New RW body armor

[far-trader]

Yep, I think FF&S had the Gauss rounds as APCR, at least for man-portable guns. There might have been some tank size rounds that were DS (Discarding Sabot) where the magnetic component was seperate.

I think DS might give you more range but suffer from lower penetration (less mass on target) while APCR would be better penetration (or damage) but a little less range. For the same input energy in each case of course. But that's just a guess.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

I see the difference, Uncle Bob (partly because of Sigg's and far's posts).

Now to spin up everyone, I have a question. One of the things that makes firearms so effective is kinetic energy. However, the kinetic energy has to be transferred to the target. If it just slices through and out the other side, leaving a tiny little hole, it won't transfer much of that energy. So, how does something like a gauss needle/dart effectively transfer that energy?

Or, would it be significantly less effective on an unarmored target than on an armored target? (Because the armor would cause some tumble, transferring energy effectively/traumatically.)

 

[Todg]

Rate of retardation is the key. From Mach's equation it is clear that the higher the velocity of a projectile, the faster it decelerated. All current military ammunition is restricted to non-expanding types per the hague conventions, which means that generally, the only other way to increase retardation (and increase energy transfer) is to cause the bullet to tumble. This is relatively easy with Spitzer type bullets where the cenetr of mass is at the rear of the projectile.

Obviously, a long rod penetrator, if it tumbles, will have an even larger wound track. Various designs for flechettes call either designing the projectile so that it hooks or bends, or adding fracture points so that the projectile breaks into two or more sub-projectiles. Fracturing is what maked the old M196 55gn ball ammunition so effective. At high velocity, it tended to fracture at the canneleure into several pieces. In combat, the diminuative 5.56x45mm proved to be 11% more lethal than the more powerful 7.62x51mm.

 

[kaladorn]

Isn't the restriction against so called 'dum-dum' bullets (or other fragmenting munitions) drawn from international conventions on warfare? If so, would that not preclude (to the extent such conventions preclude a single iota of anything) designs that *intentionally* fracture inside the body? One would think that this would effectively be 'fragmenting' and would (if brought to the attention of those who protest these matters) cause a temptest in a tea-kettle that might get such designs banned.

Of course, 3I is not exactly limited by the same set of guidelines (unless, and I have no canon to back this up, they adhere to some old Solomani traditions in these regards...). They have the same physics, but not the same legislative framework to try to work around. So they probably could have bending, deforming, fragmenting, or even actively explosive rounds. (Or poison carrying ones, or whatever you fancy). Some of this is probably where the 'hollow point' gauss round idea came from - a round to deliver a payload like a toxin or something of that nature (I'd suggest nanos, but in the world of Big Iron Computing, you don't see many of them *grin*). Mind you, the idea could also be used (at lower velocities) to embed tracking IDs, etc.

 

[Blue Ghost]

kaladorn; I'd think Vargr in particular would use every available derivation that you mention. They probably utilize AA like batteries against ground troops, a thing outlawed by the Geneva Convention, if memory serves.

Come to think of it, Vargr probably use all kinds of nasty bio, chem, and nukes in all forms... assuming a sufficiently organized Vargr state to develop the technology.

Just my thoughts... back to reading

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Corejob:
Obviously, a long rod penetrator, if it tumbles, will have an even larger wound track.

Rate of retardation isn't everything; energy dissipated as pressure waves or heat doesn't typically do much to flesh. The major issue with flechettes, however, is that unlike spin (which insufficient to stabilize bullets in a medium as dense as flesh), fins which can stabilize a flechette in air will also keep it stable in water.

Furthermore, while you could make a flechette designed to break apart, bend, or otherwise be damaged and thus result in a larger wound channel, these tactics tend to be incompatible with having the projectile be armor penetrating (where you need the projectile to efficiently transmit force into and through armor, forcing it to designed quite strongly) -- AP flechettes would almost certainly not deform much on hitting unarmored targets. I suspect the best bet would be fins designed to break off on impact with water, at which point they should tumble somewhat in flesh. Even then, I'd be somewhat worried about AP flechettes simply punching tiny holes through people.

 

[TJP]

Originally posted by Anthony:
I'd be somewhat worried about AP flechettes simply punching tiny holes through people.

Exactly what I've been thinking. Of course one option is to just punch great many tiny holes in unarmored targets, as Gauss weapons can have very high RoF, and hope their combined effect is damaging enough.

 

[womble]

You could design the fins on the flechette to be stripped by different resistances. Have one come off even if it's impeded by squishy material; the remaining fin will slew the penetrator nicely. Have both come off to allow better penetration of armour; most rounds which actually penetrate will be somewhat deformed and liable to fracture or tumble and with advanced manufacturing you could design the shear-strain of the fin break-off so that it only comes off if the armour is sufficiently tough that the remaining penetrating portion of the projectile will be deformed.

