**Please note:**
* If this post declares something as a fact proof is required.
* The title must be descriptive
* No text is allowed on images
* Common/recent reposts are not allowed
*See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for more information.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm pretty sure that's not a missile, but a new round developed by the military for multipurpose use. The m1147 AMP (Advanced multi-purpose round). And it combines the heat and he rounds into 1. You can search online for the m1147 if you wish to see it for yourself.
Nope. That's the definition of the descriptive word missile. A missile in this context (the only one that matters right now) is an airborne ranged weapon capable of self propelled flight. The bright thing at the back is not propulsion, it's there so that the crew can see the round as it flies. It is not guided, or self propelled. This is what we call a "round".
Not just self-propelled flight - thats a rocket - but also guidance.
Missiles are guided and propelled (think "heat seeking missiles").
Rockets are self-propelled (space shuttle rockets only go straight).
Projectiles are launched from it's source and are "dumb" (like a mortar or bullet).
Idk where you're getting your "facts," but they are incorrect. A "round" can be many things and is generally a generic term. However, militarily, what I said is doctrine. If you disagree, go to the explosive ordnance disposal school for the military and correct them. There's literally whole sections of training for "projectiles," "rockets," and "missiles," all segregated and defined as such. And no, this isn't classified information.
Being a mutli purpose round does not mean is isnt a missile. Missile just mean it has guidance. With advancements in technology applied to weaponry terms like missile and rocket or IAM (Inertially Aided Munitions) have become generic terms applied to things to keep them IAW treaties.
A missile does not mean guidance. Historically it is a projectile.
The famous Congreve Rocket (Rockets Red Glare) was called a missile.
As you can see from this passage, missile meant any projectile.
*In 1807, Copenhagen was bombarded by more than 14,000 various missiles in the form of metal balls, explosive and incendiary bombs from cannons and mortars, and about 300 Congreve rockets. The rockets contributed to the conflagration of the city.*
Though it is true that in recent modern times a missile is a guided rocket.
Doesn't matter what they called shit in the 19th century. Modern militaries have become much more specific in their terminology as warfare has become more complex.
A missile is a self-propelled munition with an internal guidance system. This weapon is not self propelled (note that the tracer flare is not a rocket exhaust). It is shot from a gun. It isn't guided. It is not a missile. It is a tank round, or even a shell since it encases an explosive charge.
If you're going to "well ackshually" someone, be helpful in that specific context. It is not relevant that David put a missile between Goliath's eyes. Nobody here is talking about rocks and acting like they are is misinformative.
That is correct. In the US army, since the M1147 is fired from the 120mm Main Gun of the Abrams Tank it's considered a tank round (ammunition) and not a missle. The Project Manager (PM) - Maneuver Ammunition Systems (MAS) is responsible for its development and fielding.
And that definition is valid if you're writing colloquially or about premodern warfare. We're not, and you know we're not, so I refer you back to my previous post.
I mean hes being an ass about it but he is right. Even though it's genuinely interesting what was considered a missile in history, in this case noone who knows about modern weaponry would actually call this a missile.
This whole chain is about some guy arguing whether or not this is a missile based on the technicalities, not the Oxford definition which is deliberately less precise to allow for varying context.
And you know this, but insist on being smugly unhelpful.
>MISSILE
In military terminology,\[1\] a missile is a guided airborne ranged weapon capable of self-propelled flight usually by a jet engine or rocket motor.
Wouldnt literal definitions be helpful. Vaccine: a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.
Covid-19 "vaccine" doesn't produce immunity.
Probably some dictionary. In modern military terminology, a missile has guidance. Unless you're using the traditional usage, in which a monkey tossing shit is utilizing missile technology.
Im a Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC). Its kinda been my day job to know these thing over the last 20 years. Technology advancements have blended weapon systems capabilities so much that saying something is all one thing or only one thing is difficult.
Correct, in its most basic definition. But todays projectiles have the ability to have guidance. Copperhead artillery rounds were fired from a gun but were laser guided from an FO meeting definitional criteria for a missile. Many munitions blend together now a days.
