Gauss Weapons

This may not be all that new but friends in low places tell me that the
British Army has a working Gauss artillery piece.

General Electric got the contract in '93 to make the Main Battle Tank
Railgun...(For the US Army)

Michael Wikan Game Design Slave Zero Accolade, Inc.
http://www.slavezero.com

> -----Original Message-----

Yeah, but did it get made, & into production yet? I remember seeing an
article about the next-next-generation M1 - (next is a liquid binary
propellant gun) - it had a railgun as main armament, electrostatic
armor, and the whole thing was just packed with flywheels & electric power
generation systems - type unknown.

[quoted original message omitted]

> At 00:25 26/08/98 +0100, you wrote:
Hmm.. Is there any distinct advantage to a Gauss artillery piece compared to a
standard chemical or binary propellant one? I can understand a gauss
gun would have advantages in a tank - caseless ammo, less smoke on
firing etc, but an arty piece is nowhere near the enemy and is only really
vunerable to counterbattery fire and air interdiction raids. Would a Gauss
weapon have a longer range than a chemical powered one necessarily? Higher
rate of fire? By definition they are going to be heavier of themselves than
standard arty pieces because of the magnets, capacitors etc..

                        TTFN
                                Jon

> Thomas Barclay wrote:

> Well, you'd get lighter ammo (hence you could have more). You'd get

The low signature is moot.  Counter-battery fire is currently done by
using radar to track the projectiles in flight, and since they are ballistic,
it is
easy enough to back-calculate their point of origin.  That's why towed
artillery is out of fashion - it takes too long to hook up and scoot in
a mobile battlefield.

Gauss weapons would have lighter ammo, plus an additional benefit - you
can fire multiple rounds down the barrel at once. You don't ahve to wait for
the first round to clear before sending the next one on it's way. In fact you
could probably achive the same rate of fire from a single gauss weapon as you
could from a normal battery, limited by how fast you could feed rounds into
the gun.

Definitely easier on the crew to man a gauss weapon. What would you get if
they revamped an Iowa class to heave 16 inch Gauss shells? One of the limits
to gun size on battleships was back blast. The Yamoto was unable to mount
more anti-aircraft guns because the blast from the main guns firing
would tend to strip anything not under an armored turret. Hmmm Spinal mount
naval rail
guns....

--Binhan

> At 10:34 AM 8/26/98 +0100, Jon White wrote:

> This may not be all that new but friends in low places tell me that

> Hmm.. Is there any distinct advantage to a Gauss artillery piece
Higher
> rate of fire? By definition they are going to be heavier of themselves

When I was a college sophomore a little over ten years ago, I took a
Journalism class where I got to interview one of the administrators at The
University of Texas' Center for Electromechanics.

One of the projects they were working on in connection with Reagan's Strategic
Defense Initiative was the railgun. (As I understand it, a gauss
weapon would be a "coilgun" -- a close relative of the railgun.  Anyone
have any details on the distinction between them?)

Here are a few of the details I still remember:

The first generation railguns were one-shot affairs; a chemical
explosive charge was used to produce the electrical pulse that powered it
(don't recall how, exactly) but destroyed the device in the process.

The next generation of railgun (the first one that UT built) used 6
capacitors to charge it.  Each of these capacitors was about 6-7 feet
tall and about 2 feet in diameter. It was capable of propelling a 1 cm plastic
cube (lined on one face with metal foil) at a muzzle velocity of 2-3
times that of the best chemical propellant weapons. They showed me one of the
targets they fired it at; a foot-square plate of aluminum about an inch
thick...with a jagged hole about the size of a large man's fist right through
it. The drawback of this model was the amount of time it took to recharge the
capacitors.

To solve this problem, they were developing on a new type of multi-cycle
electrical generator that they called a "compulsator." Instead of producing a
steady flow of current like a normal generator, this device was able to
produce pulses of current comparable to that previously stored in those huge
capacitors...several times a second.

(I did a quick search on "compulsator", here the first URL that came up. It
has info on some of the prototypes they built:
<http://www.pkd.com/pulsed.htm>

With the compulsator, they were able to build a railgun with machine-gun
like rates of fire; I remember being amused that they measured the rate of
fire in "Hertz" since it was directly related to the frequency of the
electrical pulses produced by the compulsator. IIRC, the limiting factor for
the rate of fire was the loading mechanism rather than the generator.

