You know, just thinking... what's the big deal with the DE .50 AE? Serriously, how many people (here and elsewhere) realize that the .50AE is actually balistically inferior to both the .357Mag(Manstopper) and the .44Mag(+P)? What's worse is the the DE can fire both of those special rounds (even though it's against SAMMI regs...). ...All the .50AE hype on the DE really kills the gun's cred, imho.... which is sad because it's a really nice gun.
Btw, this Marisa is HOT in my books. Sometimes the Accessories can make a difference.
grand_zero said: Serriously, how many people (here and elsewhere) realize that the .50AE is actually balistically inferior to both the .357Mag(Manstopper) and the .44Mag(+P)? What's worse is the the DE can fire both of those special rounds (even though it's against SAMMI regs...).
Wait, what? .50 AE "ballistically inferior" to the other rounds how precisely?
SAAMI = Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturer's Institute They're the ones who basically specify 'safe' and 'not-safe' pressures for bullets and the guns that fire them in most of the western world (even through only the US manufacturers have to listen to them).
.357Mag (Man-stopper) and .44Mag (+P) are both hot loads meant for massive-frame revolvers, not Autos. Thus SAAMI says it's against regulations and, for that matter, in the US you can't claim insurance if you get hurt while firing them out of an Auto such as the DE. They both make the .50AE look like a plinking toy.
...And, to be clear, as far as my knowledge goes the .50AE is in fact ballistically inferior to both the .357Mag and .44Mag... both being standard Factory Loads. Allow me to explain, but this is kind of long so there is a ‘TL/DR friendly’ version at the bottom. A while back I and a few friends decided to run ‘Practical’ experiments on a bunch of different Factory Loaded Bullets. The technical reason was that one of us hand-loaded professionally (for SWAT teams no less) and was trying to gauge accuracy and a bunch of other things that nobody really cares about, we were just having fun. Anyway, at my inquiry, we ended up putting the current DE calibers (.50AE/.44Mag/.357Mag) up against each other in a mock head to head evaluation... the .50AE underperformed drastically. What we were going for was Ranges and ‘Absolute Falloff’ (the point where the bullet has lost all of its own momentum and Gravity has taken over), at least for the Head to Head (we also were looking at accuracy, penetration, velocity, etc, but these became extreme variables thanks to the fact that we compared a DE against a couple of revolvers). Now, naturally, this varies round to round, but a good average can be discerned from factory loads. Speaking of factory loads, we used Hornady ammunition for these tests (all the same type, but I can’t remember which).
- The .50AE ended up with an Absolute Falloff (A.F.) averaging around 160 yards (all slightly less, like 157), its Maximum Effective Range (M.E.R.) below 50 meters (a good shot can still reliably hit things at that range) and its ‘Absolute’ Maximum Range (M.R.) around 150 meters (we ‘killed’ a target at the 160 yard line, but we were aiming skyward when we did that). The Firearm we tested this with was a Desert Eagle with a 6 inch barrel (we didn’t compare accuracy because we used Revolvers for the other two, but is was pretty decent hitting the target about half the time at M.R. [of course, no human could hold it that steady], I suspect a Revolver .50AE could have hit 9/10) - In comparison, the .44 Magnum achieved an A.F. averaging around 500 yards with a M.E.R. of roughly 90 meters and an M.R. of 460 meters. The test gun was a Smith & Wesson Model 29 with 6 inch barrel. (If you’re wondering, it hit 9/10 times at M.R.) - The .357 Magnum we had historical precedence on. The longest confirmed military kill with a .357 Magnum was somewhere around 650 yards fired from a Colt Python in Vietnam, and it was done on purpose (as in it was not an accidental kill). For fullness’s sake though, the A.F. is about 680 yards, the M.E.R. is about 100 meters and the M.R. is roughly 650 meters. The test gun was a Smith & Wesson Model 28 Highway Patrolman with a 6 inch barrel. (Also a 9/10 hit)
Now, I’ll be the first to admit that the methodology we were using was pretty... well, unscientific, but we ended up with some pretty consistent results and then the hand-loader proved them scientifically with his fancy-pants physics, but that’s not my area of interest so I don’t remember those figures.
