From: acgetche@relleno.engr.ucdavis.edu (Adam)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Explosive rounds
Date: 17 Nov 92 07:24:37 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering - University of California - Davis

In article <1dt84vINNcbh@gap.caltech.edu> earl@cco.caltech.edu (Earl A. Hubbell) writes:
>	Right - so for equal energy for the same volume, we increase the
>bullet velocity to 1732 m/sec, or increase the bullet mass to 3 grams
>(since even >steel< is 3x as dense as current high explosive).  Since
>the topic was 'future weapons', it seems easier to optimize the .5*m*v^2
>term (hence the military interest in railguns, light gas propulsion,
>kinetic energy tank-killers), than to make stable, energy rich, dense
>explosives (which I bet is being researched also...).

I believe I was considering masses rather than volume, although you are
right that densities play a factor.  I was comparing the KE of 1 gram
(a unit of mass) at 1000 m/s.  Note that if you increase the velocity
to 1732 m/sec you will nearly double the recoil of the weapon (momentum
is m*v) ... if you triple the bullet mass you will triple the recoil.
Railguns, et al work great but they need a stable firing platform ...
and a human (or ork or troll) can only handle so much recoil ...
also note that it is easier to design a high rate of fire weapon with
low recoil than one with high recoil (the A-10 is basically wrapped
around the GAU-8 30mm vulcan cannon, and staggers in flight as it is firing)
>
>	Explosives only really make sense for low-velocity projectiles,

Perfect for pistols and SMGs and silenced weapons.  Most 'battlefield 
rifles' started out using powerful cartridges (.303/7.62mm and so forth)
such as the M1 or M14 until some studies were done that indicated that
typical infantry engagement ranges were on the scale of 100-200 meters,
rather than the 500-600 meters that the .303 and 7.62 were capable of.
Since the 'zone of engagement' was 100-200 meters, weapons such as the
M16 and its 5.56mm cartridge were advantageous due to reduced weight/
higher ammunition capacity (in the logistics sense; carrying 300 rounds
of 7.62mm or 500 rounds of 5.56mm).
Futuristic weapons will be optimized for whatever 'zone of control' that
future infantry can handle.  However, Urban units will not likely have
a need for more than 100-200 meter effective range, so low-velocity
weapons will work fine.  In the open battlefield perhaps line of sight
weapons will be better for the infantry, so high velocity battle rifles
(gauss and ECP weapons) will be ideal.
BTW I did *not* mean to give the impression that the .303/7.62mm had
maximum ranges of 500-600 meters, only that such ranges were the *typical*
effective ranges.  Documented and undocumented kills at >1000 yards have
been achieved with the M-22, an accurized M-14.


>'You can tell I'm educated/I studied at the Sorbonne *earl@tybalt.caltech.edu
>Doctorate in Mathematics/I could have been a Don     *Earl Hubbell


           -- Adam
+--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|Adam Getchell |Surgery-Radiation Oncology    GETCHELL@radonc.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu|
| acgetchell   |ez000270@chip.ucdavis.edu        acgetche@taco.engr.ucdavis.edu|
+--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.marketplace,rec.games.frp.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd