Instalar o Steam
Iniciar sessão
|
Idioma
简体中文 (Chinês Simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês Tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol de Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol da América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Brasil)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar problema de tradução
Regras e Orientações das Discussões
Denunciar este post
Whole quote, regardless you incorrectly assumed I was refereing to 'rifling'
Battlestars rely almost exclusively on their main batteries to engage enemy capital ships. From what is published and seen in the BSG series and the numerous spin offs a single turret is outfitted with two rifles (not "guns") that fire independently or in tandem. The rifles, most likely railguns, are housed in a very similar fashion to a battleship's main batteries. The rifles are housed in a large armored turret that extends below deck. Since the batteries house "rifles" and not "guns" ("rifle" denotes that they can be elevated, targeted, and fired independent of each other as seen in the series, whereas, "gunned" denotes they are dependent and slaved to each other) they possess the ability to operate independently of each other, and engage independent targets in so long as the targets lay along the long axis (X-axis) of the turret. In other words they can fire at two separate targets 180-degrees apart as they can in theory fire "over the shoulder".
I imagine they were trying to explain the difference between the effect of slaved massed fire of multiple batteries in a barrage style (termed guns in BSG) and precision aimed single sniper like weapons (termed rifles in BSG).
I don't know if rifling in space would make any difference to accuracy anyways since their is no atmosphere to cut through. But in military nomenclature rifled gun barrels always have grooved rifling in the barrel for better accuracy, smoothbore gun barrels do not. It's really that simple. The word simply does not mean anything else in the real world.
Sometimes in the infantry small calibre weapons are differentiated by calling guns the bigger machine gun crew served weapons (which are rifled btw) and the standard guns that most of the infantry carry called rifles (which are also rifled btw). They do this so their is no confusion when you call the "gunner" or the "gun" for something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_(reimagining)
Im thinking along the line that you were buddy, I don't think rifling in space would make any difference. I don't even know if railguns in atmo even need rifling or how they would implement it. To be fair the whole universe needs to be taken with a pinch or salf and is open to interpritation.
I mean a 16in railgun in space would have an astronomic amount of power, so much so that nukes would be usless in comparison. I read somewhere that a 16in railgun would impact with something along the lines of 16'000 megatons and leave a creater 6mi wide. Crazy when you think of it.
Come to think of it, maybe rifling in space would be of use as it should eliminate wobble and provide an equal amount of force as it spins
I'm not going to put out the numbers here, but the formula for kinetic energy is 1/2 mass times speed squared. A 16 inch shell (a WW2 superheavy AP round) weighs around 1.3 tons, or 1300 kilograms.
Do you know how much 16.000 megatons of energy is translated in joules?. Again, not putting numbers....it is A LOT. Guess how much velocity you should have to put it to reach one megaton considering mass is 1300kg. it is A HECK OF A LOT.
In fact it is so high that it enters relativistic territory. As you come to the speed of light mass actually increases towards the infinite so you'd be increasing the ammount of mass very quickly (and both mass and speed are part of the kinetic energy equation).
It's theoretically possible for a 16'' shell to be shot to a speed where it carries over a ridiculously large ammount of energy, but it should be so close to the speed of light that we'd be speaking of fractions well avobe 99.9999% of c. (C being the speed of light).
Do you know the fastest object ever put in motion by humankind?. It's called Voyager 1. It's currently moving at a speed of around 17,4 km/s.
Speed of light is 299.792 km/s. That point is not a decimal. That's almost three hundred thousand kilometers per second.
So let's say that while theoretically possible to throw a 16'' shell so fast it ammounts for 1 megaton of energy, it's totally out of the realm of the possible. 16.000 megatons?. Not even gonna comment on that.
About rifling and space - there'd be no need for it. Rifling is useful in the atmosphere because of the gyroscopical stabilization effect imparted by the projectile being spun stabilizes it and prevents air friction to cause the projectile to tumble
The reason why old muzzleloader smoothbore guns were so innacurate at anything but a few meters off the shooter was initially poor caliber measurement (projectiles being actually smaller than the real bore of the rifle) causing the projectile to tumble already into the barrel, and already coming out with a random deviation.
Once proper calibers were introduced and bores and rounds were well matched so the round was sealed inside the barrel, not tumbling at all, the smoothbores became more accurate ,but still imprecise at anything beyond a few dozen meters. And that was because air friction would cause the projectile to move randomly along the travel, causing random deviation in each shot.
Rifling imparted gyro stabilizing effect so the projectile would remain stable once fired thus eliminating that random deviation. But you'll notice that most modern tank guns are smoothbores. That's because they use fins to keep stability, instead of gyro effects. The bottom point being that what causes projectiles to be imprecise in the atmosphere is the atmosphere itself. No atmosphere, no problem.
In space there's no air - there's nothing to cause the projectile to lose stability once it's left the gun, nor there's a reason to use fins to redirect air that's not there to keep the projectile stable because it's going to be stable anyway. So smoothbores would be perfectly accurate in outter space.
At any rate ,talking real phisics about a sci fi show is a bit too much. Galactica is not phisically accurate (even while at least is far more believable than many other shows and films), so we're going a bit out of whack here. But I just had to comment on that 16.000 megaton thingie...the meganerd phisicist inside me couldn't let that one go ;).
If you are relying purely on kinetic energy, and your round is not shaped for better armour piercing properties - it doesnt matter much. But if you need a fuse to activate your explosive payload, or if your slug is all pointy to pierce armour - you are still going to need stabilization - and thanks to space, fins/aerodynamics wont cut it. Gyroscopic stabilization remains effective.
