Thomas C. Theiner Profile picture
Feb 12, 2023 20 tweets 8 min read Read on X
I wanted to do a thread about operating mortars and a thread about tank ammunition... but can't, because before those two I have to do a thread 🧵about rifled and smoothbore barrels.

All NATO mortars (except for one) and all NATO 120mm tank guns (except for one) use
1/20
smoothbore barrels. This one mortar and this one tank use a rifled barrel, just like all NATO assault rifles, machine guns, auto cannons, recoilless rifles (photo: Carl Gustaf barrel), gatling guns, 105mm tank guns, howitzers, etc.

(Note: Shotguns use smoothbore barrels).
2/n Image
Why rifling? Well, you want the bullets, rounds, and projectiles to hit the intended target, therefore you have to stabilize them during flight. There are two ways to do that:

• rifled -> spin-stabilized
• smoothbore -> fin-stabilized

Fin-stabilized is obviously the much
3/n
more ancient way to stabilize a projectile during flight... but spin stabilization is actually more precise.

There is a ton of physics needed to explain this in detail... which isn't as much fun as watching NFL players throw perfect passes, because they spin the ball and not
4/n
as much fun explaining how artillery uses spin to smite the enemy.
This is the barrel of an M777 howitzer. The rifling isn't random - it's aligned to the ammunition that will be fired from this barrel. You want the projectile or bullet to fly through the air tip first, with
5/n Image
too much or too little spin the projectile will wobble and crash.
Spin rate also vastly differs between calibers - i.e. a 5.56mm M4 Carbine fired bullet will spin around 5,200 times per second, while a 155mm M777 howitzer fired projectile will spin about 250 times per second.
6/n
But not just the caliber, the weight and length of the projectile, the length of the barrel, the amount of propellant, etc. are used when calculating the twist rate of a barrel, because the barrel's grooves exert torque on the projectiles passing through the barrel & thus
7/n Image
impart a spin on the projectile's longitudinal axis, which stabilizes the projectiles longitudinally through conservation of angular momentum.

For smaller calibers, like NATO's bullets, the projectile's diameter is actually larger than most people know as the caliber is
8/n Image
actually the land diameter. I.e.

• NATO 5.56mm bullets are actually 5.70mm
• NATO 7.62mm bullets are actually 7.82mm

When the bullet is fired its jacket (usually copper) is deformed: this engages the rifling, which imparts the spin AND obturates the barrel to prevent the
9/n Image
propellant gas to blow by the bullet. Every bullet coming out of a barrel has distinct rifling grooves imparted by the barrel's rifling.

But what works with bullets you don't want to use for explosive filled projectiles... well, first because they are explosive filled and
10/n
you don't want them to be deformed.
Secondly having the entire body of a 155mm projectile engage the rifling would wear out the rifling in no time.
Thirdly scratches and grooves on the projectile will mess with its aerodynamics and when firing a shell 20+ km any deviation in
11/n
aerodynamics will result in missing the target.

Therefore explosive filled projectiles have a driving band (also called rotating band). That band is usually copper or copper alloys.
Some projectiles also have a obturating band made from plastic or nylon.
12/n Image
Smaller calibers, like i.e. the 30×173mm ammo for the A-10 Thunderbolt II's GAU-8/A Avenger cannon use plastic driving bands for obturation and to engage the rifling.

But artillery (and rifled tank cannons) use metal driving bands.
13/n ImageImage
Driving bands and obturators are protected by a cover during transport. Obviously you have to to remove that after you screwed in the fuze and before you fire the projectile.

14/n ImageImage
Once you're ready to fire the projectile is rammed into the cannon, past the charge chamber and into the barrel with the driving band wedged into the forcing cone between charge chamber and barrel.
You better ram the projectile hard into the cone or it will slide back out.
15/n
Once you fire the projectile the driving band will deform, seal the barrel and engage the rifling.

And your projectile is on its way - with the driving band cleary showing the grooves imparted by the barrel's rifling.
16/n Image
The spin also serves a second purpose: to ensure fuzes are not armed prematurely fuzes (especially point detonating) included a Setback Lock (Red) and a Spin Lock (Blue), which armed the fuze once certain acceleration and spin values were achieved.
I use past tense, as today
17/n Image
the mechanical locks are being replaced by MEMS chips.

And now to the M982 Excalibur precision guided munition, which as you can see, does not have a driving band.

There is a plastic obturating ring, which will engage the rifling, but in the Excalibur projectile only the
18/n Image
base bleed section spins... and at a very low rate, as once Excalibur reaches the apogee of its flight it deploys fins and glides to its target as a fin-stabilized projectile.
This video shows first a high explosive projectile & then two Excalibur projectiles in flight.
19/n
This was my (hopefully understandable) thread about rifled barrels and spin-stabilization.
Tomorrow we will hear a lot about smoothbore barrels and fin-stabilization, when I post my threads about mortars and tank guns.
20/20 Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Thomas C. Theiner

Thomas C. Theiner Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @noclador

Mar 8
These are the 🇬🇧 UK's HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carriers.

