# Energy Weapons VS Ballistic Weapons



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Nov 23, 2005)

A common fallacy I see in *many* sci-fi games is the thought that beam weapons would eventually replace ballistic weapons completely. To me, this is completely ludicrious.

For one thing, right off the top of my head, you have atmospheric attenuation. That's not even counting such things as a high dust level, exotic atmospheres that may contain high refractory elements suspended in the gas, overabundance of oppositely charged materials in the ground or air, and many other factors that can affect beam weapons.

That's without even getting into the power pack. Sure, a fusion pack can supply nearly endless power, but look at the weight. Even if we say it's a cold fusion reactor or graviton reactor that only weights 5 lbs, you have interconnecting cables, aimed shots, etc.

Still, ballistic weapons also are affected by some of this, but let's continue.

Armor against energy weapons would not have to be overly weighty. A reflective suit can bounce light based weapons, superconductor material can be used to channel energy weapons into the suits power pack or onboard capicators (sure, you'd have to immediately discharge the energy, but there are plenty of ways to do this), not to mention energy shielding.

Hey, a laser could be bounced by a prism grenade.

Energy weapons would have little to know knockback, either, or impact shock.

Ballistic weapons, on the other hand, can also be configured for mission specific munitions, in addition to blowing through thin energy weapon configured armor. Weapon magazines could and probably would contain supercapacitors for emergency weapon operation (the ability to use scopes and other gadgets wouldn't work) as well as being quickly and easily handed back and forth between troops.

There are many other reasons that ballistic weapons will still be used, as even inertial dampeners won't have a full effect when you start adding in weapons that accellerate the projectiles to nearly C.

So, what do you think, should ballistic based weaponry still be included for PL 6 and higher, for vehicles, hand held weapons, and starships?


----------



## Falkus (Nov 23, 2005)

But you're forgetting the potential versitality of hand weapons. Take phaser pistols on Star Trek. On the low settings, they can be used as highly effective non-lethal weapons, to create heat or cook food in emergancy situations, on the higher settings, they can easily disentegrate even an armored target, and be used as a cutting torch, and even overloaded and used as an impromptu hand grenade or explosive. That's a lot of utility out of a single device.


----------



## C. Baize (Nov 23, 2005)

Absolutely. 
Just because lasers exist doesn't negate the usefulness of explosives and chunks of various types of metals hurled at great velocity...


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Nov 23, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> But you're forgetting the potential versitality of hand weapons. Take phaser pistols on Star Trek. On the low settings, they can be used as highly effective non-lethal weapons, to create heat or cook food in emergancy situations, on the higher settings, they can easily disentegrate even an armored target, and be used as a cutting torch, and even overloaded and used as an impromptu hand grenade or explosive. That's a lot of utility out of a single device.



And, according to the shows I remember, if I recall correctly, there were plenty of times they didn't work due to magnetic interference, and ion storm, or Spock's panties were in a wad.

Plus, IIRC, the phaser had a craptacular range (something like 50 feet) in the original show, was extremely limited in shots for the battlefield version.

I'm not saying that ballistic weapons are superior, they are radically different things, as different as knives are from clubs.

To say that the energy weapon would completely replace the projectile weapon is rediculous.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Nov 23, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Energy weapons would have little to know knockback, either, or impact shock.





What modern ballistic weapons have any real knockback anyway?


----------



## Captain Tagon (Nov 23, 2005)

And hey, just look at one of my favortie sci-fi settings, the Halo universe. Definately still using ballistic weapons there.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Nov 23, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> What modern ballistic weapons have any real knockback anyway?



Ummm, think for a second.

Fifty Caliber GPHMG will knock a target ass over teakettle for a ways.

An AK-47 or M-16 (series) will knock someone down.

Even a pistol round can throw someone down.

By knockback, I mean: Target gets hit, the kinetic energy knocks them backwards or down.


----------



## Rhun (Nov 23, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> So, what do you think, should ballistic based weaponry still be included for PL 6 and higher, for vehicles, hand held weapons, and starships?




Absolutely. Ballistic weapons are still heavily used in my PL 6+ games. They definitely have some advantages over energy weapons.


----------



## Wolv0rine (Nov 23, 2005)

I think it depends on the usage instance.  To take just one instance, ship-to-ship combat.  To start off with, one has to establish whether or not the PL has established shields.  If so, what is the nature of the shields?  If we look again to Star Trek, for example, those shields are established to be pretty much inpenetrable to ballistic weapons, requiring energy weapons to punch through them (and even then, it often takes many shots).
I don't know, ballistic weapons will likely always have a place.  Someone's likely to use them.  Even if Planet A abandons them, they should keep in mind that Planet B may not have.  In which case, when going to Planet B (or into it's territory) people from Planet A should have protection from such weapons.
So, even if You stop using them for some reason, I'd think you'd keep at least defenses against them in the event of meeting a lower PL race, or a race that never abandoned their use.


----------



## Armistice (Nov 23, 2005)

See Battlestar Galactica (new series on SciFi) for an illustration of this point. Also, small note on  ballistic impact, despite the common appearance of "knockback" in movies, no such thing actually occurs in RL. For proof debunking this common myth see Mythbusters:

Episode 25: Brown Note
Ever the chance-taker, Adam puts his body to the test for science. Will he be able to withstand subsonic frequencies, or will adult diapers be his only hope with the Brown Note? Next, he and Jamie put legendary Hollywood gunfights to the test. Finally, we'll see whether a constant drip of water falling on your (or in this case, Kari's) head really can be unbearable torture.

They pretty much conclusively debunk the "knockback" effect.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Nov 23, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> And hey, just look at one of my favortie sci-fi settings, the Halo universe. Definately still using ballistic weapons there.




That's one of the reasons I like the Schlock Mercenary world. Plasma cannons and gauss guns side-by-side.

I especially like the cee-sabots. Remind me of the heavy cannon from the Berserker books.


In my crazy sci-fantasy space opera I'm _this_ close to starting, projectile weapons are rarer than magic guns simply because they need a bunch of metal that you have to haul around. It's easier to carry a few batteries and have a ship's mage recharge 'em, or charge up from the magical engines (under the watchful eye of a magineer) than to cart around a box of shells and a few magazines.


----------



## Roudi (Nov 23, 2005)

Armistice said:
			
		

> For proof debunking this common myth see Mythbusters





			
				Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> By knockback, I mean: Target gets hit, the kinetic energy knocks them backwards *or down.*



I saw the episode in question.  What the Mythbusters debunked was the ridiculous, Hollywood-esque, three-meters-backwards-through-the-bar-window knockback.  If you watch the episode again, you'll see that there _was_ some knockback from each shot; the targets at least recoiled from the shots, and from some of the closer ranges / higher calibers, the target was actually knocked off the stand.  This is what Ralts means by knockback; not the Hollywood misrepresentation, but the actual physical transfer of momentum from one (ballistic) object to another.

Seeing as Ralts has done his fair share of shooting and has been shot himself, I think I'll take his word on matters like this.


As for the ballistics / energy weapon issue: I definitely think that advanced in energy technology would not halt the use or development of ballistic weapons.  This is, of course, assuming the setting in question is based on realistic science fiction (if it is more space fantasy, like Star Wars, then it can handwaive anything it wants).  I recently read David Drake's _Redliners_ (a novel I'd recommend for anyone who likes their sci-fi hard & gritty).  The book presents both ballistic weapons and energy weapons on roughly equal footing; both have their merits and disadvantages.  Personally, I think the main ballistic weapons in the book (stingers) are the scariest handheld weapon I've ever heard described in a novel.

And that's just it.  As technology levels increase, ballistic weaponry gets SCARY.  The ability to fire smaller masses with greater force and higher speeds makes for some dangerous firepower.


----------



## Imperialus (Nov 23, 2005)

Back when I was young and stupid I was present at the 97 Seattle Riots.  I got shot in the ribs with a rubber bullet from a range of at least 30 meters (halfway down an inner city block) and it, to quote Mr. Ralts.  "Knocked me ass over teakettle".  It felt as if a large gentleman had punched me in the chest with all his strength and I spent about a minute and a half just lying on my back admiring the pretty clouds of teargas which was about all I could work up the engergy to focus on.


----------



## Ron (Nov 23, 2005)

Ballistic weapons should be the main arsenal of any realistic futuristic setting. In order to energy hand weapons replace their ballistic counterparts you will have to introduce a powerful portable energy generator or battery. I'm not sure if this will be ever possible, especially because it should cost much more than the chemical propolent used on guns.

However, I don't care much about technological realism in a science-fiction scenario.


----------



## Lord Wyrm (Nov 23, 2005)

Anyone ever played Rifts?  The energy weapons are fairly commonplace and can demolish small non-hardened buildings easily enough, and the bigger stuff can really ruin a dragon's weekend.  Then you go over to ballistics, the low end SDC handguns can bring down a person, but thats about it, but the rail guns can take on about anything out there.  The best stopping power is the Boomgun mounted on a Glitterboy, It's capable of destroying most power armor in one shot, and just about everything else in less than five.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Nov 23, 2005)

A rifle, particularly an assault rifle (yeah, a combat weapon) will knock you FLAT on the ground, even if your vest stops it. It will also break ribs and leave a really nice purple bruise for everyone to admire.

A heavy pistol, such as the Colt .45 or the Glock .40 will also knock you on your butt.

Honestly, I'd have to wonder if the guys from Mythbusters were using cold loaded ammunition, assault rifles, the rest? Or did they use a .22 or a .38 snub nosed revolver?


----------



## Chaldfont (Nov 24, 2005)

Waaaay back in junior high English class, I read a scifi short story about a scout sent to explore new planets. The R&D guys sent him along with an experimental disintegrator pistol. When he arrived, he was attacked by a pack of space-wolves. He disintegrated one of them, and when the rest of the pack kept coming, he remarked that a regular pistol shot probably would have scared them off. In the resulting fight, he ends up stuck in a hole made from a missed disintegrator shot. When he gets out, he finds that his shots have neatly sliced open his spaceship's fuel tanks.

Months later, a rescue crew arrives. They find him living happy in a handmade log cabin with a nice stockade to keep out the local fauna. They ask him how the pistol worked out. He shows them the hammer he's using to pound in a fence pole--its the disintegrator.

Sorry for the aside. This thread just reminded me of that story. I wish I could remember its author and title. The main character would much rather have had a hunting rifle.


----------



## C. Baize (Nov 24, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> A rifle, particularly an assault rifle (yeah, a combat weapon) will knock you FLAT on the ground, even if your vest stops it. It will also break ribs and leave a really nice purple bruise for everyone to admire.
> 
> A heavy pistol, such as the Colt .45 or the Glock .40 will also knock you on your butt.
> 
> Honestly, I'd have to wonder if the guys from Mythbusters were using cold loaded ammunition, assault rifles, the rest? Or did they use a .22 or a .38 snub nosed revolver?




Hey, Ralts... 
I know we've discussed this in person, but these fine folks weren't present, could you relate how hard you were tossed when you were shot with that high caliber weapon?


----------



## Corwyn_kop (Nov 24, 2005)

From what Ive read the kinetic shock from small arms isnt enough to knock someone down by itself.  Now I have never (and have no intention of ever) put it to the test personally but I did see footage of an individual shot at about 2ft range with one of the HK 7.62 assault rifles while standing on one leg and he didnt stumble.  They put a phonebook inside the vest for padding.  Mind you,  I cant say for certain that the footage was absolutely legit but I thought I would throw it out there.  If anyone is interested, the footage was part of a video called "Deadly Weapons" which attempted to "factfind" on various things people believe about firearms.  Its probably been about 15 years since I watched it and it seemed pretty  informative for the absolute neophyte I was way back then. 

    To get off of the tangent, until we hit the technology=magic point, I really dont see energy weapons replacing ballistic weapons.  The only way that I could see it happening is if there were some sort of cheap, reliable, and very effective means of stopping a piece of metal flying at high velocity.  A personal shield or something that was readilly available and that would completely stop a projectile would do the trick maybe...and even then I think we are approaching the tech as magic line.

     By the way, I hope all is well with you Ralts and that we get more zombie goodness soon!! 

Corwyn


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Nov 24, 2005)

Corwyn_kop said:
			
		

> From what Ive read the kinetic shock from small arms isnt enough to knock someone down by itself.  Now I have never (and have no intention of ever) put it to the test personally but I did see footage of an individual shot at about 2ft range with one of the HK 7.62 assault rifles while standing on one leg and he didnt stumble.  They put a phonebook inside the vest for padding.  Mind you,  I cant say for certain that the footage was absolutely legit but I thought I would throw it out there.  If anyone is interested, the footage was part of a video called "Deadly Weapons" which attempted to "factfind" on various things people believe about firearms.  Its probably been about 15 years since I watched it and it seemed pretty  informative for the absolute neophyte I was way back then.



It's the phone book that did it. It absorbed the majority of kinetic shock.

When I got hit, it picked me up and threw me out of the back of the CUC-V. It didn't penetrate the vest, but it did not the wind out of me. It hits, and hits HARD, don't be fooled by a lot of these fact finders who pad the experiment with multiple vests, additional padding, and a lot of time, cold loaded rounds.

I like how they add padding, which disperses the kinetic energy, and claim it doesn't knock you down.


> By the way, I hope all is well with you Ralts and that we get more zombie goodness soon!!



Now that I've got a new computer, things are going good!


----------



## Falkus (Nov 24, 2005)

> A heavy pistol, such as the Colt .45 or the Glock .40 will also knock you on your butt.




And by Newton's laws of physics, it should do the same thing to the man who pulled the trigger. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Nov 24, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> And by Newton's laws of physics, it should do the same thing to the man who pulled the trigger. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.



It's called recoil, which is why there are stocks, and why the blowback mechanism and recoil springs exist in rifle, as well as why the pistol grib is shaped in such a way and the blowback design is the way it is. Remember, older pistols (which delivered far less kinetic energy) would cause major recoil, enough to throw one's arm up.

Other reasons while a lot of people think that Newton's expalins it don't realize that most heavy weapons, from assault rifles to sniper rifles to heavy machine guns, have recoil springs to help dampen the recoil force and bleed it off. I do *know* that a bad recoil spring in an M-16A1 will give the firer a broken shoulder.

Plus, if you just say: "Newton's Third Law" you aren't taking into account that a hard punch from a trained fighter will actually lift you up and toss you back, or knock you flat on your butt, and a punch delivers a LOT less kinetic energy than a pistol round. Why didn't the fighter end up on his back?

The More You Know...

Now, since that was half sarcastic, I will admit, it started making me curious. So I went and looked up various medical and field reports...

When I was hit, it knocked me off the back of the truck. It also hit with enough force to pop one of my ribs.

Here's the weird thing, while Mythbuster's claims it was a myth, and the guy who created the Second Chance vest shot himself in the chest while on one foot, there has to be some reason that some people are "tossed back" about a foot or two (No, not flying through the air for 50 feet) or thrown to the side (it's hard to explain) while other people just jerk and drop.

Some of it might be muscle spasm/nerve shock, final muscle spasms, etc.

Having not seen the Mythbuster's in question, and only going off of first person observations, I'm still convinced that there is signifigant knockback (IE: less than 2 foot, although it seems like your airborne for a LOOOONG time if your the one shot) in the case of armored vests.

Huh....

The More *I* Know...


----------



## Peterson (Nov 24, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> and the guy who created the Second Chance vest shot himself in the chest while on one foot




Don't quote me on this, but I believe I saw an article in the Detroit Times about this guy.  Seems he actually made faulty vests, and it got two (and possibly more) police officers killed.  

If I remember right (from my quick skim of the partial article), his company - Second Chance - is located in Central Lake, Michigan (which, off-topic, is where I went to summer camp and learned to shoot a rifle.).

Anyway, just wanted to bring that to anyone's attention that has ever used, uses, or plans on using a Second Chance vest.  A simple Google search should find most of the relevant informaiton.

The more you know....and all that.  

Peterson


----------



## Corwyn_kop (Nov 24, 2005)

Well, this all got me thinking and poking around on the good ole 'net.  The only study I could find on this topic specifically (mind you Im at work so my research time and options are limited) was by the International Journal of Legal Medicine...(sounds impressive doesn't it?  )  All I found was the brief, which did not go into the methodology used, but they claim that the impact of small arms isnt sufficient to knock someone back.  

     Im actually thinking it might be worth asking some of the state troopers and prison guards that have participated in fireing squads what their experience was but it could be considered in poor taste.

     It also occured to me that one factor that hasnt been considered is the reaction of the body to being shot.  It seems with such a traumatic impact, their is a high likelihood of a physical reaction along the lines of a flinch or knee-jerk of epic proportions.  

    Im no doctor, nor alas do I play one on TV but thats my attempt to bring various personal experience cited here and what appear to be current scientific thought in line with each other.

Corwyn


P.S.  If any of you should decide to experiment on this topic, I do NOT want to hear about it


----------



## Armistice (Nov 24, 2005)

Mythbusters debunked  the Hollywood version of knockback, that is all I was referring to. As to the physics/biology, since anecdotal evidence from people being shot with the same types of ammo differ greatly (some report falling backwards, others hardly realizing it, others drop straight down), I think the most likely cause for knockdown has to do with the shock to the system rather than the physics involved. 

Good armour should result in the just kicked by a mule feeling (depending on the type of round absorbed) as that means the force of the bullet has been properly distributed over the armour's area rather than being used to penetrate the fragile body impacted.

Energy weapons as invisioned by sci-fi are essentially magical in nature. There may be some specific uses of directed energy (i.e targeting, blinding of sensors, cutting) that work efficiently. For general and even specific mayhem, however, kinetic (energy) weapons will always be cheaper to produce and so will deliver more bang for your buck.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Nov 24, 2005)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> That's one of the reasons I like the Schlock Mercenary world. Plasma cannons and gauss guns side-by-side.
> 
> I especially like the cee-sabots. Remind me of the heavy cannon from the Berserker books.





Too true. If I was going to write up my own sci-fi universe it'd be somewhere between HALO and Schlock Mercenary.


----------



## Nadaka (Nov 24, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> A rifle, particularly an assault rifle (yeah, a combat weapon) will knock you FLAT on the ground, even if your vest stops it. It will also break ribs and leave a really nice purple bruise for everyone to admire.
> 
> A heavy pistol, such as the Colt .45 or the Glock .40 will also knock you on your butt.
> 
> Honestly, I'd have to wonder if the guys from Mythbusters were using cold loaded ammunition, assault rifles, the rest? Or did they use a .22 or a .38 snub nosed revolver?




false. THe kinetic energy transfer is largely irrellevant. I can prove that kinetic energy transfer doesnt mean squat with simple physics. You get knocked down by the pain and shock of being shot, likely ampified by reflexive muscle spasms.

Lets model a simple collision between 2 objects

M1 = mass of target (assumed 80kg for an adult male)
M2 = mass of bullet
V1 = velocity of  target
V2 = velocity of bullet

M1 * V1 = M2 * V2
solve for V1
V1 = M2 * V2 / M1

9mm parabellum: m2 = 7.5g, v2 = 390 m/s.
assumed average human weight(m1) = 80kg, velocity(v1) = 0.0365625 m/s.
Thats ~1.4 inches / second. 

7.62mm NATO: m2 = 9.33g, v2 = 838 m/s.
assumed average human weight(m1) = 80kg, velocity(v1) = 0.09773175 m/s.
Thats ~3.8 inches / second.

.50 BMG: m2 = 42.9, v2 = 888 m/s.
assumed average human weight(m1) = 80kg, velocity(v1) = 0.47619 m/s.
Thats ~18.4 inches / second. 

