Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Navy Railgun Tests Leading to Ship Superweapon by 2020
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5836912" data-attributes="member: 177"><p>Yes. My point is that new weapons, with new performance characteristics, may change that.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>There is no such thing with *current* dumb weapons. My point is that this round will behave differently than the cannon shells you're thinking about, and so may be useful for other tasks.</p><p></p><p>Let's do a bit of comparison:</p><p></p><p>The 16" main guns on an Iowa-class battleship fire a round that weighs well over a ton, with a muzzle velocity of 820 m/s. And...</p><p></p><p><em>"The large caliber guns were designed to fire two different 16-inch (410 mm) shells: an armor piercing round for anti-ship and anti-structure work, and a high explosive round designed for use against unarmored targets and shore bombardment." </em></p><p></p><p>(So much for not using explosive rounds!)</p><p></p><p>The rail gun should fire a round that weighs a mere 40 pounds, at three times the muzzle velocity of the Iowa guns.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, but having to carry a precision steering system makes the round far, far more expensive. </p><p></p><p>The railgun round is *tiny* by comparison, and for the same range, spends a third of the time in flight. This should drastically reduce inaccuracy due to environmental factors, or motion. It may be able to do the work of a guided round, without the expense of guidance!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, in explosive bombardment, accuracy isn't really that big a deal. You carpet an area with 1-ton explosive bombs, everything's going down.</p><p></p><p>However, despite your claim, no ship on the sea is ever really "stopped", especially when they're tossing out major ordinance. When you're considering hitting a target miles away, small motions matter. And Iowas certainly do rock when they open up with those guns, do they not?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My point is that this gun isn't useful for that classic "bombardment" - which, as noted above, did use explosive rounds (there's "bomb" in "bombardment", you know <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> ). It is a different weapon, with different capabilities. Stop thinking of it like a standard cannon, because it isn't one!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My point is that this weapon has power requirements equivalent to a tank. Somehow, you're going to have to carry along tank-scale engines. So, why drag the gun behind, and have the risk of a separate power source? </p><p></p><p>Mount it on an un- or lightly-armored chassis with an Abrams engine. When it isn't firing, the engine drives electric motors to move the thing. When you need artillery, drop the stabilizing legs, shift that engine to charging capacitors, and fire away!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 5836912, member: 177"] Yes. My point is that new weapons, with new performance characteristics, may change that. There is no such thing with *current* dumb weapons. My point is that this round will behave differently than the cannon shells you're thinking about, and so may be useful for other tasks. Let's do a bit of comparison: The 16" main guns on an Iowa-class battleship fire a round that weighs well over a ton, with a muzzle velocity of 820 m/s. And... [I]"The large caliber guns were designed to fire two different 16-inch (410 mm) shells: an armor piercing round for anti-ship and anti-structure work, and a high explosive round designed for use against unarmored targets and shore bombardment." [/I] (So much for not using explosive rounds!) The rail gun should fire a round that weighs a mere 40 pounds, at three times the muzzle velocity of the Iowa guns. Yes, but having to carry a precision steering system makes the round far, far more expensive. The railgun round is *tiny* by comparison, and for the same range, spends a third of the time in flight. This should drastically reduce inaccuracy due to environmental factors, or motion. It may be able to do the work of a guided round, without the expense of guidance! Well, in explosive bombardment, accuracy isn't really that big a deal. You carpet an area with 1-ton explosive bombs, everything's going down. However, despite your claim, no ship on the sea is ever really "stopped", especially when they're tossing out major ordinance. When you're considering hitting a target miles away, small motions matter. And Iowas certainly do rock when they open up with those guns, do they not? My point is that this gun isn't useful for that classic "bombardment" - which, as noted above, did use explosive rounds (there's "bomb" in "bombardment", you know :) ). It is a different weapon, with different capabilities. Stop thinking of it like a standard cannon, because it isn't one! My point is that this weapon has power requirements equivalent to a tank. Somehow, you're going to have to carry along tank-scale engines. So, why drag the gun behind, and have the risk of a separate power source? Mount it on an un- or lightly-armored chassis with an Abrams engine. When it isn't firing, the engine drives electric motors to move the thing. When you need artillery, drop the stabilizing legs, shift that engine to charging capacitors, and fire away! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Navy Railgun Tests Leading to Ship Superweapon by 2020
Top