07-08-2005 13:42									#31
	Remove this text

Interesting read. (after finishing reading the entire article)

I have my reservations.

Especially about line of sight weapons. Which really aren't that useful. The fact is most wars today take place on land. The only reason the navy (especially cruisers, frigates, and destroyers) aren't obsolete today is their cruise missile technology. And in the aircraft carriers ability to project force with aircraft.

Yes they do have uses where collateral damage could be detrimental. But you are spending a lot of money for that! We have guns that can do the same thing.

I'm not sure about the railgun, but isn't that line of sight too? Although they compare it to artillery. So I'd imagine they shoot it at an arc. But how is that in any way accurate. And even those will have limited range.

Next we move onto flywheels and capacitors. Now I have not kept up with new technology. But the energy industry has been saying these things for years. But haven't implemented any of these ideas. While the most likely reason is they are cheap bastards, but there is a possibility these technlogies aren't practical enough for storing electricity. It's something we could use in the west where our peak electricity useage is at 4:00 PM. We need every power plant in the region going, or we're ****ed. If we could store electricity from generators overnight, we'd be in a much better situation, and wouldn't need as many generators.

	08-08-2005 14:50									#32
	Got spare money?

The line of sight limitation is a bit nettlesome for rail guns, limiting them to mostly anti-missle type duties, at shorter ranges. I suppose you could develop a heavy rail gun to hurl (explosive) projectiles. They'd probably need / want terminal guidance on these projectiles to ensure that they hit right where they want. This would allow them to be a lot smaller. The energy weapons seem a lot more limited. They will leak energy over distance faster and are limited to line of sight only, and there are a possible range of countermeasures.

	11-08-2005 02:23									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Hypervelocity projectiles still follow ballistic arcs. Their over-the-horizon range could be quite impressive, and effective with terminal guidance. Shouldn't need explosive warheads.

I wonder if the US Army has tested the Abram's main gun on ships? Not that you'd expect a tank to get within 5 miles of an enemy ship...

	11-08-2005 03:03									#34
	Increase the size of your Attachments

german king tigers in wwii could penatrate 150mm armour at 2200 meters,and battleships have like 104mm thick? so i guess abrams being more modern and more power should be able to

still, even if the round penatrates its unlikely the ship would be in much harm

	11-08-2005 13:54									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

The line of Sight Energy weapons will probably be used as replacments for Phalanx gattling guns and short range anti-aircraft missles. They can shoot down these fragile unarmored targets almost indefinatly and at greater distances then a gattling gun. Thus these become incrdedicly powerfull Defensive weapons that alow you to wade into battle brushing asside your enemy attacks, penatrating into his defensive shpere and cripple him.

Rail Guns are projected to have Ranges of Hundred of Miles (they would follow Balistic trajectories out of the atmosphere. Terminal guidance could give them great presision as well.

	11-08-2005 16:25									#36
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Cataphract887 german king tigers in wwii could penatrate 150mm armour at 2200 meters,and battleships have like 104mm thick? so i guess abrams being more modern and more power should be able to

104 mm thickness on the least protected spots, yes. The more sensitive parts of the ships were armoured to 400-450 mm thickness.