PST Time 00:00:00GMT-8
Local Server Time 00:00:00GMT+8
ID
Password
FlashGuide
FlashGuide
HA Infomation

Off-Topic
Forum Quick Menu

  Index

  • Discussion: Rail guns and Iowas

    11. 02. 2011 20:35


DeCLeviathan
Do you think that advances in rail gun technology could possibly lead to the eventual refit and recommissioning of the Iowas, or has guided missile and aircraft technology come too far to ever allow the battleship to reclaim it's role as the primary naval warship? I understand that current rail guns can fire projectiles around 7-10 lbs, but imagine if they could be built bigger and mounted in place of the primary gun turrets and fire the same size projectiles (around 2000 lbs) at the current rail gun muzzle velocity of about 5k mph. Wow.

 

  • Re : Discussion: Rail guns and Iowas

    11. 02. 2011 20:44


japex
Damnit... I thought this is in the patch.

  • Re : Discussion: Rail guns and Iowas

    11. 02. 2011 22:56


elmusafir
Latest railgun milestone: 1000 shots without disintegrating.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/02/railgun_durability_milestone/

  • Re : Discussion: Rail guns and Iowas

    11. 02. 2011 23:02


Shin_K
It would be a huge waste of money, and the Japanese are ahead anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Battleship_Yamato_%28spaceship%29

  • Re : Discussion: Rail guns and Iowas

    11. 02. 2011 23:41


cfds
Originally Posted by elmusafir

Latest railgun milestone: 1000 shots without disintegrating.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/02/railgun_durability_milestone/


How does that compare to a normal artillery gun barrel? Don't these have to be replaced every few hundred shots?

  • Re : Discussion: Rail guns and Iowas

    11. 03. 2011 04:45


heatrr
Why is this thread in here and not in the Off-Topic Forum?
Oh wait, I know why: Forum moderator fail. =.=

  • Re : Discussion: Rail guns and Iowas

    11. 03. 2011 04:52


Thebarrel
>looks at world war 2....

OH RIGHT! their useless

>looks at yammato in world war 2

got owned by planes

stuff like this = why in real life they are of no actual use as theres alot of other technologies or w/e wich is better and cheaper at the same time

  • Re : Discussion: Rail guns and Iowas

    11. 03. 2011 04:59


Obergrattler
FM is busy deleting my application. If you were on a plane with some mariachi midgets and felt the need for a soda, but there would be no soda on the plane, what would you do?
What.. would ... you ...dooo?

  • Re : Discussion: Rail guns and Iowas

    11. 03. 2011 05:02


Monarch
Originally Posted by Obergrattler

FM is busy deleting my application. If you were on a plane with some mariachi midgets and felt the need for a soda, but there would be no soda on the plane, what would you do?
What.. would ... you ...dooo?


I wanted people to read my application. I put time into answering the ghost airplane question.

  • Re : Discussion: Rail guns and Iowas

    11. 03. 2011 05:19


masc24
Well... current missile technology would allow for battleships to have a much better defense against aircraft, the problem is the way armed conflicts have evolved, there isn't a high need, if a need for it. Not to mention it wouldnt be cost-effective, since it would only have a range of a few miles inland. AC-130s, A-10s, Predators, along with B1 and B2 bombers have made whatever role a battleship would have unnecessary.

  • Re : Discussion: Rail guns and Iowas

    11. 03. 2011 05:43


LittleDanger
Communist propaganda we has no rail guns

1 2 3 4