NationStates Jolt Archive


[OOC] MBT Tech question.

Mekugi
09-04-2005, 17:56
EDIT: Please read the whole thread before responding.

[OOC:]With all the new designs for Main Battle Tanks coming out these days and the broadening gap between ETC (Electro-Thermal Cannons) and Conventional guns, I must admit I felt sort of stuck in the middle. While I admire the effect of the ETC gun, the added complexity, weight, and recoil made me more than a bit hesitant to just dive in and accept it as gospel, but to get anywhere near competitive velocities Barrel lengths of conventional guns range neared 65 calibers and above (not exactly ideal either) especially not when tank armor (especially on NS) gets tougher every day.

I must admit my love of research and the exotic got the better of me and I went off to find something to bridge the gap… or at least attempt to. My research sent me down some odd paths everything from Coil and Rail guns (same and worse problems I had with the ETC gun) all the way to Sequential Gas and Ram Accelerator cannons ( Usually one shot and though effective were less than ideal on many levels.) and so I was at a conundrum… no existing designs really seem to fall between the ETC’s awesome power and the reliability and proven ballistic data for a Conventional Cannon.

It was at this point I was struck with what might literally be the most seat of my pants design I have worked on yet.

The idea was simple enough; Create a design that would have a flatter ballistic trajectory, higher velocity, and without having to resort to having to be within barrel length of the target (in short, a shorter barrel) than what would be needed for a conventional gun. After about a day and a half of racking my brain and going through about 8 liters of soda It hit me just when I was about to give up. The ONLY device and mechanical method that had a similar effect with the exception of a shorter barrel, was a Baffle based Suppressor.

Though many people are un aware of it baffle based suppressors are at the mercy of something called “freebore boost’ It is caused by a primary expansion chamber ahead of the barrel's muzzle which acts as a barrel extension as a bullet passes through it. Propellant gases continue to expand inside the chamber and push the bullet through the baffle stack at a slightly increased velocity. Though this Increase is not all that significant in most designs (as its usually discouraged in order to reduce the sound of the firearm) This new design would capitalize on the phenomenon in order to achieve its goal.

Freebore boost may have been the initial spark of the idea but it soon continued much further, as I considered my past research more specifically the Ram Accelerator Cannon that is often used for high speed impact testing at velocities up to 8 km/s but again it’s a very sensitive piece of scientific equipment and not ideal for any field deployment in anyway. The idea from the Ram accelerator that has a base in the new design was that of the Supporting rails that allowed for the gas in front of the round to be pushed to the side as the round passed (this was usually a combustive gas that as it was compressed by the shape of the round ignited in sequence keeping constant pressure on the round during its entire length of travel much like a ram or scramjet engine but only the compressor moved forward instead of the whole engine)

Assuming a similar (but without the complications of isolated combustive gas, and using a modified tank gun) system is used, with only 18 to 36x 2 cm wide parallel rails all along the diameter of the bore to act as a sort of interrupted smoothbore. This would as the bullet travels down the barrel permit the air in front of the bullet to be forced into the recesses by the ogival shape of the bullet compressing the air and pressurizing the recesses behind the bullet. As long as the pressure of the main propulsion remained constant (well call this Pressure +2) it would be higher than the air in the crevices, but as it reached the end of it pressure +2 phase (as the gas expands along the length of the barrel its ability to propel the projectile drops) and reaches the Pressure +1 phase. As the round begins to slow (as happens with almost every cannon out there) the bullet in a normal cannon would begin to decelerate slightly due to friction… but… with the lowered pressure of the main tube in our experimental design the pressurized atmosphere in the crevices are now of equal level with the propellant gas (P+1) and would expand removing the pressure gap and continuing applying a steady pressure all along the bullets path along the barrel ([P+1] + [P+1]= [P+2]). As it reaches the end of the bore a muzzle cap (or crown) will compress the all of the resultant gasses together as they reach the end of the crevices meaning even on exit the bullet receives a constant acceleration as it moves along the barrel, it will also have encountered less friction than a full bored gun due to decreased surface area contact, and have a much more accurate shot with a flatter ballistic trajectory (as can be shown via similar Freebore boost weapons).

I will admit its unorthodox, the standard logic of velocity shows that in order to get more velocity a longer gun that retains as much gas as possible is required (to a point of course). I am also aware that it has its disadvantages (no design is EVER perfect) But if it fills a useful niche I’m happy to have spent the time. I’m not saying this is up for grabs I’m still not 100% as to its validity but it modernly possible (to construct that is) though as for its effectiveness I fully admit I am in WAY over my head.