Obviously, lower-tech ammo wouldn't be able to be built quite so well.

 

[Uncle Bob]

The Laws of War are the Haque Conventions. Geneva onlyapplies to POWs.

Some versions of the Haque outlaw "dum-dum" or bullets with exposed lead at the tip, but the version the U.S.A. signed prohibitted weapons "designed to cause excessive suffering". We have interpreted that as outlawing hollowpoints and softpoints, butt fragmenting 5.56 ammo like the M193 and M855 (NATO SS109) is OK becsuse we didn't know they fragmented in the body at close range until we had been using iy for years.

Tumbling is OK, because all pointed bullets tumble. Some slowly like a 7.62x39 or 7.62x51 NATO, some quickly like the 5.45x39 Russian, but they all do it.

Open Tipped Match ammo (Sierra Matchking and the like) as used in the M118 7.62 snipers round, the new Mk262 5.45 ammo, and the new 6.8x43mm SPC are OK even thoufh they are "technically" hollowpoints. They fragment, rather than pealing back like a well-designed hollowpoint, and they are designed for accuracy and any enhanced lethality is pure sendipity.

Besides, hollowpoints and softpoints are used excusively for hunting because they cause quicker kills and lessen the animaal's suffering. A smart lawyer might extend that to people.

 

[Uncle Bob]

The Laws of War are the Hague Conventions. Geneva onlyapplies to POWs.

Some versions of the Hague outlaw "dum-dum" or bullets with exposed lead at the tip, but the version the U.S.A. signed prohibitted weapons "designed to cause excessive suffering". We have interpreted that as outlawing hollowpoints and softpoints (but flamethrowers are OK?), but fragmenting 5.56 ammo like the M193 and M855 (NATO SS109) is OK becsuse we didn't know they fragmented in the body at close range until we had been using iy for years.

Tumbling is OK, because all pointed bullets tumble. Some slowly like a 7.62x39 or 7.62x51 NATO, some quickly like the 5.45x39 Russian, but they all do it.

Open Tipped Match ammo (Sierra Matchking and the like) as used in the M118 7.62 snipers round, the new Mk262 5.45 ammo, and the new 6.8x43mm SPC are OK even thoufh they are "technically" hollowpoints. They fragment, rather than pealing back like a well-designed hollowpoint, and they are designed for accuracy and any enhanced lethality is pure sendipity.

Besides, hollowpoints and softpoints are used excusively for hunting because they cause quicker kills and lessen the animaal's suffering. A smart lawyer might extend that to people.

I figure a gauss rifle projectile yaws and tumbles very quickly, cutting a wide wound path. A 10 gm bullet wit pointed ends will be about 4 cm long,

 

[Uncle Bob]

Oh, APDS vs APCR. Both are the same penetration at short range, the APCR slows down faster because the shell has more drag.

Damage will be the same against armored targets because the outer layer of the APCR will peel off, leaving a penetrator the same size as the APDS. APCR makes a bigger hole without armor.

I don't see that it makes much difference with gauss weapons since the soft outer layer is relatively dense and conformal, adding very little drag.

 

[Todg]

Originally posted by Anthony:

The major issue with flechettes, however, is that unlike spin (which insufficient to stabilize bullets in a medium as dense as flesh), fins which can stabilize a flechette in air will also keep it stable in water.

This is the contention of Dr. Martin Fackler ( see http://matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/basics/pmrb.html ). However, it should be noted that Fackler only dealt with flechettes from cannister ammunition, and not with rifle flechettes. The two are very different. Cannister flechettes differ in construction and typically have a terminal velocity of only 300-600 m/s, whereas rifles flechettes at traveling 1500 m/s at the muzzle, and are still going 1200 m/s at 600 meters. It should be noted that 1450 m/s is the speed of sound in tissue.

Comparison of rifle flechettes (left) with a cannister flechette (far right).

Furthermore, while you could make a flechette designed to break apart, bend, or otherwise be damaged and thus result in a larger wound channel, these tactics tend to be incompatible with having the projectile be armor penetrating (where you need the projectile to efficiently transmit force into and through armor, forcing it to designed quite strongly) -- AP flechettes would almost certainly not deform much on hitting unarmored targets.

Fortunately, the proves not to be the case. Army studies showed that rifle flechettes perform differently depending on what medium they are fired into.

Single flechettes fired from the XM110 cartridges by the Army Actic Test Board at Fort Greely, Alaska. From left to right, recovered from pine panels, from snow and from ice.

