RE: Gauss Weapons

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of Thomas.Barclay
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 11:13
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Gauss Weapons

Hmmm.  Would think the difference in ammo weight (no wasted weight on
chemical propellant and heavy brass casing) might well suggest one
reason.

[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.

Plus better penetration on a round whose l:d ratio was 10:1 rather than
3:1
or 4:1. The mass is more concentrated behind the same diameter of impact
(thus you can use a smaller diameter round too for the same
penetration).

[Bri] Again True. However, against soft targets (ie. people), you may
want
to trade impact for kinetic transfer. These trade-offs are shown in a
standard bullet vs a dum-dum bullet (that spreads on impact spreading
the
kinetic energy thoughout the target and thus doing more damage). And, of
course the opposite is true when firing against armored targets.

My point was that you should never get a dud with a gauss round. On any
chemically propelled round, you could get a dud. In a multi-barrell
cannon,
that might not matter (the round is ejected) but it is one round less
downrange. Not a significant issue compared to the ammo weight or
penetration issues.

[Bri] Again true. However, a gauss weapon might have more exacting
standards
on ammo. A dud may be a round of ammo that the gun rejects as not
conforming
to standards. Of course, this assumes that the gun will do a diagnostic
on
the ammo before firing it. Also, sub-standard power cells may not
produce
enough power to operate the weapon at its specification cyclic rate.
This
would also equate to having duds.

Thomas Barclay
Software Specialist
Defence Systems
xwave solutions
www.xwavesolutions.com
v: (613) 831 2018 x 3008

[Bri] The biggest disadvantage to a gauss weapon would be that it should
be
more fragile than the chemical powered equivalent. The magnetic field
generating/focusing elements would probably not take a lot of abuse
before
loosing alignment. Also, it may be more susceptible to dirt and other
contamination.

Remarks marked by [Bri]
---
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net <mailto:bkb@beol.net>
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
---