The discussion continues.
Assuming your vehicle is using an FGP or some other abundant energy source
(likely in a HT vehicle), you'll have the power source to drive the
accelerator for a railgun. On a personal level, your battery is probably in
the magazine. Is battery + lighter rounds better than cased or caseless
CP rounds? Depends on your battery tech, don't it?:)
But someone hit on a relatively large advantage to gauss rounds: No dangerous
propellants. (Okay, batteries are dangerous, as is an FGP, but you already
have those anyway). No need to bunker your ammo on the back of the turret with
blow out panels on top. Gauss rounds might splinter if hit, but won't explode.
Also, resupply is easier. I actually suspect it will be cheaper to produce
ferromagnetic slivers than it ever will be to produce a bullet plus
propellant. Again, this argument boils down to manufacturing. But if you can
go to space, I hope you can find a cheap way to produce a tightly spec'd gauss
round for a minimal cost. It might even be an automated factory (dump
in metal - either as ore or recycled damaged vehicles or whatever - get
out gauss gun rounds). The Alarish might NEVER run out of ammo...
Are accelerators fragile? Is a magnet (even an electromagnet) fragile? I'd say
the lighter the weapon, the more likely you will have a reliability issue
(this is a generic comment not just applicable to gauss). I'd also say that
the newer the technology, the more fragile. But mature gauss technology is
probably robust, reliable, and cheap. It's everyone's call to determine if
that is where the GZGverse is. I suspect we haven't quite reached the age
where this is ubiquitous yet. (Though, if current US tank development plans
come to fruition, we may see mass drivers on the battlefield in 20 years).
A gauss rounds high velocity will make it more accurate. Anyplace you can get
an external power source (plug into the local grid, such FGP power from your
tank, whatever), you can dispense with battery weight. The rounds will
probably be germ free (barring loading hollowed casing with nastiness) due to
the high heat they'll be subjected to.
A gauss round will probably overpenetrate against unarmoured targets because
it'll be designed to hit armoured targets. A fragmenting version may be
available for lightly armoured targets. Since, in many engagements, you'd
rather wound than kill, you really are fairly happy to just poke a small hole
in an enemy through his armour. Anyone remember the nasty triangular bayonet?
Hard to tell how bad a wound was. Imagine a gauss round...
And, as Oerjan pointed out, CPR guns can have a 10:1 l:d ratio on the
rounds... maybe... I don't know about that. I assume there is a reason this
has never been done with smaller calibre small arms rounds. Probably a gauss
round for a smaller weapon could actually (due to higher V) have better flight
characteristics that can't be achieved with a CPR round without a ridiculous
amount of propellant, but I don't know. I just know I've never seen a rifle
round or MG round in that configuration yet for a CPR gun.
Anyway, regardless of wizzo technology, the idea of hurling 4mm needles
around at ridiculous velocities is very sci-fi and pretty cool.... :)
> From: "Thomas.Barclay" <Thomas.Barclay@cbu.xwavesolutions.com>
One option which would not work for rapid fire weapons might work for a
gauss sniper rifle - a smaller battery and a capacitor - the battery
doesn't
have the juice to fire a round, and doesn't try - it merely recharges a
capacitor which stores up enough juice for one shote, fires it, then has to
recharge. Again, a very very slow rate of fire - but for an expert
sniper, stealthy and capable of delivering a one shot one kill attack, it
might be useful, since it would provide a lighter weapon.
> Snip< Also, resupply is easier. I actually suspect it will be cheaper
I pointed out the resupply/space saving issue. But it's not just a
strategic logistical advantage - from the view of the individual tank
crew, the advantage is also an increase in the number of rounds they can
store, which increases the amount of time they can stay on the line before
having to rearm.
> Are accelerators fragile? Is a magnet (even an electromagnet) fragile?
No more so than say, loads of propellant.
> And, as Oerjan pointed out, CPR guns can have a 10:1 l:d ratio on the
What's a CPR gun? Forgive the ignorance, I'm still learning.