So in conclusion, normal personal firearms are not going to knock one on thier ass because of the impulse of collision. An Anti-material round like the .50 BMG can, but even a full powered round from a battle rifle isnt going to knock one head over heals. If it isnt the impulse that makes you fall down, it is most likely the "damage" that makes you fall down.


----------



## hobgoblin (Nov 24, 2005)

hmm, blue planet still use slug trowers. however, they are fueld by a binary propellant (two gasses that by themselfs dont do much but when mixed go boom), use a electric trigger (spark, not hammer on cap) and the slug itself is a kind of very dense grown plastic.

only place they use something diffrent i under water, and there they use a kind of sonic laser, or saser as they call it. reason is that soundwaves travel much better under water then bullet (alltho they have some more aerodynamic bullets that get a bit more range under water then the normal type, but loose some of the bite).

makes sense in a way.

only place i can see a real use for energy weapons is boarding actions in zero gravity...


----------



## C. Baize (Nov 24, 2005)

Didn't they also prove that bumblebees can't fly with physics, too?

Mathematical formulas are neat and look great on paper, but they don't ALWAYS transfer to real life circumstances.


----------



## danzig138 (Nov 24, 2005)

C. Baize said:
			
		

> Didn't they also prove that bumblebees can't fly with physics, too?



Yeah. 
In the 30s.
With faulty thinking. 
It's not true anymore. 

Just because one guy got knocked on his butt doesn't mean everyone does. Anecdotal is fun that way. 

I don't mind a knock-down mechanic myself. A game we used to play had one, and it was always fun when a shot would put a bad guy down for a round or two. 

Not so much when it happened to us, but hey, goose, gander, all that.


----------



## Nadaka (Nov 24, 2005)

C. Baize said:
			
		

> Didn't they also prove that bumblebees can't fly with physics, too?
> 
> Mathematical formulas are neat and look great on paper, but they don't ALWAYS transfer to real life circumstances.




yep they proved that a fixed wing aircraft with the wing surface area to mass ratio of a bumble bee could not fly... Note that a bumble bee is not a fixed wing aircraft and its wings do not produce lift by the same means as fixed wing aircraft. A fixed wing aircraft produces lift by creating a low pressure zone ontop of the wing, a bumblebee produces lift by creating vortices on the air and pushing those vortices downwards (IIRC). So the proof was inherently flawed.

In this case, the mathematical formula's DO directly translate into real world applications. Its called the law of conservation of momentum. Note that the impulse of a bullet impact with its target is going to be equal or less than the impulse generated between the shooter and the bullet. No one gets knocked down by shooting a 9mm, 5.56mm NATO, 12 gauge or 7.62mm NATO unless they hold the gun in a way that it can damage the shooter. Since the impulse will be equal or less (due to air friction) with the target, they are not going to be knocked down sans damage.


----------



## C. Baize (Nov 24, 2005)

danzig138 said:
			
		

> Yeah.
> In the 30s.
> With faulty thinking.
> It's not true anymore.
> ...




Faulty thinking... that's part of the point I'm making. 
Not everything regarded as truth because it works on paper will _remain_ truth. 

I consider actual experience to be far more accurate than a mathematical formula for "why what happened to you didn't really happen to you 'cause I can mathematically prove that doesn't happen." 

Experience > mathematical equations.


----------



## JoelF (Nov 24, 2005)

For an example of a real life "high tech" balistic weapon, check out a company called Metal Storm (http://www.metalstorm.com/).  They've got a machine gun which fires at a rate of 1,000,000 rounds per minute, using no moving parts.  They electronically fire the rounds.


----------



## hobgoblin (Nov 24, 2005)

the mythbuster setup only handled mass vs mass, it did not take into account getting your leg shot from under you (could maybe have you fall to your knees or similar).

hell, i had the air knocked out of me in school ones from a foam ball. i was unprepared for it and therefor more or less doubled over. i would expect a .45 to the vest could have a similar effect.

so while doing the hollywood never happens, people can still fall over from shock, pain and similar.

allso, on a later revisit of the myth they talked about actors in old westerns just falling over. sure, if you fall backwards into a window you may well go thru that window and so on. but thats about the same distance as falling down and back from a standing posision. your feet would still be where you where standing.

the flying myth may well have started not from hollywood, but from people being shot and then falling backwards as their balance failed based on the shock of the wound. just finding the body streched out may make people think he was pushed backwards a bit by the bullet or something like that...


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 24, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> So, what do you think, should ballistic based weaponry still be included for PL 6 and higher, for vehicles, hand held weapons, and starships?




Personally I think that ballistic weaponry should still be included for hand held and vehicles, but be of more limited importance for starships - because of ranges and time-in-flight issues. I could see ballistics for short range punch and for short range anti-missile defences, but not as main batteries.

I always like the model for energy weapons that David Drake uses in his 'hammers slammers' short stories - ammunition not powerpacks, but the ammunition discs are used to create an energy bolt.

Cheers


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Nov 24, 2005)

I've seen this arguement go round and round, but let's move onto sci-fi.

A magnetic accellerator weapon, using a chunk of ferrous coated (for launching) duranium alloy that weighs 8 ounces accellerated to .75 C.

That hits someone in armor, the armor withstands the blow.

He's still got a chance of being blown off his feet. Sure, it won't hurt him, only lead to armor degredation, but still batter around.

With the invention of hypervelocity slugs (IE: C+ Cannon) You'd still have ballistic weapons out there, even with ship to ship combat.

For example, wrap a lead slug around a small hyperdrive engine. The slug makes microjumps and phases in JUST as it hits. It's moving right around C, and got there quicker than laser beams.

Then you have the mixture of projectile and energy: IE: Torpedoes and Missiles.

They head out, then detonate, creating a directed energy lance (Think bomb pumped laser) that slices into the enemy ship.

I still hold to the ORIGINAL post of this thread: That a high tech military would not abandon ballistic weapons for solely energy weapons.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 24, 2005)

Another interesting concept that Traveller originally came up with (AFAIK) was the big ship Meson gun - the idea being that you accellerate an ultra-high energy meson to relativistic speeds and time it so that it decays inside the target vessel. No whizzy ray beams, just explosions occuring inside ships armour. 



			
				Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> For example, wrap a lead slug around a small hyperdrive engine. The slug makes microjumps and phases in JUST as it hits. It's moving right around C, and got there quicker than laser beams.




Now I could see this in terms of a guided munition, but not a ballistic weapon - but that may be because I've got different expectations around the word. I'm thinking of ballistic weapons as those which are given an initial impetus and then travel to their target without terminal guidance or additional propulsion; add those qualities and I'd call them missiles or rockets - something other than plain ballistic.

Since most sci-fi has room-sized hyperdrives, that particular example is from a vastly higher tech level, enough so that the equivalent energy weapons might be 'point your gun at the target and it disappears' so some other virtually magical effect. At the very least I'd expect energy weapons to fire through hyperdrive lenses which cause them to arrive faster than the speed of light too.

Then again, if you are projecting destructive micro-black holes at one another, would you count that as ballistic or energy weapons 

Cheers


----------



## Strutinan (Nov 24, 2005)

<deleted>


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Nov 24, 2005)

Any one see Star Trek: First contact?  Where picard uses a holographic tommy gun to blow away two borg who had adapted to his phaser?
I think the federation should get the idea and start issuing projectile weapons to ships expected to encounter borg.  Then again the borg might just start being kevlar plated.

No reason in outerspace away from the forces of gravity a bullet wouldn't be lethal.  It would travel farther and not slow down much unlike on earth.  But the kick of the weapon could be a problem in outerspace too.

There are a few projectile weapons (other than torpedos and such) used in some scifi settings.  I can think of star craft off the top of my head.

In the real world I hardly doubt lasers will replace  ballistic weaponry ever.


----------



## Nadaka (Nov 25, 2005)

C. Baize said:
			
		

> Faulty thinking... that's part of the point I'm making.
> Not everything regarded as truth because it works on paper will _remain_ truth.
> 
> I consider actual experience to be far more accurate than a mathematical formula for "why what happened to you didn't really happen to you 'cause I can mathematically prove that doesn't happen."
> ...




Its not faulty thinking. I proved that the REASON he stated for falling over is false. I did not claim he didnt or shouldn't have fallen over. I am just saying that the impulse of momentum is not the reason that this occured. THe reason one falls over when shot is a result of the damage: pain, system shock, muscle spasms, nerve damage in severely bruised tissue, having a hole where functional organs used to be, etc.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Nov 25, 2005)

Darn you American safety laws!

We could finally put this to rest by setting up a whole bunch of high speed hidden cameras and let a guy wearing a vest walk in to get a package off a cart on the back porch and then BLAMMO!  Out of nowhere you shoot him.  

See when/if/how he flies backward.  If it's imparted momentum or maybe an instinctual shock/flinch reaction.  WHATEVER.

'Course it still wouldn't stop the arguments, but it'd probably be a better test than a guy who knew he was going to get shot, a guy who prepped himself to get shot, or a crash test dummy wearing a vest.

Besides, we could get on America's Funniest Home Videos: Videos You Could Never See Edition.

--fje


----------



## Storyteller01 (Nov 25, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> A common fallacy I see in *many* sci-fi games is the thought that beam weapons would eventually replace ballistic weapons completely. To me, this is completely ludicrious.  <<snip>>





Many oflks said the same thing about any number of advances (cellphones vs land line, computers vs people, firearms vs bow/crossbow/melee, automobile vs horses, etc) with many similar arguments (pointing out the flaws). We adapted, overcoming those flaws. Nothing saying the same won't happen in this circumstance, especially when you consider the benefits (greater lethality, improved accuracy [particles travelling at the speed of light mean point of = point of impact. No Kentucky Windage]).

Don't get me wrong, I don't think ballistic weapon will be completely phased out (energy weapons can't carry cyanide). It will come down to how badly we want/need that change, not the drawbacks of R&D.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Nov 25, 2005)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I always like the model for energy weapons that David Drake uses in his 'hammers slammers' short stories - ammunition not powerpacks, but the ammunition discs are used to create an energy bolt.




I remember reading him saying he went with projectile-based weaponry because beam weapons required a full powerplant to work well, whereas a projectile weapon just needed a projectile to work.  While that isn't necessarily true, depending on the setting's tech level, I think it makes a certain amount of sense.

When playing with GURPS Vehicles' weapon design system, I became very fond of bundling the energy cells for rail or gravguns with the projectile and including it in the stats; it raised WPS negligibly, and simplified the logistics chain, since you wouldn't have to have a separate capacitor to recharge or fix in case it broke.  (I viewed the extra bit of the capacitor as a sabot-like thing that fell off after going through the barrel, to remove the need for an ejection port, since that would make it more reliable!)

Theoretically, it should even be possible to have cartridges for beam weapons; perhaps they contain the materials that react energetically and form the laser or particle beam when acted on by the weapon.

Brad


----------



## Finster (Nov 25, 2005)

I think that delivering a hefty dose of kinetic energy will always be a good way to kill a carbon based life form. With technological advances ballistic weapons could become quite horrific (as if they weren't already). Imagine placing a force field dissipator in each round, to defeat a shield.

But I also think that energy weapons would definately have a role to play in a sci-fi setting as well. If a soldier were to open up with a rapid fire ballistic weapon aboard a space vessel the results could be catastrophic. Hull punctures and ricochettes come to mind. An energy weapon might be standard issue to marines and marshalls aboard space stations.

So, no, I don't think that one or the other will ever be discarded.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 25, 2005)

Finster said:
			
		

> I think that delivering a hefty dose of kinetic energy will always be a good way to kill a carbon based life form. With technological advances ballistic weapons could become quite horrific (as if they weren't already). Imagine placing a force field dissipator in each round, to defeat a shield.
> 
> But I also think that energy weapons would definately have a role to play in a sci-fi setting as well. If a soldier were to open up with a rapid fire ballistic weapon aboard a space vessel the results could be catastrophic. Hull punctures and ricochettes come to mind. An energy weapon might be standard issue to marines and marshalls aboard space stations.
> 
> So, no, I don't think that one or the other will ever be discarded.



Ricochets I can see, but I doubt that you can create energy weapons that are as lethal as ballistic weapons but cannot penetrate the hull like them. 

Someone mentioned using micro-jump drives or inertial dampeners to improve the velocity of bullets to near light speed - I doubt that would work. The Inertial Dampeners (If they're possible, which I dout) would most likely negate the mass increasnig effect which is part of the reason why you want so high speeds, and micro-jumps would not create the impulse of a weapon of that speed (they might help to get through armor directly into vital systems, assuming you can jump through solid objects)


----------



## Strutinan (Nov 25, 2005)

<deleted>


----------



## C. Baize (Nov 25, 2005)

Strutinan: "Ignoring: Anyone who calls people on purposely misrepresenting something to hype their own products."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 25, 2005)

> Ricochets I can see, but I doubt that you can create energy weapons that are as lethal as ballistic weapons but cannot penetrate the hull like them.




Depends on what you mean by "penetrate the hull"- I assume by "penetrate" you mean "cause a hull breach".

After all, a weapon that sends a focused beam of microwaves or gamma particles or some such could be quite lethal, and could penetrate the hull (depending on design) _without breaching it._

Heck...you could conceivably turn someone to jelly with enough focused _sound_.


----------



## A Crazy Fool (Nov 25, 2005)

mythbusters? the show is not really scientific, i can go into this in more detail but it's off topic. In my future campaign many handheled weapons are kinetic and heavy weapons are kinetic and energy depending on the situation


----------



## Roudi (Nov 25, 2005)

What?!?  I didn't make Strutinan's ignore list?  I was just as rational, blunt, and honest as Heap and C.Baize!  I feel so left out.

So Ralts... was there something behind this thread?  Do you have some high-tech ballistics weaponry cooking up for an upcoming campaign setting, or something?  Justifying some of the gear you've done for the Future Fun thread?  Any bone you wanna throw us?  Your fans are eager and curious.


----------



## The Black Kestrel (Nov 25, 2005)

In PL 6+ games I think both energy and ballistic weapons are viable. The choice to use them will be mission specific. I'd much prefer an energy weapon which has minimal or no recoil when conducting operations on a low or zero-gee enviroment. On the other hand a ballistic weapon would be much more appropiate when underwater. Admittedly these are extremes of the enviromental spectrum and wouldn't be the only factors in a decision to use ballistic or energy weapons. Questions of mass, shot capacity, logistics (find more bullets or an energy source), maintenance, cost, payload capabilities etc will drive the decision as much as anything else.

Application is another area where ballistic or energy weapons could dominate. Consider for a moment anti-missile/artillery/mortar systems. While there are ballistic (SKYGUARD, ARROW etc.) systems designed to counter the threat currently,  energy weapons with their inherently superior speed (accuracy is variable based on atmospheric conditions) could possible be a better choice especially if they guard a fixed site where power is plentiful and maintenance regular.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Nov 26, 2005)

Energy weapons have a few advantages over ballistic weapons.

Time to target is effectively zero, making them impossible to intercept (other than with armor).

Aiming is trivial -- no windage, no gravity, and you can adjust aim until the target goes boom.  Even in modern firearms, recoil does have an impact, which is why sniper rifles are designed with floating barrels.

Assuming infinite power (which is a HUGE assumption), you will never run out of ammunition.

"Energy" is a broad term that can apply to a variety of effects -- sonics for disabling foes, masers that fry circuitry and burn, particle accelerators -- and those are just the ones that actually exist.  Sci-fi has the afore-mentioned meson guns, disintegrators, antimatter rifles, etc.  Flexibility could be an advantage if a single weapon can have multiple effects -- but you could also argue that the capability already exists with shotguns and grenade launchers.

If power is infinite and electronics are dirt cheap, then I could see ballistics going away, but that is really the only way.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Nov 27, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> I still hold to the ORIGINAL post of this thread: That a high tech military would not abandon ballistic weapons for solely energy weapons.





And I will agree with you 100% there.


----------



## Morgan Keyes (Nov 27, 2005)

*New poster*

DreadPrivateMurphy hit upon many points I am using in a D20 Modern/Future setting I am working on based on the X-COM games.

Ballistic weapons still play a major role since there is no overwhelming evidence that at the small arms scale directed energy will have a major leg-up over a high velocity slug of metal.

The X-COM (-esque) small arms in the opening stages will be:

-Conventional propellants like we see today.

-Electro-thermal propellant weapons.

-Energy weapons in the form of laser small arms.

Now in this situation, the laser weapons not the kind found in D20 Future (which, IMO, in the end is flawed product).  As I am looking to present it, a rifle-scale laser weapon is going to have damage comparable to a 7.62mm NATO round (2d10), somewhat better range increment (100' to 120')(no drop, windage, or real time-of-flight to worry about and thus the real strength over conventional slug throwers), and a (slightly) higher ammo capacity.  Thus, they'll have advantages but nothing like the broken stats given in D20 Future, and I believe it to be a more reasonable representation.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 28, 2005)

I'm with Captain Tagon & Warlord Ralts...

If you're patient and have good targeting, for most tech levels there's probably no WMD than a diverted asteroid.  Cheap, plentiful and potentially civilization ending... each impact potentially an ELE (extinction level event).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 28, 2005)

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> Energy weapons have a few advantages over ballistic weapons.
> 
> Time to target is effectively zero, making them impossible to intercept (other than with armor).



Though for normal ballistic weapons against human targets, that isn't that much different.



> Aiming is trivial -- no windage, no gravity, and you can adjust aim until the target goes boom.  Even in modern firearms, recoil does have an impact, which is why sniper rifles are designed with floating barrels.



Though this also depends on how long it takes between pulling the trigger and the gun firing - it is possible that a energy weapon will need some kind of (high capacity) capacitor to "charge" the weapon before it can fire...



> Assuming infinite power (which is a HUGE assumption), you will never run out of ammunition.



The assumption that in the future we can just teleport our ammunition from the bullet production facility might be similar huge


----------



## Rhun (Nov 28, 2005)

Aust Diamondew said:
			
		

> Any one see Star Trek: First contact?  Where picard uses a holographic tommy gun to blow away two borg who had adapted to his phaser?
> I think the federation should get the idea and start issuing projectile weapons to ships expected to encounter borg.  Then again the borg might just start being kevlar plated.




Actually, they did:

By the 24th century, projectile and ballistic weapons are rarely used in combat. Despite this, Starfleet Security developed the TR-116 projectile rifle, a prototype designed to operate in energy dampening fields and radiogenic environments The device was also designed for use against the Borg, who could adapt their personal shields to any energy weapon fired at them. The TR-116 fired a chemically-propelled tritanium bullet but was never mass-produced as Starfleet Command preferred regenerative phasers.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Nov 28, 2005)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Though for normal ballistic weapons against human targets, that isn't that much different.
> 
> Though this also depends on how long it takes between pulling the trigger and the gun firing - it is possible that a energy weapon will need some kind of (high capacity) capacitor to "charge" the weapon before it can fire...
> 
> The assumption that in the future we can just teleport our ammunition from the bullet production facility might be similar huge




Ah, you're making certain assumptions.

If you have an active personal defense system, e.g., robotic shield drones, or a force field that only comes on when it detects a threat, then energy weapons would still beat ballistics.

As for pulling the trigger -- any weapon that had an inherent delay between trigger pull and actual discharge would be of limited utility.  You might need capacitors, but they would be charged prior to pulling the trigger, like with the Air Force's airborne laser cannon.

If you can teleport ammunition, you could also teleport an energy feed (or just broadcast it).  You could also teleport a hydrogen bomb into the middle of the enemy encampment.


----------



## Roudi (Nov 28, 2005)

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> If you can teleport ammunition, you could also teleport an energy feed (or just broadcast it).