Advantages of the Enhanced Freebore Pneumatic Effect Cannon (EFPEC) or just Enhanced Freebore Cannon (EFC)-
* Higher velocity over Conventional Guns of similar caliber length
* Flatter trajectory over both ETC and Conventional Guns
* Reduced recoil due to higher mass and slower release of propellant gasses
* Cheaper to mass produce than an ETC Gun
* Can use all current ammuntion usable by conventional smoothbore guns
* Requires no external power sources (other than the normal propellant of the shell)

Disadvantages-
* Weight is higher than a conventional gun of the same size
* Thermal signature is higher, higher level of heat retention
* Barrel fouling may or may not be a problem (no real data to compare as a similar system)
* More expensive than a conventional gun
* Harder to manufacture

Though its not perfect, I think IF the theory is sound it might be a good compromise between the ETC and Conventional Cannons.

Now here is where you come in… COMMENT! Please keeps comments civilized, and on topic. This is not a thread for deciding what is better or if ETC is Modern or Post-Modern, please don’t waste my time and server space. Saying ‘Meh, Mines better…’ will just be ignored… and MOST OF ALL; this is ALL OOC and my intellectual property if I get the green light I will develop and offer such a system IC… but please no ripping my work… it really makes me rather frustrated.
Mekugi
09-04-2005, 18:24
I know someone out there has some knowledge in this area, or atleast has an opinion...
Hammers Slammers
09-04-2005, 18:34
I think it might work, but the statement about the .65 caliber impracticality is not very realistic, the most effective known tank cannon is the 120 mm abrams mbt cannon, that translates to about 480 caliber or 4.8 inches of bore diameter, about seven times the size of a .65 caliber round. The best solution is to really just build a bigger tank, (think about the platform used to transport the space shuttle and you'll get the right size scale) but that has its own impracticalities, specifically its really goddamn big.
Mekugi
09-04-2005, 18:37
Caliber when reffering to the tanks barrel is in refference to the LENGTH of the gun not bore diameter... one caliber of length is the diameter of the bore... so 1 caliber 120mm gun would be 120mm's long...

a 50 caliber 120mm gun would be 6000mm or 6m in length...

EDIT: I appologize for not specifying that in the post. I purposefully did not mention bore diameter in the description because honestly the size would have the same pattern fo effectiveness as a conventional gun,though the external bore diameter would most likely be 25% wider than a normal gun of the same internal diameter.
Hammers Slammers
09-04-2005, 18:49
Caliber when reffering to the tanks barrel is in refference to the LENGTH of the gun not bore diameter... one caliber of length is the diameter of the bore... so 1 caliber 120mm gun would be 120mm's long...

a 50 caliber 120mm gun would be 6000mm or 6m in length...

EDIT: I appologize for not specifying that in the post. I purposefully did not mention bore diameter in the description because honestly the size would have the same pattern fo effectiveness as a conventional gun,though the external bore diameter would most likely be 25% wider than a normal gun of the same internal diameter.


I see, thats about 18 feet right?
Mekugi
09-04-2005, 18:50
yep.
Verdant Archipelago
09-04-2005, 18:52
Caliber, when refering to guns that have a diameter larger than one inch, is a measurement of length of the barrel in incriments of bore diameter. So a 100mm 50 caliber gun would have a length of 100mmx50, or 5m long barrel.

I'm not sure if I understand the concept, but let me try to explain it again, just to confirm we're on the same wavelength. The barrel has logitudinal hollow rails along the barrel with openings into the barrel at intervals. The rails allow the air in front oif the barrel to easily get pushed aside, reducing resistance to the shell. My problem witih this is all you're doing is increasing the effective diameter of the gun. The expansion of the gas will propagate through the rails faster than the shell goes down the barrel, meaning you'll actually be robbing the gun of energy.
Mekugi
09-04-2005, 19:01
Close but its not at intervals its a series of full length rails (with open crevices betweenthe rails along the full length to the muzzle cap). Air is then pushed into these crevices as the round passes down the barrel the air pressure (Im assumeing) would be equivalint (or close as the crevices would be much smaller than the main bore which would equal a multiplication of atmosphere pressure) to the pressure behind the round so that as air is forced (and subsequently pressurized) the atmosphere would form a psuedo barrel as the gas directly behind the round, where possitive pressure and turbulentc caused by the passage of the round prevents the gas from escaping, and the force of the propellant prevents the atmosphere from rushing in behind the round (as it is want to do) untill the pressure of the propellant drops at which point the compressed atmosphere would overcome the propellant and suppliment the gas inorder to sustain a constant pressure on the projectile.

again a bit off the cuff design that is highly unorthdox, and if tis bunk then its bunk... I know it wont be perfect...
Verdant Archipelago
09-04-2005, 19:11
It won't be equivelent... because one end of the barrel is open ended, and the other is closed. Yes, the gas from the propellent will fill the crevase, but most of the air in front of the round will still be pushed forward, not sideways... and even if it is pushed sideways, the propellent gas will be able to push the pressurized gas in the crevace with less resistance than the shell, actually reducing velocity.

