[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / chemo / clang / doomer / leftpol / tingles / vg / xivlg ]

/k/ - Weapons

Salt raifus and raifu accessories
Winner of the 68rd Attention-Hungry Games
/d/ - Home of Headswap and Detachable Girl Threads

January 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

There's no discharge in the war!

File: b0c5c0144249cbf⋯.jpg (142.54 KB, 294x704, 147:352, Art-gordon-greybg.jpg)

File: 2fbff0a2884d9b4⋯.png (50.43 KB, 720x500, 36:25, gplus436713134.png)

File: 39229c02449ea95⋯.png (5.95 KB, 201x251, 201:251, images.png)

File: 567b50249257c14⋯.jpg (112.74 KB, 988x718, 494:359, armor.american.m1.abrams-s….jpg)

a51384  No.647380

From what I can tell, the way that electric armor works is that when a projectile penetrates the outer panel, which is connected to the ground wire, falls back to the back panel, connected to the hot wire, at the speed of electricity, where the projectile connects with both of them and is arc welded into plasma/debris, which then bounces off the hard armor behind the panels. This seems like a relatively simple concept, but so far its only been tested on tanks as experimental armor (as far as we know). The real question is if this could be compacted into deflecting small arms fire with the armor being worn by an individual, using a suit that has a light enough battery to carry in it while still providing enough power to melt the projectiles. If this is possible, it would be less like larpy power armor and more like a HEV suit that reduces damage when it has enough power. The rest of the features are another topic, but if its this simple, it seems like someone in his garage could make at least an example of this working.

414099  No.647388

This is a really interesting topic, but how much battery can one dude carry on him for a welder? do man-portable electric welders even exist?

Also, what would be ther best filler material to put between the electrode plates? best metal for the plates? thickness?

How much energy does it take to melt a single bullet?

what happens if the melted bullet connects the two plates and they melt together?

I think this technology's best application will be a railgun tank. Railguns in the field are juuuust starting to become feasible, but we'll see them as ship guns and stationary artillery first, then an SPG, then perhaps a tank(it'll probably be more like a infantry fire support vehicle, taking the role of the stryker dragoon). A railgun tank would be kinda like the abrams but without most of the armor, same two turbines running generators, a huge capacitor bank, and lots of fuel. This thing will drink gas even faster than the abrams, because gas is also your gunpowder. However, you get a railgun; you can shoot the same projectile much faster and further than before. This kind of standoff range can be decisive. Another thing to consider: torque. Electric engines are bi-directional and very torque-y, making them very suitable for tanks, which need to be able to forward/reverse a few feet as fast as possible. This electric armor is just icing on the cake.

railgun tank vs conventional tank:

>greatly reduces logistical needs because:

>is a very efficient generator for the unit

>ammo is smaller

>no explosive ammo so cheap ammo and no shipping hazards

>only need diesel and ammo

<but lots of it. which we already can and usually do supply.

>can shoot further than conventional guns

>extremely high velocity rounds

>fast reverse acceleration cus omnidirectional motor

<guzzles diesel like a fucking jet hovering when firing at full power

<no explosive ammo

<you must now train tankers how to deal with extremely high voltage

<tankers will have to manage their charge level in battle and may not be ready to fire when needed

<high-end capacitors are explosive

i have a feeling that some explosives can handle being accelerated faster than a standard cannon but not quite at railgun speeds, so a 1/2 of 2/3s power railgun might be able to fire a HEAT shell with reduced range. But thats assuming that the projectile heating up is accounted for too. It could probably fire conventional shells, but at conventional (or moderately better) velocities.

b8bd97  No.647389

File: 8a1679a8048691a⋯.jpg (299.54 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 8981xEDF_2025_Epsilon_Armo….jpg)


You are forgetting the biggest problem with rail guns: barrel life. Those things will shoot themselves out in only a dozen or so shots so unless the rails are easily replaced and cheap to produce it still has a bit of a way before being practical.

96f7eb  No.647397

Interesting idea, could potentially mean that there will be some sort of ammunition that will have an extremely high melting point that will be meant to suck up as much energy as possible. Maybe layer of the APFSDS round being made of volfram?

>HEV suit

It had no intention of providing ballistic protection. The HEV suit was meant for hazardous environments, such as extreme radiation and cold.

Although we have been over the power armour question a thousand times here and the answer is still the same, we lack batteries that are energy dense enough to actually feed a suit of power armour and the current leading edge of battery technology, Lithium Ion, would be extremely dangerous to put on the back of a soldier since the tiniest penetration would mean a very rapid discharge of all the cells and a pretty big explosion. Putting a nuclear reactor on the back of a soldier is also questionable.

b8bd97  No.647401


The HEV suit explicitly states ballistic protection and reactive armor systems enabled during the HL1 boot sequence actually.

