Poll: Railguns or Lasers: which do you prefer
- Thread starter Nerdstar
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Lasers have the whole 'space age' vibe going for them, but I reckon there's still something primally satisfying about shooting a large metal spike at some poor bugger.
As much as railguns are the new "hip" thing for Sci-fi, I still have to go with lasers.
There's a very good reason, too.
There's a very good reason, too.
Empire in da haus, y'all.
Layin' it down.
P and double-U to the N to the D.
Layin' it down.
P and double-U to the N to the D.
See, that's part of the problem... gauss guns (or rather, coilguns) are (per unit of energy input) far less efficient than railguns. Being based on a stack of electromagnets, it requires a longer 'barrel' for projectile acceleration and its terminal velocity is limited severely by how much heat the system can take. Railguns are designed specifically to deal with that problem. That and energy loss from transfer from system to system (i.e. electrical to magnetic to kinetic) makes it even worse.S1leNt RIP said:
Sorry to put a downer on it mate! Though if you're thinking of Necron technology in 40K fandom, then I'm all for it, even if I prefer the Particle Whip!
Oh I see what you did thar...Kiltguy said:Just feel the word as they roll of your lips... rail-gun.
It has more impact than laser.
Railguns, definitely. The reasons were pretty damn well explained before I even saw this thread existed. Also, the use of magnetic fields leads to less moving parts, which leads to easier maintenance, which leads to happy engineers.
My opinion does change a little when we are talking about spaaace though. I don't like the idea of misses that just keep going and going and going. Like in the quote, if you fire that thing you are fucking someone's day up somewhere. Maybe an enemy. Maybe a friend. Maybe someone you didn't even know existed, but their buddies are not going to be impressed. Meanwhile lasers have less of an issue with diffusion in a vacuum. They still need to be focused on a point for too long though, will be difficult to aim without a visible beam, and if they have a visible beam and are maintained then you are basically saying "Here I am! Fire at me!" and that is before we even consider how much shields will probably make a laser gunner sulk. Overall I would still vote railguns.
Missiles will be where it's at for a long time though. Variable payloads, curved trajectory (meaning they can fire over the horizon, unlike the almost straight line rail or laser), capacity for guidance and self-targeting... At worst they will become a secondary weapon to one of the others. It will be a long time before they are phased out completely.
Hmmm... Tau Rail guns: Strength 10, AP 1, 72" Range.
Las Cannon: Strength 9, AP 2, 48" Range.
Rail gun wins hands down. And don't get me started on Rail rifle versus Las guns.
This aside, I think the sci-fi lore of Mass Effect actually defines it best. For one thing, they are designed for different things, and each has an advantage over the other.
Lasers travel at the speed of light, so they will hit their target. However, their range is limited. Over distance the light slowly refracts off space particles and what not. So, at a closer range, they will hit smaller targets very accurately. In other words, lasers will provide an excellent point defence against incoming fighters and bombers, missiles and perhaps smaller frigates.
My understanding of rail technology is that they fire slugs and huge velocity through magnets. So you have the potential of greater kinetic force on impact, but, even at crazy speeds, in space combat which is likely to be fought over huge distances, they could still be reasonably inaccurate. Also, because you are relying on kinetic energy, it could hypothetically be possible to design a shield to stop them. Railguns also have the disadvantage of requiring ammunition and that the bigger ones are essentially part of the ship, so require the entire ship to maneuverer in order to fire.
Las Cannon: Strength 9, AP 2, 48" Range.
Rail gun wins hands down. And don't get me started on Rail rifle versus Las guns.
This aside, I think the sci-fi lore of Mass Effect actually defines it best. For one thing, they are designed for different things, and each has an advantage over the other.
Lasers travel at the speed of light, so they will hit their target. However, their range is limited. Over distance the light slowly refracts off space particles and what not. So, at a closer range, they will hit smaller targets very accurately. In other words, lasers will provide an excellent point defence against incoming fighters and bombers, missiles and perhaps smaller frigates.