> Anyway, regardless of wizzo technology, the idea of hurling 4mm needles
And in tyhe end, isn't that what all of this is REALLY about, at least in the
context of this list?
[quoted original message omitted]
In a message dated 4/26/00 7:09:37 PM Central Daylight Time,
> RobHofrich@peoplepc.com writes:
<<
Anyway, I may be off on this, as I'm not a mechanical engineer, but it sounds
right.
> [quoted text omitted]
Sounds right to me. As an interesting point the sabot depleted uranium round
in tank rounds is VERY blunt - the nice sharp point is a windscreen.
Here the front end of the penetrator is not really in contact with the gun
barrel and
does not go through the stress you describe above - the "shoe" does
instead.
Brian Bilderback
> One option which would not work for rapid fire weapons might work for
Ouch! Sorry, but that's unlikely to be a popular option for a couple of
reasons.
Snipers currently depend on being able to take two shots in fairly rapid
succession so you'd have to increase your capacitor size somewhat.
Too many things to go wrong - snipers hate that. There's nothing as
miserable as spending a week or two crawling onto target to find you have an
equipment failure and have to go all the way back again. A spare spring and
firing pin are easy to carry, but spare batteries and capacitors?
Weapon weight is not a problem.
Isn't a gauss weapon very likely to leave a trail back to the firer?
---
> Robert W. Hofrichter wrote:
> I suspect the reason no one makes 10:1 ratio small arms rounds has >to
The sabot of a long rod projectile (or flechette, for small arms) supports the
rod all along its length, so the structural integrity of
the rod isn't a serious problem during the in-bore phase of the shot.
The real problems arise when the rod hits something hard, like a metal
helmet :-/
Flechettes tend to go pretty much straight through a human without tumbling.
Because of this a flechette wound is usually less damaging than a wound from a
normal bullet. However, I don't know how a
hyperfelocity flechette would behave - the ones I know anything to
speak of about are fired from artillery shells and beehive rounds, not from
gauss rifles or railguns <g>
I haven't been able to find the flechette-firing Steyr ACR in our old
JIWs, but their Anti-Matériel Rifle firing 15.2mm APFSDS rounds is
still listed. It doesn't seem to have a smashing success though, and was
explicitly designed for use against vehicles and similar
lightly-armoured point targets - not against infantry.
Regards,
> From: "Steve Gill" <Steve@caws.demon.co.uk>
Or use a pair of capacitors and an automatic switch of some sort.
> Too many things to go wrong - snipers hate that. There's nothing as
Springs and firing pins are also moving parts, which are much more likely to
NEED replacing. And with advances in tech, batteries and capacitors shouldn't
weigh too much or take up too much space.
> Weapon weight is not a problem.
No? Then why hasn't the Barret Light 50 replaced every other sniper rifle out
there? It's accurate, has incredible range, and carries the full authority of
a.50 calibre round. But it's also a bear to lug, which limits it's use.
> Isn't a gauss weapon very likely to leave a trail back to the firer?
I can't see why, at least not any more than a conventional weapon.
In a message dated 4/27/00 1:53:46 PM Central Daylight Time,
> bbilderback@hotmail.com writes:
<< >Isn't a gauss weapon very likely to leave a trail back to the firer?
> [quoted text omitted]
No sound signature - and no flash. Why would it leave a trail?
> << >Isn't a gauss weapon very likely to leave a trail back to
No sound signature? You're saying it's a sub-Mach projectile?
In a message dated 4/28/00 11:51:08 PM Central Daylight Time,
> laserlight@quixnet.net writes:
<< No sound signature? You're saying it's a sub-Mach projectile? >>
Depends entirely upon whether you want a sniper weapon with a sonic crack or
not - just like you can make sub-sonic bullets from a conventional
weapon.
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 01:48:10 EDT, Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
> Depends entirely upon whether you want a sniper weapon with a sonic
A gauss weapon with sub-sonic bullets is missing the point, I think. At
mv^^2,
the mass of a gauss bullet is dropped but achieves superior energy due to high
velocities it reaches. If you want a subsonic projectile, you should probably
use a chemical slug thrower.