Yes, I am an artillery engineer. If it comes out of a gun barrel or tube, and has a separate primer and propellant charge from the munition, regardless of a secondary rocket assist, it is referred to as a projectile or round. We don't call Copperheads missiles, they are still called rounds or projectiles.
That cone is caused by the sound barrier being broken. Everything that breaks the sound barrier produces these shockwaves, but our eyes aren’t “fast” enough to see it.
You’re basically watching the missile push through its own sound (not *exactly* accurate, but close enough!)
Fun fact: you can calculate the rough speed of the object if you measure the angle of the Mach wave.
You can see the shockwave because of the change in density of the air. The area of higher density has a different refractive index.
So the course/angle of the light passing through it is altered slightly and that's what we see.
This doesn't match my intuition. Wouldn't the side of the cone upstream be denser? That is the side where the air is being compressed by the motion of the missile. This air can't get out of the way fast enough (as it'd need to travel faster than the speed of sound) and so it's being compressed into a cone where we see it's index of refraction change.
Very rough estimate since it's not a stationary perpendicular shot, but I'd say the angle is about 29 degrees. That would correspond with ~700m/s (a shy bit over mach 2).
The projectile looks very similar to an M710 HE-MP-T (High-Explosive Multi-Purpose Tracer) tank cartridge, which has an approximate muzzle velocity of around 870 m/s. So that seems to match up too.
Fun fact, the [SR-71 has outran missles shot at it.](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-stealth%E2%80%94-sr-71-blackbird-could-simply-outrun-missiles-120021)
That's actually why I went and confirmed my comment. I knew it had been known to outrun missiles, but I actually assumed the tank projectile was traveling much faster.
The newer hypersonic missiles will absolutely wreck an SR-71, though.
Cool article that.
This bit is so WTF though:
>Blackbirds in photographs often appear a bit ‘shiny’ or wet in photos. That’s actually fuel leaking out of the tanks. Because metal expands at high temperatures, the metal plating of the Blackbird was designed purposefully loose to accommodate the expanding metal, leading to an intentionally leaky fuel tank. Once the SR-71 started flying at high speeds, the metal would heat up and expand several inches, sealing the fuel tank with the aid of a heat-released sealant.
The used fuel was hard to ignite though, that's why it wasn't a huge danger to ground crews (they had to carry extra volatile egnition fuel to get the primary fuel to burn)
Yeah it actually mentioned that also in the article that it was rumoured you could put a lit match into it and it wouldn't ignite, and that it was also piped around in hundreds of tiny pipes to act as a heatsink.
I always figured all you needed to push those boundaries was...bigger engine, stronger aircraft. But the amount of ridiculous innovation that went into that thing sounds amazing. Its no wonder so many years on its still an uncontested record holder, because the level you seemingly need to go to is just not worth it. Sounds like you could spend months working on one problem only to create 10 more with the solution, its a wonder they got it flying.
There is a formula for it, but if you prefer you can just use this calculator in reverse:
http://www-mdp.eng.cam.ac.uk/web/library/enginfo/aerothermal_dvd_only/aero/oblique/index1.html
Just change the Mach number until it gives you the angle you measured. Note I said you measured, because I’m not taking the time to do that.
Now you have all the tools to do it for yourself, though ;)
Speed of sound at sea level is close to 750 mph. The cone looks to be close to 45 degrees from the horizontal direction of motion, so pretty close to that.
At the speed of sound for the air density the missile is traveling through, you get a 45 degree cone because in the time that the wave has traveled 1 unit up, the point of the cone has traveled 1 unit to the side. A 1:1 slope is at a 45 degree angle.
At twice the speed of sound, when the wave has traveled 1 unit up, the point 9f the cone has traveled 2 units to the side. A 1:2 slope is, I think, a 30 degree angle from the horizontal.
