silicosys4
Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2012
- Messages
- 3,611
I was giving the combat speed version myself but that is definitely better, lol.Temperature = velocity = energy.
That's why Energy = mass times velocity squared.
You see that in bullet energy calculations in foot-pounds* and in E= mc^2 in megatons of TNT.
(Oh, and for you tenderfeet from back east, "BLM" = "Bureau of Land Management," the Federal agency regulating federal lands out here in G-d's country..)
Terry, 230RN
* Extra Credit for the midterm:
Bullet energy in foot-pounds = weight in grains X velocity in feet per second squared, all divided by 450,240.
That denominator (450,240) includes all the conversion factors for results in foot pounds from grains weight and velocity in feet/sec and varies slightly by sources since it includes a term for gravity which varies with wherever it all was measured.
See Hatcher, page 588, the chapter on "Exterior Ballistics."
IDF?In another life I was out at night patrolling for pigs that were tearing up our irrigation systems. I had a DDR AKM loaded with a few tracers. On the way home I passed a pond and watched some of the tracers skip across and bounce up into the hills on the other side. In the army I was posted to a base right on the beach a bit north of Gaza. At that time I was a Mag58 gunner, and if the sea was calm we could see tracers skipping and bouncing a good way out.
Lots of fun at the time.
Now that's interesting. Did they not use "chain shot" two cannonballs chained together, to cut the mast?In the era of tall ships the Royal Navy gunners would skip a cannonball across the water to strike the hull of the opponent. It's one reason why the RN was so successful. Other navies like the French considered prize money and wanted to dismast a ship to capture it (and get prize money for the crew). Masts are smaller targets that are harder to hit. The RN felt defeating the enemy was more important than prize money (though if they came by that that was very good).
Exit velocity seems to be tied to the angle of entry...
Now that's interesting. Did they not use "chain shot" two cannonballs chained together, to cut the mast?
Send him a PM and ask for one.I hope the poster that brought this up comes back and sites a source, I would really like to dig into this a bit more.
I wonder if the original free weights were just those things repurposed lol. That sounds like it would be easier to fool with than the chain shot although I doubt either one went all that straightAnother projectile that was used to damage a ship's rigging was bar shot, which was usually two cannonballs or half cannonballs connected by a section of bar.
They looked much like dumbbells.
These were much easier to make than chain shot, as they could be cast in one piece.
As you would expect, though, they wouldn't skip off of the water's surface very well... .
Most naval engagements of that time were held at 'pistol-shot' range or less, well under 100 yards.
They still missed a lot.
It didn't seem to matter if their shot went straight... .
A old neighbor at a lake side camp we had when I was a kid told us never to shoot at the water. He was with someone( I don't remember who) when he was a kid and they were shooting at waves coming into shore. Bullet came back and killed the person he was with.I heard a story once, someone on a boat shooting at the water and had a zing ricochet right back at them...captured on camera they said.
the idea that shooting shooting a body of water is dangerous (especially with a .22lr) because rounds can allegedly bounce off the surface of the water