Railguns and coilguns - could a BI dev clear that up?

[dragon01 902]

As we all know, there's an entry on confirmed features list that promises "Tanks with railguns" to be in ArmA III. I'm generally a realism fan, so I don't really like this idea.

However, it recently occurred to me that not all people know (or care about) the distinction between a railgun and a coilgun (a Gauss gun, in other words).

A railgun uses two parallel rails, connected by a projectile. An electric current runs the circuit created by rails and projectile, and the Lorentz force accelerates the projectile to enormous velocities.

The problem with mounting such thing on a tank is that it requires a huge power supply. This is less of a problem on ships (especially nuclear powered ones), but a huge set of capacitors or a nuclear reactor would've been impossible to fit on a tank in the foreseeable future. US Navy wants a 11MJ railgun on it's Zumwalt-class destroyers, but I didn't heard of either Army or USMC being interested.

Now, a coilgun. It's frequently confused with a railgun, but it operates on a different principle. It uses a set of coils wrapped around a barrel, switching them on and off in a sequence to accelerate the projectile.

Now, this one would've been possible to mount on a tank or even a proposed HMMWV replacement, due to much lower power requirements. 81mm coilgun mortars were proposed for JLTV, and 120mm version was tested. I guess that fitting one onto a tank wouldn't be much of a stretch.

Both of these systems were showcased on "Future Weapons" (in the same episode, no less).

So, here's my question to BI devs: Which one of the above you really plan to have on a tank? Is the "railgun" in the list really a railgun, or was it confused with a coilgun? I'd like to know, because the latter is plausible to be mounted on a tank, the former is not.

[dm 9]

And beyond what its called in the speech and the stringtables, it makes absolutely 0 difference to implementation in game.

Its a gun that fires with an insane muzzle velocity. I would stop worrying about it if I were you... (do we really need yet another "omg future gunz" thread?)

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

@Dragon

1. I'm not a Dev, so my opinion doesn't count.

2. You hit the nail on the head at the end of sentence #3 "not all people know (or care about) the distinction between a railgun and a coilgun (a Gauss gun, in other words)."

Now, from what I understand, Arma 3 is to be set somewhere in the near future, 2025 I believe. Given that we are now at the end of 2011, that gives us what approx 14 years depending on how you measure it.

Let us now compare that time span to current events. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been going on for almost 11 years now. With the exception of off the shelf tech has there been any significant leap weaponry design that has led to it being developed and fielded in such a short time? I say off the shelf because weapons like the MOAB do not count because it is nothing but a bigger smart bomb. The Predator/Reaper are nothing more than up instrumented / weaponized R/C planes.

As someone who has spent 12 years in the Navy, with an 11 year break in service, I can tell you things don't change overnight. As far as powerplants go, the navy has been using the same Gas Turbines to power most of its surface ships since 1975. Even on the DDX project (Zumwalt) it was to be powered by Gas Turbines, unfortunately they can't produce near enough power needed to for the railgun to work in its current form. On Nuc powered ships, these days only Carriers and Subs, it may be possible with LOTS of capicitors (condensor). If we had a scientific breakthrough on the same level as the transistor, this would be a game changer.

Anyway, I think what it boils down to is Creative License on the part of BIS. Something that I whole heartedly agree with. Why, because too many people like to complain. Like, "but the A-10 does 450 knots IRL not 440 knots" and crap like that. In this manner BIS can say, "Hey, the A-10 has gone through a Service Life Improvement Project. The USAF has replaced the engines with a more powerful and efficient engine. they have also reduced its weight and increased its strength by using composite materials."

In closing, I think what I've been trying to say this whole time is that in reality, weapons of warfare don't evolve very fast. But when we have to ability to bend the rules just a little bit, they do.

P.S. I think someone just got Railgun and coilgun confused, much like phaser/laser/taser.

[dragon01 902]

And beyond what its called in the speech and the stringtables, it makes absolutely 0 difference to implementation in game.

Its a gun that fires with an insane muzzle velocity. I would stop worrying about it if I were you... (do we really need yet another "omg future gunz" thread?)

