It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ginzatracer
First, rail guns for use as a heavy weapon (i.e. on a naval ship), would require a chain of ship-board powerplants, lined up in series or paralell depending on the specific requirements set by the manufacturer, thus providing the requsite power to launch an effective and realistic projectile (76.22 mm for example) for long-range, over-the-horizon assaults on surface and ground targets.
Second, given current power supply capabilities, an infantry version of a rail gun is not practical. The typical infantry/assault ready soldier already carries a weighty pack, and to include a body mounted power supply and rail gun would require an additional (+/-) 300 lbs. Get real.
THIS IS NOT STARTREK FOLKS!!!!
Originally posted by Variable
Lets also not forget that nasty little problem of "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
Talk about recoil..