Energy Weapons VS Ballistic Weapons

[Andor]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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...