5bbc5a  No.647404

File: 47d19888413a27b⋯.png (154.28 KB, 500x593, 500:593, the-violence-has-escalated.png)


Now this is some real future shit. Step aside, energy shields - the soldier of tomorrow is finally getting a way to shrug off bullets that doesn't need to run on fucking magic.


>do man-portable electric welders even exist?

I'm no welder, but I've heard of car batteries being used as power supplies for arc welding, so carrying enough power to run this kind of thing is probably not too outlandish.

>how much battery can one dude carry on him for a welder?

Remember, the circuit in this kind of armour would be open by default - the incoming projectile closes the circuit by bridging the gap between the two charged plates, and in doing so it gets fried like a blown fuse. Even though the armour would be "on" while in use, it shouldn't actually be using any power at all except for at that one moment when a projectile penetrates it and bridges the gap between the two electrode plates.

>what would be the best filler material to put between the electrode plates? best metal for the plates? thickness?

Thinking about car battery welding got me wondering about the best way to power this kind of armour, and since it would require a way to supply a large amount of current in a very short amount of time, the answer should be the same as for any other pulsed power application, right? Just use capacitors. Then it hit me: why bother powering the electrode plates from a capacitor bank, when the entire design of this type of armour is already a parallel-plate capacitor just waiting for somebody to notice it? Almost every question about how to best design this armour has already been asked and solved in the attempt to build better capacitors. Best filler material to put between the electrode plates? Whatever works well as a dielectric. Best metal for the plates? Whatever offers the highest capacitance. Thickness? Shit, I dunno, ask an electrical engineer, but the answer's gonna be "whatever thickness makes the capacitor more capacitor-y".

>what happens if the melted bullet connects the two plates and they melt together?

The circuit would be stuck open, and it would keep draining power until either: A) you run out of power, and then you're just a goof in a shiny suit, or B) the bullet just can't handle having any more energy dumped into it and it turns into plasma, or vapour, or just melts and trickles out from between the two plates, drips onto your thigh, and makes you wish you could return to the simpler days of having a bit of hot brass go down your shirt collar.

>no explosive ammo

<high-end capacitors are explosive

Sounds like the ammo problem gets solved as soon as the enemy develops their own railgun tank.


>Lithium Ion, would be extremely dangerous to put on the back of a soldier since the tiniest penetration would mean a very rapid discharge of all the cells and a pretty big explosion.

Li-ion batteries as ghetto ERA? Now we're going places.

5bbc5a  No.647406


>The circuit would be stuck open

Fuck, I mean stuck closed.

96f7eb  No.647411


Did it? I completed the game for the first time in January, I don't think I noticed that. I always assumed that it was meant for day to day work in Black Mesa and dealing with hazardous chemicals.

c06895  No.647435


What happens after the first hit though? wouldn't it make the whole thing useless then?

54d9cd  No.647437

The problem of power armor is lack of power source to power it on the go.

So let's make a power armor that requires EVEN more power as protection.

I will stick to ceramite and kevlar.

d2805b  No.647460

Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.

8b3478  No.647487


Electronics tech here. You'd have to create a faraday cage around you, otherwise the arc flash will weld the armor to your skin in the best of cases (the worst case being the amperage from the impact would need to be high enough to insta-weld/melt bullets meaning it would be high enough to stop your heart or light you up like a flare.

Electricity is a cruel mistress where about 1 in 5 people who work on high voltage will die before age 30 due to fucking up. There is no forgiveness when you fuck up with high voltage/high amperage and there's a reason they use it on tanks and not humans due to this potential for fuckery when you stick it on some window licker who would just as soon poke the holes where he was hit with his bare hands or intentionally try to activate the protective feature by stabbing the armor with a knife (and frying himself in the process) among other Darwin Award-winning moments.

8b3478  No.647524


It would melt and you'd eventually end up with red-hot liquid metal slag against your chest until it can spread apart/lose contact, or a dead battery occurs from shorting it for too long. It's great for a tank where a little red hot metal won't affect the uranium-steel armor plating, not so much for human flesh. Go connect a copper wire to a car battery and connect the two ends together with a primer/powder-removed load to see what would basically happen (or don't remove the primer/powder if you want to create a tiny frag grenade).

8b3478  No.647527



Which reminds me, if for ANY reason this armor gets penetrated and goes into you, you've just shorted your body to ground and have created one more reason having a giant capacitor as body armor on a meat bag is a bad idea since the voltage threshold of blood is ridiculously low. An Army electrician killed himself a few years ago on a 12 volt voltmeter because he pierced the probes through his thumbs- your skin having a voltage threshold in the 20s before current can pass through you whereas your blood has a threshold of like 3 volts for current to pass through you.