> Depends entirely upon whether you want a sniper weapon with a
Reminds me of the aforementioned Traveler campaign. Xray lasers were supposed
to be silent and invisible. The engineer of the group calculated that you'd
see the line of superheated air between laser and target, and hear the
thunderclap, so it would be a lot stealthier to take an M16..
Sound and position of entry wound should give general direction at least.
Faces North is hit in head, round frobably from front (SSE,S,SSW.)
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.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 00:46:18 -0400 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> << >Isn't a gauss weapon very likely to leave a trail back to
> From: Popeyesays@aol.com
Actually, I DIDN'T write that. Someone else did - and I replied with
the same answer you just gave.
> From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
I was wondering that myself, and reached two conclusions:
1: It might be possible to design a gauss weapon that fired a subsonic round.
Those with more technical expertise will have to have the final word on the
feasability AND desireability of such.
2: Perhaps it's possible to develop a gauss round that was sleek and narrow
enough that it would not create much of a pressure cone. That way, even if
there is a sonic boom, it would be reduced.
I dunno, just some thoughts. Whaddaya think?
In a message dated 4/29/00 1:48:12 AM Central Daylight Time,
> agoodall@interlog.com writes:
<<
A gauss weapon with sub-sonic bullets is missing the point, I think. At
mv^^2,
the mass of a gauss bullet is dropped but achieves superior energy due to high
velocities it reaches. If you want a subsonic projectile, you should probably
use a chemical slug thrower.
> [quoted text omitted]
ACtually the smaller the size of the projectile the tinier the boom as well.
But a sonic crack is less of a signature than the detonation of the chemical
propellant in a conventional weapon which is nicely channelled dow range by
the nature of the barrel.
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> No sound signature - and no flash. Why would it leave a trail?
> round.
No problem at all. Just turn down the magnetic fields (or, if you're using a
railgun, the driving current) to suit your needs.
However, sub-sonic velocities means low range (or long range with lousy
accuracy), and unless you fire a very heavy projectile it won't inflict very
much damage if it hits.
Since two of the big advantages with gauss rifles and railguns over today's
small arms is the high muzzle velocity (which gives good
accuracy at long ranges) and small/light projectiles (so you can carry
lots of them), designing a gauss small arm to fire large low-velocity
projectiles sounds a bit contradictory.
> 2: Perhaps it's possible to develop a gauss round that was sleek and
A flechette has a smaller pressure cone than a bullet fired at the same
velocity, but the difference is rather small - IIRC (after a weekend's
partying) the velocity of the round is at least as important as its cross
section area.
Later,
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 10:21:56PM +0200, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
In one of the GURPS SF sourcebooks, they mention that
ship-board troops intentionally use sub-sonic, spherical rounds
in the gauss rifles in order to minimize equipment damage. It seemed
reasonable when I read it, at least.
> Robert Crawford wrote:
> In one of the GURPS SF sourcebooks, they mention that
The main problem is that a round designed to minimize equipment damage is also
pretty much designed to minimize penetration of enemy body armour...
Regards,
A highly subjective question: What would be the materials used for a gauss
flechette?
My assumption would be a high regidity, high temperature resistant metal
(steel, titanium, iridium) or highly magneticly sensitive (as opposed to
magnetic itself), advanced ceramic.
Softer metals such as lead, would probably not stand upto the flight stress or
impact stresses involved. (Yes, I know that the whole flechette would be
pulled by the magnetic field until it leaves the barrel, but at the end of the
barrel or gauss field, the rear of the flechette would still be
pulled/pushed while the front of the flechette would be pushed by the
air in front of the projectile (acutally the flechette would be doing the
pushing, but you get the idea)).
Also, for the flechette to have any accuracy over distance, it would need to
be stabilized. The force on the nose of the flechette would be greater than
that on the other parts of the flechette. Any variance in angle, would cause
the flechette to start to tumble. Tumbling would decrease both penetration and
accuracy. I see two ways to provide stabilization.
