RE: Gauss Weapons

>From: "Brian Bell" <bkb@beol.net>
>
>[Bri] True, you would not have the weight of the chemical propellant or
the
>casing, but you would have the extra weight of a larger power source,
and
>the magnetic field generation components. I would suggest that the
weight
>with ammo may be the same, but the chemical powered unit would loose
weight
>quicker due to expending the chemicals and casing as well as the shell.

(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.

Brian Bilderback
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com