Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I disagree, the railgun would not have a perfect parabolic curve.

Really, air resistance. I think it would be less parabolic and more like the first curve in the diagram, just not so short relative to the apex of the curve.

dogma wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Nope, it can be fired at an angle much like an artillery piece. The physics work out in such a way that little energy is lost in the process.

Well, as with any ballistic projectile, energy is lost. It's simply that energy is then regained through free fall.

If energy were not lost we would be talking about shooting down satellites.

Yes, that is correct, but its the same difference to me in terms of net gains/loss. It was an attempt to to tailor my post to the audience, that being a group that isn't necessarily familiar with the way physics works.

That's ultimately going to be the issue with using this as an over the horizon weapons; solid slugs require direct hits, and that isn't easy to achieve given a ballistic trajectory.

This is true. Since you seem to know what you're talking about: With modern fire control systems we should be able to account for most of the major variables at play (coriolis effect being the one that strikes me as being the biggest issue), and those that aren't unaccounted for should have minimal effect (since the horizontal component of the projectiles velocity should be sufficiently high to not be significantly effected by things such as wind direction, etc.)

I am sure they could deploy explosive rounds the same as they do now so indirect fire is just as effective.

My understanding was that there is no explosive stable enough to NOT explode on launch (either it was an issue with the EM field generated by the thing or it had something to do with the large amounts of energy in general that is put into the round when its fired). Could be wrong on that one though.

The Bringer wrote:I disagree, the railgun would not have a perfect parabolic curve.

Really, air resistance. I think it would be less parabolic and more like the first curve in the diagram, just not so short relative to the apex of the curve.

Enough to ensure a consistent ballistic trajectory though, for something to fall to earth at terminal velocity it must be aided by only gravity, nothing else. If this is travelling at mach 8 it will hit the target at mach 7-8. The thruster form the missile in the first diagram is actually fairly low powered once it runs out of fuel the missile will peter out quickly, then fall to earth once most of its forward momentum is lost.

Elmodiddly wrote:These things will not be fired flat. Even small arms are sighted so that the trajectory of the bullets means it will hit where the sight is aimed at. Unless you are firing something with wings all projectiles, if fired flat, will hit the ground at the same time as dropping the same round at the same height as the horizontal motion is independant of the vertical motion. You have to sight something for the round to travel in an arc on order to hit a target.

Yes, bullets have an arc. I would think the arc of this weapon will be closer to a bullet than to conventional artillery, and nothing like the controlled flight of a missle, which I would think would limit the targets available to the weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Dreadnote wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:Who says they need line of sight?

Sebster, whom you quoted.

No, I didn't. Read.

I am wondering if the much flatter trajectory of this weapon will significantly reduce the number of potential uses it might have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:Good lord, will all of you go back to highschool physics please. It maintains a ballistic trajectory, therefore it comes down at almost the speed it was fired at, it how mortars and howitzers work

It would maintain its horizontal velocity. Which, in the example given, was minimal given it was fired at near vertical. Meanwhile, most of the energe would be put into the vertical velocity, which would be lost.

Your understanding of highschool physics might be very strong, but you need to read the thread much more closely.

chaos0xomega wrote:
This is true. Since you seem to know what you're talking about: With modern fire control systems we should be able to account for most of the major variables at play (coriolis effect being the one that strikes me as being the biggest issue), and those that aren't unaccounted for should have minimal effect (since the horizontal component of the projectiles velocity should be sufficiently high to not be significantly effected by things such as wind direction, etc.)

From my understanding the biggest issue would be standard error rates in the calculation. Er can predict, within a range, where a given projectile will land, but that range is established by the expected error (standard error) in the calculation that establishes the relevant parabolic function. In most cases, as in those with explosive rounds, such thing don't matter much, but when you're firing KEPs its a huge deal.

Hell, standard error on most artillery calculations is ~15 meters, and they don't have 200 mile ranges. I would expect the standard error of the function for this weapon to be much, much larger.

For line of site purposes, the railgun is a more accurate weapon. Long distance, who knows, but the railgun does way more damage. Fun fact, the sabot launched by a railgun does explode, but the explosion isn't generated by explosives, its generated by the sudden release of built up energy. Watch this video, its the most recent test of the railgun (from earlier this month): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BfU-wMwL2U

Notice what happened to the target? It exploded... The interesting thing is that the size of the explosion is partially dependent on the size/mass of the target. In this case, the explosion was relatively small because the target didn't put up enough of a 'fight' against the sabot, and thus the sabot didn't burn off as much energy as it could have.

That video doesn't show it hitting anything. It shows it firing from the side and from the front, the "explosion" is the expulsion of gas and the projective as it leaves the "barrel". That second video segment was taken from inside the white tube shown in the first portion.

dogma wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
This is true. Since you seem to know what you're talking about: With modern fire control systems we should be able to account for most of the major variables at play (coriolis effect being the one that strikes me as being the biggest issue), and those that aren't unaccounted for should have minimal effect (since the horizontal component of the projectiles velocity should be sufficiently high to not be significantly effected by things such as wind direction, etc.)

From my understanding the biggest issue would be standard error rates in the calculation. Er can predict, within a range, where a given projectile will land, but that range is established by the expected error (standard error) in the calculation that establishes the relevant parabolic function. In most cases, as in those with explosive rounds, such thing don't matter much, but when you're firing KEPs its a huge deal.

Hell, standard error on most artillery calculations is ~15 meters, and they don't have 200 mile ranges. I would expect the standard error of the function for this weapon to be much, much larger.

However normal artillery shells aren't travelling this fast, with something going this fast there is little the wind can do to effect it, which is the primary cause of deviation in artillery shells. In addition artillary systems where every thing is under computer contorl can get up to a ~5 meter accuracy rate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Elmodiddly wrote:These things will not be fired flat. Even small arms are sighted so that the trajectory of the bullets means it will hit where the sight is aimed at. Unless you are firing something with wings all projectiles, if fired flat, will hit the ground at the same time as dropping the same round at the same height as the horizontal motion is independant of the vertical motion. You have to sight something for the round to travel in an arc on order to hit a target.

Yes, bullets have an arc. I would think the arc of this weapon will be closer to a bullet than to conventional artillery, and nothing like the controlled flight of a missle, which I would think would limit the targets available to the weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Dreadnote wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:Who says they need line of sight?

Sebster, whom you quoted.

No, I didn't. Read.

I am wondering if the much flatter trajectory of this weapon will significantly reduce the number of potential uses it might have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:Good lord, will all of you go back to highschool physics please. It maintains a ballistic trajectory, therefore it comes down at almost the speed it was fired at, it how mortars and howitzers work

It would maintain its horizontal velocity. Which, in the example given, was minimal given it was fired at near vertical. Meanwhile, most of the energe would be put into the vertical velocity, which would be lost.

Your understanding of highschool physics might be very strong, but you need to read the thread much more closely.

What is you definition of near vertical, because for artillery purposes anything over 50 degrees can be a high angle, also yes much of its energy would be lost on the way up but on the way down if it follows the trajectory of a projectile it will accelerate at the same rate it decelerated, it will also supass turm,inal velocity since it has a force acting on ti other then gravity.

So yes if fired at 89 degrees it will have little impact but for it do come down at a steep enough angle all it needs is a 60-75 degree angle.

youbedead wrote:
However normal artillery shells aren't travelling this fast, with something going this fast there is little the wind can do to effect it, which is the primary cause of deviation in artillery shells. In addition artillary systems where every thing is under computer contorl can get up to a ~5 meter accuracy rate.

Inside a given range, that's the main criticism of things like the NLOS; they post great target statistics, but they never discus (publicly) in what range those statistics were obtained. In this sort of application distance to target is everything, and velocity means relatively little.

Remember, all ballistic projectiles slow down before descending to target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:it will accelerate at the same rate it decelerated, it will also supass turm,inal velocity since it has a force acting on ti other then gravity.

But it will be limited by critical velocity in free fall, whereas under acceleration after firing it will not be. Or, rather, the critical velocity is much lower under gravity than it is under explosive acceleration.

dogma wrote:

youbedead wrote:
However normal artillery shells aren't travelling this fast, with something going this fast there is little the wind can do to effect it, which is the primary cause of deviation in artillery shells. In addition artillary systems where every thing is under computer contorl can get up to a ~5 meter accuracy rate.

Inside a given range, that's the main criticism of things like the NLOS; they post great target statistics, but they never discus (publicly) in what range those statistics were obtained. In this sort of application distance to target is everything, and velocity means relatively little.