6e0d83  No.647531

File: a5393759e0a2525⋯.pdf (6.14 MB, CLGG_report.pdf)


Does the 4th picture really suggests that the Abrams is already equipped with electric reactive armour, and it's just a well kept secret that nobody found out?


Railguns are a fucking meme, CLGGs are an infinitely superior technology. Of course it was abandoned in favour of a less mature, more expensive and nearly useless option.

96f7eb  No.647533


>Does the 4th picture really suggests that the Abrams is already equipped with electric reactive armour, and it's just a well kept secret that nobody found out?

That's just the normal spaced composite armour of the Abrams. I think the OP just posted that as a show of where he would put the electrodes between.

414099  No.647534

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


Rails are FAR easier to manufacture than barrels.

in order to make two perfectly flat long surfaces like the rails, all that's needed is to rub the two surfaces together, and rub each against a third surface for the same amount of time to prevent a curved surface. The only common plane between three surfaces must be flat.

This is done a lot to produce surface plates, standards for perfect flatness in labs and machine shops. A british guy discovered this in the 1800s and its part of what brought in the industrial revolution. It was the first perfectly flat surface mankind had ever made. This process would be stupid easy to apply to rails on railguns, its already used to produce perfectly flat surfaces on big, heavy chunks of metal. Yes, this process takes time, but its INCREDIBLY simple. Just extrude two rails if possible, you may need to machine rails(or maybe one piece), cut your firing surface to nearly what you want, then rub the rails together, then rub the rails against a standard surface plate. It must be the same surface they rub against for this process. Im an engineer and have an idea about how an industrial machine like this would work, too drunk to draw/explain it rn.

This is far, far more complicated than drilling or hammer-forging a barrel, both of which must be machined extensively to include the breach and other things before drilling/forging, then going back to check your clearances/headspace/other bullshit. Railgun rails are relatively simple pieces the only challenge being the size, and they only require a single, flat precision surface. The rest can be as precise as you want to pay for.

vid related is a couple boomers explaining how to rub rocks together just right. Same principle, applied to railgun rails.


I read on wikipedia that the plates acting as capacitors is part of the functionality of the system, and the plates' capacitative charge is the charge that melts the bullets, meaning larger plates hold more charge and melt larger bullets. Charge rate would depend on power lines going in and the power production onboard. Charging from caps in my railgun tank was just because the capacitors replace batteries, for more railgun power. (it would also charge the armor faster)


>he wants a brap gun

>instead of a railgun

brap guns are already as mature as they are going to get. NASA has been using them to simulate high-velocity asteroid impacts for several decades now, and when through several generations optimizing them purely for velocity, at the expense of all else.

6e0d83  No.647539

File: 61f887a566fada9⋯.mp4 (10.39 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, Battlefleet Gothic Armada ….mp4)


>he wants something that's not even a cannon instead of a cannon like in vid related

We've been manufacturing gigantic barrels just fine for more than a century now, and there are alternatives that we could use. Look up the Babylon Gun. The future is to launch guided projectiles full of electronics that have a nearly 100% hit rate. With those you don't even need a precise hole, just a good gas seal on the projectile. Launching those from a cannon is much simpler than launching them from this contraception that is already charged with electricity, especially if you want to launch rocket assisted shells or missiles. It's also a lot more efficient to directly convert chemical energy into kinetic energy. Converting it into electricity first, and then converting that electricity into kinetic energy is incredibly wasteful to begin with, not to mention that you need machinery for that, and that makes the whole system a lot bulkier and heavier, so you'll need an even bigger vehicle that needs even more fuel just to move. And I haven't said anything about the problems of replacing the rails after a few shots in the field. Artillery guns are meant to keep firing for days without taking a break, and a railgun is not cut for that job.

b8bd97  No.647551


You have to remember that the suit was made with pentagon bux for the marines and that it was also made for scientists exploring zen. Its a bit more than your average hazmat suit.

58d704  No.647554

why not just make armor out of ice


f984ef  No.647556


Not nearly as much power as power armor would need, that's why this could work using something similar to a car battery and power armor wouldn't without an onboard fusion reactor


Could the Faraday cage be divided into separate pieces placed just under the plating so that the user could still move or would it have to be an uninterrupted single piece of cage? If its the former, it seems like it could be done, that and rubber could be placed beneath the cages to insulate further and to separate the cage from everything underneath

>intentionally try to activate the protective feature by stabbing the armor with a knife (and frying himself in the process)

Bonus points for enemies trying to stab the user and getting fried instead (or at least melting their knife)


idk I just found it on google images lol

414099  No.647561


This isnt WW1, we aren't firing barages for days on end. Arty barrages these days are as precise as possible and focus on putting maximum boom on target in the minimum amount of time. railguns (and clggs) are advantageous because you can shoot the projectile faster. Its roughly the same acceleration for both clggs and railguns, but railguns will put a bit more heat and absurd electromagnetic forces on the projectile. When you do need to bomb something for days on end, you use rocket artillery and bombs, not conventional arty.

clggs would introduce a new fuel into the army(and navy)'s logistical nightmare. Having a tank that doesnt need any propellant and uses diesel instead sounds pretty nice to me. Also, what makes you think railgun projectiles cant be guided? Its explosives that tend to not work, and its from the heat from the plasma and the compression from the extreme acceleration. Its a solvable problem, but one that clggs face too.

