CS Command Car Rail Gun Range????

[flatline]

Idly flipping through CWC when I noticed that the C-30R Light Rail Gun has a range of 2 miles.

Why does it have double the range of most other CS railguns? If you look at the picture, it looks like a sub-machine gun mounted on the car.

--flatline

[Mack]

KS does that just to see if we're paying attention. (That's my theory and I'm sticking with it!)

Slightly more serious answer: If memory serves it inflicts less damage than other CS railguns, so maybe there was a tradeoff between damage and range.

[Killer Cyborg]

Typo?

[flatline]

6d6 is only slightly less than 1d4x10 (roughly equivalent to 7d6).
And it honestly looks small enough to be man portable from the artwork.

Yet it has a 10,000+ foot range compared to the more typical 4000 foot range with no explanation.

If it's a cut and paste issue, then why would they cut and paste from the boomgun description? Or is there another 2 mile range railgun that I'm not thinking of?

I'm sure it'll never come up, but if it did, I'd probably just house rule the gun to be a regular C-40R railgun from the original SAMAS.

--flatline

[glitterboy2098]

superior mount and targeting system over that on a SAMAS maybe?

[Glistam]

What are its stats in the GM Guide? The South America 2 weapons were adjusted in that book, maybe that weapon was too?

[flatline]

What are its stats in the GM Guide? The South America 2 weapons were adjusted in that book, maybe that weapon was too?

GMG still lists "2 miles" as the range.

--flatline

[ShadowLogan]

6d6 is only slightly less than 1d4x10 (roughly equivalent to 7d6).
And it honestly looks small enough to be man portable from the artwork.

Yet it has a 10,000+ foot range compared to the more typical 4000 foot range with no explanation.

If it's a cut and paste issue, then why would they cut and paste from the boomgun description? Or is there another 2 mile range railgun that I'm not thinking of?

I'm sure it'll never come up, but if it did, I'd probably just house rule the gun to be a regular C-40R railgun from the original SAMAS.

--flatline

NON-4000ft range CS Railguns found pre-RUE. 6,000ft and 2 mile ranges in just these 3 books are about even in number with each other (not counting how many are carried or number of platforms that use it). But even as far back as the RMB, the CS had a 2 mile rail gun, but nothing that looks like its a straight cut-paste given the various factors.

RMB systems:
C-100R Spider Rail Gun 6k ft range (80rnd burst for 2d4x10) 1.2tons
C-200DH Rail Gun 2 mile range (100 round burst for 2d4x10) 1.2tons

CWC systems
C-104 Spider Tri Barrel Rail Gun 6k ft range (60rnd burst for 1d4x10) no weight listed
C-2000 Super Rail Cannon 2 mile range (1 round for d4x100) no weight listed
C-300DH 2 mile range (100 round burst for 3d4x10) no weight listed
C-30R Light Rail Gun 2 mile range (30 round burst for 6d6) 90lbs

CSN systems
CIWS C90R Gatling Rail Gun 6k ft range (60rnd burst for 3d4x10) no weight listed
Rail Gun Turret 11,000ft range (40rnd burst for 3d4x10) no weight listed (oddly enough the CS wants to replace this with the CIWS C90R?)
C-144 Rail Cannon 6k ft range (2d4x10 per blast)
C-120R Rail Gun 6k ft range (40rnd burst for 1d4x10) no weight listed

superior mount and targeting system over that on a SAMAS maybe?

Not sure how they get that with a gun that is listed as being lighter than the C-40R, unless the mount is part of the vehicle. That wouldn't explain why other platforms that use the C-40R that can have a better mounting system don't enjoy a range advantage either.

I was thinking that maybe it:
-has a longer barrel (or at least a longer internal "rail track" to pick up speed)
-induces a spin to the round
-uses specifically designed/shaped rounds to maximize range
-that is an indirect fire option? (though I would think that would be noted)
-I almost want to suggest the extra range is due to flying being factored in, but the SAMAS can do the same so don't think that's the case

[Alrik Vas]

considering the velocity needed to produce the kind of damage these weapons so, I'm surprised any of them have ranges under 2 miles.

