[MB.]

They're useful when there's no civilians in the area.

Another false statement. cf Beirut, Falujah, Kabul, Sarajevo, etc

arti and AFV are less then useful

Wrong.

I also think I've only ever met 1 or 2 Arti guys, and no tank crewmen. I know I've met 1 Arti guy, but he was an infantry instructor

Okay.

[Wolfman]

Another false statement. cf Beirut, Falujah, Kabul, etc

We spent some time before we put boots on the deck in those cities telling people 'we're going invade. Leave or we don't care if you die'

Wrong.

You haven't done anything to proove it.

[MB.]

We spent some time before we put boots on the deck in those cities telling people 'we're going invade. Leave or we don't care if you die'

Did you participate in any of those operations? Are you a member of any armed forces? Which? What service and regiments were you assigned to?

telling people 'we're going invade. Leave or we don't care if you die'

Do you honestly believe that these measures prevent appalling civilian causalities in urban combat?

[Suska]

I do not believe that railgun technology will replace long range missiles or naval artillery, but will compliment both.

its still experimental so it depends how things go. the general idea is to have railgun ships with no explosive ordinance aboard, part of the reason for this is the anticipated energy demands of the gun, the main point is to remove entirely the weakness that ammunition storage represents. The railgun can shoot directly and in an arc, the shell can be guided with very cheap remote controls like those on smart bombs. So it can act in both roles. But we'll see how they work in the field.

There will always be a use for artillery, America firehoses money at its battlefleets, this is a no-brainer.

[MB.]

art of the reason for this is the anticipated energy demands of the gun, the main point is to remove entirely the weakness that ammunition storage represents

I always found this part of the reasoning behind the development of unarmoured ships rather silly. If the ships were fully or even partially armoured, the threat from magazine explosions would be greatly reduced.

Although I'm sure the railgun was developed for reasons other than the desire to produce ships without volatile magazines, I would not put it beyond the military industrial complex.

[Wolfman]

Did you participate in any of those operations?....

No, but I had to study those battles in Boot Camp and MCT. That I'm a Marine isn't exactly a secret, btw.

Do you honestly believe that these measures prevent appalling civilian causalities in urban combat?

It worked in Falujah, since there were hardly any civilians in the whole city by the time we entered.

[MB.]

That I'm a Marine isn't exactly a secret, btw.

I don't believe you, btw.

It worked in Falujah, since there were hardly any civilians in the whole city by the time we entered.

Specious reasoning if there ever was any.

[Zyx]

MB., I find that you are reducing 'wars' to initial 'invasions' or 'advances.'

But I suppose that one can't call these vehicles useless just because they lose their uses after the opposing side sets up mines and gets their rocket launchers.

At this point in Iraq, the vehicles are useless which would explain Wolfman's interviews. Yet, I remember that a lot of people driving in vehicles have died in Iraq, meaning that it was of use at some point in the war.

Of course, though, modern warfare is mostly infantry shuffling and dying.

I'm not actually impressed with this railgun. It's just another device to expand the treasury of people I'll never know.

Edit: And Wolfman is a Marine.

[MB.]

MB., I find that you are reducing 'wars' to initial 'invasions' or 'advances.'

Not at all. Throughout the history of modern warfare AFVs have been commonly employed in urban combat zones, especially during occupations to quash resistance, quell dissent, etc.

one can't call these vehicles useless just because they lose their uses after the opposing side sets up mines and gets their rocket launchers.

This is precisely when armored vehicles are at their most useful.

Edit: And Wolfman is a Marine.

Shocking.

[Wolfman]

Specious reasoning if there ever was any.

It's simple. We said 'get the hell out', the civilians got the hell out. Whats specious about it?

Throughout the history of modern warfare AFVs have been commonly employed in urban combat zones, especially during occupations to quash resistance, quell dissent, etc.

Because normal civilians don't stand a chance against a tank. A trained insurgent with a rocket launcher is another matter. RPGs are quite capable of going through Tank Armor, even Reactive Armor is useless against a couple RPG rounds. Mines are barely taken into account when constructing Tanks, evidenced by the simple fact that Tank armor is lightest on the bottom. Making a mine or two the perfect weapon to use against AFVs.

[Zyx]

This is precisely when armored vehicles are at their most useful.

The last I checked in this, armored trucks were replacing the other AFVs for urban warfare: the tank is too slow and what have you.

Artillery and cannons aren't really used, but meh, this is when we ought to start making citations I suppose.

[Suska]

I always found this part of the reasoning behind the development of unarmoured ships rather silly. If the ships were fully or even partially armoured, the threat from magazine explosions would be greatly reduced.

Although I'm sure the railgun was developed for reasons other than the desire to produce ships without volatile magazines, I would not put it beyond the military industrial complex.

its clear that speed and armor are a tradeoff, the objective of the railgun is primarily to have a harder hitting gun, but it happens there are other desirable features, it isn't just that you don't have explosive magazines but that you have inert metal magazines which act as armor when full. Its unclear to me how much power the railgun requires but I hear its enormous. There are still issues, especially overheating the barrel with regard to how rapid it can be fired. Of course you'll still want your ships armed in other ways, anti-missle and the like. I'm not sure, but I think railgun's dont have much if any recoil. I've read they don't but It seems like there would be.

It's just another device to expand the treasury of people I'll never know

agreed. And yet put one of these on a lightly armed moderately armored stealth destroyer and you have one hell of a drive by shooting.

[MB.]

Because normal civilians don't stand a chance against a tank. A trained insurgent with a rocket launcher is another matter. RPGs are quite capable of going through Tank Armor, even Reactive Armor is useless against a couple RPG rounds. Mines are barely taken into account when constructing Tanks, evidenced by the simple fact that Tank armor is lightest on the bottom. Making a mine or two the perfect weapon to use against AFVs.

You haven't really said anything here except that AFVs are vulnerable to mines and shaped charges, something anyone studying the history of WW2 could have resolved easily enough.

We said 'get the hell out', the civilians got the hell out. Whats specious about it?

Specious reasoning is when you presume the wrong cause for a certain action based on poor logic. There were appalling civilian causalities in Falujah, and the civilians who did flee fled because of their fear of Artillery, Cannons and Tanks.

Anyway we're not even talking about railguns, and you're almost certainly not a marine nor ever was one.

armored trucks were replacing the other AFVs for urban warfare: the tank is too slow and what have you.

Tanks are not being replaced by anything.

Artillery and cannons aren't really used

They're used all the time.

I'm not sure, but I think railgun's dont have much if any recoil. I've read they don't but It seems like there would be.

There should be no recoil since there aren't any moving parts, beside the slug or flechette.

[Zyx]

Ok, I'm not much a military person.

[youtube]ZourRsUsnho[/youtube]

When will this stop.

I was watching a program that exhibited this clip, it explained that the projectiles were accelerated through magnetism, hence there's nothing pushing the 'gun' back, so there's no recoil.

[MB.]

Was it Future Weapons?

[Wolfman]

You haven't really said anything here except that AFVs are vulnerable to mines and shaped charges

Kinda like how you haven't prooved anything?

There were appalling civilian causalities in Falujah, and the civilians who did flee fled because of their fear of Artillery, Cannons and Tanks.

Appallling compared to what? And maybe the reason the civillians who fled in terror fled because (-gasp-) they knew it was coming!

Anyway we're not even talking about railguns

We're talking about the usefullness of Artillery in Modern Warfare, and since Railguns are a kind of Artillery, we're talking about the usefullness of Railguns.

[Zyx]

Ha, it was. I woke up early. I didn't watch the program after it. The show was too addictive so I quit abruptly.

[MB.]

we're talking about the usefullness of Railguns.

Oh good, so now we can get right to the heart of the matter:

Railguns must be as useless as 'tanks, artillery and cannons' right?

The show was too addictive so I quit abruptly.

Ahhaha

[Wolfman]

Railguns must be as useless as 'tanks, artillery and cannons' right?

If we stick to urban combat, yes, they will be of limited use, unless we stop caring about wide spread civilians slaughter.

[MB.]

unless we stop caring about wide spread civilians slaughter.

As if the United States gives a fuck about killing thousands of civilians...

If we stick to urban combat, yes, they will be of limited use

What if soldiers are replaced by robots wielding railguns?