Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Arana Tellen
Gallente The Blackguard Wolves Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 13:13:00 -
[31]
Antimatter rounds that burn off the atmosphere ---------------------------------
Oh noes!
Originally by: CCP Greyscale *moderated - mother abuse - Mitnal*
|
MenanceWhite
Amarr Fruit Fellatio
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 13:15:00 -
[32]
But what if we disregarded the "trit melts in atmosphere" thing and that the ships already had entered the atmosphere before they fired? ---
Originally by: Torfi There's alot. That can be done. With.. corpses
Originally by: Oveur
|
Silver Night
Caldari Naqam
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 13:16:00 -
[33]
Arty: Any of the heavy metal slugs would probably penetrate atmosphere. Given that as a goal, they could no doubt be coated in a heat resistant ceramic if burn up was a problem. Assuming we aren't dealing with ridiculous velocities (as we will with rail guns) it shouldn't really be much of an issue. Raining Volkswagens.
Rails: Probably destroyed upon contact with the atmosphere. On the other hand, 6 425mm rail guns firing very dense plasma in close sequence would likely create a wavefront of plasma capable of reaching a planets surface that makes a nuclear weapon look like a joke. Each one would get closer to the ground in the area cleared for it by the previous one. Maybe. If nothing else having a bunch of Plutonium and Uranium vaporized in your atmosphere would make you uncomfortable.
Actually, most of it would be metal that is already plasma. The extra thermal energy from reentry might be comparatively minor?
Torpedoes/ Cruise missiles: Saying torps don't have the range ignores gravity. Even if they were totally un-boosted, all they would need is a guidance package. After that it is pretty simply a matter of delivering a warhead. --------------
The Clown Man. GLS Mr. State Caldari Patriot. Sansha's Nation Supporter
|
To mare
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 13:16:00 -
[34]
in eve a torpedo have a mass of 1500kg but a volume of 0.1m
|
Randibuggah
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 13:32:00 -
[35]
The U.S. Navy already is testing a "Railgun"... let the games begin!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327205,00.html |
Grimpak
Gallente Trinity Nova Trinity Nova Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 13:37:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Grimpak on 30/06/2008 13:40:07
Originally by: Silver Night Rails: Probably destroyed upon contact with the atmosphere. On the other hand, 6 425mm rail guns firing very dense plasma in close sequence would likely create a wavefront of plasma capable of reaching a planets surface that makes a nuclear weapon look like a joke. Each one would get closer to the ground in the area cleared for it by the previous one. Maybe. If nothing else having a bunch of Plutonium and Uranium vaporized in your atmosphere would make you uncomfortable.
Actually, most of it would be metal that is already plasma. The extra thermal energy from reentry might be comparatively minor?
hmmm...
considering that the hybrid slugs are basically titanium-encased volatile matter (AM slug = titanium-encased AM, for example), and also considering that (generally accepted by some people in EVE), that rail guns are, well, rail guns, and that blasters are in fact, cyclotron pumps, also considering the method how each gun ejects the charge (railgun shoots the slug as a whole, impacting on hull (kinetic damage) and breaching the container, leaking the volatile matter in plasma form (thermal damage); blaster pumps the volatile matter from container thru cyclotron, wich is expelled by means of a self-contained, but unstable, magnetic container), I would say that the rail slug impacting on the atmosphere would probably resemble a hi-velocity projectile in ballistic trajectory. Applying the fact that railguns are hyper-sonic in nature (several times the speed of sound), the slug would either harmlessly volatilize on the atmosphere or produce a very small but destructive impact on surface.
for orbital bombardment, I would prefer to build a reentry-capable slug with extra coatings of titanium and temperature-resistant ceramic cooatings, for extra precision, or a MIRV-like slug that would basically rain hi-speed shrapnel and plasma on a large surface.
either way, it would be very destructive. Think of impacts ranging on the 10-20 megatons concentrated on a very small area (between 1 to 2 square km of damaged area caused by the impact itself, with a crater no larger than half square km), and subsequent hi-energy shockwave caused by the impact that would be probably felt at some 20km away from the impact area, or more (probably able to circle the entire globe), depending on the slug speed. And this is the precision-type slug. for the MIRV slug, I would expect a Tunguska-type cataclysm on a wider area.
or I can be talking **** |
Y Berion
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 13:37:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Silver Night Arty: Any of the heavy metal slugs would probably penetrate atmosphere.
