Jump to content

Why is there so little explosion "splash"?


Recommended Posts

So, just for the heck of it, I dropped a KAB-500Kr bomb on a T-72B from my Su-25T the other day. Within 5m of that tank, was another T-72B. The bomb only destroyed the tank that it directly landed on. The other tank was seemingly untouched.

 

Now this is a 500kg warhead bomb. Designed to take out reinforced bunkers. You'd think it would be packing quite a large explosion radius, no? At least it should take out someting sitting 5m from its impact point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if it was designed to take out bunkers, it's prolly designed to penetrate and detonate internally destroying the target,

 

Not detonate externally and take out nearby objects.

 

Just my $.02, i could very well be way off the mark though.

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill,

X470 Taichi Ultimate, 2x R7970 Lightnings Crossfired @ 1.1/6.0GHz,

3x ASUS VS248HP + Hanns·G HZ201HPB + Oculus HMD,

Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs, CH Fighterstick+Pro Throttle+Pro Pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

500KG is the weight of the bomb , not the explosive material.

if its a bunker buster it only means it can penetrate more armor/concrete before exploding.

 

in real life , a tank 5m near the target isn't so certain to die , but in any case the crew will get such a shock they will probably be dead or badly injured.

IAF.Tomer

My Rig:

Core i7 6700K + Corsair Hydro H100i GTX

Gigabyte Z170X Gaming 7,G.Skill 32GB DDR4 3000Mhz

Gigabyte GTX 980 OC

Samsung 840EVO 250GB + 3xCrucial 275GB in RAID 0 (1500 MB/s)

Asus MG279Q | TM Warthog + Saitek Combat Pedals + TrackIR 5

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all know explosions need tweaking. ED claim the engine is flawed and the work-around needed to make it realistic take too much dev time away from other projects.

 

We need to wait for a new game engine, my guess is somewhere close to 2018 (not including the mandatory delay). I rather see every available dev focusing on F/A-18C and Su-27 PFM (+ the DCS level Su-27). We've been waiting for the fast mover for over 5 years now. Almost as long as Nevada..


Edited by Dejjvid
  • Like 1

i7 8700K | GTX 1080 Ti | 32GB RAM | 500GB M.2 SSD | TIR5 w/ Trackclip Pro | TM Hotas Warthog | Saitek Pro Flight Rudder

 

[sigpic]http://www.132virtualwing.org[/sigpic]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all know explosions need tweaking. ED claim the engine is flawed and the work-around needed to make it realistic take too much dev time away from other projects.

 

We need to wait for a new game engine, my guess is somewhere close to 2018 (not including the mandatory delay). I rather see every available dev focusing on F/A-18C and Su-27 PFM (+ the DCS level Su-27). We've been waiting for the fast mower for over 5 years now. Almost as long as Nevada..

 

Like this one? :thumbup:

husqvarna+yth22v46+46in+22hp+b+s+lawn+tractor_l.jpg

"Pride is a poor substitute for intelligence."

RAMBO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in before edit... fast moves mate...the 500Kr is a penetration bomb not a normal bomb.

General 3D modeling thread and reference sites

UK liveries for planes, ships and MODS.

The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance.

"Me, the 13th Duke of Wybourne, here on the ED forums at 3 'o' clock in the morning, with my reputation. Are they mad.."

Updates to my stuff are now going here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in real life , a tank 5m near the target isn't so certain to die , but in any case the crew will get such a shock they will probably be dead or badly injured.

 

More than likely not, dependent on the angle at which the munition struck the target, and the relative aspect of said target towards the offset tank. Dropping a penetration weapon on a tank with a high angle of intercept is going to drive the overwhelming majority of its energy through the floor pan into the ground, rather than out to the sides. You'll get secondary effect going through the machine, shattering the hull like an egg and sending parts flying, but all of that energetic work takes away from the overall power of the blast.

 

Thus, you might take a lot of paint off, maybe damage a track, pop it off the road wheels or such, but nothing that such a design can't shrug off. By the time that energy reaches the crew compartment of the adjoining T-72, it's going to feel like a really hard roller coaster turn for a few moments, but so long as shrapnel isn't hitting the fuel tank or the engine, it's not going to be a loss.

 

Even with a more frontal, or side angle attack, the energy has to work through one tank and get to another. That is a massive amount of work, and by the time said energy reaches the second machine, it's going to be dispersed over that volume of remnant shrapnel, spall, and parts hitting the fuselage. Look at the amount of energy focused into a single point of a penetrator to get inside of that machine; something in that mass of armor, burning fuel, and none-too small amount of burning flesh needs to impact with that same amount of power to continue the chain.

 

It's just not going to be there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, you have a pretty good point about it being designed to penetrate rather than spread out explosive power over the surface. And I didn't realize 500kg was the weight of the bomb, and not necessarily the warhead payload. That makes sense now.

 

So then if I were to drop a FAB-500 on that tank instead, then another tank 5m from it should be smashed as well, then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...