...TL/DR: What I’m basically saying is that, for its size, make, and potential, the .50AE is kind of pathetic when compared to what should be its inferiors. When it comes to range it drastically underperforms against the other two, even factoring in the Weight/Grain issues. Sure, the 50AE kicks harder and packs more punch than the other two when in its effective range, but that’s only when they’re not uploaded to ridiculous levels. I’ve seen a .357 Magnum load punch all the way through an Armored Car front to back like a hot knife stabbed through room-temperature butter... stopped the thing dead in its tracks (bullet lodged itself in the stone wall of the building some 100 feet behind the vehicle). Some things you just never forget, that one sounded like a 50BMG and flash cut the revolver that fired it (the Officer that used it was wearing welding gloves in order to not burn himself). ...Now, of course, the .50AE hasn’t seen as much hand-loading and custom guns as the other two, so its full capabilities haven’t been seen yet. In a few years, if the round is played with enough, I might say it’s superior... but with the way it is right now I still say it’s inferior to the .357 and .44 magnums. Regardless, if I want Big 50 power in a handgun I’ll go with a S&W .500 (outperforms all of the above).
That’s what I’m saying.
Edit: Lol, downvoted. Yeah, anything longer than '3 seconds' gets it eventually.
I'm not even going to point-by-point this, especially because it'd mean I'd have to address the crap like "the absolute falloff - where a bullet apparently no longer has any forward momentum - of a .50 is all of 160 yards", or a .357 Mag load "punching all the way through an Armored Car [caps for emphasis!]", or the existence of SAAMI PMax specifications for ".357 Mag 'Manstopper' " or ".44 Mag '+P' " (protip: they don't exist; only for a few select cartridges, like 9x19, .45 Auto, .38 Spl, a few others, and they definitely aren't named ridiculous shit like "Manstopper"), all of which is patently ridiculous.
I'm just going to wonder why anyone would invest that much time into writing that.
As someone who manned an armored car for years, I am glad I never went up against whatever .357 you had the opportunity to witness go straight through one.
Oh, sorry, it seems you didn't understand me. Let me break this down for you.
Content of Comment
'Absolute Falloff' is a pretty simple ballistic concept; if even I, who am poor at physics, can understand the concept of it. I'm not going to bother further re-iterating that for you. Although, I'll go out on a limb here and admit that I went and checked the gun used (it wasn't mine) and found the barrel to have been damaged... which was something we had foolishly failed to account for in our thrill seeking. So, I admit my (group's) error here... however, this does not change the fact that the .50AE is ballistically a poor round, with both of the others able to out shoot it past roughly 50yds, with factory loads.
I never said that SAMMI had PMAX specifications for the Manstopper. Nope. I said that both the Manstopper rounds and the .44Mag+P exceeded the SAAMI Maximum Pressure rating for auto handguns designed for the .357Mag or .44Mag, respectively. Hey, I never even said that the .357Mag Manstopper nor the .44Mag+P were legitimate cartridges, merely Handloads.
Most Wildcat loads (note: over pressure handloads) are generally not restricted in the US, if you want it bad enough, you can find it. I assure you, somebody makes it just as long as somebody else is dumb enough to buy it and shoot it. (This even applies to the entirely not legal loads) ...And I assure you, if there is one thing about humanity that is universally accepted it's inherent stupidity.
The name 'Manstopper', when speaking of bullets, is paying homage to the .455 Webley MkIII 'Manstopper', which was famous enough to have legends written about it. So yes, they do exist. Look it up. Of course, most of the legends actually are ridiculous, but hey, that's legends for you.
Getting a handloaded .357Mag (which is what I had ID'd the Manstoppers as) to punch through an Armored Car (not a 'Money in Transit Vehicle' or an 'Armored Truck') with only a supposed LvIII rating is actually relatively easy if you are in possession of what my officer friend was: a 15.5in Hunting Revolver specially chambered for hand loaded .357Mag with a tungsten carbide penetrator .25" in diameter and 1/2" long with the case crammed chock full of rifle-grade powder; nerves of steel; and a couple of idiots in a souped up late-1950s Armored Sedan (or, as I call them, 'Armored Cars') rolling towards you at 68mph for you to shoot at. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened when that 1/2in long tungsten penetrator collided with the 1in mild steel armor of the vehicle at what amounted to over 7500fps (2286m/s). A blown out engine and a hole in the back of the vehicle, that's what.
