Does the CSC make Gauss Rifles over powered?

[apoc527]

A free electron laser is not, in my understanding, a coherent beam of x-rays. Unless something has drastically changed recently, I'd be shocked if my understanding was so far off.

Edit: apparently one can tune a FEL to x-ray wavelengths, but it does not seem practical as yet. Given that we have FELs but no laser weapons (yet), it seems that theory and practice can be separated by a long period of time. In fact, I was using the TL given in T4's Emperor's Arsenal, which seems fine to me. FWIW, I'd allow vehicle lasers to be built at TL12ish.

 

[DFW]

A free electron laser is not, in my understanding, a coherent beam of x-rays. Unless something has drastically changed recently, I'd be shocked if my understanding was so far off.
.

You're officially shocked. Your understanding is far off.

 

[rust]

Edit: apparently one can tune a FEL to x-ray wavelengths, but it does not seem practical as yet.

I know of a few people in Hamburg who would tend to disagree ... :wink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_x-ray_free_electron_laser

 

[apoc527]

Right right, but let's see them put that into a rifle sized weapon.

It's not going to happen. That's why these things take more TLs to actually miniaturize and weaponize to small arms level.

 

[rust]

Right right, but let's see them put that into a rifle sized weapon.

They will not even try it, because the result would be an illegal and inter-
nationally banned weapon. Here even research in other laser weapons
died down when weapons which intentionally blind enemy soldiers were
banned by international treaty.

 

[gloomhound]

US laser to target pirates

Nairobi - A ship-based laser tested by the US Navy's research arm could put the heat on Somali pirates.

The Navy for the first time last week successfully tested a solid-state high-energy laser from a ship. The beam, which was aimed at a boat moving through turbulent Pacific Ocean waters, set the target's engine on fire.

The Office of Naval Research says the laser travelled over “miles, not yards”. For now, the test is a proof of concept, and it's not yet known when it might be deployed as a weapon.

The baseball-sized laser beam, though, could be used to stop small crafts from approaching naval ships. It could also target pirates.

“You can use the laser to ward off an attack, or you can dial it down to a non-lethal level where it basically becomes a very bright light so they know they are being targeted,” Michael Deitchman, the director of air warfare and weapons at the Office of Naval Research, said on Wednesday.

Deitchman said the laser provides two benefits not seen in other military weapons. The laser is precise, unlike bullets that can ricochet and hit unintended targets, and the laser's strength can be dialled down from a lethal level to a nuisance level.

Graeme Gibbon-Brooks, the head of Dryad Maritime Intelligence, said the test was “remarkable” for how the Navy was able to concentrate the beam over such a long distance at sea, and given how the boat was being tossed about in rough water.

“Hats off to the US Navy because that is very, very impressive,” he said. “It was pitching and rolling and yet they got this very fine beam to focus on one part of an engine casing. That they managed to keep the energy in one place is remarkable.”

Somali pirates attacks have become increasingly violent in recent months. Pirate assaults typically involve multiple skiffs zooming in on a target. The pirates often carry and fire AK-47 assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades at targets.

Some cargo ships now carry private security guards to defend against pirates. They also can use such defensive measures as water cannons and sound blasters. But those measures may not be enough to overcome an armed attack.

Gibbon-Brooks said the new laser “absolutely” could be deployed against pirates, but says a sniper rifle could work just as well. He suspects the Navy has bigger hopes for its sea-based laser. The Navy released a video of the test on YouTube. It's been viewed more than 600 000 times.

“It's a very, very interesting moment for naval warfare in that we have a whole new genre of weapons,” he said.

“It's certainly a remarkable step forward. The ability to apply more power in a burst or the ability to manipulate that power is really where I see this going,” he said.

“I think if you watch the video and think that's what they intend to do to Somali pirates in a year, you don't understand what's being set out in front of them. It could be used in any type of naval warfare.”

The laser test was carried out by the Navy and Northrop Grumman as part of a $98 million contract.