Remember, all ballistic projectiles slow down before descending to target.

the velocity is generally reduced by a factor of 3-4 meaning that the Mach 8 shell will strike at mach 2-3 wich is still amy magnitudes faster then conventional rounds. So yes it is impossible to get 100% accuracy with this at 100 mile, but at that range it should still impact within 10-15 meters. At shorter ranges it will stirke faster and will easily get a 2-5 meter acuracy rate.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:it will accelerate at the same rate it decelerated, it will also supass turm,inal velocity since it has a force acting on ti other then gravity.

But it will be limited by critical velocity in free fall, whereas under acceleration after firing it will not be. Or, rather, the critical velocity is much lower under gravity than it is under explosive acceleration.

There's the crux. Free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only or dominant force acting upon it. Gravity is not the dominant force here, the acceleration form the cannon is
most of the energy lost to the force of gravity will be regained on the downward trip, however it can get past the gravitational critical velocity because of the lateral force of the cannon. Just a a gun fired into the air can kill, the only way a ballistic projectile will only fall due to gravity will be if its fired at 90 degrees vertical.

youbedead wrote:What is you definition of near vertical, because for artillery purposes anything over 50 degrees can be a high angle, also yes much of its energy would be lost on the way up but on the way down if it follows the trajectory of a projectile it will accelerate at the same rate it decelerated, it will also supass turm,inal velocity since it has a force acting on ti other then gravity.

So yes if fired at 89 degrees it will have little impact but for it do come down at a steep enough angle all it needs is a 60-75 degree angle.

And if you fire at 60 to 75' then most of the energy of the shot is being put into the vertical, and very little into the horizontal. Which would seem to defeat the purpose.


I'm wondering if the primary use of a weapon like this would be in naval bombardment, where you're hitting targets on the coast, with little to get in the way. Being able to undertake that kind of bombardment from 200 miles away would be a pretty awesome advantage. But it'd be a specialised weapon, that wouldn't undertake much modern fighting. Unless Devestator starts wailing on the pyramids again.

dogma wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
This is true. Since you seem to know what you're talking about: With modern fire control systems we should be able to account for most of the major variables at play (coriolis effect being the one that strikes me as being the biggest issue), and those that aren't unaccounted for should have minimal effect (since the horizontal component of the projectiles velocity should be sufficiently high to not be significantly effected by things such as wind direction, etc.)

From my understanding the biggest issue would be standard error rates in the calculation. Er can predict, within a range, where a given projectile will land, but that range is established by the expected error (standard error) in the calculation that establishes the relevant parabolic function. In most cases, as in those with explosive rounds, such thing don't matter much, but when you're firing KEPs its a huge deal.

Hell, standard error on most artillery calculations is ~15 meters, and they don't have 200 mile ranges. I would expect the standard error of the function for this weapon to be much, much larger.

I always figured conventional artillery was less accurate because the arc used to fire tends to be larger (as in, the gun is fired at a greater angle), and the propellant used couldn't be controlled as accurately (as an EM field), as well as being a slower moving round (comparitively), thus suffering greater effect from wind, coriolis, etc.

That video doesn't show it hitting anything. It shows it firing from the side and from the front, the "explosion" is the expulsion of gas and the projective as it leaves the "barrel". That second video segment was taken from inside the white tube shown in the first portion.

No, its actually going through a target. Look again, at approx 21-22 secs, its going through a solid piece of... sheet metal at least thats what it looks like? I'm not really sure what gas would be expelled otherwise...

Also can be seen here, I think: http://gizmodo.com/5711467/this-navy-gun-annihilates-targets-100-miles-in-six-minutes

youbedead wrote:
There's the crux. Free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only or dominant force acting upon it. Gravity is not the dominant force here, the acceleration form the cannon is

Not beyond line of sight.

The only way this particular weapon can crest the horizon is by having the projectile enter free fall. That's the only way any ballistic weapon can have a projectile crest the horizon. If lateral velocity were the dominant force we would talking about orbital intercept paths.

In essence, gravity has to be the dominant force over the horizon because, if it weren't, the projectile would never come towards earth.

youbedead wrote:
most of the energy lost to the force of gravity will be regained on the downward trip, however it can get past the gravitational critical velocity because of the lateral force of the cannon. Just a a gun fired into the air can kill, the only way a ballistic projectile will only fall due to gravity will be if its fired at 90 degrees vertical.

