The "20 year" guess was overly generous. I was, admittedly, pretty tired when I made this video. I think railguns will eventually show up on tanks, but I don't think they will fully replace conventional cannons. I could have done a much better job of explaining that.
in my honest opinion, the power source for this mighty cannon of doom is what keeps it off tanks. the energy this beast requires is just monumental. the batterys themselves could become a fire hazard. why electricity is so bad at powering our cars and guns is the battery, it is one of the worst ways to store energy unlike fuel for the combustion engine tha is pretty much at the top of power storage, as well as propellants as gunpowder or its rivals. the rail gun would be fantastic for ships that have alot of room for power generation and storage as well as they need the extra power and distance that the gun proovides. so ships yes, land vehicles no …….unless they bring the mega tanks and train guns back, wich theywill not because ...you know….air power…….drones...
I think that there would be certain size requirements that make so conventional cannon would be preferred under a certain caliber, meaning things like an IFV would still use them while railguns would be relegated to long range engagements. Kind of what i think would happen when the breakthrough for direct energy weapons is made.
I think that there would be certain size requirements that make so conventional cannon would be preferred under a certain caliber, meaning things like an IFV would still use them while railguns would be relegated to long range engagements. Kind of what i think would happen when the breakthrough for direct energy weapons is made.
I think that there would be certain size requirements that make so conventional cannon would be preferred under a certain caliber, meaning things like an IFV would still use them while railguns would be relegated to long range engagements. Kind of what i think would happen when the breakthrough for direct energy weapons is made.
Sound effects in Halo have always been weak. The ones in cutscenes I mean. It’s like Bungie and later on, 343, forgot to do a final sound edit or something
When the frigate firing it exploded I thought for a moment that it was destroyed by flying debris from the thing it just shot at point blank range. Fast forward to Reach’s rerelease, and I’m watching a stream of reach and make the same wrong inference.
Coilguns tend to be less compact than railguns of a comparable technological level and also as of now we have yet to fire a fast enough projectile from one to compete with railguns or conventional guns. But on the plus side they are much easier to maintain and produce. So once we are able to work around their current limitations expect coilguns to be the new railguns.
An interesting implication about a railgun equipped tank is that if you manage to install a powerplant on a tank that can power a proper railgun for the duration of the mission then the tank might be propelled completely by electric motors, because such power-dense powerplant should produce more then enough power for the locomotion of the tank. In fact such compact powerplant would make combustion engines obsolete, because the combustion engines occupy larger volumes due to its fuel tank, has lower energy conversion efficiency, its fuel is are fire hazard.
Electric engines also are much quieter with no high temperature exhaust, erasing the tanks heat signature and severely dampening it's audio signature. Can someone say stealth tank?
Tank Destroyers never left 'looks at Stryker'. But seriously the only reason it feels like they went away is that the US and Germany changed their army doctrine after WW2 to focus more on tanks.
@@Ushio01 It's more because tanks started having better guns so tank destroyers weren't needed. The Tiger could mount an 88mm which is what a lot of tank destroyers had but it had the versatility of a turret. No reason not to have a turret.
I think the reason we don’t see as many rank destroyers is because they are typically a cheaper alternative to tanks, in WWII battles could be won simply by having more tanks even if they weren’t the best, however in post WWII conflicts war has become more asymmetrical so there is less need for more tanks and an increased need for counters to guerrila and city warfare
@@Ushio01 The Stryker is not a Tank Destroyer. It is a gun platform with reduced firepower to a main battle tank but with increased mobility. It is deployed in areas where it is too expensive to operate MBTs but that the firepower of a 105mm gun is needed because IFV autocannons aren't enough. I'm an engineer. Who like works on this. You can find evidence for what I just said off of Wikipedia. But I can say with a great degree of confidence that it is not meant to be a tank destroyer by any stretch of the imagination.
"With rainguns, you don't have volatility" Ahh, not quite. Capacitors can be pretty explosive when charged up. If someone hit the capacitors when they have a full load, it would be just as bad as hitting your ammo rack. The energy to toss a slug at 8x the speed of sound has to go somewhere, potential energy is potential energy, be it in the form of chemical, or electrical. You can look up videos of catastrophic electrical equipment failure. But needless to say, fire and explosions would still be an issue, even without factoring in a chemical or nuclear power plant to power your railgun.
Isn't that still more of a thermal thing? Like, low-explosive, more in the line of gasoline explosions than chemical propellants? It would be substantially easier to contain and route away from important parts, unless it really is equally vigorous.
@Northropi If you turn 1 joule of potential energy into heat and concussive force, it doesn't matter what the source was. Your only general advantage of capacitors vs explosives or gasoline is that capacitors as they are now have vastly worse energy density. But if you wanted a practical tank mounted railgun, you'd need to have capacitor banks that had similar energy density to at least explosives, keeping in mind most explosives have about half the energy of a non-self oxidising fuel like gasoline, since a fair portion of them is some form of oxidiser and stabilizing binders. But in the close quarters of a tank hull, I doubt you'd even want a current high voltage capacitor detonating on you. This is a very small capacitor blowing up from over voltage: ruclips.net/video/_WheLp0RdLQ/видео.html The energy in those little ones isn't even enough to do more than deliver an annoying and slightly painful shock. The energy to drive a KG of steel to mach 8 would pretty much detonate with similar energy to the powder charge it would take to do the same work. Conventional explosives also don't tend to detonate because there was damage to the power system and a voltage leak. If combat damage broke the power system, and forced the charge breakers into the on position, or stuck them there, your capacitors could easily detonate. I'd want those capacitors walled off and seperate from the crew entirely, even if they don't detonate, they can easily overheat and light on fire. It's a common misconception that electrically driven guns are somehow more inert, I guess it comes from most not having much experience with electricity. But energy is energy, and any uncontrolled release tends to result in an explosion. You can also have issues where power lines are severed, and end up in contact with the hull. It would be a nasty, and deadly surprise to complete a circuit to ground with your body while trying to get out of a burning railgun tank.
I linked you a video showing how a capacitor literally explodes like a firecracker from overvoltage. Either watch it, or search for exploding capacitors. You don't need to build up gas pressure, electrical charge can create heat and force. The same electromagnetic principle that pushes a slug down a barrel can tear a capacitor apart and generate large amounts of heat. When you smash a charged up capacitor apart, the energy doesn't just go away, it's released, usually as heat, and when you have lots of heat in one small place, that's the basis of how explosions work and one of the best ways to start a fire.
@@kauske yeah, I know capacitors go up like that, but, well, two things. First, is the conversion from stored energy to concussive force still as efficient as chemical propellants, or is a greater fraction of the energy released as relatively less dangerous heat? Second, does this apply so much to the batteries that hold the energy longer-term? I know those burn, and that energy has to go somewhere, but would it be equally explosive in doing so? If not then it would be reasonable to set up a fail-safe where the capacitors are kept uncharged until needed, and it's also possible that a chain reaction could be prevented more easily than with a magazine by discharging the capacitors via an emergency circuit into the ground in the event one is damaged. Unless the explosive tendencies of any energy storage of a given density are totally identical then it seems like energy weapons may be substantially safer than conventional ones in regards to exploding.