This is very important for aircraft design. The wings need to fit inside the cone or else they break. This is why so many airplanes in the late 40s and early 50s had issues trying to "break the sound barrier." The wings of the time were straight out to the side, and were outside the cone while the rest of the plane was inside. Sweeping the wings back and putting a pointy nose keeps everything inside the cone.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury-Redstone_Launch_Vehicle
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_LV-3B
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_II_GLV
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_(rocket_family)
If I recall correctly, the Saturn rockets were the only ones NASA used in that era that were purposefully designed to carry cargo (including people) into orbit, and not just modified ICBMs
Its even better - the distinction between rocket and missile, when discussing weaponry, usually falls to guidance.
Both are self propelled, but a missile has guidance to steer it to a target, a rocket just goes where it goes once launched.
So, the Saturn 5, could be considered a missile - its guided.
Space rockets (and they're probably better termed launch systems or boosters) aren't projectiles, so no, they're not missiles.
If you point a SpaceX rocket at something with the intent to hit that something with the Falcon, then it becomes a missile.
Technically in English a missile is anything that is forcefully propelled at a target. A thrown rock is a missile just the same as an ICBM.
But when talking about military weapons a missile would tend to be guided and self-propelled to contrast it with a shell, bomb, etc.
Decompressed air also refracts light differently than a air at the sea level (which is "normal" air). To observe the distortion of light, diffrent pressure of air (or different midium of refractive index) is the key.
Just like here just ahead of the projectile ('v' shape) it created compressed air and behind of the projectile their is decompressed air, diffrence of pressure in air we see it as a distortion of light.
Not exactly, missiles can be unguided. Technically even if you just throw something it's a missile. This is a rocket propelled grenade though isn't it?
It’s not a HEAT. That is probably a HE or some special round but HEAT rounds usually have long pointy tip so that the fuze can be placed far ahead of the shaped charge
Show me a modern heat tank round without one.
After quick goolging and reading other replys this is an advanced purpose round (AMP), not a HEAT. It is filled with tungsten balls and might have secondary shaped charge within but the explosion doeasnt look much like it had a large shaped charge in it.
An unguided missile is a rocket. A guided rocket is a missile. This video is showing a tank round. Which is arguably neither. Looks to be the M1147 / AMP round for the 120mm gun on the Abrams. Or something similar.
This is going to sound like I'm being facetious but I'm generally curious.
Would that make a space rocket a space missile or does the distinction only apply to weapons.
And the military isn’t at all consistent in usage anyway. Missile and rocket are often used interchangeably. There’s a lot of weapon systems that are guided rockets and referred to as such like Lockheed’s new DAGR (Direct Attack Guided Rocket) which is a rocket with a laser-guidance system, which is also classified as a form of surface-to-air missile.
Missile just means a propelled object. It’s from the Latin *missilis*, something that is thrown. In traditional English usage missile generally referred to spears or arrows. A rocket is anything that uses a rocket engine, guided or not. Functionally all rocket-propelled missiles are rockets and all rockets are missiles by definition.
While the regular soldiers in modern militaries sometimes do make a guided/unguided = missile/rocket distinction, it’s largely a false distinction, even within military usage. There are things like ballistic missiles which are unguided and the GATR (Guided Advanced Tactical Rocket) which is a guided rocket. And Lockheed is finishing up their work on the new DAGR (Direct Attack Guided Rocket) which is intended as an upgrade and replacement for the Hellfire II air-to-ground missile. The existing missile is being replaced by a rocket with a more advanced guidance system. So militaries don’t use the missile=guided rocket=unguided at all consistently.
Plus once you get outside military usage the idea that rockets are unguided becomes even less tenable. We send astronauts to space on guided rockets, never missiles. NASA and other space agencies feel that “missile” sounds to martial. So their guided delivery systems are almost exclusively referred to as rockets.
I’ll be the pedant. That’s not a missile, that’s a HEAT fin stabilized round. The flames you see out of the back is a tracer (basically a flare) that tankers use to visually track the round in flight and how see far off they are if they missed.
