Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Collimatrix

Forum Nobility
  • Posts

    7,201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    185

Everything posted by Collimatrix

  1. A quick search didn't turn anything up, so I apologize if this has already been asked before. Most sources credit the Leo 2's hull ammo rack with 27 rounds, in a hexagonally packed arrangement of two rows of six rounds and three rows of five rounds for five rows total. This is illustrated schematically: but actual photos show only 22 rounds, with four rows alternating six and five like so: What gives?
  2. The numbers he's getting for that test though; ~50% reduction with a large and variable amount of fragments, are in line with other estimates I'd seen published of APS vs APFSDS.
  3. I'm somewhat sanguine on radar stealth for ground vehicles. Aircraft stealth is a formidable engineering problem, of course. But consider that aircraft are very often being illuminated by radars against the backdrop of the sky, which might as well be pitch black as far as a radar is concerned. The contrast is nearly perfect. Aircraft have to worry about being lit up with many different frequencies of radar waves too, which makes the problem harder because not all RAM works well against all frequencies, and different frequencies respond differently to different sized features on the aircraft. A ground vehicle is, well, on the ground. It's hiding out amongst a bunch of ground clutter, so its RCS reduction will have to be somewhat less extreme for it to blend in vs. against a cold, featureless sky. Furthermore, the range of frequencies used for fire control and detection radars against ground targets is much smaller; typically millimetric-wave. So I suspect that useful reduction in detection and targeting range against the sorts of radars seen on attack helicopters is possible for tanks without anything like the extreme shaping seen on stealth aircraft.
  4. I've noticed a lot of ballistics FEA simulations popping up on Youtube lately. A result of the ever-dropping price of number-crunching power? Who knows. I cannot, of course, vouch for the accuracy of these simulations. They sure are pretty to look at though.
  5. Hello, and welcome to the forums. The standard J2M definitely had a mechanically driven supercharger; basically all WWII piston engines do. I believe that little accessory case strapped to the back of the engine has the supercharger in it somewhere: The heat dissipation finning on WWII radial engines is truly a magnificent form of art. AIUI, the engine cowling cooling fan reduces power at low airspeeds, since it's strapped to the engine crankshaft and is therefore taking some power to generate cooling airflow, but that this power loss basically goes away at high airspeeds as the ram air pressure of the incoming airstream forces the fan around and offloads and power loss it would otherwise cause. I don't think it does much, if anything, for manifold pressure. The FW-190 and the Raiden both have exceptionally tightly wrapped radial engine cowlings. In order to ensure adequate airflow for cooling at low speeds, that fan needs to be there to actively shove more air over the cylinder fins. As for why high altitude favors the Jack over the Hellcat, according to this site, the Jack has 1,800 horsepower at takeoff and 1,410 horsepower at 15,700 feet. Per this very good book, the F6F3 has 2000 horsepower at takeoff, 1800 at 13,500 feet and 1650 at 22,500 feet. In other words, the Hellcat has a slightly higher percentage of its takeoff power rating (82.5% vs 80%) 6,800 feet higher than the Jack. So, that big P&W mill is clearly capable of maintaining a better percentage of its power at altitude, on top of being a more powerful (and larger) engine to begin with. However, the Raiden was a land-based fighter, you know, despite being operated by the Imperial Japanese Navy. The F6F has gigantic barn door wings to ensure good handling during carrier approaches. The Raiden has teeny tiny little wings, since as a land-based fighter it can afford much higher landing speeds.
  6. Part of my brain still refuses to accept that "solutionize" is an actual piece of metallurgical terminology and not something that George W. Bush came up with. He's not a problemifier, he's a solutionizer.
  7. Paul Hazell has a patent on ERA that uses a ceramic flyer plate which fragments shortly after interacting with the jet or penetrator, with the idea being that it reduces collateral damage. Other than that, I am not sure.
  8. That's a good question, and I'm not sure. Per the spec sheet N-L-M posted, it is a solution hardening (which is the same thing as "age hardening;" metallurgical terminology is nonsense sometimes) alloy. I bet that small titanium addition is what's doing the trick. So the precipitation hardened part could be reset. However, it also has a bit of carbon in it, unlike a lot of other maraging steels. If you tried to "reset" the heat treatment, that carbon could cause some problems. Some carbides form at higher temperatures than the intermetallic precipitates, and if the metal is hot enough that the carbon is mobile and can diffuse (basically, the hotter the alloy gets, the more random kinetic energy the carbon atoms have, and the more they can drift around), then the carbon may start to form larger and larger carbide inclusions through a process called Ostwald Ripening. There's an ideal size of carbide or intermetallic inclusion particle size. If they're too small, they don't do much of anything. If they're too big, they tend to embrittle the steel because the carbides themselves are very hard but brittle. If they're just right they tend to pin dislocations and prevent plastic deformation thereby.
