Future Weapons: ?Wait a minute, this is the future. Where are all the phaser guns?? ? Simon Phoenix

[Nimzabaat]

Wow... There is some serious 'reading too far into things' on here... Surely the whole Harry Potter thing is that it's a book written with a child audience in mind. They were written initially in a way that would imply to a child that this could all be happening and could all exist right now, and they wouldn't know. That's it. Trying to find ways to explain things about it does something Rowling didn't want to do in the first place.

In terms of futuristic weapons, I am always annoyed by the outcome. Why is it always something handheld that you aim at someone and shoot? Why is it not something automated that is just fed some information? We have weapons now that can recognise targets through imagery. We have weapons that can recognise a type of vehicle/target through milimetric radar. We have things that home on radar waves or IR signatures.

Whats to say that in the future a small munition can't home on a mobile phone signal, or to a specific IP address? That they can't recognise a specific car, or even a person? That we will even need to have a person in the vicinity? Wars of the future will be fought with remote/automated weaponry delivered by expendible resilient robots!

Sadly incorrect.

I won't go into details but I said something similar when I was in the army an year ago. My commanding officer laughed at my face and pointed the Electronic Warfare jeep that was parked nearby.

"That thing alone can blanked a square kilometer with so much static and electronic interference that nothing electronic will work."

In an exercise they turned the damn thing on and all the cellphones just shut down and even the mil spec radios threw a tantrum each time someone tried to say something.

In short, Electronic Warfare negates a lot of the advantages modern technology offers.

I once worked on a game concept where it was two player co-op, one player was in a mech suit and the other player played the combat AI. The AI was supposed to managed the whole EW package, defending the other player in the suit and trying to keep their targeting information accurate.

I could get behind a movie/game/book where we went down to a more primitive form of weaponry just because all the electronic defenses became too advanced to deal with. Like Dune, everybody has shields? Well use a knife then.

 

[Therumancer]

-Snippers-

I'm not all that familiar with all of Lucas' notes, but as you noted given the whole God thing that westerners gets so into, I'm not sure I'd call it antithetical to western thought. At least not as a whole, but yeah that's vastly off-topic.

As for Kreia, she was screwed from the get go by the plot regardless and would never have succeeded no matter what. Not unless Star Wars suddenly adopted branching timelines or the likes. I also saw where he got his inspiration from in regards to Order 66. I didn't bring it up because the circumstances aren't quite the same. This was the french kings doing who also got the pope along with him IIRC. Unlike real life, the starwars setting doesn't have a figure like the pope so I don't see why any nation outside the then galactic republic would go along with Order 66(plus the Knights Templar were international with their main powerbase being in France IIRC). I don't doubt it was devastating within the area of Palpatine's control though. It also depends a bit on how the jedi order was organized which I don't know anymore due to the old EU being tossed in the trashbin. If they were heavily centralized with one overarching head then it'd be like cutting the head off of the snake, but if due to the sheer size of the galaxy they were decentralized then it's anyone's guess(I think the Knights Templar were leaning on the former). As for the comments about the arsepull move, that was just bad writing. Nothing else.

Well Star Wars did have an "Emperor" and an army that answered directly to him, once he did away with The Senate he was supposed to be pretty much the supreme authority in the galaxy, though I agree Order 66 logically wouldn't work, but that's sort of my point, it did. Ditto for Obi-Wan's super move. You can only say "bad writing" so many times before it forms a pattern, especially when there is a prophecy in force (they beat you over the head with it), and other statements made. Basically all of those incidents of "bad writing" and "arse pull moments" form a pattern and when you look at the creator's notes, statements, etc... as well as the prophec(ies) which come to pass it's kind of hard to argue with. I mean in KoToR2 it's pretty much explicitly stated that this is what has been going on, and that came from Lucas apparently, so how do you argue with him about his own intent and universe?