@@2Potates we are talking of a metal tube that compress gases caused by the conflagration of a chemical compound, based upon a centuries old and less complex technology, inside a metal case to shoot a round versus special magnets and a power source to do the same. The latter will require longer times due being far more complex than it looks, much like the fact why a WW2 aircraft could enter in service only a few years after the first test flights while a modern one require over a decade to do it.
This video caught me by surprise. While the stuff in here was all something I was aware of, it's still nice to see a good RUclipsr cover such a major topic in a succinct, high-quality manner.
“20 years in the future we will have rail gun tanks” Halo 500 years in the future: “Our main battle tanks will have regular 90mm canons, but our space fighter jets will have 2 120mm twin mounted rail gun cannons, with rotary 110mm cannons” Halo again:”Also the largest deck guns on our massive mile long ships will be 70mm”
My point is how the longswords anti-starfighter guns are larger than a main battle tanks gun, as well as a ship mounted ant-starfighter/ point defense gun.
SmithOnMe they’re smaller because the ship mounted point defense guns are actually rapid fire coil guns. Meaning a smaller shell can be used/ is needed to deliver the same amount of damage a large one will. Because of this more of the PD guns can be mounted and more ammunition can be stored. Meaning more overlapping fields of fire and longer engagements times, leading to a more effective warship. The PD guns don’t need to be a caliber of say 130mm when you can put a few magnets on the gun and drop the shell to 60-70mm and still do the same damage while achieving a higher velocity for better armor penetration. Let’s also not forget that the second model of archer missile can be used for point defense. As for the longsword the 110mm rotary cannons aren’t standard. Standard armament is eight 50mm coilguns. But the 120mm pair of cannons is standard and usually used for ground attack, as the longsword is often deployed for if shortswords are lacking. However in saying this, they are mounted on the underside of the aircraft and have a 90 degree swivel. It’s not crazy to have such a caliber on such a large aircraft. 64.1 meters by 75 meters. With the smaller variant being only shorter in length at 33.5 meters. If you have any other questions I’d be happy to answer them!
@@tigerii10.5cmpog4 This is Gaijin we are talking about. You ever notice how the Russian tech tree conveniently gets the first of every major advancement. FIrst to get IFV, ATGM, HEATFS, and more.
The problem lies not only in amount of energy used by railgun to shoot but also in time to transfer this energy from capacitors to magnets in the barrel. For the mentioned railgun on the ship the capacitors are extremely expensive and complex because they need to discharge VERY quickly. Or the shell wuould leave the barrel before reaching maximum speed.
I think Railguns would be best suited in terms of Frontline combat(in the near future anyways), as Tank Destroyers, and Artillery. But traditional tanks would still be more versatile, having multiple types of ammunition, and being cheaper to produce.
@@phantomwraith1984 Railguns slugs are generally smaller in size, and made of cheap materials like aluminum (from the tests I've watched anyways), around 3mm I think it was. Round ball type. But the railgun itself is quite expensive. And that's true that because of the velocity you wouldn't need as much speciality in your ammunition. But in terms of general combat, I think using traditional tanks and their ammunition's will be prevalent for quite some time. It'll be difficult for many countries to adapt to more efficient technology like Rail-tech. Especially if that nation is poor. It will most likely be advanced by USA, PRC, Russia, Germany(from a military complex perspective), Singapore, Korea, Japan, and I think India as well(from a technological perspective, and India's growing capabilities).
@@TotallyNotAFox I didn't know about any negligence. But from what I'd seen, you were making new tech, and weapons. But I haven't been looking into the internal politics of Germany lately, so any information would be appreciated.
I think railguns will sort of rejuvenate the old experimental nature of when tank guns were first invented. Shooting a very fast needle doesnt negate the fact that you're shooting a needle, so i can imagine some nations will try a sort of APHE approach or maybe even a "shotgun slug" approach
I suggest that you take a look at ETC guns. Electro-Thermal Chemical cannons are considered by many in the army as the next logical step in armored warefare.
Spookston please could you make vid about Red Faction 3 Guerrilla ,EDF military vechicles they are all well made imo and theirs design is quite interesting.
I prefer my impractical Shagohod technology of having a giant tank running on threads with an ICBM payload that requires a 5km runway to accelerate enough to fire at the United States from the Soviet Union
Railguns will probably not be safer than regular Ammo. It's all about the energy that needs to get released to accelerate your shells. Finding a power source that can do this without having the potential to release said energy rapidly in an undesired way like your Ammo blowing up should be difficult
A few issues: 1) Power consumption is quite large, regardless of the power pack. 2) Overpenetration of a 25-35mm round would be significant, especially on a lightly armored chassis, particularly IFVs. 3) The unreliability and expensiveness would be a huge logistical and economical issue. 4) With the current political climate, I’d expect to see funding for the military reduced somewhat, increasing the time for RnD. Otherwise, I think it has potential. Definitely won’t replace traditional gunpowder cannons, but overall pretty good. Well done video as always, Spookston!
Overpen isn't as big a deal with rounds that big. Yes it will overpen, but the sheer kinetic energy imparted into a lightly armored target would likely result in nothing short of a hullbreak. You're dealing with extreme amounts of kinetic energy here, not just a few hundred meters per second.
@@notstonks20 it means that the damage done to the vehicle was so severe that it caused a massive rupture in the hull, or outright blew it apart. War thunder doesn't actually visually show this.
For HE the railgun could lower its power, and thus G-forces on the HE projectile. (They do not rely on kinetic energi, so M/S would not matter as much)
If we are talking railguns on tanks, could you do a ‘everything wrong with W40k Tau tanks’ video? Especially on the Hammerhead gunship which mounts a heavy railgun as standard
I guess depending on the weight of the shell and its force of impact railgun combat and tactics would be similar to that of USI-152's vs Panthers where the sheer force of impact from the 152's shell would break the turret rings if the panthers, or smash the turret panels in breaking them free from their welds
@@justinbeath5169 Well that could be a solution to overpenetration and the explosive sensitivity concerns in another thread, but penetrating the target would still be preferable to whacking it really hard as OP suggests.
Railguns are so awesome, even the convoluted mess of Michael Bay's T:ROTF Railgun looked awesome. Metal Gear: awesome. Even literal Rail (way) guns like the Leopold.
Can't wait to see how this video goes! Edit: Really awesome! Really hope to see tanks like this in the future! I wonder how armor will evolve to stop these new hypersonic sabots? It would be interesting to see these same power systems that are used for tank railguns but for infantry anti-tank armaments once they get scaled down far enough. Railguns are really cool and I would love to see real tanks using them!
