PitP 2: Pan Pacific Pandemonium(SignUps, OOC,PMT, Limt FanT)

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

I'd like to point out that a railgun is not interceptable by enemy weapons, is cheap to manufacture (one gun, multiple shells), mobile, and is completely silent. Not to mention that it can be used to accelerate missiles themselves. You can also use them in vast numbers as a sheer overwhelming weapon, can be used in situations where missiles are just not feasible (shelling a building), and can be used by relatively uneducated individuals.

It also requires no fuel for it's projectile, and has the lowest energy cost.

[Mitheldalond]

I'd like to point out that a railgun is not interceptable by enemy weapons, is cheap to manufacture (one gun, multiple shells), mobile, and is completely silent. Not to mention that it can be used to accelerate missiles themselves. You can also use them in vast numbers as a sheer overwhelming weapon, can be used in situations where missiles are just not feasible (shelling a building), and can be used by relatively uneducated individuals.

It also requires no fuel for it's projectile, and has the lowest energy cost.

There is no reason why a railgun shell can't be intercepted just like any other shell. It might be a bit harder, but it certainly can be done.

"One gun, multiple shells" applies to literally every firearm in the history of the world. The difference is that a railgun can only fire 2 or 3 shots before the barrel has to be replaced, while normal guns can fire hundreds.

A railgun is no more mobile than truck mounted SAMs, cruise missiles, or even ballistic missiles, all of which are significantly more useful. A railgun has to drag a massive power supply around with it.

Railguns are not even remotely silent. That's just silly.

Missiles do not need to be accelerated; they do that themselves. Using a railgun to launch something that can already launch itself is just silly. Not to mention the fact that electronics do not get along well with high powered magnets.

A single Tomahawk can do at least as much damage as a railgun barrage, and is more accurate.

Railguns cannot be used by uneducated individuals any more easily than any normal piece of artillery. That's just silly.

The fuel they require is boat loads of electricity.

[Congreveopia]

For future reference, who here would be interested in an FT RP or a Character based RP? I was thinking of making one in the far future, but I just wanted to know if there'd be any interest from those who are here now.

I'd probably join.

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

I'd like to point out that a railgun is not interceptable by enemy weapons, is cheap to manufacture (one gun, multiple shells), mobile, and is completely silent. Not to mention that it can be used to accelerate missiles themselves. You can also use them in vast numbers as a sheer overwhelming weapon, can be used in situations where missiles are just not feasible (shelling a building), and can be used by relatively uneducated individuals.

It also requires no fuel for it's projectile, and has the lowest energy cost.

There is no reason why a railgun shell can't be intercepted just like any other shell. It might be a bit harder, but it certainly can be done.

"One gun, multiple shells" applies to literally every firearm in the history of the world. The difference is that a railgun can only fire 2 or 3 shots before the barrel has to be replaced, while normal guns can fire hundreds.

A railgun is no more mobile than truck mounted SAMs, cruise missiles, or even ballistic missiles, all of which are significantly more useful. A railgun has to drag a massive power supply around with it.

Railguns are not even remotely silent. That's just silly.

Missiles do not need to be accelerated; they do that themselves. Using a railgun to launch something that can already launch itself is just silly. Not to mention the fact that electronics do not get along well with high powered magnets.

A single Tomahawk can do at least as much damage as a railgun barrage, and is more accurate.

Railguns cannot be used by uneducated individuals any more easily than any normal piece of artillery. That's just silly.

The fuel they require is boat loads of electricity.

Ever saw a railgun fire? They're silent. And no, the barrel doesn't have to be replaced.

[Organized States]

I'll get a CSG dispatched the region tomorrow, I've got a quite good story so far, I'm going to take it slightly further in the coming days.

Prepare for ultimate sadness/crying moments.

Brace Yourselves for sappiness.

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

Hey OS. How's it going?

[Senkaku]

There is no reason why a railgun shell can't be intercepted just like any other shell. It might be a bit harder, but it certainly can be done.

"One gun, multiple shells" applies to literally every firearm in the history of the world. The difference is that a railgun can only fire 2 or 3 shots before the barrel has to be replaced, while normal guns can fire hundreds.

A railgun is no more mobile than truck mounted SAMs, cruise missiles, or even ballistic missiles, all of which are significantly more useful. A railgun has to drag a massive power supply around with it.

Railguns are not even remotely silent. That's just silly.

