Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-16-2022, 12:57 PM   #31
Witchking
 
Witchking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Athens of America
Default Re: Spaceships hull armor…solid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
Their guns were also quite small for their size - a WWII medium tank would have a gun of about 3" bore, and 50-70 calibres long. A WWII battleship would have main guns of 14-18" and about 45-50 calibres long (though they had many more, of course). The latter massed very roughly a thousand times to former.
Of course a lot of that mass is taken up by the difference in operational range.

Heavy Tank Char B1 bis Operational range 200 km

Battleship Richelieu Operational range 17,600 km

Both French, both roughly WW2 vintage. Does point out the vast difference in the amount of mass committed to gas, bullets and beans to be able to operate for weeks/days vs hours.
__________________
My center is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent. I shall attack.-Foch
America is not perfect, but I will hold her hand until she gets well.-unk Tuskegee Airman
Witchking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2022, 04:20 PM   #32
Polydamas
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
Default Re: Spaceships hull armor…solid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agemegos View Post
Battleship guns and armour demonstrated things about impactors with velocity less than about one kilometre per second. The hardness and tensile strength of materials are much less significant when you are dealing with two or three orders of magnitude more kinetic energy per unit mass, and everything behaves in collision like several times its own mass of detonating TNT.
I was really hoping that David Pulver addressed this, he does research so should have an evidence-based opinion on thick layers of armour v. Whipple Shields. The Whipple shield is not a popular trope and most TTRPG spaceships will be governed by tropes rather than realistic extrapolation.

Engineers and physicists who have studied performance in that sphere seem to agree that Whipple shields are the most weight-efficient way to armour spacecraft against impacts as far as this layman can tell.
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper

This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature
Polydamas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2022, 05:43 PM   #33
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Spaceships hull armor…solid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polydamas View Post
Engineers and physicists who have studied performance in that sphere seem to agree that Whipple shields are the most weight-efficient way to armour spacecraft against impacts as far as this layman can tell.
It's the most efficient way to armor against random incidental impacts. Purpose built missiles are likely to use something like sequential impactors to drill through armor.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2022, 06:47 PM   #34
Agemegos
 
Agemegos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
Default Re: Spaceships hull armor…solid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
It's the most efficient way to armor against random incidental impacts. Purpose built missiles are likely to use something like sequential impactors to drill through armor.
That would take pinpoint accuracy, and seems implausible.
__________________

Decay is inherent in all composite things.
Nod head. Get treat.
Agemegos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2022, 07:09 PM   #35
mlangsdorf
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Default Re: Spaceships hull armor…solid?

Tandem HEAT warheads already exist, and presumably you can do a similar technique with explosively formed projectiles. If the serial impactors are all carried on the same gyrostabilized delivery device, the required accuracy doesn't seem implausible.
__________________
Read my GURPS blog: http://noschoolgrognard.blogspot.com
mlangsdorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2022, 08:45 PM   #36
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: Spaceships hull armor…solid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agemegos View Post
That would take pinpoint accuracy, and seems implausible.
Not implausible for guided missiles. You saw something very much like that level of accuracy with laser guided bombs in Iraq.

I doubt it's necessary. Though some people chant "Whipple Shields!" like they were magic words what goes specifically with those words is just a particular implementation of the "spaced armor" principle and one aimed at very small impactors at moderate velocities (when tlkling about space weapons anyway).

The outer layer of the spaced armor must be massive enough that collision with it completely destroys the impactor and the spacing between layers large enough to let the resulting explosion dissipate sufficiently.

There is no magic. If the impactor is too large it won't be completely destroyed and if the total enrgy involved is too high it won't dissipate enough.
__________________
Fred Brackin
Fred Brackin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2022, 10:02 PM   #37
Polydamas
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
Default Re: Spaceships hull armor…solid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
Not implausible for guided missiles. You saw something very much like that level of accuracy with laser guided bombs in Iraq.
GPS guided bombs are aimed at static targets from free fall not across the relative velocities encountered in spaceship combat, and the targets did not have ECM or the ability to shoot down satellites.

Again, I have never seen an argument that single thick layers of hard dense armour would be a practical scheme for spacecraft armour, whereas there are actual spacecraft which use Whipple shields. Anyone who believes in the first scheme would need to make a case, with the physics.
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper

This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature
Polydamas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2022, 10:13 PM   #38
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default Re: Spaceships hull armor…solid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polydamas View Post
GPS guided bombs are aimed at static targets from free fall not across the relative velocities encountered in spaceship combat, and the targets did not have ECM or the ability to shoot down satellites.
You'd have the impactors on the same delivery bus, and them separate very shortly before impact so the separation is small (in both time and distance).

Quote:
Again, I have never seen an argument that single thick layers of hard dense armour would be a practical scheme for spacecraft armour, whereas there are actual spacecraft which use Whipple shields. Anyone who believes in the first scheme would need to make a case, with the physics.
And nowhere in Spaceships does it say whether the armour is a single monolithic plate or not. It merely tells us what it's (mostly) made of, how much it masses, and what protection that confers.

I think assuming that it's anything but "whatever works well against the threats the ship faces" (whatever form of armour that might be) is mistaken. "Whatever works best" would of course be the 'hardened' option, at double cost.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn

"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."
Rupert is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2022, 10:23 PM   #39
Polydamas
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
Default Re: Spaceships hull armor…solid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
You'd have the impactors on the same delivery bus, and them separate very shortly before impact so the separation is small (in both time and distance).
But at astronomical velocities, even 1/100 of a second could make it hard to hit the same hole. And if they are too close together they will be hit by debris from the first projectile vapourizing and be knocked off course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
I think assuming that it's anything but "whatever works well against the threats the ship faces" (whatever form of armour that might be) is mistaken. "Whatever works best" would of course be the 'hardened' option, at double cost.
But the way single hard dense layers of armor scale against bullet-speed projectiles is different than the way Whipple shields scale against astronomical-speed projectiles. A model has to make some assumption about how armour and threats scale against each other.
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper

This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature
Polydamas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2022, 10:31 PM   #40
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Spaceships hull armor…solid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polydamas View Post
But at astronomical velocities, even 1/100 of a second could make it hard to hit the same hole.
I was more interested in whipple shields, where you would expect an initial impact to make a pretty large hole.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
armour, spaceships

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.