Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
No it isn't. On the other hand rifle rounds don't pick up people and throw them several metres, either.Knife wrote: Ok. But still, a spear isn't a rifle round either.
Increased velocity has a far greater effect on projectile energy and penetration then increased projectile mass. That's why discarding sabot works so well for AP tasks.Batman wrote: About the only advantage the rifle round has over that spear is speed. Would that make that much of a difference?
The fact that the smallest fuses we can make are the size of the entire bullet. That doesn't leave much room for minor stuff like the explosives, the void space, the liner, the wrapping of ball bearings and the casing to hold all the shit together while its fired out of the rifle. 5.56mm HEDP is totally impossibul.Batman wrote: No rifle ever manufactured includes ammunition. It comes seperately, hence the evolution known as loading. Your reasons for the impossibility of 5.56x45 HEDP would be?
That's what I get for asking a stupid question.Sea Skimmer wrote:Increased velocity has a far greater effect on projectile energy and penetration then increased projectile mass. That's why discarding sabot works so well for AP tasks.Batman wrote: About the only advantage the rifle round has over that spear is speed. Would that make that much of a difference?
An accuracy rating in minutes of angle is a fixed value, range doesn’t matter. Now realistically, accuracy drops off considerably at long range, but that’s because of variable weather conditions. Artillery units and modern tank guns have elaborate sensor and computer setups to compensate for said weather conditions, but that isn’t exactly an option for a rifleman. All he has is a limited degree of windage and elevation control plus his brain and Mk1mod0 eyeball.Cykeisme wrote: Btw, I'm just curious.. what's the mechanical accuracy of an issue M16A2 with issue ammo (in minutes of angle) at 500m, anyway?
Didn't say it was bullet proof. Said it's likely more or less shrapnel proof. I should've quoted the post I was replying to...Knife wrote:I assume that ST armor is designed to either deflect or mitigate the damge done by a blaster. I'm not so sure you can translate that to bullet proof. There might be something in the EU about it, but I can't think of one.Elheru Aran wrote:If the shrapnel managed to make its way through the body glove? Sure. Otherwise it's more likely to just make a few nicks in the armour. You'd need something more like a LAW or RPG, direct hit, to blast through the armour.
Having an arrow bounce off of it is a bit different than a .223.
In this respect it's more like modern Level III- IV armour IMO, in that a heavy enough shot will likely penetrate it, but it should protect from lighter weapons and shrapnel. Whether shrapnel penetrates depends on how close and how powerful the explosion is...Kartr_Kana wrote:How would the M203 do against stormies? If blasters do the damage of a small grenade wouldn't the M203 be able to kill them?
The Box O' Truth did do a test using denim and terry cloth. They found that the .223 used in the AR-15 did go through the cloth. However, the firing was at extremely close range, and the bullet was sideways by the time it was through the cloth, meaning its surface area upon striking would be expanded, reducing penetrating power but widening the wound channel. They did find thick clothing will definitely stop a JHP from expanding.Batman wrote:I'd be very interested in that. I would be rather surprised if heavy clothing makes much of a difference for standard ball/FMJ rounds at any ranges worth considering but I've been wrong before.PayBack wrote:Given time I'll make an effort to fine evidence of people questioning the stopping power of the 5.56 round at that kind of range.
It's from Mike's Hate Mail page. IXJac argued with him that the rifle round is a better penetrator. He was wrong.Batman wrote:I can't for the life of me find the relevant threads right now but there WAS extensive discussion about that (a spear thrown by a droid so hard it lifted a Stormy off his feet and threw him several metres without so much as denting the armor. IIRC it was from one of the YJK books), so I think we can safely assume .223 or even .308 won't penetrate Stormie armor.Wether or not they do damage via momentum transfer is a wholly different ballgame.
The whole discussion's worth reading. Mike goes into a little more detail, in other places, but basically if the armor can stop the spear from penetrating it can stop a NATO round.Mike Wong wrote:Let's say you're wearing rigid armour with no travel, and a projectile hits you with 10 kg*m/s of momentum. In order to determine the reaction force, you need to figure out how long it will take to stop (let's neglect your own acceleration, since it will be negligible compared to the bullet's velocity). In this idealized scenario, the armour doesn't deform at all, so the entire deceleration zone must be in the bullet itself. Suppose the tip squashes so that the bullet becomes 6 mm shorter during the impact (I just made that figure up; if you're a firearms geek, I'm sure you can get more accurate figures). This gives you 6 mm of deceleration space, and if the initial velocity was 1000 m/s, you have all the information you need. Simply remember that displacement = ½at², perform some substitutions, and you'll find that the bullet must stop in roughly 12 microseconds.
