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

[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.

 

[Serioli]

With respect to Star Wars, as a military weapon it may be that the blasters are designed to injure. A corpse is 150 or so pounds of meat that needs to be disposed of. An injured person is 150 pounds of screaming morale drain that will need at least one person to remove them from the battlefield and further care afterwards. Less weapon power also means greater ammo capacity, I know the games have ammo counters but with respect to the films do blasters have 50 rounds, 500 or could they keep firing for a year non-stop?

You win a battle by stopping the other side fighting. Killing everyone is one way, scaring them into surrender is another and chewing up all their resources is another.

As an Empire I have a stupid amount of troops and an entire support network. Rebels will often be on technologically disadvantaged worlds, in hiding, having to find supplies and support through black market methods. Whether they end up being 'light' or 'dark' I strongly believe the Empire would win.

 

[Thaluikhain]

With respect to Star Wars, as a military weapon it may be that the blasters are designed to injure. A corpse is 150 or so pounds of meat that needs to be disposed of. An injured person is 150 pounds of screaming morale drain that will need at least one person to remove them from the battlefield and further care afterwards.

Doesn't work like that.

A landmine or booby trap out in the middle of the jungle? Sure, makes perfect sense there...because there's no immediate threat. You've got a lot more leeway.

But in an actual battle, you are trying to kill your opponents, because they are trying to kill you. You can't afford to muck about trying merely to wound people, you need to end the threat right now.

Now, you might occasionally try to wound, but giving your troops as their standard issue weapon something that won't reliably kill their opponent? Terrible idea.

 

[Serioli]

Doesn't work like that.

A landmine or booby trap out in the middle of the jungle? Sure, makes perfect sense there...because there's no immediate threat. You've got a lot more leeway.

But in an actual battle, you are trying to kill your opponents, because they are trying to kill you. You can't afford to muck about trying merely to wound people, you need to end the threat right now.

Now, you might occasionally try to wound, but giving your troops as their standard issue weapon something that won't reliably kill their opponent? Terrible idea.

You're thinking on an individual level. If I were a soldier on the ground I would absolutely agree.

I am not thinking as a soldier, I am thinking as a government and an evil one with a clone army to boot. I have superior numbers to counter those that die. I have advanced medicine with clone troops (and corpses) that can freely donate blood and organs to each other. While you wouldn't go so far as to train troops to injure, (Aim centre body on humans and similar), smaller/less powerful weapons that miss centre are more likely to incapacitate and injure rather than kill and lead to a situation I detailed above.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I am not thinking as a soldier, I am thinking as a government and an evil one with a clone army to boot. I have superior numbers to counter those that die. I have advanced medicine with clone troops (and corpses) that can freely donate blood and organs to each other. While you wouldn't go so far as to train troops to injure, (Aim centre body on humans and similar), smaller/less powerful weapons that miss centre are more likely to incapacitate and injure rather than kill and lead to a situation I detailed above.

Hmmm...alright, but then why not train to do that as well?

 

[Serioli]

Hmmm...alright, but then why not train to do that as well?

For the same reason you train to hit centre mass rather than going for a head shot, even on unarmoured opponents. There is a greater leeway if you are off-target. E.g. on my own skinny body* I have, (VERY approx), 7 inches left & right, greater leeway up & down. Compare that to 3 inches left and right, 5 1/2 inches up and great leeway down for centre head. Aiming for limbs would have even less leeway.


*Not including arms.

 

[Thaluikhain]

For the same reason you train to hit centre mass rather than going for a head shot, even on unarmoured opponents.

Fair enough.

Going back a bit, though, when has the Empire fought the rebels in such a way that the logistics of wounding made sense? They always seem (at least in the movies) to be out to outright crush their enemies as fast as possible. Exception of taking prisoners in the beginning of the first film, and letting them go again afterwards.

Unless the bureaucracy is very big and things like that get overlooked, I could well imagine that.