57b091  No.647563

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


>Can you make a Faraday cage with openings in it?

Short answer is "no." You can't build it that way. The closest you could do is a flexible mesh, but it would still have to extend over basically the entire body underneath the armor in order to prevent contact with skin. Vid related is memery but it shows what I mean by needing a cage around the soldier. I say "faraday cage" but really any "cage" that shorts the electricity to ground or disperses it BEFORE it reaches you would do the job. Chainmail has a similar effect if I recall correctly.

57b091  No.647564


Ah fuck, I meant to address the use of insulating material as well. Most insulating materials melt really easily under electrical arc flash conditions (or even just under high amperage conditions). In practice, you wear specially rated rubber gloves because they'll prevent you from accidentally touching a live wire, but if that wire has too much current in it (or god forbid it arc flashes), the rubber is more likely to melt/weld to your skin rather than protect you, so I'm not sure an insulative material would help either.

f984ef  No.647586

File: 76c94ee553535b1⋯.jpg (153.93 KB, 750x750, 1:1, Faraday-cage-shielding-20-….jpg)

File: 6da80f1f6310b93⋯.jpg (533.79 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, demian-urcan-front-blur.jpg)

File: 6b7ce24a989c249⋯.jpg (107.93 KB, 512x512, 1:1, .jpg)


So then it should be possible as long as the faraday cage is one solid piece covering the whole body as long as its flexible. This would mean that the helmet is 100% necessary and integral to its use so no gordon freeman memery. The only problems remaining seem to be if the metal from the projectile turns into liquid instead of vapor and manages to melt through the suit or if the mesh gets holes in it, which should be mostly prevented by the armor working but if there is then the suit could simply deactivate the armor until its fixed/replaced

6e0d83  No.647611


>This isnt WW1, we aren't firing barages for days on end.

That's because since Vietnam the US armed forces were either used as glorified gendarmerie or faced sandniggers.

>When you do need to bomb something for days on end, you use rocket artillery and bombs, not conventional arty.

What? You can reload a howitzer after every shot, but you have to reload all tubes of a MRLS at the same time, and that's quite a long process. Airplanes are even worse, because you also need to refuel them, and they need constant maintenance. Not to mention that it's a lot more demanding on the pilots and on the ground crew. How the hell are those faster than simply reloading a tube?

>clggs would introduce a new fuel into the army(and navy)'s logistical nightmare.

Read the report, you can manufacture hydrogen and oxygen from either water or fuel. You just need an additional truck with this equipment for every battery, and all of your problems are solved.

>Also, what makes you think railgun projectiles cant be guided?

I didn't wrote that it's impossible, I wrote that it's easier with a clgg.

>Its a solvable problem, but one that clggs face too.

You don't have to deal with plasma in a CLGG. It really is like a conventional cannon that uses gases, so you only have to face the problem of high acceleration.

1a09e2  No.647670


>insulating material

easy, ceramics. Its whats used in most tiny capacitors certain ceramics are both excellent insulators and excellent armor. I'm sure there's one that's a good compromise for this situation.


>reload all tubes of MRLS

but 6 MRLS trucks cost the same as one 150mm SPG, dumb rockets are also cheaper than shells. No high-precision parts.

>i wrote that its easier with the clgg

You mean cheaper. Those cost benefits will very quickly be overrun by the cost of moving either methane or nullified by the fact that they are powered by hydrolysis machines, which need power, and on a large scale, it will inevitabely come from a similiar turbine generator and put roughlt the same strain on the fucking cobweb of JP-8 supply lines the US already has throughout the globe.

Transporting methane(or any compressed flammable gas really) in the field is dangerous, probably more than transporting explosives; you can choose between highly compressed tanks that may detonate when pierced, or large less pressurized tanks that only spew flames, but still lose all the product on a single penetration to a now larger target.

>dont have to deal with plasma in clgg

There's still more heat than a conventional cannon, and less then a railgun.

CLGG's advantages over railguns right now are durability and somewhat better potential for explosive ammunition, but CLGGs havn't had any major advances in several decades compared to railguns which, since 2000, have seen capacitors get much more dense, rail life supposedly double,

6e0d83  No.647677


>but 6 MRLS trucks cost the same as one 150mm SPG, dumb rockets are also cheaper than shells. No high-precision parts.

That only works if you are doing saturation bombardment with those dumb rockets, and (assmuning you are the same anon) you wrote this:

>Arty barrages these days are as precise as possible and focus on putting maximum boom on target in the minimum amount of time.

Using 6 MRLSs is the exact opposite of a precise barrage, therefore this argument doesn't make any sense.

>You mean cheaper. Those cost benefits will very quickly be overrun by the cost of moving either methane or nullified by

You aren't even responding to what I wrote. The subject there is launching guided projectiles, and that has nothing to do with what you wrote.

> it will inevitabely come from a similiar turbine generator and put roughlt the same strain on the fucking cobweb of JP-8 supply lines the US already has throughout the globe.

But you can put that additional truck in a corner of a base and supply the gases together with the ammunition. You don't have to build it into the SPG. Meanwhile the railgun needs the capacitors on the vehicle.

>still lose all the product on a single penetration to a now larger target.

The gas tanks would be a part of a magazine, and so that penetration would be fatal to a conventional SPG. Read the report, with hydrogen and oxygen you'd just have a jet of flame spewing from the tank. It's much safer than conventional propellant.

>There's still more heat than a conventional cannon, and less then a railgun.

Do you have a single fact to back that up?

>CLGGs havn't had any major advances in several decades compared to railguns

That's because of retardation and corruption. Railmemes are features in media as some kind of a superweapon, and they are a very expensive technology. It's only natural that corrupt idiots would rather spend money on a more expensive and less useful alternative. From what I can gather Utron already built a perfectly fine 155mm CLGG that was simply abandoned, and that's why CLGGs aren't advancing: nobody is paying the R&D.

6e0d83  No.647678

d2820c  No.647727

File: e0b394eaa56e8b2⋯.jpg (134.65 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 8.jpg)


>Using 6 MRLSs is the exact opposite of a precise barrage, therefore this argument doesn't make any sense.

Are you aware that MRLSs use only guided precise munition in teh year 2019? Based Obama banned cluster unguided rockets.

be5da0  No.647728

File: 8588389a178977c⋯.jpg (118.06 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, god_only_burningout.jpg)


Why are murcas unable to keep in mind more than one sentence at a time? Is it a cultural or educational problem, or just a result of wanton miscegenation? Read this sentence, and keep reading it until you know it by heart: >>647670

>6 MRLS trucks cost the same as one 150mm SPG, dumb rockets are also cheaper than shells. No high-precision parts.

Do note the highlighted parts.

d2820c  No.647729


Electric armor sucks comparing to explosive reactive armor. Its very simply explosives store order of magnitude more energy than capacitors and can deliver much more powerful action against projectile.

BTW Russians unironically develop explosive reactive body armor.

d2820c  No.647730


There are no dumb rockets for MRLS anymore, silly.

be5da0  No.647731


It keeps happenig!


87cdce  No.647765


>BTW Russians unironically develop explosive reactive body armor.

Sauce, schnell!

73b4e4  No.647770

File: 9d64f6c6ca89c88⋯.jpg (60.97 KB, 600x300, 2:1, ERAmemearmor.jpg)


Ask and thou shall receive

f9dbf5  No.647773


>dumb rockets are also cheaper than shells. No high-precision parts.

You have that backwards. Most howitzer shells are made from cheap castings, whereas a rocket needs a precisely machined nozzle in order to achieve a useful level of accuracy at standoff range.

3415ae  No.647786


Not rocket truck anon, but can't you just cast said nozzle end and then do some finishing work to smooth it out, or stack a number of cheap stamped, perforated plates on top of each other with each set of nozzle holes twisted relative to the last in the stack? I know for a fact the latter was used to decent effect, I just can't remember where. Plus there's always the option of flip-out fin stabilization.

Beside that, this Combustion Light Gas Gun business. This is a strange and interesting thing that I have had no awareness of before now. I don't know how much faith I have in the gas tank pseudo-magazine with the scaleable gas mixture I'm seeing on research guns and garage builds, it seems gimmicky, but it is still very interesting. My question is why no one has considered making a CLGG cartridge system? In other words, simply replacing solid propellant with a light gas canister, fired from a conventional/old-type tube.

That seems like the simplest way to take advantage of the technology using existing equipment & science, if you can somehow overcome the economy of scale of existing tooling/industry that'll still be displaced in regards to propellant; just trade a certain amount of solid propellant for an equivalently energetic and denser, proportionally lighter gas can. The fiddly part would be figuring out how to prime it. Maybe a small hard-plastic high explosive plug in the cartridges' internal can, which is ignited by the primer and easily protects it from getting kicked off by gas pressure? Since it's internally seated, it's being pushed into place instead of out of it.