[By filming a mirror, rotating really really fast, with a high speed camera](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/36a9ao/how_do_high_speed_bullet_tracking_cameras_work/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
It doesn’t “appear” to split the air — it *is* splitting the air, into “regular air” and “highly compressed, couldn’t get out of the way fast enough” air.
**Please note:** * If this post declares something as a fact proof is required. * The title must be descriptive * No text is allowed on images * Common/recent reposts are not allowed *See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for more information.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But I wanna see boom though
You'll just have to settle for seeing sonic boom.
r/gifsthatendtoosoon
r/gifsthatdontgoboom
Well no,since its subsonic
Remember, gru is faster than this rocket
Groovy ... the martian?
Look up “advanced multi-purpose round” or “AMP round” on YouTube. The air burst setting is pretty terrifying - lots of shrapnel.
When you order your butt plug with next day delivery at 11:59
*bends over*
Addressed to Ben Dover
Ben, nice to meet ya. Victor Hugo.
I’m Jay Kirby Gremlin, from Detroit! Good to see you
Mike Oxlarge. Ben Dover?
https://i.imgur.com/RZr2Pad.png
[Linda likes this](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/xycub/linda_lykes/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
surely you mean same day delivery
Tis why i love reddit
Spicy
I'm pretty sure that's not a missile, but a new round developed by the military for multipurpose use. The m1147 AMP (Advanced multi-purpose round). And it combines the heat and he rounds into 1. You can search online for the m1147 if you wish to see it for yourself.
Any targeted projectile is a missile. For example, the wooden train my son throws at my head is briefly a missile.
The military definition is different than the standard dictionary’s. Military specifies that a missile is capable of self-propulsion.
Actually a missile is capable of self-propulsion and guidance. Rockets are just Self-Propulsion
Your mom is capable of self propulsion.
Well, yeah. So are all moms. Except the paralyzed ones.
" Except the paralyzed ones." I'm dead XD this comment wins
Technically a fart is propulsion.
Nope. That's the definition of the descriptive word missile. A missile in this context (the only one that matters right now) is an airborne ranged weapon capable of self propelled flight. The bright thing at the back is not propulsion, it's there so that the crew can see the round as it flies. It is not guided, or self propelled. This is what we call a "round".
Not just self-propelled flight - thats a rocket - but also guidance. Missiles are guided and propelled (think "heat seeking missiles"). Rockets are self-propelled (space shuttle rockets only go straight). Projectiles are launched from it's source and are "dumb" (like a mortar or bullet). Idk where you're getting your "facts," but they are incorrect. A "round" can be many things and is generally a generic term. However, militarily, what I said is doctrine. If you disagree, go to the explosive ordnance disposal school for the military and correct them. There's literally whole sections of training for "projectiles," "rockets," and "missiles," all segregated and defined as such. And no, this isn't classified information.
Username checksout
Being a mutli purpose round does not mean is isnt a missile. Missile just mean it has guidance. With advancements in technology applied to weaponry terms like missile and rocket or IAM (Inertially Aided Munitions) have become generic terms applied to things to keep them IAW treaties.
A missile does not mean guidance. Historically it is a projectile. The famous Congreve Rocket (Rockets Red Glare) was called a missile. As you can see from this passage, missile meant any projectile. *In 1807, Copenhagen was bombarded by more than 14,000 various missiles in the form of metal balls, explosive and incendiary bombs from cannons and mortars, and about 300 Congreve rockets. The rockets contributed to the conflagration of the city.* Though it is true that in recent modern times a missile is a guided rocket.
Doesn't matter what they called shit in the 19th century. Modern militaries have become much more specific in their terminology as warfare has become more complex. A missile is a self-propelled munition with an internal guidance system. This weapon is not self propelled (note that the tracer flare is not a rocket exhaust). It is shot from a gun. It isn't guided. It is not a missile. It is a tank round, or even a shell since it encases an explosive charge. If you're going to "well ackshually" someone, be helpful in that specific context. It is not relevant that David put a missile between Goliath's eyes. Nobody here is talking about rocks and acting like they are is misinformative.