 

[BarkBarker]

I would just like to say that I despise the idea that in the future say 100 years from now they still use basic weaponry just buffed up rather than approach it logically with the advances in technology. Using bullets in the future? WHY would we still use bullets given 100 maybe even 1000 years of technological advancements? Better yet, why would I use a laser gun? Where are my rare materials from other planets that are volatile beyond comparison, why don't I have weapons that say even for a silly example have some introduction of ceasium which is wholesomely volatile when in contact with water, to the point it shatters a bathtub? I could just pop people and maybe buildings with some rock and spit, hows that for weaponry?! Where are my satellite weapons that destabilize the cores of planets and turn it into a molten fiery timebomb of death? Why can't I use this teleporter launcher to make his brain displace 5 feet away from him but not the rest of him? And how has science found ways to counter these weapons? Why do we see people get hit bit lasers once and die in a future where they have been around for centuries? What everbody was just having fun and forgot about defense? Please, use your imagination.

 

[Serioli]

Fair enough.

Going back a bit, though, when has the Empire fought the rebels in such a way that the logistics of wounding made sense? They always seem (at least in the movies) to be out to outright crush their enemies as fast as possible. Exception of taking prisoners in the beginning of the first film, and letting them go again afterwards.

Unless the bureaucracy is very big and things like that get overlooked, I could well imagine that.

Getting into areas of larger speculation about wider population now....

When the troops go in, they go in hard but from the perspective of achieving the target. They don't care if the rebels run, surrender or are killed. They only care that they took the objective in the way they want. If they don't need a sat array, destroy it heavy handed. Need an area that has troops? It's better to capture or drive off the opposition. An enemy that surrenders /runs after 50% casualties is a hell of a lot easier than an enemy that will fight to the death.

You can also look at longer term implications. Are you more likely to join the Rebellion knowing that uncle Bekten died gloriously for the cause, fighting the evil empire that kills people or knowing that uncle Bekten was hit in the shoulder, lied in agony until he was evacuated and lost his arm to infection. It took a few years to get a replacement arm during which time he split with your aunt and started using death sticks? It's been really hard on your mum and dad....

 

[Thaluikhain]

I would just like to say that I despise the idea that in the future say 100 years from now they still use basic weaponry just buffed up rather than approach it logically with the advances in technology. Using bullets in the future? WHY would we still use bullets given 100 maybe even 1000 years of technological advancements?

Because they work?

There are weapons dating from the WW1 that are in use today. The Colt 1911, the Browning Hi-Power, the Browning .50 Calibre Machine gun (and the .50BMG ammunition which is now NATO standard), the M1919 Browning (though it just missed the war), for example. And others not invented by JM Browning. People still are killed by knives all the time.

Now, sure, we are likely to see all sorts of weird weapons in the next 100 years. But firearms are unlikely to disappear.

Getting into areas of larger speculation about wider population now....

When the troops go in, they go in hard but from the perspective of achieving the target. They don't care if the rebels run, surrender or are killed. They only care that they took the objective in the way they want. If they don't need a sat array, destroy it heavy handed. Need an area that has troops? It's better to capture or drive off the opposition. An enemy that surrenders /runs after 50% casualties is a hell of a lot easier than an enemy that will fight to the death.

You can also look at longer term implications. Are you more likely to join the Rebellion knowing that uncle Bekten died gloriously for the cause, fighting the evil empire that kills people or knowing that uncle Bekten was hit in the shoulder, lied in agony until he was evacuated and lost his arm to infection. It took a few years to get a replacement arm during which time he split with your aunt and started using death sticks. It's been really hard on your mum and dad....

Again, doesn't seem to be how they work. Board a starship, don't let anyone out. Attack an ice planet, don't let anyone out. Set an ambush on a forest moon, don't let anyone out. Now, they tend not to get that part right, but it seems the idea was to totally eliminate all enemy forces.

Also, I'm not seeing any parallels with the real world. Been lots of nasty regimes with interesting ideas on how to fight, but nobody seems to have gone for trying to not kill the enemy in a battle.

 

[BarkBarker]

I would just like to say that I despise the idea that in the future say 100 years from now they still use basic weaponry just buffed up rather than approach it logically with the advances in technology. Using bullets in the future? WHY would we still use bullets given 100 maybe even 1000 years of technological advancements?

