gauss-railguns?-emp oh my

[Zaku212]

Is it just me or does EVERY battletank of a self design HAVE to have emp-shells(and/or bioweapon ones)
Do even half the people who have railguns and gauss weaponry even know what they are or know how they work?
or are they just trying to do some pretty word spam?
why do people try to get every one of their projectiles to have emp(do they even know what it is/does?) or are they just using em cos they're in games and they stop vehicles?
i know this is probably really petty,but i don't like it when people use words they do not understand/know the meaning of

[Vervaria]

[The Great Lord Tiger]

I think this is for NS and/or II. One of the RP boards, anyway...

EDIT: Ummm.... I don't think I've seen one mention of EM in any RP I've participated in, so please show an example; railguns operate under Gaussian principles (as do coilguns, which my ships use to lob shells at a considerable fraction of C ); and... yeah, that's it. Points answered.

At least for the railguns/Gaussian weapons, it's simple: if you have the power for it, it's a very efficient firing method. All you need is a shell -- you don't need propellant, casing, or anything other than something to shoot at people. You don't need to compensate for recoil, either.

EDIT: Well, yeah, I'd imagine that's a pretty good reason to have EM weaponry...

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

I think this is for NS and/or II. One of the RP boards, anyway...

EDIT: Ummm.... I don't think I've seen one mention of EM in any RP I've participated in, so please show an example; railguns operate under Gaussian principles (as do coilguns, which my ships use to lob shells at a considerable fraction of C ); and... yeah, that's it. Points answered.

At least for the railguns/Gaussian weapons, it's simple: if you have the power for it, it's a very efficient firing method. All you need is a shell -- you don't need propellant, casing, or anything other than something to shoot at people. You don't need to compensate for recoil, either.

Um, there will be recoil. As long as the shell is being accelerated, there will be an equal and opposite force on whatever launches it.

So your ships must be pretty amazingly sturdy to accelerate a shell at a "considerable fraction of c." Not even considering what happens when that shell enters atmosphere nearby ...

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Bunny is correct: There will still be recoil. However, the recoil will be considerably less than would be expected for accelerating a projectile due to the incredibly small mass of the projectile(most rail gun designs accelerate very small projectiles to very high speeds) in relation to the weapon and the rate of acceleration, the recoil will be reduced to a relatively manageable level. ...Note: By relatively manageable, I mean somewhat less than ungodly.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

Bunny is correct: There will still be recoil. However, the recoil will be considerably less than would be expected for accelerating a projectile due to the incredibly small mass of the projectile(most rail gun designs accelerate very small projectiles to very high speeds) in relation to the weapon and the rate of acceleration, the recoil will be reduced to a relatively manageable level. ...Note: By relatively manageable, I mean somewhat less than ungodly.

With a weapon like that on board, you wouldn't need an engine. Just keep firing the gun towards the stern ...

[Amazonian Beasts]

Bunny, I think Tiger means "considerable fraction of c" in relation to normal slugthrowers...not in relation to c.

At least I hope he does...

[Zaku212]

this is what i meant, i'm happy to see people who actually tried(or actually do) understand the technology, rather than just using every word for "big shooty-thing" from games...
so i thank you for your sensible and understandable replies

[Otagia]

Bunny is correct: There will still be recoil. However, the recoil will be considerably less than would be expected for accelerating a projectile due to the incredibly small mass of the projectile(most rail gun designs accelerate very small projectiles to very high speeds) in relation to the weapon and the rate of acceleration, the recoil will be reduced to a relatively manageable level. ...Note: By relatively manageable, I mean somewhat less than ungodly.

Depends, really. While you'll probably have a smaller recoil due to the fact that smaller objects are better penetrators (same force to less surface area), you occasionally get the people who for some reason think that launching a 1 gram pebble at a decent fraction of C will have less recoil than an Iowa firing a full broadside.

Of course, high power railguns have the rather OMGHUEG problem in that their rails tend to fuse together after a shot or two. If I recall correctly, the thing arc welds the ammunition to itself.

