AHC Challenge: Railguns in widespread use by modern armies.

Rail Guns are a kind of weapon that launches objects by generating a powerful electro-magnetic field. Their use in warfare has been extensively studied, but they have never been adopted for widespread use. They could be useful for launching ICBMs, intercepting missiles, and launching rockets. They have the advantage of being nearly frictionless, and being able to attain speeds of Mach 10 or higher.

With a POD no earlier than 1938, make Rail Guns de rigor for modern armies. Bonus points if they are commonly mounted on Battleships!

No later than 1938? Don't see how you could have that, other than by having Tesla remain sane.

Remain sane? The man was sane his entire life! It's the rest of late 1800s-early 1900s America that was insane!

Anyway, all you need is to have Tesla's tech be more widespread: you know, his inventiveness inspiring other inventors to do the same bloody awesome things. Maybe you need a Tesla more open about his work?

You do realize that there are really good reasons why they aren't common iOTL - the huge amount of power needed, the high voltages, high voltage power switching, preventing erosion of the 'barrel', really REALLY good dielectrics, power storage, etc., etc.

Putting such a thing on a battleship with all that salt water around just increases the problems that much more.

You make a PoD that allows railguns on battleships today, and resulting change in power tech in the world means that railguns are about the least of the consequences....

Dialga said:

No later than 1938? Don't see how you could have that, other than by having Tesla remain sane.

Click to expand...

Corrected. I meant "earlier" not later. Though I didn't think of the Tesla angle. The man was a genius, so if anyone would come up an out of the ballpark solution to the problems associated with Railguns, it would be him.

The big problem you have is that basically railguns are only now becoming better than guns for the problems they face.

You need a way of making the missile systems that came in post-war not to work, I think. You'd still have guns at that point instead, but it would be obvious that something better is needed against the rapidly improving planes. Like a railgun...

But I still dont see a driver for making BB's last, unless you ASB planes away as well.

Otherwise its like walking tanks; no point, conventional ones are way better, cheaper and more effective.

Antipater said:

With a POD no earlier than 1938, make Rail Guns de rigor for modern armies. Bonus points if they are commonly mounted on Battleships!

Click to expand...

Go with Coilguns, which are similar, but have fewer drawbacks. Incidentally, a POD of 1938 might be too late.

Basically, Nikola Tesla or reads about Kristian Birkeland's Electromagnetic Cannon (the First real Coil Gun) in 1901 or 1902, and he gets inspired. With the Funding availible available to him, he begins to work with Birkeland to improve the prototype, and with their combined genius, the device is improved (made more powerful and more efficient) to the point that when WW1 does break out, it's reasonably practical, provided one can provide enough power for it. Late in the war, Large caliber versions are being used on Armored vehicles to improve crew safety (In place of tanks,) and are also being used for Naval weaponry and Coastal Artillery.

However, they are still resource intensive and too bulky for individual and Crew served weapons.

This may be a result of having played too much Metal Gear Solid as a child, but couldn't a railgun be used to launch ICBMs into space at incredible speeds, and so gain a critical edge when launching a first strike?

Also, a railgun could also be useful in intercepting supersonic aircraft, as with advanced targeting equipment they would be impossible to evade?

As for battleship mounted railguns, I acknowledge that is pretty unlikely, which is why I made it a "bonus" condition. Still, a battery of railguns could sink an enemy ship well beyond the horizon, as well as piercing any imaginable armor.

NothingNow said:

Go with Coilguns, which are similar, but have fewer drawbacks. Incidentally, a POD of 1938 might be too late.

Basically, Nikola Tesla or reads about Kristian Birkeland's Electromagnetic Cannon (the First real Coil Gun) in 1901 or 1902, and he gets inspired. With the Funding availible available to him, he begins to work with Birkeland to improve the prototype, and with their combined genius, the device is improved (made more powerful and more efficient) to the point that when WW1 does break out, it's reasonably practical, provided one can provide enough power for it. Late in the war, Large caliber versions are being used on Armored vehicles to improve crew safety (In place of tanks,) and are also being used for Naval weaponry and Coastal Artillery.