I personally suspect that a big part of the reason why he decided to do the latter half of the story and leave it there was because it was the part of his overall vision that would work best for a western audience and didn't feature as many overt elements of pre-destination. In the end the prequel trilogy was a mess in it's own right, but I think you see why he started with "Part IV" because it shows the universe isn't exactly what you thought based entirely on the next few chapters. It basically killed a lot of "space fantasy" dreams among fans, showed Darth Vader to be a mixed up, fate-battling kid who got a raw deal and was doomed from the start as opposed to a powerful, iconic, maleovolent overlord (the quintessential space bad guy), and of course explained that Jedi needed a specific potential (to be chosen) no matter how it was measured, rather than something anyone could be with the right training and opportunities.

The relatively optimistic nature of the original trilogy sort of set a tone that was hard for audiences to reconcile with the first part of the story, and world building that had not previously taken place, the original trilogy existing in a of vacuum of sorts.

Now, I'm not saying it won't be better for Disney to continue on in the spirit of the original trilogy and more or less ignore the prequels entirely, I'm mostly pointing out that to understand Star Wars as it is now you have to understand how that universe works, it's deliberately defined in a way that our standards of "logic" don't apply to in terms of what weapons should be able to do, and how technology is going to develop. The concepts work to keep it fairly stagnant. It's also why people don't run around gunning down Jedi with guns that fire gyrojets or contact grenades or whatever. The Force dictates no one will ever think of all the lovely weapons and tactics we do. Why use a giant walker that can be tripped, and has easily exploitable vulnerabilities through maitnence hatches as opposed to more common sense weapons like say... Grav tanks? Because The Force says so, I guess it thinks the spectacle of the "mech" is far superior to an equally sized gun-brick (a tank). Sure if The Empire had invested in a handful of Bolos they would have taken Hoth easily but that wasn't what The Force Wanted... and it looked cooler.

 

[Iron_will]

I'm honestly surprised the ships for the The Culture series or the Lensmans series hasn't been mentioned in terms of utterly ridiculously powerful space warship capabilities.

Okay, I have to admit, I haven't actually read them (might read the Lensman books soon). I only read their TV Tropes pages but still.

Princess Leia is shown getting shot in the shoulder and it is only a minor injury.

If I recall correctly, they attacked and boarded the ship Leia was on intent on capturing her. So whoever made that shot probably reduced his weapon's energy output in order not to kill her (which would be bad).

TLDR: What are some of your favorite/least favorite science fiction weapons? Do you have any ideas for some that you would like to share?

Mmm, if the Death Star counts, then certainly it; the energy required to blow up an Earth-sized planet is absolutely gargantuan and that's not counting in how it overloaded Alderaan's planetary shield defence effortlessly.

Gotta say, I'm open to all types of weapons in my science fiction. It just has to be cool. Though admittedly I quite like me some kinetic weaponry. I'll take that railgun assault rifle (railrifle?) in a heartbeat.

When it comes down to it there's not much difference to a kinetic, missile, laser, or particle beam weaponry.
A laser can be just as effective an a railgun. Which weapon system is stronger (specifically stronger, ignoring other issues) entirely depends on how much energy it can impart onto its target.

I'm actually dreading a small-arms laser IRL the most, since even if it somehow misses and it doesn't kill you it will blind you.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Princess Leia is shown getting shot in the shoulder and it is only a minor injury.

If I recall correctly, they attacked and boarded the ship Leia was on intent on capturing her. So whoever made that shot probably reduced his weapon's energy output in order not to kill her (which would be bad).

I mean in Return of the Jedi. In front of the bunker on Endor, Leia gets shot in the shoulder, Han Solo grabs her boob and then moves her (that was so funny when I first saw it). Anyways the injury doesn't slow her down much.

 

[Iron_will]

Princess Leia is shown getting shot in the shoulder and it is only a minor injury.

If I recall correctly, they attacked and boarded the ship Leia was on intent on capturing her. So whoever made that shot probably reduced his weapon's energy output in order not to kill her (which would be bad).

I mean in Return of the Jedi. In front of the bunker on Endor, Leia gets shot in the shoulder, Han Solo grabs her boob and then moves her (that was so funny when I first saw it). Anyways the injury doesn't slow her down much.

Huh, I guess I remembered wrongly then. Been some time since I last saw the movies.

 

[Thaluikhain]

When it comes down to it there's not much difference to a kinetic, missile, laser, or particle beam weaponry.