[Ravea]

Bunny is correct: There will still be recoil. However, the recoil will be considerably less than would be expected for accelerating a projectile due to the incredibly small mass of the projectile(most rail gun designs accelerate very small projectiles to very high speeds) in relation to the weapon and the rate of acceleration, the recoil will be reduced to a relatively manageable level. ...Note: By relatively manageable, I mean somewhat less than ungodly.

Depends, really. While you'll probably have a smaller recoil due to the fact that smaller objects are better penetrators (same force to less surface area), you occasionally get the people who for some reason think that launching a 1 gram pebble at a decent fraction of C will have less recoil than an Iowa firing a full broadside.

Of course, high power railguns have the rather OMGHUEG problem in that their rails tend to fuse together after a shot or two. If I recall correctly, the thing arc welds the ammunition to itself.

At least you end up with a good ol' metal club.

[Skeelzania]

When it comes to terrestial combat, I've always been a bit skeptical of railguns. Not because I feel that they're inherently wanky (I don't, and accept them as good sci-fi fare), but because I'm not sure they'd be the best weapon for the job.

The thing I have trouble wrapping my head around with Railguns and similar weapons is that, as I understand them, you'd be pretty well limited to direct-fire weapons. The speed of the projectiles would seem to exclude any ability to elevate a gun to get increased range, or to land a projectile behind an obstruction. Now, for tanks this probably isn't a problem, since even modern projectiles have such high speeds that to use them as indirect artillery would be wasteful and silly. So tanks are just left with having to solve the other problems associated with railguns (like their rails apparently burning out very quickly).

But for terrestial watercraft, as naval artillery, railguns seem very ill-suited. The only way I can see a ship mounting such weapons being able to effectively engage other seaborne targets would be if the railguns had variable power and very good targetting computers, so that they could drop a round on a target that is over the horizon (i.e. not in direct line of sight). Or speed the round so much that it would actually submerge and come out from beneath the target thanks to planetary curvature, which sounds cool but also very inefficent. In any case, it seems like a lot of work to accomplish a job that missiles already accomplish.

Shore bombardment seems to be the only place a railgun could logically perform as naval artillery, but again, good luck hitting something if its behind a hill.

[Belschaft]

Linked in to the topic, I never get why in the future people allways seem to drop missiles, as thir primary weapons if not totally, in favour of sometihng wich is -

1. Less acurate
2. Has less range
3. Does less damge

Aside form looking cool lasers and railgun style weapons have notihng over missiles.

[Skeelzania]

Aside form looking cool lasers and railgun style weapons have notihng over missiles.

I think you'll find that the underlined text is indeed the reason behind many decisions taken by FT roleplayers

Although I think I have to dispute you on points 2 and 3. At least in space combat, I think railguns and missiles would have comparble "range" in that if you accelerate anything enough it'll keep going until it run into something (be it a gravity well or another object entirely). Of course, a missile would (presumably) have the benefit of being able to update its targetting data as it approaches a target, wheras a railgun slug is unlikely to be so sophesticated. And while payloads do very, I think getting struck by any sizable object at the speeds associated with "typical" railguns would do damage at least equitable to that of being struck by a missile.

However, unless you're engaging at fantastically close ranges (like less than thousands of miles distance), I agree that a missile is going to be a better weapon.

Personally I like to equip my vessels with a smorgasboard of missiles and energy weapons because I think it would look cooler.

[UNIverseVERSE]

Bunny is correct: There will still be recoil. However, the recoil will be considerably less than would be expected for accelerating a projectile due to the incredibly small mass of the projectile(most rail gun designs accelerate very small projectiles to very high speeds) in relation to the weapon and the rate of acceleration, the recoil will be reduced to a relatively manageable level. ...Note: By relatively manageable, I mean somewhat less than ungodly.

Note, however, that hypervelocity pebbles are somewhat lacking as ammunition goes. For a start, atmospheric friction will turn them into a cloud of gas fairly rapidly. Even if it hits, inch wide holes take a hell of a long time to sink a battleship.

