>>12160714>rail gunsDon't work. They were good propaganda for a while, but in practice the wear on the barrels makes them effectively useless. And "hyper-efficient batteries" is star trek thinking.
~1,000m/s (3,330fps) is not very good. Even conventional (sabot) rounds can theoretically reach 1,800m/s. A railgun in theory can hit 4,500m/s, but it tears itself apart doing it. A hydrogen gun in theory can his 8,000m/s. And it can do more than just shoot a penetrator, it can shoot shells which a railgun cannot (too hot).
And it doesn't need batteries at all, you can have the generator produce hydrogen and oxygen from water by electrolysis and store it in gas-tanks.
>a whole ass telephone pole made of tungsten from a tank? Because you can't fit a whole ass telephone pole in a tank. You certainly can't fit many. Going up in caliber necessary means going down in magazine size. Increasing muzzle velocity is preferable for penetrator rounds.
Personally I don't think hydrogen guns are the way to go for tanks either. They're too complicated. But for Naval artillery 8,000m/s is 6,500kilometers. ~1/6th the Earth's circumference.