Although they were doing this research in connection with SDI, they had
already noted the potential for anti-tank weapons as well.  Another of
the advantages that an electromagnetic weapon will have besides high rate of
fire and muzzle velocity (and correspondingly correspondingly greater range
and accuracy) is smaller ammunition loads and elimination of the need for
chemical propellants. While this is somewhat offset by the larger powerplant
and fuel load required, there is a definite logistical advantage to
eliminating chemical propellants in favor extra fuel. At that point you start
getting into questions of what has the greatest amount of stored chemical
energy, a kilo of diesel fuel or a kilo of cordite (or binary propellant or
whatever).

In a sci-fi setting, railguns and gauss weapons would be ideal for
vehicles equipped with fusion powerplants. Ammo could also become less
problematic; there is a scene in one of the "Fifth Foreign Legion" books where
the heroes are using some little widget to produce needles for their gauss
rifles out of scrap metal...one of their wrecked APCs, IIRC.:)

Jonathan spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> At 00:25 26/08/98 +0100, you wrote:
Higher
> rate of fire? By definition they are going to be heavier of themselves

Well, you'd get lighter ammo (hence you could have more). You'd get low
signature firing which makes locating your weapon based on signature harder.
You'd probably be much kinder to the ears of the crew too. And it would be a
good way to work around to tank guns and infantry gauss weapons too.

Tom.
/************************************************

> Jeff Lyon wrote:
Anyone
> have any details on the distinction between them?)

Coilguns are better.

A coilgun is a series of coils that accelerate the projectile by
electromagnetic attraction and repulsion.

A railgun is two rail with a conducting projectile closing the circuit,
accelerated by the Lorentz force.

With the railgun, each projectile rides a furious arc of electricity, eroding
the hell out of the rails. The electrical power requirements are horrendous.
None of this is true with coilguns.

For more details:

Coilgun:
http://www.millennial.org/~jwills/orbit/SPBI112.HTM

Railgun:
http://www.millennial.org/~jwills/orbit/SPBI113.HTM

> Thomas Barclay wrote:

Besides, with a few passive EM sensors you could easily localize the Gauss
weapons from the EM pulse they generate when they fire.

- Sam

> You wrote:

> Besides, with a few passive EM sensors you could easily localize

As opposed to "With my naked eye, I'll easilly localize conventional weaponry
from the muzzle flash".

Geez.

> Samuel Reynolds <reynol@primenet.com> wrote:
In the high tech battlefield that DSII proposes and which is realistic, there
would be an enormous number of other EM emissions as well, including EM
emissions from smoke! With transmissions from a phased array antenna and
liberal computer power, my EW forces will be making sure that the artillery EM
pulses seem like they are coming from the enemy forces tank assembly area!

Andrew Martin Shared email: Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz
Web Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/
Blind See-Saw Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/SEE-SAW/
Dirtside II Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/
Dirtside II FAQ: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/FAQ/
GZG E-Mail FAQ:
http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/FAQ/Ettiquette.html
FUDGE GM Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/FUDGE/

> Thomas Barclay wrote:

Scott said:

With a minigun as long as your electronics are good the barrels spin and the

gun fires. The only real advantages at this caliber (given a practical -
in atmosphere muzzle velocity for the gauss weapon) is that you don't have a
pile of casings around your feet.
=============
Hmmm. Would think the difference in ammo weight (no wasted weight on chemical
propellant and heavy brass casing) might well suggest one reason. Plus better
penetration on a round whose l:d ratio was 10:1 rather than 3:1 or 4:1. The
mass is more concentrated behind the same diameter of impact (thus you can use
a smaller diameter round too for the same penetration).

My point was that you should never get a dud with a gauss round. On any
chemically propelled round, you could get a dud. In a multi-barrell
cannon, that might not matter (the round is ejected) but it is one round less
downrange. Not a significant issue compared to the ammo weight or penetration
issues.

[quoted original message omitted]

> On 25-Apr-00 at 12:12, Brian Bell (bkb@beol.net) wrote:

Wouldn't you expect to have lost the heavy brass case by the time frame we are
talking about. You would either have caseless ammo or a seperate propellant
(maybe binary?) system. The big advantage of the gauss weapon is resupply. If
you can plug into any available power source and recharge resupply is much
easier.

