2 Guests viewing this page
Hidden 9 yrs ago Post by Iluvatar
Raw
Avatar of Iluvatar

Iluvatar The British

Member Seen 7 yrs ago

I'll do an IC post shortly. Just working on a quick map, seeing as no one appears to have made one yet :)
Hidden 9 yrs ago Post by Durandal
Raw
Avatar of Durandal

Durandal Lord Commissar

Member Seen 7 yrs ago

@MetalLover
Is there any set amount of time in game that passes every day real life?
Hidden 9 yrs ago Post by Willy Vereb
Raw
Avatar of Willy Vereb

Willy Vereb The Wordy Engineer

Member Seen 6 days ago

@MetalLover
Is there any set amount of time in game that passes every day real life?
I'd actually prefer if it don't.
The RP seems to be on a fast start but still I prefer not to be rushed.

Hidden 9 yrs ago 9 yrs ago Post by Willy Vereb
Raw
Avatar of Willy Vereb

Willy Vereb The Wordy Engineer

Member Seen 6 days ago

>Railguns

MBT armor plating has probably advanced to the point where conventional cannons are wholly ineffective against it.

M1A3 is the new T-54/55 of 2050.
Railguns aren't THAT much more effective, actually.
Multi-stage cannons and/or liquid propellant can easily make up for the difference.
Heck, even going for 150mm range guns would be cutting close to that level.
Actually, conventional cannons have a lot of advantages over railguns so long we don't get to unrealistic stupid high levels of power.
Mounting railguns would basically limit a tank to be a one-trick pony which uses the same method to engage all kinds of targets.
Meanwhile conventional cannons can use various sensitive/intelligent munitions, gun-launched missiles and actual complex ammunition.
Albeit this versatility comes at the cost of ammo.
Once the rail erosion issue is solved the Railgun is actually a much more economical weapon on the long run. We are 35 years in the future so I suppose the very least people solved this much.

Speaking of which, technically the setting would also support railgun rifles, too.
Railgun components scale down relatively well and your only concern is the power source.
I think compact enough batteries with solar panels and other alternatives for charging are doable.
Personal laers are possible, too. But well, they would be pretty poor in this aspect.
I made calculations assuming a 100kW pulse laser weapon with the spot diameter of 5cm against human targets. It works rather well against unarmored enemies but once I put it against any sorts of body armor material you won't even burn that through a millimeter. So your only chance is hoping the armor wasn't treated to block radiation and the bleedthrough is sufficient to harm whoever is inside that suit.
That's a 100kW system (my anti-missile defense if you wonder, wanted to test how it'd fare in anti-infantry role)
You'd be happy to have a 1-5kW handheld laser rifle with your infantry.

EDIT: But yeah, M1 Abrams or Leopard 2 would be pretty much the T-54/55 of the setting if not worse.
At first I wanted to say T-72 but those tanks at least have the potential to put up a fight.
Hidden 9 yrs ago Post by Keyguyperson
Raw
Avatar of Keyguyperson

Keyguyperson Welcome to Cyberhell

Member Seen 6 mos ago

<Snipped quote by ASTA>Railguns aren't THAT much more effective, actually.
Multi-stage cannons and/or liquid propellant can easily make up for the difference.
Heck, even going for 150mm range guns would be cutting close to that level.
Actually, conventional cannons have a lot of advantages over railguns so long we don't get to unrealistic stupid high levels of power.
Mounting railguns would basically limit a tank to be a one-trick pony which uses the same method to engage all kinds of targets.
Meanwhile conventional cannons can use various sensitive/intelligent munitions, gun-launched missiles and actual complex ammunition.
Albeit this versatility comes at the cost of ammo.
Once the rail erosion issue is solved the Railgun is actually a much more economical weapon on the long run. We are 35 years in the future so I suppose the very least people solved this much.