As far as Nikolai Tesla was concerned, you _could_ broadcast power.


----------



## hobgoblin (Nov 28, 2005)

> You could also teleport a hydrogen bomb into the middle of the enemy encampment.




unless the enemy have teleport blocking technology...

for each offense there is atleast 1 defense and so on...

personaly i would go for some sort of combo gun.
one that had both the ability to fire of beams of energy, but could allso fire bits of flying matter when needed.

hell, given that matter=energy and so on, one could in theory build a gun based on replicator tech that could fire both energy and matter


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Nov 29, 2005)

You know, _Dune_ is one of my favorite SF books. In it, there are cheap, widespread personal shield generaters that stop fast-moving things, but if you're good, you can slip something in slowly. Also, they exploded if struck by a laser (there were no other energy weapons). Huge explosion, that is. Short blades and slow dart thrusters were the weapons used by most peoples. Perhaps not entirely realistic, but _Dune_ is so incredibly good that little things are forgiveable


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Nov 29, 2005)

Sci-fi is all over the map on this topic.

Stargate SG-1 had an alien threat called the replicators.  They were immune to energy weapons, but slug-throwers turned them into confetti.

Having said that, you NEVER saw an advanced race using firearms.  They always had energy weapons.  Even the Jaffa, who used energy weapons that were both inaccurate and easy to dodge.  Doh.

Firefly/Serenity, Aliens, and the new Battlestar Galactica all have personal firearms.

Babylon 5 used PPGs, which were basically a mix between an energy weapon and a firearm.

David Brin's uplift universe uses literally every tech imagineable.  Peter Hamilton's Night's Dawn used kinetic weapons even in space combat.  Larry Niven's Known Space had flashlight lasers, monomolecular swords, and a variety of odd weapons.

Star Wars and Star Trek both had hand-held energy weapons, as did Buck Rogers and the original Battlestar Galactica.  Nobody seemed to use anything else.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Nov 30, 2005)

A home-brew campaign setting I played in used both. Some races had energy weapons; others used kinetic energy. One race had the UPS (Universal Problem Solver). Accelerated anything that could fit in the breach to near light speeds. Effectively unlimited ammo; whatever you could grab worked.

One Shadowrun story used kinetic tech at near nuclear levels. Dropped VW sized chunks of metal with guidance systems from orbit. Gravity did the work. And this is a setting with magic that bypasses armor.

In a 'Berserkers' shortstory, humans developed kinetic weapons that used their C-drives (the ships engines, essentially).


----------



## hobgoblin (Nov 30, 2005)

the shadowrun tech your talking about is known as a thor shot. basicly a mass of metal dropped from orbit 

most recent use was by lofwyr (A german dragon owning one of the biggest companys in the world), who used it to obliverate a troublemakers residence after the corporate court (basicly the only "entity" that can "order" the mega corps around) gave the green light on what was known as a omega order (basicly open season on whatever the order is about).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 30, 2005)

Larry Niven had at least one story in which masses were accelerated to high percentages of C to use against the Kzinti.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Dec 1, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> In a 'Berserkers' shortstory, humans developed kinetic weapons that used their C-drives (the ships engines, essentially).




Well, they fired mostly solid missiles with C-drives, IIRC. 

Man, I love Berserker. One of these days I'm going to read Saberhagen's Holmes Dracula Files.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 1, 2005)

Given a big enough Future society, you'd want to be careful when going to the field against your opponents.

Say you could only pack one kind of shield. You guess, by thier progress level, they've entirely abandoned kinetic weapons, so you load up on energy deflection shields.

And catch a mass driver shot in the teeth.

Or, you load up on kinetic dispersion fields...
And eat a nuke-pumped guided X-Ray laser.

Both have thier advantages, from amount of contaminates in the atmosphere (a planet with a high level of micro-fine light refractive crystals in the atmosphere) that degrade energy weapon use to long distances that prohibit energy weapons.

Thus, without getting into the arguement on which is better (which makes for an interesting campaign background seque) I still posit that neither weapons will ever go out of style.


----------



## Pbartender (Dec 1, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Larry Niven had at least one story in which masses were accelerated to high percentages of C to use against the Kzinti.




In fact, most of Larry Niven's heavy ship-board weapons consisted of simply turning the ass-end of your starship toward your enemy and giving them a face full of fuson exhaust.     ...After all, when your accelerating at 100's of G's and travelling at almost the speed of light, engine wash suddenly becomes a very dangerous thing.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Dec 1, 2005)

In Heinlein's _The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress_, rebels on the moon use mass drivers to bombard locations on Earth.  The only implausible part is that:

a)  The moon has been sending ore to Earth this way for years, yet
b)  the Earth government is so clueless about this potential weapon that they allow tourists to gather at the announced target point to "laugh at the moonies."

Of course, using a mass driver as a weapon when the book was written (mid-60s) was still a new concept in the real world...but it wouldn't have been for the society in the book.

Thor shot was used to great effect in _Footfall_ by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle.  You will also find nuke-boosted x-ray lasers, and the use of both lasers and controlled nuclear blasts to launch a ship into orbit.

My favorite weapon, though, is probably the multi-purpose firearm used to "pay" mercenaries in _The Fifth Element_.  "A real warrior would have asked what the red button was for."  There was actually a more plausible version of this described in some of Dan Simmons' novels (in the Hyperion series).


----------



## hobgoblin (Dec 1, 2005)

heh, i find it funny that no-one jumped on my replicator gun idea 

or maybe it have been tought about before?


----------



## Wolv0rine (Dec 1, 2005)

While it's possible that neither will ever become 'obsolete', I think both would fall by the wayside to a standardizable combination weapon.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 2, 2005)

Or in someone comes up with a concept we haven't found yet. Any ideas?


----------



## Roudi (Dec 2, 2005)

Lioness, the next Urban Combat Mecha, will feature a unique main gun.  It fires concentrated Higgs Bosons.  To put its effect simply, it converts creatures and objects within its blast radius into bulk matter (I think it's a really neat concept, because it doesn't involve damage rolls at all... just high DC saves).  It's an incredibly destructive weapon, but it does have its drawbacks, such as a recharge time (1d4+2 rounds).  Plus, since the weapon pulls "ammunition" from the ambient air around it, recharging the weapon creates a shimmering effect around the mech... making it highly visible and restricting the visibility of the crew (did I mention it also knocks out the mech's sensors while recharging?).  It's definitely not meant for a mech operating alone, but if backed up by a full unit, the Lioness can do some amazing damage.

I thought this might qualify as a new concept.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 2, 2005)

hobgoblin said:
			
		

> heh, i find it funny that no-one jumped on my replicator gun idea
> 
> or maybe it have been tought about before?



In some ways, I think the idea was already out there.
In Startrek TNG, there was a robot that could replicate its own tools. (They became intelligent for some reason)
In DS9, they mined the wormhole with self-replicating mines, making it impossible to disarm the minefield (at least for some time, until the Cardassians figured out a critical weakness).
In DS9, they also had a projectile-based weapon (mentioned before) that was equipped with a transporter device to beam the bullet through wands and floors. Since Replicators and Transporters are based on the same technology, it is not a long step to create a replicator gun.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 2, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Or in someone comes up with a concept we haven't found yet. Any ideas?



If there is such a concept, we haven't found it yet


----------



## fuindordm (Dec 2, 2005)

A couple of points:

Knockback and physics:

Knockback from a ballistic weapon will depend heavily on the nature of the collision.  Rubber bullets are likely to knock someone down because (1) they rebound and therefore transfer up to twice as much momentum to the target than a stopped bullet would, and (2) the duration of the collision is minimized.  A large momentum transfer, coupled with a short impact duration, translates into a very effective force on the target.

For regular bullets, the effective force on the target will be greatest if the bullet is stopped by a vest (full momentum transfer, short collision); somewhat less if the bullet stops insisde the body (full momentum transfer, longer collision); and least if the bullet exits the body (partial momentum transfer, longer collision).

This is also the reason you're supposed to let your legs fold under you and roll on the ground when you fall;
you lengthen the duration of the collision, and reduce the effective force of impact on your bones and muscles.  The recoil compensators on guns work on the same principle.

Science Fiction:

Babylon 5 made the good point that ballistic weapons can be very dangerous inside a ship--they used some kind of energy weapon that could hurt organics, but wouldn't do more than put a scorch mark on the hull.  I would think that for any spacefaring culture that would be sufficient reason to develop energy weapon technology, such as the army's shiny new microwave guns.

Cheers!
Ben


----------



## The Edge (Dec 2, 2005)

In my own setting (probably best described as being on the lower tech end of sci-fi') ballistic weapons are still used as well a energy weapons.

Pulse Photon weapons or 'lasers' as their more commonly known as, are the most common weapon around, being cheep, reliable and with a high ammo cappacity, they became the weapon of choice but by no means replaced ballistics. Ballistic weapons have also advanced and are equally as leathal as a equivilent photon weapon.

Both weapons have pros and cons; for example a laser rifle is very quiet, but will easily give away your position from the flash unless you have a spectrum regulator attached, but which will also slightly reduce its damage. A bullet based rifle will make a lot of noise with out a silencer but won't show a bright trail of light leading right to you.

A major reason why photon weaponry was acepted so well by millitarys is its ammo beneifits. All photon weapons need a special power pack much like any clip, these will provide enough power for many shots (about 140 for an assualt rifle). Other than a fairly high ammo capacity, a big plus is that with the right bit of kit and a suply of electricity photon packs can be recharged. Removeing need for ammo convoys etc, any generator or power suply is a source. 

However in my setting most laser weapons don't have multiple/variable power settings and can stun no differently than any bullet would. Sheilds are less an issue as they are primarily only used in space where they can opperate without the distubance of gravity, and then work equally well at stoping both attacks (but weakend less by small projectiles).

Theres also other weapons of course such as plasma weaponry, which isn't realy an energy weapon, also rail guns, corrite bullets (explosive nastys), sonic weapons (#1 for dealing with riots), Ion (lousy for most jobs, special uses). And more but this isn't the place to go on about my seting.


Basicly I agree that theres no reason that ballistic weaponry would disapear.


----------



## ukgpublishing (Dec 2, 2005)

I have a pyscological love of ballistic weapons and all things that go Bang, so one of the concious design elements in the upcoming "Year of the Zombie - Dead Future" has been the prevalence of hi tech ballistics. We have energy weapons, as well the plasma thrower being a classic example. But something deep down in me needed those scenes from aliens in Dead Future, the marines firing in wild and uncontrolled (so short controlled) burst, as the horde of aliens (undead) went down, and so did the ammo counters.

Still, the types of weapons used in a future campaign, will vary, and more often in terms of the right kind of flavour, over other conciderations.

Anyway for a brief sample of some of the nice weapons we have in Dead Future, you can download the Matrox "Predator II" SL19 Assault Rifle here. Please note this is definately pre-edit, so any glitches or typo's are there entirely intentionally   

Enjoy


----------



## Roudi (Dec 2, 2005)

fuindordm said:
			
		

> the army's shiny new microwave guns.



Not all that new; Tesla had been working on microwave weaponry for the US Military before his death in the late 1940's.


----------



## hobgoblin (Dec 3, 2005)

hmm, i dont feel like checking every post so: have antimatter been brought up?


----------



## Roudi (Dec 3, 2005)

As a weapon, no... and probably with good reason.  Antimatter might eliminate matter, but the energy released when the two collide is theorized to be ENORMOUS (think of the E=mc^2 equation, only this is a perfect conversion to energy, with no leftover matter).  An Anti-matter weapon would probably be best as a planet-killer or long-range spatial weapon.  You would not want to be near it when it goes off.

That said, I think I'll kep my anti-matter safely in my warp core, thank you.


----------



## hobgoblin (Dec 3, 2005)

heh, well i just recalled that xcom2 (enemy from the deep or something like that) use anti-matter as the human tech upgrade from normal projectile weapons.

the guns where basicly portable accelerator loops, that stuffed the anti-matter into some sort of special shell that would not react to the anti-matter (handwaving to avoid the react with air problem) and then propelled towards the target.

i recall lowing them more then the sonic weapons the aliens used as the sound was so very satisfying  and the design oh so industrial


----------



## Committed Hero (Dec 3, 2005)

A laser-type weapon should not only easy to aim; keeping it on the target would be like using a spotlight.  There are definitely factors arguing for the use of both types of weapon in a future arsenal.


----------



## hobgoblin (Dec 3, 2005)

hmm, that reminded me about a book i have here somewhere...

in there the aproach to laser weapons is that they shoot a kind of scanner beam first, and when finding a valid target (adjustable by the shooter) the laser beam gets triggerd.

most of the time it was set to humans and similar but at one point in the story they are looking for some kids that are hiding in a martian rockface. then they set the guns to allways fire the laser and just burn out the rocks and similar...

the whole story was centerd on some girl that the goverment wanted to kill or capture, and a resistance movement that wanted to turn mars into a free planet


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 3, 2005)

Sounds like the makers of XCom ripped off the Sten series there.

The Sten series used AM2 (an alterante form of Anti-Matter, the location of which it came from was undisclosed until the final book of the series) for everything from heating fuel to energy to starship to hand held weapons.

First, you had the AM2, just a few grains, wrapped in a shell of Imperium X, the shell had a small fault in it that would "pop" open upon hitting something. A laser pump was used to fire the pellet. (You can use laser pumping to move objects according to theorum, don't know if it's been proven)

So, the guy pulls the trigger, the laser pump would fire the pellet. Pellet hits, cracks open, AM2 detonates, blows a hold about 8" across in the person.

Ouch.

Sniper weapons had a linear accellerator add on that "spun" the round at a certain speed, literally allowing the weapon to shoot around corners.

The Sten series is a good series, if you get  a shot at picking up all 6 books, give it a shot.


----------



## Andur (Dec 3, 2005)

Couple of questions/points:

1)  Energy weapons have recoil as well, just a whole lot less.

2)  Why would one waste energy in a laser by having the beam visible?

3)  With ballistic wepaons it is easier to overcome defenses.   From d20 Future, the Plasma Round, which does both Ballistic and Fire damage.  Comes in quite handy if GM uses rock-scissors-paper method of arms and armour.  Course, if for plug and play, it is more for flavor or taking advantage of vulnerabilities.

4)  Propellants are very easy to make.  Using low-tech ballistic weapons (pen gun, potato gun, etc.) might get ya around security easier than ye olde laser gun.

WR, what is this Sten series you speak of?


----------



## Committed Hero (Dec 3, 2005)

Andur said:
			
		

> Couple of questions/points:
> 2)  Why would one waste energy in a laser by having the beam visible?




Sighting the target.  Just hold it on him till he burns.


----------



## Roudi (Dec 3, 2005)

Yeah, but that's why weapons have sights built into them; so you can sight your target WITHOUT giving away your position.  Even Iron Sights are superior to a visible beam when you consider that.


----------



## swrushing (Dec 3, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> And by Newton's laws of physics, it should do the same thing to the man who pulled the trigger. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.




uhhh.... not to disagree with the good sir, but i have seen plenty of examples where one guy pushed another and the pushee fell down and the pusher did not. Go to any school playgroud to see this in practice.

bullet = pushing at range.

this is where a little physics is more dangerous than a lot of physics or no physics at all.

lot of physics guy would start talking about leverage, about stance, about bracing and about the lack of all of the above.

no physics guy would simply wait until the newton guy turned around and shov him about the shoulder area and point at his fallen geek friend and laugh "hah hah" like the bully in simpsons.

A force can knock one person down and the same force not knock someone else down simply due to stance of the respective forcees and their preparedness for the force.

this is where people get out of sorts. Someone disputes and disproves hollywood's "throw him 20' with a derringer" and someone else takes that to the extreme of suggesting bullets don't knock people down at all cuz if they did it would knock down the shooter.

Ask a six year old whether he can push someone and knock them down without knocking themselves down.


----------



## hobgoblin (Dec 3, 2005)

never forget the issue of mass in all this tho.

more mass equals less forces needed to produce the result. allso, the bullet loose energy along its entire flight path. a push can use all the energy of the muscles right there...

physics are more complicated then it looks...

and if the person is pushed its unlikely that he will go flying 2-3 meters backwards. he will most likely just fall over if he is unprepared for it. same with a bullet. get shot and you may well fall over from the shock of being hurt, even more so if off balance at that time.

its not the drop like a sack of potatoes people have a issue with, its the fly 2-3 meters while the shooter is standing there laughing thats the issue...


----------



## Andur (Dec 3, 2005)

swrushing, the "alot of physics guy" would say, that the pushee exerts and equal amount of force back on the pusher.  But the pusher has more mass, friction, or other variable which in turn exerts back all of the force that the pushee exerts to the pusher.

In outerspace, assuming zero asolute velocity (not possible in reality) and no other gravity than what each object has within itself.  One could never push anything without being pushed back.  A pebble would barely effect your velociy, while you would barely effect the space station's velocity.

in anycase, shooting below center of mass usually results in the target falling forward, above center mas target falls backwards.  There is a good reason a kill shot is said to "stop somone dead in their tracks".  They simply fall without taking a step neither forward nor backwards.  The results are consisent from a .223 round to a .50 round.


----------



## swrushing (Dec 4, 2005)

hobgoblin said:
			
		

> its not the drop like a sack of potatoes people have a issue with, its the fly 2-3 meters while the shooter is standing there laughing thats the issue...




wexcept that this was the response being countered...

"A rifle, particularly an assault rifle (yeah, a combat weapon) will knock you FLAT on the ground, even if your vest stops it. It will also break ribs and leave a really nice purple bruise for everyone to admire.

A heavy pistol, such as the Colt .45 or the Glock .40 will also knock you on your butt."


----------



## swrushing (Dec 4, 2005)

[/QUOTE]



			
				Andur said:
			
		

> swrushing, the "alot of physics guy" would say, that the pushee exerts and equal amount of force back on the pusher.  But the pusher has more mass, friction, or other variable which in turn exerts back all of the force that the pushee exerts to the pusher.



yeah, but the six year old likely enjoys his demonstartion more. 


			
				Andur said:
			
		

> In outerspace, assuming zero asolute velocity (not possible in reality) and no other gravity than what each object has within itself.  One could never push anything without being pushed back.  A pebble would barely effect your velociy, while you would barely effect the space station's velocity.



While certainly scifi games can feature such fights, I find them rare for the most part.

BWt i tutored physics in college so i understand the eqwual reaction, I just also understand the error in applying it to "prove" that guns cannot knock you down and the huge difference between "guns don't knock you 20'" and  "guns won't knock you on your butt".


----------



## Felon (Dec 4, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> That's without even getting into the power pack. Sure, a fusion pack can supply nearly endless power, but look at the weight. Even if we say it's a cold fusion reactor or graviton reactor that only weights 5 lbs, you have interconnecting cables, aimed shots, etc.




This, along with many of your arguements against energy weapons, assumes that these problems will always be insurmountable. If it only few pounds, why wouldn't the power supply just take the place of a box magazine?

Obviously, the advent of fantastic weapons assumes the advent of technological breakthroughs we haven't thought of yet.



> I still hold to the ORIGINAL post of this thread: That a high tech military would not abandon ballistic weapons for solely energy weapons.




Of course, you don't know what "hi-tech" will actually mean 500 years from now.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 9, 2005)

Felon said:
			
		

> This, along with many of your arguements against energy weapons, assumes that these problems will always be insurmountable. If it only few pounds, why wouldn't the power supply just take the place of a box magazine?



That's a good question, actually. An intregal power supply to a weapon can make all the difference. Think of Demolition Man, and the built in charger on Wesley Snipe's high-tech rifle.