Er...except for little details like laser beams traveling at light speed (in vacuum), and missiles being able to re-aim themselves en route and so on.

I'm actually dreading a small-arms laser IRL the most, since even if it somehow misses and it doesn't kill you it will blind you.

Hey? What do you mean? You mean that if you look at the spot that does get hit? Yeah, that's a serious issue, arc-eye never gets mentioned.

 

[Iron_will]

When it comes down to it there's not much difference to a kinetic, missile, laser, or particle beam weaponry.

Er...except for little details like laser beams traveling at light speed (in vacuum), and missiles being able to re-aim themselves en route and so on.

Yeah, you're right.
I actually meant that in the end, they're all the same in that they're all used to kill.

I'm actually dreading a small-arms laser IRL the most, since even if it somehow misses and it doesn't kill you it will blind you.

Hey? What do you mean? You mean that if you look at the spot that does get hit? Yeah, that's a serious issue, arc-eye never gets mentioned.

Yeah, "By definition, a class 4 laser can burn the skin, or cause devastating and permanent eye damage as a result of direct, diffuse or indirect beam viewing."
Hell, they'll probably create a new class entry once those really high-powered military lasers come into service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_safety#Class_4

Then there's also the battery of the laser system (if it uses one). If it contains enough energy to severely injure a person, then its battery must also be very dangerous. Of course, I'm sure it would be designed so it wouldn't detonate on a whim.
I pity the poor soldier who has his battery explode on him.

 

[EmpReb]

I have my own personal space Sci-Fi story I have been working on for a long time(going to get that first draft done this year). But I have three main anti Personnel Weapon system in it.

Advance Convention Weapons. Think the G11 on steroid and you have an idea of the standard issue rifle that marines and military have in the universe. But also our current weapon platforms just with about 700 years tech improvements(IE no jamming). Bullets work for a lot of reasons but mostly because they abide now by the KISS rule.

Handheld Rail Gun systems. Really if you did it right you could have rail gun system fire a bullet at subsonic speeds and be much quieter than the current suppressed weapons we have now but you could also make BEASTLY sniper rifles that could and would be a threat to anything with out a shield. They do fill a lot roles and are more of Spec Ops weapons in that they are high tech things that do great at their job but EMPs and more complex require more than just pure physical mechanics to work.

Kinetic Energy Systems/Direct Energy Systems. Really this is where star wars like energy bolt come in. They act like light but will physical hit like a bullet when impacting but with a MUCH greater force than you could get in even in hundreds of bullets. Also will just cause plasma of the hit material to happen cause its direct energy hitting then transferring into the target. Also this group of weapons cover the Thermal lasers, Microwave beams and X-ray lasers that well think of flamethrowers but focus. These are the high end stuff but they are really expensive/ not durable for infantry combat.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I actually meant that in the end, they're all the same in that they're all used to kill.

Ah, fair enough.

Yeah, "By definition, a class 4 laser can burn the skin, or cause devastating and permanent eye damage as a result of direct, diffuse or indirect beam viewing."
Hell, they'll probably create a new class entry once those really high-powered military lasers come into service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_safety#Class_4

Then there's also the battery of the laser system (if it uses one). If it contains enough energy to severely injure a person, then its battery must also be very dangerous. Of course, I'm sure it would be designed so it wouldn't detonate on a whim.
I pity the poor soldier who has his battery explode on him.

There's also issues of using nasty chemicals, stuff you don't want to play with in chemical lasers.

OTOH...read a science fiction story which briefly mentioned a bunker with a chemical laser in it...and they vented the fluorine to the outside of the bunker as a nasty surprise for anyone trying to attack them.

Handheld Rail Gun systems. Really if you did it right you could have rail gun system fire a bullet at subsonic speeds and be much quieter than the current suppressed weapons we have now but you could also make BEASTLY sniper rifles that could and would be a threat to anything with out a shield. They do fill a lot roles and are more of Spec Ops weapons in that they are high tech things that do great at their job but EMPs and more complex require more than just pure physical mechanics to work.

Dunno about this. You can get impressively suppressed weapons nowdays as it is, the loudest part of the MP5S firing is the action being cycled, not the bullet being fired.

