- Jun 3, 2011
- Reaction score
Design used a coil gun rather than a railgun.
Triton said:Do railgun/coilgun-armed main battle tanks require large amounts of electricity? How can this idea be practical in an MBT?
RP1 said:Regarding energy - my quick calculations get about 7MJ muzzle energy for a Russian 3BM-42M APFSDS penetrator. Assuming some overall efficiency of 50% that;s 14MJ, which can be supplied over 10 seconds by a 1.4MW power plant. According to Wikipedia the M-1 powerplant is just over 1.1MW...
Lauge said:Triton said:Do railgun/coilgun-armed main battle tanks require large amounts of electricity? How can this idea be practical in an MBT?
Not "large" amounts of electricity....more like absolute hu-fu*****-mongous amounts of electricity
As I understand it though, the main issue with railguns is not generating the energy, but rather the power levels (i.e. energy pr. unit time), that is, to deliver the energy to the gun quickly enough. We can, of course, always hope that the Japanese will come up with a superconductor that works at desert temperatures.
To say nothing of the EMP that would be generated when firing one of those babies.... ;D
Regards & all
Thomas L. Nielsen