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

[Senkaku]

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.

I was doing this thing called exaggeration. People do it sometimes.

My point was any tank equipped with a railgun that will be of any use will be large, require a large powerplant, and probably be fairly slow, in addition to being more expensive to maintain due to barrel wear, and potentially having a misfire due to projectile or barrel warping, a failure in the wires that are delivering the juice to the gun, and it would have to go fairly slow and fire while stopped so the gun didn't get upset, since railguns are somewhat finicky.

And "Nikola Fucking Tesla" was not the inventor of the railgun. And if you look elsewhere on this page, you will find out, no, you could not make a railgun in your backyard.

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

To be fair, I think it'd be way more fun for the people on the ship. Instead of just watching your missile streak out of sight and hit a blip on the radar screen (and potentially covering your ship in nasty fumes for a minute), you could watch the cannons go boom and all that shit.

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

You could launch missiles from the barrels....

[Macedonian Grand Empire]

You could launch missiles from the barrels....

You can not launch anything with HE in it due to the fact that the electricity will detonate it. Railguns are simply sabot launchers nothing else.

[Senkaku]

You could launch missiles from the barrels....

You could launch missiles from the barrels....

You can not launch anything with HE in it due to the fact that the electricity will detonate it. Railguns are simply sabot launchers nothing else.

And even if you could, why would you, when you could just get a VLS pod or something?

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

You could launch missiles from the barrels....

You can not launch anything with HE in it due to the fact that the electricity will detonate it. Railguns are simply sabot launchers nothing else.

I was talking about the normal 15 inch cannons.

Btw, I use Coilguns on my tanks, and on my big missile launchers.

[Macedonian Grand Empire]

You can not launch anything with HE in it due to the fact that the electricity will detonate it. Railguns are simply sabot launchers nothing else.

I was talking about the normal 15 inch cannons.

Btw, I use Coilguns on my tanks, and on my big missile launchers.

As the burden of proof is on you go ahead and prove how they can be used.

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

I was talking about the normal 15 inch cannons.

Btw, I use Coilguns on my tanks, and on my big missile launchers.

As the burden of proof is on you go ahead and prove how they can be used.

This one is easy.

Coilguns use multiple electromagnets or superconductors (preference and cost here), to accelerate a particle. When the particle reaches the first electromagnet, it shuts off, and the next one activates. Thusly, using many of these attached to a central computer which makes the calculation, I can create a Coilgun that fires rounds from 12.7mm to 120mm. On a tank, that is. I choose either 75mm or 105mm rounds.

[Macedonian Grand Empire]

As the burden of proof is on you go ahead and prove how they can be used.

This one is easy.

Coilguns use multiple electromagnets or superconductors (preference and cost here), to accelerate a particle. When the particle reaches the first electromagnet, it shuts off, and the next one activates. Thusly, using many of these attached to a central computer which makes the calculation, I can create a Coilgun that fires rounds from 12.7mm to 120mm. On a tank, that is. I choose either 75mm or 105mm rounds.

Can a tank engine produce the required electricity? Also current needs to be supplied to them in order to be activated within nanosecond.

[Vancon]

As the burden of proof is on you go ahead and prove how they can be used.

This one is easy.

Coilguns use multiple electromagnets or superconductors (preference and cost here), to accelerate a particle. When the particle reaches the first electromagnet, it shuts off, and the next one activates. Thusly, using many of these attached to a central computer which makes the calculation, I can create a Coilgun that fires rounds from 12.7mm to 120mm. On a tank, that is. I choose either 75mm or 105mm rounds.

How big are your tanks then?

[Congreveopia]

As the burden of proof is on you go ahead and prove how they can be used.

This one is easy.

Coilguns use multiple electromagnets or superconductors (preference and cost here), to accelerate a particle. When the particle reaches the first electromagnet, it shuts off, and the next one activates. Thusly, using many of these attached to a central computer which makes the calculation, I can create a Coilgun that fires rounds from 12.7mm to 120mm. On a tank, that is. I choose either 75mm or 105mm rounds.

