F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5563
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post09 Oct 2015, 20:20

SpudmanWP wrote:In the simplest terms, the length of the cone is akin to the length of a gun barrel. The longer the cone, the higher & faster the mass of the jet.

btw, you cannot accelerate a "dart" without a barrel. Throw a cartridge into the fire and when it explodes, what exits the fire? It's the case, not the bullet.

Also, while a HEAT warhead may penetrate reinforced concrete bunkers, it will not do much damage once inside. The reason why you want the SDB to penetrate the bunker "prior" to it exploding is that you want that explosion "inside" the bunker. A HEAT warhead, by design, explodes outside the bunker and only causes a small amount of damage to the inside, assuming that it penetrates.


Yep this is why things like BROACH (and a few others) punch the hole in the concrete with the shaped charge - which an HE warhead then passes through to the inside before detonating.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post09 Oct 2015, 20:48

tincansailor wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
tincansailor wrote:Of course if the Age of Battleships had continued Anti-ship missiles would carry shape charge warheads.

I imagine they would have a charge pointed down to rip open the hull below the waterline.


My apologies. The short answer to your question would be partly yes. What I meant about Battleships being so much bigger then modern Cruisers and Destroyers is that it's harder to do what your talking about with warheads the size of Western anti-ship missiles. Some Battleships had a beam of 120" or more, with side by side compartments, you'd need a massive blast to blow out the sides of a ship that big. My point was that the only way missiles the size of Western Warheads could penetrate the main citadel of a Battleship would be with shape charges.

On the other hand some Russian Missiles are designed to take out Aircraft Carriers so they have 2,000 lbs warheads. Just by sheer power they would do better against heavily armored ships then current Western Missiles. At least shock damage could be heavy. A Russian Missile with a 2,000 lbs. warhead hitting at Mach 2.5 coming from above might do the job if it didn't explode before it hit the main armor deck. Mach 2.5 is much faster then a free falling bomb so it would have much greater kinetic force. However I don't think their warheads are ether shape charges or AP.

As for the future Rail Guns, and Hypersonic Missiles would have no trouble defeating Battleship armor. Their never coming back but there still amazing pieces of naval history and technology.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post09 Oct 2015, 22:34

SpudmanWP wrote:EFPs are fine for punching holes in armor, but they do not do much damage on the inside.

Tanks are disabled or get blown up because the HEAT, EFP, or sabot hits fuel, ammo, the engine, etc.

Bunkers/ships/cargo haulers/etc are different. You are not trying to disable it, but are trying to destroy everything in it.

iam aware of that Spudman, my question however is : why the EFP is designed with a shallow cone (disk) , instead of, you know a dart or something like that, and why something like EFP have such massive velocity compared normal bullet of same diameter
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post09 Oct 2015, 23:09

The difference in Velocity when looking at a disk of an EFP vs a dart has to do with mass. The dart is much heavier. Also, the explosive force applied to the disk is spread across it's entire surface which allows for a more efficient transfer of energy.

Last thing, the velocity of a HEAT warhead is much higher than an EFP.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1381
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post09 Oct 2015, 23:15

I imagine you'd also be able to pack more explosives into the same form factor with an EFP as well; you wouldn't have to deal with a sabot / space around the dart.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post10 Oct 2015, 00:35

SpudmanWP wrote:The difference in Velocity when looking at a disk of an EFP vs a dart has to do with mass. The dart is much heavier. Also, the explosive force applied to the disk is spread across it's entire surface which allows for a more efficient transfer of energy.

Last thing, the velocity of a HEAT warhead is much higher than an EFP.

Well, not the velocity of the warhead as a whole, but the tip of the jet can be as much as four times as fast as sabot dart.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post10 Oct 2015, 00:49

SpudmanWP wrote:HEAT warhead penetration, when all else is the same, is greater when the angle is sharper.

If you want to do the math...

http://www.sv-jme.eu/data/upload/2012/0 ... maz_04.pdf

Amount of Pen
50° 306mm
60° 276mm

The longer the cone, the higher the velocity & mass of the jet.

Here is a good vid of Shaped charges

Actually, no. The sharper the angle of the cone, the higher the tip velocity, but the lower the jet mass. There is a trade-off similar to what you would expect for guns in that respect. Additionally, there is also a limit in terms of the speed of sound in the metal as to how fast the tip can be made to go.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post10 Oct 2015, 04:10

SpudmanWP wrote:The difference in Velocity when looking at a disk of an EFP vs a dart has to do with mass. The dart is much heavier.

.

but then again , heavier penetrator would also mean better penetration
SpudmanWP wrote: Also, the explosive force applied to the disk is spread across it's entire surface which allows for a more efficient transfer of energy.

how about a EFP with discarding SABOT ? (it still have the disk to absorb the entire force )
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post10 Oct 2015, 04:32

An EFP has to remain light in order to have sufficient impact energy to pierce the armor.

Remember the formula is .5mV^2
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post10 Oct 2015, 06:22

SpudmanWP wrote:An EFP has to remain light in order to have sufficient impact energy to pierce the armor.

Remember the formula is .5mV^2

that formula is for kinetic energy , however if i remember correct , more kinetic energy doesnt always mean better penetration , it have to do with momentum :? for example an arrow or spear will easy penetrate a sand bag , a bullet however wont be able to do that despite much larger kinetic energy
http://www.thudscave.com/npaa/articles/howhard.htm
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post10 Oct 2015, 07:22

Impart the same amount of energy to the spear as you did to the bullet and it won't fly war.

A penetrator just weighs too much and it's too difficult to impart the explosive force onto it in order for it to fly straight.

There is always the fallback KISS logic and the trusty "If it were better and easy to do then someone would be doing it".
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1194
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post10 Oct 2015, 07:28

SpudmanWP wrote:EFPs are fine for punching holes in armor, but they do not do much damage on the inside.

Tanks are disabled or get blown up because the HEAT, EFP, or sabot hits fuel, ammo, the engine, etc.

Bunkers/ships/cargo haulers/etc are different. You are not trying to disable it, but are trying to destroy everything in it.


yeah I'm going to have to disagree with you there... (the first sentence)
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post10 Oct 2015, 16:11

SpudmanWP wrote:Impart the same amount of energy to the spear as you did to the bullet and it won't fly war.

A penetrator just weighs too much and it's too difficult to impart the explosive force onto it in order for it to fly straight.

i would have to disagree with this, you can see they make SABOT penetrator out of very heavy material such as depleted uranium, if weight was a problem then another material have been chosen

SpudmanWP wrote:There is always the fallback KISS logic and the trusty "If it were better and easy to do then someone would be doing it".

iam aware of this but i think there some other reason for the design
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post10 Oct 2015, 16:33

The reason that an EFP is a flat disk is so that the explosive force can easily impart its energy in a controlled manner.

You cannot do that with a sabot, as just a minute change in center of force will cause it to spin out of control. The rear surface area of a sabot is just too small.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post10 Oct 2015, 19:14

SpudmanWP wrote:The reason that an EFP is a flat disk is so that the explosive force can easily impart its energy in a controlled manner.

You cannot do that with a sabot, as just a minute change in center of force will cause it to spin out of control. The rear surface area of a sabot is just too small.

the sabot dart also have a disk to absorb all the energy
Image
Image
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests