Re: Aluminum ships don't burn to the waterline?
- From: "Paul J. Adam" <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:00:47 +0100
In message <Xns9C4BAA1362A4AtsalagiNOSPAMasusnet@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Dennis <tsalagi18NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Wow! I know those "Silver Bullets" were really amazing.
Bear in mind that their lethality against tanks is excellent because tanks tend to be crammed with vulnerable and flammable material (crew, electronics, ammunition, hydraulic fluid) which all react very poorly to the spall of a penetrating AP round. Ships are much less densely packed, so pure AP rounds have a habit of zipping straight through unless they hit something vital.
There was news footage a few years back of a merchant ship that got hit by one of the big Russian antiship missiles in a test firing gone wrong: it looks like something from a Warner Brothers cartoon, with a neat missile-shaped hole clean through the hull. The ship made it to port with neither problems nor casualties, though the outcome of the insurance claim wasn't reported...
Correctly matching your projectile to the target is an art form at several levels, from the design phase down to the operators choosing which nature to load and fire.
What do anti-ship missiles have to penetrate armor?
Typically the warhead will be semi-armour piercing, with a hardened casing and a forward section shaped to prevent ricochet or deflection. The best image I can find quickly is at
<http://www.navy.mi.th/ptrl/link/pic/exocet/exocet/exocet%20warhead2.jpg>
where the warhead is ahead of the afterbody section (with wings and motor): the 'crown' of anti-ricochet spikes is just about visible.
While it hasn't been trialled to my knowledge, a quick canter through Nathan Okun's armour penetration calculator suggests that an Exocet warhead should get through at least six inches of armour in functional condition. Other weapons are more alarming: for example, the Russian SS-N-22 has about twice the warhead weight, arriving at over twice the velocity.
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
Paul J. Adam
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Aluminum ships don't burn to the waterline?
- From: hcobb
- Re: Aluminum ships don't burn to the waterline?
- References:
- Aluminum ships don't burn to the waterline?
- From: hcobb
- Re: Aluminum ships don't burn to the waterline?
- From: Peter Granzeau
- Re: Aluminum ships don't burn to the waterline?
- From: Dennis
- Re: Aluminum ships don't burn to the waterline?
- From: Peter Granzeau
- Re: Aluminum ships don't burn to the waterline?
- From: Richard Casady
- Re: Aluminum ships don't burn to the waterline?
- From: Peter Granzeau
- Re: Aluminum ships don't burn to the waterline?
- From: Beausaber
- Re: Aluminum ships don't burn to the waterline?
- From: Dennis
- Aluminum ships don't burn to the waterline?
- Prev by Date: Re: Life in a Submarine: Tasty, Mullet-Free
- Next by Date: Re: Life in a Submarine: Tasty, Mullet-Free
- Previous by thread: Re: Aluminum ships don't burn to the waterline?
- Next by thread: Re: Aluminum ships don't burn to the waterline?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|