Also, sure you could make a sniper railgun. Only, current sniper rifles are very impressive as it is.

Artillery, however, there's a lot of room for railguns to really improve there.

 

[VeneratedWulfen93]

Alot of mentions of 40k Imperial tech but non of the mad-ass xeno-tech. Like Necron (Not actually Gauss) Gauss rifles which strip people down layer by layer, shredding their molecules until there is nothing left. Dark Eldar Dark Lances which fire "un-light", a supposed spectrum of light that shouldn't exist in real space so reacts catastrophically with any matter that a beam hits. Eldar Distortion weapons that form hell portals inside people. I freaking love how crazy it is.

Between all of them I'd say either Necrons or Eldar have the most advanced tech while still being effective within a military role.

That being said I have a great appreciation for the fluff and novels that depict imperial guard and they have an understanding of how actual military matters occur. More so if they are fighting something that their tactics actually work on, like renegades or what have you. Havn't read a BL novel that is about guard fighting Eldar, wonder if their is a market for it.

 

[Axzarious]

I've managed to read most of this thread now, and I see a lot of comments on the ineffectiveness of lasers. I remember seeing a breakdown of what actual military grade lasers would be like. Pretty much the only issue they would have would be the sheer energy requirements needed to produce the effect. This also included a lot on things like how actual space combat would play out. I'll try to find the link and post it later on.

In regards to lasers - They wouldn't cauterize. The heat would actually cause the moisture in the target to flash-convert into steam. The end result is a big gory mess. Not to mention the heat generated would set fire to flammables/melt substances as well as effect a much wider area beyond the actual 'beam' fired. I can't remember the exact calculations, but the 'radius' of the effected area around 'radius' of the laser beam increased exponentially (If memory serves. For example, a 1ft diameter laser would effect things another 10 feet beyond that. Probably incorrect calculation though).

In regards to bolters? Weren't the 'bolts' self propelled in a manner kind of like rocket launchers, and have very little recoil? I seem to remember them being described that way, and in a sense they were something like a machine gun that fires miniature rockets that are designed to explode shortly after impact or on impact if they don't pierce. (Though this was a few editions ago - it might have been retconned.)


If you really want to get technical, Space combat would be fought from light years away - and even then, it would probably be impossible to properly dodge a shot (Hey, light speed stuff. You see it, you're probably hit.) Space is represented with woeful inaccuracy. It isn't cold in space - or rather, it isn't the unimaginably empty void itself that is cold so much as what is within it. If you put a hot plate of metal in space it would retain that heat for a long, long time. Heat needs a medium to transfer. The primary issue for any spacecraft would be getting rid of excess heat. In addition to all that, anything that emits heat would also be very easy to find if memory serves. What kills a person in space is the general lack of atmospheric pressure and the air required to breath (Well, save for things like paint flakes or what have you travelling at high speeds that can kill somebody unlucky enough to be hit by one if unprotected.)

 

[Thaluikhain]

In regards to bolters? Weren't the 'bolts' self propelled in a manner kind of like rocket launchers, and have very little recoil? I seem to remember them being described that way, and in a sense they were something like a machine gun that fires miniature rockets that are designed to explode shortly after impact or on impact if they don't pierce. (Though this was a few editions ago - it might have been retconned.)

They work like soft launch missiles.

You fire the gun, and small amount of propellant pushes the thing out of the barrel, so there's little recoil.

Once the bolt is clear, the rockets ignite, propelling it to the target. There's a small explosive charge to allow the bolt to penetrate, and then a large main charge to go off when it does.

Interestingly, this means that the recoil felt by the firer is much less than the force felt by the target. Normally, you can send people flying by shooting them without the recoil sending the firer (or similar size) flying in the other direction...the Noisy Cricket from MiB was actually one of the better depictions. But because the bolt accelerates after leaving the barrel, and explodes when it hits the target, it might work for bolters. Especially if used by a giant marine in big heavy armour, shooting at a normal human, I guess.

Also, since it's a rocket, it will be slower at point blank range than further out.