Not to be rude, but the rounds fired out of railguns won't be sabot rounds because they don't need the sabot for sealing the barrel. They will propably be at least at the start similar dart rounds fired out of modern tank guns, but they won't be sabot rounds.
@@ANDREALEONE95 Energy shields would be cool, but maybe a magnetic shield that actively repels in the direction of the enemy vehicle. Probably would devour electricity like no tomorrow.
On the topic of rounds vaporizing or destabilizing and warping in flight, that’s probably why sci-fi railguns are always using tungsten or depleted uranium for their ammunition, as those two metals are extremely hard and resistant to excessive heat.
Stored energy is stored energy. The devestation of an exploding battery/capacitor would rival tank rounds. Also, the shift in warfare will be extreme, like when suits of armor became completely obsolete as firearms grew more prolific. when the effective range of a rail gun is essentially line of site, the armor thickness will become less relevant in favor of high mobility and low observability.
What we really need to develop is coil guns. Instead of rail slippers the round is held magnetically then accelerated. This removes the barrel wear issue.
Terran siege tank is still using chemical explosives, possibly coilgun boost like the Marine's rifle is. Protoss tech runs on Sufficiently Advanced Bullshit so not touching that.
Some of my online buddies mused on the idea that you could pretty much make a "budget rail gun" if all you did was basically try to make it match the current muzzle velocities of cannons and just use extisting projectiles stuffed in a sabot to let them be fired. The thing we immediately ran into is that a tank's engine needs a pretty substantial amount of time to generate the amount of power to fire a railgun with the velocity of a regular tank shell (of course, since the projectiles were the same as a regular M1A2, and we were shooting for a similar velocity as those, you could technically fire stuff like HEAT-MP with lower velocities if you can accept a reduced range)
That first pro of railguns..... Have you not heard of the dangers of storing and discharging massive amounts of electricity in something that will likely get damaged? Formula E is my favorite current model of this problem
how about a tank that is actually billions of nanobots that when fired upon will separate creating a hole where the projectile will hit, or how about the tank can just change into whatever shape it want, even a person with a large cannon for a head. very nice yes?
Defense contractors are already working on scaling down the necessary equipment. With the availability of newer and better electrical equipment, it will eventually happen. It's like saying a tank could never fit a computer in it because in the 50s they were the size of a room.
@@Spookston There's a limit to how much you can scale things down, especially when it comes to power generation. About all you could realistically do with the power source you could fit into a reasonably sized vehicle is match the performance of existing weapons systems with less volatile ammo. But in that case why not just go with traditional ballistics and make literally everything in terms of maintenence cheaper and easier?
The DOD says it's possible, BAE systems says it's possible, and the Army also seems to think it's a feasible concept. Conventional tank guns will obviously stick around for a while, but we're already towards the upper limit of how fast we can make projectiles go with chemical propellants.
Spartan448 The thing is we need to find newer and better power sources. At the moment we even reached “limit” on how small a battery can be and be useful. Sure, he have electric cars but the batteries a very limiting, even some speculation about Tesla’s electric semi truck has to use significant cargo use just to match the endurance of a traditional gas truck. So, the limiting factor if you can fit a big ass battery is the ammunition to be small and effective.
Spookston: Railgun Tanks *shows documentary footage of the Human-Covenant war of the 26th century featuring a UNSC ship giving literally everyone a hard on* FOR ALL THOSE WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES DEFENDING EARTH AND HER COLONIES.
F-16s and B-52 are still in service with no plans to retire them any time soon. Innovation really is only worth it when your current gear no longer does the job.
Interesting thing about these rail gun battery’s is they might be even more dangerous when shot. Just look at a video of a lipo battery when punctured. There’s so much energy stored up that when a cell is compromised, It will spit out a nasty flame and toxic smoke. Imagine this in a tank at a much larger scale. Then we also have to note that these huge batteries paired up with the required capacitors you have a gigantic target that will practically guarantee a tank kill when hit compared to standard munitions. Basically your ammo is safer but the guns power source is essentially a giant bomb when shot! It’s a huge downside looking into it. Crazy huh!
I was so confused when I heard the overlaying music! I thought my media player on my phone had bugged out and somehow started playing alongside this video... I'd quite literally been listening to a looping five-song playlist all day, and Noosphere was one of those five songs!
One pro is that you can use a railgun MBT as both as super sonic AP and (at the cost of extra training / complexity ) a sub sonic HE heavy mortar to help your infantry ...
Trought my hobbys im very much into modern tech warfare. And what i can say about this is that the coilgun is a much more practical than the railgun mechanism. Very good and surprising video by the way :)
The best thing about railguns on vehicles would be upgrades of tanks that weren't made in era of railguns. Imagine T-72M serving as SPG with half opened turret, railgun fitted in to it and cables sticking out of it leading to some high voltage outlet. Disgusting yet highly fascinating.
It seems to me that the advantage from elimination of shells with propellant that could potentially cook off is lessened because an extremely dense energy source could also potentially release all that energy at once, exploding. You could place such an energy cell inside the hull rather than the turret though, I suppose.
Something I realized is both a pro and a con for railguns is their muzzle velocities. Tanks already occasionally have problems with overpenetration, shooting clean through the target without actually doing any real damage. With a railgun, being able to modulate the current applied to the electromagnet would solve this problem, since you could reduce the power to only what is necessary and maximize the damage the shell deals. It could also reduce the need for dedicated armor-piercing ammunition, as you can just ramp up the power on the magnet until a normal shell has enough velocity to penetrate.
Putting aside power plant, putting on a tracked vehicle (regardless if it’s armoured) is sensible because it’s a basic land platform. You could potentially put it on a wheeled vehicle or towed. I would compare the idea to the otomalera 76mm. A naval gun that was also made available as a tracked SPAAG.
imagine a railgun in space that shot a "rod of god" at the earths surface combining two weapons all the while not breaching any weapons in space agreement
Suggestion: Force fields. Possible ones can be made by heating air and turning it into plasma and changing its form with magnetic fields. I suggest you to make a video about how it could be used in various ways.
Only Spookston would ever suggest the concept of a *fully-automatic railgun* mounted on an IFV. I guess the logical next video will be about laser weapons.
I don't know about tanks but way back when, about the time of Robocraft beta when railguns could be made for lowest cost builds we used to slap them on little cars and snipe the big bulky tanks right out of the game with a single well placed shot at the driver seat. Flying railguns were also bad/annoying and hard to hit but way easier to spot.
The problem with railguns is that chemical propellants are really good at storing a lot of energy in a small space. While the projectiles will be smaller, the capacitors needed to power the gun will take more space than the casing and powder on traditional guns will. The capacitors could be stored in the hull still allowing the turret to be smaller, this would make the hull bigger.
of course, we have proven that gigantic artillery are absolutely practical back in world war 2 with the gustav railway gun being actually quite detrimental to one of the few mission it was used, it proven that artillery firesupport is better if the munition is larger and shot from a longer range.