Missiles do not need to be accelerated; they do that themselves. Using a railgun to launch something that can already launch itself is just silly. Not to mention the fact that electronics do not get along well with high powered magnets.

A single Tomahawk can do at least as much damage as a railgun barrage, and is more accurate.

Railguns cannot be used by uneducated individuals any more easily than any normal piece of artillery. That's just silly.

The fuel they require is boat loads of electricity.

Ever saw a railgun fire? They're silent. And no, the barrel doesn't have to be replaced.

Actually, yes, i have. you're wrong. railguns are very far from silent, since theyre accelerating a projectile to supersonic speeds. and some create a superheated plume of plasma that also makes some noise.

and also, wrong again. the barrels have to be replaced with far greater frequency than in a normal gun because of the strain accelerating something so fast puts on them.

please stop pretending you know what the hell youre talking about. you can ask the folks in the military realism thread if you dont believe us, or look on Wikipedia or something.

Sen is disappoint.

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

Meh. *shrugs*
I don't even use Railguns. I use nuclear artillery with a self propelled round.

If I'm desperate. To me, Railguns are for anti armor. Not anti personnel.

[Organized States]

Hey OS. How's it going?

Tired + School Photos = cluster****.

[Yukonastan]

Gravity affects all things equally. The Navy railgun just shoots its long rod penetrators at hypersonic velocities, about 2400 metres per second, which are only about one and a half times higher than the L-55 tank gun can achieve, in the range of 1600 to 1750 metres per second.

This equates to about one and a half times the range if the cannons fire ammunition weighing the same.

That isn't, however, a nonexistent ballistic arc. While it is 2/3ds as curved as the arc of a conventional cannon (assuming the L55 for shits and giggles), it's still there, and must still be compensated for.

Direct-fire won't happen unless you get massive velocities out of your railguns bordering on 5km/s.

Tank guns are considered as direct fire guns. They are not indirect fire guns like they are on the artillery.

People are saying that railguns are many times faster than conventional cannons. This is false. With current technology, at most two times faster.

---

I'd like to point out that a railgun is not interceptable by enemy weapons, is cheap to manufacture (one gun, multiple shells), mobile, and is completely silent. Not to mention that it can be used to accelerate missiles themselves. You can also use them in vast numbers as a sheer overwhelming weapon, can be used in situations where missiles are just not feasible (shelling a building), and can be used by relatively uneducated individuals.

It also requires no fuel for it's projectile, and has the lowest energy cost.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Erworbenen.
Railgun projectiles do not travel a lot faster than tank gun fin-stabilized projectiles, currently only about 1.5 times as fast as said LRP.

Railguns are FAR from cheap. Tolerances are fairly(read incredibly) tight, and besides the pressures from your injection system (AKA normal artillery cannon), you also have to worry about voltage and electrical engineering. Not to mention barrel life is going to be semihorrible. They're getting maybe ten shots out of the current prototypes, due to the amazing abrasion of the rails that carry the current.

Railguns currently in development, take the Blitzer, from what I saw, fit across THREE heavy trucks. Three. A normal artillery cannon fits behind ONE humvee, or a medium truck if you're carrying ammo. While the Blitzer is sort of mobile, it takes time to setup as a result of fitting across three trucks, and isn't decidedly mobile by any modern degree.

Completely silent... wat. If you've heard the sound that an electric arc flash makes (if you don't i suggest you watch this video at full volume), imagine that many times louder. Then add the sonic boom of your penetrator and sabot. Not so silent now, eh?

Missiles are best accelerated by missiles, not by a couple of gigajoules of electricity and some science, you're far too likely to cause the missile to go off inside the barrel.

The advantages of a railgun are mostly that you're not carrying explosives, since it accelerates the projectile electromagnetically to a speed where KE becomes dominant.

It's still a cannon. You still need to be able to aim cannons.

As for energy cost, look at Nazi WWII railgun experiments.

In 1944, during World War II, Joachim Hänsler of Germany's Ordnance Office built the first working railgun, and an electric anti-aircraft gun was proposed. By late 1944 enough theory had been worked out to allow the Luftwaffe's Flak Command to issue a specification, which demanded a muzzle velocity of 2,000 m/s (6,600 ft/s) and a projectile containing 0.5 kg (1.1 lb) of explosive. The guns were to be mounted in batteries of six firing twelve rounds per minute, and it was to fit existing 12.8 cm FlaK 40 mounts. It was never built. When details were discovered after the war it aroused much interest and a more detailed study was done, culminating with a 1947 report which concluded that it was theoretically feasible, but that each gun would need enough power to illuminate half of Chicago.