> [Bri] Again True. However, against soft targets (ie. people), you may

I don't think this is really an issue with a high enough velocity. What are
the words, hydrostatic shock?

> [Bri] The biggest disadvantage to a gauss weapon would be that it

I would assume the focusing elements would be solid state. In my experience
the fewer moving parts you have the better off you are as far as reliability.
I would definately count expanding gass as a moving part seperate from the
moving part which is the projectile.

You also have sound issues with the traditional design.

In a message dated 4/25/00 10:17:20 AM Central Daylight Time,
> Thomas.Barclay@cbu.xwavesolutions.com writes:

<<
My point was that you should never get a dud with a gauss round. On any
 chemically propelled round, you could get a dud. In a multi-barrell
cannon, that might not matter (the round is ejected) but it is one round less
downrange. Not a significant issue compared to the ammo weight or penetration
issues.
> [quoted text omitted]

Given the same weapon weight and bulk and given more effective magnetic
acceleration than we have today - sure it would be better - this is a
game, ain't it?

> Thomas.Barclay wrote:

> Plus better penetration on a round whose l:d ratio was 10:1 rather

There is absolutely no reason why you can't fire a round with an l:d
ratio of 10:1 from a normal chemical-powered gun with cased ammo,
though. Don't know the l:d ratios for modern 25- and 30mm long rod
penetrators, but for 40mm ones and bigger 10:1 sounds rather short and
fat...?

Regards,

> From: "Brian Bell" <bkb@beol.net>

(another Bri):

This may be true for infantry crew-served weaponry, but for
vehicle-mounted
weapons, you already have a power source, otherwise you don't have much of a
vehicle. The lack of chemical propellant also reduces the ramifications of an
ammo hit. Furthermore, without either the casing, the caseless charge, OR a
store of binary propellant, the gause round is not only lighter, it's more
compact - and it would seem that space is as much a consideration as
weigh on vehicle designs. This means that you can get more rounds into the
same ammo locker, which means you can remain in the field longer before having
to resupply.

More conventional weapons still have their place, especially with the
infantry, but for MBT's, IMHO, Gauss is the way to go.

On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 11:13:08 -0400, "Thomas.Barclay"
> <Thomas.Barclay@cbu.xwavesolutions.com> wrote:

> Hmmm. Would think the difference in ammo weight (no wasted weight on

Remember that the mass of the ammo is quite a bit smaller than chemically
propelled weapons. To make up for it, energy wise, the projectiles are
accelerated to a far greater velocity. That means you get flatter trajectories
and shorter flight time. In other words, accuracy goes up.

On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 12:23:45 -0400 (EDT), Roger Books
<books@mail.state.fl.us> wrote:

> [Bri] Again True. However, against soft targets (ie. people), you may
What
> are the words, hydrostatic shock?

I thought hydrostatic shock was a function of kinetic energy over the impact
area. In other words, a projectile with a tiny cross section travelling at
very fast speeds will do less damage to the human body than a slow moving,
large projectile. In fact, if the projectile goes fast enough, it might even
cauterize the wound via friction.

However, since all troops will have some form of body armour in this era,
armour penetration becomes a bigger issue. You may end up with warfare with
cleaner wounds, in the sense that you might get lots of small holes with
comparitively little damage.

That's another thing, chemically propelled weapons are dirty. Not only aren't
they sterilized, the crap that the projectile carries is pretty nasty (I have
a book that explains complications due to death by gunshots; for a quicker
summary, there is a great scene in "Three Kings" that details it). Gauss
projectiles would probably result in fewer side effects.

> From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@interlog.com>

> From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@interlog.com>

The Islamic Federation vehemently denies any such accusation and demands an
immediate retraction.

> From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>

> The Islamic Federation vehemently denies any such accusation and

Very well. I hereby retract any accusation that the very idea of adding

small embedded pellets of pollutants/poison/biochem nasties to a gauss
round is one of the most completely and utterly despicable things possible,
thinkable only by madmen and murderers bent on the vilest of atrocities.

Better?