Divide the momentum by 12 microseconds, and you'll find that you need to apply more than 800 kN to stop that bullet! That's a bit higher than IXJac's 10 N figure, isn't it? Now, let's go back to that 3 mm wide impact area. The bearing stress on that area would be 800 kN divided by 7E-6 m², or more than 100 GPa! Since the strongest alloys in the world can handle less than 2 GPa, it's no wonder a rifle bullet will put a dent in just about anything, eh? But in order to punch out a hole clean through the plate, you've got to do a bit more work. You need shear out an 8 mm wide hole (wide enough for the 7.62mm bullet to pass through), and if it's a 5mm thick plate, the load-bearing area is roughly 18 times larger, so the shear stress drops to about 6 GPa. Unfortunately, this is still too large, which is why you need a bit of "give" in your body armour.
Realistically, the armour doesn't fit perfectly on your body. Moreover, your body is not rigid (even the armour isn't rigid). The combination of body armour, thickness, and deflection, in conjunction with your body's temporary deformation will all add some breathing room (let's say 1.5 inches). This would increase the deceleration zone from 6 mm to 44 mm, thus increasing the deceleration time from 12 microseconds to 88 microseconds. The reaction force would drop from 800 kN to 114 kN, the bearing stress would drop to 16 GPa, and the shear stress would drop to less than 900 MPa, which is within the limits of modern steel alloys. Mind you, this is still an idealized analysis; I am neglecting the effect of bending moment and the time of travel through the armour, both of which would further decrease the load. Moreover, I am using a fixed deformation on the part of the bullet, when realistically, you must compare the bullet's mechanical strength to the armour's mechanical strength to see which one will take the brunt of the damage. As I mentioned before, high speed photography shows rifle bullets disintegrating upon impact with very hard armour, so virtually all of their KE actually ends up going into self-destruction.
In the case of the spear-throwing incident, the tiny nick on the armour indicates that it is much stronger and tougher than the metallic spear, otherwise there should have been more damage. The human brain can withstand up to 300 G's of transient (as opposed to sustained) acceleration without injury, and the subject nearly lost consciousness from the impact against the far wall despite his padded helmet, so it seems likely that he was near the threshold. If we assume 1 inch of deflection from the helmet padding (which you can see in the SWVD), this means his head must stop in roughly 4 ms, and he was moving at speeds of up to 12 m/s, even if we disregard the braking effect of his feet sliding across the floor beneath him before impact. This gives him around 1000 kg*m/s of momentum (assuming 80 kg body weight). Even if the spear's mass was quite large (say, 10 pounds), it would still have to be moving at 220 m/s (around 500 miles per hour!) in order to send him flying backwards so violently. Small wonder they used a robot instead of a human to throw the spear, eh? Given the same 44 mm deflection, the reaction force exceeds 2.5 MN (although according to IXJac, force is completely irrelevant ... snicker). When you plug these figures into the equations used above for the bullet, keeping in mind how little damage was done to the armour and what a tiny contact area the "nick" would have been, you will see why I concluded that stormtrooper armour can deflect small-arms fire, even if it wasn't intuitively obvious to you before.
And now for the $64,000 question: how are you supposed to perform these analyses using only kinetic energy? The KE balance would indicate that either projectile carries dozens, perhaps hundreds of times as much energy as it needs to do the work, so now what? Any ideas? Would IXJac deign to explain his wondrous methods to us? Energy balances do not tell us anything about what happens during a process. They only help us determine limits, and we can use them for correlations, but they're not magic. You still need to do old fashioned mechanical analysis if you want to figure out what will happen during the process.
In Empire Issue 16 to 18, Amanin warriors apparently throw spears that penetrate both stormtrooper armor and the flesh on the inside.I can't for the life of me find the relevant threads right now but there WAS extensive discussion about that (a spear thrown by a droid so hard it lifted a Stormy off his feet and threw him several metres without so much as denting the armor.
I can make precisely the same claim about an M16, and thanks to the research done by others in this thread, immediately provide numbers to back it up. Got anything other than hyperbole?LaserRifleofDoom wrote:About blaster accuracy:
"Inherent instabilities limit the ability to precisely aim a blaster bolt, but knowing one's weapon well can strengthen marksmanship" ~ Visual Dictionary, pg 7.
So the blaster is an inherently innacurate weapon, though presumably a stormtrooper can overcome that.
That's assuming a "plasma bolt/particle beam" nature for the blaster weapon, though. And it doesn't say it is "inherently inaccurate" it just less precise a weapon compared to other kinds (like a laser rifle.)LaserRifleofDoom wrote:About blaster accuracy:
"Inherent instabilities limit the ability to precisely aim a blaster bolt, but knowing one's weapon well can strengthen marksmanship" ~ Visual Dictionary, pg 7.
So the blaster is an inherently innacurate weapon, though presumably a stormtrooper can overcome that.
Ah this brings back memories. When I first got here I demanded evidence that stormtrooper armor could stop bullets, and got the spear => bulletproof answer along with a "let's see if he gets it" snicker from probably you and a couple others...Batman wrote:Drat. Never thought of checking the Hate Mail section. Thanks, MoO.