The biggest problem with railguns, coilguns, whatever, is that chemical propellant will always be able to store more potential energy than any other storage medium for a given volume. Easy example? A 655 grain .50 BMG projectile has over 18 thousand joules of kinetic energy being generated from an area of a few cubic inches. Search 1.25 kj railgun on youtube and think of how many .50 caliber rounds could be fit in the same volume of those far more volatile while charged capacitors that make up over half of the weapon's stock. Even with advantages in storage mediums, solid state batteries, what have you, we have been unable to find any storage medium more efficient than chemical bonds. Railguns and coilguns are fun weapons to think about, and can be very useful for when engagement range is to be prioritized over rate of fire or the economics of scale allow for sufficient volume for power generation and storage. But personally? I believe the answer lies in something along the lines of cased telescope electro-thermal-chemical (ETC) guns that can more efficiently use far more powerful and stable chemical explosive than any electrical storage medium we will have available for decades.
One down side not listed. Smaller diameter round means a lighter charge for HE rounds, which in turn reduces the effectiveness when engaging bunkers/dug in infantry and/or soft skin targets.
So, at first railguns found on ground vehicles would only be found in fire support vehicles, IFV base vehicles with lots of internal space for more components, using the infantry compartments for containing more batteries and electronics instead, and then eventually it'll reach MBTs or maybe heavy tanks if they come back in the future with more compact and efficient technologies
The "20 year" guess was overly generous. I was, admittedly, pretty tired when I made this video. I think railguns will eventually show up on tanks, but I don't think they will fully replace conventional cannons. I could have done a much better job of explaining that.
Nah my man, I think you are not far off at all.
Out of curiosity are you an engineer or student at all?
in my honest opinion, the power source for this mighty cannon of doom is what keeps it off tanks. the energy this beast requires is just monumental. the batterys themselves could become a fire hazard. why electricity is so bad at powering our cars and guns is the battery, it is one of the worst ways to store energy unlike fuel for the combustion engine tha is pretty much at the top of power storage, as well as propellants as gunpowder or its rivals. the rail gun would be fantastic for ships that have alot of room for power generation and storage as well as they need the extra power and distance that the gun proovides. so ships yes, land vehicles no …….unless they bring the mega tanks and train guns back, wich theywill not because ...you know….air power…….drones...
I think that there would be certain size requirements that make so conventional cannon would be preferred under a certain caliber, meaning things like an IFV would still use them while railguns would be relegated to long range engagements. Kind of what i think would happen when the breakthrough for direct energy weapons is made.
I think that there would be certain size requirements that make so conventional cannon would be preferred under a certain caliber, meaning things like an IFV would still use them while railguns would be relegated to long range engagements. Kind of what i think would happen when the breakthrough for direct energy weapons is made.
I think that there would be certain size requirements that make so conventional cannon would be preferred under a certain caliber, meaning things like an IFV would still use them while railguns would be relegated to long range engagements. Kind of what i think would happen when the breakthrough for direct energy weapons is made.
Who doesn't like a railgun?
Ummm the person getting shot at?
Wait what person?
Exactly
All I see is a splatter of blood
@@kreimer1702 only if the blood doesn't vaporize the moment they got hit
@@kreimer1702 If you hit a person with a railgun, there would be no splatter, there wouldn't even be a mist, there would just be dust and a crater.
What a huge deal was made of that Halo: Reach atmospheric MAC gun shot. Only for it to sound and feel like a wet fart.
Sound effects in Halo have always been weak.
The ones in cutscenes I mean.
It’s like Bungie and later on, 343, forgot to do a final sound edit or something
So dam true, I was expecting a deafening explosion with the visors shattering on the spartan armour
When the frigate firing it exploded I thought for a moment that it was destroyed by flying debris from the thing it just shot at point blank range. Fast forward to Reach’s rerelease, and I’m watching a stream of reach and make the same wrong inference.
@@Phos9 now that would have been cool, or at least pelted by chunks of rock and debris
However the mass-driver at the dockyard in Pillar-Of-Autumn sounds gorgeous
The virgin Railgun vs the gigachad Gauss
Callsign-YukiMizuki what about the God of Guns Schwerer Gustav?
@@biko9824 virgin Schwer Gustav vs Chad Davie Crockett
@@dongiovanni4331 the virgin davie David Crockett vs the chad super soaker
Coilguns tend to be less compact than railguns of a comparable technological level and also as of now we have yet to fire a fast enough projectile from one to compete with railguns or conventional guns.
But on the plus side they are much easier to maintain and produce. So once we are able to work around their current limitations expect coilguns to be the new railguns.
@@thefirstprimariscatosicari6870 typically though arent gauss weapons intended to offer additional acceleration to a chemically launched shot?
An interesting implication about a railgun equipped tank is that if you manage to install a powerplant on a tank that can power a proper railgun for the duration of the mission then the tank might be propelled completely by electric motors, because such power-dense powerplant should produce more then enough power for the locomotion of the tank.
In fact such compact powerplant would make combustion engines obsolete, because the combustion engines occupy larger volumes due to its fuel tank, has lower energy conversion efficiency, its fuel is are fire hazard.
Electric engines also are much quieter with no high temperature exhaust, erasing the tanks heat signature and severely dampening it's audio signature. Can someone say stealth tank?
This needs more likes.
How about a nuclear fission engine? Of course, when we get there. Edit: I mean generator
@@pcb_404 The government already tried making a nuclear powered tank in the 50's. It never took off.
@@pcb_404 For a generator I'd say Fusion is better, as it doesn't create radiation. However the technology is less developed
Maybe we'll see Tank Destroyers come back for a while; mounting these super heavy weapons on them before turrets practically could.
Tank Destroyers never left 'looks at Stryker'. But seriously the only reason it feels like they went away is that the US and Germany changed their army doctrine after WW2 to focus more on tanks.
@@Ushio01 It's more because tanks started having better guns so tank destroyers weren't needed. The Tiger could mount an 88mm which is what a lot of tank destroyers had but it had the versatility of a turret. No reason not to have a turret.
Generally speaking the saving grace of a CASEMATE td is price and ease of production
I think the reason we don’t see as many rank destroyers is because they are typically a cheaper alternative to tanks, in WWII battles could be won simply by having more tanks even if they weren’t the best, however in post WWII conflicts war has become more asymmetrical so there is less need for more tanks and an increased need for counters to guerrila and city warfare
@@Ushio01 The Stryker is not a Tank Destroyer. It is a gun platform with reduced firepower to a main battle tank but with increased mobility. It is deployed in areas where it is too expensive to operate MBTs but that the firepower of a 105mm gun is needed because IFV autocannons aren't enough.