Because they work?

There are weapons dating from the WW1 that are in use today. The Colt 1911, the Browning Hi-Power, the Browning .50 Calibre Machine gun (and the .50BMG ammunition which is now NATO standard), the M1919 Browning (though it just missed the war), for example. And others not invented by JM Browning. People still are killed by knives all the time.

Now, sure, we are likely to see all sorts of weird weapons in the next 100 years. But firearms are unlikely to disappear.

Firearms? Yeah, sure why not. I have no problem with seeing someone firing a gun, I have a problem with the concept of a future where everything else has advanced and the weapons are still based upon bullet logic when they aren't appropriate anymore. This is more noticeable when they try using standard bullet weaponry on creatures that bullets are wholesomely useless at, piercing weaponry are not the end all of weaponry, they are good against flesh and the difference in flesh changes the power needs of a piercing based weapon to be effective. How SHARP would a knife have to become to cut through the armors of the future a millenia from now? Pretty fucking sharp, or it'd be useless, don't fix what ain't broken, but don't refuse the leaps and bounds of technology in a millenia to favour weapons that are primarily based around the creatures of the Earth and their current state. Guns came about as a superior weapon to swords, what comes after the guns in the future? How big and powerful a gun do I need to even stand a chance against a fucking starship in the lower atmosphere? a rocket launcher wouldn't cut it, you'd need something new, something wholesomely more powerful to equal the power and scale of the new weapons of war.

Efficiency in killing 20 men with a single shot of this sci-fi weapon over single target. Applications of the new technology to create new ways to fight rather than just keep going in ONE single skill tree. Why are we still having a shoot out in rooms when we should surely have ample access to weapons that could annihilate any biomass in a given space? And what about mechanical enemies? They have developed a counter to the EMP and weapons based around the destruction of a complex organism, what do we got against them now? giant simple organisms that bullets do fuck all to, you find a new weapon or maybe you try something else, the classic insect like alien while cliche brings up the point that our guns are for killing complex life forms that cease to function should damage to be taken, loads of sci-fi movies often have people unloading endless amounts of bullets trying to kill a creature that LAUGHS at bullets, where is my weapon that focuses primarily on blunt kinect force, I can't pierce it but I can sure smash its skull in from the outside.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I disagree that Jedi can not block bullets, as seen in the prequels they can move very fast, IE blurry, simply apply that to their blocking capability and they can move fast enough to block and dodge income bullets.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I disagree that Jedi can not block bullets, as seen in the prequels they can move very fast, IE blurry, simply apply that to their blocking capability and they can move fast enough to block and dodge income bullets.

How fast is "very fast", though? Just because someone can move "very fast" doesn't automatically mean they are fast enough.

A 5.56mm bullet can travel at more than 900m/s. So, at 100m range, they have 0.1 seconds (rounding down) before the bullet reaches them. To see the bullet, recognise it (5.56mm across and less than 25mm long at 100m) as a threat, determine where it's going and where the lightsabre has to be to block it.

If they could move anywhere near that fast, you'd not be able to see a lightsabre fight at all.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I disagree that Jedi can not block bullets, as seen in the prequels they can move very fast, IE blurry, simply apply that to their blocking capability and they can move fast enough to block and dodge income bullets.

How fast is "very fast", though? Just because someone can move "very fast" doesn't automatically mean they are fast enough.

A 5.56mm bullet can travel at more than 900m/s. So, at 100m range, they have 0.1 seconds (rounding down) before the bullet reaches them. To see the bullet, recognise it (5.56mm across and less than 25mm long at 100m) as a threat, determine where it's going and where the lightsabre has to be to block it.

If they could move anywhere near that fast, you'd not be able to see a lightsabre fight at all.

If its blurry to the human eye, its fast enough to upgrade the fiction to be able to block bullets. You also forget the precognitive ability of force uses who basically should be able see the projectory of the bullets as well, add speed you can block all kinds of things. They do not use it in the fiction because they do not have to but if push came to shove it could be easily done IMO.


TLR: Anime