Well, guns fired into the air can kill because the free fall critical velocity of most bullets is sufficient to kill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I always figured conventional artillery was less accurate because the arc used to fire tends to be larger (as in, the gun is fired at a greater angle), and the propellant used couldn't be controlled as accurately (as an EM field), as well as being a slower moving round (comparitively), thus suffering greater effect from wind, coriolis, etc.

That's part of the standard error rate.

Standard error is a statistical measure that indicates the mode (or mean, depending on the method of calculation) of all deviations from the predicted value. So, in theory, it includes all variance regardless of source; including things like physical variance in powder burn rates, or powder pack rates.

dogma wrote:

youbedead wrote:
There's the crux. Free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only or dominant force acting upon it. Gravity is not the dominant force here, the acceleration form the cannon is

Not beyond line of sight.

The only way this particular weapon can crest the horizon is by having the projectile enter free fall. That's the only way any ballistic weapon can have a projectile crest the horizon. If lateral velocity were the dominant force we would talking about orbital intercept paths.

In essence, gravity has to be the dominant force over the horizon because, if it weren't, the projectile would never come towards earth.

It is quite possible to fire past the horizon line and maintain a ballistic trajectory, depending on how far away the horizon is. at level ground thats is approximately 50 miles away.

youbedead wrote:
most of the energy lost to the force of gravity will be regained on the downward trip, however it can get past the gravitational critical velocity because of the lateral force of the cannon. Just a a gun fired into the air can kill, the only way a ballistic projectile will only fall due to gravity will be if its fired at 90 degrees vertical.

Well, guns fired into the air can kill because the free fall critical velocity of most bullets is sufficient to kill.

No, their not http://mythbustersresults.com/episode50

No, its actually going through a target. Look again, at approx 21-22 secs, its going through a solid piece of... sheet metal at least thats what it looks like? I'm not really sure what gas would be expelled otherwise...

Also can be seen here, I think: http://gizmodo.com/5711467/this-navy-gun-annihilates-targets-100-miles-in-six-minutes

Those are two seperate videos and in both of them the exit area of the rail gun is being destroyed. Thats the problem with the weapon right now. It breaks the front of itself every time it fires.

youbedead wrote:
It is quite possible to fire past the horizon line and maintain a ballistic trajectory, depending on how far away the horizon is. at level ground thats is approximately 50 miles away.

Yes, I know. My point was that any ballistic that involves cresting the horizon also involves entering free fall.

Your image actually confirms my point.

To me it looks like there is a target stand placed in front of the barrel.

I do know that the way the shells are designed, they are encased inside of a ferromagnetic sleeve that breaks apart as it exits the barrel (but its supposed to be a clean split, not supposed to be a ton of shrapnel), maybe that is what we're seeing.

dogma wrote:

youbedead wrote:
It is quite possible to fire past the horizon line and maintain a ballistic trajectory, depending on how far away the horizon is. at level ground thats is approximately 50 miles away.

Yes, I know. My point was that any ballistic that involves cresting the horizon also involves entering free fall.

Your image actually confirms my point.

Mach 5 is well above terminal velocity of something subject only to free fall. There seems to have been a misunderstanding all I am saying is that it will not be subject to only the force of gravity, and I assumed you were saying that it would only strike at the terminal velocity of gravitational free fall (well below mach 5), if I was mistaken I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

I do agree that at extreme ranges it will have serious issues with precise targeting, though if the shell weighs 100 pounds and hits the target at mach 5 it'll be equivalent to 1.9 tons of tnt. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=+1+701.45^2+*45+359.237++joules+to+megatones

Too bad that 1.9 tons of TNT is directed in roughly a straight line. Just saying. There will be more than a straight line, but that much TNT would guarantee the ship to go down, not a single railgun shot.

The Bringer wrote:Too bad that 1.9 tons of TNT is directed in roughly a straight line. Just saying. There will be more than a straight line, but that much TNT would guarantee the ship to go down, not a single railgun shot.

That not how physics work, lets say this thing hits the ground. All of that kinetic energy is directed into the ground creating blast similar to an explosive. Lets say it hits a ship, it will vaporize large amounts of metal as it passes through a ship, creating a massive hole under the water line, or if they can hit the armory the ship goes up in a bang.

youbedead wrote:
Mach 5 is well above terminal velocity of something subject only to free fall.

Depends on mass, density, and resistance due to physical shape.

