Railgun Barbettes?

[AnotherDilbert]

TL 12 for railguns? Don't be ridiculous.

The Railgun bays are TL12.

We are TL 7.5 and we have working railguns.

Can those prototypes sustain a rate of fire like a machinegun and hit an agile moving target at 1000 km?

High Guard has TL 8 "Mass Drivers" = "ortillery railgun" that are are railguns that are too slow and clumsy to be used in space combat, but they can hit stationary targets.

High Guard TL12 "Railguns" are a much refined weapon, accelerating the munitions to much higher speeds, and operating with a higher rate of fire.


TL3 had guns:

Does that mean that effective AA autocannons were also available at TL3?

 

[Solomani666]

I was referring to barbettes.

 

[Reynard]

I think 21 century railguns are still highly experimental. Don't mistake a railgun for a rapid fire CPR weapon. A Vulcan chain gun is not a rail gun.

 

[EldritchFire]

My personal 'stat block' for space/starship railguns is as follows:

Rail gun/TL9/short range/power 1/1D damage/MCr0.15/auto 2. 1dT of ammo holds 1k rounds and costs KCr50.

It's based on the railgun on page 132 of the CSC.

I haven't had time to figure out a barbette version yet.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It's based on the railgun on page 132 of the CSC.

That is a piece of artillery with a range of 4 km. It is noted that it has a flatter trajectory (= higher speed) than chemical cannon, let's call that 2 km/s. With a muzzle velocity speed of 2 km/s it would take the rounds about 10 minutes to reach a target at Short range. It would have basically no chance to hit a manoeuvring spacecraft.

Also it does not have a high enough rate of fire to rate an Auto trait.

That is an ortillery gun.

 

[Condottiere]

Could make it like lasers, same power, closer range, more destructive, more accurate.

 

[EldritchFire]

It's based on the railgun on page 132 of the CSC.

That is a piece of artillery with a range of 4 km. It is noted that it has a flatter trajectory (= higher speed) than chemical cannon, let's call that 2 km/s. With a muzzle velocity speed of 2 km/s it would take the rounds about 10 minutes to reach a target at Short range. It would have basically no chance to hit a manoeuvring spacecraft.

Also it does not have a high enough rate of fire to rate an Auto trait.

That is an ortillery gun.

'Based on', no 'exact duplicate.' I used it as a benchmark for TL, damage, and cost. Obviously a railgun made for spaceships is going to be bigger and able to produce higher velocity.

Could make it like lasers, same power, closer range, more destructive, more accurate.

Not sure about more destructive or accurate. The big thing railguns have over lasers is rate of fire. None of the railgun bays have AP, so I'm reluctant to add it in as well. And power is going to be less, I think.

 

[Jame Rowe]

Railgun Barbettes?
Are they missing from 2.0?

Yes, but we can imagine what they would be like by comparing Railgun and Plasma-pulse bays. Railguns are much worse.

Perhaps:
Barbette: Railgun: TL10, 2D, Auto 3, Short range, MCr 10.
Turret: Railgun: TL10, 1D, Auto 3, Short range, MCr 5.

Who would want them?

I fixed it for you. TL 10, instead of 12.

 

[EldritchFire]

Railgun Barbettes?
Are they missing from 2.0?

Yes, but we can imagine what they would be like by comparing Railgun and Plasma-pulse bays. Railguns are much worse.

Perhaps:
Barbette: Railgun: TL10, 2D, Auto 3, Short range, MCr 10.
Turret: Railgun: TL10, 1D, Auto 3, Short range, MCr 5.

Who would want them?

I fixed it for you. TL 10, instead of 12.

While I can see an argument for TL10, the prices are absurd. They're more expensive than any other turret or barbette weapon—I also think the turret railgun would only have auto 2, not 3.

Suggested changes to your changes:

Barbette Railgun: TL10, short range, 3 power, 2D, Auto 3, MCr3.
Turret Railgun: TL10, short range, 1 power, 1D, Auto 2, MCr0.5.

My biggest question with regards to railguns is ammo. Bays have tons/attack, since they are a multitude of railguns (not just one) so reverse engineering won't get us anywhere. I guess we just have to improvise.

Turret: 10 attacks/ton
Barbette: 4 attacks/ton

That's assuming an attack is full auto. A semi-auto attack counts as half, while a single-shot doesn't matter (for example, a warning shot isn't gong to count against your combat capabilities).

Of course, that math is simplified, and doesn't match up with the autofire rules, so we could assume a semi-auto as the default attack, and thus do it this way:

Turret: 30 attacks/ton
Barbette: 12 attacks/ton

Which this, a semi-auto attack consumes 1 'attack' while a full auto consumes 3 'attacks'. This is more accurate with how the autofire rules work, and has the advantage of not dealing with half an 'attack' if you wanted to do semi-auto instead of full.

Thoughts?

 

[Jeraa]

None of the railgun bays have AP, so I'm reluctant to add it in as well.

Why? The personal sized railgun (gauss rifle) has an AP rating. The vehicle sized railguns/gauss cannons in Central Supply Catalog have AP ratings. Why shouldn't ship-scale railguns have an AP rating? Bay railguns lacking an AP rating was probably an oversight (especially considering their description says they fire armor penetrators).

 

[EldritchFire]

None of the railgun bays have AP, so I'm reluctant to add it in as well.

Why? The personal sized railgun (gauss rifle) has an AP rating. The vehicle sized railguns/gauss cannons in Central Supply Catalog have AP ratings. Why shouldn't ship-scale railguns have an AP rating? Bay railguns lacking an AP rating was probably an oversight (especially considering their description says they fire armor penetrators).

With personal/spaceship scales being different, I assume the lack of AP was on purpose. But if it were an omission, I'd hazard to say turret AP2, barbette AP3, small bay AP5, medium/large bay AP 8.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

..., the prices are absurd. They're more expensive than any other turret or barbette weapon—I also think the turret railgun would only have auto 2, not 3.

Railguns are the most expensive bays, it's not a cheap tech.

My biggest question with regards to railguns is ammo. Bays have tons/attack, since they are a multitude of railguns (not just one) so reverse engineering won't get us anywhere. I guess we just have to improvise.

Turret: 10 attacks/ton
Barbette: 4 attacks/ton

We can't use all that much ammo, because we could not accelerate it to the required speed without absurd amounts of energy.

Accelerating a .50 BMG slug (42 g) to ⅓ c would take something like 4 × 10¹⁴ Ws or 10¹² W for 360 s (1 round). 10¹² W = 1 TW would be something like 100000 Power. For a single slug. For 1 Power we could accelerate something like 0,5 mg (a big grain of sand?).

Trying to push this much energy this fast into matter with an electromagnetic field would simply vaporise it. A "Railgun" can hardly be electromagnetic in nature. Perhaps it is based on gravitic M-drive technology?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Again based on the bays, I would suggest:

Railgun (aka ortillery, aka mass driver) [a railgun as we know it, big slow slug]
Barbette: TL8, 5D, Short range, 8 Power, MCr 15. Ammo: 5 attacks/ton.
Turret: TL8, 3D, Short range, 4 Power, MCr 8. Ammo: 15 attacks/ton

Frac-c auto railgun (aka railgun) [pure magic tech, tiny very fast slugs]
Barbette: TL12, 2D, Auto 3, Short range, 6 Power, MCr 12. Ammo: Negligible? 10 attacks/ton?
Turret: TL12, 1D, Auto 3, Short range, 3 Power, MCr 6. Ammo: Negligible? 30 attacks/ton?

I assume the ammo is per attack action (= per round), not per attack roll.
Yes, they are expensive, so are the bays.