I actually read through the paper and it's not really applicable in this case. We don't know the specifics of the Chinese round, therefore any conclusion made on the accuracy of the claims are suspect. Samurai could you please highlight or screenshot the exact part of your linked paper that proves the Chinese claim is 100% impossible? I may have missed it in my rush and it's been a while since I did any kinematics. But it seems to me like you're just trying to overwhelm the scientifically illiterate with some (actually very simple) maths so your claim can not be refuted. Many of us can understand it even if most can't be bothered reading.
PLAN breaking news, pics, & videos
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
If I’m not wrong you seem to be getting that range limit from one of the charts in the study. If that’s the case, do your laws of physics assume every winged shell in existence is a 107 mm 15 kg M109 Howitzer shell with a muzzle velocity of 494 m/s? What if the shell in question was a 155 mm 44 kg M107 howitzer with a muzzle velocity of 600 m/s instead? Would you then say that the laws of physics tells us the maximum range of that shell is 140 km?
Don’t pull a “did you read the link?” argument if you yourself didn’t read your own link carefully, and definitely if you don’t actually understand your source. Don’t pull a “laws of physics” arguments if you don’t have even a rudimentary understanding of physics. How far a shell can travel isn’t just a function of its diameter or weight, or whether it has wings. Would you believe me if I told you two shells can have the exact same features and dimensions but one can travel further? Based on what you seem to be deriving your claim from, your “laws of physics” might say “Impossible!” but the *real* laws of physics would say that’s perfectly possible, because your “laws of physics” seems to be forgetting that the motion of an object is dependent on the amount energy imparted to the object. The size of the shell is meaningless in determining range if we also don’t know how much propellant was used.
Just be humble, accept and walk away before humiliating yourself further. You would get laughed out of a high school physics, or frankly any class that teaches basic argumentation and critical thinking, with the level of comprehension you’re displaying right now.
I agree with you that by78 should probably stop trolling, but it’s hard to disagree with him on the merits. I don’t think we should be encouraging people who clearly aren’t exercising basic reading comprehension or don’t even possess the rudimentary technical knowledge needed to constructively engage in these topics going around superficially cherry picking bits and pieces of academic papers out of context to affirm their own confirmation biases to have their say unanswered. If someone clearly demonstrates they have no idea what they’re talking about we should not be bashful about calling them out and making it nakedly self evident. To not do so is synonymous with allowing the quality of discussion and debate to degrade into unaccountable ignorance.
Jura The idiot
General
of course if a fishy post appears, there are two things:
- reaction of a particular member, and
- response of the board;
SamuraiBlue
Captain
Still refusing to accept are we?
In Military today they provide the range as Maximum firing range 40 km (25 mi)
Look the 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun mod 2 only has 24Km in range and Mod4 with 37Km.
If you look closely at the chart within the link it states;
Gun Non Wing max. range 34.9Km
Wing max range 140Km
IF you are correct of then basically your claim within this chart ;
If it can reach 72Km without wings and only extend to 120Km with wings then it sure must be a sloppy wing design. LoL
by78
General
Still refusing to accept are we?
In Military today they provide the range as Maximum firing range 40 km (25 mi)
Look the 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun mod 2 only has 24Km in range and Mod4 with 37Km.
If you look closely at the chart within the link it states;
Gun Non Wing max. range 34.9Km
Wing max range 140Km
IF you are correct of then basically your claim within this chart ;
If it can reach 72Km without wings and only extend to 120Km with wings then it sure must be a sloppy wing design. LoL
It can reach between 70 to 80 km without the .
Seriously, we really can't make this any easier for you. This is as elementary as it gets.
Last edited:
Japanese nationalists have a hard time coping with the fact that China has militarily overtaken them in all conceivable fields - even in their prized technology (which they previously assumed that the inferior chinese cannot accomplish because racial and cultural inferiority etc.)
At this point, they are just trolling and trying to deflect. This is them being in the "denial" stage, desperately grasping for straws and searching for chinese bad news to report and to sooth their wounded egoes.
At this point, they are just trolling and trying to deflect. This is them being in the "denial" stage, desperately grasping for straws and searching for chinese bad news to report and to sooth their wounded egoes.
by78
General
I think this is a genuine case of comprehension difficulty. Some people are simply slower than others in digesting information. Compassion is needed here.
1) You clearly didn’t read the paper you shared very carefully. The gun you’ve identified as the Mk45 with non glide range of 34.9 km and a glide range of 140 km can’t possibly be the Mk45 because the mass of the round for that gun in the paper is 1000 kg. In the chart it’s only identified as a “big warship gun”. If you actually read your own paper you’d know that this “big warship gun” isn’t an actual existing gun but a theoretical one created for the sake of simulation. My guess, from the weight of the round and its max range without wings, is that this simulated gun is roughly based on the 16/50 inch Mark 7 gun.Still refusing to accept are we?
In Military today they provide the range as Maximum firing range 40 km (25 mi)
Look the 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun mod 2 only has 24Km in range and Mod4 with 37Km.
If you look closely at the chart within the link it states;
Gun Non Wing max. range 34.9Km
Wing max range 140Km
IF you are correct of then basically your claim within this chart ;
If it can reach 72Km without wings and only extend to 120Km with wings then it sure must be a sloppy wing design. LoL
An actual Mk45 round is 31.75 kg. The Mk45 mod 4’s max range with conventional rounds is supposedly 36 km (). Its extended range with a winged round is supposedly 110 km ()
The LoL’s on you buddy.
2) The gun we are talking about is the HP/J-38, not the Mk 45 or the M107 Howitzer. There is no way to draw comparison between any of those guns without knowing the length of their barrel or the weight, aerodynamics, and propellant used for any of their rounds. Simply pointing at one weapon and insisting another weapon can’t top it is basically blind speculation. The limits for one weapon does not indicate the limits for another. Pointing at one weapon and claiming it represents the limits of physics for a different weapon with different physical parameters, especially with no actual numerical figures and calculations, is empty rhetoric that completely ignores any of the actual physics involved.
3) If the chart for the HP/J-38 does represent max range there are multiple possibile reasons why a winged round for an HP/J-38 doesn’t get as much extra distance as another round which doesn’t involve incompetence or lack of aptitude. It could be that the specific dimensions of the gun pose physical limitations on the size of the wings or the possible aerodynamics of the round, or simply that the round was designed with specific parameters and requirements in mind that don’t emphasize attaining the maximum range that’s physically possible for the gun.
Last edited:
by78
General
I think it's a moot point because @SamuraiBlue doesn't appear to understand the difference between canards and main wings; or if he does, he made the mistake of conflating the absence of canards with the complete absence of wings or control surfaces. If the latter is the case, then I don't know how he could have made that mistake, seeing the depiction of the round clearly shows a pair of rather large wings located at the aft of the round.
In other words, his lack of comprehension is of a far more elementary nature, one that hides in your blindspot, thus requiring a steep dive toward a lower intellectual plane in order to reveal.
Last edited: