Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

I see many knowledgeable members here so i decided to make an account to ask some question

According to many historical accounts, the armor of WW II battleship is very thick: can be between 410-650 mm of steel

Thick enough that they can even resist penetration  from 12-16 inch canon 

Look+at+17-inch+thickness+of+the+armored

maxresdefault.jpg

 

Compared to these massive round, it is probably obvious that missiles such as Harpoon, Exocet will do little or nothing against the armor belt: No penetration and probably nothing more than a small dent.

Anti tank missiles such as AGM-65, AGM-114 or Brimstone can penetrate the armor but all their warhead will do is penetrating a tiny hole into the massive battleship, it likely will hit nothing significant given that a battleship have massive volume of space). Furthermore, i heard space armor is extremely effective against HEAT warhead as well).

 

But what if the two are combined? HEAT + explosive warhead: aka BROACH.

With a frontal shape charged and secondary follow through bomb

This is the working principles of the system:

fetch?id=3839042&d=1540554610

fetch?id=3839046&d=1540559047

 

BROACH was designed to help small cruise missile penetrate bunkers. So i have some question:

1- Because concrete and soil are very brittle, unlike steel, I think the precursor charge likely much drill bigger hole in them than it can drill on steel armor belt of a battleship, so even if we use missile with BROACH warhead to hit a battleship, it won't drill a hole big enough to allow the secondary warhead to pass through. Is that a correct assessment?

2-  Looking at the cutaway of the missiles. How come the detonation of the frontal shaped charge doesn't damage/destroy the secondary warhead or at very least propel it to the opposite direction? 

 

3-  Can supersonic missiles such as Agm-88 (Mach2) , Asmp-A (Mach3) , Rampage , Asm-3 (Mach 3) , Hawc (Mach 5) penetrate the armor belt of a battleship? or they simply don't have enough velocity and density?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehj I had the same discusion whit John Lipiecki.

 

1- BROACH and MEPHISTO warhed are able to go trought Iowa armour. Precursor is not typical HEAT bud mid form between EFP and HEAT - slow streahing jet. It will penetrate more armour then it's diameter but making guite big hole in armour. Second and main charge should went trought hole. And it's mean catastropihc kill for top turret any battleship...

2- due to ability to form blast wave in propper way

3 - doubt

But Soviet Ch-22N and P500-P700 had quite tricky warhed whit both - HEAT and blast warhed.And dimension was close to Mistele from IIWW...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Militarysta said:

Hehj I had the same discusion whit John Lipiecki.

 

1- BROACH and MEPHISTO warhed are able to go trought Iowa armour. Precursor is not typical HEAT bud mid form between EFP and HEAT - slow streahing jet. It will penetrate more armour then it's diameter but making guite big hole in armour. Second and main charge should went trought hole. And it's mean catastropihc kill for top turret any battleship...

2- due to ability to form blast wave in propper way

3 - doubt

But Soviet Ch-22N and P500-P700 had quite tricky warhed whit both - HEAT and blast warhed.And dimension was close to Mistele from IIWW...

1- Do you have any additional documents about BROACH warhead?
2- But how can it form blast wave in one direction only? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Militarysta said:

But Soviet Ch-22N and P500-P700 had quite tricky warhed whit both - HEAT and blast warhed.And dimension was close to Mistele from IIWW...

Here you go...

The video title says Moskit, but I think it is more likely a Granit. Whole ship penetrated from front to back. This is the result of a 750kg penetrating warhead. (similar to WW2 penetrating bombs)

And the warhead itself. Imagine this smashing into the ship's hull at mach 1.6... Thats enormous kinetic energy.

CPG2p.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

Sounds like a bunkerfaust but scaled up.

 

n6oPHa5.jpg

But the frontal shape charged of Bunkerfaust is far bigger than the follow through warhead, unlike BROACH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Here you go...

The video title says Moskit, but I think it is more likely a Granit. Whole ship penetrated from front to back. This is the result of a 750kg penetrating warhead. (similar to WW2 penetrating bombs)

And the warhead itself. Imagine this smashing into the ship's hull at mach 1.6... Thats enormous kinetic energy.

CPG2p.jpg

I cound be wrong but i think 16 inch cannon round is bigger than Moskit warhead and probably faster too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The JSOW unitary weapon system, AGM-154C,(Figure 3-15) is an advanced version of the JSOW family of weapons. It incorporates a warhead system consisting of a penetrating shaped-charge augmenting charge (AC) in front of the follow-through bomb (FTB). It provides blast/fragmentation effectiveness, as well as hardened target penetration capability (Figure 3-16)that’s controlled with the 10 available selective fuze settings (Table 3-2).

