The Insanity of the Gauss Hog

Mar 11, 2019
6
2
3
20
Gamertag
Zero1170
#1
Weapon: M68 Asynchronous Linear-Induction Motor
Shell Specifications: 25x130 mm (assumed to be cylindrical and composed of tungsten)
Density of tungsten: 19,350 kg/m^3
Shell Mass: 1.23 kg (Inert Tungsten Slug)
Muzzle Velocity: 13.72 km/s (Mach 40)
Kinetic Energy: 1.16e8 J (116 MJ, or 28 kg of TNT)

Comparison: M242 Bushmaster Autocannon
Shell Specifications: 25x137 mm
Shell Mass: 0.195 kg (M791 APDS-T)
Muzzle Velocity: 1.1 km/s (Mach 3.2)
Kinetic Energy: 1.18e5 J (118 kJ, or 28 g of TNT)

For context, electricity-based weapon systems, such as the Gauss Cannon, need to produce the energy to accelerate the shell themselves, they can’t use propellant. So what this thing is telling me is that Gauss Hog’s are capable of producing power in excess of 116 MW. For comparison the M1A2 Abrams MBT only produces 1.12 MW of power per second. Furthermore the USS Iowa BB-61 battleships power plant produced 158.088 MW of energy, and it’s 16” batteries had a muzzle energy of 358 MJ (85 kg of TNT) and fired at a rate of 2 rounds per minute.
 
Mar 11, 2019
6
2
3
20
Gamertag
Zero1170
#2
P.S.
Why the UEG didn’t order these things to be strapped to the hull of every vehicles in space is beyond me. It would have seriously change some s**t though.
 
Mar 11, 2019
6
2
3
20
Gamertag
Zero1170
#3
P.P.S.
I forgot to mention that it needs to generate 118 MJ every time it fires, so the actual energy production is going to be maybe 50-60 times what I stated.

118 MJ * 50 = 5,900 MJ/sec (MW)
118 MJ * 60 = 7,080 MW
The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant produces 7,965 MW.
 
Last edited:
Apr 16, 2019
8
1
1
29
#6
Heh, I'm not doing all your figures, but when you're discussing recoil the important thing to remember is the force is equal and opposite, so you'd halve the force... I think. I'm not a physicist. Still, that gauss cannon exiting the barrel at Mach 40 would be what we in the biz call "rather loud."

Even if the technical specs of the guns in game are ludicrous, I still like the design of everything, especially the UNSC vehicles and weapons. There's no way in hell the Banshee would ever fly at that low speed... or the Phantom... or the Pelican...
The Pelican... maybe. It's basically a VTOL, but to get forward momentum with that fat 18-wheeler body and those tiny wings... those engines have to be pushing some damn serious torque. Think my favorite flying vehicle is the Falcon/Hornet. The Falcon has some pretty large props, and the Hornet has small turbines, so they'd still need some crazy thrust, but they're believable.

The weapons are also for the most part relatively realistic, until 343 anyways. And except for the assault rifle. It's got that big weird hood thing, a compass for some reason, and absolutely no sights. The best I can do is pretend it interfaces with the soldiers helmets and gives them a sort of holo reticle.
 
Mar 11, 2019
6
2
3
20
Gamertag
Zero1170
#7
Lol, I guess that's why Jenkins died then. Helmet fell off, no sights, dead. But yeah I do really like the look of the Falcon. I suppose that 500 years into the future they can make significantly more advanced propellers. My favorite weapons in the game is the DMR and sniper rifle (that scope is dope!).
 
Apr 16, 2019
8
1
1
29
#8
I doubt it for the propellers. But the Falcons are rather large, and there's 2 of them, so it's plausible. Propeller design and aerodynamics are pretty much set in stone at this point. My dads a big plane geek and does aerospace engineering, but I'm less involved in it. There's different prop pitches for various levels of thrust, and different tip styles, but prop construction itself doesn't make a huge difference.

The sniper bothers me. The scope changes drastically in every game. And only recently was I really made aware that Reach-Halo 3 only spanned a couple of months. But the weapon design in Reach looks far less "futuristic" and advanced.