My understanding of rail technology is that they fire slugs and huge velocity through magnets. So you have the potential of greater kinetic force on impact, but, even at crazy speeds, in space combat which is likely to be fought over huge distances, they could still be reasonably inaccurate. Also, because you are relying on kinetic energy, it could hypothetically be possible to design a shield to stop them. Railguns also have the disadvantage of requiring ammunition and that the bigger ones are essentially part of the ship, so require the entire ship to maneuverer in order to fire.
Wow, over two pages in and we finally have a Tau troll. However, you forgot about the versatility of the railgun: S6 AP4 R72" Large Blast, hyuk hyuk.Slim-Shot said:
And the rail-rifle is better than the hot-shot as well, remember: 6-3 36 PINNING!
Railguns for offence and long-range defence (AA, ABM and such), lasers for CIWS. For a laser to do the same amount of damage as a railgun requires obscene amounts of power, generates massive amounts of heat, and loses a lot of it's energy at distance due to diffraction. It also cannot hit anything that's beyond line of sight, a major drawback for long range combat purposes due to the curvature of the earth. However, they do travel at the speed of light and require no ammunition, therefore are perfect for CIWS (defence against missiles, shells and suchlike) since it removes 2 major limitations with current systems; rate of fire and velocity. For such a purpose the laser need not be very big, therefore mitigating it's own disadvantages.
Well I would prefer a combo of both but if I had to pick one Railgun. Explosives would always be used and Railgun is really better for big ship to big ship combat. Laser provides a more or less infinite ammo supply for defensive purposes eg missile take down and smaller ship take down.
Captcha: deeply safers kinda coincidental with the less explosives thing.
Captcha: deeply safers kinda coincidental with the less explosives thing.
To be honest: Eldar man, we've got the prism cannon, which isn't actually that good.Slim-Shot said:
Though go for Blood Angels... deep-striking land raider, Machine Spirit, shoot a Hammerhead up the arse HARR HARR HARR!
*shit* yet another thread I'm close to hijacking for the purposes of WH40K nerdism!
Are people even reading? Considering how many times the opposite has been pointed out, I get grumpier every time someone says "lasers = infinite ammo."
Also: Tyranids gonna snatch all yo' people up, because our guns shoot MOAR TYRANIDS.
Also also: inb4 lasers = infinite ammo
Also: Tyranids gonna snatch all yo' people up, because our guns shoot MOAR TYRANIDS.
Also also: inb4 lasers = infinite ammo
This, recruits, is a 20-kilo ferris slug, feel the weight. Every five seconds, the main gun of an Everest class dreadnought accelerates one to 1.3% of light-speed. It impacts with the force of a 38-kiloton bomb. That is three times the yield of the city-buster dropped on Hiroshima back on Earth. That means- Sir Issac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-***** in space. Now! Serviceman Burnside! What is Newton's first law?
Do any of you inbred dipshits know what does not act in such a manner? Lasers! Now I know you want to act like some kind of bad ass fagot power ranger in space, but we here in reality know that lasers are not offensive weapons. Are we clear, maggots!?
No credit for partial answers, maggot!Laser Fanboy said:
I dare to assume you ignorant jackasses know that space is empty. Once you fire this hunk of metal, it keeps going til it hits something. That can be a ship. Or the planet behind that ship. It might go off into deep space and hit somebody else in ten thousand years. If you pull the trigger on this, you are ruining someone?s day, somewhere and sometime!Laser Fanboy said:
Do any of you inbred dipshits know what does not act in such a manner? Lasers! Now I know you want to act like some kind of bad ass fagot power ranger in space, but we here in reality know that lasers are not offensive weapons. Are we clear, maggots!?
Lol, it's mostly Halo. I love the gauss cannon on the warthog, and the MAC cannons from the books.SckizoBoy said:
And for some reason, I see them as looking very aesthetically pleasing when imagining them.
