Thread 63826028

A continuous rod warhead consists of an even number of steel rods arranged in parallel, with the ends of adjacent rods welded together in an alternating pattern. Upon detonation, the explosive charge forces the rods outward in an expanding ring or circle. The welded joints allow the rods to expand without breaking immediately, creating a rapidly growing arc that can slice through the structure of a target aircraft. This design ensures that any part of the aircraft intercepted by the expanding ring receives a continuous cut, which is far more likely to cause catastrophic structural failure than isolated fragment impacts.

This could apply to antipersonnel drone warheads too. Drones need light warheads to maximize flight time and speed, but drone pilots want clearly visible and instantly incapacitating damage. In the Russo-Ukrainian war this is usually achieved with wastefully oversized warheads that reduce speed.

Famous English swordmaster George Silver highlighted the same problem: piercing wounds from rapiers may be perfectly lethal, but slashing wounds are superior for instant incapacitation.

The solution is clear: autonomous mobile swords.

A 4-foot long segment of 3mm by 4mm square steel rod weighs approximately 115 grams. It folds up into a compact 3cm by 8cm ssize with a TNT core in a plastic half-circle shape.
The TNT needed to propel it to 1600 m/s velocity is under 30 grams.
A generic laser rangefinding fuze detonates it 1.2 meters from the target so it is a full arc at impact.

At this velocity, the explosive sword warhead cuts through a level 4 ceramic plate, kevlar backer and all the way through a 95th percentile male torso, along with any nearby limbs. Total incapacitation visible to your soldiers at a distance.

>>63826028 (OP)
>but what about cost
It's cheaper than buying tungsten spheres to pierce soft armor
>but what about Philip K. Dick
what about him?
>it's only a single target weapon
It's light enough to attach to a tinywhoop for indoor combat. you can carry a loadout of 12 instead of 2 or 3 10" FPVs

>>63826124
The timing issue is removed by the laser fuze. There's no issue of human error.

>>63826028 (OP)
>At this velocity, the explosive sword warhead cuts through a level 4 ceramic plate,
3.5 mm steel impactor at 1600m/s penetrates at best 1 l/d RHA. This rod would penetrate 3.5 mm RHA. Level 4 is about 15 mm RHA equivalent. It's not gonna penetrate Level IV plate.

>>63826201
>RHA comparisons
I found your issue.

>>63826028 (OP)
Another thing
> 115 grams.
>The TNT needed to propel it to 1600 m/s velocity is under 30 grams.
To propel metal at 1600 m/s with TNT you need 1:1 charge ratio, 115 grams TNT not 39 grams.
WTF is this ballistics illiteracy?

>>63826208
There is issues with RHA equalent been not exactly right. But they are close enough. Level IV ceramic plates are designed to stop 7.63 steel core able to penetrate 12mm RHA. You ain't gonns pen this with 3.5mm RHA penetrating impactore, this is 100% sure.

>>63826227
You're probably using a calculator for the Gurney equations which assumes a WW2 style shell and energy lost in bursting. This is a directional charge.

>>63826028 (OP)
There is no situation in which a 3mm x 4mm steel rod is going to cut through a ceramic level 4 plate at 1600 m/s. Level 4 plates can survive .22 caliber bullets in the 2.5 gram range with a FAR higher sectional density than a continuous rod warhead could ever provide, on the order of 5x higher. In order to defeat ceramics you need higher mass projectiles as they will be exposed to significant amounts of erosion due to how ceramic defeats projectiles. Higher mass is less necessary if you use high L/D ratio projectiles, but a continuous rod warhead is literally the opposite of this

>>63826028 (OP)
>>63826058
>>63826067
You make (on its face) a compelling argument. So, my question to you is: what is wrong with it or the downside? Why has this not already been implemented?

>>63826360
The real reason is that there is no reason to do this when you can just use preformed fragmentation warheads that will reach further and are much less complex to detonate properly

>>63826360
Because it is stupid when using it in AP or AT roles.

Continous rod fragmentation is used because aircraft often don't die quickly when shot full of holes. OPs pretty good article about continous rods specifies so.

However, humans VERY much don't like being ventilated, so no need for a sword-in-a-bomb.

>>63826247
This is cylinder charge by Gurney.
Gurney has equations for non cylinder charges and they have less velocity with same charge/metal ratio check it up.

>>63826417
>However, humans VERY much don't like being ventilated, so no need for a sword-in-a-bomb.
I'll would make some parrales with aircraft though. Aircrafts don't mind spread out holes in the wings (that can make more than 50% of the aircraft target area). But concenstrsted cut across wing that leads to dismemberment is lethal.
Humans kinda the same humans can survive many holes in the limbs and even heal after. But dismemberment of the limb is 100% military lethal. Even if soldier survive, it's possible to cut off bleeding with tourniquet, loss of the limb = discharge from service.

>>63826360
Bureaucratic inertia and traditionalism. Military weapons designers have improved a lot since the Cold War when criteria for wounding tended to be defined as "does this artillery splinter have a 50% chance of hitting and if it does a 50% chance of demoralizing a Soviet conscript on the attack for at least 5 minutes" (seriously, research it). So a warhead that gives a 95% chance of more than one 3mm PFF fragment hitting a standing man and inflicting a FBI-standard penetration is good by comparison. That's the GWOT tier of thinking.

But the practical details of combat from the grunts-eye view are still left out even today. Modern tech gives great results, so the moderate gain and tangential improvements tend to get forgotten in the economically rational rush to capitalize on the major revolutions, because the grunts don't get bureaucratic power and often aren't smart enough to explain themselves in a manager-understandable way.

>>63826508
Aircraft has a pretty small number of fuel lines going around the aircraft.

Humans have "fuel lines" going absolutely everywhere. And does it matter if someone takes 5-10-30 minutes to die? Russia is not gonna medevac him.

30 min in an aircraft would often allow it to complete the missions, then ditch somewhere safe-ish, but for a russian soldier he'd be dead no matter what.

>>63826606
> And does it matter if someone takes 5-10-30 minutes to die
More than you think. It's important for CQB support but it's also a factor determining whether you waste followup drone time on BDA versus scouting for new targets.

>>63826570
>Military weapons designers have improved a lot since the Cold War when criteria for wounding tended to be defined as "does this artillery splinter have a 50% chance of hitting and if it does a 50% chance of demoralizing a Soviet conscript on the attack for at least 5 minutes" (seriously, research it).
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0359774.pdf

>>63826028 (OP)
Shaped charges come in shapes other than pure round cones, you know. You want something like a warhead with crevasses forming an 'X' over the front and curving back to the sides. This would act like the forward-facing equivalent of an expanding rod

>>63827016
Yeah, okay. If you really want to take that house NOW, waiting 30 min isn't feasible.

Point taken.

>>63826028 (OP)
segmented steel rod is not going to have the sectional density to get through any level of body armor

>03-02-Brown.pdf
sauce?

>>63826201
>>63826208
>>63826244
>>63829427

So it doesn't work because one 12 inch wide part of the target's torso is intact? The guy has no fucking arms you idiots, plates are worthless.

What allows the rod to maintain its shape during the explosion?
Even with the thick casing of an armor-piercing shell and a small amount of explosive, fragmentation occurs.