Prev: Re: [FT] Railgun Goals Next: Re: FTFB General Question

Re: [FT] Railgun Goals

From: John and Roxanne Leary <realjtl@s...>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:34:40 -0800
Subject: Re: [FT] Railgun Goals

Jeff Lyon wrote:
> At 09:37 AM 11/25/98 -0800, you wrote:
> >My concept of the 'K' railgun.
> >
> >The 'K' rail gun is a device that throws a stream of small dense
> >'BBs' across the path of the target ship.
> One point in favor of larger projectiles; small caliber HiVeloc rounds
> to vaporize on impact.  We use a layer of metal foil to protect
> and space stations against micrometeors today.  Tanks in WWII used
> metal plates and spacers to deflect small caliber AP rounds.	A
> defense would seem to work against your swarm of pellets idea, while a
> large caliber round would be more like to blow through one side of the
> and out the other.
> Jeff

     I must disagree here, the concept that a 'big' round has better
penetration than a 'small' round is not valid.	 All of the DS2 people
will agree, I am certain.   

or: Penetration equals force per unit area.  (KE=mass X velosity)
or: APFSDSDU  (I think I got the letters in the right order.)

     It is an unstated premise of the railgun discussion that it
can, reguardless of actual projectile size, penetrate ships to at
least half if not all the way through the target.

While it is completely your choice as to what 'flavor' of PSB
your going to have, I am quite happy with mine.

1) BBs do not require advanced sensors, in our current campaign
   setting this is important, since sensor types are important.
2) BBs justify an almost unlimited ammo supply.
3) BBs would be easier to accelerate to some high value of speed.
4) BBs could have multiple 'rounds' going down the 'tube' at the
   same time.

I have no doubt that these can be countered with real or PSB
concepts, but the botton line is: Do what works for you.

Bye for now,
John L.

Prev: Re: [FT] Railgun Goals Next: Re: FTFB General Question