> The Islamic Federation vehemently denies any such accusation
Brian shrugged:
> Very well. I hereby retract any accusation that the very idea

Mmm, I don't think that we have any gauss guns, so yeah, that's
okay.... ;-)

(It was really the ESU who poisoned the diplomats at Sulaxor. Really truly.)

In a message dated 4/25/00 7:09:31 PM Central Daylight Time,
> agoodall@interlog.com writes:

<< Not only aren't they sterilized, the crap that the projectile carries is
pretty nasty (I have a book that explains complications due to death by
gunshots; for a quicker summary, there is a great scene in "Three Kings" that
details it). Gauss projectiles would probably result in fewer side effects.
> [quoted text omitted]

A good percentage of the contaminates in a bullet wound are comprised of

clothing fibers from the victim. The cloth is cut off by the projectile and
the bone, and may be found within the wound in layers of underwear and outer
garments. Patton insisted on his men going into combat in clean clothing

whenever possible.

On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 17:16:33 PDT "Brian Bilderback"
> <bbilderback@hotmail.com> writes:

Ah, human nature at it's finest. I suspect that like poison gas and nuclear
weapons when the other side has them too, this becomes less likely to be
employed. SO, if both (or all for 3cornered wars [plus] as long as everybody
knows HOW to do this, nobody will.

Unless they are losing in a area deemed 'critical' by the losing power. Never
corner a wounded animal unless you want to risk getting injured during the
'kill.'

Gracias.
Glenn Wilson, Triple Threat Wargamer - (loses equally well in
SF/Fantasy/Historical Games.)  Prefers Fantasy Dwarves, Starguard
Science
Fiction, 1500-1700 North America Skirmishes, the First Crusade.

G'day,

> A good percentage of the contaminates in a bullet wound are comprised

Now we know the real reason behind all those jokes regarding mothers insisting
you go out wearing clean underwear...;P

Beth

Glenn Wilson piped:
> Ah, human nature at it's finest. I suspect that like poison

Of course, if using NBC weapons invites retaliation, then you have to decide
whether it's just Critical, or Really Critical.

> Now we know the real reason behind all those jokes regarding

"If you're killed and are found to be wearing dirty underwear, won't you be
embarrassed?"

Just a quick question from your friendly list lurker:-

"Unless some sick soul thought of embedding nastiness into the round
intentionally..."

Has anyone considered or discussed "nasties" embedded within rounds? Is it
plausible to think that someone could include things such as DU (depleted
uranium) in their rounds. The yanks used it in their tanks in the gulf, silver
bullets, could it be loaded in a SAW or APSW to "deal" with power armour?
Could it be possible to manufacture 5.56 or 7.62 DU rounds? They would
certailny 'mess up' a power armour squad quick smart.

Just a thought

Nic

In a message dated 4/25/00 10:18:24 PM Central Daylight Time,
ntmor@www.com writes:

<<
Has anyone considered or discussed "nasties" embedded within rounds? Is it
plausible to think that someone could include things such as DU (depleted
uranium) in their rounds. The yanks used it in their tanks in the gulf, silver
bullets, could it be loaded in a SAW or APSW to "deal" with power armour?
Could it be possible to manufacture 5.56 or 7.62 DU rounds? They would
certailny 'mess up' a power armour squad quick smart.
> [quoted text omitted]

Plutonium buckshot? The metal itself is poisonous

> >
Even so, the propellant of a caseless round weighs something, doesn't it. If
you don't have to carry that weight, it's a plus.

The intent of a gauss weapon is to inflict damage with pure force. Hopefully
so much force that were you to embed any nastyness in the weapon it would be
anhilated on impact and rendered useless. If it isn't, you just aren't trying
hard enough.

> On 25 Apr 2000 ntmor@www.com wrote:

> Just a quick question from your friendly list lurker:-

In a message dated 4/26/00 2:46:49 PM Central Daylight Time,
> sportyspam@harm.dhs.org writes:

<<   The intent of a gauss weapon is to inflict damage with pure force.
Hopefully so much force that were you to embed any nastyness in the weapon it
would be anhilated on impact and rendered useless. If it isn't, you just
aren't trying hard enough. >>

And this is NOT the purpose of a conventional cartridge and projectile? I
would point out that Glazer rounds have a filler (teflon gel and #12 shot)
and it works quite well - you get LESS penetration, though

> On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 23:49:06 EDT, Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:

> Plutonium buckshot? The metal itself is poisonous

It's also fairly rare. It's a little expensive to add insult to injury
(or,
more accurately, long term disability to... uh... long term disability).

