Guided bomb penetration

[Venomstick121]

If a GBU-12 was dropped from a plane (F-15E for this example) and was a dud but landed on top of a modern mbt, could it disable the tank?

 

[Venomstick121]

It would a several hundred pound dart gliding at probably several hundred miles an hour. Considering that tanks have less armor on their roof, you should be able to penetrate it and cause some damage.

 

[fubar57]

Bang-Free Bombs: Military Merges High Tech and Low Tech

The purpose of a bomb is to explode, isn't it? No, not always. Not anymore.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Venomstick121]

Bang-Free Bombs: Military Merges High Tech and Low Tech

The purpose of a bomb is to explode, isn't it? No, not always. Not anymore.

www.nbcnews.com

Thanks, but why do we still use explosive filled one instead. Wouldn't they be easier and cheaper to produce without explosive filler, not to mentions safer for ground personnel?

 

[ThomasP]

I have always defined it as a form of costing - ie operational(chance of success), political(moral & morale), and economic(effort & $).

Everything else being equal, a hit-to-kill weapon will keep down the political cost, and in some cases the economic cost, but will usually increase the operational and economic costs.

In most situations a weapon that explodes will increase the chance of a kill relative to a kinetic energy only weapon.

A kinetic energy weapon will usually need a more precise FC and/or guidance system - which will almost always equate to greater cost in economic terms.

Operationally, it depends a lot on the type of target and the situation. Is the target a target of opportunity (ie short duration of exposure to attack) or is it something that will still be there for follow on attacks, or be there when you get around to it - ie is it something that absolutely has to be killed now, or can it wait? Is it a point target or an area target? Will a kinetic energy only weapon have enough chance of success relative to the importance of the target?

It should be noted that there are times when even exploding weapons that directly hit the aiming point sometimes do not kill people/destroy a target right next to the impact point.

In economic terms, there is the ratio of cost to kill. If we could fight an entire war without killing a single non-combatant, how much would it cost? What if we could only do it if we spent the equivalent of the GDP (or multiple GDPs) and/or give up some services (like health care?), would it be "worth" it?

I am not arguing one way or the other in the above. It is a conundrum that I think has no answer other than to do your best in practical terms.

 

[WARSPITER]

I have always defined it as a form of costing - ie operational(chance of success), political(moral & morale), and economic(effort & $).

Everything else being equal, a hit-to-kill weapon will keep down the political cost, and in some cases the economic cost, but will usually increase the operational and economic costs.

In most situations a weapon that explodes will increase the chance of a kill relative to a kinetic energy only weapon.

A kinetic energy weapon will usually need a more precise FC and/or guidance system - which will almost always equate to greater cost in economic terms.

Operationally, it depends a lot on the type of target and the situation. Is the target a target of opportunity (ie short duration of exposure to attack) or is it something that will still be there for follow on attacks, or be there when you get around to it - ie is it something that absolutely has to be killed now, or can it wait? Is it a point target or an area target? Will a kinetic energy only weapon have enough chance of success relative to the importance of the target?

It should be noted that there are times when even exploding weapons that directly hit the aiming point sometimes do not kill people/destroy a target right next to the impact point.

In economic terms, there is the ratio of cost to kill. If we could fight an entire war without killing a single non-combatant, how much would it cost? What if we could only do it if we spent the equivalent of the GDP (or multiple GDPs) and/or give up some services (like health care?), would it be "worth" it?

I am not arguing one way or the other in the above. It is a conundrum that I think has no answer other than to do your best in practical terms.

Bang for buck is of paramount importance.