And if your projectiles are still chemical deflagrant propelled, you still need a gas tight seal between the projectile and the barrel. Rifling of some kind is then still a valid design.
Anyway - it is totally clear and obvious that in BSG, they use magic TV space fairy dust to make everything work properly. Real world physics don't matter. The next obvious step for this tread is - a BSG MLP crossover.
Aye but that technology exists since the early XIX century. Don't think they'd have problems building space guns because of Barrel bore/projectile bore discrepancies causing issues with proper gas sealing, when they can put up the weapons on a big armed ship in space to begin with, don't you think? ;).
As fuzes go, it depends on the design of the fuze itself, how it's armed (impact, timed, proximity, whatever), if the projectile itself uses a fuze at all, etc. At any rate there arer ways to account for impact fuzes on tumbling projectiles (some of them were used on old smoothbore XIX century artillery after all), so I still don't see the use of rifling even for that purpose.
Other than that I concur that railguns make far more sense for projectile weapons in space. If anything because magnetic accelerators can achieve unheard of speeds that chemical propellants will never hit. As for the rest of the concerns about metal , bent plates, etc...well degaussing is a wonderful thing, and I guess any magnetic railgun equipped warship would go through regular degaussing procedures to keep that issue at hand, wouldn't you think? ;).
anyway the question was about how a smoothbore gun would perform in space, so I was adressing that :D
Yeah......
Just an an addendum. To generate a single megaton, if you replaced a steel sheel with a tungsten shell, so coming in closer to 3800kg....
You'd still need to accelerate something to close to .01c to get a single megaton of energy.
Why would they need artillery in space? i mean theres no atmosphere so the blast wave wouldn't be formed. i assume it could impact an outer armored hull.. but if they were smart most ships would have two hulls making them rather worthless other than penetration.
also i think they meant the fuses as in for the chemical propellants anyway.
as for railguns, sure but look at the power requirements to fire them at mach.
Smooth bore weapons, could work, if they used internal gyroscopes. actually that could be easily produced too.
Actually a 6.1 m × 0.3 m tungsten cylinder impacting at Mach 10 has a kinetic energy equivalent to approximately 11.5 tons of TNT (or 7.2 tons of dynamite.)
Well if you're asking why using HE in space, the thing is that if it goes off in space itself the blast is going to be very small (and restricted to whatever reserve of oxygen it's within the shell itself to provoke it). But you'll still be creating a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of shrapnel that can hurt a lot of stuff.
And if you manage a proper HE projectile to smash through the hull of a ship and explode inside, well, there should be plenty of oxygen there to go off with a loud BANG (before it's vented by the big gaping hole you just created)
I think we're far ahead of ourselves here because to know what weapons would work in space first we should know what we would be shooting them at. And if we don't know the kind of ship firing the weapon, we can't really know how the ship receiving the shot is going to be like either, right? ;).
Railguns do have a very high power requirement but one would expect the technology to evolve to demand less power, on one hand, and the power supply being far higher than what we currently can attain, on the other, before we can start thinking about how starship combat would work, because one would say that by the time warships in space become possible, they'll be extremelly power hungry themselves (well, depending on the propulsion they use - which of course we don't have a damned idea of what it'd be like either! XD).
Then there's obviusly the ever-present idea of lasers. Which have a huge advantage....300.000km/s of "projectile speed" while having few of the drawbacks of operating in the atmosphere (atmospheric dispersion not being a factor). Of course then there's the issue of keeping a beam of light focused enough at long ranges so it still is a beam instead of a huge searchlight.. Not to mention the power demands of such a system itself, but again, who knows what kind of technology we'll have in the next 500 years?....look were we were 60 years ago and where we are now....
Bottom point, is that we're getting a lot ahead of ourselves here, it's hard to make this kind of predictions or give any real accurate idea of what kind of weapons would work in space when we don't even know how are we going to get there in the first place (and lobbing chemical boosted rockets from earth's surface into space doesn't look like a very promising prospect to put big warships up there).
But hell if it ain't fun debating about the possibilities :D
Correct but only to a limited point.
Powerful HE ammunition has more powerful effects when exploding within air, and a lot of HE weapons rely on external oxygen to magnify their effects.
In fact some very special HE weapons (thermobaric) or so-called fuel/air bombs, rely entirely on external air supply to attain their effects.
That's not to talk about the shockwave HE ammo produces, which is as important if not more than the blast itself when considering why you want to use HE in the first place (and will be totally absent in space). That's why underwater blasts are so terribly damaging to warship hulls, and why very small warheads can penetrate even very strong titanium hulls - water is far denser than air and the shockwaves a detonation causes underwater is FAR more damaging than the ones the same explosive on thin air.
In air absent environments most of the effect of HE will simply not be there ,and the point of HE ammo in the first place is to damage stuff through those shockwaves because they reach much farther than the detonation itself (the detonation itself also obviously is part of the weapon but...well, there's that).
so yes, explosives will go off without an atmosphere. But the lack of oxygen will limit their effects by a drastic margin. Unless you're relying on shrapnel to deal most of the damage, ofc, then it's a different story, but frag ammunition is not the same as HE.
wrong - relying on atmo is how you make your explosive warhead less effective. In addition, combustion byproduct gasses from your detonation will do the job you are wanting atmosphere to do.
Look - I can tell that you almost know what you are talking about, but - this time you are wrong on the detail.
You're not very well versed in physics as I never said how fast the projectile was going. That impact would be at near relativistic speeds firing a 1,360kg KEP.
You can't even spell physics so your point holds even more speed
(see what I did there? speed/mass it's almost like they're intertwined somehow)