Development > Artwork
UGV weaponry
Voller:
@Trash Man: I've actually already started doing some work on the laser weapon myself. Still work in progress and going slowly because the weather is awesome at the moment. But if you could concentrate on the other weapons first, then we're not doing any double work.
TrashMan:
--- Quote ---The Autocannon Module is our first-level UGV weapon. Simple, effective, and designed to minimise the collateral damage usually associated with multi-barreled guns, it fires standard 12mm MMG (Medium Machine Gun) rounds from an internal feed that links up to the UGV's own magazine cavity. It is capable of holding up to 6000 bullets. These rounds come in AP (Armour-Piercing) and FP (Frangible Penetrator) mods to satisfy the needs of particular missions.
At its full rate of fire the autocannon module can empty its magazine in twenty seconds.
--- End quote ---
These two lines caught my attention. For multiple reasons.
1. muti-barreled machine guns are actually MORE accurate than single barreled ones. I admit, I mis-read it initially.
2. 6000 bullets in 20 seconds implies a rate of fire of 18000 bullets per minutes. That is simply way too excessive. While gattling guns are capable of great speeds (the highest known RoF is 12000), it's just too wasteful, so the usual rate of fire is 3000-4000 rpm's. More is simply not needed, especially in support role.
Winter:
--- Quote from: TrashMan on July 06, 2010, 11:39:32 am ---These two lines caught my attention. For multiple reasons.
1. muti-barreled machine guns are actually MORE accurate than single barreled ones. I admit, I mis-read it initially.
--- End quote ---
Source? I can't imagine a computer-operated rotary gun on the same mount to be more accurate than a single-barrel one, since you have either recoil and torque working against accuracy or just recoil. And you'll have to show me figures that aren't set by human gunners.
--- Quote ---2. 6000 bullets in 20 seconds implies a rate of fire of 18000 bullets per minutes. That is simply way too excessive. While gattling guns are capable of great speeds (the highest known RoF is 12000), it's just too wasteful, so the usual rate of fire is 3000-4000 rpm's. More is simply not needed, especially in support role.
--- End quote ---
Which is why it's rarely run at the full rate of fire, as mentioned in the article.
Regards,
Winter
TrashMan:
--- Quote from: Winter on July 06, 2010, 01:19:31 pm ---Source? I can't imagine a computer-operated rotary gun on the same mount to be more accurate than a single-barrel one, since you have either recoil and torque working against accuracy or just recoil. And you'll have to show me figures that aren't set by human gunners.
--- End quote ---
When you go above 2000 rpms, with rotating barrels, you get increased stability and accuracy. There's even a test video on you tube comparing the m240 to the m134. The m134 turns out to be roughly 9 times more accurate!
Strange, but true....
Aha..found it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiry7ysVA9Y&feature=related
--- Quote ---Which is why it's rarely run at the full rate of fire, as mentioned in the article.
--- End quote ---
What I mean to say is that they aren't even produced to go higher than needed. They are "capped" at 3000-4000 (with 6000 for a few) even if they actually rarely fired at full speed.
Winter:
--- Quote from: TrashMan on July 06, 2010, 03:15:11 pm ---When you go above 2000 rpms, with rotating barrels, you get increased stability and accuracy. There's even a test video on you tube comparing the m240 to the m134. The m134 turns out to be roughly 9 times more accurate!
Strange, but true....
Aha..found it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiry7ysVA9Y&feature=related
What I mean to say is that they aren't even produced to go higher than needed. They are "capped" at 3000-4000 (with 6000 for a few) even if they actually rarely fired at full speed.
--- End quote ---
Hrm. I can't watch the video, since the connection I'm on now can barely handle streaming radio. However, even if it is correct -- still not convinced at the moment -- we have to consider that changing a source article requires translation in every other language. I really don't think this is remotely significant enough to warrant that procedure just for some background figures.
Regards,
Winter
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version