Don't be dicks to me Its a honest question, something like that should increase range & accuracy of regular (non gas generator assisted) rounds.
Im sure somebody thought about that before, so at which point is this idea wrong?
Why no sabot arty round?
ROCKET ASSISTED PROJECTILES (RAP)
rocket assisted, gas generator assisted, even ramjet assisted - yes I know.
But those will always be more expensive, Im talking about regular dumb rounds made for mass barrage.
Fair point
Sabots are used for rounds with smaller diameter than the bore, because small cross section + high velocity = better penetration.
For artillery rounds, why would you sacrifice payload for extra velocity?
I don't understand what you're proposing, current artillery shells are already close enough to the ideal aerodynamic shape.
Im sorry Im not a native English speaker, perhaps sabot was a wrong choice of words.
But come on, there is a frickload of drag at the bottom, bottom that has to be flat in order to be properly pushed out of the barrel with maximum efficiency.
there is a shock wave ahead of the bullet that diverts most of the flow, drag around the back of the bullet is marginal.
the driving bands are what engages the barrel
Ok I stand corrected, I just thought this is a problem and solving it would increase the effectiveness of regular arty round.
yes, that is a problem indeed. That is why modern rounds have base bleed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_bleed
OP has 'no bb, tho'
buncha c**ts
>yes, that is a problem indeed
Base bleed/gas assist is far superior to OP's idea of a physical projectile tail like in
Compared to base bleed the physical tails are heavier and bulkier, more of a pain to transport and load.
>gas assist
I know gas assist is superior but also more complicated & expensive, we're talking about artillery barrage here, as much as I love precise shit like laser guided munition.
gas assist is not complicated or expensive
your recommendation is more expensive and complicated
ok, alright bro, im not saying you're wrong, but why isn't it a standard round then.
>why isn't gas sustainer bog standard?
because not having one is even cheaper.
OP solves the same problem in a different way
US had a guided shell that can acquire targets in flight and then fires an explosively formed penetrator for destroying vehicles. It's new and expensive, but the idea is that you can hit fast moving vehicles with artillery fairly easily now.
Basebleed homie.
going by your diagram, you are not actually talking about sabots, which is more like picrel
you're talking about tapering the base for better ballistics aka boat-tailing. if you look at the pic in you will see that it's already done
if you're asking why not taper it even further to match your diagram, the answer is that engineers have decided the current shape performs better. That's why you don't see bullets shaped like symmetrical ovoids either. I'm very very NOT into the fluid mechanics where this plays a part, some other engineer tard on /k might give you a more detailed answer, but this is the gist of it.
>bottom that has to be flat in order to be properly pushed out of the barrel with maximum efficiency
actually no. a tapered bottom flies through the air better than a flat one. the middle of the shell fits the barrel well enough that it captures all the gasses efficiently enough. same deal for bullets
My brother in the Izym front says itallian artillery shells are like elite alcohol, with fancy fancy packaging, lots of safety, very convinient he says. They look beautiful too.
Could he send you some pictures?
Of course no
Ask the homosexual why aren't they winning despite all the free gibs we sent you.
>ask him why $10-15bn (actually delivered) military support isn't enough to decisively defeat a military that has been spending far more than that every year for years and accumulating equipment
Do we need someone on the ground to solve this particular mystery?
Yeah? Since February there's been almost nothing but triumphalism in the news. Everyone says Ukraine is running circles around Russia so where are the promised victories?
They are fricking them up good with himars, their entire offensive is stopped, they lost countless depos and command centers, had to back off all their bases, they just smoked their high teh airplanes and youre b***hing about lack of progress?
You sad vatnik frick.
That's nice and dramatic but if it doesn't translate to territorial gains it's all just a decoration. And there you go, immediately coping with any dissonance by declaring it to be the work of invisible enemy agents lurking everywhere.
Except it was the Ukrainian fricks who injected their shit into the thread completely unprompted, refer to
>underdog gets help from NEATO
>why isn't the underdog winning?
The Russo-Ukraine war is in stalemate. There are still offensives and counter-offensives grabbing territory slowly, but neither side is capable of massive breakout maneuver.
A joke from Moscow: "According to Putin the special military operation is really a conflict btw Russia and NATO about World dominance. Whats the situation now?" "Russia has lost 15000 troops, 6 generals, 500 tanks, 3 ships, 100 planes and 1000 trucks. NATO hasn't arrived yet."
This joke must be very old, pre Himars, by now its more to like, 40000 troops 1500 tanks 300 planes etc.
It is. It's from March or maybe early April.
>neutral thread about artillery
>vatnik frick has to come and take a shit in it
And they blame Ukbros for shitting up /k/
There was a HEFSDS round, but this was a test round for a 160mm Mortar
https://armamentresearch.com/finnish-tampella-160-mm-mortar-system-and-extended-range-hefsds-projectile/
>Boom is at the tail not the head
Do they think it's going to tumble and hit asss first?