And yes, I do know what I'm talking about. I've been involved in the shooting, trick-shooting (mostly endurance acts, such as shooting a 50BMG handgun with one arm. I'd be more than willing to explain how that 'trick' is done.), handloading, firearm, and defense industries for going on 12 years now. I admit, I make a few slips every now and then (and sometimes make a huge fool of myself) when speaking of things that are out of my area (such as German machine guns), but this much I am sure of.
Btw, I've looked through a bunch of your comments... you actually seem to know a thing or two about firearms. But you're missing things when it comes to the finer aspects, such as gun-smithing, bullet-smithing, or just plain marksmanship. This leads me to think that you learned most of this from playing videogames or reading poorly written articles on the internet. Please refrain from acting like you know everything about a subject when it's pretty obvious that you don't.
edited: finished a comment that had gotten cut off accidentally.
But you're missing things when it comes to the finer aspects, such as gun-smithing, bullet-smithing, or just plain marksmanship. This leads me to think that you learned most of this from playing videogames or reading poorly written articles on the internet. Please refrain from acting like you know everything about a subject when it's pretty obvious that you don't.
I don't think I need to know much about your world where police officers take a fucking two foot long single-action Ruger Blackhawk or whatever the fuck he used to a gunfight, or where wildcat cartridges are actually just "ordinary rounds loaded to overpressure" or whatever the fuck you think they are (they aren't), or powders of either rifle or pistol variety will push a projectile of any weight to 7500 ft/s (they won't, not even close - and don't even start with me you idiotic overclaimant, go ahead and either find me a modern conventional small arms cartridge or propellant that'll push even 6000 ft/s, or even better show me a fucking chronograph tape), or where .50 AE of any reasonable loading drops out of the fucking air (or "lost all its momentum" - whatever; if you actually understand the shit you're typing, they're synonymous) at 160 yards (PROTIP: 0.500" Hdy XTP 300 gr (G1=0.120) starting off at 1500 ft/s is still going 925 ft/s by 200 yards), or where people actually buy and sell handloads named silly shit like that instead of just loading their own and refraining from calling their loads stupid coolguy operator tactical Air Freedom Fang Face names or what the fuck ever instead of reasonable shit like "125 gr Montana Gold over 8.0 gr W231", or where you think Buffalo Bore making sure that people understand that their .44 loads are significantly overpressure are official names that anyone is using (or however you're deluded).
Your world where you claim to be some fucking secret squirrel designing a Montana class BB derivative that can "shrug off" a contact initiation from a 200 kt nuclear device (I can look through your comments too).
This isn't fucking Hollywood.
And you, after spouting all that, think you can claim "I learned most of this from playing videogames".
You don't know anywhere near as much as you think you do; please refrain from acting like you know anything about a subject when it's pretty obvious that you don't.
Did I say the bullet traveled at 7500+fps? No, I said "that 1/2in long tungsten penetrator [sic] collided with the 1in mild steel armor of the vehicle at what amounted to over 7500fps (2286m/s)." Here is where you messed up. Big. If an object is headed from Point A to Point B at 68mph, they are moving towards Point B at 5984fps. Now if an object leaves Point B at ~1600fps (which is highly doable in the 1 ft 3 1/2in barreled [hardly 2ft] 'handgun' I mentioned, which was only a handgun under legal definition requiring a rifle to have a 16in barrel) and collides with the object moving at 5984fps, the impact velocity is over 7500fps. This is the reason why airborne rocks are hazards to vehicles.
I'm sorry, but don't criticize me on firearms and ballistics unless you know at least that much.
Secondly, I already admitted my group's failure in my earlier post. I assume you failed to read that when you were looking for something to argue about.
Thirdly, on the divergence from the point, there are quite a few organizations that argue in favor of the battleship (seriously, there's quite a big argument going on about it). It's only natural that some of them who are in the possession of more money than they necessarily need would approach certain firms in order to have designs made up for them to argue in favor of (such as the NGFA, who have done this at least 6 times). Am I supposed to complain if someone wants to spend their money on a pipe dream, and pay my organization to design it for them, knowing that if I do they'll just go to some other firm to have it done there instead (and not donate it to charity or something)? If you say yes, you're an outright idiot.
(I also never said 'contact detonation' with regards to the Tomahawk, I said 'direct hit', which can mean quite a lot else when speaking of missiles.)
I'll say it again. Please refrain from acting like you know everything about a subject when it's pretty obvious that you don't.