Even with a railgun as a launch mechanism, you still want to fire fairly big projectiles. And this, plus the obscene velocities involved, translates rather nicely into recoil. And things exploding into flames as they leave the barrel and stuff like that.

Railguns are best left for space, I think. Atmosphere raises some very serious problems.

[UNIverseVERSE]

I think you'll find that the underlined text is indeed the reason behind many decisions taken by FT roleplayers

Although I think I have to dispute you on points 2 and 3. At least in space combat, I think railguns and missiles would have comparble "range" in that if you accelerate anything enough it'll keep going until it run into something (be it a gravity well or another object entirely). Of course, a missile would (presumably) have the benefit of being able to update its targetting data as it approaches a target, wheras a railgun slug is unlikely to be so sophesticated. And while payloads do very, I think getting struck by any sizable object at the speeds associated with "typical" railguns would do damage at least equitable to that of being struck by a missile.

However, unless you're engaging at fantastically close ranges (like less than thousands of miles distance), I agree that a missile is going to be a better weapon.

Personally I like to equip my vessels with a smorgasboard of missiles and energy weapons because I think it would look cooler.

Remember that at space ranges, lightspeed lag renders direct fire weapons impractical over any range greater than pretty much point blank.

Also remember that at space ranges, a missile doesn't slow down either. You can let it just keep accelerating, all the way there. By the time it's crossed the solar system to strike, it'll be moving every bit as fast as a railgun slug, if not quicker, and it can actually hit at that range.

(as usual when I'm discussing space warfare, physical knowledge applies)

[Non Aligned States]

Note, however, that hypervelocity pebbles are somewhat lacking as ammunition goes. For a start, atmospheric friction will turn them into a cloud of gas fairly rapidly. Even if it hits, inch wide holes take a hell of a long time to sink a battleship.

Depends on how fast it's going. At 0.7c, a gram of cat poop hitting the atmosphere will do a lot more than leave a smelly smear.

Of course, there's that problem of getting anything up to 0.7c.

[Ifreann]

What? No battle mecha with drill swords?

[Neo Art]

I hate gauss weapons. Freaking "glance on a 6" is so broken on S4 weapons, especially since enough of them can even glance a LR to death

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Note, however, that hypervelocity pebbles are somewhat lacking as ammunition goes. For a start, atmospheric friction will turn them into a cloud of gas fairly rapidly. Even if it hits, inch wide holes take a hell of a long time to sink a battleship.

Depends on how fast it's going. At 0.7c, a gram of cat poop hitting the atmosphere will do a lot more than leave a smelly smear.

Of course, there's that problem of getting anything up to 0.7c.

Accelerate the cat.

[Big Jim P]

Note, however, that hypervelocity pebbles are somewhat lacking as ammunition goes. For a start, atmospheric friction will turn them into a cloud of gas fairly rapidly. Even if it hits, inch wide holes take a hell of a long time to sink a battleship.

Depends on how fast it's going. At 0.7c, a gram of cat poop hitting the atmosphere will do a lot more than leave a smelly smear.

Of course, there's that problem of getting anything up to 0.7c.

Accelerate the cat.

Or better yet, a chihuahua. Yo quedo this, bitch!

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Depends on how fast it's going. At 0.7c, a gram of cat poop hitting the atmosphere will do a lot more than leave a smelly smear.

Of course, there's that problem of getting anything up to 0.7c.

Accelerate the cat.

Or better yet, a chihuahua. Yo quedo this, bitch!

So we get the cat to chase the chihuahua?

[Big Jim P]

Accelerate the cat.

Or better yet, a chihuahua. Yo quedo this, bitch!

So we get the cat to chase the chihuahua?

As long as the chihuahua gets launched.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Or better yet, a chihuahua. Yo quedo this, bitch!

So we get the cat to chase the chihuahua?

As long as the chihuahua gets launched.

*begins constructing chihuahua cannon*

[Big Jim P]

So we get the cat to chase the chihuahua?

As long as the chihuahua gets launched.

*begins constructing chihuahua cannon*

w00t! Now chihuahuas have a reason to exist: Ammunition.

[Zaku212]

I like where this is going

hehehe