Very funny. That's like someone asking you to explain why your car design is more efficient, and you saying "Well, a car is a four wheeled vehicle that uses an internal combustion engine to..."

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

This one is easy.

Coilguns use multiple electromagnets or superconductors (preference and cost here), to accelerate a particle. When the particle reaches the first electromagnet, it shuts off, and the next one activates. Thusly, using many of these attached to a central computer which makes the calculation, I can create a Coilgun that fires rounds from 12.7mm to 120mm. On a tank, that is. I choose either 75mm or 105mm rounds.

Can a tank engine produce the required electricity? Also current needs to be supplied to them in order to be activated within nanosecond.

Aye.

This one is easy.

Coilguns use multiple electromagnets or superconductors (preference and cost here), to accelerate a particle. When the particle reaches the first electromagnet, it shuts off, and the next one activates. Thusly, using many of these attached to a central computer which makes the calculation, I can create a Coilgun that fires rounds from 12.7mm to 120mm. On a tank, that is. I choose either 75mm or 105mm rounds.

Very funny. That's like someone asking you to explain why your car design is more efficient, and you saying "Well, a car is a four wheeled vehicle that uses an internal combustion engine to..."

Very funny. That's not at all what he meant.

Please, take time to read.

How would a gun be able to fire a round to a certain speed would be a better comparison.

[Macedonian Grand Empire]

No they can not. Even the best engines can not power a coilgun or an railgun. Not by a long shot.

[Mitheldalond]

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

Yes, this. Absolutely, completely, 100% this. Not only are missiles now incomparably better than railguns (and lasers) will be in a few decades, but missiles are going to continue to develop during those decades. Guns will never, ever overtake missiles in usefulness and effectiveness.

Even if we could develop a handheld railgun assault rifle, it would be pointless. Because if we had the technology to miniaturize a railgun that much, then we could do the same thing to a missile. A rifle that fires guided, maneuverable, explosive bullets would be infinitely more useful than a gun that shoots bits of metal really fast.

Also, Tesla invented the Tesla coil. Carl Friedrich Gauss invented the coilgun, hence the name Gauss Gun, which if you ask me is completely superior to a railgun (though still castle inferior to missiles). The railgun was invented by some French guy named Louis Octave Fauchon-Villeplee.

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.

The 96 AShBMs on my modern battleships would like a word with you.

You could launch missiles from the barrels....

Sure, but why? It's completely unnecessary, and a massive waste of space and weight. Plus it severely limits your rate of fire, which is why arm launchers were phased out in favor of VLS.

As the burden of proof is on you go ahead and prove how they can be used.

This one is easy.

Coilguns use multiple electromagnets or superconductors (preference and cost here), to accelerate a particle. When the particle reaches the first electromagnet, it shuts off, and the next one activates. Thusly, using many of these attached to a central computer which makes the calculation, I can create a Coilgun that fires rounds from 12.7mm to 120mm. On a tank, that is. I choose either 75mm or 105mm rounds.

The problem is again power requirements. You'd have a hard time fitting the required capacitor banks inside a tank, and it would take the engine awhile to recharge the capacitors for the next shot.

If you must use coilguns, use them either in artillery (which can travel around with a truck carrying a power supply), or on ships.

[Vancon]

Hey DEN, just make your own tank so that you can have these things. You'd need a large engine and you'd be a big target, but it could perhaps be possible. Just not with an Abrams.

[Senkaku]

This one is easy.

Coilguns use multiple electromagnets or superconductors (preference and cost here), to accelerate a particle. When the particle reaches the first electromagnet, it shuts off, and the next one activates. Thusly, using many of these attached to a central computer which makes the calculation, I can create a Coilgun that fires rounds from 12.7mm to 120mm. On a tank, that is. I choose either 75mm or 105mm rounds.

How big are your tanks then?

Like I said, they'd have to be large and clumsy if they were to produce the necessary power for this type of weapon, or else their projectiles aren't going to do really anything, plus it'd need to lug around a big computer to calculate when to turn the magnets off and on. And the coilgun would be easy to knock out- shoot the coils, take out the wiring, give the computer that's calculating when to fire each magnet a bit of a bump, etc., etc. It just wouldn't be practical.