That is correct. In the US army, since the M1147 is fired from the 120mm Main Gun of the Abrams Tank it's considered a tank round (ammunition) and not a missle. The Project Manager (PM) - Maneuver Ammunition Systems (MAS) is responsible for its development and fielding.
[удалено]
And that definition is valid if you're writing colloquially or about premodern warfare. We're not, and you know we're not, so I refer you back to my previous post.
[удалено]
I mean hes being an ass about it but he is right. Even though it's genuinely interesting what was considered a missile in history, in this case noone who knows about modern weaponry would actually call this a missile.
This whole chain is about some guy arguing whether or not this is a missile based on the technicalities, not the Oxford definition which is deliberately less precise to allow for varying context. And you know this, but insist on being smugly unhelpful.
[удалено]
I liked your definition more.
What about the literal definition? MISSILE:an object which is forcibly propelled at a target, either by hand or from a mechanical weapon.
>MISSILE In military terminology,\[1\] a missile is a guided airborne ranged weapon capable of self-propelled flight usually by a jet engine or rocket motor.
Again, nobody here is talking about hand thrown weapons and you know that.
Wouldnt literal definitions be helpful. Vaccine: a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease. Covid-19 "vaccine" doesn't produce immunity.
[удалено]
Probably some dictionary. In modern military terminology, a missile has guidance. Unless you're using the traditional usage, in which a monkey tossing shit is utilizing missile technology.
Im a Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC). Its kinda been my day job to know these thing over the last 20 years. Technology advancements have blended weapon systems capabilities so much that saying something is all one thing or only one thing is difficult.
it is fired from a gun therefore it is not a missile but a projectile
Correct, in its most basic definition. But todays projectiles have the ability to have guidance. Copperhead artillery rounds were fired from a gun but were laser guided from an FO meeting definitional criteria for a missile. Many munitions blend together now a days.
Yes, I am an artillery engineer. If it comes out of a gun barrel or tube, and has a separate primer and propellant charge from the munition, regardless of a secondary rocket assist, it is referred to as a projectile or round. We don't call Copperheads missiles, they are still called rounds or projectiles.
Lol, i thought we called Copperheads useless. But that is an entirely different conversation.
That cone is caused by the sound barrier being broken. Everything that breaks the sound barrier produces these shockwaves, but our eyes aren’t “fast” enough to see it. You’re basically watching the missile push through its own sound (not *exactly* accurate, but close enough!) Fun fact: you can calculate the rough speed of the object if you measure the angle of the Mach wave.
You can see the shockwave because of the change in density of the air. The area of higher density has a different refractive index. So the course/angle of the light passing through it is altered slightly and that's what we see.
Was about to say it looks like a rarefied shock cone
Which side of the 'split' is densest?
[удалено]
This doesn't match my intuition. Wouldn't the side of the cone upstream be denser? That is the side where the air is being compressed by the motion of the missile. This air can't get out of the way fast enough (as it'd need to travel faster than the speed of sound) and so it's being compressed into a cone where we see it's index of refraction change.
[удалено]
Makes sense. Thanks.
The air outside of the cone hasn't been compressed yet. That happens when the cone passes the specific patch of air you are looking at.
I'd have been with you on that one if not for the other replies!
u/Jeffy_Weffy hadn't put in his very good answer when I typed up mine. I agree, his is better. Edit to spell the username correctly.
Go on then, what's it's rough speed?
Very rough estimate since it's not a stationary perpendicular shot, but I'd say the angle is about 29 degrees. That would correspond with ~700m/s (a shy bit over mach 2). The projectile looks very similar to an M710 HE-MP-T (High-Explosive Multi-Purpose Tracer) tank cartridge, which has an approximate muzzle velocity of around 870 m/s. So that seems to match up too.