AFAIK, the MP7 is really more of a large machine pistol, like a Mac 11 or something, I know you CAN extend the stock and use the vertical grip, but its still a machine pistol at heart, especially with the 20 round mag in instead of the more cumbersome 40 round version. Plus, the size of the actual body is quite a bit shorter than an E-11, or indeed an MP5. I've also yet to see a scope mounted on an MP7 (not an RD), while scopes are frequently claw mounted on MP5's, similar to the scope found on E-11's in fact...It'd still go with an M4 comparison. That is also a carbine that front line troops are issued. Neither the MP5 nor the MP7 are for front line troops (though with the MP5 I'm leaving myself open because yes they're used by special forces but generally for anti terrorist work, not on the battlefield). The MP7 is for rear area troops for whom carrying a carbine like the M4 is inconvenient.
Rip a few limbs off? You are vastly overestimating the yield of an M203's 40mm grenade.Lazarus wrote:So stormtrooper rigid plate armour can stop bullets, fair enough, but no matter how effective that armour is at stopping projectiles, if a rifle grenade goes off near a stormie, the concussive force should surely at the very least incapacitate the guy inside the armour, and more likely rip a few limbs off? I know the shrapnel is the more deadly part over a wider area, but still...
Luke and Han both have holstered E-11s when they bring Chewie into the cell block on the Death Star. You can see them slowly drawing them as they talk to the guards. In TESB, the two "MPs" who pick up Captain Needa's corpse also have holstered E-11s.Lazarus wrote:I actually hadn't noticed anyone ever holstering an E-11. I know that the stormies seen in ANH do have holstered weapons, but in the Visual Dictionary photo this weapon isn't an E-11, its some form of smaller weapon, actually none too disimilar to an MP7! If you'd care to point out the part where the E-11 is seen holstered, fine, but I would think it highly impractical to do such a thing (I'd never be able to holster my MP5!).It'd still go with an M4 comparison. That is also a carbine that front line troops are issued. Neither the MP5 nor the MP7 are for front line troops (though with the MP5 I'm leaving myself open because yes they're used by special forces but generally for anti terrorist work, not on the battlefield). The MP7 is for rear area troops for whom carrying a carbine like the M4 is inconvenient.
Having also handled an M-4, the weapon is quite a bit bigger than the MP5-A5 (in relative terms), and although a carbine, is much closer to a rifle than the MP5 is. As a weapon, its also much bulkier.
Luke, and Han, the whole time they're in Stormtrooper armor, have their E-11's hostered when called for. AFAIK, in ESB and RotJ, they use them as primary arms, however in ANH, the E-11 is almost a side arm.Lazarus wrote:
I actually hadn't noticed anyone ever holstering an E-11. I know that the stormies seen in ANH do have holstered weapons, but in the Visual Dictionary photo this weapon isn't an E-11, its some form of smaller weapon, actually none too disimilar to an MP7! If you'd care to point out the part where the E-11 is seen holstered, fine, but I would think it highly impractical to do such a thing (I'd never be able to holster my MP5!).
An M-4 is only marginally smaller than the full sized M-16. A collaspable stock make the difference. In ANH it's not like the E-11 was a derringer, more like a long forgotten longgun. It was one hell of a holster, but they were holstered.Having also handled an M-4, the weapon is quite a bit bigger than the MP5-A5 (in relative terms), and although a carbine, is much closer to a rifle than the MP5 is. As a weapon, its also much bulkier.
Though apparently the slight difference in barrel length makes a hell of a difference in lethality.Knife wrote: An M-4 is only marginally smaller than the full sized M-16. A collaspable stock make the difference.
The length of the barrel makes part of the difference too, doesn't it? Is that not the idea for having a carbine in the first place.. shortening the barrel to ease handling of a firearm in confined areas?Knife wrote:An M-4 is only marginally smaller than the full sized M-16. A collaspable stock make the difference.
There are some who are of the opinion that 5.56 NATO is already underpowered. Shortening the barrel length of the M4 results in lower velocities. Considering 5.56 NATO is a lightweight round that relies on high velocity to cause effect to the target, this exacerbates the (perceived?) problem significantly.PayBack wrote:Though apparently the slight difference in barrel length makes a hell of a difference in lethality.
Remember, however, that the 5.56mm round is not necessarily designed for maximum lethality. To the best of my understanding, it's designed to be incapacitating (it still exceeds the velocity of any handgun round), but not necessarily lethal.PayBack wrote:Though apparently the slight difference in barrel length makes a hell of a difference in lethality.Knife wrote: An M-4 is only marginally smaller than the full sized M-16. A collaspable stock make the difference.
Now you come to mention it i do remember them pulling something out of their holsters. Fair enough, sorryLuke and Han both have holstered E-11s when they bring Chewie into the cell block on the Death Star. You can see them slowly drawing them as they talk to the guards. In TESB, the two "MPs" who pick up Captain Needa's corpse also have holstered E-11s.
Guess I was wrong about the grenades explosive force too..