[flatline]

considering the velocity needed to produce the kind of damage these weapons so, I'm surprised any of them have ranges under 2 miles.

On the contrary, since they're firing flechettes or other low mass to surface area shapes (rings, disks, etc), I'm surprised they are effective at 2000'. The energy losses to atmospheric drag are tremendous.

--flatline

[Alrik Vas]

I can see what you're saying, but what if the rounds are like 1kg of tungsten or depleted uranium? they'd still be pretty small, and that weight could carry down range a significant distance and still be effective, right?

[flatline]

I can see what you're saying, but what if the rounds are like 1kg of tungsten or depleted uranium? they'd still be pretty small, and that weight could carry down range a significant distance and still be effective, right?

It helps, but even a 500lb artillery shell uses a shape that minimizes energy losses.

Energy lost to drag becomes very significant at high speeds. This is why I laughed when I read Underseas and saw that rail guns were expected to work under water with only 25% (or something) reduced range. Complete nonsense.

--flatline

[guardiandashi]

just a side note, I thought the only "flechette" style rg rounds were those of the gb, and shemarian rail guns, which actually fire 4 clusters of 50 jacketed flechettes with each pull of the trigger.

of course I admit I could be confused. but you could make an argument that those 2 weapons, use what amounts to giant evil shotgun rounds or small "canister" (flechette) rounds.

[Alrik Vas]

It helps, but even a 500lb artillery shell uses a shape that minimizes energy losses.

Energy lost to drag becomes very significant at high speeds. This is why I laughed when I read Underseas and saw that rail guns were expected to work under water with only 25% (or something) reduced range. Complete nonsense.

--flatline

Of course, my GB's shoot solid slugs, the penetrators are aerodynamic and reduce drag. The "200 slugs of Death" doesn't really work, in my mind anyway.

[Subjugator]

I can see what you're saying, but what if the rounds are like 1kg of tungsten or depleted uranium? they'd still be pretty small, and that weight could carry down range a significant distance and still be effective, right?

It helps, but even a 500lb artillery shell uses a shape that minimizes energy losses.

Energy lost to drag becomes very significant at high speeds. This is why I laughed when I read Underseas and saw that rail guns were expected to work under water with only 25% (or something) reduced range. Complete nonsense.

--flatline

IIRC, the amount of air one is traveling through at ~250 MPH makes it feel about as thick as paint. At mach 5-ish, you'd be looking at something with a LOT more resistance.

/Sub

[kaid]

I can see what you're saying, but what if the rounds are like 1kg of tungsten or depleted uranium? they'd still be pretty small, and that weight could carry down range a significant distance and still be effective, right?

It helps, but even a 500lb artillery shell uses a shape that minimizes energy losses.

Energy lost to drag becomes very significant at high speeds. This is why I laughed when I read Underseas and saw that rail guns were expected to work under water with only 25% (or something) reduced range. Complete nonsense.

--flatline

Hehe I have always ruled rail guns simply don't work underwater. There was an old mythbusters where they were shooting various types of guns into a pool and the lower caliber and slower the round the better it traveled in the water. They had a big barreta sniper rifle and its round turned to dust almost instantly when hitting the water. At the velocities rail guns would use the rounds would disintegrate nearly instantly when fired underwater because the lack of the ability to compress water would make it effectively a solid wall to the rail gun rounds.

[glitterboy2098]

actually WB7 has it right when it talks about how underwater railguns need specially shaped ammo.. with the right design the shells supercavitate and can go quite far. the russians have been using this for specialist rifles for their aquatic special ops units for awhile, and recently several ammo producers have been releasing their own takes on the design for military use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_firearm
http://www.defensereview.com/revolution ... and-video/
image of such a shell moving through the water in it's self generated low resistance bubble.


the mythbuster's test was using standard rounds.. which are optimized for travel through air, so it makes sense that they'd suffer performance wise when in water.

[flatline]

actually WB7 has it right when it talks about how underwater railguns need specially shaped ammo.. with the right design the shells supercavitate and can go quite far. the russians have been using this for specialist rifles for their aquatic special ops units for awhile, and recently several ammo producers have been releasing their own takes on the design for military use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_firearm
http://www.defensereview.com/revolution ... and-video/
image of such a shell moving through the water in it's self generated low resistance bubble.


the mythbuster's test was using standard rounds.. which are optimized for travel through air, so it makes sense that they'd suffer performance wise when in water.

The water still has to be displaced. That's simply not going to happen if the projectile is attempting to go anywhere near as fast as we've been told rail gun projectiles go.

--flatline

[glitterboy2098]

actually they can.. supercavitation allows the water to be displaced easier.

[Killer Cyborg]

actually WB7 has it right when it talks about how underwater railguns need specially shaped ammo.. with the right design the shells supercavitate and can go quite far. the russians have been using this for specialist rifles for their aquatic special ops units for awhile, and recently several ammo producers have been releasing their own takes on the design for military use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_firearm
http://www.defensereview.com/revolution ... and-video/
image of such a shell moving through the water in it's self generated low resistance bubble.


the mythbuster's test was using standard rounds.. which are optimized for travel through air, so it makes sense that they'd suffer performance wise when in water.

Huh.
I did not know that!

[cosmicfish]

I have long since quit trying to explain or justify weapons numbers (damage, range, payload) in Rifts. Whatever system is used to generate them has nothing to do with either physics or logic, so trying to justify those numbers with physics or logic is an exercise in futility. Either accept the ridiculous but canon range, or else change it to something you consider more realistic. But be aware that this is a slippery slope, and eventually you are adjusting everything.

[Alrik Vas]

I have long since quit trying to explain or justify weapons numbers (damage, range, payload) in Rifts. Whatever system is used to generate them has nothing to do with either physics or logic, so trying to justify those numbers with physics or logic is an exercise in futility. Either accept the ridiculous but canon range, or else change it to something you consider more realistic. But be aware that this is a slippery slope, and eventually you are adjusting everything.

aaaaannnd how.

[ShadowLogan]

I can see what you're saying, but what if the rounds are like 1kg of tungsten or depleted uranium? they'd still be pretty small, and that weight could carry down range a significant distance and still be effective, right?

It helps, but even a 500lb artillery shell uses a shape that minimizes energy losses.

Energy lost to drag becomes very significant at high speeds. This is why I laughed when I read Underseas and saw that rail guns were expected to work under water with only 25% (or something) reduced range. Complete nonsense.

--flatline

Hehe I have always ruled rail guns simply don't work underwater. There was an old mythbusters where they were shooting various types of guns into a pool and the lower caliber and slower the round the better it traveled in the water. They had a big barreta sniper rifle and its round turned to dust almost instantly when hitting the water. At the velocities rail guns would use the rounds would disintegrate nearly instantly when fired underwater because the lack of the ability to compress water would make it effectively a solid wall to the rail gun rounds.

Lets remember though that the test you are referencing too is them firing INTO water FROM air, not IN water to water (which they also did on a revisit the next season).

The rules really don't address the issue of firing into water from air w/re to performance. So you could easily justify water acting as a super barrier to a rail guns based on the Mythbusters experiment, provided the railgun is firing from air into the water. Once the railgun is under water though, it should still function properly though with reduced range (the revisit only managed about 1meter in terms of range), but as gb2098 said they where using standard rounds and not rounds optimized for use underwater.

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode34
http://mythbustersresults.com/episode51

[Dog_O_War]

Idly flipping through CWC when I noticed that the C-30R Light Rail Gun has a range of 2 miles.

Why does it have double the range of most other CS railguns? If you look at the picture, it looks like a sub-machine gun mounted on the car.

--flatline

I've been mentioning this one for years. On these boards no less.

And I will add that if you read that entry, that used to be the standard railgun of the CS, meaning that there are a lot of them around as well.

EDIT: I just checked my posts to where I mentioned it; the first one I could find was in 2010, about a year before you joined OP, so you probably would not have read that one.