No, it's another way to improve the spread of the shrapnel.
Conventional mortar rounds burst at the ground level, meaning that the dirt eats up a considerable share of the resulting fragments, as well as soaking up some of the blast overpressure. Having a longer nose section means that when the fuze goes off, the bursting charge is further above ground level. This in turn means that more of the shrapnel is spread around the impact point rather than being embedded in the dirt.
It's an incremental improvement to lethality without adding the complication of an airburst fuze.
Actually, I had a thought about that. Why don't mortars, instead of being just low-rent artillery, have something like this? An impact fuse that sets off a shrapnel-filled explosive that's channeled via a metal, conical plate and center guide rod that projects the force diagonally upwards rather than letting all of that kinetic energy go to waste in the dirt?
Seems like you're not putting the kinetic energy to better use, looking at the vertical motion you're rather using even more energy to first arrest the shrapnel's downward motion and then sending it upwards again.
If you want to make use of the kinetic energy of the shell, and just get better anti-personnel effect in general, then use a proximity fuze for air bursts and have the shrapnel deliver a massive shotgun blast from above.
>proximity fuze
a mechanical method would be cheaper. maybe bring back VT fuzes?
but one issue with all this mortar shenanigans is that in the first place, the standard medium mortar round (81mm) isn't quite lethal enough to be worth going to the expense of fancy rounds, and for most armies 120mm is logistics-intensive enough that you might as well get a 155mm howitzer, whether towed or self-propelled
Picture anon here. I absolutely agree that airburst is the best option, but I'd think that would be prohibitively expensive for something as mass-produced as a mortar round.
Wouldn't increase accuracy because of the instability caused by flow separation at the widest point on the shell. Flat base bullets are not less accurate than boat-tail because they have a very clean feature where aerodynamic flow separates and doesn't disturb the forces on the projectile.
HARP used sabot rounds.
Some other options for extra range is a base bleed that fills the void behind with a gas to help lower the drag on the round. Or the tip bleed which would coat the round in a layer of gas to help lower it's friction.
The optimal long range artillery round would be fired from a smooth bore (for higher velocity) with a driving band sabot and then be fin stabilized.
OTO’s entire range of guided ammunition (76, 127, 155, Dart and Vulcano) use sabots
>pre-fragmenting
how does that work with modern shells? do they "score" the casing like a pineapple grenade, or do they have a thousand fragments like old timey canister shot, or what?
They add a layer of ball bearings, typically in a cast plastic resin. Spheres are more predictable and fly farther than default shrapnel so it's a large improvement without downsides. and you can use multiple sizes etc to adjust how you like the spread.
Scoring the case was more common (and is still used in a few instances where a strong case is needed and shrapnel is less important like tank HE or GMLRS) because it's cheaper. The original 1960s 40mm grenade design, for example, recognized spherical fragmentation was best, but it was too expensive at the time to use.
Typical sizes are 2-3mm diameter steel spheres for hand grenades, 5-6mm steel for shoulder-fired rockets/land mines/anti-personnel artillery and 10-12mm steel for anti-vehicle fragments. Now tungsten is getting cheap, and it lets you go down a size since it's ~3x the density.
fricking cool, thanks
>7800 tungsten balls
so it really is high-tech canister shot...
>so it really is high-tech canister shot...
Lol no how can you not comprehend the difference between tungsten balls being launched out of a barrel like it's a giant shotgun, and tungsten balls being the fragmentation medium in a HE-FRAG shell?
okay, you turbo autist; then it is a high-tech Shrapnel-Boxer shell...
No, still dead wrong, it doesn't work anything like a shrapnel shell.
It's literally just HE-FRAG, but instead of relying on the shell body to form fragments, there's tungsten balls, so you have consistent, high-energy, high lethal radius fragmentation.
>doesn't work anything like a shrapnel shell
A shrapnel shell detonates a small charge on the way to the target, expelling the fragments, which then continue along the shell's trajectory to impact the target area.
A HE / HE-FRAG shell detonates on impact (or in mid-air) and causes damage by a combination of blast and fragmentation in a radius around the impact site.
I can't fricking believe I have to explain basic shit like this to nu-/k/.
>A shrapnel shell detonates a small charge on the way to the target, expelling the fragments, which then continue along the shell's trajectory to impact the target area
>in mid-air) and causes damage by a combination of blast and fragmentation in a radius around the impact site
same shit different wording; you're fooling nobody
>nu-/k/
lol
lmao even
I'll put it in terms an ADHD zoomer moron might understand, then:
>a shotgun shooting itself in mid air is the same thing as a grenade launcher
You need to go back btw.