In other words, the propellent gasses will leak past the shell.

Consider instead rings around the circomfrence with a width less than the shell's length, to keep gas from leaking ouit around it, or perhaps a spiral design rather than a straight crevase... on the other hand, I'm not a fluid dynamicist, so I don't know =)

Barrel fouling WILL be a problem.
Mekugi
09-04-2005, 19:23
I would think the vacum generated by the turbulence of the round (The path of least resistance for the first 'block' of air is to be pushed to the side I would think that would suck air around the aerodynamic shape of the round (as can be shown in the ram accelerator cannon) and the remaining turbulence would keep the air pressurized as a equation of the compression ratio (inner bore diameter compared to the size of the crevice (which will be smaller than the diamter, and each crevices also is compressed further by the number of rails taking up space) and the length of the barrel.

Just as you said "I'm not a fluid dynamicist, so I don't know =)" which is better than I could have said it myself ^_^

As for the other designs, they definitely warrant investigation but a series of baffles (such likea normal silencer) would mean a portion of the barrel would have to be straight (which may be the way to go since that would mean that by the time the propellant dropped to such levels it can then instantly be assisted baffles compressed atmosphere...) but its all theory *shrug*
Verdant Archipelago
09-04-2005, 19:47
Hmm.... it's a very interesting idea, and I definately can't say it WON'T work. I'm still really worried aboiut leakage around the shell (though I admit the turbulence will help with that), and the fact that you are increasing effective barrel diameter, which tends to reduce barrel pressure (though again, shell design can limit that.. And I'm not sure how well such a proijectile will fly once it's out of the barrel... that won't matter for sabotted ammunition, but explosive shells may experience a marked decrease in range.
Mekugi
09-04-2005, 20:01
Yay for a plausible! ^_^ Im aware this is against common logic I think the best use of the concept would bya hybrid which would have a normal smootherbore barrel fora certian length and the open up into the rail-crevice area about a third of the way down. This would allow the propellant pressure to drop so that its not such a massive spike agaianst the atmosphere but it would still provide the same effect.
Verdant Archipelago
09-04-2005, 20:07
Believe it or not, I was jsut about to edit my post to suggest that. Get the round up to speed, then have the rails increase it even further.
Mekugi
09-04-2005, 20:12
It would also be stronger, lighter (comparred to a full rail length), and the pressure would allow for it to be actually efficent (compared to possible leakage which Ive also been worried about.) I really want to thank you for taking the time to help me out
Verdant Archipelago
09-04-2005, 20:16
NP, hope you'll do the same for me =)
Mekugi
09-04-2005, 20:19
NP, hope you'll do the same for me =)
Just drop me a line and I'll come runnin' ^_^
Mekugi
09-04-2005, 21:48
Bump for any further comment.
Scandavian States
09-04-2005, 22:53
A lot simpler compromise has already been suggested IRL. Basically you take an insensitive explosive powdered propellent and apply a weak, at least compared to an ETC, electro-magnetic charge. The result is something that has higher base velocities than a normal tank gun, but is something less spectacular than a full-up metal charge ETC.

If you RP your nation as having a tech base that can't quite support the mass production of ETCs, then what I've suggested would be a good interim solution and a potential leg-up in ETC research.
Mekugi
09-04-2005, 23:12
The technology isnt the problem, I play an early post modern nation, and have a strong economy I could (atleast on the scale I would deploy such a vehicle, which is in small highly trained amounts) produce them in sufficent quantities...

My background is in Electrical Engineering and I KNOW how often something with that much wiring can go wrong... This added ontop of the growing complexity of the (post-)modern tank can lead to one major mess.

The ETC gun is a complicated and complex piece of machinery that should it break down can lead to alot of downtime to repair the monstrosity. With this (the EFPEC) even if the barrel is fouled horribly and all the crevices filled solid with spent powder (that would be one badly kept barrel) the performance would only be degraded to the ability of an equivalent length smoothbore gun. Not to mention the recoil of this system is supriseingly light, with a flatter trajectory and tighter groups of shots, and a much higher velocity froma shorter barrel (Meaning its an efficent killer)

It may not be as deadly as an ETC Gun but it does have its place.