You can most certainly develop a projectile that has a critical velocity of nearly mach 5 under nothing but gravitational attraction.

youbedead wrote:
There seems to have been a misunderstanding all I am saying is that it will not be subject to only the force of gravity, and I assumed you were saying that it would only strike at the terminal velocity of gravitational free fall (well below mach 5), if I was mistaken I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

Yeah, I'm not making an argument from exclusion, I'm just saying that gravity is the prevailing force here.

youbedead wrote:
I do agree that at extreme ranges it will have serious issues with precise targeting, though if the shell weighs 100 pounds and hits the target at mach 5 it'll be equivalent to 1.9 tons of tnt. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=+1+701.45^2+*45+359.237++joules+to+megatones

Yeah, the pressure wave could have serious killing power. It really depends on how robust the equalization systemis are on target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:
That not how physics work, lets say this thing hits the ground. All of that kinetic energy is directed into the ground creating blast similar to an explosive. Lets say it hits a ship, it will vaporize large amounts of metal as it passes through a ship, creating a massive hole under the water line, or if they can hit the armory the ship goes up in a bang.

The projectile might actually burst above ground, depending on design, which would massively increase lethality.

dogma wrote:

youbedead wrote:
Mach 5 is well above terminal velocity of something subject only to free fall.

Depends on mass, density, and resistance due to physical shape.

You can most certainly develop a projectile that has a critical velocity of nearly mach 5 under nothing but gravitational attraction.

youbedead wrote:
There seems to have been a misunderstanding all I am saying is that it will not be subject to only the force of gravity, and I assumed you were saying that it would only strike at the terminal velocity of gravitational free fall (well below mach 5), if I was mistaken I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

Yeah, I'm not making an argument from exclusion, I'm just saying that gravity is the prevailing force here.

youbedead wrote:
I do agree that at extreme ranges it will have serious issues with precise targeting, though if the shell weighs 100 pounds and hits the target at mach 5 it'll be equivalent to 1.9 tons of tnt. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=+1+701.45^2+*45+359.237++joules+to+megatones

Yeah, the pressure wave could have serious killing power. It really depends on how robust the equalization systemis are on target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:
That not how physics work, lets say this thing hits the ground. All of that kinetic energy is directed into the ground creating blast similar to an explosive. Lets say it hits a ship, it will vaporize large amounts of metal as it passes through a ship, creating a massive hole under the water line, or if they can hit the armory the ship goes up in a bang.

The projectile might actually burst above ground, depending on design, which would massively increase lethality.

Good we came to agreement then sorry about the misunderstanding, though i would doubt they would design a shell that could do that purely because you risk it fragmenting during flight. I was also mistaken it was actually 11.19 tons of tnt at mach 5.Thats a big boom.http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=+1701.45^2+*45+359.237++joules+to+megatones

youbedead wrote:

dogma wrote:

youbedead wrote:
It is quite possible to fire past the horizon line and maintain a ballistic trajectory, depending on how far away the horizon is. at level ground thats is approximately 50 miles away.

Yes, I know. My point was that any ballistic that involves cresting the horizon also involves entering free fall.

Your image actually confirms my point.

Mach 5 is well above terminal velocity of something subject only to free fall. There seems to have been a misunderstanding all I am saying is that it will not be subject to only the force of gravity, and I assumed you were saying that it would only strike at the terminal velocity of gravitational free fall (well below mach 5), if I was mistaken I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

I do agree that at extreme ranges it will have serious issues with precise targeting, though if the shell weighs 100 pounds and hits the target at mach 5 it'll be equivalent to 1.9 tons of tnt. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=+1+701.45^2+*45+359.237++joules+to+megatones

Escape velocity is 11.2 km/s. Mach 25 = 7.5km/s... Thats right, mach TWENTY-FIVE still is not escape velocity. Also, mach is a subjective measure of velocity. You could theoretically be travelling through a fluid at mach 10 and only be moving about 10 miles per hour. M=V/a, where V is the velocity, and a is the speed of sound through that medium. So, saying Mach 5 = escape velocity doesn't really mean very much.

chaos0xomega wrote:

youbedead wrote:

dogma wrote:

youbedead wrote:
It is quite possible to fire past the horizon line and maintain a ballistic trajectory, depending on how far away the horizon is. at level ground thats is approximately 50 miles away.

Yes, I know. My point was that any ballistic that involves cresting the horizon also involves entering free fall.

Your image actually confirms my point.