Yes, in fact that could be done even with old post-WW2 technology. In early stages of Cold war both US and USSR had their projects of orbital attacks on ground targets. For example, American `Project Thor` was based on kinetic bombardment, where the projectile could inflict great damage, comparable to small nuclear weapons, as the result of its high (orbital) velocity - around 9 km/s- and mass. |
Winterblink
Body Count Inc. The Requiem
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 13:41:00 -
[38]
Naval Rail Gun Test Shot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y54aLcC3G74
Definitely not a 150mm slug, but still... wouldn't want to be in the line of fire of this puppy. CCP needs to tweak it though, the reload times look longer than longcat.
|
Meiyang Lee
Gallente Azteca Transportation Unlimited Gunboat Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 13:43:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Meiyang Lee on 30/06/2008 13:44:38 Lasers probably wouldn't work very well, as atmospheres tend to scatter the focussed beam very quickly, especially when transitioning from vacuum to atmosphere. (like light breaking on the surface of water basically) You'd loose almost all the energy on transition. If you were inside the atmosphere range would be dramatically reduced depending on the wavelengths used. Gamma and X-ray beams probably having the best chances of actually hitting anything on the ground, both also quite suited to simply "sterilising" whatever happens to be the target.
@ Winterblink: the reload on that railgun isn't so much the shell as the huge capacitors required to fire the thing. EVE's capacitor technology can quite safely be assumed to far more advanced than this. (heck, Amarr lasers wouldn't even be possible without massive capacitors to fuel them.)
|
Tarminic
Black Flame Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 14:23:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Tarminic on 30/06/2008 14:26:47
Originally by: Mithfindel On the other hand, railgun rounds are so small that they'd disintegrate in the upper reaches of troposphere. However could be useful in clearing air defences, the estimated airburst from the round is still quite big. Fragments of the round may reach the surface.
I think that normal Railgun rounds would burn up in the atmosphere, but I imagine that with a little engineering you could easily adapt them to be more aerodynamic, enough to reach the surface. I imagine that the kinetic energy of the impact would do much more damage than the round itself. I think that large rounds could have a pretty big effect on the local geography.
Quote: Blasters, not likely (problems with plasma cooling and dispersing in athmosphere).
Blasters might work well if the ship in question is in very low orbit and you wanted to cause as much damage to the planet's habitability as possible - a few blasterthrons spewing burst of antimatter into the upper atmosphere would likely have some dramatic effects.
Quote: Lasers, depends. Pulses might be moderately effective, but beams would have the problem that once activated they would form a plasma channel with highly unstable optical qualities and the beam would likely disperse. This might be circumvented by first firing a moderately powerful beam, analyzing the reflection to deduce the optical qualities of the air in between, and then firing the main beam, corrected to hit the target with full energy.
It would probably be a better idea to supplement the standard laser lenses with a secondary lense that would create an ionized column to act as a carrier wave for the laser energy.
Quote: That said, even if the energy would disperse over a slightly larger area, momentarily gigawatt-per-hour level output of energy would likely fry the target. Different wavelengths would also have different effects, I'd expect gamma and X-rays to penetrate the athmosphere with ease and thus be more viable weapons.
I imagine this would be incredibly effective against soft and civilian targets. Lasers have an added benefit that you could focus the energy to a point for maximum penetration or change the focal point in order to spread the energy out over a wider area.