>uh uh um ADHD zoomer moron go back haha
you forgot "cope seethe dilate"
Do you really not see how these are different?
Shrapnel shell
>shoot shell out of howitzer; shell explodes in mid-air; balls inside shell burst out and kill targets
HE / FRAG shell
>shoot shell out of howitzer; shell explodes in mid-air; balls inside shell burst out and kill targets
insofar as this they are the same, and that was all I was saying. obviously the modern incarnation is more efficient and effective, as one ought to expect.
HE doesn't have a payload of shrapnel though, it's the case of the round that causes the shrapnel.
Mate, follow the thread, we're talking about something like picrel
, not HE
>quibbling over area of effect radius
just take the fricking L and go away
>spherical shrapnel burst
>directional shrapnel burst
these are obviously different effects for different target types. the two are not the same and the distinction is recognized by the militaries which use them, your personal belief that they are equivalent is completely irrelevant.
>19th century air-bursting canister anti-personnel round TOTALLY DOESN'T WORK ANYTHING LIKE 21st century air-bursting canister anti-personnel round
you go back
>(or in mid-air)
And again we revert to your moronic reductio ad absurdum of "a shotgun is TOTALLY the same thing as a grenade because both involve projectiles being spread in an arc towards the target, checkmate atheists!"
Don't be disingenuous; a shotgun shell doesn't have a bursting charge. We've covered this already here:
Your mistake was not knowing that shrapnel shells =/= canister shot, trying to be a smart-arse about it, and tripling-down on it till now. It's not a big deal but you made it into one.
Now just frick off and do something productive rather than try to turn a losing argument around on a mongolian basket-weaving imageboard
on the slim off-chance you're not samegayging, refer the above chain of replies and try to follow along
>replying =samegaying
genius.
wide area air burst shrapnel and directional air burst shrapnel are different weapons with different intended targets and different internal mechanics. you can stay mad about it or you can relax and be happy you learned something today.
>doesn't understand the meaning of the phrase "on the slim off-chance"
ESL or moronic?
>wide area air burst shrapnel and directional air burst shrapnel are different weapons
You even unintentionally used the same word
>REEE WIDE AREA AND DIRECTIONAL ARE DIFFERENT!
>never mind the 2-century-wide technological gulf
sigh
turbo autist indeed
>with different intended targets and different internal mechanics
allowing for technological differences due to being two hundred fricking years apart, they're the same, smoothbrain
>inb4 horses aren't soft-skinned vehicles REEEE
>okay, you turbo autist; then it is a high-tech Shrapnel-Boxer shell...
>on the slim off chance
the chance was 0%
>You even unintentionally used the same word
ESL or moronic?
To remind you of your own assertion
this is incorrect. We have modern high tech canister shot and they are not HE-FRAG. the shells you were drawing a comparison to are a typical HE-Frag shell with additional tungsten balls for more consistent frag coverage. check here
>samegay
yep.
(You)
>okay, you turbo autist; then it is a high-tech Shrapnel-Boxer shell...
yes, I am aware of your incorrect take.
It was literally you who claimed that a HE-FRAG with tungsten balls was "modern canister shot", are you fricking moronic?
>19th century air-bursting canister anti-personnel round TOTALLY DOESN'T WORK ANYTHING LIKE 21st century air-bursting canister anti-personnel round
take a couple deep breaths and reread
a semi truck and a honda civic work identically in principal but you probably would not consider them to be functionally interchangeable.
>just take the fricking L
You really should go back zoomie.
>shrapnel: shell detonates, fragments continue alongside the original trajectory
>HE shell: shell impacts, detonates and spreads fragments in a spherical pattern
merely_pretending.jpg
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mk182.htm
The Rochling projectile
The Peenemunde projectile
The Rheinmetall long range projectile
neat
fins cause a lot of drag, unless you're making a guided projectile you want fins to be as small as practically possible for stability.
pointy butt split sabot in barrel
cause more drag in barrule
smoothbore sabot fin stabilized stuff uses drive ridges on the sides of the shot, but something like that is not going to spin stabilize good because of how undercaliber it is and therefore would need to be long in order to be usefully heavy
boils down to smoothbore vs rifled guns
your drawing is not a sabot, artillery shells already have boat-tails and gas/rocket assisted shells work better than your proposal.
Sabot rounds are smaller diameter than the tube and generally you want a large volume for your artillery shell for more HE mass.
It’s a proven fact that base-bleed rounds are more accurate as well as fly further. The gas generator produces virtually no thrust, the performance gains are the result of the gas eliminating the vortex caused by the flat base. Accuracy is improved because the vortex causes small but meaningful amounts of instability from drag effects. Eliminating that drag thereby improves consistency of flight = accuracy improves. So I’m not sure why a boat-tail design is intrinsically inferior.
