Energy Weapons VS Ballistic Weapons

[Andur]

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]

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]

[/QUOTE]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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