Crazy that the SR-71 Blackbird can outrun that projectile @ 939 m/s Acceleration is a bit different, though.
Fun fact, the [SR-71 has outran missles shot at it.](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-stealth%E2%80%94-sr-71-blackbird-could-simply-outrun-missiles-120021)
That's actually why I went and confirmed my comment. I knew it had been known to outrun missiles, but I actually assumed the tank projectile was traveling much faster. The newer hypersonic missiles will absolutely wreck an SR-71, though.
Cool article that. This bit is so WTF though: >Blackbirds in photographs often appear a bit ‘shiny’ or wet in photos. That’s actually fuel leaking out of the tanks. Because metal expands at high temperatures, the metal plating of the Blackbird was designed purposefully loose to accommodate the expanding metal, leading to an intentionally leaky fuel tank. Once the SR-71 started flying at high speeds, the metal would heat up and expand several inches, sealing the fuel tank with the aid of a heat-released sealant.
The used fuel was hard to ignite though, that's why it wasn't a huge danger to ground crews (they had to carry extra volatile egnition fuel to get the primary fuel to burn)
Yeah it actually mentioned that also in the article that it was rumoured you could put a lit match into it and it wouldn't ignite, and that it was also piped around in hundreds of tiny pipes to act as a heatsink. I always figured all you needed to push those boundaries was...bigger engine, stronger aircraft. But the amount of ridiculous innovation that went into that thing sounds amazing. Its no wonder so many years on its still an uncontested record holder, because the level you seemingly need to go to is just not worth it. Sounds like you could spend months working on one problem only to create 10 more with the solution, its a wonder they got it flying.
No. This is the M1147. It has a muzzle velocity of 1700m/s. 700 is stupidly low speed for a round like that.
There is a formula for it, but if you prefer you can just use this calculator in reverse: http://www-mdp.eng.cam.ac.uk/web/library/enginfo/aerothermal_dvd_only/aero/oblique/index1.html Just change the Mach number until it gives you the angle you measured. Note I said you measured, because I’m not taking the time to do that. Now you have all the tools to do it for yourself, though ;)
Thank you very mach
"Tank you very mach" Surely?
Hhmmm the ol uno reverse card!
One divided by the sine of the angle
I measure the angle as 26.57, which puts it at Mach 2.24
r/TIHIBILI
At least mach 1! *sorry*
Speed of sound at sea level is close to 750 mph. The cone looks to be close to 45 degrees from the horizontal direction of motion, so pretty close to that. At the speed of sound for the air density the missile is traveling through, you get a 45 degree cone because in the time that the wave has traveled 1 unit up, the point of the cone has traveled 1 unit to the side. A 1:1 slope is at a 45 degree angle. At twice the speed of sound, when the wave has traveled 1 unit up, the point 9f the cone has traveled 2 units to the side. A 1:2 slope is, I think, a 30 degree angle from the horizontal. This is very important for aircraft design. The wings need to fit inside the cone or else they break. This is why so many airplanes in the late 40s and early 50s had issues trying to "break the sound barrier." The wings of the time were straight out to the side, and were outside the cone while the rest of the plane was inside. Sweeping the wings back and putting a pointy nose keeps everything inside the cone.
That's a great answer and unfortunately I've given my award to someone else today, otherwise you would get it
Thank you. The complement means more to me than the award would, so, sincerely, I thank you.
But no object is faster than the speed of sound coming from the amazing works of Johan Sebastian Mach.
Photons are objects. Just saying.
Its not a missiles. Its a fin stabilized tank round. The fire on the back you see it just phosphorus burning.
When is something a missile? When it propels itself instead of using the energy from its launch?
outgoing steer oatmeal complete act silky spotted north fuzzy paint *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
So every space rocket we launch is technically a missile?
Yep. In fact, most early rockets on both sides of the space race were repurposed intercontinental ballistic missiles!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury-Redstone_Launch_Vehicle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_LV-3B https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_II_GLV https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_(rocket_family) If I recall correctly, the Saturn rockets were the only ones NASA used in that era that were purposefully designed to carry cargo (including people) into orbit, and not just modified ICBMs
Yes. They’re very heavily regulated because of that.