Mortar shells are similar. I've been thinking that we could get smoothbore artillery in a decade or so.
>faster velocities as ammo does not use some energy to spin the projectile.
>there would be no need for base bleed ammo, because a mortar round is shaped aerodynamically anyways
>tanks use smoothbore guns already with all existing ammo types
>no rifling to be worn out, cheaper to manufacture
>smoothbore artillery
why would you take such a step back in accuracy?
It isn't a step back in accuracy in reality anymore. so long as you have fin stabilization it is more accurate. M1 Abrams have been sniping Iraqi tanks from 4 km away in 1991. Don't get me wrong spin stabilization is still good. But in fin stabilized projectiles it is mainly performed with slight bending of the fins, and is used in case a deformation occurs on a fin, the ammo can still fly true
Anon is either a moronic tourist or a baiting homosexual, but they should kys regardless.
The only shrapnel shell in use today is the AHEAD projectile family.
Then you have natural fragmentation, semi-ready fragments, then pre-made fragments, and of course you can mix and match.
The issue stems from the fact that most people refer to fragmentation as shrapnel.
USN has KE-ET for their 5 inch cannons.
I never understood why they opted for a front mounted ejection charge, makes no sense as it slows the fragments. Perhaps a patent limitation?
I will guess that it has something to do with the intended blast pattern. Patents shouldn't matter.
The shell itself is moving plenty fast enough from a 5" gun, the slowing of the fragments is largely irrelevant when combining the fragment velocity with the speeds of the target when used in an AA / anti missile role and if by some horror they need to use it vs a speedboat the scatter will riddle anything above the waterline
>The only shrapnel shell in use today
a couple of anons here will have objections to that because that's clearly "not" a Shrapnel shell...
>pre-made fragments
>subprojectiles
what's the difference? according to
diagram they're both tungsten bits in whatever shape
for fricks sake, just read. the difference is their area of effect and intended target types.
>the difference is their area of effect
which I never disputed
>intended target types
you can certainly argue that a horse isn't an APC
there, is that enough of a bone that you will stop this inane shittery?
>It is a shrapnel shell based on the principle of its operation
have fun getting those morons to accept that. "area of effect and intended target" my arse
>The old WWI shrapnel shell was essentially a single use, flying gun. The AHEAD projectiles work similarly
WW1? lol. try a hundred years earlier
>something like Anon's 105mm HE PFF will project fragments every which way, covering a large area with """shrapnel""", officially reffered to as fragmentation
the pre-frag tungsten pellets are the same deal as AHEAD's projectiles, though AHEAD to be fair is primarily meant for aerial targets
did they test Assegai with an airburst fuze?
>a couple of anons here will have objections to that
I won't, what he posted pretty much *is* a modern take on the shrapnel shell.
isn't. Deal with it.
It is a shrapnel shell based on the principle of its operation. The ejection charge is too small for it to generate fragments, which is intentional. It gives a minute boost to the tungsten fragments, which otherwise rely on the projectiles velocity at the moment of ejection for their destructive effect.
In contemporary use the word "subprojectiles" is generally used to refer to submunitions in the context of cluster munitions.
The old WWI shrapnel shell was essentially a single use, flying gun. The AHEAD projectiles work similarly.
On the other hand, something like Anon's 105mm HE PFF will project fragments every which way, covering a large area with """shrapnel""", officially reffered to as fragmentation.
What do the MEA m^2, Nat Frag and Pre-Frag figures refer to?
"The current top round in the Assegai family is the M0603 IHE PFF with 14,000 pre-formed fragments added to some 12,000 natural fragments generates a lethal area of 5,247 m2, considering a ground burst at 65° impact angle and an impact velocity of 350 m/s. The M0603 was recently qualified and is now available."
The illustration denotes ground bursts, we can only imagine how absurd the lethal area might be with airbursts.
An another note. The newest experimental tech is multi-layer warheads with reactive materials and novel explosives.
Projectiles that blow up multiple times with powerful detonations, projecting fragments by the thousands, fragments that will in turn deflagrate when hitting something hard enough...
I’m in love with these things. If they enter wide service the era of drone swarms anywhere near a ground force is just scrap.
picrel is the same aicraft bomb, but with and without aerodynamic purpose tail.
here as in gun artillery to, other consideration besode external ballistic come into game, like cheapness and easy of manufacturing and terminal effect (how they pack explosive and how they pierce targets and throw fragments)
if you bother to give a loock also the shells of big ass battleship naval guns look like that and often they probided by a ballistic cap (like the aerodinamic tail of a bomb but placed over the otherwise blunt nose)
pressures are too great to have anything other than a dense rear end to the shell