I'm an engineer.
Who like works on this.
You can find evidence for what I just said off of Wikipedia. But I can say with a great degree of confidence that it is not meant to be a tank destroyer by any stretch of the imagination.
"With rainguns, you don't have volatility" Ahh, not quite. Capacitors can be pretty explosive when charged up. If someone hit the capacitors when they have a full load, it would be just as bad as hitting your ammo rack. The energy to toss a slug at 8x the speed of sound has to go somewhere, potential energy is potential energy, be it in the form of chemical, or electrical. You can look up videos of catastrophic electrical equipment failure. But needless to say, fire and explosions would still be an issue, even without factoring in a chemical or nuclear power plant to power your railgun.
Isn't that still more of a thermal thing? Like, low-explosive, more in the line of gasoline explosions than chemical propellants? It would be substantially easier to contain and route away from important parts, unless it really is equally vigorous.
@Northropi
If you turn 1 joule of potential energy into heat and concussive force, it doesn't matter what the source was. Your only general advantage of capacitors vs explosives or gasoline is that capacitors as they are now have vastly worse energy density. But if you wanted a practical tank mounted railgun, you'd need to have capacitor banks that had similar energy density to at least explosives, keeping in mind most explosives have about half the energy of a non-self oxidising fuel like gasoline, since a fair portion of them is some form of oxidiser and stabilizing binders.
But in the close quarters of a tank hull, I doubt you'd even want a current high voltage capacitor detonating on you. This is a very small capacitor blowing up from over voltage: ruclips.net/video/_WheLp0RdLQ/видео.html The energy in those little ones isn't even enough to do more than deliver an annoying and slightly painful shock. The energy to drive a KG of steel to mach 8 would pretty much detonate with similar energy to the powder charge it would take to do the same work.
Conventional explosives also don't tend to detonate because there was damage to the power system and a voltage leak. If combat damage broke the power system, and forced the charge breakers into the on position, or stuck them there, your capacitors could easily detonate. I'd want those capacitors walled off and seperate from the crew entirely, even if they don't detonate, they can easily overheat and light on fire.
It's a common misconception that electrically driven guns are somehow more inert, I guess it comes from most not having much experience with electricity. But energy is energy, and any uncontrolled release tends to result in an explosion. You can also have issues where power lines are severed, and end up in contact with the hull. It would be a nasty, and deadly surprise to complete a circuit to ground with your body while trying to get out of a burning railgun tank.
@@kauske my hangup is how it would turn into concussive force. Solid state batteries don't build pressure in themselves, do they?
I linked you a video showing how a capacitor literally explodes like a firecracker from overvoltage. Either watch it, or search for exploding capacitors. You don't need to build up gas pressure, electrical charge can create heat and force. The same electromagnetic principle that pushes a slug down a barrel can tear a capacitor apart and generate large amounts of heat. When you smash a charged up capacitor apart, the energy doesn't just go away, it's released, usually as heat, and when you have lots of heat in one small place, that's the basis of how explosions work and one of the best ways to start a fire.
@@kauske yeah, I know capacitors go up like that, but, well, two things. First, is the conversion from stored energy to concussive force still as efficient as chemical propellants, or is a greater fraction of the energy released as relatively less dangerous heat? Second, does this apply so much to the batteries that hold the energy longer-term? I know those burn, and that energy has to go somewhere, but would it be equally explosive in doing so? If not then it would be reasonable to set up a fail-safe where the capacitors are kept uncharged until needed, and it's also possible that a chain reaction could be prevented more easily than with a magazine by discharging the capacitors via an emergency circuit into the ground in the event one is damaged. Unless the explosive tendencies of any energy storage of a given density are totally identical then it seems like energy weapons may be substantially safer than conventional ones in regards to exploding.
Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Yeeeeeessssss
Did you know the word long only has 4 letters and the word short has 5
f f
I hate you
@@rn-zu5ld IRONIC!
I'd honestly say around 30-35 years as the development of rail guns isn't a high priority and its still a very experimental weapon
this because they are more complex than a smoothbore.
I'd say 500 years, based on nothing.
@@Danuxsy Na, make it one million years, in bee time.
@@ANDREALEONE95 I mean it's not hard to be more complicated then a litteral tube.
@@2Potates we are talking of a metal tube that compress gases caused by the conflagration of a chemical compound, based upon a centuries old and less complex technology, inside a metal case to shoot a round versus special magnets and a power source to do the same. The latter will require longer times due being far more complex than it looks, much like the fact why a WW2 aircraft could enter in service only a few years after the first test flights while a modern one require over a decade to do it.
Mac rounds? In atmosphere?!
One way to get their attention. Hang onto your teeth people
MAC rounds? In *my* atmosphere?
It's more likely than you think
New contact. High tonnage.
Only if you fire at full charge.
Flood? On High Charity?
I am a simple man. I hear Mechanicus OST on the background - I press 'like' and praise the Omnissiah
How is the name of the girl on your photo?
This video caught me by surprise. While the stuff in here was all something I was aware of, it's still nice to see a good RUclipsr cover such a major topic in a succinct, high-quality manner.
“20 years in the future we will have rail gun tanks”
Halo 500 years in the future: “Our main battle tanks will have regular 90mm canons, but our space fighter jets will have 2 120mm twin mounted rail gun cannons, with rotary 110mm cannons”
Halo again:”Also the largest deck guns on our massive mile long ships will be 70mm”
SmithOnMe actually naval coilgun batteries go up to 300mm, the 70mm are just AA
SmithOnMe those are just point defense guns and even those are coil guns.
all about the velocity
My point is how the longswords anti-starfighter guns are larger than a main battle tanks gun, as well as a ship mounted ant-starfighter/ point defense gun.
SmithOnMe they’re smaller because the ship mounted point defense guns are actually rapid fire coil guns. Meaning a smaller shell can be used/ is needed to deliver the same amount of damage a large one will. Because of this more of the PD guns can be mounted and more ammunition can be stored. Meaning more overlapping fields of fire and longer engagements times, leading to a more effective warship. The PD guns don’t need to be a caliber of say 130mm when you can put a few magnets on the gun and drop the shell to 60-70mm and still do the same damage while achieving a higher velocity for better armor penetration. Let’s also not forget that the second model of archer missile can be used for point defense. As for the longsword the 110mm rotary cannons aren’t standard. Standard armament is eight 50mm coilguns. But the 120mm pair of cannons is standard and usually used for ground attack, as the longsword is often deployed for if shortswords are lacking. However in saying this, they are mounted on the underside of the aircraft and have a 90 degree swivel. It’s not crazy to have such a caliber on such a large aircraft. 64.1 meters by 75 meters. With the smaller variant being only shorter in length at 33.5 meters. If you have any other questions I’d be happy to answer them!
rail guns: exist
War Thunder: *give us your documents*
Guess wich tech tree would be the first one get it.
