I was thinking that the high energy of the rail technology would only be used to push a projectile to a high-altitude if used in indirect fire. Then the kinetic warhead would simply fall.
How would an indirect fire rail gun be any more powerful than an indirect chemically propelled projectile also used for indirect fire?
My point was that indirect fire does not seem to be the best usage of the rail technology and the speed of the projectile. I believe the best usage of the rail technology would be direct fire where the kinetic power would be used directly.
__________________
abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.
|