[Mitheldalond]

No they can not. Even the best engines can not power a coilgun or an railgun. Not by a long shot.

No, but they can charge up a capacitor bank, which then dumps all the stored energy into the gun in an instant. It just takes time to charge the capacitors.

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

No they can not. Even the best engines can not power a coilgun or an railgun. Not by a long shot.

No, but they can charge up a capacitor bank, which then dumps all the stored energy into the gun in an instant. It just takes time to charge the capacitors.

Which is why it's designed to take out enemy tanks, and tanks only. It's meant to be that way.

I'm pretty sure tanks use Jet Engines, so I could just amp up the jet engine. And yes, I designed it specifically for that gun.

[Macedonian Grand Empire]

No, but they can charge up a capacitor bank, which then dumps all the stored energy into the gun in an instant. It just takes time to charge the capacitors.

Which is why it's designed to take out enemy tanks, and tanks only. It's meant to be that way.

I'm pretty sure tanks use Jet Engines, so I could just amp up the jet engine. And yes, I designed it specifically for that gun.

Wrong on those fronts...
Tanks use TURBINE ENGINES not jet engines. And no they are not the same.
A capacitator will need ages to be recharged. Also lets not forget that the engine needs to keep all the systems of the tanks running as well as the tank itself. It would be a miracle if you manage to shoot 2 times in an hour. And lets not forget a tank does not have the space needed for a capacitator at its present size.

[Congreveopia]

Very funny. That's like someone asking you to explain why your car design is more efficient, and you saying "Well, a car is a four wheeled vehicle that uses an internal combustion engine to..."

Very funny. That's not at all what he meant.

Please, take time to read.

How would a gun be able to fire a round to a certain speed would be a better comparison.

I think the essential nature of my metaphor suffices. The comparison I'm attempting to achieve is that you dodged the difficult question posed, and instead answered an easier one that nobody asked. There is also a lesser comparison that the question posed was about effectiveness, and the answer was about design.

I perceived (and still do, even after rereading MGE's post as per your suggestion) that the essence of MGE's request was for you to prove that a tank using a Gauss gun would be an effective weapon. Instead, however, you responded with a basic description of how a Gauss gun on a tank would work, while failing to address whether it would be a useful, let alone feasible weapon.

In the metaphor I suggested, someone is challenged to explain why their design is more efficient, but they instead answer with a description of what a car (the object upon which they base their design) is.

In both of these scenarios, the question posed is more difficult than the question that the person to whom the question was posed elects to answer. Also, the posed question is, in both, about effectiveness, while, in both, the question answered is about design. Thusly, I feel like my metaphor accomplished it's task, but if you feel differently you are welcome to say how you feel it failed so that I can make better comparisons in future.

[Organized States]

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

Manliness has no counter.

You should see WW1 Biplanes.

They didn't have seatbelts....

[Imperii Magna]

I'm going to try not to get super into this argument, but this is the current design for a "self-propelled" railgun: http://i.imgur.com/700rHVL.jpg

So basically... 3 large trucks. Not really a tank, but, in 2025 might be a little practical. But probably not more than missiles or artillery. They do use massive amounts of power, about 20-30 MJ, which is why they are really only practical for ships right now. Now, while the current effective top speed is mach 4, they likely will be ably to soon reach mach 6 or even 7 maybe. With this speed, they would be very difficult to shoot down. They also have the ability to shoot down other missiles. Although some of the main advantages are the fact that extreme rates of fire can be reached, and the ammunition is very cheap compared to missiles. However, any significant rate of fire would not be sustainable for long.

