Discussion in 'Western Europe' started by Sobo, Jan 20, 2020.
And the pesky little power supply issue, which we're only solving 100 years later...
Good description i agree.
It was idiotic to put such an amazing ship in harbor and not let it go out. But that was Hitler. An Idiot. Thats what you get when politicians talk into generals.
In my opinion a nation should always be led by experts. Politicians are what screws stuff up.
The british had the same problem.
An when i see how your military is run into the ground by politics, i assume the same counts for USA.
You mean this:
Yes but at much bigger size.
Rail guns have the ability to be much more powerful than conventional guns. The problem is the power supply as you say.
Right now its only functional as a ship weapon.
I think if you install it on a tank, the battery would need to be bigger than the tank itself.
I'm not trying to defend Hitler, but, the over rated german generals are the one who lost the war, not the politicians. They were so much interested in stroking their own ego that they totally failed to understand that victory was dependant on ressources, not their superior tactical/strategic brilliance. Hitler didn't make a blunder by diverting the army to the south twice... He knew that germany wouldn't be able to fight effectively past 1942 with its limited fuel supply. But Manstein, Guderian, Halder and others were too much interested in proving the little corporal wrong instead of effectivelly working to reach the oil fields.
Those generals also complains about Hitlers orders of not retreating, again not realising that retreating used up fuel just as attacking does. They also complained that they didn't have enough armor and air reserves, again disregarding the fact that tanks or planes without fuel are wasted ressources. Why do you think the german used all those horses?
Lastly, keep in mind that many of those generals survived the war and wrote "memoirs"... More like novel were they put all the blame on the polititians while playing the poor victims and trying to rehabilitate their reputation, which people today who don't seriously study objectivelly the campaigns and battles, takes at face value and as if it was gospell.
Rate of fire and the fact that rail guns have the same limitation as any other gun, like shooting over the horizon while costing way more. It's the reason why they never really made any headway.
And with the lack of heavy armor on modern ship, why would you chose a railgun while a 76mm Oto Melara can pepper the same target with 100 round in a minute and do way more damage.
Objects like what? Can of beans? Peaches maybe?
Because the contract says the gun must fire the projectile up to 100km altitude. Only a railgun can achieve that
Yet, this is quite a specific use case and one that's already coverd by interceptor missile systems. And those missiles can be guided unlike the railgun shell.
Interceptor missiles work not very well against hypersonic weapon systems.
Hypersonic weapons aren't ballistic and won't come from 100km in altitude. Hypersonic missiles are in the same category as cruise missile/anti-ship. They follow the terrain as low to mid altitude.
Your railgun will have the same limitation in tracking and intercepting them than the present system do.
Yeah Bismark was great if you wanted to drive in circles.
It was great at many thing except fending off old and slow biplanes...
Achilles keel /knee slap
Germany already proved that, when the US invoked article 5 and asked its partners for help.
Ask the Hood.
Very wrong, they are a high altitude weapon. They would not be able to fly at hypersonic speeds at low altitude, they would melt at those speeds. Even at the extreme altitudes they fly, close to space, they reach skin temps of over 1000 F.
You are wrong, to reach those altitudes, the projectile would have to be hypersonic, leaving the gun, it would melt the gun barrel and the projectile. A rail gun could be a launcher for a self propelled projectile, would save a huge amount of fuel, mach 2 for starters and than any kind of propulsion would kick in.
The question would be how to produce on a conventional warship the electric energy needed for a rail gun. That would require one hell of a generator to charge the capacitors.
But this is artillery, not handheld firearms.
Power source is the same, a rapid chemical reaction releasing heat and gases. Just a bigger scale.
Oh it beat a wooden decked battleship. Great job Bismark. Guess you were worth the price tag.
You need to study the ships of that time. The Hood class had over its armored deck a planking, white oak.
If you mock, at least know the subject, or you make a complete fool of yourself. Most warships of that time had a wooden deck planking.
White oak was preferred. It was a anti slip device, before durable anti slip paints became available. Well taken care of, it would last the whole ships live.
A very well known and worth visiting piece of US history, the New Jersey, would give you a good impression of the masterful wood work of the deck.
The Bismarck was a great ship, too. lol oops, didn't see all the other posts.
What happened to the Graf Spee?
So much waste of good steel. It's lying at the bottom of the ocean. No ship is invulnerable. They are almost a waste of time, manpower, and money. It's like making airliners bigger and bigger. One goes down and that's more dead. What a waste of intelligence.
Separate names with a comma.