Quote: (The problem is that they would likely be very large weapon systems, limited to ships, since they need to be shielded in order not to fry their own crews, too.)
The Amarr don't need so much shielding when they have disposable slaves to do the work for them. |
|
Tarminic
Black Flame Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 14:24:00 -
[41]
Originally by: MenanceWhite But what if we disregarded the "trit melts in atmosphere" thing and that the ships already had entered the atmosphere before they fired?
Ships are made of Tritanium allows, which do not suffer from this drawback. Only pure tritanium ignites in atmosphere. |
Fangedterror
Caldari The Devils Brigade The Threshold
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 14:41:00 -
[42]
This topic leads me to wonder if Eve ships could actually fly in earths atomosphere. yes the ships in eve go fast. (100-34k m/s) but would battleship class vessles beable to sustain flight in our atmosphere?
Need some Help with EVE? -Guides -Ship Setups -People Singing for their ships -Eve Time Cards -and MORE!!!! www.eve-onlineguides.com
|
Blutreiter
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 14:42:00 -
[43]
Would it count to keep an Obelisk full of lovestock and wait for the fecal matter to literally pile up by the metric tons, then release the ball of brown death as a frozen meteorite towards a planet?
Would you prefer to be taken out by the chocolate comet or would you rather live in an atmosphere (if the chocolate ball wasn't large enough to survive the reentry) where the god of dung dispersed the remains of millions of synthetic produced petfood all over your ecosystem?
Who the hell needs nuclear warheads. Size matters. No matter what kind of matter that it.
Cogito ergo boom - I think i'll blow sh*t up
Originally by: CCP Explorer I know we have said this before, but this time we really mean itÖ
|
Mavrix Able
M0NEY SH0T
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 14:57:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Fangedterror This topic leads me to wonder if Eve ships could actually fly in earths atomosphere. yes the ships in eve go fast. (100-34k m/s) but would battleship class vessles beable to sustain flight in our atmosphere?
Well in the Art of EVE book there is note at shuttles saying that their symetrical design with wings is due to the fact that they can do atmospheric flight. If you put that as a note for shuttles specificly, you can asume that other ships cannot do atmospheric flight.
-NWS/Mav
|
Tarminic
Black Flame Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 15:06:00 -
[45]
I imagine it would be possible for most ships to "fly" in an atmosphere, assuming they have enough engine thrust to counteract gravity. I can't imagine that doing so in anything larger than a frigate would be a pleasant flight, especially since ships aren't symmetrical. ---------------- Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.81 (Updated 4/8) |
Kyra Felann
Gallente Noctis Fleet Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 16:23:00 -
[46]
Originally by: DogSlime
Point ship at the surface of planet.
Set warp engine to full throttle.
Eject.
???
Profit.
You'd go right through the planet, leaving it unharmed. Haven't you ever passed through a solid object in warp before?
|
Kyra Felann
Gallente Noctis Fleet Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 16:29:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Dr Slaughter Edited by: Dr Slaughter on 30/06/2008 12:43:26
A stony meteoroid (say titanium sabot) of about 10 metres (30 ft) in diameter can produce an explosion of around 20 kilotons, similar to that of the Fat Man bomb dropped on Nagasaki. (in this example it would be moving at about 10km/s - ref. Tunguska event).
So being that Titanium Sabot L is 0.035m3 in volume. What do we think it's diameter is.. and what's it's velocity?
You don't know what sabot ammo is, do you?
