technical question:
would it be feasable to fill battle tanks with water? >gun recoil reduced >shell fragments slowing down significantly >incoming shells impact dampened due to counter force from water molecules inside the tank
technical question:. would it be feasable to fill battle tanks with water?
Do you have any idea how destructive explosive forces are underwater?
Not to mention the absurd increase in weight. 1 cubic meter of water is 1000kg. You then need a new engine to better move the extra weight, and a new suspension to deal with it as well. Then you need some sort of life support added for the inundated crew, which is more weight. Then you need to waterproof all of the electronics, which would be more weight.
Bad and expensive idea all around.
>1 cubic meter of water is 1000kg
This confuses and angers the amerifat
It weighs one ton too.
its a shitton of asstons in freedom units europoor
>1 cubic meter of water is 1000kg
This confuses and angers the amerifat
1 cubic foot of water is about 7.48 gallons, and each gallon weighs 8.34 lbs, so each cubic foot of water is about 62.4 lbs.
Now do acre-feet.
Only 1000kg/cubic meter doesn't sound bad.
Steel is 7850kg/cubic meter.
Pure ceramic is something like 2500 to 3000kg per cubic meter.
So composite armor is probably ballpark 6000kg/cubic meter.
You could make an evolved cope cage. Spaced ballistic water tank panels. Internal baffles of metal alloys and plastic so it can stretch a bit, leak sealing liner, thin steel envelope with added ballistic protection on the outside facing panel
A 1000kg water tank panel (159cmx124cm) could be about 35cm thick with a steel and ceramic outer panel. And much thicker if it was one use and you didn't care about small arms fire causing leaks. That's a lot of water to pass through before exiting and hitting the main armor.
Equivalent spaced panel of steel by weight would be 7cm thick.
It would always be better to have an equal mass of a steel and ceramic mesh matrix to disrupt an impactor but you can't reduce 80-90% of the mass of a composite spaced panel by simply draining it. That's the selling point. You can dump water.
If you have defensive armored vehicles in your own territory, huge fricking water tank ballistic panels can easily be refilled and might prevent a drone carrying an artillery round from one shotting a vehicle in a surprise attack. You wouldn't even need to keep the tanks filled with water to force your enemy to dump more resources into each kill. You'd need to beef of suspensions but you wouldn't necessarily need to get 100% coverage with panels to improve survivability.
>Only 1000kg/cubic meter doesn't sound bad.
>Steel is 7850kg/cubic meter
7850/cubic meter doesn't sound bad either
rate my armor scheme
There are pistol rounds that will punch through two feet of water.
Say, what's the smallest weapon that will punch through three inches of steel spaced armor?
>Bad and expensive idea all around.
Duh, OP is just here to spam stupid threads.
Are you describing a reverse-submarine?
you know how you aren't supposed to tap the fish tanks at the pet store? imagine that, but about 100,000 times stronger.
>Darla taps the fish tank at 1500 m/s with a depleted uranium projectile
Stupid idea but what about armor panels filled with sand? Ever since I saw that meme about the cup and the straw I've wondered if a hollowed kevlar bag with engineered weak points for the pressure to escape to the sides would function as a form of energy expenditure.
I know they used sandbags in wwii with bad results (the spalling), but assuming you have some way to make the sand flow sideways would it work any better than solid steel?
you'd need a thick fricking vest even if it works in theory
Just do this. Have airbags that deploy and retract as necessary.
wow those are some curvaceous airbags
>incoming shells impact dampened due to counter force from water molecules inside the tank
You have that backwards. Air is compressible, water is not. It wouldn't dampen the impact of a shell or an explosion, rather it it would transfer that energy more efficiently to the tank and the people inside it.
spread out the force more evenly?
Sure it would be more even. But it would also transmit more force to the crew.
It wouldn't do shit to stop penetration of the hull, and it would transfer the resulting energy to the crew much more efficiently than air.
Have you morons never shot cans or plastic bottles before? If they are full of air the bullet goes through. If they are full of water or similar the whole thing explodes with the container sustaining far more damage.
I'm not sure you understand how physics works. If you lay a piece of paper on some concrete and try to punch the concrete, what happens? Nothing, at least for the concrete and paper. The incompressibility of the concrete means the paper resists your hand and everything is fine for what lies beneath the paper.
Kek, you're just being clever by picking something that can resist a huge amount of compression on one axis.
Punch a tube of paper standing on its end against concrete, vs. punch the same thing in the air.
Punch a grape against concrete vs. punch a grape in midair.
use hammer - if placed on concrete paper will be absolutely shredded into pulp - if in air hammer will do nothing as air is not rigid enough as a support to transfer enough energy from the hammer to damage paper
What are you even trying to say?
That your example fails in the context of practical scale.
No it doesn't. You're spitballing.
You're using a principle divorced from scale to try to argue about a situation that involves scale.
Bruh, penetration doesn't mean shit if the crew gets liquefied by an HE round. Have you never set off a firecracker in water before?
Set off a firecracker while hiding behind concrete and tell me how much you didn't get hurt, which should be to the order of "100% uninjured because the concrete protected me from the HE fireworks".
Set off a large enough explosive next to that concrete wall and a piece of the inside wall will slam into you at almost the speed of sound even if the wall isn't completely breached.
A fluid up against that wall would transfer force to you extremely efficiently.
Ok, you make a water-armour tank, and I'll lobby for HESH rounds to be put in service.
Actually, it would resist the deformation of the hull and prevent it from being dented.
Why would the water filled panel be flush with the steel hull?
You'd have an armored hull and spaced armor. There would be air gaps and compressible materials to dampen, spread out, and slow the transfer of energy from the panels to the main hull.
>fill armor panels with large amounts of hydrogen
>design inner side to be stronger than exterior side
>shell penetrates
>the hydrogen under pressure will fight against the incoming shell
>ignition will result in a very large amount of force fighting against the shell
honestly this sounds moronic but idk
Mark Rober video
Impacts would likely be far more dangerous.
Especially if it penetrates and causes some sort of secondary explosion inside the crew compartment while it's filled with water.
Water transfers energy much more efficiently than air. It would have the opposite effect of what you are thinking.
That's not a technical question, that's bait. Frick off tourist filth.
Have you ever fished with dynamite before?
Water is said to be an incompressible liquid. Of course there is no such thing given enough pressure, but it is true enough for engineering purposes to be a real hassle that you need to work around.
So for the use that we are envisioning, we can see water as more or less incompressible, meaning that once something hits the first layer of armor in our vessel, the energy would inelastically transfer through the water to our inner layer of armor, the water absorbing basically no force itself.
Pic related would describe pretty well what you'd experience. The middle balls are your outer armor and water, the incoming ball is the shot, and the outgoing ball is the force that your inner armor would experience. You probably wouldn't experience spalling the size of a shell, but you would almost guaranteed crack the armor and drown the crew.
Why would water be used in a way to enhance its *disadvantages*?
Ceramic material for body armor has a bad habit of shattering from the first impact. That's why you encapsulate it.
Steel spalls. So you make spall liners.
The idea you would use water based armor in a way that *enhances* the ability for energy to transfer to the crew area is straw man thinking.
This is also an existing technology. Fuel filled armored spaces.