Mach 5 is well above terminal velocity of something subject only to free fall. There seems to have been a misunderstanding all I am saying is that it will not be subject to only the force of gravity, and I assumed you were saying that it would only strike at the terminal velocity of gravitational free fall (well below mach 5), if I was mistaken I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

I do agree that at extreme ranges it will have serious issues with precise targeting, though if the shell weighs 100 pounds and hits the target at mach 5 it'll be equivalent to 1.9 tons of tnt. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=+1+701.45^2+*45+359.237++joules+to+megatones

Escape velocity is 11.2 km/s. Mach 25 = 7.5km/s... Thats right, mach TWENTY-FIVE still is not escape velocity. Also, mach is a subjective measure of velocity. You could theoretically be travelling through a fluid at mach 10 and only be moving about 10 miles per hour. M=V/a, where V is the velocity, and a is the speed of sound through that medium. So, saying Mach 5 = escape velocity doesn't really mean very much.

We never said it could escape atmosphere, terminal velocity is the maximum speed something can reach in free fall

youbedead wrote:

The Bringer wrote:Too bad that 1.9 tons of TNT is directed in roughly a straight line. Just saying. There will be more than a straight line, but that much TNT would guarantee the ship to go down, not a single railgun shot.

That not how physics work, lets say this thing hits the ground. All of that kinetic energy is directed into the ground creating blast similar to an explosive. Lets say it hits a ship, it will vaporize large amounts of metal as it passes through a ship, creating a massive hole under the water line, or if they can hit the armory the ship goes up in a bang.

It would probably sink a ship... but it really depends where it inflicts the damage and how big a hole it creates.

On land, it hits whatever, but when it hits the dirt, it won't explode like 1.9 tons of TNT. It will create a minor "explosion" but it won't be anything like an explosive.

I just did a small scale test, very small scale.

I shot a rubber band at a pile of flour. The flour moved a little, but didn't do anything significant. Now, if the energy in the stretch rubber band were used to fling the flour, you would have had a larger amount go into the air.

The ground will just absorb most of the energy. The shot will probably leave a nice crater, create a nice little "explosion," but 1.9 tons of TNT will be way more effective.

How much would it decelerate over 200 miles horizontal distance?

youbedead wrote:It is quite possible to fire past the horizon line and maintain a ballistic trajectory, depending on how far away the horizon is. at level ground thats is approximately 50 miles away.

Cheers for that image. Do you, or anyone else, have any information on the possible angle the round could strike the target at?

Hello,
Well of course I have to give a funny answer to this, it is a green weapon, no fall out, all the bodies pre-barried (well whats left), and no jet fuel used.

Regards,
Carl

ShumaGorath wrote:How much would it decelerate over 200 miles horizontal distance?

Looking at the diagram, I'm guessing it will hit at Mach... 5?




Sebster, I'm guessing it will hit at a 40-50 degree angle with the vertical. It could be slightly sharper than that. I know it is leaving the barrel at around 40 degrees, so by the end it will most likely hit at about 50.

The Bringer wrote:

youbedead wrote:

The Bringer wrote:Too bad that 1.9 tons of TNT is directed in roughly a straight line. Just saying. There will be more than a straight line, but that much TNT would guarantee the ship to go down, not a single railgun shot.

That not how physics work, lets say this thing hits the ground. All of that kinetic energy is directed into the ground creating blast similar to an explosive. Lets say it hits a ship, it will vaporize large amounts of metal as it passes through a ship, creating a massive hole under the water line, or if they can hit the armory the ship goes up in a bang.

It would probably sink a ship... but it really depends where it inflicts the damage and how big a hole it creates.

On land, it hits whatever, but when it hits the dirt, it won't explode like 1.9 tons of TNT. It will create a minor "explosion" but it won't be anything like an explosive.

I just did a small scale test, very small scale.

I shot a rubber band at a pile of flour. The flour moved a little, but didn't do anything significant. Now, if the energy in the stretch rubber band were used to fling the flour, you would have had a larger amount go into the air.

The ground will just absorb most of the energy. The shot will probably leave a nice crater, create a nice little "explosion," but 1.9 tons of TNT will be way more effective.

okay you want to do this then a rubber band that weighs one gram flung at 10 mph is equivalent to 4 milligrams of tnt. I bet you the rubber band did more then 4 milligrams of tnt. also i was mistaken it was 11.19 tons of tnt meaning even if it only has one tenth of the power converted to a balst it would still be over 1 ton of tnt

The Bringer wrote:And there are no counter-measures for a railgun

Displacer field? ; )