Editing, since now I'm done being agape in amazement;
68 mph = ~100 ft/s. 100. 100 ft/s. That's it.
I meant overall length - which I am right about, it's just shy of two inches shorter than two feet. No officer will fucking carry a fucking 15.5" barreled revolver. That was my point. Way to dodge.
Don't criticize me about SHIT until you understand SHIT.
There are quite a few organizations in favor of the battleship? Yes. Like me. I'm half-sure that nobody takes the NGFA seriously, even though I support battleships for the NGFS mission. I have never argued against this.
I doubt "your design" 's fucking _pricing_ is nationally sensitive information.
Yes, you said "direct hit". What does that imply? Skin contact? Then it is a contact initiation. Does it imply delayed penetration and then initiation of the warhead, as many anti-ship missiles function? Then that's even fucking worse.
Go ahead; define what "direct hit from a nuclear Tomahawk" means for me.
While you're at it - no, I don't need to ask you to dig yourself any deeper of a hole. You do that on your own plenty well enough.
Please refrain from acting like you know ANYTHING about firearms when it's pretty obvious you don't. You're sad.
EDIT AGAIN:
grand_zero said:
"'handgun' I mentioned, which was only a handgun under legal definition requiring a rifle to have a 16in barrel)"
It's still a fucking handgun even if it does have a 16 inch barrel. It doesn't magically become a rifle. It requires a stock for that.
16 inch barrels are a minimum barrel length requirement for actual rifles. If a rifle has a barrel shorter than 16", it becomes legally classified a "short barreled rifle", which is regulated under Title II of US federal firearms law.
Please refrain from acting like you know ANYTHING about firearms when it's pretty obvious you don't.
Made an account just for this. Suffice to say, GAU8/A associates with gun people with substantial, real-world backgrounds.
So, let's break some of this down for you, nice and slow:
"Absolute falloff" doesn't exist. It's just not a term. I've never heard it used, I've never used it, the term /does not appear/ in any text in ballistics. I even went through several such texts I have in searchable .pdf just to be sure. You made it up, and anyone with any knowledge at all knows this.
"Manstopper" rounds, also do not exist. It's somebody's pet name for a handload that was never chrony'd, with velocities they or you pulled out of their ass. There is no powder in existance that gets the velocities you claim, in any arm ever developed. The fastest wildcat (see below for real definition of wildcat) rounds run up around 5200, and are variants on the .220 Swift, .22-250 and .223WSSM cases. The fastest rounds ever developed in general are outside the world of small arms, and run around 55-5700, and are APFSDS rounds and their variants, such as the ~5700fps round clocked out of the 120mm L55. The ABSOLUTE LIMIT for velocities from chemical propellants, in theoretical settings (reality is always much lower) is ~6500fps, assuing an "ideal" adibatic chamber. These are hard limits that involve complicated math to explain better than this, however there exist textbooks on this subject. The only way to push something faster than that limit is with a high (as in shockwave is supersonic) explosive, and that's not going to work in a small arms cartridge. They experimented with high explosives in artillery around the turn of the last century as well, all of which to no practical successes. So yeah, 7500fps out of any small arms round is never going to happen, especially not out of a .357 magnum case.
Wildcat does not mean what you think it means. A wildcat round is simply a round that is not commercially produced. It's not a special handload (outside of some exceptions like .45 Super or 9mm Major), but rather a variant on a case. My pet .308 load I use for plinking is not a wildcat. An "Ackley Improved" round is. Exceptions apply, but not in the case we're talking about. You were describing some handload you either heard about from some dumbass, or made up on the spot.
Now for some figures(fastest common commercial loads):
300gr .50 AE (data by Speer, 6") - ~1550fps 1600ft/lbs of energy, at the muzzle. GAU8/A's figures are correct.
340gr .44mag +P+ (data by Buffalo Bore, 7.5") - 1325fps 1533ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle. This round /may/ retain velocity at longer range than the .50, but it starts lower and ends lower.
158gr .357 Maximum (Data by Accurate, 14") - 1998fps 1401ft/lbs of energy. This round isn't "common", but it's the fastest of the non-wildcat .357s. This is a FAR cry from 7500fps. It will definitely hole IIIa armor, but lvl III still has it beat.
125gr .357 Magnum (Data by Federal, 4" barrel) - 1600fps 710ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle. That's nowhere near your speeds, and not gonna make it through even IIIa.