Now, the acceleration is much higher, and it puts a load on the functioning components of a shell. But what's the overall pressure load like, venting a controlled light gas explosion instead of a nitro solid? I would think that more energy in=more pressure load out, but maybe there's some peculiarity to the way it combusts that I don't understand just skimming? As far as I can understand, the use of more energetic gasses combusting and accelerating at presumably faster rates is sort of an inverse of the high-low pressure system gradually shunting projectiles to max velocity. But the shitty wiki stub notes that it has 'higher efficiency' in bang in-shoot out without elaborating further. What, it puts more energy onto the projectile, while imposing less on the chamber and tube due to being more of a 'fsssh' than a 'bang' at least relative to nitro propellant? Is it something like a high-low system that simply reaches far higher acceleration? What am I looking at here?

And, really, the crowning question here; why aren't we being assed with putting more efficient propellant in our boomsticks and more richly alloyed, rougher and tougher stick to our boom in general? If we're going to do some major paradigm shifting changeover to railguns or CLLGs or coils or whatever else that will upend the old order anyways, why not just design a better solid propellant, in a better cartridge, with a better projectile, in a better conventional guntube? At least then you have the opportunity to keep at least partial compatibility between new weapons and old ammo as you roll out the suped-up versions of the old faithfuls. Is the material science just not there, or is it pure procurement corruption heebery?

03622f  No.647814


>I just can't remember where

USSR I believe.

d2820c  No.647830


Before Obama ban of MRLS dumb rockets they were cheaper than 155 arty rounds. If you calculate cost per 1 DPICM bomblet delivered.

d2820c  No.647831

aec3d6  No.647834

File: ee7035792b5b782⋯.png (4.7 KB, 281x94, 281:94, aow.png)


It was something the slavs used for gyrojets, or at least I'm remembering it from the gyrojet thread.

3415ae  No.647974


This is very strange and very interesting. Horizontal autoloaders, with no breech at all. The bulk of the complete system definitely lends itself to naval use, versus having a kind of wagon fort of supporting gas trucks for towed guns. But then again, all you're really doing is changing the propellant and how it's stored, so maybe that's not really a concern? But I feel very remiss about trailing gas lines from truck to gun. It seems like so much clutter, and just another step if you have to get the guns set up or torn down quick, though the extreme range advantage should minimize the need for that.

So, you can make it a self-propelled chassis as Magyarnon seems to be proposing as I look over the previous posts again, but depending on how much gas and how many shells you'll need, I wonder if it won't bloat in either size and weight or in support apparatus if you put them on a separate vehicle? It'd take a far harder look at the data than I'm giving it to figure if pressurized gas and CLGG projectiles will be logistically superior to shells. It's certainly safer, as the report indicates with the hydrogen jets. But it seems highly vulnerable to sabotage, if the enemy can get far enough behind the lines to get the super-range guns.

All it takes is one man with a clear line of sight and a high-velocity anti-material gun or high bore rainbow trajectory rifle to pinhole the storage tanks- almost no matter how many individual tank compartments you make- and suddenly you're shit out of propellant. A stack of shell boxes somehow seems easier to hide than the tankers I'm envisioning and a little stiffer against projectile sabotage, at least as far as compartmentalization; the pierced shells are writeoffs, but that's a shell or two lost per shot on target instead of a barrages' worth of propellant. Again the idea comes to mind of some kind of prepackaged CLGG pseudoshell, with a gas can bonded to the projectile as a kind of cartridge, but then you lose the benefit of being able to cook up whatever propellant mixture and resultant velocity, range & ballistic arc you want. You just get a nicer, flatter and cleaner shooting slug thrower at that point.


Ruskie gyrojets. Yeah, I think that was it. Has the stamped plate ethic been applied to artillery scale rockets before? It seems like the perfect solution to keep launcher bore/rail spacing as close to 1:1 with the rocket bore as you can get, while also being cheap as dirt and nearly if not exactly as precise as expensive machined thrust-stabilizing nozzle plates, which as I recall the Germans tended towards for barrage weapons in the second war. Far too much work for a disposable dumbfire rocket. But fixed fins are sort of shit for accuracy as I understand. Stamped thruster stabilization, that's the best of both worlds for a penny-pinching procurement or a total war environment.

773aec  No.647990

File: 234ad6e19de0c00⋯.jpg (46.7 KB, 375x501, 125:167, Tall-Gas-Cylinders.jpg)


Spaces composite armour sides for the tanks of gas, plus those big IBC sized sandbag walls, depending on how entrenched you want to be. Or, just use these bad-boys. A truck would be able to carry a couple dozen of those, then they could be unloaded into a bunker or dugout type thing.