Speaking of which, technically the setting would also support railgun rifles, too.
Railgun components scale down relatively well and your only concern is the power source.
I think compact enough batteries with solar panels and other alternatives for charging are doable.
Personal laers are possible, too. But well, they would be pretty poor in this aspect.
I made calculations assuming a 100kW pulse laser weapon with the spot diameter of 5cm against human targets. It works rather well against unarmored enemies but once I put it against any sorts of body armor material you won't even burn that through a millimeter. So your only chance is hoping the armor wasn't treated to block radiation and the bleedthrough is sufficient to harm whoever is inside that suit.
That's a 100kW system (my anti-missile defense if you wonder, wanted to test how it'd fare in anti-infantry role)
You'd be happy to have a 1-5kW handheld laser rifle with your infantry.

EDIT: But yeah, M1 Abrams or Leopard 2 would be pretty much the T-54/55 of the setting if not worse.
At first I wanted to say T-72 but those tanks at least have the potential to put up a fight.


Like you said, power supply is the problem. An infantry railgun would need to have a massive backpack to be of any use, and if you want it to be a super-death murder kill I-shoot-and-one-slug-goes-through-twelve-people, then you'd probably need a robot to carry the power with you (aside from the robot carrying the generator so that you are capable of reloading). And of course, if you go for the latter, you've basically got something closer to a turret that has to be set up. The main problem with railguns is that they have extremely limited "ammunition", and have to constantly be resupplied with new batteries. If you build a force around railguns that doesn't have a couple nuclear generators driving along with it, you lose your supply lines and all your weapons are worthless. So far, the smallest thing we can mount railguns on is the Zumwalt.

Obviously, at this point, it's possible to mount them on tanks. The real question is whether or not that's even a slightly good idea. Artillery? Sure, longer range. Tanks? Well, the shell is probably going to go straight through the tank. Which actually isn't all that useful. Long range, explosive payloads are the best way to go with railguns. Unless you're on a ship. In which case throw railguns everywhere and rain a hailstorm of shells upon your enemy at six times the speed of found from a hundred kilometers away.
Hidden 9 yrs ago 9 yrs ago Post by Willy Vereb
Raw
Avatar of Willy Vereb

Willy Vereb The Wordy Engineer

Member Seen 6 days ago

<Snipped quote by Willy Vereb>

Like you said, power supply is the problem. An infantry railgun would need to have a massive backpack to be of any use, and if you want it to be a super-death murder kill I-shoot-and-one-slug-goes-through-twelve-people, then you'd probably need a robot to carry the power with you (aside from the robot carrying the generator so that you are capable of reloading). And of course, if you go for the latter, you've basically got something closer to a turret that has to be set up. The main problem with railguns is that they have extremely limited "ammunition", and have to constantly be resupplied with new batteries. If you build a force around railguns that doesn't have a couple nuclear generators driving along with it, you lose your supply lines and all your weapons are worthless. So far, the smallest thing we can mount railguns on is the Zumwalt.

Obviously, at this point, it's possible to mount them on tanks. The real question is whether or not that's even a slightly good idea. Artillery? Sure, longer range. Tanks? Well, the shell is probably going to go straight through the tank. Which actually isn't all that useful. Long range, explosive payloads are the best way to go with railguns. Unless you're on a ship. In which case throw railguns everywhere and rain a hailstorm of shells upon your enemy at six times the speed of found from a hundred kilometers away.
Explosives in general are way too sensitive for railgun acceleration.
I mean 2.5-3 km/s? That's almost the velocity the actual chemical blows up at and you reach this in practically an instant. Actually, that's the whole point. The projectile would practically behave like an explosive thus penetrating the target AND doing widespread damage. A 3.4kg projectile accelerated to 2.5 km/s is almost like 3.4 kg of TNT.
And yeah, batteries would be kind of the "ammo" for railguns and generally it'd be more complex than regular guns.
Would it worth?
It may in certain situations. The inert bullets are way lighter than cartridges so unless the batteries are too cumbersome (which it probably won't because over thousands of times more powerful weapons are mounted on tanks and thus it would scale down reasonably here, think of a 1-2 kilograms at the absolute worst) it actually saves a ton of weight or allow the soldier to carry much more ammo. The point is that railguns won't be retardedly more powerful than regular guns. They can be made more affordable in sense of logistics. The fact they accelerate the projectile through entire length makes their recoil lower than what firearms have at the same power (which allows you to field somewhat more powerful guns that can be handled the same).
As for recharging, yeah, that's an issue. solar panels or other field alternatives may help when you are cut off from supplies but that's it. Guns also run out of ammo so this isn't anything new. Actually mechanised units may use the engine of their own vehicle like a generator to recharge their weapons. This combined with the more plentiful ammo would actually make railguns worthwhile in combat.
As I said, the point isn't to make some awesome super gun that can take down anything in its way. That's Hollywood. You'd never be able to handle the recoil of such gun. Reality is something only 20-50% more powerful than conventional firearms and its real advantages come from more complex reasons.

