Why are murcas unable to keep in mind more than one sentence at a time? Is it a cultural or educational problem, or just a result of wanton miscegenation? Read this sentence, and keep reading it until you know it by heart:
>6 MRLS trucks cost the same as one 150mm SPG, dumb rockets are also cheaper than shells. No high-precision parts.
Do note the highlighted parts.
Electric reactive body armor
Hunter Jones
Brayden Long
Electric armor sucks comparing to explosive reactive armor. Its very simply explosives store order of magnitude more energy than capacitors and can deliver much more powerful action against projectile.
BTW Russians unironically develop explosive reactive body armor.
Dylan Gray
There are no dumb rockets for MRLS anymore, silly.
Easton Roberts
It keeps happenig!
IT IS THAT OTHER FUCKING user WHO FUCKING SUGGESTES TO USE MRLS WITH DUMB ROCKETS, YOU FUCKING MUTT! THIS IS WHY PEOPLE KEEP SUGGESTING TO JUST CLEANSE ALL OF NORTH AMERICA WITH NUCLEAR FIRE!
Caleb Scott
Sauce, schnell!
Nolan Jones
Ask and thou shall receive
Jason Kelly
You have that backwards. Most howitzer shells are made from cheap castings, whereas a rocket needs a precisely machined nozzle in order to achieve a useful level of accuracy at standoff range.
Elijah Russell
Not rocket truck user, but can't you just cast said nozzle end and then do some finishing work to smooth it out, or stack a number of cheap stamped, perforated plates on top of each other with each set of nozzle holes twisted relative to the last in the stack? I know for a fact the latter was used to decent effect, I just can't remember where. Plus there's always the option of flip-out fin stabilization.
Beside that, this Combustion Light Gas Gun business. This is a strange and interesting thing that I have had no awareness of before now. I don't know how much faith I have in the gas tank pseudo-magazine with the scaleable gas mixture I'm seeing on research guns and garage builds, it seems gimmicky, but it is still very interesting. My question is why no one has considered making a CLGG cartridge system? In other words, simply replacing solid propellant with a light gas canister, fired from a conventional/old-type tube.
That seems like the simplest way to take advantage of the technology using existing equipment & science, if you can somehow overcome the economy of scale of existing tooling/industry that'll still be displaced in regards to propellant; just trade a certain amount of solid propellant for an equivalently energetic and denser, proportionally lighter gas can. The fiddly part would be figuring out how to prime it. Maybe a small hard-plastic high explosive plug in the cartridges' internal can, which is ignited by the primer and easily protects it from getting kicked off by gas pressure? Since it's internally seated, it's being pushed into place instead of out of it.
Now, the acceleration is much higher, and it puts a load on the functioning components of a shell. But what's the overall pressure load like, venting a controlled light gas explosion instead of a nitro solid? I would think that more energy in=more pressure load out, but maybe there's some peculiarity to the way it combusts that I don't understand just skimming? As far as I can understand, the use of more energetic gasses combusting and accelerating at presumably faster rates is sort of an inverse of the high-low pressure system gradually shunting projectiles to max velocity. But the shitty wiki stub notes that it has 'higher efficiency' in bang in-shoot out without elaborating further. What, it puts more energy onto the projectile, while imposing less on the chamber and tube due to being more of a 'fsssh' than a 'bang' at least relative to nitro propellant? Is it something like a high-low system that simply reaches far higher acceleration? What am I looking at here?
And, really, the crowning question here; why aren't we being assed with putting more efficient propellant in our boomsticks and more richly alloyed, rougher and tougher stick to our boom in general? If we're going to do some major paradigm shifting changeover to railguns or CLLGs or coils or whatever else that will upend the old order anyways, why not just design a better solid propellant, in a better cartridge, with a better projectile, in a better conventional guntube? At least then you have the opportunity to keep at least partial compatibility between new weapons and old ammo as you roll out the suped-up versions of the old faithfuls. Is the material science just not there, or is it pure procurement corruption heebery?
Jordan Collins
USSR I believe.
Andrew Baker
Before Obama ban of MRLS dumb rockets they were cheaper than 155 arty rounds. If you calculate cost per 1 DPICM bomblet delivered.