Railgun has much more insane muzzle velocity than a coilgun. :)

Besides, BI usually gets such scientific details right, so I wanted to point this out. They are both magnetic weapons and they're frequently confused, so I'd be glad if BI didn't made that error in AIII. In this thread, I'm not disagreeing with futuristic equipment, but pointing out a (depressingly common) scientific error.

As far as powerplants go, the navy has been using the same Gas Turbines to power most of its surface ships since 1975. Even on the DDX project (Zumwalt) it was to be powered by Gas Turbines, unfortunately they can't produce near enough power needed to for the railgun to work in its current form. On Nuc powered ships, these days only Carriers and Subs, it may be possible with LOTS of capicitors (condensor).

I've heard that Zumwalt was supposed to power it's railgun by switching the propeller screws off and redirecting entire power of it's turbines to the power generators. That, or BI could introduce a nuke powered cruiser, or mount a railgun on a new type (or a refit) of an aircraft carrier.

Let us now compare that time span to current events. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been going on for almost 11 years now. With the exception of off the shelf tech has there been any significant leap weaponry design that has led to it being developed and fielded in such a short time? I say off the shelf because weapons like the MOAB do not count because it is nothing but a bigger smart bomb. The Predator/Reaper are nothing more than up instrumented / weaponized R/C planes.

Overall, US seems to have much more money in Armaversum than in reality, and researchers are more skilled at dealing with unexpected problems. I guess that this could be an explanation for a lot of technology advancements. Many weapons seen in AIII are already in development, or were and got canceled. I guess that BI might also want to "Future-proof" VBS a bit.

Another reason might be that Armaversum seems a lot less peaceful than real world. Weapon technology really does evolve that fast if you're fighting a war, or are on the verge if it. Just take a look at WWII or Cold War. Today, US is more threatened by terrorists (who, contrary to popular belief, can't be fought by military alone) than by any foreign nation, so "battlefield" weapons are canceled left and right. Wars are fought with countries that use post-Soviet equipment. In ArmAIII, OPFOR seems to have some really advanced stuff, so it seems natural that US would continue developing weapons that they canceled IRL, because they would need them.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Dragon01

[Daniel 0]

Am I right in thinking that just because a vessel has a nuclear power plant, it doesn't necessarily have all that power "on tap"? It still needs to drive a regular steam plant to generate electricity. So anything that requires a large amount of power instantaneously, a la a rail gun, is going to require a very large volume, besides the reactor itself, to generate that power or to store it up in capacitors. Certainly beyond the realms of modern main battle tanks but perhaps along the right lines with a cruiser or aircraft carrier.

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

You are absolutely right. The only "real" benefit of a nuclear reactor is the lack of dependance on fossil fuel. It is basically a steam engine, but without the traditional boilers.

The reason I said "On Nuc powered ships, these days only Carriers and Subs, it may be possible with LOTS of capicitors (condensor)" is because you can run the reactor at full power and charge the caps without having the negative side effect of burning too much fuel.

BTW, love the Lake District, was recently in Windermere and Grasmere

[max power 21]

I don't believe you need a very powerful source of energy to release large amounts of energy at one time. I believe what you need is a very robust energy storage device.

There are tanks in the game with barrels that have trapezoidal cross sections, and there was a video showing a tank that fired its main gun and it created sort of a shockwave lensing effect. I believe the community has inferred the presence of electromagnetic weapons based solely on those points. Anyone who has more specific information may post beneath.

So, unless there has been an announcement that I'm unaware of (which is within the realm of possibilities), we have a special effect that was in CG production teaser and did not seem to contain an 1:1 depiction of gameplay, and a barrel concept that sort of looks like the thermal electric cannon (dig to find the explanation) on the

, and sort of like other concepts that may or may not contain plans for an electro magnetic cannon.