Emphasis mine.

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

Tank guns are considered as direct fire guns. They are not indirect fire guns like they are on the artillery.

People are saying that railguns are many times faster than conventional cannons. This is false. With current technology, at most two times faster.

In fact, some conventional ballistics are even FASTER. Mach 4 is the highest speed achieved in a straight line.

[Exantos]

Ok so I heard that there is a map with countries marked as our nations. If no one has taken the southern half of Africa I would love that. Such as South Africa up to the Congo. So you know co-co beans. Also writing up a post and deleting the post after realising that it would have no effect.

[Oaledonia]

My first post is messy cuz I hate intros.

[Padnak]

My first post is messy cuz I hate intros.

don't we all

[Senkaku]

Meh. *shrugs*
I don't even use Railguns. I use nuclear artillery with a self propelled round.

If I'm desperate. To me, Railguns are for anti armor. Not anti personnel.

Anti-armor?

You mount them on fucking tanks? Are your tanks the size of small villages with their own nuclear reactors?

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

You are really... Really? Wow. How ignorant of a statement that was.

Research your Railguns before you speak, Senkaku. Because you HAVENT.

Nikola Fucking Tesla was the Inventor of the Railgun. He made it in his home, without a nuclear reactor, and it worked. Your logic has failed. Go home and research it, because I could create a Railgun in my backyard.

[Vancon]

Cool your jets.

Railguns use a metric fuckload of energy, and the only platforms that can use them today are battleships, and even then the entire front of the ship is filled with the reactor needed to launch a single shell at super high speeds with a very long cool down.

Neither of you are right. They are not the size of villages, but there's no way in hell you can fit them on a tank, currently.

[Padnak]

You are really... Really? Wow. How ignorant of a statement that was.

Research your Railguns before you speak, Senkaku. Because you HAVENT.

Nikola Fucking Tesla was the Inventor of the Railgun. He made it in his home, without a nuclear reactor, and it worked. Your logic has failed. Go home and research it, because I could create a Railgun in my backyard.

Right

Right

Considering that the entire idea of a railgun is stupid, regardless of who invented it, trying to argue that they should be used isn't going to accomplish anything. In modern naval combat missiles are so astronomically better then guns that its not even funny. Not to burst your bubble, but you're the one who hasn't done their research

[Vancon]

You are really... Really? Wow. How ignorant of a statement that was.

Research your Railguns before you speak, Senkaku. Because you HAVENT.

Nikola Fucking Tesla was the Inventor of the Railgun. He made it in his home, without a nuclear reactor, and it worked. Your logic has failed. Go home and research it, because I could create a Railgun in my backyard.

Right

Right

Considering that the entire idea of a railgun is stupid, regardless of who invented it, so trying to argue that they should be used isn't going to accomplish anything. In modern naval combat missiles are so astronomically better then guns that its not even funny. Not to burst your bubble, but you're the one who hasn't done their research

Missiles are cool, but in terms of manliness, nothing beats a broadside from the USS Iowa or IJN Yamato.

[Padnak]

Apart from the battleship being at the bottom of the ocean with all hands lost 400km away

[Vancon]

Apart from the battleship being at the bottom of the ocean with all hands lost 400km away

Manliness has no counter.

[Congreveopia]

Right

Right

Considering that the entire idea of a railgun is stupid, regardless of who invented it, so trying to argue that they should be used isn't going to accomplish anything. In modern naval combat missiles are so astronomically better then guns that its not even funny. Not to burst your bubble, but you're the one who hasn't done their research

Missiles are cool, but in terms of manliness, nothing beats a broadside from the USS Iowa or IJN Yamato.

In terms of manliness, nothing beats the Tessarakonteres ramming and boarding something.

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

Nvm. I got Railguns and coilguns mixed up.

I use coilguns. They use a similar principle, but coilguns use electromagnets. Sorry.

[Padnak]

Apart from the battleship being at the bottom of the ocean with all hands lost 400km away

Manliness has no counter.

Apart from common sense and reason

[Vancon]

Manliness has no counter.

Apart from common sense and reason

When has manliness needed such things as that?