3415ae  No.648000


Yes, all are options. I considered spaced armor for the gas can farm, and obviously digging a hole is always an option. The question is how big an inconvenience it would be to have the additional weight of anti-antimaterial gas tank pavise shields or more deep dug-out duty for the artillerymen? Probably not very much, considering you can get 200 nautical miles/230 standard max range out of a 70 caliber barrel in naval mounting. I doubt you'll lose an incredible amount of that range downscaling to a 52 or 60 caliber barrel, compared to 25 miles with current US 155/52 gun-howitzers with fancy GPS guided rocket boosted shells. Let's be (un?)charitable, pull a number out of my ass by doing doubtless completely wrong monkey math that just associates range in miles to caliber length by percentage, 3.2ish miles per caliber length, and say that you go to 170 miles with a 52 caliber barrel, 197 with a 60 caliber barrel. That's still a 680%-788% increase in range, and we're sitting at about a third or a fourth the range of the Big Babylon super duper fuckoff space guns right there.

Of course, this is without minimizing the size and mass of the stern end of the gun assembly, which will probably be simpler, smaller and less capable of the absurd pressures of the naval testbed version or else will have a double-carriage to stick the gas compressor on, use a breach housing of some kind instead of a chunky autoloader and will have externalized the gas cans themselves. That will probably do far more to cut your range down than shortening the tube. But a CLGG that could pull even a 50-100% boost in range would be massive, and I don't think it would be too bold of me to say that a 400% increase of 100 miles would not be unreasonable in an M198/M777 replacement gun of similar tube/carriage/breach mass, though a very likely greater total mass including integral gas tanks.

That's scraping the lower end of small/air launched cruise missiles' operational range, except in a rapid-fire capable guntube with vastly cheaper ammunition. I feel stupid for thinking digging an extra ditch or having an extra truck is a meaningful issue, because nevermind that the general rule is shoot and scoot, and not to dig in, but you can chuck a kinetic shell from one border of some US states to the other. Or directly over one and juuust into the next for the itty bitty East Coast states. The guns are so far in the backline that enemy counterbattery action is a pipe dream, and trying to launch an effective commando attack on them, assuming they stay in place, is probably outside the reasonable ability of many guerillas or special forces- even if they bring indirect fire weapons like light mortars or lance grenade launchers- if the security forces aren't being intentionally mismanaged and thus outside the bounds of cost-effectiveness. You can still try to brute force it and blow the whole firebase or HQ down with a truck bomb, but that's another issue entirely.

33ef0d  No.648023

any power armour needs an easily charged supply, not something reliant on resupply.

we already see the marines switching to batteryless/rechargable optics with the m27,

there's no way in hell a soldier will wear a powered suit that only works for like 4 hours before a bettery swap into battle when he's already fed up with changing batteries on his optics.

not only does it need to be easily charged in field, it needs to charge efficiently and quickly.

all i can think of is charging the armor with body fat and kinetic motion.

if the powered armor is something like an exoskeleton or (more realistically) a nanosuit-esque IPMC suit, movement alone won't be enough to power it.

charging from movement and from body fat are both passive and don't require the soldier to do any more than what they already would be doing, barring eating more food to maintain a suitable calorie surplus.

if i'm not mistaken, animal fat has an energy density close to diesel fuel, which is leaps and bounds ahead of any battery.

ofc, a genetically engineered soldier will always be better than an exosuit,

because you can build the suit into them, shaving the total weight considerably.

and that's why exosuits are nothing but vaporware, because by the time exosuits are good enough, genetic engineering will have already been more than good enough.

the only reason we don't genetically engineer humans right now is because it's illegal, the technology is already mostly here.

that's not to say that it doesn't need to be developed further, but it's the difference between needing to invent a lathe and having a lathe that you refuse to use.

there will always be prototyping as with any project, but the tools are already there.

57b091  No.648026

File: 2acd424d9c9aebd⋯.png (191.22 KB, 392x336, 7:6, 2acd424d9c9aebd85a658352b1….png)


What the fuck is with your typing? Why can't you use proper capitalization/punctuation? Are you retarded?

>but it's the difference between needing to invent a lathe and having a lathe that you refuse to use.

More like the difference between researching/buying a quality lathe using expert precision parts, or hoping farmer Joe's rusted mini-lathe doesn't launch a part directly through your skull when you put a load way too large on it or try to change out some of the rusted-over components with plastic gears.

57b091  No.648027

File: b676934c0d2ad81⋯.webm (234.54 KB, 1012x1080, 253:270, angryoninoises.webm)

While I'm here, though.


>easy, ceramics. Its whats used in most tiny capacitors certain ceramics are both excellent insulators and excellent armor. I'm sure there's one that's a good compromise for this situation.

Ceramics are brittle. The kinds that make good conductors/insulators tend to be lacking in other areas. You have boron carbide which could see potential use, but the smallest matrix you can produce is about 1 square inch, which would be lacking for joint movement. Of course this all ignores that one of the best ways to bring out the properties of electric reactive armor is to keep the material as far away from the contact surface as possible (I believe it would take a boron carbide encasing with approximately 25 feet between you and the material to stop a lightning bolt, as a point of reference).

