Comments by "Sar Jim" (@sarjim4381) on "USS Vesuvius - Guide 135 (Extended)" video.

  1. The Nineteenth Century version of the rail gun! Both have had about the same level of success so far.
    39
  2.  @rogerhwerner6997  Yes, just like the "dynamite" gun, it has looked far better on paper than it has as an experimental weapon. There are laws of physics that are against the rail gun, and the chances of it ever becoming an operational weapon is becoming less and less likely. As you say, there are other less costly and less risky weapons that will probably go into service long before the rail gun.
    8
  3. The captain (and naval commanders in general) had two big problems with the design. The worst was the ship carried 30 shells composed of "desensitized blasting gelatin", a combination of nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin. The were only desensitized to the extent this volatile mixture was somewhat protected by their brass or steel shells and fired using compressed air. The ammunition was carried in a magazine with about an inch of "armor" which was really just sheet iron. Estimates from amorers were even a near miss by a large shell like one of eleven or twelve inch shells Drach talked about would be enough to set off the nitro in at least one or two shells. Once that happened, the propagating shock effect would have set off the entire magazine. As was said at the the time, the upside to this was neither rescue efforts nor funeral expenses would be involved for the crew, since the resulting explosion would have been rather like a miniature HMS Hood blast. In addition to the dangers of sailing a ship filled with poorly protected and only marginally stable explosives into action, it doesn't take many measurements of the hull and freeboard compared to average wave heights, even in the Caribbean, to realized this vessel was much more like a coastal yacht than an ocean going warship. The vessel took green water over the bow in even moderate seas due to the low freeboard, and much of that water would go directly down the gun tubes if the barrel plugs weren't in place. This is a pretty obvious issue for a ship that would need to be pointed toward a target with the barrels unplugged during combat. The very fine curve to the stern was needed to achieve the relatively high speed of 20 knots in a 252 long vessel with only 3,200 horsepower worth of engines The stern shape caused large waves to backfill over the stern in a following sea, This made the stern 3 pounder gun unusable and flooded the below decks spaces through the large ventilators on the stern section of the main deck. While it wasn't the worst naval vessel ever built, it's usually on top ten lists for these and other faults.
    7
  4.  @andreww2098  That's what I meant by the laws of physics. You just can't miniaturize the generators needed to provide power for the railgun. Size and weight of generators will first need to be overcome before things like barrel wear become important.
    6
  5.  @andreww2098  That's like saying a Daisy air rifle uses compressed air and has a projectile so they are sort of the same. While a torpedo is launched with compressed air, the comparison then fails, since a torpedo is self propelled once it reaches a certain distance form the launch tube, The projectile from a "dynamite" gun totally depends on the force of the compressed air for locomotion. That's why "dynamite" guns faded quickly from the scene while we still use torpedoes.
    3
  6. James Ricker replied: "The pneumatic Dynamite gun is still in use today on submarines." You apparently wrote this and immediately deleted it. Can you tell me why you deleted it, and where I would find a dynamite gun in use on a submarine today?
    2