10-27-2011, 11:39 AM | #1 |
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oregon
|
[UT] Smart Explosively Forged Projectile a Dumb Idea?
I've been playing around with Ultra Tech weapons (such as throwing a servo-mounted 40mm mortar box on a battlesuit) and was reminded of a question I had. One of the warhead options at TL9 is the SEFOP, a special guided round that can perform pop-up attacks against armor. It's similar in damage to the Shaped Charge, but with only 1/3 the armor divisor. "That's fine," I thought, "it can just target the weaker top or rear armor." But the example tanks in UT all have more than 1/3 DR on their weakest point, making the Shaped Charge always a better option. In what situations would the SEFOP actually beat its simpler and cheaper cousin?
|
10-27-2011, 11:47 AM | #2 |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [UT] Smart Explosively Forged Projectile a Dumb Idea?
If you built an actual UT MBT, rather than the funny little light tanks, you'd probably have a lot more cause to worry about frontal armor. Remember that the T-72's frontal armor is much stronger than the tanks in UT!
If you're attacking someone or something behind cover, SEFOP could bypass that.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
10-27-2011, 11:54 AM | #3 | |
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oregon
|
Re: [UT] Smart Explosively Forged Projectile a Dumb Idea?
Quote:
Speaking of which, anyone have stats for such an MBT? |
|
10-27-2011, 11:55 AM | #4 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: [UT] Smart Explosively Forged Projectile a Dumb Idea?
|
10-27-2011, 12:01 PM | #5 |
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oregon
|
Re: [UT] Smart Explosively Forged Projectile a Dumb Idea?
Are you sure about that? The SEFOP uses basically the same effect as normal shaped charges, just with a longer stand-off distance. If you're right, though, that would be a huge boon against advanced armor.
|
10-27-2011, 12:35 PM | #6 | |
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Eindhoven, the Netherlands
|
Re: [UT] Smart Explosively Forged Projectile a Dumb Idea?
Quote:
Also note that SEFOP can be loaded into smaller calibers than Shaped Charges, and they can be programmed to act as APEX, if that makes a difference. Of course, on the flip side, they need to be homing to be effective.
__________________
My Blog: Mailanka's Musing. Currently Playing: Psi-Wars, a step-by-step exploration of building your own Space Opera setting, inspired by Star Wars. |
|
10-27-2011, 12:37 PM | #7 |
Custom User Title
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
|
Re: [UT] Smart Explosively Forged Projectile a Dumb Idea?
SEFOP uses the power of a shaped charge to form a projectile (often with fins!) out of metal that is placed in front of the charge. That projectile is accelerated by the blast into the target. It is not as fast as the products of a HEAT warhead and trades firing distance for penetration. HEAT warheads form a much thinner projectile that is so fast and under such high pressure that it punches a hole through the armor.
I would like to see some ideas on statting the Multi-SEFOP. A warhead that is segmented so that it fractures and forms into several projectiles.
__________________
Joseph Paul |
10-27-2011, 12:47 PM | #8 |
Custom User Title
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
|
Re: [UT] Smart Explosively Forged Projectile a Dumb Idea?
"Homing" would be a bit of a misnomer. The BLU-108 submunition is deployed from a bomb and it uses sensors to find a target while it is falling and then fires an explosively formed projectile at it but there is no ability for the projectile to actually change course to follow a target that has moved.
__________________
Joseph Paul |
10-27-2011, 12:51 PM | #9 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: [UT] Smart Explosively Forged Projectile a Dumb Idea?
|
10-27-2011, 01:07 PM | #10 |
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oregon
|
Re: [UT] Smart Explosively Forged Projectile a Dumb Idea?
Oh, that brings up another question. When adding multiple modifiers to UT ammunition (such as warheads and guidance) are they multiplied together, or added and then multiplied like CF? For instance, basic IR homing adds +300% to projectile cost (+3 CF), while SEFOP warheads are x5 cost (+4 CF). This isn't an issue for most missiles, which explicitly have a separate cost for the projectile and the warhead. But gyrocs, mortars, and grenade launchers have a single cost per shot. Would an IR SEFOP 40mm Mortar round be $80 ($10*(1+3+4)) or $200 ($10*4*5)?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|