And now for some experiments. I'll model (via NABM since it's sufficiently accurate and fast) a 10" barreled Desert Eagle, loaded to the maximum "safe" pressure before exceeding the yield strength of the locking lugs, ~60,000psi. Loading this hot would cause excessive wear and all manner of bad things, but you can do it. In some cases (125gr .357 and 350 .50) the pressure could not be achieved in the case capacity, and so the velocity from the maximum pressure was used. I do not recommend these powder choices or loads, this data all assumes a Standard Atmosphere blahdyblah.
As you can see, standardized across the board to a common pressure and barrel length, .50AE is clearly ballistically superior. This holds true with any combination of barrel lengths and pressures.
I will withhold BC figures and trajectories, as you cannot grasp the conversion from miles-per-hour to feet-per-second, and thus cannot grasp any measure of what I just posted. For the record, 68mph = 99.73fps.
And with regards to your claim of armor penetration: The Odermatt equations don't work at velocities below 1.3km/s, so I cannot model the penetration of your described "tungsten penetrator", so I decided to model it at the speed you claimed. Assuming 0deg obliquity (at a right angle to the target), a speed of 7500fps(2.28km/s) and the dimensions you described, it can penetrate a maximum of 39mm of RHA equivalent(AR500 steel at 300BHN). At such a tremendously high speed (the 120mm L55 that holds the record for fielded weapons tops out at a whopping 5700fps (1.75km/s)) you're only barely as effective as a 14.5x114mm is, at its much slower 3300fps. That's at the muzzle, and disregarding losses due to shedding the rest of the round, too. So at any real range it's losing penetration rapidly. It might make it through an armored truck, but then, so will a .308 AP, but more consistently. Congratulations, you made up the least efficient round ever.
Of course, if you knew what you claimed to know, and actually had the background you claim, youu wouldn't have made errors like you have above. You are a fake.
...Well, I'm pretty near flabbergasted. I went over what I actually typed, and... well. I made so many errors that even I'm dieing over here. As to the physics, you're right, I used MPH to MPM and not MPH to FPS without realizing what I was doing, and I am quite embarrassed about it. I apologize for my error and the insult. I'll be hitting myself over the head with that for years to come, but it's what I get for typing when drunk (both times and... well, now isn't that long from last time), so you and your friend can have the laughs on me.
I suppose my friend could of been a dumb*** when he spouted the specs, perhaps. But in the more likely case 12 years just got the better of my memory and I reiterated those specs incorrectly. I also knew what a wildcat cartridge was, but spoke like a drunken idiot there and made that mistake... and numerous other mistakes. Therefore, I yield on that. In fact, I yield entirely ('cept the Battleship). Also, I notice another glaring error I made. '1in mild steel plate' I said. '1950s sedan' I said... it was a prohibition-era old booze running armored car from 1928, not no 1950s sedan. 1in mild steel plate would be the entire vehicle, at most, and the bullet exited the glass. That explains the penetration. ... Fine, you two win. I can be civil about it at the end, I guess. Since you won, I'll stop posting comments while drunk.
Aside, one of my friends (who was there during our 'testing', and was reading over my shoulder...) just slapped me upside the head. 'Said he told me the .50AE was inferior for self-defense, due to over-penetration (which is obvious) and cost, not ballistically superior. ...He also complimented Warmachinist. ... ...And I'm supposed to come clean on clarify something else. I claimed that I was a Defense Engineer? Well, not so much. I work closely with such Engineers, but am not actually one of them by trade. A Lie? Not quite so much as bending the truth, since I'm involved with the team and am used as input from the everyman. Fake? No, just getting the facts wrong. I am but a 'mouth piece' or 'face man' (both of which are what I call myself since I technically hold the positions of both the Marketer and the Consumer Relations guy... and I detest the term 'salesman' when used about myself), brought along to sell the idea to politicians and those such inclined individuals with less... 'street sense' (for lack of a better term) than myself. If you go over my previous posts (and I'm sure you have), you'll notice that there is evidence of this. I know enough about a particular product to get the gist of the idea across and make it sound like the best thing in the world, but when it comes to the technical details? Eh... if it isn't on the basic specs sheet (which includes the price), I'm not so good at it. A good chunk of what I've said over my posts hold, but this argument specifically? Not at all.