Lel nice
@@Cowboycomando54
probably china with their slave labor
But ethically maybe nazi wuder waffe
Or American
@@tigerii10.5cmpog4 This is Gaijin we are talking about. You ever notice how the Russian tech tree conveniently gets the first of every major advancement. FIrst to get IFV, ATGM, HEATFS, and more.
@@Cowboycomando54
Oh yeah
Gajin is Russian right?
The problem lies not only in amount of energy used by railgun to shoot but also in time to transfer this energy from capacitors to magnets in the barrel. For the mentioned railgun on the ship the capacitors are extremely expensive and complex because they need to discharge VERY quickly. Or the shell wuould leave the barrel before reaching maximum speed.
I think Railguns would be best suited in terms of Frontline combat(in the near future anyways), as Tank Destroyers, and Artillery. But traditional tanks would still be more versatile, having multiple types of ammunition, and being cheaper to produce.
Railgun slugs are cheaper than normal tank rounds. It's just a metal rod. And they have such a high velocity that you have no need for different types
@@phantomwraith1984 Railguns slugs are generally smaller in size, and made of cheap materials like aluminum (from the tests I've watched anyways), around 3mm I think it was. Round ball type. But the railgun itself is quite expensive. And that's true that because of the velocity you wouldn't need as much speciality in your ammunition. But in terms of general combat, I think using traditional tanks and their ammunition's will be prevalent for quite some time. It'll be difficult for many countries to adapt to more efficient technology like Rail-tech. Especially if that nation is poor. It will most likely be advanced by USA, PRC, Russia, Germany(from a military complex perspective), Singapore, Korea, Japan, and I think India as well(from a technological perspective, and India's growing capabilities).
@@ironwolf2244
Germany good joke XD Our idiots in charge aren't even able to give our soldiers new boots!
@@TotallyNotAFox I didn't know about any negligence. But from what I'd seen, you were making new tech, and weapons. But I haven't been looking into the internal politics of Germany lately, so any information would be appreciated.
T34 way too stronk Russian bias.
I think railguns will sort of rejuvenate the old experimental nature of when tank guns were first invented. Shooting a very fast needle doesnt negate the fact that you're shooting a needle, so i can imagine some nations will try a sort of APHE approach or maybe even a "shotgun slug" approach
I can just imagine a 100mm DU covered aphe with thermobaric explosives inside entering a tank. It's bye bye everything inside and outside the tank.
MasleniR What exactly do you think sabots are ?
Well, you could class the DU dart rounds as rich man's aphe because of it's self-combusting nature.
Man I already got you covered, try armor piercing anti-matter
Watch the expanse
The railguns fire tungsten slugs
I suggest that you take a look at ETC guns. Electro-Thermal Chemical cannons are considered by many in the army as the next logical step in armored warefare.
Spookston please could you make vid about Red Faction 3 Guerrilla ,EDF military vechicles they are all well made imo and theirs design is quite interesting.
DEPLOYING WALKING FORTRESS BALAM!
Jan Gutkowski man, i loved that Game.
I'd say 20 years for "miniaturized" rail guns in test phase, 10 more for actual deployment
A railgun tank firing thermonuclear rocket-assisted guided shells, that's the only answer.
METAL GEAR???
I prefer my impractical Shagohod technology of having a giant tank running on threads with an ICBM payload that requires a 5km runway to accelerate enough to fire at the United States from the Soviet Union
@@SS-ARYAN and it was much stupid.
That could theoretically work in real life
Sounds like the Estovakian Chandelier from Ace Combat 6
Railguns will probably not be safer than regular Ammo. It's all about the energy that needs to get released to accelerate your shells. Finding a power source that can do this without having the potential to release said energy rapidly in an undesired way like your Ammo blowing up should be difficult
When you were talking about rail guns, I thought you're gonna use Ace Combat as reference
I honestly thought there would be more comments about ace combat since there are many examples of railguns in that franchise
**Stonehenge intensifies**
@@haveiszalfaroqie1628 actually Stonehenge used gunpowder at the start then the magnets take over
@@Groza_Dallocort then how about the Alicorn or planebound EMLs?
@@phantomwraith1984 those are real railguns aka only electromagnets I would say due to being built 20 years later
A few issues:
1) Power consumption is quite large, regardless of the power pack.
2) Overpenetration of a 25-35mm round would be significant, especially on a lightly armored chassis, particularly IFVs.
3) The unreliability and expensiveness would be a huge logistical and economical issue.
4) With the current political climate, I’d expect to see funding for the military reduced somewhat, increasing the time for RnD.
Otherwise, I think it has potential. Definitely won’t replace traditional gunpowder cannons, but overall pretty good. Well done video as always, Spookston!
They will absolutely replace traditional cannons eventually.
Overpen isn't as big a deal with rounds that big. Yes it will overpen, but the sheer kinetic energy imparted into a lightly armored target would likely result in nothing short of a hullbreak. You're dealing with extreme amounts of kinetic energy here, not just a few hundred meters per second.
@@JohnnyShagbot i thought hullbreak was just a gameplay mechanic in War Thunder?
@@notstonks20 it means that the damage done to the vehicle was so severe that it caused a massive rupture in the hull, or outright blew it apart. War thunder doesn't actually visually show this.
@@Danuxsy would sensitive write story of holding he writter superior awfu
Are we really gonna ignore the fact that at 2:47 you punched an elite out of this plane of existence?
Red Faction 3 Guerilla’s tank designs seem to have pretty practical components. It would be cool if you checked it out
Which one? The Stubby one, the big one or the Big one with missiles
Duke of Petchington in a perfect world he’d review both
Tunnel Rat some said to review all the RF:G EDF Armoured Vehicles so you might get more.
What about HE rounds? can railgun give support agaist things like mg nests or infantry positions?
I would think so? But you would need a much more robust detonation system to handle the launch forces
Imagine the kinetic energy of a mach 8 plus projectile
I would not advise putting an explosive component to something that could potentially vaporize during acceleration.
For HE the railgun could lower its power, and thus G-forces on the HE projectile. (They do not rely on kinetic energi, so M/S would not matter as much)
Yes a rail gun can fired anything you put in it. A design is absolutely possible
If we are talking railguns on tanks, could you do a ‘everything wrong with W40k Tau tanks’ video? Especially on the Hammerhead gunship which mounts a heavy railgun as standard
For the Greater Good!
Watch your tongue. That railgun is for the greater good.
I guess depending on the weight of the shell and its force of impact railgun combat and tactics would be similar to that of USI-152's vs Panthers where the sheer force of impact from the 152's shell would break the turret rings if the panthers, or smash the turret panels in breaking them free from their welds
With Railguns, it would be more inclined to tear right through, no? Overpenetration may become a concern.
@@northropi2027 you don't have to fire it at full power
@@justinbeath5169 Well that could be a solution to overpenetration and the explosive sensitivity concerns in another thread, but penetrating the target would still be preferable to whacking it really hard as OP suggests.