Tests by Steyr in ballistic gelatin confirmed that high velocity flechettes also deformed in ballistic gelatin.

The exact same flechettes proved to be highly effective against armor.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Corejob:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Anthony:

The major issue with flechettes, however, is that unlike spin (which insufficient to stabilize bullets in a medium as dense as flesh), fins which can stabilize a flechette in air will also keep it stable in water.

This is the contention of Dr. Martin Fackler
</font>

Well, pending issues with shock passing through the boundary between low and high density regions, it's also fairly clearly true.

Obviously, this will not prevent tumbling if the projectile is deformed by impact.

The exact same flechettes proved to be highly effective against armor.

Have there been any actual tests of rifle flechettes recently? Assuming those pictures are from the historical SPIW program, they're probably not comparing to modern bullets, though listed penetration of the M855 is still less than 1/4" steel.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Thanks, Corejob. I had considerd that Fackler was dealing with low velociy flecettes, but he was kinda vague. (Fackler is nearly always right, but he often assumes you know his testing parameters without being told.)
The Steyr tests were the 1980s, but not much info is available from then. And almost nothing on the TRW ACR.

 

[Todg]

The last test I am away of were conducted by Alliant Techsystems (formerly AAI) in 1990-1991. I am currently waiting to hear about an FOIA request concerning the ACR trial documents.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
We have interpreted that as outlawing hollowpoints and softpoints (but flamethrowers are OK?)

And apparently nuclear weapons aren't too bad either... nor incendiary bombs... ?

Ah, the powers of logic should never be applied to politics.

, but fragmenting 5.56 ammo like the M193 and M855 (NATO SS109) is OK becsuse we didn't know they fragmented in the body at close range until we had been using iy for years.

But we now know the effects of this. Ergo, it could be argued, new designs which take advantage of this type of effect are us wittingly deciding to violate those conventions.

As to hollow points killing quicker, probably yes. If I recall my infantry training though, we were pretty happy with serious wounds, something about taking 7 men to take care of each wounded man. That was why a wounded enemy (that was out of the fight) was better than a live one.

 

[mctesla]

Somewhat related question to this thread:

Watching the older LA bank robbery gunfight, you see the two guys in BA taking minor jerks when they are hit, but not really showing much signs of noticing.. maybe it stings a bit.

When hit by a round while wearing body armor, is there any chance of being knocked down or something? I probably have watched too many Hollywood movies, but I have issues with the mental picture of a battledress equipped person shrugging off all projectiles to no ill effect...

In MT terms, it would seem senseless for anyone expecting to come up against battledress equipped troops with anything less than RAM-13s or FGMPs. Even then, a FGMP-15 still only can achieve a low penetration result for 7 damage points, which isn't quite enough to take out a character with 777 (life force of 21, which means 8 damage points to kill).

Is it just me, or is there something counterintuitive about this?

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
And apparently nuclear weapons aren't too bad either... nor incendiary bombs... ?

Well, that's just an example of creativity at work; weapon treaties generally only ban weapons which the negotiators have already thought of, and so when you invent a new horrible weapon, it's not banned.

 

[Zutroi]

Originally posted by loyal_citizen:
Somewhat related question to this thread:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Watching the older LA bank robbery gunfight, you see the two guys in BA taking minor jerks when they are hit, but not really showing much signs of noticing.. maybe it stings a bit.

When hit by a round while wearing body armor, is there any chance of being knocked down or something? I probably have watched too many Hollywood movies, but I have issues with the mental picture of a battledress equipped person shrugging off all projectiles to no ill effect...

In MT terms, it would seem senseless for anyone expecting to come up against battledress equipped troops with anything less than RAM-13s or FGMPs. Even then, a FGMP-15 still only can achieve a low penetration result for 7 damage points, which isn't quite enough to take out a character with 777 (life force of 21, which means 8 damage points to kill).

Is it just me, or is there something counterintuitive about this?

</font>[/QUOTE]I suspect at least some of thisis related to game balance and playability. MT had an issue where a battle-dressed character was (too quote The Tick) "well nigh invulnerable" to anything SHORT of fusion weapons, which wouldn't leave more than a grease stain and a cloud of vapor on any kind of high penetration shot (or a low penetration with the requisite bonuses for rolling well.) An FGMP-14 with that 'low penetration' does 28 points damage if your modified roll was 4 over what you needed to hit... (All values are IIRC. It's been awhile since my MT days)

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by loyal_citizen:
When hit by a round while wearing body armor, is there any chance of being knocked down or something?

Not really. Comparable to the odds of the person shooting the gun being knocked down by recoil.

Non-penetrating trauma is an issue, but it probably wouldn't mean much more than bruising for someone in battledress.