Laugh all you want, I guess I deserve it. I'm going to go get something else to drink and try and sober-up some. I'm going to have a bad night tonight.
Man I don't give a fuck about no battleship, I fucking love battleships. If battleships "weren't useful" for NGFS (or the NGFS role is "irrelevant because carriers can do it", I've actually seriously had someone claim that to me before loooool) then someone needs to tell me what the fuck they designed and built DD(X) for. Ain't much that can replace the big guns.
I still take offense to any surface ship being able to "shrug off" a 200 kiloton-yield device initiated right on top of it, Iowa or Montana or not, though.
I still take offense to any surface ship being able to "shrug off" a 200 kiloton-yield device initiated right on top of it, Iowa or Montana or not, though.
Oh, that. That's actually relatively easy to explain.
I said that it'd survive “even a direct hit from a Nuclear Tomahawk”... but I didn't say at what yield. Hey, I'm a salesman face-man, that's just another way of saying 'slightly legal con-artist', we split hairs for a living.
The Nuclear Tomahawk carried a W84 warhead, which had a variable yield rating of 0.2 to 150kt. Therefore, if the ship could survive a hit from 200 tons of TNT, it could theoretically survive a direct hit from a Nuclear Tomahawk. That's actually not asking for that much.
My BB design, I'm told, would have 'survived' up to 45kt (surface detonation) when in perfect condition (and, as we all know, no ship ever is); anything above that would have a good chance of vaporizing it outright (and give excuse to use the enduring stockpile).
I feel I should point out that, technically speaking, the Nagato survived a 15kt nuke (Castle Bravo), but sunk 5 days later because the Pagoda-style tower the Japanese used required immediate correction upon listing (which was caused due to the damage that she had already sustained during the war collapsing in the explosion, and not the explosion itself), but this couldn't be done because she was too radioactive to enter.
This wouldn't be a factor for the theoretical BB, since the crew would be listed as dead anyway. What I was told was, in order to classify as 'survived' in the nuclear situation, it just had to survive long enough to preform a suicide run on the nearest war target, or 4 days. Of course, for a higher cost than what I listed, the Citadel could theoretically survive, but... yeah, costs. (EDIT: 'Survive' as in Survive the radiation, not the explosion.)
Speaking of costs, if you're interested, I can reveal the reason that the cost was so little for that exact BB design (which would also present the reason why I wouldn't want to see that exact battleship made).
GAU-8/A said:
(or the NGFS role is "irrelevant because carriers can do it", I've actually seriously had someone claim that to me before loooool)
...I, and the guys here, have no words. That person is a legitimate moron.
The Nuclear Tomahawk carried a W84 warhead, which had a variable yield rating of 0.2 to 150kt. Therefore, if the ship could survive a hit from 200 tons of TNT, it could theoretically survive a direct hit from a Nuclear Tomahawk. That's actually not asking for that much.
Yeah, I know. It's a fuck of a lot, but if it's a proximity burst, which it's most likely to be, then... yeah, an (ordinary) Iowa or a derivative can be "said" to survive a 200 t-yield initiation.
I was thinking of the W80-0 - capable of up to 200 kt - on the 109A, not the GLCM, just so you know.
grand_zero said:
...I, and the guys here, have no words. That person is a legitimate moron.
You fuckin' think? The moment I refuted that ("why does the DDG-1000 exist, then?") the guy immediately started trying to disengage from the conversation claiming that I "hadn't made any new points".
The dude was trying to tell me that "unguided shells were old-fashioned" and apparently worthless, which is why apparently every destroyer and cruiser in service right now has a goddamn gun (or two) on it, and we're still boiling people's shit with unguided MLRS and towed and SP 155mm guns.
Yeah, I know. It's a fuck of a lot, but if it's a proximity burst, which it's most likely to be, then... yeah, an (ordinary) Iowa or a derivative can be "said" to survive a 200 t-yield initiation.
I was thinking of the W80-0 - capable of up to 200 kt - on the 109A, not the GLCM, just so you know.
Oh, right. That warhead (I just pulled the 'Nuclear Tomahawk' card and read off the first yield load. Yeah, dumb move... still drunk). Wait... 200kt on the W80-0? If I recall correctly, the W80-0 has a variable yield of 5 to 150kt. [random internet source]
Still, running with 200kt, a direct hit (any definition) from that... the only things I can think of off the top of my head that could survive that are deep-ground bunkers or better.