> Obviously, the advent of fantastic weapons assumes the advent of technological breakthroughs we haven't thought of yet.



Thought of: No.
The Science has Moved from Theorum to Concrete: Yes



> Of course, you don't know what "hi-tech" will actually mean 500 years from now.



Of course not, but, if we lay a technology base down, we can extrapolate, and isn't that half the fun? 

BTW- The Sten Series had 2 authors, Chris Bunch and Alan Cole, and consists of 8 books.

If you're considering running a good sci-fi game, I cannot stress these books enough.

Hell, I thought everyone had read them.


----------



## Skrit (Dec 9, 2005)

Energy weapons would have their uses and flaws over ballistic projectiles.

Energy Weapons would be extreamly accurate because of the speed at which they'd travel. You point at it and fire, and the target would be hit. There would be no Adjusting for windage, angle, or anything. Also if you had a laser weapon that would allow for 1000's of shots before it needed replacing (AKA Lasguns in Wh40k) wouldn't that be better then a 30round clip??

On the downside energy weapons don't cause much damage (Startrek aside). It will burn through you and stop and bleeding. Where as solid slug weapons have damage from impact, damage from a wound channel, and bleeding. Energy weapons might also be expensive since they could have lots of delicate lenses, parts and batteries. Solid Slug weapons are general reliable too you could burry in dirt till the bolt rusts, dig it up and kick the bolt free and it's ready to fire.

As for Mythbusters they were talking about THE FORCE OF THE BULLET moving you back words. Not you falling down from tripping, loosing balance, or what ever. As for a 50.cal BMG round having knockback is just wrong.. I've seen quite a few things shot by 50Cals in my time and they tend to just explode. Such as if you take a 50cal to the very top of your breastplate it's going to make you loose your head, and most of your upper body. Take one to a limb forget about having that limb anymore.

Other things to take note about bullets is everyone is designed to do a different thing. One of the failings of the 7.62 round (Failings by the US standered and why we use the 5.56) is that it tends to just blow right through the target. Where as the 5.56 tends to creat a huge wound channel because it likes to tumble when it hits you.


----------



## hobgoblin (Dec 10, 2005)

about that 5.56, i recall hearing that they discoverd that tumble effect quite by accident after the m-16 and the ammo was issued. later one have tryed to engineer more effective tumble but have not had any better luck with it then what the 5.56 can deliver...

yes the 7.62 will go straight thru a unarmored opponent. but isnt most soldiers frontline soldiers issued some form of armor these days? and with the increase in urban combat, cant the 7.62 a edge when it comes to taking out people hiding behind corners and similar?

but this is a sidetrack of dimentions, and i have seen it eat up whole threads on other forums so...

and about the reliablity of a slugtrower, it depends. the ak-47 is famed for its ruggedness. the m-16 on the other hand may well lock up on you if you look at it wrong (they have later fixed the problem somewhat with the later versions and increasing the requirements for what type of bullets are used. something about how clean the propellant burns).

all this comes from diffrent approaches to the basic workings of the weapon. the ak uses a lot of low presision parts and springs. the m-16 require high presision parts and use gases from the firing to drive the reloading. one may well say that its kinda overengineered.


----------



## Falkus (Dec 10, 2005)

> yes the 7.62 will go straight thru a unarmored opponent. but isnt most soldiers frontline soldiers issued some form of armor these days?




Actually, given that the most prevalent form of conflict for the US today is asymetrical warfar, the answer is that no, most forces US soldiers will engage will not be wearing body armor.


----------



## hobgoblin (Dec 10, 2005)

that is until the "rebels" smart up and start getting hold of some vests 

but thats maybe the one flexibility that energy weapons have over matter. ones you have selected a ammo type its locked. with a energy weapon you can go from mild sunburn all the way to incinirated on the spot if the power source is big enough 

remeber that a star trek phaser can do both stun and kill. hell its often shown as some sort of slider. variable force with the touch of a button.

hmm, why do i envision the words of a sargent from starship troopers (book not movie) when answering why people where still trained in trowing knifes in a age of from orbit nukes. its all about using just enough force that it smarts but not kills. a dead person will not learn anything from the experience. or maybe even the old classic, dead men tell no tales...

set phasors for stun everyone


----------



## Roudi (Dec 10, 2005)

I dunno, the Variable Ammunition gadget in d20 Future kind of resolves the "one type of ammo" issue in ballistic weapons.


----------



## hobgoblin (Dec 10, 2005)

oh frag, i should have expected that one...

ok, so you have rubber bullets for the here and now (and similar, like those nice hollow points).
there is allso the desert eagle that can take 3-4 diffrent calibers (alltho that means your replacing everything but the frame).

there is allso systems like the steyr aug (or something like that) but thats more about variable gun types (smg/carbine, rifle, lmg) then variable ammo.

only way i can think of a workable variable ammo system is by using nano-tech, in the t-1000 kind of way. need to stun rather then kill? have it set to splatter like gel or water upon impact. armored target, or cover penetration? have it be as solid as tungsten or depleted uranium. need to do a lot of damage NOW? hollowpoint style, have them fragment x amount of time after impact. maybe they can even go buzztastic if they have the power left (basicly start cutting meat like some hyperactive flesheating bacteria on a sugar high). with a bit of luck one shot should liquify the body...

so the best bet is again my replicator gun, that way one can have it generate any kind of ammo the user can dream up and the internal computer can be programed to recreate. may need a hell of a power source tho


----------



## Skrit (Dec 10, 2005)

hobgoblin said:
			
		

> oh frag, i should have expected that one...
> 
> ok, so you have rubber bullets for the here and now (and similar, like those nice hollow points).
> there is allso the desert eagle that can take 3-4 diffrent calibers (alltho that means your replacing everything but the frame).
> ...




Judge Dredd's gun does exactly that doesn't it.. Still that's some pretty far out science. Still for versitility energy weapons win if you have star trek guns. Best you could easily do with slug throwing weapons is to use all the same calibur and make you guns all fit the same magazine. Which is what the US does with the m16 and the M249. Even though the 249 use boxed ammo it can swap that out and load an M16 clip.


----------



## hobgoblin (Dec 10, 2005)

that judge dredd gun have never been properly explained.
one version i have heard about used multiple ammos.

basicly the judge gun is so far out in the area of "it works because we say so" that i dont think its a fair item to bring onto the table. judge dredd isnt hard sci-fi, at best its a variation on cyberpunk.


----------



## Roudi (Dec 10, 2005)

Actually, the Variable Ammunition gadget works by having two or more different sources of ammunition (like two different box magazines), with a fire selector to switch which ammo source the weapon draws from.  It's not that far out.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Dec 10, 2005)

Yeah, when I was looking through the weapon gadgets in future I was thinking that some of 'em were there specifically so you could make the Lawgivers


----------



## Andur (Dec 10, 2005)

Just to throw it out there, there is basically no "wearable" armour which will stop a .223" round (5.56mm).  The Kevlar III will stop any handround including the famed .44 Magnum, shotgun slugs, and shrapnel of most sorts, but will not stop any rifle round.  (Unless it is extremely cold loaded and well underweight).

Best place to be when someone gets hit by a rifle round is on the shooter's end.


----------



## Jonas Grumby (Dec 10, 2005)

Nevermind...


----------



## Falkus (Dec 10, 2005)

> Just to throw it out there, there is basically no "wearable" armour which will stop a .223" round (5.56mm). The Kevlar III will stop any handround including the famed .44 Magnum, shotgun slugs, and shrapnel of most sorts, but will not stop any rifle round. (Unless it is extremely cold loaded and well underweight).




Aren't US Army Interceptor Armor protective inserts supposed to be able to stop up to three 7.62mm rounds?


----------



## Krieg (Dec 10, 2005)

Andur said:
			
		

> Just to throw it out there, there is basically no "wearable" armour which will stop a .223" round (5.56mm).  The Kevlar III will stop any handround including the famed .44 Magnum, shotgun slugs, and shrapnel of most sorts, but will not stop any rifle round.  (Unless it is extremely cold loaded and well underweight).




NIJ IIIa is rated against a 240 gr .44 at 1400fps

NIJ III is rated against 150gr 7.62x51 at 2750fps _and lesser threats_ *including* 5.56 FMJ

Not to mention that there is one individual in this thread who can credit his life to a ballistic vest that stopped a round from a rifle (most likely 7.62x39).



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> Actually, given that the most prevalent form of conflict for the US today is asymetrical warfar, the answer is that no, most forces US soldiers will engage will not be wearing body armor.




Standard WarPact chest mounted AK-47 magazine pouches are surprisingly effective at stopping standard 5.56 M855 ball ammo.


----------



## Skrit (Dec 10, 2005)

Well I only talked about judge dredds gun as an example for a gun that fired multi type rounds. I did say in my post that it was way out there science..

Anyway back to the original topic about Energy and Ballistic weapons.. I was wondering if you developed an energy weapon such as a laser what would be it's range? Would it some how self end, because if not you technically be able to shoot at any distance and it would not stop.


----------



## Jack of Shadows (Dec 11, 2005)

I've been doing a lot of pondering on this subject myself for a little homebrew project of my own. If my high school knowledge of physics holds up there are, at the basic level, three types of weapons:

1. Matter Projectors - bullets, slugs, flechettes, etc...
2. Particle Projectors - electrons, neutrons, protons, plasma, etc... (really just very small matter projectors)
3. Wave Form Projectors - laser, maser, sonic, etc...

After the basics things get complicated because one can become or carry another. Or be mixed together. Then theirs the weird ones like gravity weapons where we don't even know enough to be able to place them in a group. 

In reference to the Sten novels I also highly recommend the Matador novels by Steve Perry. Some very interesting weapons and toys in that series too.

Hmmm.... I just had a really twisted thought. If you could fire particles could you not also project molecules? Fire a molecular stream of Cynide into your opponent. Or an atomic stream of Sodium? Ick, that would be messy.

Jack


----------



## Andur (Dec 11, 2005)

Krieg, here is one non-scientific fun site that "debunks" the AK-47 magazine myth with photos.  Next we'll hear about how strapping dynamite to one's body will help versus a RPG hit...

http://www.theboxotruth.com/

1/2" of steel won't stop a .50 cal round, will stop most lesser rounds, but that is hardly wearable (20.42 lbs per sq. ft.), and one will still get a nasty contusion, better than dead though.  

As for the 9" x 9" and 12" x 12" insertable formed ceramic plates, I guess if to be "bulletproof" in two square feet or less of one's total body's area is a comfort...  Worth the money spent even if it saves one life though.

Best defense the U.S. has versus its current enemy's rifles is the fact they can't shoot worth a crap.


----------



## Falkus (Dec 11, 2005)

> I've been doing a lot of pondering on this subject myself for a little homebrew project of my own. If my high school knowledge of physics holds up there are, at the basic level, three types of weapons:




That's assuming we don't discover any new things about physics in the future.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Dec 11, 2005)

Skrit said:
			
		

> Anyway back to the original topic about Energy and Ballistic weapons.. I was wondering if you developed an energy weapon such as a laser what would be it's range? Would it some how self end, because if not you technically be able to shoot at any distance and it would not stop.




Depends on how tightly focused it is and what the medium it's fired in is.

At some point, a laser will diffuse to near uselessness.  I personally have no idea how far that would have to be.

Also, in a vacuum, a directed energy weapon can go an infinite distance, so long as it doesn't hit anything.  it may diffuse to uselessness, and it's certainly going to be absurdly difficult to aim at anything from interstellar distances, but hey.  IIRC, GURPS 3e Vehicles 2e had a multiplier for being out of atmosphere for beam weapons.

Personally, I'm fond of railgun or gravgun rounds that can correct their courses mid-flight...something between cannon rounds and missiles.

Brad


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Dec 11, 2005)

Jack of Shadows said:
			
		

> Hmmm.... I just had a really twisted thought. If you could fire particles could you not also project molecules? Fire a molecular stream of Cynide into your opponent. Or an atomic stream of Sodium? Ick, that would be messy.




That'd be a bit more difficult, I think.

In John Birmingham's novel, _Weapons of Choice_, which, as an aside, is a really good alternate history novel (and first of a series), there's mention of research being done on teleportation.  Part of the purpose is the idea that you could teleport things into enemy soldiers to kill them.  I'm not precisely sure how this was supposed to be more effective than shooting them, but hey.

Brad


----------



## Falkus (Dec 11, 2005)

> Part of the purpose is the idea that you could teleport things into enemy soldiers to kill them. I'm not precisely sure how this was supposed to be more effective than shooting them, but hey.




Teleportation is sort of an ultimate weapon. It would be liking a nation having the United States' nuclear arsenal, and no other nation in the world having any nuclear weapons. Because, essentially, teleportation gives you a viable first strike ability. You can teleport nuclear bombs to their targets instaneously and destroy the enemy's ability to launch back at you. If you have good enough computers and deteciton systems, any missiles that do get off can be eliminated by teleporting something to them in mid air, or teleporting them somewhere harmless.


----------



## Krieg (Dec 11, 2005)

Andur said:
			
		

> Krieg, here is one non-scientific fun site that "debunks" the AK-47 magazine myth with photos.  Next we'll hear about how strapping dynamite to one's body will help versus a RPG hit...




*shrug* I have _personally_ pulled magazine festooned load bearing gear off of an enemy combatant that had stopped no less than three M855 rounds....although he did suffer some lacerations caused by spalling.

Anecdotal?

Certainly.

But I'm pretty confident it's far more relevant that "fun" experiments carried out under controlled condtions that have little in common with a tactical environment.




> _1/2" of steel won't stop a .50 cal round, will stop most lesser rounds, but that is hardly wearable (20.42 lbs per sq. ft.), and one will still get a nasty contusion, better than dead though._




Any possible contusion depends entirely on the surface area of rigid armor. Soft armor deforms upon impact which is what causes contusions, that is not the case with hard armor.  



> _As for the 9" x 9" and 12" x 12" insertable formed ceramic plates, I guess if to be "bulletproof" in two square feet or less of one's total body's area is a comfort...  Worth the money spent even if it saves one life though._




Well then I guess that we're pretty darn lucky that the primary kill zone on a human (ie the thoracic cavity) is roughly two square feet or less aren't we?

You might want to look into the percentage of _fatal_ casualties in the most recent middle east conflict that have been caused by firearms as compared to those of previous conflicts of a similar nature (removing both artillery & explosive devices from the equation to keep it apples to apples). Those numbers are staggering lower, and can be directly attributed to the use of improved body armor on the part of western combatants.



> Best defense the U.S. has versus its current enemy's rifles is the fact they can't shoot worth a crap.




.. what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make.


----------



## yoippari (Dec 11, 2005)

I'm a little suprised that with high tech weapons being discussed that no one has brought up this thing yet.

Give it a few years and this technology might be made into personel sized weapons. When compareing this thing to an e-web or other mounted anti personel energy weapon I think I would take this thing. Variable speed makes onboard starship use safer (for all parties involved) It would also make a great ship mounted weapon, with some scifi modification of course.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 11, 2005)

Andur said:
			
		

> Krieg, here is one non-scientific fun site that "debunks" the AK-47 magazine myth with photos.  Next we'll hear about how strapping dynamite to one's body will help versus a RPG hit...
> 
> http://www.theboxotruth.com/



You know, I see this all the time, "This site debunks XXXXX" but frankly, the sterile laboratory != battlefield conditions.

I've seen men go down, the magazine deformed and shrapnel wounds from the round shattering, still alive.



> 1/2" of steel won't stop a .50 cal round, will stop most lesser rounds, but that is hardly wearable (20.42 lbs per sq. ft.), and one will still get a nasty contusion, better than dead though.



Believe me, if you gave me a choice between a gunshot wound and carrying a 40 lb steel plate, I'd drop the gear to carry the plate.

A .50 caliber round is not the death sentence it once was. There have been documented BATTLEFIELD cases of people surviving a hit that 20 years ago would have turned thier torso into hydrostatic shock jelly. A rather famous photo from early in 2003 showed a British tanker whose kevlar helmet was hit 3-4 times by .51 Cal Soviet heavy machine gun, who survived, and was smiling. It chewed up the helmet, gave him whiplash, and knocked him silly.

30 years ago, his head would have turned into a canoe.



> As for the 9" x 9" and 12" x 12" insertable formed ceramic plates, I guess if to be "bulletproof" in two square feet or less of one's total body's area is a comfort...  Worth the money spent even if it saves one life though.



Take a look at the stastics.

The majority of deaths (I think it sits in the 80% bracket) are due to IED's, NOT torso shots, which now result in cracked ribs at worst, wind knocked out of you at best. The Center for Army Lessons Learned had a large breakdown that while the amount of wounded soldiers is far more than to be expected, the amount of kills thus far is equal to a bad MONTH in Vietnam.



> Best defense the U.S. has versus its current enemy's rifles is the fact they can't shoot worth a crap.



My wife is alive due to a Desert Storm Era kevlar vest. My brother is alive due to a Interceptor Vest. I'm alive due to a Desert Storm Era kevlar vest and helmet.

The vests and helmets have saved a LOT of lives. CALL, DARPA, and DoDMC facts, figures and documentation back it up.

--------------------------

As for laser weapons never stopping, that's not true in atmosphere. Attenuation and diffusion, as well as atmospheric contaminates, do lower the power of the beam. An energy wavelength tight enough to cause damage would also rapidly lose power as it would be unable to as easily overcome objects.


----------



## Derren (Dec 11, 2005)

You all forget the advantages energy weapons have over conventional ones, mainly accuracy.

Laser who really travel at light speed are much easier to aim than slug throwers who are affected by the density of the air and gravity (which are constantly changing variables in a sci-fi setting). And depending on the energy source a continous fire is possible.

Also the development of conventional guns is nearly at the end. There aren't any big inventions left in the field except the conversion to gauss weapons or micro rockets and even now some good defenses exist against bullets which stop them completly or reduce a hit to a minor wound. Yes, knockback is nice at close range but gunfights happen mostly at long rage where knockback is a minor factor because of the reduced power of the bullet and because you can't take as many advantages by knocking the enemy over than at close range.

Guns only stay effective as long as the enemy doesn't has access to defensive equipment which is superior than the guns. If that happens you have invent a bullet to penetrate this defenses and, if that is not possible, switch to a different weapon.

My guess for the future is mainly micro explosive rounds/rockets and either energy or gauss whatever proves easier to do.
What about sonic weapons? Sci-Fi dram or really an option?


----------



## Wolv0rine (Dec 11, 2005)

You know, when it's all said and done, this question will be based on the same factor as every other weapons choice in history has been made.  
It will be based on the developments in defense.

If, for example (this *is* a Sci-Fi thread, afterall) the enemy is fielding magnetic/gravitonic personal shields on their soldiers, then ballistic weapons just became moot.  If tehy have Really strong magnetic/gravitonic sheilds, then ballistic AND energy weapons become moot and someone had better start getting more creative in their weapons designs.  

But it's ALL about the defenses you face.  So, you want an answer to the man's initial question, then we'd better start designing interesting defenses to be overcome.

There, how's that spin your top, Ralts?


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Dec 11, 2005)

Derren said:
			
		

> Also the development of conventional guns is nearly at the end. There aren't any big inventions left in the field except the conversion to gauss weapons or micro rockets




I don't know...


----------



## Skrit (Dec 11, 2005)

Derren said:
			
		

> You all forget the advantages energy weapons have over conventional ones, mainly accuracy.
> 
> Laser who really travel at light speed are much easier to aim than slug throwers who are affected by the density of the air and gravity (which are constantly changing variables in a sci-fi setting). And depending on the energy source a continous fire is possible.
> 
> ...




Most gunfights take place at close range. If you talking about street warfare (criminals) most your shootings occur at 10 to 20ft. Not sure about the military statistics but I'm pretty sure the Urban Warfare that seems to be the new type of battlefield take place at close range and not a hundred yards. Most the time in Vietnam fighting was right in your face since you couldn't see more then 10ft in the jungle. My grandfather in the pacific has a story (that he seemed to tell way too much) about being 5 to 10 yrds from a Japanese machine gun nest on Okinawa and couldn't see it.


----------



## Derren (Dec 11, 2005)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> I don't know...




I don't see how this is a big new development. It is the same as we have now only with more technical stuff fitted into the gun, but nothing revolutionary.

And I disagree that most gunfights happen at close range. Even in street combat long range fighting happens. And on open terrain going for close range combat is suicide.


----------



## Skrit (Dec 11, 2005)

Derren said:
			
		

> I don't see how this is a big new development. It is the same as we have now only with more technical stuff fitted into the gun, but nothing revolutionary.
> 
> And I disagree that most gunfights happen at close range. Even in street combat long range fighting happens. And on open terrain going for close range combat is suicide.




Sitting out in open terrain in todays warfair doesn't sound like a very good idea to me.. That opens you up to attacks by planes, artillery, long range missles, and that's not talking about the nasty stuff such as nukes, chemicles and biological weapons. By sitting yourself in the city you force the enemy to come in an dig yout ot house to house which is much easier to defend against and should be a high casualty area. Sure they could still use percision guided weapons against some high concentrations but they can't just carpet bomb you like out in the field. Granted you still have to have boots on the ground to clean people out after but it will be far less people if youre sitting out in the open then you would be in a city. See the would has turned against leveling cities like was done in WW2. Still even back then if you level the city you still got to get troops and there and it's going to be hell of a fight.

I'm not saying Urban fighting takes place at 10ft but it's not going to be 200yrds or more unless is some kind of special circumstance.

*Edit* ohh yeah keeping on topic no one talked about Gene Simmons gun from Runaway where it was like a mini cruise missle. Rocket poppelled rounds have been around for awhile (I think the 70s) but they were too expensive and did nothing regular bullets could do. Where as if you had Gene's gun it would be a useful rocket round since it could lock on and track it's target..


----------



## Captain Tagon (Dec 11, 2005)

Derren said:
			
		

> I don't see how this is a big new development. It is the same as we have now only with more technical stuff fitted into the gun, but nothing revolutionary.
> 
> And I disagree that most gunfights happen at close range. Even in street combat long range fighting happens. And on open terrain going for close range combat is suicide.




Have you ever looked at gunfighting statistics? Most gunfights on the streets are within fifteen feet or so. That's why to qualify for concealed carry licenses and such you are only tested as being accurate out to seven yards or so.


----------



## Jack of Shadows (Dec 11, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> My wife is alive due to a Desert Storm Era kevlar vest. My brother is alive due to a Interceptor Vest. I'm alive due to a Desert Storm Era kevlar vest and helmet.




Dear Lord,

Where do you people live that your drawing so much fire!?!

Jack


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 11, 2005)

Skrit said:
			
		

> Judge Dredd's gun does exactly that doesn't it.. Still that's some pretty far out science.




My brother had the issue of 200AD which had a cutaway diagram of the original Judge Dredd lawgiver, and it was clear that the ammo selector was actually a magazine selector - the gun had two magazines (I don't recall whether or not each magazine had two sets of ammo in as well). The 'hotshot' heat-seeking round wasn't an additional round type, but an attachment fitted to the end of the barrel a little similar to rifle grenade in concept.

The lawgiver was certainly the first thing that came to my mind for variable ammunition. Another viable option is to have a weapon which has a range of ammunition of the same calibre. In my sci-fi game the 'cartridge gun' was popular, a revolver and each chamber could be loaded with one of - armour piercing discarding sabot, shotshell, high explosive, tranq, grappling line, smoke. I think the idea was inspired by the snub pistol in original traveller.

Cheers


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 11, 2005)

Derren said:
			
		

> You all forget the advantages energy weapons have over conventional ones, mainly accuracy.




Actually many people have already mentioned this factor.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Also the development of conventional guns is nearly at the end. There aren't any big inventions left in the field except the conversion to gauss weapons or micro rockets




A rather sweeping statement which is extraordinarily likely to be wrong. There are almost certainly innovative ways of killing people with ballistic weapons which haven't been concieved yet.

I've noticed that you have a habit of making statements which are phrased in an adversarial manner, you might wish to work on that a little.

Regards


----------



## Skrit (Dec 12, 2005)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> A rather sweeping statement which is extraordinarily likely to be wrong. There are almost certainly innovative ways of killing people with ballistic weapons which haven't been concieved yet.




Exactly just because we can't think something up yet doesn't me it would be impossible to do. 

Things about Slug throwing weapons is they will always be cheap, always be reliable, and will be used by somebody in some form in the future.

How do I know this?? Simple look at the blowgun. They have been around for over 40,000 years and have changed little (other then being made of space age materials now). They still work and people still use them


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 12, 2005)

Let's see, we have:


Gyroscopic rounds, allowing a linear accellerator to shoot them around corners.
Guided projectiles, acting like mini-cruise missiles.
Ramjet rounds, to bring the speed up to astronomical levels.
"Skip" rounds, that phase in and out, allowing them to pass through objects.
"Seeker Rounds" which will follow a target that the scope locks onto.
Nano-Rounds, a head full of nanites that automatically converts to what the user selects, ala Judge Dredd "Law Giver"
Explosive Rounds, this also covers anti-matter pellets.

One reason that ballistic weapons would still exist side by side with energy weapons is: Payload Delivery.

There are a multitude of payloads, particularly in a science fiction setting, that can be delivered by projectile weapons. From the ability to deliver indirect fire to the ability to deliver specific munition types at a desired area.

This reason alone will keep projectile weapons around.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 12, 2005)

I just remembered...

Yes, a laser is great, absolutely fantastic...

BUT...

For shipboard fighting, against spacesuit clad foes, on a ship that has evacuated it's atmosphere to avoid decompression damage during combat, four weapons stand out:

A knife.
A sword.
A crossbow.
A pistol.

Picture fighting aboard a submarine. Do you want to risk using a laser rifle that will burn through the plating on a miss?


----------



## Skrit (Dec 12, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Picture fighting aboard a submarine. Do you want to risk using a laser rifle that will burn through the plating on a miss?




I don't know.. It would depend if I had the screen door closed or not


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Dec 12, 2005)

Derren said:
			
		

> I don't see how this is a big new development. It is the same as we have now only with more technical stuff fitted into the gun, but nothing revolutionary.




I was mostly thinking about the lack of moving parts, the vastly greater rate of fire, and the easier variable-magazines.


----------



## Krieg (Dec 13, 2005)

LOL WR & I with near identical posts. 



			
				Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Believe me, if you gave me a choice between a gunshot wound and carrying a 40 lb steel plate, I'd drop the gear to carry the plate.




A descendent of Ned Kelly no doubt. 



> _A .50 caliber round is not the death sentence it once was. There have been documented BATTLEFIELD cases of people surviving a hit that 20 years ago would have turned thier torso into hydrostatic shock jelly._




Personally I feel a hit from just about any round is survivable...depending upon location.

I was on guard duty at Camp 15 in Saudi when the Seabea took a .50 to the upper shoulder from a negligent discharge. Not only did he survive, but he eventually regained full use of his shoulder/arm.



> _
> The majority of deaths (I think it sits in the 80% bracket) are due to IED's, NOT torso shots, which now result in cracked ribs at worst, wind knocked out of you at best._




Of course that brings up the fact that historically direct small arms fire has always been "relatively" low down on the casualty pole. Shrapnel in it's various forms...whether it's from artillery, mines or man portable explosive devices (ie grenades) has always been the #1 killer.



> _My wife is alive due to a Desert Storm Era kevlar vest. My brother is alive due to a Interceptor Vest. I'm alive due to a Desert Storm Era kevlar vest and helmet._



_

Converseley we lost a Marine in SOI due to yet another negligent discharge from an AT-4 tracer trainer...the 9mm tracer round penetrated his PASGT jacket both front & back...and unfortunatley, everything inbetween.



			
				Jack of Shadows said:
			
		


			Dear Lord,

Where do you people live that your drawing so much fire!?!

Jack
		
Click to expand...



Why Detroit obviously!

_


----------



## Krieg (Dec 13, 2005)

I'm a bit surprised that no one has mentioned that directed energy weapons are _currently being fielded & used in combat_ by various forces around the world.

Granted thus far their primary use has been as "non-lethal" weapons/deterrents, but they have already been used successfully on the battlefield.

Sonic, microwave & laser weapons have all been used in various ways to disorient, disrupt & disperse human targets.


----------



## Andor (Dec 13, 2005)

Krieg said:
			
		

> I'm a bit surprised that no one has mentioned that directed energy weapons are _currently being fielded & used in combat_ by various forces around the world.
> 
> Granted thus far their primary use has been as "non-lethal" weapons/deterrents, but they have already been used successfully on the battlefield.
> 
> Sonic, microwave & laser weapons have all been used in various ways to disorient, disrupt & disperse human targets.




Sure, but they're big, bulky, and non-lethal.

The big problem with energy weapons is energy storage. Right now chemical energy is our most efficient means of energy storage, even the Air Forces anti-missle laser is chemically powered. If we had an efficient, light, and safe means of storing absurd amounts of energy and (as importantly) getting it out of the storage medium at combat speeds then you might start seeing lethal energy weapons. But for now a bullet is our best means of both storeing and delivering energy. 

In the Lensman series they didn't switch to handheld energy weapons untill they found a material that can store 10% of its' _mass_ in energy. (They routinely measure energy by mass in that series.) And even so they still use ballistic weapons where called for. If you consider a planet a ballistic weapon. 

Now granted in a SF setting you take it as given that some means of storing weapon useful amounts of energy compactly has been invented but it doesn't automatically follow that ammunition has stopped being a concern. The amount of radiant energy needed to quickly kill a human being is immense. To be really effective you'd probably use a laser tuned for efficient absoption by water so you turn a cylinder in your target to steam causing burns and pressure damage. (IE: People go boom instead of cauterizing.) Of course that means you've got real issues in nasty weather.

Personally I find the physics we haven't invented yet weapons like Nivens 'digging tool' almost more plausible than infinitely firing laser pistols.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 13, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> For shipboard fighting, against spacesuit clad foes, on a ship that has evacuated it's atmosphere to avoid decompression damage during combat, four weapons stand out:
> 
> A knife.
> A sword.
> ...




Original Traveller drew a lot of flak in the 70's for positing blades as part of a standard marines gear on board ship - until people realised the very point you're making here!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 13, 2005)

Andor said:
			
		

> Personally I find the physics we haven't invented yet weapons like Nivens 'digging tool' almost more plausible than infinitely firing laser pistols.




I quite like the way that in the Known Space series Larry Niven has few actual 'weapons' and more high tech devices that turn out to be efficient as weapons (fusion drive, flashlight laser, digging tool etc). The only distinct weapon that I remember was 'the soft weapon' from the short story of the same name.


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 15, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> So, what do you think, should ballistic based weaponry still be included for PL 6 and higher, for vehicles, hand held weapons, and starships?




Big issue: indirect fire. The ability to lob grenades, mortar bombs, and howitzer shells out of trenches, over trees, and over hills is invaluable, so we are always going to want the equivalent capability for indirect fire of grenade launchers with each fireteam, mortars with each platoon, field guns with each battalion, and big gun-howitzers with each division, _at least_.

Big issue: area effect/interdition weapons. Shrapnel shells, machine-guns. Beam weapons are lousy at making an area unsafe to crawl through.

Big issue: fog, smoke, dust, light cover (eg. leaves, brush). Ballistic weapons will pierce this stuff, even though it makes for aiming difficulties. But anything that even scatters light will play merry hell with the effectiveness of beams weapons.

Big issue: shooting from concealment. Remember what your sergeant told you about tracer? The same is true of beam weapons.

Smaller issue: availablity of utility rounds. Beam weapons are likely to make dandy incendiaries, whether you want fire or not. They won't be so handy for delivering tear/retch gas, illumination flares, flashbangs, smoke, marker flares, chaff, line & grapnel rounds….

Small issue: sublethal munitions.


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 15, 2005)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I quite like the way that in the Known Space series Larry Niven has few actual 'weapons' and more high tech devices that turn out to be efficient as weapons (fusion drive, flashlight laser, digging tool etc). The only distinct weapon that I remember was 'the soft weapon' from the short story of the same name.




There were rifles and grenades in _Protector_ IIRC.


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 15, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> A knife.
> A sword.
> A crossbow.
> A pistol.




The pistol sounds okay. I'd rather have a shotgun, though.

I can't think of any reason to use the crossbow. Ammunition capacity, reload time, bad handling characteristics, and the inaccuracy of its drag-stabilised projectile in vaccuum make it seem worse in every way than a low-velocity submachine gun.


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 15, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> For one thing, right off the top of my head, you have atmospheric attenuation.




Yep. Consider the lensing effect of the air absorbing even a tiny proportion of your beam energy. Any beam with a power density high enough to burn through reflective heat-conducting armour (say, aluminium foil) is going to spread out to uselessness because of thermal bloom.

And that is even without the enemy filling the air overthe battle field with smoke and chaff. That is always going to be to hte advantage of one side or the other.

And then there is the fact that it is easy to armour against lasers: a reflective or smoke-generating ablative layer, a heat-conducting layer, and a refreactrory layer (say a ceramic sandwiched in aluminium-plaeted copper) should make a fairly thin and reasonable lightweight armour that is three orders of magnitude between at withstanding lasers than unprotected flesh.


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 15, 2005)

Roudi said:
			
		

> This is what Ralts means by knockback; not the Hollywood misrepresentation, but the actual physical transfer of momentum from one (ballistic) object to another.




Transfer of momentum is _always_ going to knock the bloke with the gun back at least as much as it does the bloke who gets shot.

I can believe that heavy weapons fired of tripods or carriages might knock their targets back, but in the case of anything sort of smallarms either the effect will be trivial or the weapon will be unusable.


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 15, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> But you're forgetting the potential versitality of hand weapons. Take phaser pistols on Star Trek. On the low settings, they can be used as highly effective non-lethal weapons, to create heat or cook food in emergancy situations, on the higher settings, they can easily disentegrate even an armored target, and be used as a cutting torch, and even overloaded and used as an impromptu hand grenade or explosive. That's a lot of utility out of a single device.




Yeah. It is also totally implausible. How are teh damned things supposed to _work_? Why shouldn't I suppose that magical technology might producce a hand-steamcannon that is even more versatile?


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 15, 2005)

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> In Heinlein's _The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress_, rebels on the moon use mass drivers to bombard locations on Earth.  The only implausible part is that:
> 
> a)  The moon has been sending ore to Earth this way for years




Not ore. Wheat. In capsules with parachutes, fired on trajectories chosen to make them slow down in the atmosphere and soft-land.


----------



## Falkus (Dec 15, 2005)

> Yeah. It is also totally implausible. How are teh damned things supposed to work? Why shouldn't I suppose that magical technology might producce a hand-steamcannon that is even more versatile?




It's science fiction, you're not supposed to ask that sort of question.


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 15, 2005)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Also, in a vacuum, a directed energy weapon can go an infinite distance, so long as it doesn't hit anything.




You are forgetting about diffraction. The tightest that any beam can be held in principle is a number of radians approximately equal to the wavelength divided by the beam width. In any sort of laser small-arm you are going to keep the beam narrow to give a high intensity at manageable power consumption, especially considering that you want to minimise attentuation by thermal blooming. The best way to do that is to use a very narrow beam, else the effect takes too long and vampirises too much of your pulse energy. I would be aiming for a sub-millimetre beam width, but lets consider a 100mm-wide flashlight-like beam to produce a generous limit.

Now various considerations suggest that laser smallarm aren't going to use a wavelength much shorter than about 100nm--you don't want to try a wavelength at which air is opaque, for a start. So very generously, beam width might be a million times wavelength. So at one kilometre the beam can be brought to a focus one millimetre across: it is effectively parallel. But at 1,000 km the beam is at least one metre across, and its intensity is only 1% of what it was at the muzzle. No laser smallarm is likely to be dangerous at a range of 1,000 km. That's a long way on a battlefield (620 miles), but nothing out in space.

Each further factor of ten in distance increases the beam width by a factor of ten and reduces beam intensity by a factor of one hundred.


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 15, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> It's science fiction, you're not supposed to ask that sort of question.




On the contrary. In science fiction you _are_ supposed to ask that sort of question. It is in _thinly disguised fantasy_ that you are not supposed to ask how things work and what they do.


----------



## Falkus (Dec 15, 2005)

Nothing to see


----------



## Andor (Dec 15, 2005)

Agemegos said:
			
		

> Transfer of momentum is _always_ going to knock the bloke with the gun back at least as much as it does the bloke who gets shot.




As had been pointed out already on this thread, no. No it isn't. The reason it isn't is because any competently designed firearm is designed to absorb, redirect, and use that energy, rather than transfer it to the shooter. That it what recoil springs, recoil pads, recoil compensators and automatic actions _do_. That's what they're for. The only firearm design without any compensation is a sealed breech rifle with no butt pad. A Winchester 1874 model lever action say. And they kick pretty good and will indeed knock an unbraced individual flat on his butt. It doesn't actually take much energy to knock a human off balance if he isn't expecting the blow. 

But efficient design makes all the difference in the world. I have a Kel-tec P3at .380 pistol. This is a tiny thing made out of composites and weighs 23 ounces unloaded. A friend of mine had a .380 made by a fly-by-night manufacturer in California. It is a heavy steel thing that probably weighs 3 times what my pistol does, and it kicks twice as hard. Because my pistol is efficiently designed to absorb (in recoil springs) and use (by working the action) the firing energy, and his was not well designed and transfers too much energy to the shooters hand. 

Heck even a revolver will redirect some of the recoil into an upwards motion rather than a straight backwards push, by simple virtue of it's geometry. 

At anyrate the important part is that the shooters knows what is happening and can brace for it, whereas the shootee is probably not braced for impact and is therefore vulnerable to being knocked over, if not up and back ala hollywood.

Err.. Sorry to drift off topic.


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 15, 2005)

Andor said:
			
		

> As had been pointed out already on this thread, no. No it isn't. The reason it isn't is because any competently designed firearm is designed to absorb, redirect, and use that energy, rather than transfer it to the shooter. That it what recoil springs, recoil pads, recoil compensators and automatic actions _do_.




Well, recoilless weapons and to some extent weapons with compensators can reduce recoil by throwing something else backwards other than the weapon. But recoil springs, recoil pads and automatic actions can only smooth out the jerk, they can't reduce or absorb momentum. Most especially, they can't re-direct it. Unlike energy, momentum is a _vector_ quantity. So the fact that a badly-designed and therefore unmanageable weapon jumps upwards when fired means that the firer is shoved downwards as well as backwards. The fact that this effect has never been a problem is simply a sign that the effect is small. There really isn't very much momentum in either a smallarm bullet or the corresponding recoil, and that in turn is why knockback from smallarms hits is too small to be significant.

You seem to be confusing recoil energy with recoil momentum. And not just confusing the words, either.



> At anyrate the important part is that the shooters knows what is happening and can brace for it, whereas the shootee is probably not braced for impact and is therefore vulnerable to being knocked over, if not up and back ala hollywood.




That's true. But on the other hand the firer has to deal with the momentum of the chamber gases as well as that of the bullet. And we don't get knocked over backwards by recoil if perchance we have to fire on the run.

Look, this is calculable. A 7.62 mm NATO has a mass of about 9 g and a muzzle velocity of around 800 m/s. At _most_ it could give an 80 kg man a delta-vee of 0.09 m/s. By the time he hit the ground he would be 'thrown' 0.04 m. That's about an inch and a half. A .50 cal machine-gun bullet is another story. It can knock a 180-lb man back a whole seven inches. But you fire fifties from a mount. At least a bipod.


----------



## Krieg (Dec 15, 2005)

Andor said:
			
		

> Sure, but they're big, bulky, and non-lethal.




To some extent the non-lethality is merely by choice.

The microwave based weapons would be very easy to convert to lethal versions, but just imagine the worldwide protests if they did so. 

Heck just imagine what they could do with the microwave output from the AN/SPY-1 radar on Aegis class ships if they wanted to.


----------



## Falkus (Dec 16, 2005)

> The microwave based weapons would be very easy to convert to lethal versions, but just imagine the worldwide protests if they did so.




Not to mention that there's easier ways to kill people.


----------



## Roudi (Dec 16, 2005)

Yeah, but not all of them let you scream "SCIENCE!" like Thomas Dolby when you do so.

Since we're on the topic of energy weapons (and microwave weaponry in particular), I'd like to get some opinions on a weapon I've designed for the upcoming Tesla's Legacy:


*Microwave Death-Ray Rifle (PL 5)*
The Microwave Death Ray (MDR) Rifle fires a concentrated microwave beam to devastating effect.  Firing the MDR is a ranged touch attack, causing a variety of effects depending on the kind of material struck.  Microwaves cause moisture molecules to vibrate, creating heat through friction (this is how your countertop microwave heats food).  On a successful hit, it deals damage based on the type of target it strikes.  If the target is organic, the MDR deals 3d6 energy damage.  If the target has almost no moisture (like a mummy) or is composed of plastics, the MDR deals 1d6 energy damage.  Microwaves have an incredibly devastating effect on metallic objects.  Therefore, the MDR deals a whopping 5d6 energy damage to objects made of metal.
The beam of the MDR Rifle is invisible.  The only way to determine the position of someone firing this weapon is a successful Listen check (DC 15) when the weapon is fired.

Those are the important parts of the writeup.


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 16, 2005)

Roudi said:
			
		

> Since we're on the topic of energy weapons (and microwave weaponry in particular), I'd like to get some opinions on a weapon I've designed for the upcoming Tesla's Legacy:
> 
> 
> *Microwave Death-Ray Rifle (PL 5)*




Are you interested in the physics?

The microwaves that are strongly absorbed by water and useful in a microwave oven have a frequency of 2450 MHz, which implies a wavelength of about 12 cm. Supposing that your microwave rifle had an emitter about the size of a dinner plate, diffraction effects would mean that you could have a beam that spread out in a cone no narrower than about half a radian, or 28°.

At a typical range for a battlefield engagement (about 50-100 metres), your weapon is going to produce a beam about 25 to 50 metres (80 to 160 feet wide). And if it is intense enough to do any damage out there I don't see it needing to make a ranged touch attack.

You can narrow the beam either by making the emitter wider (which will make the weapon very difficult to handle) or by using a shorter wavelength. But if you use a significantly shorter wavelength you are likely not to excite the strong absorbtion mode of moisture.

There is a reason that DARPA's new microwave weapon is touted as an area-denial weapon.


----------



## Pbartender (Dec 16, 2005)

I've been following this thread along for some time now.  As someone who works at one of the world's largest and most powerful particle accelerators (an "ion cannon", in sci-fi parliance), I've been tempted to chime in once or twice concerning popular myths about "energy weapons", especially lasers, ion guns, antimatter and other subatomic particles (like the as yet undiscovered Higgs Boson mentioned previously), all three of which I work with on a daily basis.

I can, if anyone's interested, but I haven't, because I'm well aware that there's at least much fiction in Science Fiction as there is science.

That, and really, it all boils down to this...



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> Not to mention that there's easier ways to kill people.




In Reality, there far, far easier ways to kill people than using any type of energy weapon.

In Science Fiction, energy weapons look really, really cool as special effects on the movie screen.

That's it.


So...  Simply put, if you want a more "realistic" style game, like Battlestar Galactica, for example, use ballistic and explosive weapons.  If you want a more "fantasic" style game, like Star Wars or Star Trek, for example, use laser beams and ray guns.

And don't forget...  The easiest way to kill someone has always been to put a hole in him.


----------



## Roudi (Dec 16, 2005)

Agemegos said:
			
		

> Are you interested in the physics?



The physics you presented are pretty damn interesting.  Still, "unrealistic" as it is, I think I'll stick with my current designs for microwave weaponry (there are area-denial versions of the weapon, just so you know).  It's part of the mystique of working with technology based on the work of Nikolai Tesla.  The more I research Tesla, the more it seems like he could make _anything_ happen through science if he wanted.


----------



## Andor (Dec 17, 2005)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> I've been following this thread along for some time now.  As someone who works at one of the world's largest and most powerful particle accelerators (an "ion cannon", in sci-fi parliance), I've been tempted to chime in once or twice concerning popular myths about "energy weapons", especially lasers, ion guns, antimatter and other subatomic particles (like the as yet undiscovered Higgs Boson mentioned previously), all three of which I work with on a daily basis.




I, for one,  be interested in hearing about it. Always interested in learning new bits of physics.


----------



## hobgoblin (Dec 17, 2005)

Agemegos said:
			
		

> Big issue: indirect fire. The ability to lob grenades, mortar bombs, and howitzer shells out of trenches, over trees, and over hills is invaluable, so we are always going to want the equivalent capability for indirect fire of grenade launchers with each fireteam, mortars with each platoon, field guns with each battalion, and big gun-howitzers with each division, _at least_.




outside of large bore weapons like shotguns, this stuff cant be done internaly with handguns anyways. you can however do so with a external mount that catch the bullet and use the energy of it to propell the shell. funny thing tho, i recall reading about using lasers for launching satelites. and a indirect fired shell is just a satelite with not enough energy to escape the planets gravity 



> Big issue: area effect/interdition weapons. Shrapnel shells, machine-guns. Beam weapons are lousy at making an area unsafe to crawl through.




given the change in warfare, interdiction weapons are becoming a nono a they dont see the diffrence between a enemy "soldier" and a civilian. set up a sensor effect and then have the beam shoot a target that matches a profile. a smart interdiction weapon?



> Big issue: fog, smoke, dust, light cover (eg. leaves, brush). Ballistic weapons will pierce this stuff, even though it makes for aiming difficulties. But anything that even scatters light will play merry hell with the effectiveness of beams weapons.




depends on the beam realy. if it can damage matter, some leaves will not stop it, and the smoke particles should be no problem either. its just a matter of pumping more energy down the beam 



> Big issue: shooting from concealment. Remember what your sergeant told you about tracer? The same is true of beam weapons.




depends on the wavelength used. last time i watched a video where they tested a laser used to shoot down a missle, they had to use a ir camera to even see the effects of the laser, the beam was invisible. if one is using ir sensors or similar to spot the beam, one can allso spot the heat flare from the muzzle of the gun. the only change is that you can see the line, if it even stays long. and the reason they stay long today is because we cant pump enough energy down range fast enough. fix that and what you will see is a small line cutting across the field for maybe a second...



> Smaller issue: availablity of utility rounds. Beam weapons are likely to make dandy incendiaries, whether you want fire or not. They won't be so handy for delivering tear/retch gas, illumination flares, flashbangs, smoke, marker flares, chaff, line & grapnel rounds….




incendiary may be a problem, yes. but that depend on the flamability of the materials attacked. more often then not, its the time spendt in contact with a source of heat thats the issue. a beam weapon will most likely be a pulse (if you avoid the classical phaser of star trek) and therefor the material will be heated to 1000+ degrees, but at best only a second. last time i checked i had to hold even a open flame of a match to the paper for some seconds to get the paper to realy ignite. if i just touched and then removed i would at best get some smoldering edges.

as for the rest: last time i checked, most of those where hand deliverd allready. at best you have a shotgun that deliver it using a special shell, or a specialized launcher. ok, so you can get a launcher attachment for say a rifle but see my comment about indirect fire earlyer.



> Small issue: sublethal munitions.




tune down the energy deliverd so that it pains rather then wounds. problem with rubber bullets and similar is that they still need a hard core so as to stay correctly shaped when fired. other option is specialized loads in a pump-action shotgun or similar large bore launcher.

basicly the problem right now is one of power source. if we can find one that can deliver the needed watts within the time it takes to fire a bullet and still be man portable, then we are looking at a practical beam weapon...


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 17, 2005)

Agemegos said:
			
		

> Big issue: indirect fire. The ability to lob grenades, mortar bombs, and howitzer shells out of trenches, over trees, and over hills is invaluable, so we are always going to want the equivalent capability for indirect fire




Completely agreed. 

One of the nice ideas in the Traveller 'Meson guns' was that they allowed battlefield indirect fire energy weapons, in that (in D&D terms) it didn't need a line of effect to the target.

Cheers


----------



## Wolv0rine (Dec 18, 2005)

Wait a sec now, the question is energy vs. ballistic.  Beam weapons are not the only form of energy weapons.  What about a grenade that, when triggered, emitted a high-powered microwave burst, for example?  Energy weapons can deliver indirect fire too, if we think beyond beams.


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 19, 2005)

hobgoblin said:
			
		

> outside of large bore weapons like shotguns, this stuff cant be done internaly with handguns anyways.




Indeed not, but it can be done with mortars, grenade-launchers, field guns, and gun-howitzers, all of which are ballistic weapons, and therefore germane to the subject: whether energy weapons are capable of completely displacing ballistic weapons.



> given the change in warfare, interdiction weapons are becoming a nono a they dont see the diffrence between a enemy "soldier" and a civilian.




Perhaps you are thinking of landmines. I an thinking of machineguns, anti-personnel rounds fired from mortars and guns, hand grenades, etc. I see no sign that they are vanishing from the battlefield.



> depends on the beam realy. if it can damage matter, some leaves will not stop it, and the smoke particles should be no problem either. its just a matter of pumping more energy down the beam




Nope. The leaves, smoke particles etc. disperse the beam by diffraction and Rayleigh scattering. And if you pump enough energy down the beam to burn them away, the heating induces thermal bloom. Lasers are lousy at penetrating light cover.



> depends on the wavelength used. last time i watched a video where they tested a laser used to shoot down a missle, they had to use a ir camera to even see the effects of the laser, the beam was invisible. if one is using ir sensors or similar to spot the beam, one can allso spot the heat flare from the muzzle of the gun. the only change is that you can see the line, if it even stays long. and the reason they stay long today is because we cant pump enough energy down range fast enough. fix that and what you will see is a small line cutting across the field for maybe a second...




Invisible wavelengths are all very well until you start trying to pump enough energy down the beam to burn your way through smoke and leaves, evacuate an air-channel to overcome thermal bloom, and then deliver enough energy to burn through ablative armour and inflict a dissabling wound, all in a fraction of a second (soldiers don't stay still for a second after they have been hit). Then you are talking about a beamso intense that it heats the air to incandescence, and your 'invisible' laser beam is about as inconspicuous as the invisible electric current in a lightning bolt.



> incendiary may be a problem, yes. but that depend on the flamability of the materials attacked. more often then not, its the time spendt in contact with a source of heat thats the issue. a beam weapon will most likely be a pulse (if you avoid the classical phaser of star trek) and therefor the material will be heated to 1000+ degrees, but at best only a second. last time i checked i had to hold even a open flame of a match to the paper for some seconds to get the paper to realy ignite. if i just touched and then removed i would at best get some smoldering edges.




That's because the low power of the flame did not deliver enough energy to heat the paper to its ignition point (451 Fahrenheit, of course) in the short time. Take into account that the paper was losing heat to radiation and convection even while the flame was heating it, and you will see that the low power is a significant issue. Any sort of effect laser weapon is going to have to deliver at least a kilojoule to an area no larger than a few millimetres across in a small fraction of a second. That will start fires.



> as for the rest: last time i checked, most of those where hand deliverd allready.




More often they are delivered by grenade launchers, mortars, and artillery pieces. Remember that we are talking about energy weapons replacing ballistic weapons in general, not just energy smallarms replacing ballistic smallarms.



> tune down the energy deliverd so that it pains rather then wounds.




That won't be as effective or as long-lasting as CS gas, glue-guns etc. Such a beam is unlikely, for example, to penetrate street clothing.



> basicly the problem right now is one of power source. if we can find one that can deliver the needed watts within the time it takes to fire a bullet and still be man portable, then we are looking at a practical beam weapon...




Possibly you are better-informed than I. My understanding was that  we don't yet have a laser smallarm that is powerful enough to injure as well as light enough to carry, even if it is plugged in to the mains. Not to mention that the large lasers we have are delicate and need cooling. The power issue involves weapons that fit in a 747 and are intended for anti-missile use, not weapons that are small enough or rugged enough for troops to take into ground combat.

By the way, you ought not to talk of delivering 'watts within the time needed'. Watts are a unit of power, ie. a unit of the _rate_ at which energy is generated, delivered or consumed. The issue is delivering _joules_ within the time needed, or in short developing enough watts.


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 19, 2005)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> One of the nice ideas in the Traveller 'Meson guns' was that they allowed battlefield indirect fire energy weapons, in that (in D&D terms) it didn't need a line of effect to the target.




It was cute. But unfortunately the authors misunderstood their science. Mesons decay exponentially with time. They have a half-life, not a definite life, and the trick would not work.


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 19, 2005)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> Wait a sec now, the question is energy vs. ballistic.  Beam weapons are not the only form of energy weapons.  What about a grenade that, when triggered, emitted a high-powered microwave burst, for example?




Sounds like a ballistic weapon delivering energy to me.

Still, you are right about thinking outside the box.


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 19, 2005)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> I've been following this thread along for some time now.  As someone who works at one of the world's largest and most powerful particle accelerators (an "ion cannon", in sci-fi parliance), I've been tempted to chime in once or twice concerning popular myths about "energy weapons", especially lasers, ion guns, antimatter and other subatomic particles (like the as yet undiscovered Higgs Boson mentioned previously), all three of which I work with on a daily basis.
> 
> I can, if anyone's interested




I would be interested, for another.

Regards,


Agemegos


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 19, 2005)

Bring it on, Pbartender!


----------



## hobgoblin (Dec 19, 2005)

agemegos, i see your overlooking one part about my post, the one where i comment that a laser can be used to propell a grenade or similar thru air. all you need is a reflective mirror at one end, shaped so that it focus the beam into a point behind the item that needs to be propelled upwards.

it works, but the energy needed just to lift a small model made of lightweight plastic is in the area of insane. so again we are at the point of energy delivery...

still, i see that you have a better grasp on the physics of things then i have.
but can use please use celcius rather then farenheit?

and about my use of watts. i dont even recall writing it. i should not have as i was thinking in general amounts of energy pr unit of time, not in a specific unit of measure. as such it being there is a oops on my part.

and to pbartender: bring it on


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 19, 2005)

I, for one, would definately be interested, pbartender.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 19, 2005)

hobgoblin said:
			
		

> agemegos, i see your overlooking one part about my post, the one where i comment that a laser can be used to propell a grenade or similar thru air. all you need is a reflective mirror at one end, shaped so that it focus the beam into a point behind the item that needs to be propelled upwards.




I would still rate that as "ballistic" - the propulsion system is different but you are still delivering a physical warhead to a destination, rather than beaming energy.

A more interesting intermediate form would be teleporting explosives to a location, or even a teleporting an explosion directly with, say, a 'dimensional swap gun' for the want of a silly phrase - the gun is registered with a location in your nearby star, specify a target location and 'ping' it swaps a cubic centimetre at the target location with a cubic centimetre from inside the star. 

On the super-advanced planet destroying level I quite like the trade-off between launching asteroids or planetary bodies at a target (ballistic) vs nova triggers to make a star explode (energy).

My last example is somewhat hyperbolic, but for a reason.

I don't think that considering lasers is particularly helpful in discussing futuristic energy weapons in the current context - lasers just aren't up to the job, they are unlikely to replace ballistic weapons in any category. It can still be fun hypothesizing energy weapons which can meet some of the current advantages of ballistic weapons though - but we need to cast our thoughts somewhat further afield!

Cheers


p.s. c'mon Pbartender - lend us your, er, Pbars!


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 19, 2005)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> A more interesting intermediate form would be teleporting explosives to a location, or even a teleporting an explosion directly with, say, a 'dimensional swap gun' for the want of a silly phrase - the gun is registered with a location in your nearby star, specify a target location and 'ping' it swaps a cubic centimetre at the target location with a cubic centimetre from inside the star.




Isn't that overkill? A millilitre of star-core must contain on the order of 40 MJ of heat alone. Add in the energy of its compression and the gamma rays it contains and you really have something.


----------



## hobgoblin (Dec 19, 2005)

ah, ballistic as in the warhead, not the delivery.

still, a area effect microwaregenerator anyone?

for one thing it can keep sending for as long as the powercell it got deliverd with works. area denial at its finest 

still, plasma-like effects would be best for area effect weapons. but thats hardly energy based. more like matter in a very energetic state or something.

still, one never knows...


----------



## Wolv0rine (Dec 20, 2005)

Put down another vote to lecture away, pbartender.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 20, 2005)

hobgoblin said:
			
		

> ah, ballistic as in the warhead, not the delivery.
> 
> still, a area effect microwaregenerator anyone?
> 
> ...



Plasma weapons sound nice, but plasma is basically hot gas, and it is difficult to control gas in a free enviroment - inside the weapon, you can contain it, but how do you deliver it to your target? With capsules that destroy themselves on impact (back to ballistics)?

I a m not certain that area effect plasma weapons are better to use then existing weapons - they would probably have the same risks as nerve gas if neither side has (working) protection gear...


----------



## hobgoblin (Dec 20, 2005)

any kind of ballistic delivery will be with canisters, that is unless we manage to discover some kind of magnetic or gravitational way of making things stay inside a globe or similar that will rupture on impact and so on...

so yes, artillery and similar indirect weapons will most likely be based around container trowed in a ballistic arc over the battlefield. question is what will these containers be filled with and what will be used as a propellant++...

im starting to see that energy based weapon-systems sounds fine on paper often but when one starts to investigate the physics of it we basicly cant deliver the damage vs cost that matter based one can at the moment. if that will change in the future, only discoverys in physics will tell. both in what kinds of energys one can try to use, and in the area of production and storage.

still, it seems more realistic that it will not be pure energy (as in the electro-magnetic spectrum or something like that) but more in a kind of particle stream. but then we are more or less talking about a new kind of matter weapon.

maybe its not so silly that blue planet still have matter based weapons as the firearm of choice. but with electric trigger and new chemical propellants thats seperate from the bullets. this then allow for some very flexible firearm systems, and gives the revolver a revival. now as a multi-ammo system that rotate into place as needed.


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 21, 2005)

hobgoblin said:
			
		

> agemegos, i see your overlooking one part about my post, the one where i comment that a laser can be used to propell a grenade or similar thru air.




That's a ballistic weapon.



> all you need is a reflective mirror at one end, shaped so that it focus the beam into a point behind the item that needs to be propelled upwards.




You also need an absurdly powerful laser.

As you will recall from freshman (or maybe sophomore--I don't know the curriculum at your university) physics, the energy and momentum of any photon are related by the equation E = pc. Given perfect reflection you get an impulse from each photon of 2p, which is to say I = 2 E/c. Now F = I/t, so the force the laser beam exerts on the grenade is 2 E / ct, and E/t is average power. So F = 2 P/c, or if we re-arrange, P = Fc/2.

Supposing that a useful grenade has a mass of at least 0.2 kg and given that gravity is approximately 10 m/s^2, you need at least 2 N to hold it up against gravity, and more to give it any upward acceleration. c = 300 000 000 m/s, so the minimum power required of a laser grenade launcher would be 300 Megawatts. That is about the power output of a commercial power station.

"All you need is a reflective mirror." Nope. You also need two power stations and a lot of high-voltage transmission lines. And a laser that I can't describe without offending Eric's grandmother.


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 21, 2005)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Plasma weapons sound nice, but plasma is basically hot gas, and it is difficult to control gas in a free enviroment




Besides which, plasmas are very hot, and therefore they radiate heat (see the Sun for an example). Unless that have an enormous volume to surface area ratio, or unless their energy is constantly replenished (eg. by fusion) they cool down. Very quickly. And a cooled-down plasma is essentially a puff of hot air.


----------



## hobgoblin (Dec 21, 2005)

agemegos, im fully aware of the cost of power. thats why i repetedly bring that topic up in the end of my posts.

before we start talking about any kind of energy based weapon we have to find new and more effective ways of making/storing said energy. under current technology this impossible.

this is the real problem. ones we can pump enough energy into the weapon then we can start looking into the other problems.

in star trek they have this warp core that creates enough energy to enable a whole ship to bypass einstein. and im guessing that the power source of their phasors where based on a similar system.

iirc, the powersource for the laser powerd transport was described as a megawatt laser. and it was able to propell a item 10 cm by 10 cm craft about 20-40 meters into the air.

so yes, its not practical by a longshot but the theory works. the question is how to generate and deliver the needed amounts of energy for it to become a way of delivering artillery shells and similar.

as for the plasma thing. sure its a hot gas. but so is a explosive. the thing is to have that hot gas spread over a large enough area before it cools to be effective as a weapon  or in the case of a explosive, create a shockwave from the generation of said hot gasses.

in many ways plasma can be seen as a kind of napalm rather then a conventional artillery grenade. the question is, what is the task you want performed.

in the end the discussion of energy based weapons stop at energy production and storage. right now we cant produce and store high enough amounts of energy for a energy based weapon system to be effective. maybe we can do so in the future, maybe not. but one can dream, right?


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 22, 2005)

hobgoblin said:
			
		

> agemegos, im fully aware of the cost of power.




Maybe, but cost is far from being the only issue. The sheer practical difficulties of generating and transmitting it are a constraint that makes some of your suggestions absurdly impractical. Another issue is that you don't seem to have given any thought at all to the other things you would be able to do is you had the gigawatt laser that would be needed to make a laser greanade launcher such as you suggest.



> in the end the discussion of energy based weapons stop at energy production and storage.




No, not at all. They also stop at collimation, diffraction limits diffusion, thermal interactions with the atmosphere, interactions with smoke, fog, and cover, waste heat, side glow, and weight and delicacy of the apparatus. You have to think about what happens to the weapon and the user if it gets a splash of mud on the collimating lens or any neutral filter protecting the lens, and how you might prevent this from happening in a practical battlefield weapon.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 22, 2005)

To return to an example I mentioned earlier on, David Drakes 'Hammers Slammers' short stories have an interesting take on energy weapons. 

Their 'power guns' don't rely upon generators, they rely upon ammunition which is expended to create their energy beam. 

They are deadly, powerful, line of sight weapons which can be spoiled by even the lightest of cover - even a small bush will take the full energy of a blast if it is in between you and your target.

- and in his future vision there are, indeed, material as well as energy weapons in use (e.g. howitzers on the battlefield, plus some mercenary groups use ballistic weapons rather than powerguns).

In one of his essays Drake shows that he has thought through some of the implications and necessary foundations to allow for workable energy weapons. 

Cheers


----------



## Krieg (Dec 22, 2005)

The key factor is exactly WHERE the battlefields of the future are located.

All of the argument thus far has centered around a terrestrial battlefield, while much of speculative science fiction moves said engagements out of the gravity well and into space.

The arguments for/against each family of armaments change *greatly* when you change the assumptions to include vehicle born power sources, a vacuum environment, engagement ranges increased by several orders of magnitude, and vehicles maneuvering with extreme delta-v.

Recoil also becomes a far more important consideration while atmospheric effects become correspondingly less so (and indirect fire becomes a non-factor)...


Changing the subject a bit but just to put things into perspective a bit regarding power requirements & capabilities...current goals are about 10% efficiency for weaponized laser systems. That means producing a 100 Kilowatt beam will require about 1 Megawatt of source energy (a 100KW beam is the magic number right now for a multi-purpose weaponized system).

So in order for man portable (which for some reason the majority of the discussion seems to revolve around) laser weapons to become feasible two things must occur...there must be radical improvements in both energy generation/storage AND in the efficiency of laser devices themselves.

Back to the issue of "man portable" weapons. It's obvious that most military planners want to eliminate the average grunt from the equation. There is a lot of energy being spent on battlefield ROVs in the short term and truly autonomous combat vehicle in the long term. A hypothetical armed robot replacing the foot soldier also helps alleviate at least some of the power/weight issues revolving around lasers (and other energy weapons) at the squad/fire team level.


----------



## hobgoblin (Dec 22, 2005)

Agemegos said:
			
		

> No, not at all. They also stop at collimation, diffraction limits diffusion, thermal interactions with the atmosphere, interactions with smoke, fog, and cover, waste heat, side glow, and weight and delicacy of the apparatus. You have to think about what happens to the weapon and the user if it gets a splash of mud on the collimating lens or any neutral filter protecting the lens, and how you might prevent this from happening in a practical battlefield weapon.




Those a problems that can be looked at and maybe fixed/worked around after one have a proper power source at hand. right now one do not even have that and therefor cant experiment with ways to fix the other problems.

fix one poblem at a time, if one are going to worry about everything all the time then one will never get anything done (one will most likely be rolled up as a ball in the corner scared about even moving).


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 23, 2005)

hobgoblin said:
			
		

> Those a problems that can be looked at and maybe fixed/worked around after one have a proper power source at hand.




Diffraction can't. It is fundamental to the nature of light.

Do you even know what diffraction is?


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 23, 2005)

Krieg said:
			
		

> The arguments for/against each family of armaments change *greatly* when you change the assumptions to include vehicle born power sources, a vacuum environment, engagement ranges increased by several orders of magnitude, and vehicles maneuvering with extreme delta-v.




Indeed! A friend of mine was just telling me about his 1 TW laser operating at a wavelength of 6 nm. That would be a dandy weapon for a spaceship, assuming that you could aim it accurately enough (a bit of a problem as you can't aim X-rays with a mirror). And assuming that you could get the pulse duration up above 1 ps.

But laser weapons in space don't replace ballistic weapons--we aren't using ballistic weapons in space. And they certainly don't supercede ballistic weapons. Private eyes will be packing railgun-pistols that fire shards of antimatter-doped silicon before they pack a practical laser-pistol.


----------



## hobgoblin (Dec 23, 2005)

Agemegos said:
			
		

> Diffraction can't. It is fundamental to the nature of light.
> 
> Do you even know what diffraction is?




i have a vague idea...

but why limit ourselfs to light? or are you talking about the full EM spectrum when you use the word light?


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 23, 2005)

hobgoblin said:
			
		

> fix one poblem at a time, if one are going to worry about everything all the time then one will never get anything done




First you have to identify a project worth working on. If your preliminary engineering studies show that something is fundamentally impractical, then the sensible course is to choose another approach to solving the problem. (And our problem is to put the enemy out of action--energy weapons are suggested means, not a determined end). There is no point in mending the easiest problem if some of the others are fundamentally insuperable. There is always another project to put your efforts into.


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 23, 2005)

hobgoblin said:
			
		

> i have a vague idea...
> 
> but why limit ourselfs to light? or are you talking about the full EM spectrum when you use the word light?




I am referring to the full EM spectrum, as it happens (sorry, I did not make that clear). All wavelengths are subject to diffraction, though the effects are larger with short wavelengths. The limits I calculated about were for light with a wavelength of 100 nm, which is well into the ultraviolet. Visible light lasers would diffract more. I chose 100 nm to give a generous limit. In fact air is pretty much opaque at that wavelength, and such a weapon would only be useful in vaccuum.

We have 'lasers' working on every wavelength from microwaves to soft x-rays (the record is 6 nm wavelength, and 1 nm is just around the corner (when the boffins get free-electron lasers working properly)).

Some invisible wavelengths offer possibilities, though they still won't go over hills or other obstacles, and they still have trouble with smoke. Certain of the possibilities are unattractive trade-offs: longer wavelengths are scattered less, but cannot be brought to a tight focus because of the Rayleigh Limit. Short wavelengths can be held to a narrow parallel beam, but they have more trouble with scattering. Unfortunately, air just isn't transparent at very many wavelengths. Hard UV lasers will be scattered by air as though by soup, and x-ray lasers will be completely absorbed by air (at least until they blast themselves an evacuated channel to shine through).

So you can think of a microwave beam, but it will need an emitter metres across to produce a narrow beam over any distance. And a handgun the size of a household satellite dish would look silly on a policeman's hip.


----------



## hobgoblin (Dec 23, 2005)

Agemegos said:
			
		

> First you have to identify a project worth working on. If your preliminary engineering studies show that something is fundamentally impractical, then the sensible course is to choose another approach to solving the problem. (And our problem is to put the enemy out of action--energy weapons are suggested means, not a determined end). There is no point in mending the easiest problem if some of the others are fundamentally insuperable. There is always another project to put your efforts into.




thing is that effective power production and storage can be used for a lot of stuff. even more so if one have energy/matter converters (or replicators if you like).

thing is that even tho pure EM weapons are impractical to say the least, offshots of going after that goal may well be applyed to other fields.

history is full of ideas that have been put aside by someone only to be found and put to a diffrent use by someone else.

so just because a goal may be impossible or impractical it does not mean that no good will come from trying to reach it.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 23, 2005)

*Hobgoblin*, you don't have to try to win an argument here. *Agemegos *please don't be condescending ("do you even know what diffraction is?").

I've seen both of those behaviours exhibited in this thread by both of you recently, and I'd like it to stop.  Neither behaviour is necessary or advisable on ENworld thanks.

Regards,

Now, where DID pbartender get to?

Regards,


----------



## hobgoblin (Dec 24, 2005)

im not trying to win the argument, but ill leave it be.
marry x-mas or whatever


----------



## Krieg (Dec 24, 2005)

Agemegos said:
			
		

> But laser weapons in space don't replace ballistic weapons--we aren't using ballistic weapons in space.




lol Splitting hairs a bit dontcha think? 

Regardless... I'd say that the USAF's ASM-135 and the 23mm Canon the Soviets mounted on Salyut-3  would qualify as ballistic weapons used in space...but that's just me. 



> Private eyes will be packing railgun-pistols that fire shards of antimatter-doped silicon before they pack a practical laser-pistol.




Agreed. 

I can see a day when a flashlight laser ala Ringworld would be feasible..it's just that I would question it's suitability as a weapon.



			
				Agemegos said:
			
		

> I am referring to the full EM spectrum, as it happens (sorry, I did not make that clear). All wavelengths are subject to diffraction, though the effects are larger with short wavelengths.




Take a look at project HAARP.


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 25, 2005)

Krieg said:
			
		

> lol Splitting hairs a bit dontcha think?




No. Addressing the OP.

"A common fallacy I see in many sci-fi games is the thought that beam weapons would eventually replace ballistic weapons _completely_." -- Warlord Ralts (emphasis added).


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 25, 2005)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Take a look at project HAARP.




Case in point. To focus a microwave beam tightly enough to attack an area thirty miles across, HAARP needs an emitter consisting of 72 towers 360 feet tall spread out over four acres. Good luck getting that into a hip holster.


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 25, 2005)

C. Baize said:
			
		

> Didn't they also prove that bumblebees can't fly with physics, too?




No, they didn't. That is a common misrepresentation. The truth is that someone showed that bumblebees would not be able to fly _if their wings were rigid_.


----------



## hobgoblin (Dec 25, 2005)

Agemegos said:
			
		

> Case in point. To focus a microwave beam tightly enough to attack an area thirty miles across, HAARP needs an emitter consisting of 72 towers 360 feet tall spread out over four acres. Good luck getting that into a hip holster.




just a silly question, but can one make a laser out of microwaves?
im guessing that one can, in theory.

next question then becomes, can it have the same effect as normal microwaves?


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Dec 25, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Sounds like the makers of XCom ripped off the Sten series there.
> 
> The Sten series used AM2 (an alterante form of Anti-Matter, the location of which it came from was undisclosed until the final book of the series) for everything from heating fuel to energy to starship to hand held weapons.
> 
> ...




I bought the first one based on your recommendation, and wasn't dissapointed _at all._ Lots of fun!


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 26, 2005)

hobgoblin said:
			
		

> just a silly question, but can one make a laser out of microwaves?
> im guessing that one can, in theory.




And in practice. In fact, masers were demonstrated before lasers.



> next question then becomes, can it have the same effect as normal microwaves?




Yes, of course.


----------



## Krieg (Dec 26, 2005)

Agemegos said:
			
		

> Case in point. To focus a microwave beam tightly enough to attack an area thirty miles across, HAARP needs an emitter consisting of 72 towers 360 feet tall spread out over four acres. Good luck getting that into a hip holster.




Because of course we know that technology at it's infancy is representative of what it will look like when it is mature.

_pictures edited out - you're not adding something substantive to the discussion, just knocking someone else._


----------



## Agemegos (Dec 26, 2005)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Because of course we know that technology at it's infancy is representative of what it will look like when it is mature...




No, not for that reason at all. For the reason that diffraction places a fundamental limit on the minimum width to which a beam can be focussed, which is related to the ratio of the wavelength used divided by the diameter of the emitter. Microwaves are 'micro' by the standards of radio waves, but they are huge by comparision to visible light, and it is fundamentally impossible to focus them tightly without a huge emitter or emitter array.


----------



## JamesDJarvis (Dec 27, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> I've seen this arguement go round and round, but let's move onto sci-fi.
> 
> A magnetic accellerator weapon, using a chunk of ferrous coated (for launching) duranium alloy that weighs 8 ounces accellerated to .75 C.
> 
> ...




huh?  That is amazingly good armor.   That projectile is whipping out of its weapon with 16 BILLION times as much energy as a 44 cal bullet.


----------



## JamesDJarvis (Dec 27, 2005)

interesting trivia- Lasers are loud.


----------



## Pbartender (Dec 27, 2005)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Now, where DID pbartender get to?




Having a great time with my kids over two and half weeks of Holiday vacation.    

Sorry guys.  You want it, you got it.  I'll be right back with a lengthier post, but first let me address this...



			
				JamesDJarvis said:
			
		

> interesting trivia- Lasers are loud.




No, normally they are not.

The cooling systems for lasers may be loud or the power systems for the lasers may be loud (especially if you are using a large bank of capacitors for a pulsed laser), but the laser itself very rarely makes any noise.

A pulsed laser might make a noise ranging anywhere from a faint tick to a dull thud when its capacitors discharge, depending on how big the caps are, and how much power you're discharging.  That noise is the sound of metal components inthe power supply quickly expanding and contracting as they heat up and cool down with the sudden pulse of electricity.

The material the laser beam hits might make a noise -- sizzling, crackling, a pop, or any other noise, depending on the amterial -- as it burns, melts or boils.

Theoretically, a powerful enough laser beam could make a cracking noise much like a lightning bolt, as it super-heats the moisture in the air it travels through.

In general, though, your average laser is pretty quiet.


----------



## JamesDJarvis (Dec 27, 2005)

"Lasers are loud" might not have covered it enough: Some lasers designed for a combat role are themsleves surprisingly loud.  They do make a cracking noise much like a lightning bolt as it super-heats the moisture in the air it travels through.   Some of the engineers I know have reported a "boom" that isn't the powerplant or the target being hit either. 

Folks forget we have, at least in testing and very limited use, all sorts of energy weapons.  They aren't sci-fi mumbo-jumbo. Systems like Zeus- mine destruction, Thel - anti-missle, the ADS "Pain Ray" do exsist.


----------



## Pbartender (Dec 27, 2005)

JamesDJarvis said:
			
		

> Folks forget we have, at least in testing and very limited use, all sorts of energy weapons.  They aren't sci-fi mumbo-jumbo. Systems like Zeus- mine destruction, Thel - anti-missle, the ADS "Pain Ray" do exsist.




Very cool stuff...  more 1940's ray-gun pulp sci-fi type stuff than anything else.    

All right, everybody...  Here we go:

Author's Note: As much as possible I'm going to stick to science that the layman can understand.  This information is dervied from the firsthand experiences of an operator* and technician working at a large US Gorvfernment High Energy Physics Research Laboratory.  These diatribes will focus on practical usage, real-world logitistics and the everyday technical aspects of building and using the sorts of weapons Science Fiction and Science Fantasy often refer to as "energy weapons"...  Theoretical physics is useless to a soldier on the battlefield, if his weapon can't realistically neutralize his enemy.


*LESSON 1: Ion Cannons*


An ion cannon is simply a machine that shoots charged particles.  The particles could be electrons or protons, or any number of ionized atoms or molecules.  The particles could even consist of antimatter, so long as they contain a charge -- positrons or antiprotons, for example -- but I'll talk about antimatter more later.

It's the charge that's the important part for an ion cannon.  So long as the charge is present, you can use an electric field oscillating at radio-frequencies (a glorified radar or radio transmitter) to accelerate those particles to near the speed of light. The charges also allow you to use magnetic fields to tightly focus the beam of particles and steer the stream in a particular direction.

An ion cannon inflicts damage by bombarding a target with high-energy particles.  The particles collide with the material of the target, typically knocking the molecules and atoms of said target into little bits. Macroscopically, very little damage is dealt to the target.  The primary byproducts of the impact are heat, radiation and a shower of assorted, very short-lived, sub-atomic particles.

In combat situations, and assuming the ion cannon was powerful enough, equipment will take small amounts of damage from ion cannons, that will usually look like super-heated burns, scorches and/or melted spots.  Additionally, the equipment will be radioactive for anywhere from seconds to hours or days.  Personnel would possibly suffer from burns and would more likely suffer acute radiation exposure from the short-lived byproducts.

*THE STAR WARS FALLICY: ION CANNONS WILL NOT DISABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICES WITHOUT DAMAGING THE EQUIPMENT.*

Really, in the end, an ion cannon is just like any other ballistic weapon, except that you're using an extraordinary amount of extraordinarily tiny bullets traveling extraordinarily fast.

Ion cannons have two important numbers regarding their damage capability... The number of particles you are tossing out, and the energy that you are tossing them out at (normally measured in electron-volts).  Currently, it is not not uncommon to see particle accelerators (ion cannons) that can accelerate their beams into the gigaelectron-volt (GeV) ranges.  The amount of particles emitted by modern particle accerator is normally measured in the billionths or trillionths of grams per pulse (about 10^10 to 10^14 particles per pulse).

The major shortcomings of using an ion cannon as a weapon currently are required power, required space, damage output, range and penetration.

Power...  The laboratory I work at, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, has three seperate power sub-stations for the sole use of the lab.  Electricity is the lab's single largest budgetary item. The power amplifiers used to accelerate our proton beams are rated anywhere from 250 KW to 5 MW. The various accelerators use anywhere from seven to eighteen of these power amplifiers to run the RF cavities that accelerate the beam. Any useful ion cannon would require it's own small powerplant to fire it. The power plant aboard a nuclear aircraft carrier might be sufficient.

