@QuitePossiblyMangled thank you for both of your answer, its allright if you can't answer the last one

@WarshipDude I can't answer your last one, and I do not know you well enough to truly answer your second question. However, I can use context clues such as your builds, comments, interactions with you, and more to develop an idea. I believe you would be good at defending and making claims in topics such as ship design and naval history

@MrVaultech Im looking at it right now, it's clearly an inverted triangular prism

@WarshipDude Railguns in real life have several problems:
- They require large amount of power, which means you must have a large enough power supply to supply enough power to the gun. Large ships using nuclear reactors may be able to supply this need for power, but smaller ships, tanks, and aircraft will be unable too. People may say batteries, but the amount of energy needed would require a large heavy battery, which would make tanks slow and extremely heavy and aircraft unable to fly. Ships need all the space they can use for supplies, equipment, people, ammo, etc.
- The forces from firing railguns will shred the barrel after a few shots. This means the barrel must be replaced every few shots, which is not viable in combat and logistically.
- While the range of a railguns in real life are to modern naval guns, which are out done by missiles. There is a reason you don't see anymore battleships in navies around the world. This is because big guns are obsolete. Missiles have a farther range then shells or projectiles and are more accurate. They also have higher penetrating ability then modern naval guns. This is why one or two of them can take out majority of ships, with the larger ones such as carriers needing more due to sheer scale.

Missiles are just much more viable and flexible then a large gun.

What're your opinions on those "Round Moon Conspiracies"?

Why Railguns is not considered a viable weapon even in 2030?

If you know me well enough, on what kind of argument i would most likely win?

If my ship were to have a lower power rating in terms of engine power, how fast my ship would realistically be?

@CrimsonOnigiri Done

Can you please change my name in your bio? Its not JKudasai anymooore ;-;

@NotSoNormalPioneer Better than me

@WiiWiiTheMini This has broken my mind, I just can't comprehend this anymore

@QuitePossiblyMangled dude I can’t, you know I am @Cyan. Come on, 1 hour ago WiiMini and you were in a war of Lenin vs Nuke

@WiiWiiTheMini This is hurting my head. I have to look into it

@QuitePossiblyMangled dude it’s not hard, I mean you were fine for the past month

@WiiWiiTheMini I have to take a break, this is too much for me

@QuitePossiblyMangled I am @Cyan

Please, tell me. Are you cyan or Wii

@WiiWiiTheMini Your profile pictures dont match your usernames, I can't tell whos who

@QuitePossiblyMangled what’s confusing? I’m @Cyan and he’s WiiMini

@KnightofRen Please help, I am so confused

Ahhhhhh

@WiiWiiTheMini Why is your username is WiiMini when you are cyan
@Cyan Why is your username is Cyan when you are WiiMini

@QuitePossiblyMangled, can you ask WiiMini how his B-17 in my honor is going?

@QuitePossiblyMangled lead the masses against WiiMini (don’t tell him I said that)

I can't even express how confused I am

@QuitePossiblyMangled don’t be confused, be Lenin