Read this
Basically, when you shoot sabot ammo, there is an outer shell that breaks away leaving a dart-like projectile that is much skinnier than the original round. So talking about diameter and volume of a sabot round (including the case) has nothing to do with the size of the projectile that actually hits the target. The reason they're used is becuase a skinny, sharp projectile penetrates armor better than a thicker, blunter one. |
Kyra Felann
Gallente Noctis Fleet Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 16:32:00 -
[48]
Originally by: flashfreaking <Cro_Magnus> what I don't get is why people bother with "mm" as a caliber after 1000... I mean... 1400mm, why not call it "Mobile car launcher" and have done with it? <Cro_Magnus> 1400mm shells basically equate to the ship firing volksvagens at high speed <Cro_Magnus> knowing minmatar that's probably what they *are* firing too <Wrangler> except they are projectiles, not cars, and explosive <Cro_Magnus> car @ several thousand meters per second = projectile <Cro_Magnus> car loaded with fuel impacting ship = explosive <Cro_Magnus> your point? <Fenria> GAAAAH Captain... there is a beetle heading our way at 18kps <Wrangler> OMG! We're being attacked by volkswagens!"! <Fenria> DAMN THOSE GERMANS * Wrangler fires counter measure trabants
Credit goes to OMGRAWR, but I think this chatlog is appropriate :lol:
I realize it was intended to be funny, but if you can't see the difference between a purpose-designed, anti-ship projectile and a Volkswagen Beetle, you should be playing something simpler, like WoW. |
Kyra Felann
Gallente Noctis Fleet Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 16:37:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Grimpak for orbital bombardment, I would prefer to build a reentry-capable slug with extra coatings of titanium and temperature-resistant ceramic cooatings, for extra precision, or a MIRV-like slug that would basically rain hi-speed shrapnel and plasma on a large surface.
This is what a lot of people don't seem to get. You would not use the same ammo against planetary targets as you use against other ships in space. They'd be very different. But I'm quite sure ship-to-planet weapons exist in Eve. There is just no use for them in the game (yet). |
SunglassesInSpace
SPACE DUDES
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 16:45:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Kyra Felann
Originally by: flashfreaking <Cro_Magnus> what I don't get is why people bother with "mm" as a caliber after 1000... I mean... 1400mm, why not call it "Mobile car launcher" and have done with it? <Cro_Magnus> 1400mm shells basically equate to the ship firing volksvagens at high speed <Cro_Magnus> knowing minmatar that's probably what they *are* firing too <Wrangler> except they are projectiles, not cars, and explosive <Cro_Magnus> car @ several thousand meters per second = projectile <Cro_Magnus> car loaded with fuel impacting ship = explosive <Cro_Magnus> your point? <Fenria> GAAAAH Captain... there is a beetle heading our way at 18kps <Wrangler> OMG! We're being attacked by volkswagens!"! <Fenria> DAMN THOSE GERMANS * Wrangler fires counter measure trabants
Credit goes to OMGRAWR, but I think this chatlog is appropriate :lol:
I realize it was intended to be funny, but if you can't see the difference between a purpose-designed, anti-ship projectile and a Volkswagen Beetle, you should be playing something simpler, like WoW.
This post... it's not a fakepost is it. |
|
DubanFP
Caldari Four Rings Souls of Vengeance
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 16:59:00 -
[51]
Edited by: DubanFP on 30/06/2008 17:03:08 The most powerful bomb built today was the tsar bomba. It was just 2 M wide by 8 M long. About the same dimensions as you would expect from an artillery shell, but a little less perfect.
Now 1400mm means a shell that's 14 M wide. Add in the fact that volume is measure of m3 so that's 7 times wider, but 343 times bigger. Don't forget that EVE technology is far superior to modern technology which would easily push it to and probebly well past 1000 times more powerful. Finally add in the fact that fusion isn't nearly the most powerful shell and you're looking at an extinction level event from just 1 round here.
Now imagine 6 cannons on a tempest with each firing a round every 10 seconds. Nobody would survive.
Originally by: MenanceWhite
EVE lasers seems to be quite different compared to the ones we have now too, what kind of laser causes emp damage?