I'm not putting down the idea of electric reactive body armor because it's infeasible (it could clearly be made, shit, someone could do so within the confines of their home), I'm putting it down because you'd have to convince someone to hop into what is basically a walking death trap more likely to kill the owner than the threat itself should the wearer ever encounter automatic fire or high-penetration rounds. Adoption of any sort of electric-based system for mass use requires at least basic but fundamental understanding of Ohm's law for anyone using it. While that should be standard high school physics for just about everyone/something that anyone who's been zapped by a light switch because they had wet hands, I know the state of the education system, and how likely someone who's not trained on how cruel of a mistress electricity is to underestimate her and get themselves killed. When you fuck up with ballistics or explosives or numerous other things, the most common scenario is a few missing fingers or a missing limb at worse. When you fuck up with electricity, your heart stopping can be considered one of the more merciful things that can happen. I just don't see the average American soldier (or really ground soldiers from most countries except maybe the 'Strayans and a handful of others) having the IQ nor the discipline to understand that dicking around with your electric body armor will get you killed. It'd have to be locked up/under surveillance at basically all times when not in use to prevent "soldier dies from sticking dick in armor's bullet hole" headlines weekly, which would just make the average soldier more likely to want to dick around with it on the rare occasions when they get the chance to do so.

203a58  No.648674

File: df2880707499427⋯.jpg (57.74 KB, 322x388, 161:194, 4u _06824c76c5f34edc0f5d34….jpg)


Yeah, if there were no on board computer to determine when to shut off the armor automatically or any way to automatically cover up the holes in it so ameritards and similar crayola eaters don't kys themselves it seems to completely fall apart. The worst part is that if it gets submerged without automatically detecting water to shutdown somehow or manually shutting it off before getting wet then you're more than liable to explode. By the time there were such an onboard system advanced enough to detect water without fail there might already be fusion power which would make this pointless when you could be using actual power armor.

9f9bfc  No.648738

File: b33816155ef4e6e⋯.png (29.38 KB, 980x916, 245:229, Rascal MK II.png)


power armor is so doable its not funny but people are stupid and keep focusing on batteries.. Fuck batteries put a fucking engine on it. Make it a fucking gas powered segway. See how simple it could be? Put a 2 stroke engine on a seqway with some beefed up offroad tires then build a 4" thick steel chasis around it and mount a 240 and a grenade launcher on it. SEE HOW FUCKING SIMPLE IT COULD BE? THE FUTURE IS NOW!

57b091  No.648796


That's not power armor though. It's a light vehicle.

b8bd97  No.648884


Literally every country tried this in the interwar period and found they were all universally shit.

9f9bfc  No.648897


>its a light vehicle

>not power armor

Power armor is by definition a vehicle.


of course that drawing wouldnt work, it would be clumsy and retarded unless you made it quite a bit larger. But, when the biggest hinderance to us having power armor is that battery tech isnt there yet.. why not forego the battery and throw a fucking 2 stroke and a 10 gallon gas tank on it.

5bbc5a  No.648960


>Power armor is by definition a vehicle.

It's apparel.

57b091  No.648967


>But, when the biggest hinderance to us having power armor is that battery tech isnt there yet..

The biggest hindrance* to us having power armor is that almost any rifle round that can reliably take down a deer can also pierce "bulletproof" armor. Batteries are a secondary concern you disingenuous cunt. We just focus on batteries because battery technology would make working hydraulic suits, not armor but suits for allowing some military guy to act as a walking forklift as an example, need better power supplies if we're not keeping them stuck to cables.

57b091  No.648968


The other reason we focus on batteries is because to make armor thick enough to stop most ammunition, you'd need a large amount of energy to do so at which point you're dealing with objects such as tanks or light vehicles out of necessity, not apparel.

666fb5  No.648988

File: 6349c1bf3ce9f84⋯.jpg (257.49 KB, 2000x1423, 2000:1423, infantry wearing power arm….jpg)


You're not wrong, though expect some people are definitely going to have trouble wrapping their brains around it.

Pic related, it's what replaced a good number of heavy weapons platoons because we said "fuck it, just have the platoon ride in the heavy weapon and be done with this shit". And it works quite well for the wars we fight.

4d8b33  No.649858


To think HEV suit is from the 90s with AI assistant.

In-game it felt more like a "modern" representation of a metal armor that was hard enough to resist small arms while using energy to keep its armor plates "hard", not disintegrate or react.

In HL2 it felt more like a power-armor due to the aux power letting you go fast and zoom.

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / chemo / clang / doomer / leftpol / tingles / vg / xivlg ]