Are Railgun Tanks Practical? 

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.

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.

DEPLOYING WALKING FORTRESS BALAM!

Jan Gutkowski man, i loved that Game.

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?

Did you know the word long only has 4 letters and the word short has 5

f f I hate you

@@rn-zu5ld IRONIC!

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: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_WheLp0RdLQ.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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

How is the name of the girl on your photo?

*vocoded psuedo-german robot voice* "MAY ZE SPILLING OF YOUR BLOOD BY IMPALEMENT BY HYPERVELOCITY KINETIC PENETRATOR PLEASE ZE MACHINE GOD"

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!

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?

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

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

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 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

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.

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

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

For the Greater Good!

Watch your tongue. That railgun is for the greater good.

Except they are hybrids gunpower in the start and then electromagnets to accelerate the round

salvation

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.

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.

I've been recently wondering how well a big disposable canister firing 500 or so ball bearings would work out of a railgun.

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

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.

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.

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!

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

I always like Spookston videos before I watch them! They are always great!

Steel Talons' Mammooth tanks fully upgraded!

@Manek Iridius :( Wait, what about plasma? Couldn't a plasma projectile be possible?

I imagine we enter a new stage of tank designe similar to that of 1950s-1970s where tanks are lighty armored, small and fast because anti-tank weapons are so powerful that armor is redundant for the most part.

More than likely no armor would work so no armor = best armor. Or just enough armor to stop small arms.

Mr. Wednesday i can't imagine anyone would to drive tanks in warfare if railguns on tanks were common. It would be a death sentence. One hit and you're dead.

I see a fellow Terran :P, handheld railgun/gauss rifle would have too much recoil to be "handheld"

Maus Tanks are for overcompensating Wehraboos

I could at some point.

Professor Pannell well, the round travels at 1720m/s which is comparable to mbt and faster than American rounds. Modern Russian rounds go over 2000m/s

Doesn't feel as cool though

@@Spookston Can't argue with that.

Lithium will be not the power source.

@@ANDREALEONE95 isn't that what they're using on the warships though?