-R-a-I-l-G-u-N-s-?-

[Doom-Child]

The energy cost for a laser that could penetrate that far away is prohibitive, in both cases.

DC

[Erik]

Rellik said:

In any case wouldn't lasers be much better than railguns? I mean, there are already snipers that can kill you from as far as a thousand yards with a somewhat conventional rifle. Wouldn't lasers be better as you don't have to adjust for windage / distance / target motion? Or is there some problem with the beam losing intensity in the atmosphere?

The only laser which can produce enough energy with high enough efficiency to be useful as a weapon is a carbon dioxide laser IIRC, and it would only be effective at ranges up to 25 yards or so. On top of that it is an infrared laser, so the optical stuff would have to be made from germanium instead of glass which would make it extremely expensive and delicate.

[IMJack]

I think man-carried laser weapons are even further down the line than man-carried Gauss weapons. One thing to think about is that a Star-Wars-style laser weapon would simply burn a hole through a target and cauterize the wound instantly. You don't get all the fun secondary injuries a high- or low-velocity ballistic projectile causes.

[sirgalahadwizar]

Did ANYONE read my post, or was it too long for your puny brains.

Advantages of railguns over lasers:

*Speed. Lasers take time to act, they must be focused on a specific region for a period of time before they can vaporize a hole through it. Railguns do their damage on contact (so moving targets are a problem for lasers).

*Railguns are far more efficient with their use of energy than lasers because railguns use projectiles (doing shock damage).

*Ammunition - all you have to have for a railgun is a charge pack and a magazine of bullets for it (which I doubt would weigh over 10 grams per bullet). For a laser, the only ammunition it has is a charge pack - which means it's alot heavier.

-----

The kind of gun I was talking about earlier could potentially be hand-held by an individual soldier eventually (it would only be operable by small groups of ppl or vehicles when the technology is in it's infancy).

It gives the user the ability to project over 40000 Joules (that's effectivly 40Kw, assuming the projectile weighs 5 grams) of energy over an area of appoximatly 16 square millimeters. That means it can cut through armor like an explosive shaped charge - endowing it with more penetration power than a .50cal BMG sniper rifle.

That's like getting hit by a rocket launcher in doom, except the projectile can keep on going and kill all your buddies behind you wearing exactly the same kind of armor you are.

[deadnail]

Plus railguns leave that pretty swirly color trail. =)

[KING ELVIS]

I installed a rail gun on my car last day, so I can shoot me free way whenever there is some delay and I'm on the hurry.

[deadnail]

KING ELVIS said:

I installed a rail gun on my car last day, so I can shoot me free way whenever there is some delay and I'm on the hurry.

I think the debris of disabled vehicles and gibbed people would actually slow you down even more.

If you started screaming your perfect English at them as loud as you can they'd probably clear a path for you anyway. =)

[Jon]

What do you mean puny brains, its not like you actually wrote it

[KING ELVIS]

deadnail said:

I think the debris of disabled vehicles and gibbed people would actually slow you down even more.

Damn, I missed that !
I will install a gib-o-matic on tomorrow

If you started screaming your perfect English at them as loud as you can they'd probably clear a path for you anyway. =) [/B]

How can I interpret this one ?

[sirgalahadwizar]

What i meant about that little insult is that every time I put forth a nicely developed package of thought, it seems people totally ignore it.

I mean for instance ill say something like "railguns arent practical for firing at near light speed", and then people keep on talking about lightspeed railguns. Sometimes that just makes me sick. It's like im talking to a brick wall. I belive the moderators understand this little phenomenon - and the only reason why im not a moderator is because I cant tolerate it like they can (and I dont post alot either).

(::grinds teeth into sharpened points::)

I had a very nice gloveslap in the face lined up for ya Jon, but you're a moderator and I can't do that (even tho ive been here longer than you).

Of course I wrote it! Took me almost 30 mins.

-----

Oh, and railguns aren't very good for disabling things like cars, cause all they do is put a little hole through it. Large objects with thin walls like cars and trucks are only really effected by attacks that distribute alot of momentum over a large area. As it is, railguns dont transfer much energy into something like that because they put a little hole in it and keep on going with almost no change in velocity (transfer of momentum by definition changes velocity).

You'd do far more damage to a car by shooting a shotgun at it than a railgun - because almost all of the energy of the shotgun attack would get absorbed by the car (and blow a nice 3"-5" hole in the side of it).

[KING ELVIS]

sirgalahadwizar said:

I mean for instance ill say something like "railguns arent practical for firing at near light speed", and then people keep on talking about lightspeed railguns.

Yes, I know what you mean. I call it "off the rudder".