Space combat would be fought from light years away

No. Nooooooo. A light year is the distance in which light (such as a laser beam) takes a year to reach. Way, way too far to engage at. The next star to Sol is only 4 or so light years away. The war might be over before the first shots reach, you won't be able to aim at that distance, the beam will disperse a lot, and if the enemy maneuvers at all in a few years, you've missed.

Oh, one other thing with lasers.

What's the best way to defend yourself against laser beams? Be reflective, like a giant mirror.
What's the best way to ensure everyone knows where you are? Be reflective, like a giant mirror.

ETA: Oh, and you don't know you are being shot at by a laser until it has hit you. If it misses you don't know you have been shot at...unless you ware watching the firer closer and can tell that it fired, but you can only see this at the same time the laser would have reached you.

 

[Axzarious]

No. Nooooooo. A light year is the distance in which light (such as a laser beam) takes a year to reach. Way, way too far to engage at. The next star to Sol is only 4 or so light years away. The war might be over before the first shots reach, you won't be able to aim at that distance, the beam will disperse a lot, and if the enemy maneuvers at all in a few years, you've missed.

Oh, one other thing with lasers.

What's the best way to defend yourself against laser beams? Be reflective, like a giant mirror.
What's the best way to ensure everyone knows where you are? Be reflective, like a giant mirror.

ETA: Oh, and you don't know you are being shot at by a laser until it has hit you. If it misses you don't know you have been shot at...unless you ware watching the firer closer and can tell that it fired, but you can only see this at the same time the laser would have reached you.

I derped about the distance there. Distances from earth to or the moon or the sun or mars though? Completely feasible.

Mirrors wouldn't be an adequate defense against the heat output against a laser feasible as your traditional laser rifle or lightsaber. First of all, Mirrors tend to only reflect certain frequencies, and they still absorb heat. Mirrors aren't perfect and have imperfections which wouldn't help reflecting adequately, which would just snowball the mirror's demise. The effect would be compounded by any dust or dirt that might be on the mirror, and if it's tarnished any? - All of that assumes that the laser is in the spectrum the mirror is able to reflect.

Hypothetically laser weapon could work, but it has to get past a lot of physics first, and then the oodles of energy required to actually produce something usable. A gatling gun that fires rockets would probably use less energy than a laser pistol.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I derped about the distance there. Distances from earth to or the moon or the sun or mars though? Completely feasible.

Well, depends what kind of combat you mean. The time a laser beam fired from Earth would take to reach the Sun (8 min) or Mars (depends on the orbits) is less than the time than an ICBM launched from the USSR would take to hit the US. Still takes a while.

The Moon in just over a second...there's a mirror put on the Moon so people can bounce lasers off it, find out how long it takes to return, and thus accurately determine how far away it is. If you can hit a mirror with a laser, you can hit other things.

Mirrors wouldn't be an adequate defense against the heat output against a laser feasible as your traditional laser rifle or lightsaber. First of all, Mirrors tend to only reflect certain frequencies, and they still absorb heat. Mirrors aren't perfect and have imperfections which wouldn't help reflecting adequately, which would just snowball the mirror's demise. The effect would be compounded by any dust or dirt that might be on the mirror, and if it's tarnished any? - All of that assumes that the laser is in the spectrum the mirror is able to reflect.

Oh sure, was thinking something much more high tech. Currently there's nothing that would work, but then currently there's no need for it. I'd imagine something would be developed if there was a need for it.

Hypothetically laser weapon could work, but it has to get past a lot of physics first, and then the oodles of energy required to actually produce something usable. A gatling gun that fires rockets would probably use less energy than a laser pistol.

Yeah, that problem isn't going to go away. All very well to have a cool sci-fi weapon that works, only someone is likely to have a boring old conventional weapon that's cheaper and works better. For that matter, by the time laser guns are around, they won't be sci-fi anymore.

OTOH, if for some reason you had a high powered laser, and you didn't have a firearm...

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Oh sure, was thinking something much more high tech. Currently there's nothing that would work, but then currently there's no need for it. I'd imagine something would be developed if there was a need for it.