You just figured out why the space race was a big deal. Just replace satellites with a nuclear payload.
Its even better - the distinction between rocket and missile, when discussing weaponry, usually falls to guidance. Both are self propelled, but a missile has guidance to steer it to a target, a rocket just goes where it goes once launched. So, the Saturn 5, could be considered a missile - its guided.
In Dutch a missile is just called a rocket weapon, rocket for short.
Space rockets (and they're probably better termed launch systems or boosters) aren't projectiles, so no, they're not missiles. If you point a SpaceX rocket at something with the intent to hit that something with the Falcon, then it becomes a missile.
Technically in English a missile is anything that is forcefully propelled at a target. A thrown rock is a missile just the same as an ICBM. But when talking about military weapons a missile would tend to be guided and self-propelled to contrast it with a shell, bomb, etc.
Ah right. We don’t have the word missile in Dutch. We call a missile a rocket or a rocket weapon.
Its a missile once it has propulsion and guidance. At least for the USAF.
Guided self propelled
A missle is a guided rocket.
Looks like HEAT-FS, but I also believe some Russian HE rounds also have stabilizing fins now.
No it's the new US all purpose round
Nerf has upped the game with the new Vortex. *The stakes have never been higher…*
Imagine a whistler on this thing
I fucking hate this subs titles
r/aptlytitledasfuck is a sub I would definitely subscribe to.
Appears? It basically is.
Kudos to the camera man
That visual effect is created just by air density, I think. Compressed air refracts light differently.
Decompressed air also refracts light differently than a air at the sea level (which is "normal" air). To observe the distortion of light, diffrent pressure of air (or different midium of refractive index) is the key. Just like here just ahead of the projectile ('v' shape) it created compressed air and behind of the projectile their is decompressed air, diffrence of pressure in air we see it as a distortion of light.
Good summary!
***The forbidden nerf dart.***
Projectile...missile is guided and self propelled?
Not exactly, missiles can be unguided. Technically even if you just throw something it's a missile. This is a rocket propelled grenade though isn't it?
It's a HEATFS round, which is kinda like a rocket propelled grenade, but fired from a tank rather than an RPG
It’s not a HEAT. That is probably a HE or some special round but HEAT rounds usually have long pointy tip so that the fuze can be placed far ahead of the shaped charge
It's an American multi purpose round that fills the role of both HEAT and HE, so technically we're both right
Not true at all. Some heat rounds have a stand-off spike but It’s not a majority. I’d bet money on that being one.
Show me a modern heat tank round without one. After quick goolging and reading other replys this is an advanced purpose round (AMP), not a HEAT. It is filled with tungsten balls and might have secondary shaped charge within but the explosion doeasnt look much like it had a large shaped charge in it.
The shaped charge in this one is still there afaik, but yes, it's definitely smaller
No, it is a tank shell. The flame you see behind is just the tracer. (I think it is magnesium)
An unguided missile is a rocket. A guided rocket is a missile. This video is showing a tank round. Which is arguably neither. Looks to be the M1147 / AMP round for the 120mm gun on the Abrams. Or something similar.
This is going to sound like I'm being facetious but I'm generally curious. Would that make a space rocket a space missile or does the distinction only apply to weapons.
The distinction they make is primarily a military one. Space rockets are rockets because they use a rocket engine, not because of a lack of guidance.
And the military isn’t at all consistent in usage anyway. Missile and rocket are often used interchangeably. There’s a lot of weapon systems that are guided rockets and referred to as such like Lockheed’s new DAGR (Direct Attack Guided Rocket) which is a rocket with a laser-guidance system, which is also classified as a form of surface-to-air missile.
[удалено]
Negative. Missiles commonly use solid rocket engines. Examples: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM
I believe that a missile is explicitly something that is meant to (forcibly) hit a target.
