenade is something entirely different from a HEAT
round...

> If the normal missile will get through the
> armor, and you increase the ability of the explosive charge to do damage
> by packing more power in the same space you wont have to have a bigger
> warhead.

True, if you use the explosives directly. A stick of dynamite might cause thin
armor plate to spall without making an actual hole, while the same weight of C4
might blow a hole clean through it. However, a HEAT round, as used in nearly all
ATGMs ever made, doesn't work that way -- it uses the explosives to drive a piece
of metal through the armor.

> > There you go again: you come up with something else than what's under
> > discussion :)
>
> Not if it helps me get my point across:)

IMHO, the main thing it does is divert attention away from the point... As such,
it looks a bit like a deliberate ploy to confuse everyone :)

> >Yes, a dual-charge round will take care of ERA, but you still need a
> > large warhead to penetrate the normal armor underneath it.
> >
> I disagree. We are starting with a missile that can already penetrate
> armor. What I'm trying to get across is that you can improve it with out
> needing a larger warhead or missile.

In which case it works entirely differently. A top-attack TOW can actually
penetrate _less_ armor than a standard TOW, because it has a smaller warhead due
to the need to point it downward. But this is not important to the operator
because it will be used against thinner armor anyway.

In other words: we are discussing different things. Your messages make it appear
as if you're talking about making a missile pierce armor better, when in fact
you're talking about a how to make a missile more effective. Those two are not the
same thing :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: was Dragon now really digressed missile talk :)
Date: Thu Aug 15 13:40:01 2002
Gurth said,

> In other words: we are discussing different things. Your
> messages make it appear
> as if you're talking about making a missile pierce armor
> better, when in fact
> you're talking about a how to make a missile more effective.
> Those two are not the
> same thing :)
>

I think its time for a redirect or a you made your points and I mine lets
find something else to talk about :)

Scott
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: was Dragon now really digressed missile talk :)
Date: Fri Aug 16 04:25:01 2002
In article <000001c24473$d01414e0$8c00f218@***.rr.com>, Scott Dean
Peterson <lordmountainlion@***.rr.com> writes
>Gurth said,
>
>> To get a larger-diameter HEAT round, which will penetrate
>> thicker armor?

>First off what is afaik. Second you don't need larger if its more powerful.
>A good example is the difference between a US Standard Frag grenade and the
>MISAR min Frag. Same Casualty producing ability but the MISAR is half the
>size. Granted grenades aren't missiles but your just not understanding my
>point. If the normal missile will get through the armor, and you increase
>the ability of the explosive charge to do damage by packing more power in
>the same space you wont have to have a bigger warhead.

No, you won't, because the explosive force is not the issue. Charge
diameter, detonation velocity, liner material, standoff distance and
armour composition are.

HEAT warheads are complicated beasts, but the primary parameter
determining their penetration performance is the diameter and angle of
the cone. Changing the explosive power is a much less significant
parameter.

>>Yes, a dual-charge round will take care of ERA,
>> but you still need a
>> large warhead to penetrate the normal armor underneath it.
>
>>>I disagree. We are starting with a missile that can already penetrate
>armor. What I'm trying to get across is that you can improve it with out
>needing a larger warhead or missile.

Improve it how, since it's already overmatching the target?

--
Paul J. Adam

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about was Dragon now really digressed missile talk :), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!