Don't talk about science if you don't know a thing about it. EM DOES NOT MEAN EMP. EM means electromagnetic, presumibly EM waves. Radar, Microwave, infrared, Light, ultraviolet, X rays, and Gamma rays are all EM radiation with different wavelengths. Yes your microwave uses EM waves to heat stuff up, and guess what? EMP means EM "electromagnetic, like light" PULSE. EMP is a large pulse of EM waves on every spectrum of EM waves all at once that can overload electronics.
P.S. Anything to those that mention the effect on atmosphere on railgun shells and artillery shells missed one big fact. The round has to survive being shot out of the railgun in an organized fashion. Anything that can survive the immense pressures required to be shot out of a cannon and even moreso Railgun can almost certainly survive reentry without too much trouble. |
FluterEx
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 17:15:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Viqtoria *insert stupid youtube video of those 23453425 rounds per minute guns that make a farting sound*
U mean this ? Metal Storm Sentry gun
OR maybe this ? Metal Storm Mortar
This one i like ^^ The Power of a Gatling gun
--------------------------------------- Only the dead have seen the end of war. |
masternerdguy
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 17:52:00 -
[53]
missiles and lasers are real world weapon systems. smart bombs are plasma discharges, kinda like the real world technology the h bomb |
SunglassesInSpace
SPACE DUDES
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 17:55:00 -
[54]
Originally by: DubanFP Edited by: DubanFP on 30/06/2008 17:03:08 The most powerful bomb built today was the tsar bomba. It was just 2 M wide by 8 M long. About the same dimensions as you would expect from an artillery shell, but a little less perfect.
Now 1400mm means a shell that's 14 M wide. Add in the fact that volume is measure of m3 so that's 7 times wider, but 343 times bigger. Don't forget that EVE technology is far superior to modern technology which would easily push it to and probebly well past 1000 times more powerful. Finally add in the fact that fusion isn't nearly the most powerful shell and you're looking at an extinction level event from just 1 round here.
Now imagine 6 cannons on a tempest with each firing a round every 10 seconds. Nobody would survive.
Originally by: MenanceWhite
EVE lasers seems to be quite different compared to the ones we have now too, what kind of laser causes emp damage?
Don't talk about science if you don't know a thing about it. EM DOES NOT MEAN EMP. EM means electromagnetic, presumibly EM waves. Radar, Microwave, infrared, Light, ultraviolet, X rays, and Gamma rays are all EM radiation with different wavelengths. Yes your microwave uses EM waves to heat stuff up, and guess what? EMP means EM "electromagnetic, like light" PULSE. EMP is a large pulse of EM waves on every spectrum of EM waves all at once that can overload electronics.
P.S. Anything to those that mention the effect on atmosphere on railgun shells and artillery shells missed one big fact. The round has to survive being shot out of the railgun in an organized fashion. Anything that can survive the immense pressures required to be shot out of a cannon and even moreso Railgun can almost certainly survive reentry without too much trouble.
You make a dumb maths mistake yet feel you have the authority to lecture someone on EM weaponry. Yeah. |
Grimpak
Gallente Trinity Nova Trinity Nova Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 18:08:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Kyra Felann
Originally by: Grimpak for orbital bombardment, I would prefer to build a reentry-capable slug with extra coatings of titanium and temperature-resistant ceramic cooatings, for extra precision, or a MIRV-like slug that would basically rain hi-speed shrapnel and plasma on a large surface.
This is what a lot of people don't seem to get. You would not use the same ammo against planetary targets as you use against other ships in space. They'd be very different. But I'm quite sure ship-to-planet weapons exist in Eve. There is just no use for them in the game (yet).
rule of thumb in ammunition development: for each case, each bullet.
you're not gonna use an explosive pellet vs an armored vehicle nor you will use an AP bullet to mow down a crowd ---
Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.