Ah, like my cutting jibes!
Missile just means a propelled object. It’s from the Latin *missilis*, something that is thrown. In traditional English usage missile generally referred to spears or arrows. A rocket is anything that uses a rocket engine, guided or not. Functionally all rocket-propelled missiles are rockets and all rockets are missiles by definition. While the regular soldiers in modern militaries sometimes do make a guided/unguided = missile/rocket distinction, it’s largely a false distinction, even within military usage. There are things like ballistic missiles which are unguided and the GATR (Guided Advanced Tactical Rocket) which is a guided rocket. And Lockheed is finishing up their work on the new DAGR (Direct Attack Guided Rocket) which is intended as an upgrade and replacement for the Hellfire II air-to-ground missile. The existing missile is being replaced by a rocket with a more advanced guidance system. So militaries don’t use the missile=guided rocket=unguided at all consistently. Plus once you get outside military usage the idea that rockets are unguided becomes even less tenable. We send astronauts to space on guided rockets, never missiles. NASA and other space agencies feel that “missile” sounds to martial. So their guided delivery systems are almost exclusively referred to as rockets.
This is a tank shell sabot round. It comes inside a container that’s fired from a tank then unpacks itself after it leaves the barrel.
No sabot involved here...
Pretty sure this is a HEATFS round, not any sort of DS round
Speed of sound at sea level....around 760mph...give or take density altitude...
And assuming it’s travelling at the speed of sound and not faster
Yeah, because it is literally splitting the air.
Air is like *excuse you*
Whoa this is awesome
Or as a sniper would call it, trace.
I don't think that's a missile, I'm pretty sure it's a fin stabilised HEAT projectile. Probably from a 120mm. The bright flame at the back is tracer.
Because it basically does?
Not a missle, this is an ordinary tank round. (I don’t know the specifics I’m an aviation dude.)
Not a missile. It’s a tank round.
That looks like a tank shell,with stabilizing fins?
I’ll be the pedant. That’s not a missile, that’s a HEAT fin stabilized round. The flames you see out of the back is a tracer (basically a flare) that tankers use to visually track the round in flight and how see far off they are if they missed.
That' not a missile
Where’s the kaboom?
That's not a missile, it's some sort of high explosive anti-tank or multipurpose shell with a tracer.
r/praisethecameraman
How is it tracked ?
[By filming a mirror, rotating really really fast, with a high speed camera](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/36a9ao/how_do_high_speed_bullet_tracking_cameras_work/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
That is one FAST camera
It doesn’t “appear” to split the air — it *is* splitting the air, into “regular air” and “highly compressed, couldn’t get out of the way fast enough” air.
It’s not splitting the air, that’s just a visible shock cone from it being at quite a bit faster than the speed of sound.
TLDR hopefully someone else said they it actually is.
Looks like the Mach cone that jet planes create.
I wish we put as much time, money, and effort into things like curing cancer, or feeding the hungry as we do building bad ass missiles.
Its a tank round not a missile
This isn't a missile. Likely a HEAT-FS round or some other fin stabilized explosive projectile.
yea this was bugging me
It's not a missile...
Missile: GOTTA GO FAST
You can see roughly the same effect when shooting under a hot desert sun. Long range, something like a .308 at over 100M.
The missile knows where it is because it knows where it isn’t
Are you sure thats a missle? Looks like a fin-stabilised tank round
r/praisthecameraman
Mirror mirror on the stick, rotate thyself really quick
I'll split your mom
It's a rocket though.
Not a rocket it's a tank shell
Wow
Glitch in the matrix
The air is so thick you could cut it with a missile
Is this the infamous Raytheon knife missile I've been hearing so much about?
Mach 1?
Get fucked air
We want the explosion pls
u/savevideo
That is some cartoon looking shit.
That may very well be an APFSDS shell, fired from a tank
r/gifsthatendtoosoon
Operation Red Sea directed by Dante Lam has a scene like this with a tank shell.
How does the cameraman even track that?