Re: Thoughts on my last post

I think that what your talking about is rate of fire.  In my knowledge
of military doctrine and weapons, I do not know of assault refering to
any specific rate of fire.  the terms I know are semi-automatic - one
trigger pull fires one round - or full automatic - one trigger pull
fires several rounds.  Full automatic fire can be achieved from a
varoius of gun systems from a Full automatic firing mechanisim on the
weapon, a chain gun (where rounds are pulled through the firing
mechanism via a chain to ultimately a multi-barreled rotary gun (most
famous bieng the Gatling Gun).	Some weapons that are full auto only,
can at the skill of the user, be semi-automatic in nature ie the M2
machine gunner in WW2 firing one round by using a "soft" tap on the
firing trigger.
 
EMPs MAY affect rounds or mechanisms that are driven by electo motive
sources, depending on how well shielded the components are.
 
Warbeads@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/19/04 11:11:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
xarcht@yahoo.com writes:
Actually as the gause technology works, it would be rapid fire rather
than rotary or assault. Conventional rounds also have the advantage of
not being duds after an EMP blast of a nuke.

I am not ballistics oriented so this was unclear to me.  In layman's
terms the difference between assault and rapid fire is what?  Doesn't
rotary supply rapid fire?  I'm lost.
 
And I gather that you are saying that EMP would/could 'erase' the
electronics of the Gauss weapons?  Hmm.
 
Gracias,

Glenn "warbeads"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?	Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com