Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Laser Guns or Rail Gun

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 09:41 AM
link   
There is no need for tanks to fire something bigger if the high velocity 25 mm will penetrate the armour like a butter. The projected future tanks have 25 mm armour piercing railgun and 38 mm explosive rounds (against infantry). How big do you think the sabot warhead is?




posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 10:16 AM
link   
im no tank man im an infatry man
i thought they would just u know plate the exsplosive with metal. or am i wrong?
the tanks could in theory use anything u know use some spanners if they ran outa ammo!



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Yes teoretical they could use spanners - but they need to fit the barrel
. Imagine enemy tank being destroyed by some steel garbage.



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   
ur walking past a burnt out tank u look inside and see lots of spanners lying around inside it and a couple just sticking out u just site there like



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 07:33 PM
link   
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!!!!



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Lets also not forget that nasty little problem of "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
Talk about recoil..

Variable



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 10:06 AM
link   
rail gun artilery?? imagine the trajectory on something travelling 6km per second - range 3500 km - considering earth escape velocity is maybe 11km/s it will be just unfeasable - its basically a line of sight weapon.

Maybe a space/plane platform that can utilise its practically straight line trajectory

Or a tank mounted version for the battlefield.

a 200gram round travelling at 6km/s could lift a 60ton tank 1 meter in the air - maybe what a infantry weapon will be hoping for.

A 6 kg 76.22mm round would deal some serious pain

[Edited on 26-4-2004 by Vanguard]

[Edited on 26-4-2004 by Vanguard]

[Edited on 26-4-2004 by Vanguard]



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   

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!!!!

dude have u seen the power needes for a rail gun its not that big !
secondly u could give infatry it all u need is 2 rails a small batery thingy and some metal there u go thats ur rail gun no need for mags
also about reacoil there would be none cause the force u r refering to already exsists and its called resistance in the electrical cicuit which is what a rail gun is at heart

[Edited on 26-4-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 12:33 PM
link   

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..

Variable


One of the best things on railguns is, that there is NO RECOIL at all...

[Edited on 26-4-2004 by longbow]



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 05:01 PM
link   
im not too sure about no recoil - common sense would suggest their would be equal momentum in the other direction



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 05:10 PM
link   
no really there is no recoil
if u want a simpler version of the rilfe just get two strips of metal and put the negative to 1 and the positive to the other and place a rod conection over the two it should roll off under it own power
now imagine that on a bigger scale with a heck of a lot more power!



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Ahh I see we have lots of scientific minds here...

You cannot get away from physics. There are immutable laws here folks.

www.newton.dep.anl.gov...



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 05:40 PM
link   
u do realise where the recoil from a regular gun comes from? it comes from the small exsplosion inside the breech where the round is
the force of the exsplosion aka the round being discharged , sends the rifle back ward while propelling the bullet forwards
the rail gun does not work on these princibles
it uses current to move the thing so there can be no force pushing back against it except the ressistance in the circuit aka the metals and such .
the most recoil u will feel is the thing going off the edge which might move the gun slighty mabye a couple of milimeters at least to a couple of centimeters depending on the size of the rails or the power being put through the circuit



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   
check out devilwasp and his new rail gun


www.serveroptions.com...



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 04:13 AM
link   
120mm M829 APFSDS-T round
velocity 1670 m/s, mass 4.3 kg

Kinetic Energy = (4.3*1670*1670)/2 = 5 996 135 J
Momentum = 4.3*1670 = 7181 Newton Seconds

Railgun
velocity 6000 m/s, mass 0.15 kg

Kinetic Energy = (0.15*6000*6000)/2 =2 700 000 J
Momentum = 0.15*6000 = 900 Newton Seconds

Even a extremly optimistic railgun design does not match the KE of a modern KE-penetrator round. In addition a very small projectile is very vunerable to being destroyed on contact with armor which results in the KE being converted into heat.

However the decreased momentum of the railguns means a far less recoil for railguns.(I believe the recoil of a railgun is caused by a magnetic field that works on the gun in the opposite direction)



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 10:33 AM
link   
what was the power input for this rail gun?
secondly that vid of the guy thats not the rail gun i talk of cause the rail gun i talk of makes no noise and does not give off any flash



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 10:46 AM
link   
hehe - i was just showing some guy getting recoil he wasnt expecting - i thought it was quite funny

I take it back it wasn't you devil and it wasnt a rail gun

It was some big elephant gun


[Edited on 27-4-2004 by Vanguard]



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   
yeah sorry i didnt get the joke im too tired!



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 02:51 PM
link   
DevilWasp, you need to understand some basic science. Click on the link I posted.

You can find lots of websites talking about how force is measured for rail guns. Heres another good one.
www.sciencedaily.com...

A very small round may have some usefullness but in combat your going to want to be able to rapidly fire, and have the round to not disentigrate on impact but penetrate objects. If the projectile vaporizes on contacting just about anything substantial it will have minimal usefullness. What about a sandstorm, or trees what about someone with windows in front of them. ;p
Variable



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 03:27 PM
link   
variable u i dont see what ur on about u would could just use a normal piece of metal also i know ther would be plasma left behind the round but the round would not vaperise on inpact IF the metal was strong enough aka not a crap metal like aluminium
also when ur encyclopidia thingy says that it would not be good as an anti tank gun well it would be ,imagine a hundred pieces of metal coming at your tank at several kilometres a second . you dont need to kill the tnak just the crew .
secondly why would it need an exsplosive round ? it would go through the tank

[Edited on 27-4-2004 by devilwasp]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join