I'd be interested in seeing how much energy this thing delivers to the target at 250mi compared to a Tomahawk. The advantage of putting a warhead on a missile is that it will do as much damage at point-blank range as at maximum range, because it is not dependent on kinetic energy to deliver its mission. This is one of the reasons why HEAT rounds were popular between WWII and the '80s: armor penetration was the same at ANY range (plus they were more powerful than KEPs)
Another problem I'd like to see addressed is that fast moving rounds could pass completely through a target (depending on density) without hitting something critical. Plenty of WWI biplanes came back riddled with holes but no critical components damanged. Similarly, Marine M26 Pershings in Korea were punching holes right through T-34s, but not knocking them out. Once they dropped the SABOT rounds and switched to back to AP rounds (which would explode inside the vehicle) they were able to get more satisfactory results. The British also had a similar problem with the 17lber until they redesigned the fuse to explode sooner (i.e. the round passed completely through the target before it exploded). Damon. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Sharkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:28 PM Subject: RE: Railgun Weapon for the Navy > > Robert G. Seeberger wrote: >>Normally, new weaponry tends to make defense more expensive. But >>the Navy likes to say its new railgun delivers the punch of a >>missile at bullet prices. > > I'v eheard about this several times. Every time I do, I keep > expecting to hear the Quake III announcer saying "HEAD SHOT" :-) > > Jim > > _______________________________________________ > Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com > The most personalized portal on the Web! > > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