Space...  Fermilab owns a chunk of land about four miles by three miles.  Our smallest accelerator (400 KeV) is a straight line several hundred yards long.  Our largest (1 Tev or 1000 Gev) is a circle four miles in circumference. This doesn't count the space require for the equipment, workshops, tools and support personnel (2,000+ employees) to run and maintain the machines.

Damage output...  From very personal exerience, a beam of protons accelerated to 120 GeV at about 7x10^14 particles (about 7 billionths of a gram) per pulse, firing one pusle every two seconds will put a pinhole through 1/8th inch aluminum in about an hour or two.  Given several months, that same power and intesity can draw a scorched and bubbly line a fraction of an inch deep across a plate of stainless steel.  By the same repect, the pinhole will be radioactive to the tune of a few tens or hundreds of mrem/hr hour, for a few hours (fairly safe), and the scroched line will radiate at 2 or 3 rem for several weeks or months (potentially dangerous).

Range... All the particles you use in an ion cannon are necessarily the same charge.  They must be, in order to get them all travelling in the same direction.  Unfortunately, as we all know from high school science class, like charges repel each other.  Once the ion beam leaves the "barrel" of the "gun", the ions no longer have any active focusing.  The ions push each other apart, and the beam very quickly disperses, like a shotgun shot, or a flashlight beam.  Even in vacuum, after a few hundred yards, the beam is nearly useless.  In atmosphere its far worse.

Penetration... Ion cannons are very easy to defend against.  An inch or two of steel will stop dead the beam of any modern ion cannon.  The same amount of lead backing will soak up any of the radioactive byproducts.  Simple ablative armor would be extremely effective against even future versions of ion cannons.  Alternately, if you want something more spectacular, you can protect yourself from an ion cannon with a strong magnetic field.  The charged particles get caught spiralling around the magentic field lines, until they sucked into either pole of the magnet, where you lay out some thick shielding.  That is, essentially, what happens when a solar flare (ionized gas) hits earth's magnetic field, producing the northern lights.

Given the proper technology, an ion cannon could make a feasible weapon.  However, it would likely be more trouble than its worth, and far less effective than ballistic or explosive weapon using the same technology.

The best example I've ever seen of a fairly realistic ion cannon is from the computer game, Homeworld.  The "Ion Cannon Frigate", I believe its called, is a starship built around a linear particle accelerator.  The linac itself provides the primary spine of the ship, takes up most of the ship's bulk and can only be aimed by reorienting the ship.

More to come...





*Operator in the Rifts RPG occuptional character class sense, rather than the telephone switchboard sense.


----------



## Andur (Dec 28, 2005)

how long do we have to wait for more?


----------



## yoippari (Dec 29, 2005)

More techno babble please. I found it very enlightening (and somewhat entertaining).


----------



## Skrittiblak (Sep 19, 2006)

Sorry to bump a dead thread  - but I could have sworn this was longer!

Has the rest of this thread been erased in the sands of time?

CRAP. There was a really great thing that Pbartender wrote on lasers. I think its gone!


----------



## Storyteller01 (Sep 19, 2006)

Awhile ago several months worth of files were lost (I don't remember the exact reason).


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 19, 2006)

Skrittiblak said:
			
		

> Sorry to bump a dead thread  - but I could have sworn this was longer!
> 
> Has the rest of this thread been erased in the sands of time?
> 
> CRAP. There was a really great thing that Pbartender wrote on lasers. I think its gone!




Yep...  there was a lot more to this thread.  Looks like it all got lost during the crash last spring.  They had to revert to a previous backup of the boards and the last one was from right around Christmas time.  A couple months worth of posts were forever lost, if I remember correctly.


----------



## Skrittiblak (Sep 19, 2006)

*Google Cache Is Awesome!!!!!*

LESSON 2: Antimatter

Antimatter is a particle of any type matter that has the sign of one of its basic properties reversed. In every other way, they are identical to their anti-partner. An antielectron (a positron), for example, has a positive charge, instead of a negative charge. Any type of particle, even neutrally charged ones such as neutrons, can have an antiparticle, since the electrical charge is not the only possible value that can be reversed.

When a particle and its antiparticle meet, they annihilate each other in a burst of energy. This reaction reaction releases the most amount of energy per unit mass in known science. Unfortunately, the reaction, as opposed to popular belief, doesn't not always completely convert the matter and antimatter into energy. Only the lightest particle-antiparticel pairs can accomplish this. An electron-positron collision, for example, produces nothing but 511,000 electron volts worth of gamma rays. Something heavier, like protons an antiprotons, will produce, in addition to high-energy gamma rays, a spray of assorted secondary particles that decay very quickly into nuetrinos and low-energy gamma rays.

If they didn't, we wouldn't have been able to use proton-antiproton collisions at Fermilab to find the top quark or search for the Higgs boson.

An antimatter reaction is extraordinarily efficient when converting mass to energy. The less efficient reaction of the heavier antimatter particles is actually more useful in regards to both weapons and fuel. High-energy gamma rays will pass straight through most material without interacting, unless you have a lot of shielding to abosrb it. The secondary particles produced by the heavier antimatter reactions will produce more meaningful damage, especially radiation damage as they decay.

As a comparison, a nuclear fission is about 20 times as efficient as your tyical rocket fuel. Nuclear fusion is about 120 to 200 times as efficent as that rocket fuel. Matter-antimatter annihilation is 200 to 2,000 times as efficient.

Antimatter suffers from two very major drawbacks... Production and containment.

Production... Antimatter is expensive and excessively time consuming to make. Antimatter costs about $62.5 trillion a gram to produce. What's more, even Fermilab, currently the world's best antimatter production facility, can't make more than a couple trillionths of a gram in an hour, and can't collect more than a couple dozen trillionths of a gram at once. Even that amount of antimatter is practically harmless, as far as weaponry is concerned... It's not enough to put the slightest scratch in aluminum foil. Additionally, antimatter (antiprotons, at least) is created primarily by bombarding a solid target with high energy protons -- you shoot a slab of metal with an ion cannon (Remember all those secodary particles I talked about in Lesson 1? Antiprotons are some of them.) Realistically, in order to produce a useful amount of antimatter, you'll need ion cannon technology sufficient to drive the resultant antimatter weapon into obsolescence.

Containment... Antimatter, in sufficient quantities would be very, very dangerous. Even without the danger, its simply a delicate substance to work with. Practically anything it touches destroys it. Some types of it (those with electrical charges) can be contained using magnetic fields... But that would require significant power just to hold it steady. Also, it would need to be stored in near perfect vacuum, or the antiparticles would slowly wear away.

In the end, it's a matter of logistics for antimatter. It's too expensive to make, too troublesome to store, and too dangerous (in weapons-grade amounts) to use. It's the same reasons nitro-glycerin never was and never will be used as a weapon.



LESSON 3: Lasers

Lasers are just beams of light that are monochromatic, coherent and directional. "Monochromatic" means that the laser emits a single, specific wavelength of light. "Coherent" means that the light waves are all in phase, that they oscillate not just at the same frequency but at the same time. "Diretional" means that all the lightwaves are travelling in the same direction as a tightly focused beam.

So, if a the light from a light bulb is kind of like a crowd of people scattering to their various homes after a football game, the light from a laser is more like the members of a marching band, all wearing identical uniforms, marching in perfect step in a straight line.

Lasers, as focused beams of light, can have two major effects on the battlefield... First, the heat produced by the beam could feasibly damage equipment and kill people. Second, the light from the beam could blind people or sensitive optical equipment.

This is nothing new, many militaries are already experimenting with lasers for such applications.

Lasers have a few minor drawbacks, that will likely be overcome sometime within the next hundred years or so...

Size... A laser of any significant power to worthwhile damage to a target is pretty big. Most experimental military lasers are approximately the size of a refrigerator, or an outdoor spotlight (not the theatrical sort, the sort you see outside circuses, carnivals and car dealerships pointing up at the sky). Lasers of this size are currently powerful enough to shoot down a mid-sized missile.

Power... Unlike most sci-fi weaponry, lasers truly are an "energy weapon". They require no ammunition of any sort, aside from electrical power. Electrical power in very large quantities, however, if you want to deal any real damage. The anti-missile lasers currently being tested in Isreal fire a 1-10MW laser beam that's about three or four feet across, if I remember correctly. That's probably about the minimum power required to use a laser as an effective weapon.

Fortunately, both of those problems are soluble, given time.

Lasers do have one or two other quirks, that can a help or a hinderance, depending...

Line of sight... Lasers shoot in a straight line. While this makes it very easy aim the laser, it also eliminates the possibility of indirect fire. Unlike an artillery shell, missile or handgrenade, if there's something between you and your target, you can't lob a shot over the obstruction to hit something you can't see behind it.

Range... Lasers, especially powerful lasers, can have a pretty long range. The trouble is, even though lasers are directional, the beam still disperses as it travels. Since you're spreading the light over a wider area, it effectively reduces the damage the laser is capable of at longer ranges.

Tracing... Laser beams are more or less invisible. If you can see the laser beam, you're losing damage potential. This makes it hard for enemies to see where you are shooting from, but it also makes it difficult to see where you are shooting.

Continuous vs. Pulsed... A continuous laser can be turned on and left on. A pulsed laser can only be flashed in short pulses. The pulsed laser typically uses a bank of capacitors, which are charged up and then discharged to produce a more power laser pulse than would ordinarily be available with that particular power supply. The tradeoff is a series of short, more powerful pulses of laserlight, instead of a steady beam of less powerful laser light that can be swept across the battlefield or held to a particular target.

No recoil... Lasers effectively have no recoil.

Defense... Anything that can disperse light (like particluate clouds), reflect light (mirrors), or conduct and disperse heat (high-temperature alloys with heat sinks) will prove a good defense against most lasers.

In gaming terms, a pulsed laser deals more damage with the same power supply. A continuous laser deals less damage, but could be used in "auto-fire" mode to strafe across a battlefield, much like a gatling gun.

Lasers would likely be best used as point defense weapons, tracking and shooting down missiles and shells at short range as they come in, or as personal firearms, if you can develop the miniaturization and power technologies to allow it.


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 19, 2006)

Ah...  that's the stuff...


Rock.  On.


----------



## Morgenstern (Sep 20, 2006)

I've been stealing PBartender's brainpower to discuss reactionless (gravitic) drives .

But I still remember gauss gauze "shields" and monolaminates !


----------



## Skrittiblak (Sep 20, 2006)

Yeah, there may have been a lesson 4. Unfortunately only pages 6,7 and 9 could be extracted from Google's Cache. 

It seems page 8 is mysteriously not there.


----------



## hobgoblin (Sep 20, 2006)

wayback machine?
http://web.archive.org/web/*sa_/http://www.enworld.org

i know it says that its stopes at 2005, but for some reason i still get 2006 version pages when i look at it closer...


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 20, 2006)

Morgenstern said:
			
		

> I've been stealing PBartender's brainpower to discuss reactionless (gravitic) drives .




 

Brainpower...    Stolen...

Losing...  Control...

Can't...   Maintain...  Intelligence...

 

*GRAH! PBAR SMASH!*

 



 



			
				Morgenstern said:
			
		

> But I still remember gauss gauze "shields" and monolaminates !




Mmmm...  I still like monolaminates...  It's so much fun to say...

Monolaminate, monolaminate, monolaminate, monolaminate, monolaminate, monolaminate, monolaminate, monolaminate, monolaminate, monolaminate, monolaminate, monolaminate, monolaminate, monolaminate, monolaminate, monolaminate, monolaminate, monolaminate, monolaminate, monolaminate.


----------



## Eltharon (Sep 21, 2006)

Just finished reading this, very interesting. I have sme questions (And I'm just starting AP physics, so forgive any stupidity)

1) How is a binary/liquid propellent "better" then a chemical one? And in most cases, in sci fi, the "advanced" ARs have smaller caliber shots, maybe 4mm. I know that the force of the bullet is more important then its mass, but are the binary propellents that mush more effective?
2) Some form of Partical Accellerator? Will it ever be viable?
3) Railguns--How effective would they be?
4) Lasers. I dont see them ever really making it to the battlefield just because it would be damn hard to keep them running.
5) Plasma guns. Is it possible to contain the plasma in the cartridge, then to keep it reasonably contained while its in flight?

Thanks


----------



## Morgenstern (Sep 21, 2006)

Eltharon said:
			
		

> Just finished reading this, very interesting. I have sme questions (And I'm just starting AP physics, so forgive any stupidity)
> 
> 1) How is a binary/liquid propellent "better" then a chemical one?




Binary or liquid propellants ARE chemical ones. It just proposses that they store/release more energy than gunpowder in a similar volume. The idea is to create a savings in weight - same sized ammo with more kick. In practice you also need better materials for the chambers, or the weapon gets heavier trying to properly contain and focus the energy into the projectile. You also have to consider that kick is kick, and that the weapon may need additional engineering to deal with the Newtonian consequences of a faster/heavier round going one direction... and the gun going the other.



> And in most cases, in sci fi, the "advanced" ARs have smaller caliber shots, maybe 4mm.




That's ussually how they keep the kick to a managable level. Or they may be discusing gauss weapons which have silly-high muzzle velocities. Either way you're looking at increased kinetic energy at delivery, while looking for equal or lesser weight at your end. For serious discussion you then get into questions of armor piercing, energy transfer, over-penetration, and resulting tissue trauma - topics that take on the qualites of religious argument despite the variety of data available...



> I know that the force of the bullet is more important then its mass, but are the binary propellents that mush more effective?




In fiction, yes . I imagine actual binary explosives may generate more joules per cubic cm than gunpowerder, with the appeal being they are more stable/safe than some explosives I know are more potent than gunpowder (which would be suicidal to put into a cartrige). You just have questions of how to mix it thoroughly before detonating it in a tolerable timeframe between pulling the trigger and expecting a bullet to come flying out of the barrel.



> 2) Some form of Partical Accellerator? Will it ever be viable?




Eh... maybe in space, or with certain other advances beyond the scope of current tech. "Helix Particle Beams" in my sci-fi game use paired particle beams of opposing charge to keep both beams coherant over greater distances. Scientific? faintly. It's loosely modeled after the electro/magnetic oscillation of photons (which sounds great on paper ). Plausible _sounding_? Ussually .



> 3) Railguns--How effective would they be?




Exactly as effective as your power supply. Any weapon is bound by how much oomph you can put in/get out. Chemical energy STORES energy very efficiently and can release it in a mostly efficient fashion. If you have uber-batteries, then weapons that run on electricity rather than shaped explosions will give a good acounting of themselves. Otherwise they end u confined to vehicles large enough to have powerplants to put the energy into the weapon.



> 4) Lasers. I dont see them ever really making it to the battlefield just because it would be damn hard to keep them running.




A rugged and reliable field laser isn't that beyond the scope of current engineering I'd say. Its just power issues again. In *Farthest Star* there are personal laser weapons called "Blazers", which is a corruption of "Blast Laser" which refers to them being charged by a chemical reaction rather than an electrical power source... In other words they still consume ammo.



> 5) Plasma guns. Is it possible to contain the plasma in the cartridge, then to keep it reasonably contained while its in flight?




One question would be how do you keep the energy IN the plasma without it bleeding off? Some sort of vacuum (highly insulative) jacketing seems almost a must. So now your ammo is enormous relative to its yield. It seems generally easier (if slightly wasteful in its own way) to put the (thermal) energy charge into the ammo only when you are about to fire it, so it doesn't evaporate before you even shoot.



> Thanks




Well, I hope this offers some ideas . Slug throwers will likely persist in most firm-to-hard sci-fi setting simply because they *are* a very efficient way of transfering killing concentrations of energy from point A to point B.


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 21, 2006)

Eltharon said:
			
		

> 1) How is a binary/liquid propellent "better" then a chemical one? And in most cases, in sci fi, the "advanced" ARs have smaller caliber shots, maybe 4mm. I know that the force of the bullet is more important then its mass, but are the binary propellents that mush more effective?




Like Morg said, binary/liquid propellants ARE chemical propellants.  But...  The chemicals used for them tend to have more stored energy and produce more efficient and more controlled reactions when they explode.  Plus, they tend to be more effective and reliable under adverse conditions...  Underwater, in space, temperature extremes, after long-term storage, etc.



			
				Eltharon said:
			
		

> 2) Some form of Partical Accellerator? Will it ever be viable?




Yes, but by the time you can make a viable particle accelerator weapon, you'll be able to develop other weapons that will be far more useful and effective.



			
				Eltharon said:
			
		

> 3) Railguns--How effective would they be?




Just as effective as any other slug-thrower...  The only difference is the motive force you're using.  As Morg said, the main advantage is that you don't have to rely on chemical propellants.  The main disadvatange is that you have to haul around a sizable generator instead.



			
				Eltharon said:
			
		

> 4) Lasers. I dont see them ever really making it to the battlefield just because it would be damn hard to keep them running.




They've already made it to the battlefield.  The U.S. and the Isrealis already have an experimental anti-missle laser for battlefield use...  It's looks kind of like a futuristic spotlight.



			
				Eltharon said:
			
		

> 5) Plasma guns. Is it possible to contain the plasma in the cartridge, then to keep it reasonably contained while its in flight?




Don't be fooled...  A Plasma Gun is just another name for an Ion Cannon, which is just another name for a Particle Accelerator.  They all work the same way; by using electric and magnetic fields to accelerate charged particles.

And when you think about it, a Rail Gun is just a Particle Accelerator on a macro scale.



			
				Eltharon said:
			
		

> Thanks




My pleasure.


----------



## Eltharon (Sep 22, 2006)

By lasers seeing the battlefield, i meant as standard small arms. They'd be pretty hard to maintain in working order, with all the essential and fragile parts, compared with a normal asssualt rifle. Hell, they;d probably make the original M-16 look reliable in comparison.
 Obviously they could be used for AA and anti missile.
Rail guns...do they have any recoil?

Thanks again.


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 22, 2006)

Eltharon said:
			
		

> By lasers seeing the battlefield, i meant as standard small arms. They'd be pretty hard to maintain in working order, with all the essential and fragile parts, compared with a normal asssualt rifle. Hell, they;d probably make the original M-16 look reliable in comparison.




Not necessarily...  Remember that a laser gun of any sort will have practically no moveable parts, which is a distinct advantage over the M-16 .  And the other parts of a laser don't have to be nearly as delicate as you might think.

The only really fragile part of a laser gun would be the high-precision mirrors used in the resonating cavity.  That's not a real big problem, though, since A) by the time you engineer and build small-arms laser guns, you can certainly engineer and build inexpensive and durable high-precision mirrors, and B) there's already experiemantal laser guns that are designed to simply not use mirrors.

Look here for a good article on lasers as weapons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon

It's also got links to articles about particle beam weapons, and plasma beam weapons.



			
				Eltharon said:
			
		

> Rail guns...do they have any recoil?




Absolutely.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 22, 2006)

Eltharon said:
			
		

> By lasers seeing the battlefield, i meant as standard small arms. They'd be pretty hard to maintain in working order, with all the essential and fragile parts, compared with a normal asssualt rifle.



I wonder if there were Message Boards during the Mediaval times towards the Age of Reason, would some people say "sure, they have these ship cannons - but will they ever have something to replace a good bow or sword? I mean, these things are either big and clunky or highly explosive with fragile mechanics.


----------



## Eltharon (Sep 22, 2006)

Probably


----------



## hobgoblin (Sep 24, 2006)

hell, breach loading cannons where considerd more or less insane at one time iirc.
but that was before they worked out all the issues. now its standard on all warships, even tho one is more and more moving to missiles for ship to ship engagements...


----------