  9. I've seen some papers demonstrating that it can be done at a small scale, but I haven't seen anything saying yea or nay about large-scale, long-term durability. So I don't know for sure. Assuming that the weld itself is sound, one of the interesting properties about maraging steels is that the heat treatment can be "reset." The strengthening mechanism in maraging steels is the precipitation of tiny inclusions of intermetallic compounds (which is why maraging steels usually have weird shit in them like titanium; that's what helps form the intermetallic). By heating up the steel, these intermetallics can be re-dissolved, the steel cooled back down, and then heated up again to a somewhat lower temperature to re-precipitate out the intermetallics and re-harden the metal. It is my understanding that doing this will basically erase any HAZ from a weld, although it doesn't get rid of any mechanical defects of the weld if it has incomplete penetration. This also assumes that you have a big enough oven to fit the entire object that you stir-friction welded together out of maraging steel.
  10. @Monochromelody Do you happen to know?
  11. Indeed. One of the problems that occurs in steels with a lot of carbon and a lot of alloying elements is that instead of doing their respective jobs, the alloying elements and the carbon want to go off and play together and form carbides. This is a particular problem in high-carbon stainless steels, as the chromium and carbon very much want to form chromium carbide instead of staying in solution and providing corrosion resistance and interstitial hardening, respectively. There are ways to mitigate, but not entirely solve this problem.
  12. No, maraging steels require a pretty good amount of alloying elements, usually (a whole metric buttload of) nickel, cobalt and molybdenum, and then a dash of something strange like titanium or aluminum which forms the small, dispersed intermetallic inclusions that form during the final heat treatment.
  13. Yes. Generally speaking, bainitic steels are fairly cheap, at least in terms of the raw materials. I can't speak for how much the exotic heat-treatment processes needed to create them drive the cost. The martensitic transformation is a diffusionless transformation. In fact, not only is it diffusionless, but it works substantially better and easier the less diffusion there is. For this reason, fairly expensive alloying elements like molybdenum and chromium are added to (among other things) prevent the diffusion of carbon out of the austenite crystals during quenching. The bainitic transformation is the opposite; it's a reconstructive, diffusion transformation. So, for the most part and with a few exceptions, all the fancy and expensive alloying elements dramatically slow down the bainitic transformation. Edit: I suppose there are some other advantages as well. Quenching and tempering to form a traditional martensitic microstructure can cause significant distortion of the metal. Not only does plunging hot metal into oil or water potentially cause it to warp, but there's actually a small (but incredibly rapid) volume change associated with the martensitic transformation. In fact, this is why katanas aren't straight. I don't think that the bainitic transformations are anything like as sensitive to part thickness and geometry as quench and temper heat treatments can be either.
  14. Yes, typically light tanks or tank destroyers have special, longer recoil stroke variants of standard guns. For an older example, the TAM had a special variant of the L7 which could accommodate a 540mm recoil stroke vice the standard 280mm.
  15. Ah, so that does sound like flash processing, or something fairly similar to it. I am... not entirely clear on how flash processing works, chemically speaking. You can do some interesting things with it that do not make sense to me. The nanostructured bainite that has been of interest for armor applications lately has an extremely lengthy heat treatment process that requires that the steel be held at temperature for multiple days. But flash bainite processing can produce a comparably strong microstructure in mere seconds. Given how bainite actually forms, I don't understand how this is not just magic.
  16. I'm not sure if strong conclusions can be taken from that one video. Different ammo types produce radically different amounts of recoil. Discarding sabot training ammo doesn't produce too much recoil, while HE-FRAG is firing a big, heavy shell with a lot more momentum. Aside from that, it occurs to me that the 120mm armed tanks listed are all heavier than the 125mm armed ones, although the weight of the K2 and T-14 overlap. How a tank responds to the recoil of its gun firing is a function of the total momentum of the shot, the mass of the vehicle, the moment of inertia about the recoil axis (which is affected by which way the turret is facing), suspension stiffness, suspension damping, and recoil system length and forces. You are correct in thinking that the stabilizer doesn't have very much to do with it. In addition, I suspect that the K2 may enjoy very low recoil when firing from a stationary position, as it has adjustable suspension. The rear hydropneumatic stations can be filled with additional gas pressure, which increases the K* of the stations, which reduces the amount that the tank rocks when firing provided the gun is pointed more or less forward. The most effective way for light vehicles to deal with high trunnion loads from their cannons is to have very long recoil lengths for their cannons' recoil systems, but this comes at a cost. The longer the recoil path of the cannon, the more empty space needs to be reserved to accommodate the movement of the breech. This makes the turret more voluminous and taller. I don't think that it's a significant cost driver. *Compressed gas doesn't act exactly like a spring, but close enough.
  17. Rough translation anyone? This looks like flash processing to me.
×
×
  • Create New...