Jw3OOy1.jpg

0TLHeRq.jpg

F68Giiy.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By sevich
      I realize that sandbags provide little to no armor protection, but soldiers still used them on tanks. Would they mitigate the effects of HE warheads, or the blastwave of HEAT warheads?
    • By Militarysta
      About tank guns and amunition, hope it will be interesting topic :-)
       
      In penetration data I will base on russian sources -they are ussaly most credible (the best). I will ussaly give value for monolith steel plate slopped on 60@ - it's the best scenario for APFSDS penetrator. In sucht scenario (slopped on 60@ plate) penetration value can be bigger at even 17-20% then on 0.degree plate - this is caused by "asymmetry loads back surface" of the plate):

       
       
      First:
      M829
      M829A1
      M829A2
      M829A3
      M829A4
       
      M829:
      DOI: 1985
      penetration at 2km, on plate slopped by 60@: 540-560mm RHA:
       
       

       
       
      M829A1
      DOI - 1989 (in some sources - 1988) 
      penetration: at 2km, on plate slopped by 60@: circa 700mm RHA
      this round was to weak to overcome T-80U and T-80UD and T-72B m.1989 whit Kontakt-5 ERA, what was "suprisly" discover on tests in circa 1994. The same story was whit DM43 prototypes..
       

       
      M829A2
      DOI - 1992
      penetration: at 2km, on plate slopped by 60@: circa 740mm RHA
      Fist US round whit composite sabot.
       
      (lack good photos)
      insted of this:
       
      KE-W so M829A1 but whit WHA penetrator, and KEW-E3 so M829A2 whit WHA long rod.

       
       
      M829A3
      DOI - 2003
      penetration: at 2km, on plate slopped by 60@: propably circa 800mm RHA, but is not sure value,
      round devleoped to everpas heavy ERA but whit unkown result
       

       
       
      M829A4
      DOI -2016 :-)
       
      penetration - no idea 
      It's very interesting round
       

       
      data link is  for APFSDS round?!
      I have a hypothesis...
      Ok so it have data link to be programmed, it is said to be capable to defeat 3rd generation heavy ERA (Relikt, Knife, etc.) and active protection systems (hard kill). It seems that focus is primary on defeating heavy ERA. But then again, why do you need to program just a long rod fired by a big gun?

      There are few options:

      - Gudining the round,
      - Precursor,
      - "Intelligent" control over propelant charge ignition (dependant on propelant temperature, environment temperature, gun service life, range to target etc.)

      And truth to be told hypothesis that there is some sort of precursor in the rod is the only hypothesis that makes sense. Control over propelant charge ignition is not needed and probably not possible at all with current technology, besides the M829A4 (and all newer US ammo types for 120mm smoothbore) use insensitive propelant charges. And it is nowhere mentioned in any document avaiable for public. Guiding the rod to target? Perhaps possible from technical point of view, but why? Again it was nowhere said that FCS for M1A2SEPv3 have ability to guide any type of rounds. And manouvering of the rod during flight means loss of a lot of energy, even if this manouvering would be done to "cheat" the APS for example.

      So perhaps the option is to somehow use a precursor that is "fired ahead" of the main rod.


       
       
      So how the rod designs looks like here? The rod is made from two segments, the "precursor" and the main rod behind it. How they are connected? it might be some sort of polymer, glue that can be weakened by heat and the release precursor, and during flight rods heat up pretty nicely.

      The precursor can also be relased based on a simple difference of speed between it and the main rod, and main rod can be slowed down by some sort of additional fins (aerodynamic breaks) released at specific point programmed by FCS. In such case precuros would initiate ERA and the main rod would have a clear way to main armor of the target.

      How to cheat APS tough? Counting that precursor will be qualified by APS as threat and APS will be initiated, creating a time gap in APS reaction so it won't be able to counter the main rod? Possible yes, but then there is question, if APS will just not ignore the precursor, and this might happen, now of course there is a question how dangerous is precursor itself? For a MBT or vehicle with similiar levels of protection, for it's front it won't be dangerous in most cases, sides? If they do not have any addon armor, very possible. For lightweight platforms, yeah precursor also will be dangerous.

      Of course these are only hypothesis, and we will see if other nations will also design APFSDS rounds with data link. Then we might get closer to the truth. Right now, treat it as food for thoughts.
       
      of course this data link coud be placed only for security resons, as one person on TankNet had wrote:
       
      :-)
       
      ps. prefragmentet APFSDS during flying exist now, as smal-scale models and test object:

    • By FaustianQ
      Trying to figure out if the 105mm Howitzers had more than the M67 HEAT for defensive purposes in Korea, or if M67 HEAT had been revised by that point at all.
    • By EnsignExpendable
      Neat video showing off how HEAT shells work. The guy detonates 4 charges, one that's just explosive, one with explosive that has an indentation in it, then one with an explosive that has an indentation in it that's filled with metal, and finally, the same charge as in part 3, but at a small offset to focus the blast.
       

×
×
  • Create New...