However, they are still resource intensive and too bulky for individual and Crew served weapons.

Click to expand...

The power sources available by WW1 are woefully inadequate (doesnt matter what tah eactual gun design is, you still have to provide the energy to accelerate the projectile). Even WW2 is pushing it on a ship.
Modern warships provide vastly more electrical power than a WW2 era ship

Antipater said:

This may be a result of having played too much Metal Gear Solid as a child, but couldn't a railgun be used to launch ICBMs into space at incredible speeds, and so gain a critical edge when launching a first strike?

Also, a railgun could also be useful in intercepting supersonic aircraft, as with advanced targeting equipment they would be impossible to evade?

As for battleship mounted railguns, I acknowledge that is pretty unlikely, which is why I made it a "bonus" condition. Still, a battery of railguns could sink an enemy ship well beyond the horizon, as well as piercing any imaginable armor.

Click to expand...

Trying to launch a delicate ICBM out of a gun is going to...well, not end well!!

And railguns dont actually lauch much mass. You could get one to launch a warhead, though, but it would me a lot more heavily built than a missile-launched on to take the acceleration.

the big problem with hitting otth is detection and fire control. A Railgun, while cool, doesnt help with this.

A railgun IS good at point defence, when you need a small load, very high speeds and can see the target. Which is what they are looking at using them for on ships at the moment. It has certain advantages over a laser (and similar drawbacks - to kill, you have to see and track). But it hs disadvantages too - at the moment they are working on both

Astrodragon said:

The power sources available by WW1 are woefully inadequate (doesnt matter what tah eactual gun design is, you still have to provide the energy to accelerate the projectile). Even WW2 is pushing it on a ship.
Modern warships provide vastly more electrical power than a WW2 era ship

Click to expand...

Not really, since we're talking about fairly small, efficient coilguns fitted to Tanks with massive alternators, so that a Mark V would have one or two fitted and only using ~20kw each, with an engine providing a steady 100kw fairly easily.
Besides, they're neither Cheap or Common. But they're far safer than the alternative weapons, and mostly used in situations, where you don't want any more explosives than are strictly necessary.

NothingNow said:

Not really, since we're talking about fairly small, efficient coilguns fitted to Tanks with massive alternators, so that a Mark V would have one or two fitted and only using ~20kw each, with an engine providing a steady 100kw fairly easily.
Besides, they're neither Cheap or Common. But they're far safer than the alternative weapons, and mostly used in situations, where you don't want any more explosives than are strictly necessary.

Click to expand...

We're talking WW1 tech here. A 100kW engine is NOT small or light by comparison with modern engines - although you can use an aero engine, that would help.
Plus the fuel, the gun, the mounting, the drive system...you're starting looking at a monster here...
And the issue is the number of joules you can pump out. WW1 capacitors were big, heavy things too. A 100kw engine is only 150hp (and of course isnt very efficient), so you are not going to get a huge power output. To put it in context, 150hp is 50% MORE than the drive unit of the British MkIV tank of WW1. And of course, more power means bigger, so bigger armour, so heavier, so more power needed..

Look at it this way, the USN is investigating these for using on ships like carriers and big surface units. Which have power outputs of the order of 100Mw or so (as in 1000 times your tank), and will need capacitor banks. Just the wiring alone is an issue. That gives an idea of the sort of installation you're looknig at. They arent making them that powerful just because they want to. The gun itself isnt actually the problem - thats relatively light. Its the power supply and transmission thats the killer.

Use the coil guns in forts. Using huge generators in the basement, these coil guns could be used fairly safely without the problems of tank based weapons. Imagine if the Belgium forts or Maginot Line armed with coil guns vs. the German army. Or think of the Soviet Army attacking the Nazi lines only to be met with coil guns on top of everything else as they marched into Germany.