GAU-8/A said:
You fuckin' think? The moment I refuted that ("why does the DDG-1000 exist, then?") the guy immediately started trying to disengage from the conversation like "I hadn't made any new points".
The dude was trying to tell me that "unguided shells were old-fashioned" and apparently worthless, which is why apparently every destroyer and cruiser in service right now has a goddamn gun (or two) on it, and we're still boiling people's shit with unguided MLRS and towed and SP 155mm guns.
Sigh.
Agreed. Their claim, in my opinion, is worse than my earlier argument.
It's a well documented fact that the unguided 16in HC-VT shells from the battleship's Mk7's had an CEP of 450ft (150yds) at 34,000yds/19mi (in the '80s), and any unprotected person within that is dead anyway (well, dead or their ears are bleeding and they wish they were dead). I'd like to see any other 1942 artillery piece do that. According to some estimates, upping the barrel caliber to 75 would increase the accuracy by 50% (although, I'm just repeating information given to me by others here), and 16in/100cal is theoretically possible, seeing as it's been done.
Speaking of which, you want to argue with the person again, just point out that 16in Scramjet rounds have been successfully fired to 'great distance' by Gerald Bull as part of Project HARP (if I recall correctly, and I'm not certain I do, they were firing up and it went 230nmi sideways... so if it was intentionally fired that way, it'd go that much farther) during the mid 60s (an advantage to using a 16in/100cal gun with muzzle velocities of 12,000ft/s [citation in the earlier link] is that the bullet leaves the barrel fast enough to trigger Scramjets). My head is fuzzy on it, but, yeah. Make it guided (like Copperhead) and you'd have the most lethal artillery piece in history.
So some asshat went and downvoted all our recent posts - I suppose because they appeared on the most recent comments thread and discussion is the evils - but whatever.
Your source doesn't outright say that. IIRC it's up to 200 kt on the -0 and up to 150 on the -1, and I assume that - as noted in the source - that's due to higher grade fissile material.
As for the 16 inchers, I seem to remember that (with "special" powder charges?) the Mk 7s were capable of shooting to within about an arcminute - or "can land a shell neatly onto a bus" - from some fair distance. I could be misremembering... maybe it was a special gun barrel, too. It was a long time ago. (PRO NOTES: 1 arcminute at 26 miles is about 40 feet.)
Don't conflate barrel length with accuracy. They're not (directly, and not in the ways you'd think) related, although muzzle velocity certainly is.
I don't intend on arguing with that person again, because, well, they literally went and overtly stated that they "wouldn't read" a summary of their primary contention and my direct refutation at the time.
That muzzle velocity is fucking absurd and I want to see the propellant they achieved that with.
Still got a hangover, but I'll see what intelligence I can draw from my brain.
As to the warhead... I see, that makes sense. I'll update my notes.
As to the 16”s... Yes, that is true, although they don't like talking about it. Here's a little gift. They claim the 16in/50cal can only hold 3 charges. This is a lie. It's only designed to hold 3 charges, it can hold 4 'fast burning' charges (same size as a 'full charge') which adds some ~20% to the MV (and leaves almost no unburnt powder, as compared to the normal waste, which also improves accuracy). From what I've heard (of course, I wasn't there), they did this on Black Dragon during 'Nam and tossed rounds some (reportedly) 40mi inland with the hair splitting accuracy that you speak of (admittedly, being at almost twice the range, it wasn't quite within 40ft). Less wear on the barrels too but politics stopped that. Not to mention that I've heard reports that the Iowa's (old, ancient, etc) targeting computers can accept a 32 digit grid if you 'hack' it (as much as you can call it hacking, when you're speaking of an analog computer)... or rather, they can target a single hair off someone's head (not that they can hit it). Now that's just what I've been told, mind you.
Also, I understand MOA (1.094in per 100yards) and the pinpoint accuracy of the 16in. I have in my archive a data table for the accuracy of the Iowa herself from WW2, written by one of her gunner's mates from back then (more correctly, a copy of said hand written table). It suggests that the Iowa had what amounts to an R95 of 254ft at 45,000yds or 6.47MOA... and this was in WW2, in direct combat conditions, using WW2 powder, and with bad barrels (and in direct contention with the official claims that the Iowas would have only had a less than 1% chance of hitting the Bismark at that range. Instead, it seems to suggest that the Iowa would have sunk any BB sized target at that range). For humor, I'll point out that the writer ended the list at 80,000yds, noting that he thought that an 850ft spread was too unreliable to shoot any farther... I also have a table for the Yamato as well, which suggests that her aim was much worse at that range (358ft R95, 9.12MOA).