1. The flechette has fins or is a flattned wedge shape (that would act as
fins). Both of these have the disadvantage of an odd fit when in the barrel. A
uniform shape would be much easier to force to the center of a barrel for
firing. Also, if using fins, it would require a much higher tech base to
manufacture these. And it would make the ammo itself more easily damaged while
loading. 2. The flechette is spin stablized. I see three ways to do this also.
a. Rifled flechette. The flechette, itslef, has rifling on it. As it passes
through the air the air is channeld through the rifiling channels and imparts
spin. b. Rifle the barrel. This has the disadvanatge of generating lots of
heat (from friction) as the flechette leaves the barrel at hypersonic
velosity. c. Spin the flechette by magnetic force. The flechette would need to
be comprised of two materials. One that is magntically sensitive, and one that
is not. The magnetic and nonmagnetic parts would be arranged in a symetric
pattern along the long axis of the projectile. The barrel of the gun would use
either alternating magnetic fields to impart spin, or the magnets would be
arranged in a spiral pattern in the gun (pulling the magnetic parts of the
flechette in a rifled path).
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
> Bell, Brian K wrote:
> A highly subjective question:
Tungsten or DU in a steel matrix are quite likely. My only experience with
titanium is that it deforms quite easily (ie, has low rigidity), but that may
simply be because of the particular quality we used and the environment we use
it in <g>
> or highly magneticly sensitive (as opposed to magnetic itself),
The ceramics we have today tend to be extremely hard, but very brittle.
Unless some really radical break-throughs are made, I wouldn't use
ceramics unless I was absolutely positive that the opposition used no
hard body armour. A ceramic coating for a high-strength metal core to
reduce abrading and melting might work, though.
The flechette itself doesn't need to be magnetic or magnetically
sensitive if you have a sabot, driving disk or similar which is - and
which doesn't cause too serious disturbances when it is discarded :-/
> Softer metals such as lead, would probably not stand upto the flight
The muzzle effects are rather minor compared to the lead melting due to air
friction in the trajectory and deforming beyond recognition when it hits the
target. You can design your gun to reduce the stresses on the flechette as it
leaves the barrel, but you usually can't design your
atmosphere to have less friction :-/
> Also, for the flechette to have any accuracy over distance, it would
That's one way to put it. Another is "If the flechette starts to tumble, it'll
stop dead within a few dozen meters." <g>
> I see two ways to provide stabilization.
Today's flechettes usually have a slight bulge at the rear end, and look a bit
like streamlined pins. Very simple to manufacture, robust in handling, don't
abrade away nearly as much as a real fin would (ie, the flechette will stay
stabilized for a lot longer than it would have if it used real fins), and has
pretty much the same effect as real fins for such small projectiles. The odd
fit in the barrel is a problem, but I suspect that that'll be a lot easier to
solve than the alternative:
> 2. The flechette is spin stablized.
You don't want to know have fast it'd need to spin in order to stay stable.
The longer and thinner a projectile is, the harder it is to spin stabilize...
flechettes are *very* long and thin.
> I see three ways to do this also.
Hasn't worked very well in practise for existing ammunition, and is extremely
sensitive to abrading due to air friction (which the hypersonic flechette
already has a serious problem with).
> b. Rifle the barrel. This has the disadvanatge of generating lots of
Heat + friction together means erosion, even though you don't have a
large amount of highly aggressive propellant gasses. Your barrel wear will
approach that of modern machine guns if you try this.
> c. Spin the flechette by magnetic force. The flechette would need to
This could work, but manufacturing such flechettes in large amounts would be a
nightmare.
Regards,
In a message dated 5/1/00 7:39:54 AM Central Daylight Time,
> oerjan.ohlson@telia.com writes:
<<
The main problem is that a round designed to minimize equipment damage is also
pretty much designed to minimize penetration of enemy body armour...
> [quoted text omitted]
Thoughit will still do a job of knocking him ass over teakettle, even if it
doesn't pentrate - maybe combine the weapon with a higher velocity
barrel as
well - leave the low velocity barrel for a knock over weapon like a 12
gauge
barrel is often underslung to an M16, or an M203 underslung - maybe
gauss propelled grenades?