Railguns are so awesome, even the convoluted mess of Michael Bay's T:ROTF Railgun looked awesome. Metal Gear: awesome. Even literal Rail (way) guns like the Leopold.
Can't wait to see how this video goes!
Edit: Really awesome! Really hope to see tanks like this in the future! I wonder how armor will evolve to stop these new hypersonic sabots? It would be interesting to see these same power systems that are used for tank railguns but for infantry anti-tank armaments once they get scaled down far enough. Railguns are really cool and I would love to see real tanks using them!
One possible evolution is energy shields.
Not to be rude, but the rounds fired out of railguns won't be sabot rounds because they don't need the sabot for sealing the barrel. They will propably be at least at the start similar dart rounds fired out of modern tank guns, but they won't be sabot rounds.
ANDREALEONE95 you’d need to have a strong generator to make a shield that large and strong.
@@villepore7013 Cool! Thanks for the clarity. Still, would love to see how weapons development and armor development would evolve from this.
@@ANDREALEONE95 Energy shields would be cool, but maybe a magnetic shield that actively repels in the direction of the enemy vehicle. Probably would devour electricity like no tomorrow.
On the topic of rounds vaporizing or destabilizing and warping in flight, that’s probably why sci-fi railguns are always using tungsten or depleted uranium for their ammunition, as those two metals are extremely hard and resistant to excessive heat.
>keep them round together
SHOTGUN MUNITIONS
I've been recently wondering how well a big disposable canister firing 500 or so ball bearings would work out of a railgun.
Stored energy is stored energy. The devestation of an exploding battery/capacitor would rival tank rounds. Also, the shift in warfare will be extreme, like when suits of armor became completely obsolete as firearms grew more prolific. when the effective range of a rail gun is essentially line of site, the armor thickness will become less relevant in favor of high mobility and low observability.
Best fictional railguns are Stonehenge from the Ace Combat series
Except they are hybrids gunpower in the start and then electromagnets to accelerate the round
salvation
What we really need to develop is coil guns. Instead of rail slippers the round is held magnetically then accelerated. This removes the barrel wear issue.
Rail gun Tank destroyers. Nuff said
imagining a barely mobile fortress centered around a real löng boi, slowly creeping over a ridgeline
The tanks of starcraft ara armed with railguns I think
Terran siege tank is still using chemical explosives, possibly coilgun boost like the Marine's rifle is. Protoss tech runs on Sufficiently Advanced Bullshit so not touching that.
There's some weird terran vehicles like the Diamondback and Warhound that have railguns but they're both super rare.
Rail Tanks?
Now I am getting some Command & Conquer vibes. GDI rail tanks.
Steel Talons' Mammooth tanks fully upgraded!
What would a Forerunner tank look like and would it be effective in a galactic war?
Some of my online buddies mused on the idea that you could pretty much make a "budget rail gun" if all you did was basically try to make it match the current muzzle velocities of cannons and just use extisting projectiles stuffed in a sabot to let them be fired. The thing we immediately ran into is that a tank's engine needs a pretty substantial amount of time to generate the amount of power to fire a railgun with the velocity of a regular tank shell (of course, since the projectiles were the same as a regular M1A2, and we were shooting for a similar velocity as those, you could technically fire stuff like HEAT-MP with lower velocities if you can accept a reduced range)
Railgun tank is the best...
Bob Semple: *Pathetic*
That first pro of railguns.....
Have you not heard of the dangers of storing and discharging massive amounts of electricity in something that will likely get damaged?
Formula E is my favorite current model of this problem
How about a mass driver tank with energy shielding and heavily armored?
how about a tank that is actually billions of nanobots that when fired upon will separate creating a hole where the projectile will hit, or how about the tank can just change into whatever shape it want, even a person with a large cannon for a head. very nice yes?
XIAO I’d give it maybe 10 years for this to move into the testing phase
they can also be used to save 10 million lives in a definitive and elegant way
Ace combat refrence?
Yeah, I honestly thought there would be more comments about ace combat since there are many examples of railguns in that franchise
Short answer: No
Long answer: No, because you're never going to fit the necessary power generation into a 60 ton vehicle.
Defense contractors are already working on scaling down the necessary equipment. With the availability of newer and better electrical equipment, it will eventually happen. It's like saying a tank could never fit a computer in it because in the 50s they were the size of a room.
@@Spookston There's a limit to how much you can scale things down, especially when it comes to power generation. About all you could realistically do with the power source you could fit into a reasonably sized vehicle is match the performance of existing weapons systems with less volatile ammo. But in that case why not just go with traditional ballistics and make literally everything in terms of maintenence cheaper and easier?
The DOD says it's possible, BAE systems says it's possible, and the Army also seems to think it's a feasible concept. Conventional tank guns will obviously stick around for a while, but we're already towards the upper limit of how fast we can make projectiles go with chemical propellants.
Spartan448 high capacity and small size power source will eventually be invented as the next logical step battery design.
Spartan448 The thing is we need to find newer and better power sources. At the moment we even reached “limit” on how small a battery can be and be useful. Sure, he have electric cars but the batteries a very limiting, even some speculation about Tesla’s electric semi truck has to use significant cargo use just to match the endurance of a traditional gas truck. So, the limiting factor if you can fit a big ass battery is the ammunition to be small and effective.
Spookston: Railgun Tanks
*shows documentary footage of the Human-Covenant war of the 26th century featuring a UNSC ship giving literally everyone a hard on*
FOR ALL THOSE WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES DEFENDING EARTH AND HER COLONIES.
...I must admit, 20 years sounds optimistic to me. Military procurement loathes innovation.
F-16s and B-52 are still in service with no plans to retire them any time soon. Innovation really is only worth it when your current gear no longer does the job.
@@Yora21 don't forget the Browning M2 and the MiG-21. It wouldn't be a surprise to see some in service 100 years from now.
@@rocketpowered5920 I raise you a Colt 1911. ;)
@@Yora21 Mosin-Nagant and Browning HP!
Interesting thing about these rail gun battery’s is they might be even more dangerous when shot. Just look at a video of a lipo battery when punctured.
There’s so much energy stored up that when a cell is compromised, It will spit out a nasty flame and toxic smoke. Imagine this in a tank at a much larger scale.
Then we also have to note that these huge batteries paired up with the required capacitors you have a gigantic target that will practically guarantee a tank kill when hit compared to standard munitions.
Basically your ammo is safer but the guns power source is essentially a giant bomb when shot! It’s a huge downside looking into it.
Crazy huh!
Simpletons: railgun
Me, an intellectual: biggest iron
You’ll definitely see a rail gun implemented into a main battle tank and perhaps some weird hybrid tanks. I can’t fucking wait, I’m excited
First to comment!!😂😂😂 Liked before watching cause I know it's already a great video!