Actually a laser works under similar principles to the modern RPG. The reason the modern RPG works is because the pressure of the head during the detonation of the rocket causes huge pressure and heat forcing a powerful jet of molten metal outward, it literally melts through the armor to explode within using the sudden influx of super heated metal to destroy the interior.

A military laser works by (i imagine) applying intense heat to a certain area to make the location molten and eventually penetrate.

Against people the armor solution isnt apparent. But a laser seems like a terrible anti armor solution. The RPG works because the molten metal is put under IMMENSE pressure to continue pushing through the thick armor of the tank. With a laser theres nothing to push through the armor that is made molten, you just have a load of gooy armor best case scenario and no way to transfer the heat efficiently through it. Unless the laser was ludicrously powerful, thick tungsten alloy will just heat up, with the only way to get the killing potential INTO the tank to cook them to death. If the laser isnt powerful enough to do anything but make a thick maple syrup out of thick tungsten then it doesnt really have any way to bypass the metal, molten or not. A laser that just cuts right through like butter is the ideal scenario, but thats a crazy level of power over such a distance. Anything less than that and you gotta wait for the goopy armor to fall off until you can get inside. And the true weakness of the laser is needing continuous application to reach a high enough heat to do damage. Although at those heats, unless the tank moves away the interior would probably be a godawful place to be assuming it melts tungsten in the slightest.

White obviously absorbs the least infrared so that colour would be better (ironically for the storm troopers that actually makes sense) but camouflage is so much more important that it probably wouldnt factor.

HOWEVER. This would require a somewhat different armor to properly defend against compared to an RPG. You could simply scissor your opponant. Build tanks to resist RPG fire? Lasers! Resist lasers? RPG fire! This would of course need lasers to pose a significant threat in the first place. And even modern tanks cant resist direct RPG fire, the main downside being the terrible inaccuracy of most readily available RPG models. And an RPG is a world of cheapy cheap compared to a laser. And then we get to your last point which is totally correct. RPG, easy to make, no massive loss to chuck away if broken.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Actually a laser works under similar principles to the modern RPG.

Err...

The reason the modern RPG works is because the pressure of the head during the detonation of the rocket causes huge pressure and heat forcing a powerful jet of molten metal outward, it literally melts through the armor to explode within using the sudden influx of super heated metal to destroy the interior.

A military laser works by (i imagine) applying intense heat to a certain area to make the location molten and eventually penetrate.

Ah, ok, HEAT warheads and lasers could be comparable, I guess, excepting you're next point.

Against people the armor solution isnt apparent. But a laser seems like a terrible anti armor solution. The RPG works because the molten metal is put under IMMENSE pressure to continue pushing through the thick armor of the tank. With a laser theres nothing to push through the armor that is made molten, you just have a load of gooy armor best case scenario and no way to transfer the heat efficiently through it. Unless the laser was ludicrously powerful, thick tungsten alloy will just heat up, with the only way to get the killing potential INTO the tank to cook them to death. If the laser isnt powerful enough to do anything but make a thick maple syrup out of thick tungsten then it doesnt really have any way to bypass the metal, molten or not. A laser that just cuts right through like butter is the ideal scenario, but thats a crazy level of power over such a distance. Anything less than that and you gotta wait for the goopy armor to fall off until you can get inside. And the true weakness of the laser is needing continuous application to reach a high enough heat to do damage. Although at those heats, unless the tank moves away the interior would probably be a godawful place to be assuming it melts tungsten in the slightest.

Very important point, generally overlooked.

Actually, though, you don't need to melt through the armour, play the beam over the hull and you'll mess all sorts of things up (especially periscopes...if you can hit one one those...). Won't destroy the tank, but you could put it out of action and cause a huge repair bill.

White obviously absorbs the least infrared so that colour would be better (ironically for the storm troopers that actually makes sense) but camouflage is so much more important that it probably wouldnt factor.

Not necessarily. Visible light, yes, but not necessarily the rest of the spectrum...unless you mean white in infrared.

HOWEVER. This would require a somewhat different armor to properly defend against compared to an RPG. You could simply scissor your opponant. Build tanks to resist RPG fire? Lasers! Resist lasers? RPG fire! This would of course need lasers to pose a significant threat in the first place.