Now, onto the real subject now, coilguns. Coilguns, at the moment, are very impractical. They are very delicate and absolutely not practical right now for a combat role. They are more efficient, but are mostly suitable for aircraft and spacecraft launch systems. This may change in the future, but I really don't expect it to. Anyways, a tank would still need a much larger energy supply than normal in order to run, in the realm of megajoules. Also, they would still need to be fairly large in order to be practical. And they do lose one of the railgun's advantage, which is cheap ammunition-- most coilgun designs worth their salt have a coil as part of the projectile. Also, they don't generally have a very high fire rate due to the coil wrapping all the way around the projectile. And, another disadvantage, is that they can't really be stabilized. Due to the nature of the barrel, they cannot have any sort of fins, and also it would be extremely difficult to have any sort of rifling. So really... I don't want to rouse you into another big argument, DEN, but as has been said before, do your research.

[Macedonian Grand Empire]

Very funny. That's not at all what he meant.

Please, take time to read.

How would a gun be able to fire a round to a certain speed would be a better comparison.

I think the essential nature of my metaphor suffices. The comparison I'm attempting to achieve is that you dodged the difficult question posed, and instead answered an easier one that nobody asked. There is also a lesser comparison that the question posed was about effectiveness, and the answer was about design.

I perceived (and still do, even after rereading MGE's post as per your suggestion) that the essence of MGE's request was for you to prove that a tank using a Gauss gun would be an effective weapon. Instead, however, you responded with a basic description of how a Gauss gun on a tank would work, while failing to address whether it would be a useful, let alone feasible weapon.

In the metaphor I suggested, someone is challenged to explain why their design is more efficient, but they instead answer with a description of what a car (the object upon which they base their design) is.

In both of these scenarios, the question posed is more difficult than the question that the person to whom the question was posed elects to answer. Also, the posed question is, in both, about effectiveness, while, in both, the question answered is about design. Thusly, I feel like my metaphor accomplished it's task, but if you feel differently you are welcome to say how you feel it failed so that I can make better comparisons in future.

Nailed what I asked him to do.

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

How big are your tanks then?

Like I said, they'd have to be large and clumsy if they were to produce the necessary power for this type of weapon, or else their projectiles aren't going to do really anything, plus it'd need to lug around a big computer to calculate when to turn the magnets off and on. And the coilgun would be easy to knock out- shoot the coils, take out the wiring, give the computer that's calculating when to fire each magnet a bit of a bump, etc., etc. It just wouldn't be practical.

I use a smaller round because of that.

Which is why it's designed to take out enemy tanks, and tanks only. It's meant to be that way.

I'm pretty sure tanks use Jet Engines, so I could just amp up the jet engine. And yes, I designed it specifically for that gun.

Wrong on those fronts...
Tanks use TURBINE ENGINES not jet engines. And no they are not the same.
A capacitator will need ages to be recharged. Also lets not forget that the engine needs to keep all the systems of the tanks running as well as the tank itself. It would be a miracle if you manage to shoot 2 times in an hour. And lets not forget a tank does not have the space needed for a capacitator at its present size.

It's the same thing to a normal person. Turbine, Jet, Turbofan, Turbojet, they all work on the same principles.

This is PMT nimrod.

And Congreveopia... You yourself lack the inability to actually analyze and interpret the data that is in front of you.

If you told me to tell you how a gun would be useful, would you want me to tell you how it works? Of course you would! No. Not you, though. You just want to know if it goes pew pew pew.

How would it be difficult...

It's a bullet going through a barrel that's being accelerated by an electromagnet. That is entirely possible to put rifling on. And another thing. I can use a generator to produce electricity, no? And could I not store it up in a rechargeable battery?

[Imperii Magna]

Wow DEN... Seriously? A turbofan, turbojet, and jet engine are all the same thing?!?!?! And they "work on the same principles"? Turbojets, and jet engines, are used for airplanes. I won't go into specifics, but a M1 Abrams, for example, runs on a gas turbine engine. This basically just works like a steam power plant. It just uses air instead of water. It's somewhat debatable whether an absolutely MASSIVE one could power a coilgun, but for a railgun, it definitely needs a nuclear reactor. (I know you're only talking about coilguns, but just putting that out there)

[Organized States]

Can everyone... Like chill out...

That'd be like radical... Man...