ain't that right. |
TCL987
Gallente The United Syndicate The Cooperative
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 20:21:00 -
[56]
When a ship is destroyed it isn't because the hull can't take anymore damage and falls apart it's because the reactor and engines go critical and explode. This makes it very possible for any form of weapon to destroy a ship if it can puncture the armour and hull. |
soldieroffortune 258
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 21:55:00 -
[57]
Edited by: soldieroffortune 258 on 30/06/2008 22:01:04 well, if the 150mm, 200mm, ect. are all barrel lenghts, then the EVE universe would be really small, how can you call a 1400mm a LARGE gun? thats like a barrel of like 4 ft, thats week and even Capital sized guns 2500mm(?) (not in game right now btw) so what thats a little more than 6-7 ft, HARDLY a CAPITAL sized gun, and has anyone seen the EVE Online Ship Comparison Chart?
http://www.eve-files.com/media/12/eve_chart-rmr.jpg
if you look in the bottom left hand side of that chart you will see the eifel tower, which would make frigates about the half the size of the eifel tower, which i have seen, and is pretty large, think about it, if those measurments (150mm, 200mm) were BARREL lengths, then that is just pathetic, that is on par w/ the barrel length of like an assault rifle, personally, i would want more than 2 assault rifles on my ship that is half the size of the eiffel tower for defense
EDIT: so yeah, with this, i would think measurments of the guns (150mm, 200mm ect.) would be the projectile diameter, and that seems more than reasonable for the ships sizes in this game 1400mm Artillery = 1.4meters (about 4ft?) that is a good size for a ship that is 3 or 4 city blocks long (something like the maelstrom, or megathron) |
Dirtee Girl
Omega Enterprises Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 22:24:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Dirtee Girl on 30/06/2008 22:24:44
Originally by: Sokratesz First of all it's undetermined what the sizes in eve really mean, since multiple sizes can use the same ammo type it's supposedly barrel length, causing the longer range but worse tracking of bigger guns in eve.
Looking at the ammo sizes, a 150mm rifter gun would be a 1.5m autocannon like on the bradley armour transport. Accounting for the 'no gravity' in space, the ranges sort of match, too.
um no a 150mm equals 15cm or .15m .
*
* |
Earl Comstock
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 23:22:00 -
[59]
Well lessee. People have already mentioned 1400mm rounds are about the size of a volkswagon; they would be about 4/5 the size of a VW golf, which is just over 1700mm wide. Something this size entering the atmosphere at a high speed would burn up almost entirely; If it didn't damage would be negligible.
The Barringer Crater (Arizona) asteroid was about 50m (50,000mm) across, and the crater itself is under 1.5km across and 170m deep. Everything within 15km was dead/destroyed, beyond that, it was just a warm windy day. Meteors this size and smaller typically burn up unless they are completely solid and metallic.
You'll need something solid and much bigger than a volkswagen in volume to do orbital bombardment. Smaller projectile weapons (rails, blasters) wouldn't have a chance. Missile weapons wouldn't have a chance unless they were reprogrammed for re-entry, but they're the only projectiles that have any chance at all, since they are smart and carry their own thrust which could offset gravity and prevent burnup.
Beam weapons x-ray and up would reach the surface, probably very effectively. You only need something like 10kJ/cm^2 to start disintegrating things.
The largest beam weapon in eve is a continuous wave laser (XL beam laser) consuming about 160TW of power. Say the aperture is 1m by 1m (this is a capital weapon, I doubt it's a laser-pointer sized beam) and there is perfect transfer of energy. That's 1.6TW/cm^2. If it can deposit that much energy in a one second long burst, that's 160kJ/cm^2, or about 16x what you need to start making things vaporize.
|
Y Berion
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 23:56:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Earl Comstock People have already mentioned 1400mm rounds are about the size of a volkswagon; they would be about 4/5 the size of a VW golf, which is just over 1700mm wide. Something this size entering the atmosphere at a high speed would burn up almost entirely
Not necesarilly. Make that projectile a sabot type, with very small frontal profile (=low air resistance), and use some high-density material to build it - such projectile could reach the surface intacted at full speed. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |