WOW What the heck was that projectile? That thing sliced through alot of armour and it was the size of a pencil.

Was somone testing their new weapon in Iraq seems alittle advanced for insurgents that use AKs and RPGs for the most part.

Originally posted by mad scientist
Correct, a longer barrel would excelerate a projectile to higher speeds ( increasing range ) as the magnetic force is acting on it longer. What the increase in distance is I don't know.

[edit on 25-8-2004 by mad scientist]

How much more energy would be required? The navy has already talked about diverting power from the main engines for gun use so they are anticipating a huge drain. Maybe thats why they are limiting the length of the barrels? unless they plan a nuclear reactor, you may not see more than 1 or 2 per ship if the drain is too high.

shadow
Perhaps some of those old battleships will be taken out of moth balls and retro fitted with rail guns.

Never happen. They want stealth on future ships.

Also I Disagree with what someone said about if there is a longer barrel with the same amount of juice that it will go farther then the shorter one. I think that the shorter barrel will just put the G's on the shell quicker.

I never heard of that bullet before. I saw those pictures and Damn, that thing must of been haulin. But because the bullet didn't make it out of the other side of the tank I would think that they would be able to do an analysis and figure out what fired it (Ex. Gun power, Electricly ignited propellant, magents). Also it said it hit the gunners flak jacket? wouldn't it of went threw him? Kevlar isn't solid so it couldn't of rickashade? Any thoughts

There is a thread on those pics already. From what I remember the reason it went through the outer layer was a fluke, a combination of faulty materials/construction and the bullet actually hitting the spot. As for what happened inside the tank, I have no clue.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
There is a thread on those pics already. From what I remember the reason it went through the outer layer was a fluke, a combination of faulty materials/construction and the bullet actually hitting the spot. As for what happened inside the tank, I have no clue.

Sorry if i missed it, but is it the skirt that was penatrated? The Skirts protecting the road wheels are not if I recall Chobham armored. Intersting that it did not penatrate the kevlar either.

One other point that I havent seen (I may have missed it) Did it penetrate teh crew cab or was the crewman hit by spall?

Originally posted by FredT
One other point that I havent seen (I may have missed it) Did it penetrate teh crew cab or was the crewman hit by spall?

It penetrated the crew cab, there was very little spall. They have inferred from this that it was an advanced shaped charge, possibly an RPG-7VS or an RPG-22.

Originally posted by mad scientist
It penetrated the crew cab, there was very little spall. They have inferred from this that it was an advanced shaped charge, possibly an RPG-7VS or an RPG-22.

I find that to be much more plausable than all this talk about Iraqi insurgents armed with GAUSS rifles....

Originally posted by FredT

I find that to be much more plausable than all this talk about Iraqi insurgents armed with GAUSS rifles....

#hey thier easier to build than guns.
and easier to maintain.
BUT you'd need to get close.
unless we're talking about mobile rail guns ! then range aint a problem

With regard to the problem.
The longer barrel will give greater range, definitely.
This can be calculated using the equations of motion:
v^2=(u^2)+2as

where "v" is muzzle velocity, "u" is initial velocity (in our case 0) "a" the acceleration imparted to the projectile, and "s" the accelerated displacement of the projectile, ie the length of the barrel.

Using this equation, we can see that the muzzle velocity of the gun with the 20ft barrel will be the square root of 2 (approx 1.414) times greater than for the 10ft barrel.

If all other factors are known (wind resistance, angle of elevation etc) the range can be calculated using the same equation, this time putting the muzzle velocity as "u" and the final velocity as 0, the deceleration ("a" which will have a negative sign) will have to be calculated using wind resistance, angle of elevation and acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s^2)

Hope this clarifies and doesn't confuse!!!

On Mythbusters, I saw rounds fired from several high-powered rifles and machine guns into a swimming pool (trying to hit submerged balistics gel). Anyway the rounds broke into small pieces and descelerated to the point that they were almost completely harmless past a couple inches under the surface of the water. The "bullets" for the Navy's rail gun are supposed to be 40 lbs and traveling at that enormous velocity I would think the rounds would make a lot of noise ripping through the air or even break up. I know they have test rigs and wonder how they fixed this (if they did).

40 lbs? Good heavens!

I haven't heard how much the shells are supposed to weigh, but I was definately assuming something lighter than that. Then again, if the desire is to build shells with explosives or low grade guidance systems, I suppose weight goes up pretty quickly.

As for noice, the discharge of a railgun shouldn't make a significant amount of noise. There would of course be some shockwave from the shell, but not on the order of fighterplanes breaking the sound barrier. (it's smaller and simpler in shape) One BIG advantage is that the design of the weapon fixes the shap of 2 sides of your shell, instead of your entire cross section and the back of your shell like a conventional gun. In other words, 2 sides have to ride down the rails, instead of neatly fitting into a barral and having a nice flat surface on the back for expanding gas to push upon.

Originally posted by IM2NIC2
On Mythbusters, I saw rounds fired from several high-powered rifles and machine guns into a swimming pool (trying to hit submerged balistics gel). Anyway the rounds broke into small pieces and descelerated to the point that they were almost completely harmless past a couple inches under the surface of the water. The "bullets" for the Navy's rail gun are supposed to be 40 lbs and traveling at that enormous velocity I would think the rounds would make a lot of noise ripping through the air or even break up. I know they have test rigs and wonder how they fixed this (if they did).

The rounds on that show shattered when they hit the water...not the air...so why would you think the railgun ammo would break apart in the air?