First, as you can see in this picture, only one actually carries aircraft. The UK barely had enough money to buy the F-35B for one. For the other the Blairites expected the US Marine Corps
1/9 Image
to provide the required aircraft, because the two carriers were bought so the Royal Navy could fight alongside the US Navy against China in the Pacific.

But the US does NOT want the British carriers anywhere near its carrier strike groups, because the UK carriers would slow
2/9
down a US carrier strike groups, as the UK did not have the money for nuclear propulsion.
And as the UK doesn't have the money for the ships that make up a carrier strike group (destroyers, frigates, submarines) the UK expected the US Navy to detach some of its destroyers and
3/9 Image
Read 9 tweets
Mar 8
🇬🇧 decline: Only one SSN is operational, three are no longer fit for service and got no crews. One carrier has no air wing and has been sent to rust away. The other carrier only has an air wing when the RAF cedes a third of its fighters. Only 1 destroyer is operational. The
1/5
frigates are falling apart. New Type 31 frigates won't get Mark 41 VLS or bow Sonar. The RAF took 48 of its Eurofighters apart, because it got no money for spares. The army has just 14 155mm howitzers. The Ajax vehicle is injuring the troops it carries. The Warrior IFVs are
2/5
outdated and falling apart. They amphibious ships are not deployable / crewed for lack of funds. The UK has not anti-ballistic missile system (e.g.Patriot). There is only money for 12 F-35A, the smallest F-35A order on the planet. The tank force is at its smallest since 1938.
3/5
Read 5 tweets
Mar 4
International Law is worthless paper if you cannot and will not back it up with military power.

Dictators do not care for international law. But they fear the US Air Force. The moment the US signaled it would no longer back "international law" putin annexed Crimea and Assad
1/10
gassed his people. International Law is what defence laggards hide behind to not have to spend for their own security (hoping the US will save them from their irresponsibility) .

European politicians like to grandstand about "international law" but NO European nation has the
2/n
the means (nor the will) to the enforce it. European politicians grandstanding about international law always do so in the belief that the US will enforce their balderdash.
So European politicians lecturing the US about "international law" now are utter morons, because they
3/n
Read 10 tweets
Feb 21
All this "NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war in Ukraine" is ridiculous, because:

• of course NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war IN (!) Ukraine,
• because that is not how a NATO-russia war will be fought. NATO, even just European NATO,
1/4
fields: 244 F-35, 403 Eurofighter, 183 Rafale, 177 modern F-16, 3 Gripen E, and 896 older fighter types.
A total of 1,906+ fighters (without the US Air Force and Royal Canadian Air Force; and with more new fighters entering European service every week).

russia, when counting
2/4
generously can't even put half that fighter strength into the field, and the 1,010 modern European NATO fighters would devastate russia's fighter force.

With NATO air supremacy comes absolute dominance of the battlefield. Every russian moving near the front would get bombed
3/4
Read 4 tweets
Feb 15
Gripen fans keep hyping the Gripen with fake claims & as long as they do, I will counter them:

Scandinavian Air Force officer about the Gripen E: It can either be fully fueled or fully armed or flown from short runways. Never can 2 of these things be done at the same time.
1/25 Image
The Gripen fans keep claiming that the Gripen has a better range than the F-35 and can fly from short runways... then admit that its max. range can only be achieved with external fuel tanks, which weigh so much that the Gripen E can no longer fly from short runways.
2/n
External fuel tanks also mean: the Gripen becomes slower, the radar cross section increases (making detection more likely), the fuel consumption increases,... and even with all 3 external fuel tanks the Gripen E carries 1,340 kg less fuel than the F-35A carries internally.
3/n
Read 25 tweets
Feb 2
Gripen fans continue to spam my mention with claims how fantastic Sweden's Bas 90 and Gripen combination is... and that it would work for Canada's North too...

Ok, let's quickly compare Canada's three northern territories (Yukon, Northwest, Nunavut) and Sweden... ...
1/6
Land area:
🇸🇪 450,295 km2 (173,860 sq mi)
🇨🇦 terr.: 3,593,589 km2 (173,860 sq mi)

The land area of just the three territories (without Canada's 10 provinces) is already 8 times bigger than all of Sweden...
(In total Canada's land area is 9,984,670 km2
2/6
(3,855,100 sq mi) or 22 times Sweden).

Population:
🇸🇪 10.61 million
🇨🇦 terr.: 0.13 million

Sweden's population is 81.6 times bigger than that of the three territories... and if you look at population density:
🇸🇪 23,6/km2
🇨🇦 terr.: 0,013/km2
3/6
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(