In a message dated 4/26/00 7:05:27 PM Central Daylight Time,
> agoodall@interlog.com writes:

<<
It's also fairly rare. It's a little expensive to add insult to injury
(or,
more accurately, long term disability to... uh... long term disability).

> [quoted text omitted]

Plutonium is rare, indeed. Plutonium poisoninghwever is not a long-term
disability - with a pellet the size of buckshot you would probably be
dead within thirty days or so.

> It's also fairly rare. It's a little expensive to add insult

And how much more "disabled" and "long term" could you get?

In a message dated 4/26/00 7:22:57 PM Central Daylight Time,
> laserlight@quixnet.net writes:

<< And how much more "disabled" and "long term" could you get? >>

Dead, after all, is dead - what is more long term than that?

In message <200004251828.UAA04842@d1o902.telia.com> "Oerjan Ohlson" writes:
> Thomas.Barclay wrote:

During trials a decade or so ago the US tested various "Advanced Combat
Rifles". Steyr produced an ACR which fired sabotted flechettes that look, to
my untrained eye to be considerably thinner than 10:1... maybe 20:1. Old
copies of Jane's Infantry Stuff may have the gen on the Steyr ACR, possibly
the new one does not.

> Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 4/27/00 6:25:09 AM Central Daylight Time,
nyrath@clark.net writes:

<<
For some time in the immediate future you are going to be short a soldier,
while your opponent will have the use of his poisioned soldier until said
soldier is too sick to function.
> [quoted text omitted]

AT which point he will tie up medics, transportation people, hospital
facilities, graves and registration people and expend a large portion of cash
to support his last days - a "wounded" individual is always more expense
than a KIA to his war effort. But that's not an important point right now.
Plutonium poisoning was reputedly used by the KGB as an assassination weapon
- a tiny sliver of the metal was jabbed into the victim.

> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:07:59 EDT, Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:

> Plutonium is rare, indeed. Plutonium poisoninghwever is not a long-term

> disability - with a pellet the size of buckshot you would probably be

That's pretty long term. *S* I want the guy dead NOW! *L*

> On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 11:30:44 EDT, Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:

> AT which point he will tie up medics, transportation people, hospital

The problem is that it's still fairly slow acting (as weapons go). A soldier
hit by such a weapon could still walk to the aid station to find out he's
going to die. I forget the name of the scientist who died during the Manhattan
Project due to a test pile going critical, but he was able to make it to the
hospital on his own power before dying a couple of days later.

I'm not saying this is isn't a valid weapon. However, I think the care needed
to manufacture and store such a weapon, not to mention the fact that it's
pretty rare and could be better used for other purposes, makes it an
impractical weapon.

Finally, do you REALLY want the other guy's wounded soldiers to think that
they're gonners in 30 days anyway, so they might as well take you with
them...? I'd rather the other guy's wounded walked, crawled, or dragged
themselves to the nearest aid station.

But it might work. I'm trying to think of a reason for doing it. Perhaps in a
universe where limb replacement and battlefield surgery are very easy, and
most soldiers have good body armour, there would be a need for killing
soldiers with an incurable "poison".

In a message dated 4/29/00 1:44:45 AM Central Daylight Time,
> agoodall@interlog.com writes:

<<
Finally, do you REALLY want the other guy's wounded soldiers to think that
they're gonners in 30 days anyway, so they might as well take you with
them...? I'd rather the other guy's wounded walked, crawled, or dragged
themselves to the nearest aid station.
> [quoted text omitted]

Dead is usually better - but plutonium poisoning victims will not
comeafter you they get very sick and die unable to wreak any vengeance on
anyone.

> From: Popeyesays@aol.com

> that

How QUICKLY do they become to sick and weak to do any harm? If the effect
isn't immediate, you still have a doomed, vengeance-bent enemy on your
hands.

> Brian Bilderback wrote:

        Plutonium as a toxic substance is highly over-rated.

http://ans.ep.wisc.edu/~ans/point_source/AEI/may95/plutonium_eff.html