Hidden 9 yrs ago Post by Iluvatar
Raw
Avatar of Iluvatar

Iluvatar The British

Member Seen 7 yrs ago

Posted :)
Hidden 9 yrs ago Post by Durandal
Raw
Avatar of Durandal

Durandal Lord Commissar

Member Seen 7 yrs ago

I'll just stick with good, old conventional ballistics for the most part. Ya'll can keep most of your fancy rail guns.
Hidden 9 yrs ago 9 yrs ago Post by Willy Vereb
Raw
Avatar of Willy Vereb

Willy Vereb The Wordy Engineer

Member Seen 6 days ago

Actually, reading it up.
A compact carbon-nanotube based fuel cell is the best solution for the power source issue. It can effectively store 100 times more than Li-ion batteries so that means you can indeed jack up plenty of megajoules of charge into less than a kilogram.
So yeah, railgun rifles can be pretty much a reality for this RP. Again, if you think about some kind of superweapon which shoots through everything then you played too much videogames.
In effect you just gave yourself a gun which while performs somewhat better than firearms but its real advantages are elsewhere.
More ammo, almost arbitrarily adjustable projectile speeds (you need a tiny bullet accelerated to hypersonic velocities? You got it!), better rate of fire (basically only limited by the speed which the rail can slide forward then back) and more evenly distributed recoil (which would require to change the design of guns drastically). If the design is tried and proven like such a future setting then I suppose cost won't be that much in comparison (still many times more expensive than a simple gun) and it'll be reliable like any firearm (or perhaps even more).
So yeah, I am actually now thinking of giving railguns to my infantry.Well, probably not to all of them.
Hidden 9 yrs ago 9 yrs ago Post by SpookySquid
Raw
Avatar of SpookySquid

SpookySquid 3 Spooky 5 Me

Member Seen 2 yrs ago

Didn't mean to post my CS there, but I guess it's going to wind up there anyways. I know it's not approved yet.
Hidden 9 yrs ago Post by Keyguyperson
Raw
Avatar of Keyguyperson

Keyguyperson Welcome to Cyberhell

Member Seen 6 mos ago

Fun fact: In the entire USN Pacific Fleet, there is one frigate. Just one. It is named Gary.

I found that out while researching the fleet to figure out how many ships I would have.
2x Like Like
Hidden 9 yrs ago Post by EveryMemeAKing
Raw
GM
Avatar of EveryMemeAKing

EveryMemeAKing Every Man A King

Member Seen 7 yrs ago

Fun fact: In the entire USN Pacific Fleet, there is one frigate. Just one. It is named Gary.

I found that out while researching the fleet to figure out how many ships I would have.


Well thats nice.
Hidden 9 yrs ago Post by Willy Vereb
Raw
Avatar of Willy Vereb

Willy Vereb The Wordy Engineer

Member Seen 6 days ago

@MetalLoverDid you read the discussion we had about railguns?
Since they could be very much a future plausibility would you allow hand-carried railguns?
They would be potentially better than standard guns but far from as OP as they are presented in games and movies.
Basically think of an alternative to firearms. Both having their advantages and disadvantages.
There are already existing and real concepts to solve the issue with having a sufficiently compact power source.