Don't worry on the 'barrel length = accuracy' ordeal, I know enough about using long rifles to know that's not the case (I wasn't lying when I said I've been involved in shooting/trick shooting for 12 years. I was just drunk.). What I was referring to was the increased powder efficiency/loads that such barrels would give. I've read reports about the 16in/50cal that some ~25% of the powder is just blown out the barrel, unburnt, and that a 16in/75cal would have burnt all of it. So I assumed that using a 16in/75cal would improve efficiency and therefore muzzle velocity, and therefore accuracy. This is aside the fact that a 16in/75cal would have supported 6 powder charges. I could be wrong, I admit. The 16in/100cal was about the Scramjet (and would have supported 9 charges... yes, gun designers back then were that much on more is better; let alone the fact that I'm guessing only half of that would burn...).
Given that... I wouldn't speak to that person again unless I had to. I'd feel like my IQ would be dripping out my ears.
The Muzzle Velocity in the case of Bull's 16 is explainable, but the technical details are above my head. However, the gist of it is that it wasn't so much the propellant as it was the Scramjet itself. See, Scramjets kick in the moment that they are exposed to sufficient Air Pressure and Velocity, with no regard to their surroundings... and they only need a speed of ~4466ft/s (Mach 4) for that. So the Scramjet can and will ignite while still inside the barrel. Also, from what I've been told, given the increased air pressure in the barrel upon firing (the air has to go somewhere, right?), it actually makes it easier for the Scramjet to ignite (lowering the required speed quite a bit) and accelerate to theoretical top speed. However, 'how much easier' has not been researched, that I know of; so I can't tell you the speed the projectile actually has to be going inside the barrel to ignite the scramjet. Regardless, the question of Muzzle Velocity becomes not about the chemical propellant but the acceleration rate/top speed of the Scramjet, which has a theoretical top speed of somewhere between Mach 12 and Mach 24 and will supposedly reach its top speed within 5 seconds (when not restricted, as it would be on any manned vehicle). Of course, the thrust/weight issue is another thing entirely (having a ration of ~2:1, it can't accelerate straight up when carrying anything as heavy as it is).
This is why I keep arguing in favor of Scramjet 16s. If you can get that thing to leave the barrel at Mach 10, it'd have a range of ~368nmi (my calculations could be wrong, feel free to correct me) on inertia [not sure that's the right term, but... hang over] alone, and they've successfully tested scramjets with 200 seconds of burn time which would at least double that range... admittedly, that's nowhere near a Tomahawk's range, but Scramjets (in full production) cost far less than normal jet engines so you'd have a cheaper and much faster alternative for shorter ranges (and a whole lot better option than most of the new AShMs that I've been hearing about). I admit, they're 16/12cal Guided projectiles requiring a Smooth Bore cannon (instead of 16in/4cal needing rifled), so they'd need new guns... but they need new guns anyway. You may find this hilarious, but according to Pratt & Whitney such a projectile would only cost somewhere between $58,000 and $72,000 a shot for a kinetic AP (using the 3200lb scramjet itself as mass, although this would shorten the round by some 4 calibers so you have plenty of room to play with other loads) and Vought claims that adding Cluster Munitions to it would only add ~$100,000 to the price (Raytheon argues around $250,000 per completed missile, but that's still cheap compared to a Tomahawk). ...And an inertial guidance system is built in to the base cost, so it's just as accurate as a tomahawk..
Seriously, for a bunch of people arguing the advent of the guided missile over gun based combat, they sure are missing what's right in front of their noses: the best place to launch a missile is from the inside of a gun barrel.
has a theoretical top speed of somewhere between Mach 12 and Mach 24 and will supposedly reach its top speed within 5 seconds (when not restricted, as it would be on any manned vehicle). Of course, the thrust/weight issue is another thing entirely (having a ration of ~2:1, it can't accelerate straight up when carrying anything as heavy as it is).
Something that accelerates at under 2 gs on the level can't hit Mach 12 in 5 seconds unless it starts out above Mach 11.