I always like Spookston videos before I watch them! They are always great!
Im sorry, I couldn't focus on the topic of the video because you play Halo Reach like a crazy person and I love it.
The rail gun upgrade for the Mammoth Tanks are so fucking badass.
Have you ever considered doing a pros and cons video on energy based weaponry on tanks and in the battlefield?
I could at some point.
Would love to see a video on each revolutionary advancement in tanks
MAC ROUNDS?! IN ATMOSPHERE?!
I don’t even know why I watch this show channel but I very much like it.
I was so confused when I heard the overlaying music! I thought my media player on my phone had bugged out and somehow started playing alongside this video... I'd quite literally been listening to a looping five-song playlist all day, and Noosphere was one of those five songs!
One pro is that you can use a railgun MBT as both as super sonic AP and (at the cost of extra training / complexity ) a sub sonic HE heavy mortar to help your infantry ...
I really appreciate the time and effort you put into these videos. Keep up the great work man.
mr sp00kyboi, I can officially say that you have made my day a lot better with this video. thank you.
I love watching halo while hearing yoh talk about tanks
Trought my hobbys im very much into modern tech warfare. And what i can say about this is that the coilgun is a much more practical than the railgun mechanism. Very good and surprising video by the way :)
The best thing about railguns on vehicles would be upgrades of tanks that weren't made in era of railguns. Imagine T-72M serving as SPG with half opened turret, railgun fitted in to it and cables sticking out of it leading to some high voltage outlet.
Disgusting yet highly fascinating.
It seems to me that the advantage from elimination of shells with propellant that could potentially cook off is lessened because an extremely dense energy source could also potentially release all that energy at once, exploding.
You could place such an energy cell inside the hull rather than the turret though, I suppose.
Mechanicus music. Ah, I see you are a man of culture as well. The Omnissiah smiles upon you
Every seems to forget the Magnetic accelerators are split into three categories: Coil, Rail and Gauss guns.
Something I realized is both a pro and a con for railguns is their muzzle velocities. Tanks already occasionally have problems with overpenetration, shooting clean through the target without actually doing any real damage. With a railgun, being able to modulate the current applied to the electromagnet would solve this problem, since you could reduce the power to only what is necessary and maximize the damage the shell deals. It could also reduce the need for dedicated armor-piercing ammunition, as you can just ramp up the power on the magnet until a normal shell has enough velocity to penetrate.
This commentary with the organ background music is so unreal
The thought of a rail gun tank makes me excited
Putting aside power plant, putting on a tracked vehicle (regardless if it’s armoured) is sensible because it’s a basic land platform. You could potentially put it on a wheeled vehicle or towed. I would compare the idea to the otomalera 76mm. A naval gun that was also made available as a tracked SPAAG.
Cobra tank! Thanks for discussing my suggestion!
That opening tho
Gauss cannons are awesome.
imagine a railgun in space that shot a "rod of god" at the earths surface combining two weapons all the while not breaching any weapons in space agreement
Short simple videos, love em but wish they were longer.
The power used to propel the rounds is the biggest problem for modern tech. The future will be interesting.
pro tip: the hawkeye railguns in terratech can penetrate shield bubbles but regeneration bubbles will counter it
In the year 2077 spookston designs US MBTS and APCs for a living
Suggestion: Force fields. Possible ones can be made by heating air and turning it into plasma and changing its form with magnetic fields.
I suggest you to make a video about how it could be used in various ways.
Short answer:yes
Long answer: yes, it could be a very viable armor peircing for building clearing, anti tank, anti air, and more
One of the advantages a railgun has is no propellant needed for the round.
You can carry more ammunition taking up less space and weight.
Honestly, I think that it isn't an issue with the batteries, but the capacitors. At the moment, it's the capacitors that are preventing scaling down.
Only Spookston would ever suggest the concept of a *fully-automatic railgun* mounted on an IFV.
I guess the logical next video will be about laser weapons.
I think the first game to have a railgun was quake 2, really fun weapon too
It'll probably get mounted on some type of aircraft. Like an AC130 gunship type deal, but you get high range with a birds eye view of a battlefield.
Now : Railgun To Tank Destroyers.
Then : Railgun on : pistols, rifles, mbts, and everything.
You should definitely cover the HT-95 Levkov from Battlefield 4. The hover tank
Batteries are likely to be as big a headache as existing ammo, they can go with a heck of a bang.
I don't know about tanks but way back when, about the time of Robocraft beta when railguns could be made for lowest cost builds we used to slap them on little cars and snipe the big bulky tanks right out of the game with a single well placed shot at the driver seat. Flying railguns were also bad/annoying and hard to hit but way easier to spot.
The problem with railguns is that chemical propellants are really good at storing a lot of energy in a small space. While the projectiles will be smaller, the capacitors needed to power the gun will take more space than the casing and powder on traditional guns will.
The capacitors could be stored in the hull still allowing the turret to be smaller, this would make the hull bigger.
of course, we have proven that gigantic artillery are absolutely practical back in world war 2 with the gustav railway gun being actually quite detrimental to one of the few mission it was used, it proven that artillery firesupport is better if the munition is larger and shot from a longer range.
Yey, c&c is next! My childhood gets destroyed, NICE!
Enjoy this video? I loved it! Awesome video 👍👏
The biggest problem with railguns, coilguns, whatever, is that chemical propellant will always be able to store more potential energy than any other storage medium for a given volume. Easy example? A 655 grain .50 BMG projectile has over 18 thousand joules of kinetic energy being generated from an area of a few cubic inches. Search 1.25 kj railgun on youtube and think of how many .50 caliber rounds could be fit in the same volume of those far more volatile while charged capacitors that make up over half of the weapon's stock.
Even with advantages in storage mediums, solid state batteries, what have you, we have been unable to find any storage medium more efficient than chemical bonds.
Railguns and coilguns are fun weapons to think about, and can be very useful for when engagement range is to be prioritized over rate of fire or the economics of scale allow for sufficient volume for power generation and storage.
But personally? I believe the answer lies in something along the lines of cased telescope electro-thermal-chemical (ETC) guns that can more efficiently use far more powerful and stable chemical explosive than any electrical storage medium we will have available for decades.
You know, the massive batteries needed would still be volatile and prone to fires and explosions when shot.
One down side not listed. Smaller diameter round means a lighter charge for HE rounds, which in turn reduces the effectiveness when engaging bunkers/dug in infantry and/or soft skin targets.
So, at first railguns found on ground vehicles would only be found in fire support vehicles, IFV base vehicles with lots of internal space for more components, using the infantry compartments for containing more batteries and electronics instead, and then eventually it'll reach MBTs or maybe heavy tanks if they come back in the future with more compact and efficient technologies
I see their first ground employment being for tank destroyers, with APC and IFV chassis mounting railguns (like the Stryker MGS or Centauro)