Not sure, tanks are designed to resist a number of different attacks, though requiring one more in the design would certainly complicate things.

 

[small]

My main issue with the pulse rifles is that they supposedly hold 99 10mm rounds in those magazines. Um...ok.

Well the G11 Assault Rifle uses caseless ammunition and fits 50 rounds in a much smaller magazine than the pulse rifle. Caseless ammunition stacks a whole lot more neatly it seems. Also, the Calico SMG fits 100 rounds of 9 mm into a pretty compact magazine as well. It's not the most implausible thing.

Note on the G11, it was a completely useless prototype that for good fucking reason never went into production. The lack of casing meant the heat from the gun would very quickly start igniting other bullets and the gun would suddenly because an uncontrollable full automatic monster. The problem was reduced a tad, but hardly fixed.

actually they changed the propellant used for the caseless rounds and it ended up taking 100C more than a regular round to cook off. it was only due to having to rearm the new combined german army that it was dropped due to being too expensive at the time.

space engineers is an interesting game to play around with developing weapons from armour piercing torpedos, boarding pods designed to smash through the outer hull of a ship, gravity asist mass drivers, through to giant ass claw and chain designed to grab a ship.

personally i wont be happy until i blow one of the default ships completely in half from 500 m.

 

[Thaluikhain]

My main issue with the pulse rifles is that they supposedly hold 99 10mm rounds in those magazines. Um...ok.

Well the G11 Assault Rifle uses caseless ammunition and fits 50 rounds in a much smaller magazine than the pulse rifle. Caseless ammunition stacks a whole lot more neatly it seems. Also, the Calico SMG fits 100 rounds of 9 mm into a pretty compact magazine as well. It's not the most implausible thing.

Note on the G11, it was a completely useless prototype that for good fucking reason never went into production. The lack of casing meant the heat from the gun would very quickly start igniting other bullets and the gun would suddenly because an uncontrollable full automatic monster. The problem was reduced a tad, but hardly fixed.

actually they changed the propellant used for the caseless rounds and it ended up taking 100C more than a regular round to cook off. it was only due to having to rearm the new combined german army that it was dropped due to being too expensive at the time.

Well, yes, but then they later upgraded their service rifle to the G36. At any time, changing to a weapon that doesn't use NATO standard ammunition is going to be a pain.

 

[small]

My main issue with the pulse rifles is that they supposedly hold 99 10mm rounds in those magazines. Um...ok.

Well the G11 Assault Rifle uses caseless ammunition and fits 50 rounds in a much smaller magazine than the pulse rifle. Caseless ammunition stacks a whole lot more neatly it seems. Also, the Calico SMG fits 100 rounds of 9 mm into a pretty compact magazine as well. It's not the most implausible thing.

Note on the G11, it was a completely useless prototype that for good fucking reason never went into production. The lack of casing meant the heat from the gun would very quickly start igniting other bullets and the gun would suddenly because an uncontrollable full automatic monster. The problem was reduced a tad, but hardly fixed.

actually they changed the propellant used for the caseless rounds and it ended up taking 100C more than a regular round to cook off. it was only due to having to rearm the new combined german army that it was dropped due to being too expensive at the time.

Well, yes, but then they later upgraded their service rifle to the G36. At any time, changing to a weapon that doesn't use NATO standard ammunition is going to be a pain.

oh totally agree with that. not using nato standard ammo would of made logistics a nightmare in the advent of a soviet invasion of west germany.

they were planning to use the G11 with front line troops and the G41 with the second line infantry but when the costs were worked out both were dropped for the G36, which has turned out to be very effective the last i heard.

still its an interesting what if?

 

[Thaluikhain]

oh totally agree with that. not using nato standard ammo would of made logistics a nightmare in the advent of a soviet invasion of west germany.

they were planning to use the G11 with front line troops and the G41 with the second line infantry but when the costs were worked out both were dropped for the G36, which has turned out to be very effective the last i heard.

still its an interesting what if?

Oh, that reminds me...shortly after saying the line in the thread title, Phoenix finds a futuristic weapon, which was based on a resin mockup of a G11. Only time most people are likely to see one, is when Wesley Snipes shoots up a museum.