Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

A_Mysterious_Stranger

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    35
  • Joined

About A_Mysterious_Stranger

  • Rank
    Very Mysterious

Recent Profile Visitors

875 profile views
  1. Ran across this while going down another rabbit hole INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION - downloadable PDFs Not entirely sure if anyone has seen these or already has them, but I thought I'd bring it up just in case.
  2. Haven't really had time to dig into stuff or post (I'm sure I have stuff somewhere, its just a mess of bookmarks currently since I've had computer issues and I haven't been motivated enough to organize.) But I did run across a couple articles that might be interesting: The Failure of a Tungsten Carbide - Cobalt Cored Projectile Penetrating a Hard Target What's interesting is that this is one of those lengthier papers that has an overview of AP stuff and some background, so someone interested in learning a bit about this might find it useful even if the focus is primar
  3. Does anyone know for sure how much better Triple Hardness armor was supposed to be over Dual-Hardness Armor or RHAr? Janes' Technology of Tanks and Hazell's book put DHA as being equal to 1.7-1.8 it's own thickness in RHA, but aside from uncited numbers posted on various forums I haven't seen anything definite. Also this company apparently has been working with Dual-hardness steel: https://diamondage.org/advanced-alloys/ Not sure they've put anything out (or how much faith to put in their claims) but it at least seems interesting.
  4. I think it would depend on how you think lasers work. Maybe with a heat ray (to borrow Luke Campbell's term) but a pulse laser might be another matter since that stuff can be closer to shaped charges and APFSDS. I don't think CotDE go for pulse lasers though. And yeah, when scifi fans get pedantic about how it 'must' work, it gets less fun.
  5. Sloping apparently is also effective against laser weapons according to some. That is 'Hard Sci Fi Realism' (tm).
  6. I don't know if anyone ever checks the internet archive but they have books. All kinds of books. Including gun books. Understanding Firearm Ballistics https://archive.org/details/understandingfir0000rink The Thermodynamics of Firearms. Design of firearms as heat engines and the interior and exterior ballistics of projectiles. (two copies) https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.6268 https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.234005 The Big Book of Ballistics https://archive.org/details/BigBookOfBallisticsPhilipMassaro/page
  7. CotDE seems to be intensely enamored of armor sloping: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardefense.php#armortheory [quote] Sloped armor: deflects projectiles instead of absorbing them—an incredibly important and obvious tactic. Also, increases the effective thickness by the secant of the angle. Space warships should have long, thin nosecones. The primary battle tactic is flanking, to get a better attack angle. This is best accomplished by spreading out groups during attacks, since it is impossible for defenders to face in multiple directions at on
  8. I don't think you're going to get a neat, single answer for all of this. Penetration is very complicated even when you focus only on rigid OR eroding regimes. APFSDS occupy a transitional region between those two, meaning it is likely to be even more complex. For example I did more digging by changing search parameters. One thing I turned up came from army-guide and this interesting point: Completely unsourced but it shows a the potential for multiple factors at work. I've found sources that allude to nose shape influencing interface defeat, tra
  9. What I could find: Jacketed Long-Rod Penetrators: Problems and Perspectives Though that is about Jacketed Penetrators, it seems it may still apply to regular APFSDS. Given it cites Rosenberg and Deckel you might look at their work 'Terminal Ballistics' for more information. Possibly more useful is this: The Effect of Nose Shape on Depleted Uranium (DU) Long-Rod Penetrators I apologize for not quoting any of this, but its a 66 page non searchable PDF, and I'm not sure that you can just select parts without reading the whole thin
  10. Documents pertaining to firearms ballistics, but especially terminal and wound ballistics mostly: Handbook of Firearms and Ballistics Terminal Ballistics a Text and Atlas of Gunshot Wounds Gunshot Wounds Practical Aspects of Firearms Ballistics 2nd ed. Ballistics for Physicians Myths About Wound Ballistics and Gunshot Injuries
  11. Other books for download, which I'm behind on a promise to post: THEORY OF THE INTERIOR BALLISTICS OF GUNS.J.CORNER PHD Modern Exterior Ballistics Ceramic Armor Materials By Design Lightweight ballistic composites for military and law enforcement applications
  12. Posting more stuff I find on the internet that may be of interest: THE THEORY OF HIGH SPEED GUNS Abstract In other words really fast guns that aren't railguns. INTERIOR BALLISTICS OF GUNS Preface Optimisation of small arms defeat via dynamic jacket removal (pdf download link) Abstract Ballistic protection efficiency of composite ceramics/metal armours Abstract Ballistic resistance of high hardness armor steels against 7.62mm armor piercing a
  13. Oh sure. That's also why it's like a wiki: as a starting point for research it's great because it can consolidate alot of information into an easy-to-access place. It's just the time needed to sift through it to determine how much of it may or may not be accurate that can be problematic. Some of the info can be a bit dated tho. Some of the Schilling stuff the energy sidearms page you linked to uses is also decades old Usenet posts lol. If you're interested in more of Luke's recent stuff you should look up his game stuff. He improved some of his ideas from the Lase
  14. Yeah, I thought about Atomic Rockets but was unsure if that would be okay to post. It's a good site but it's like a wiki. It's a dumping ground for diverse opinions culled from across the internet with little or no peer review. So you have to take it with a grain of salt. The arguments about what qualifies as 'realistic' science fiction suffer from the same problem of trying to predict the future of warfare: We suck at reading future with accuracy, and many people color the matter with their preconceived ideas. If we mention AR, I can mention Luke Campbell's 'How to Build
  15. So, yeah. I wasn't sure where to put this but @Sturgeon was kind enough to suggest it go in the Ballistics Science forum (months ago, I've been busy with stuff) so this is where it sits. It's not exactly 'ballistics' per se, but its still science-related and relevant and interesting because it's really, really hard to find some good technical documents that isn't science fiction nerd speculation. You can actually find a surprising amount of that stuff on dtic, and I've always had a fascination since I was a kid with the old SDI program (borrowed tons of library books about laser
×
×
  • Create New...