Sabot?

Out of curiosity, how difficult would it be to build naval guns that fire APDS shells against Charisian armored ships? The Paixhans gun designed in 1823 was the first flat-trajectory, high-muzzle-velocity naval gun to fire explosive shells... and those shells had a very crude sabot.



Once someone in the Temple Loyalist side realizes that in order to get penetration against armor you need a heavy, thin projectile, they might start trying to fire 6-inch-diameter, 20-inch-long steel shells out of 12-inch cannons.

that would require someone to actually think. while merlin, nimue, and the others would love the idea that Temple Loyalists are finally thinking for them selves. I don't think it will happen.

now the Temple Loyalists are going to have their own mortars with a sabot around their shells.

Charis has armor piercing rounds.

The problem with high velocity shells is they need to be made with special materials or they will simply break up on impact with the armour. The evolution of anti tank shells and armour piercing shells was quite complex.

For the period we are talking about, armour piercing shells would need to have face hardening, and perhaps a "cap" of different material on the nose of the shell to assist the shell in punching through the face hardened outer layer of armour. Later, designers realized they needed much harder and denser material than steel, so shells with a penetrating core of Tungsten were designed, with aerodynamic outer casings, or sometimes collapsable flanges for "squeeze bore" or taper bore type weapons.

Discarding sabots took a long time to develop because getting them to separate cleanly from the penetrator was actually difficult to achieve, and having some or all of the sabots adhering to the shell would simply make it fly off course.

Thucydides wrote:The problem with high velocity shells is they need to be made with special materials or they will simply break up on impact with the armour. The evolution of anti tank shells and armour piercing shells was quite complex.

For the period we are talking about, armour piercing shells would need to have face hardening, and perhaps a "cap" of different material on the nose of the shell to assist the shell in punching through the face hardened outer layer of armour. Later, designers realized they needed much harder and denser material than steel, so shells with a penetrating core of Tungsten were designed, with aerodynamic outer casings, or sometimes collapsable flanges for "squeeze bore" or taper bore type weapons.

Discarding sabots took a long time to develop because getting them to separate cleanly from the penetrator was actually difficult to achieve, and having some or all of the sabots adhering to the shell would simply make it fly off course.

On the other hand, Charis could just fabricate a wooden sabot fin stabilized projectile if required from stored plans and have it work first time. A sabot on a 50 caliber rifle bullet would be interesting too for personnel armor penetration or long range sniping. (Interesting question - what do you call a sniper on a planet where you have no snipe?)

AirTech wrote:(Interesting question - what do you call a sniper on a planet where you have no snipe?)

Snipes do exist on Safehold.

https://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/eng/lament.htm

Hi Thucydides,

Around 35 years ago while I was preparing my lectures on the naval aspects of the American civil war I came across a photograph of a union armor piercing shell with a wooden sabot around it, it was crude which was to be expected but no further information on its development or even the photograph annotation etc, but I was struck by how much whoever got right, yet the lack of followup development (perhaps partly because the 15" Dahlgren didn't need it, besides the usual post war bureaucratic cuts etc) has been personally frustrating ever since.

L

Thucydides wrote:The problem with high velocity shells is they need to be made with special materials or they will simply break up on impact with the armour. The evolution of anti tank shells and armour piercing shells was quite complex.

For the period we are talking about, armour piercing shells would need to have face hardening, and perhaps a "cap" of different material on the nose of the shell to assist the shell in punching through the face hardened outer layer of armour. Later, designers realized they needed much harder and denser material than steel, so shells with a penetrating core of Tungsten were designed, with aerodynamic outer casings, or sometimes collapsable flanges for "squeeze bore" or taper bore type weapons.

Discarding sabots took a long time to develop because getting them to separate cleanly from the penetrator was actually difficult to achieve, and having some or all of the sabots adhering to the shell would simply make it fly off course.