Basically think of a different assault rifle or sniper gun and that's pretty much what a railgun are.
Hidden 9 yrs ago Post by EveryMemeAKing
Raw
GM
Avatar of EveryMemeAKing

EveryMemeAKing Every Man A King

Member Seen 7 yrs ago

@MetalLoverDid you read the discussion we had about railguns?
Since they could be very much a future plausibility would you allow hand-carried railguns?
They would be potentially better than standard guns but far from as OP as they are presented in games and movies.
Basically think of an alternative to firearms. Both having their advantages and disadvantages.
There are already existing and real concepts to solve the issue with having a sufficiently compact power source.

Basically think of a different assault rifle or sniper gun and that's pretty much what a railgun are.


Yeah no, we do not have Hand Carried railguns. The compact power source has not been found, yet.
Hidden 9 yrs ago 9 yrs ago Post by Willy Vereb
Raw
Avatar of Willy Vereb

Willy Vereb The Wordy Engineer

Member Seen 6 days ago

<Snipped quote by Willy Vereb>

Yeah no, we do not have Hand Carried railguns. The compact power source has not been found, yet.
It was found in the modern world already. It's called compact carbon-nanotube based hydrogen fuel cells.
Also by pure scaling off from the tank-mounted railguns we already should have the power source to feed 1-10kJ range railguns with relative ease.
Also we already have powered exoskeletons so that's another nail in the coffin for the lack of compact power sources.

Hidden 9 yrs ago Post by EveryMemeAKing
Raw
GM
Avatar of EveryMemeAKing

EveryMemeAKing Every Man A King

Member Seen 7 yrs ago

<Snipped quote by MetalLover>It was found in the modern world already. It's called compact carbon-nanotube based hydrogen fuel cells.
Also by pure scaling off from the tank-mounted railguns we already should have the power source to feed 1-10kJ range railguns with relative ease.


Ok then, we can have hand-carried railguns, but they will not be as powerful as tank mounted railguns.
Hidden 9 yrs ago Post by Willy Vereb
Raw
Avatar of Willy Vereb

Willy Vereb The Wordy Engineer

Member Seen 6 days ago

<Snipped quote by Willy Vereb>

Ok then, we can have hand-carried railguns, but they will not be as powerful as tank mounted railguns.
Of course they don't.
That was the whole point.
They are just another alternate design for guns.
Both firearms and railguns have its set of advantages and disadvantages.

Hidden 9 yrs ago Post by Durandal
Raw
Avatar of Durandal

Durandal Lord Commissar

Member Seen 7 yrs ago

It appears we are averaging a steady 1 post per hour. A good tempo.
Hidden 9 yrs ago Post by Willy Vereb
Raw
Avatar of Willy Vereb

Willy Vereb The Wordy Engineer

Member Seen 6 days ago

Another question which I suppose is also kind of late.
Since it's the future how much CNTs will be available?
Near-future plans involve reducing its cost to 100 dollars per kg which is about 3 times the price of tungsten (granted, tungsten is also about 14 times denser than CNT so the same volume of material will worth about 20% that of tungsten).
But that's the near-future.
Can CNT become an almost common material for our setting?
I mean it's almost mandatory for exoskeletons and such.
I also made the Bocskai III tanks entirely out of this.
As always CNT is no wondermaterial and isn't the ultimate form of protection or whatever. It has various potentials, though.
For starters it absolutely replaces aluminium, light alloys or even many of the plastic-based materials.
Including Kevlar, of course. New body armors would be made of CNT which would weight the same (or less, if we consider the exclusion of steel plates and such).
Hidden 9 yrs ago Post by Keyguyperson
Raw
Avatar of Keyguyperson

Keyguyperson Welcome to Cyberhell

Member Seen 6 mos ago

Here's my final app. I made a major change to the military section. I don't think it's too strong, but you might have another opinion.

↑ Top
2 Guests viewing this page
© 2007-2024
BBCode Cheatsheet