I'm not saying that it isn't some kind of fancy gun. But, artists, when given the run of the field, need no excuse to make something look different. And, if an artist wanted to make a normal gun look more fancy, these tank concepts would make good reference. In the absense of an official announcement pertaining to the type of weapon these tanks have, I don't think the devs are going to speak up about either / or. Maybe it's a thermal electic cannon as explained above.

edit: Doing further research on it, (because I'm like that) I've found this statement, but not the actual interview. Fancy cannons are probably are in, and they are probably railguns, but I would really like to see the source. There's lots of other topics talking about how it's this thing or it's that thing, but not a railgun.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Max Power

[CyclonicTuna 87]

Well this good and all. But I think this is an unrealistic concept no matter what powersource will be available in 14 years. Based on the fact that BI interactive doesn't take into account future type military scenario's based on history and new developments for as far as I'm aware off. They thus far have not taken into account the rising EMP terrorism. Which would disable all means off warfare based upon high tech elecktormagnetic systems

Now please before calling me someone who has watched to many movies or played to much Call of Duty. The rising threat of EMP terrorism is a very real one and one to take seriously. Next to the fact that an EMP blast is a side effect from a nuclear detonation, it doesn't take a whole lot of energy nor a lot of expertise to create one yourself without the nuclear blast. Basically its the sudden release of high energy elecktrons contaminating others in a chain reaction that can go on for thousands of miles thrue the atmosphere.

And because "Future weapons" apparently is a liable source in this thread:

[dragon01 902]

Tanks with railguns

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=119512

As evidenced by this thread, this is a confirmed feature.

So far, BI tried to be realistic with it's scenarios, and railguns on tanks are the most drastic departure from it I've seen. Since they could be explained by a simple and common mistake (most people who aren't interested in physics won't be able to tell a coilgun from a railgun), there's a chance that BI public relations office didn't quite get the distinction. "Coilgun" is a fairly obscure term (when was the last time you've seen one appearing in an SF story?) and Gauss gun sounds very SF-ish, so this wouldn't be very surprising. So, I'd like to ask BI devs to confirm which weapon they actually mean to be on tanks, that's all.

As for EMP, it needs to be emited in high atmosphere to work, and on a country-killing scale, it'd need to be from a nuke or a huge, impractical device. Thus, out of range of most terrorists we know about.

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

As for EMP, it needs to be emited in high atmosphere to work, and on a country-killing scale, it'd need to be from a nuke or a huge, impractical device.

EMP does not always require a nuclear device as a precursor.

As Arma3 is to be set in the future, I would not hold my breath waiting for BIS to explain to you why they chose to use the term railgun or if they meant to call it a coilgun. They currently have the benefit of creative license. In the future many things could change.

[dragon01 902]

EMP does not always require a nuclear device as a precursor.

That's what I've meant by "huge and impractical device". And you'd still need to get it up and above America.

On a scale that could take a country out, nuke is the most practical way to create an EMP. There are others, but less practical and even more expensive and/or difficult to use. On a smaller scale, a smaller device would suffice, but I don't think that it'd be able to do enough damage (heck, you couldn't even kill most civilian planes with the device shown in FW, at least if the pilot is half-competent at emergency procedures and steering using manual controls. Electric power loss is something most important things like airplanes have a contingency for).

[Maio 293]

I have removed "Tanks with railguns" from the confirmed features list until a BIS dev gives me a more appropriate term for the weapon system mounted on the tank :)

P.S. The action takes place in 2035

Edited November 13, 2011 by Maio

[Daniel 0]

Useful reading on the causes and effects of EMP: EMP Myths. E1, E2 and E3 Characteristics.

BTW, love the Lake District, was recently in Windermere and Grasmere

Lovely isn't it! I can't wait for it to snow.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Daniel

[Tonci87 163]

I think this is a pretty pointless discussion...

[dragon01 902]

And to think people believe all these things...

Inability to tell between coilguns and railguns is nothing when compared to that kind of ignorance. These myths about EMP made me laugh until I realized people actually believe in them.

But this thread isn't about EMP, nor about human gullibility. I'm still waiting for a response from devs about the railguns/coilguns.

[purepassion 22]

no activity since gamescom except for dwarden and the TOH crew...^^ chances are low

[max power 21]

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=119512

As evidenced by this thread, this is a confirmed feature.

I don't believe that is sufficient evidence. It is based on community reports and does not link to the developer's announcements. The thread itself does not claim to be an authority. It refers to the authority of developer confirmation, however it does not reference developer confirmation, therefore it can't really be used as a source of authority.

[dragon01 902]

Well, you've found this post about an interview, so it's most likely around here somewhere. I wasn't able to find it though.

[LeMask 1]

They took the power supply at the flying saucer that landed in Roswell...

They dont understand the principle... But they can copy it and energy is energy...

Here is the explanation. Obama said "yes we can."