Would an armor-piercing discarding sabot round really honestly do much damage to a steel warship? It'll punch a 6" hole in the side armor of the ship, maybe punch a hole in a turret and knock the turret out, or hit a boiler. But typically (and my understanding of this is rather sketchy, so please excuse any misconceptions I may have), these rounds do not have an explosive core, and thus it won't do as much damage as a capped armor piercing explosive shell would. Not to mention that I'm pretty sure a high velocity gun at longer ranges would be worthless, aiming it would be a pain, and the flat trajectory the projectile follows could conceivably be disrupted by wave action in rough seas.

Darman wrote:Would an armor-piercing discarding sabot round really honestly do much damage to a steel warship? It'll punch a 6" hole in the side armor of the ship, maybe punch a hole in a turret and knock the turret out, or hit a boiler. But typically (and my understanding of this is rather sketchy, so please excuse any misconceptions I may have), these rounds do not have an explosive core, and thus it won't do as much damage as a capped armor piercing explosive shell would. Not to mention that I'm pretty sure a high velocity gun at longer ranges would be worthless, aiming it would be a pain, and the flat trajectory the projectile follows could conceivably be disrupted by wave action in rough seas.

The round will kill through the shredded white hot armor being blasted out of the back of the hull (and fragments of the penetrator), modern penetrators, if they don't use uranium, use a tungsten magnesium blend to replicate the pyrophoric effects inside the target (tungsten for weight, magnesium for fire). Anyone within 10m of the hole will be hit by hot shrapnel and any explosives will be ignited leading to secondary explosions. That said, it is a line of sight weapon and would be more use in a close quarter engagement (circa 1860's) than a typical modern naval battle. Shaped charges produce similar effects but can be defeated by layered spaced armor.

AirTech wrote:The round will kill through the shredded white hot armor being blasted out of the back of the hull (and fragments of the penetrator), modern penetrators, if they don't use uranium, use a tungsten magnesium blend to replicate the pyrophoric effects inside the target (tungsten for weight, magnesium for fire). Anyone within 10m of the hole will be hit by hot shrapnel and any explosives will be ignited leading to secondary explosions. That said, it is a line of sight weapon and would be more use in a close quarter engagement (circa 1860's) than a typical modern naval battle. Shaped charges produce similar effects but can be defeated by layered spaced armor.

I was rather assuming that the materials used would be steel, at the very best, simply based off the technology the CoG appears to have at this point. Obviously modern-day penetrator materials would allow for greater damage. I was sort of assuming a long, thin pointed piece of steel that would be heavy (its longer than a normal round) and place all its energy at the point of impact. Even then I can see that there would be splinter casualties and the like, but I can't imagine that a capped armor-piercing shell wouldn't do more damage because if it penetrated, it would then explode.

Darman wrote:

AirTech wrote:The round will kill through the shredded white hot armor being blasted out of the back of the hull (and fragments of the penetrator), modern penetrators, if they don't use uranium, use a tungsten magnesium blend to replicate the pyrophoric effects inside the target (tungsten for weight, magnesium for fire). Anyone within 10m of the hole will be hit by hot shrapnel and any explosives will be ignited leading to secondary explosions. That said, it is a line of sight weapon and would be more use in a close quarter engagement (circa 1860's) than a typical modern naval battle. Shaped charges produce similar effects but can be defeated by layered spaced armor.

I was rather assuming that the materials used would be steel, at the very best, simply based off the technology the CoG appears to have at this point. Obviously modern-day penetrator materials would allow for greater damage. I was sort of assuming a long, thin pointed piece of steel that would be heavy (its longer than a normal round) and place all its energy at the point of impact. Even then I can see that there would be splinter casualties and the like, but I can't imagine that a capped armor-piercing shell wouldn't do more damage because if it penetrated, it would then explode.

G'Day Darman,

Assuming that the semi-armour-piercing (i.e. capped) round penetrates, then yes it will do more damage then the sabot round.

The problem is, that (due to its higher speed) a sabot round in more likely to hit then a semi-armour-piercing round, and when it hits, it is more likely to penetrate any armour.


So you have the choose between a round that will penetrate less often, but do more damage when it does, verse a round that will penetrate more often, but do less damage.....