The Office of Naval Research's big project is a megawatt-level electron laser that could be used to defend Naval ships against supersonic and ballistic missiles, said Deitchman. The recent laser test helps the Navy move in that direction.

“It demonstrated once and for all that we could get material damage effects with a laser at sea, and it really gives us confidence to proceed on with directed energy systems,” Deitchman said.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/us-laser-to-target-pirates-1.1057945?showComments=true

 

[zero]

As long as the thing needs less marksman skill than a sniper rifle (I cant see a boat being attacked by RPGs staying still so a sniper can aim), thats a pretty awesome and useful defence measure.

 

[DFW]

Right right, but let's see them put that into a rifle sized weapon.

It's not going to happen.

Sure it will. With a compact enough power source, it'll would take less than a decade from now. TL 8.

 

[Vile]

Military smallarms damage is not likely to go up purely due to TL, but it will go up if personal armour becomes harder to defeat.

Without improvements in armour, it's more likely that TL improvements to weapons will be directed to making them smaller, lighter and cheaper while maintaining an acceptable level of lethality.

 

[Captain Jonah]

That is what happened a while ago.

The switch down to 5.56 from 7.62 was to reduce load, the ammo and weapons were lighter. With the widespread adoption of 5.56 US and nato armies went from 20 to 30 round clips, lighter weapons (but heavier loads ) etc.

As I mentioned not so long ago the limitations of the lighter ammo are well known and the fact that 5.56 is all but useless against even light armour is known.

The reason that it is still around is simply that the main armies using 5.56 are not fighting people with armour. the M16 and its types are everywhere along with the AK47/74 but only the expensively trained and equiped western world forces tend to have armour (well apart from the brits ).

Give it a few years for the introduction of cheap and effective armour or western level nations fighting someone as well equiped and the 5.56 will become a second line weapon very fast.

Tech level improvements are generaly slow to spread if people have to pay for them. Re-equping a million new combat rifles plus logistics will take time and effort and a lot of money. On the other hand nothing drives tech developement and adoption like wars. Should the US for some insane reason drop ground troops into a fight with decently trained enemies who have body armour you will see new weapons in widespread use in months.

 

[rust]

Should the US for some insane reason drop ground troops into a fight with decently trained enemies who have body armour you will see new weapons in widespread use in months.

I am not sure about the US, but I am quite certain that many of the na-
tions which had soldiers in Afghanistan will not vote for the current 5.56
when NATO decides upon the ammunition for the next generation of com-
bat rifles, there have been too many reported cases where the 5.56 fai-
led to do its job. Not only because of the armour problem, in this case
heavy clothing proved difficult enough, but also because of the range, as
there were many engagements at longer ranges than the 5.56 was de-
signed for.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Thanks all.

So, the upshot of most of the posts is doubts about the effectiveness of 5.56mm ammo against armoured targets.

Gauss ammunition (as far as we can guess with an imaginery weapon) will be even smaller and lighter. Possibly even less effective against armoured targets, not more so.

Think I will just ignore the CSC armour penetration rules for small arms, gauss rifles will still be the best slug rifle around, with advantages of ammo capacity and recoil (as well as a little more dam) over the ACR. They are almost (when firing bursts), but not quite, as good as the heavier and more expensive laser rifle (TL11).

Egil

 

[Captain Jonah]

The damage/effect of the 5.56 is based on the kinetic energy. The gauss rounds at 4mm are smaller but with super dense metals and alloys plus the round velocity being a lot faster will be delivering much higher kinetic energy to the target.

Gauss round must have both a soft outer case that deforms on impact and a much denser inner core for penetration. Otherwise a solid gauss dart will go straight through you and do far less damage since there is very little transfer of that kinetic energy.

The 5.56 is too light to keep its speed over range, not fast enough at short ranges to have the kinetic energy to do the job and lacks the ability to take down targets with one shot.

For example and not accurate. a 5.56 at 2000m/sec may have a round twice the mass of a 4mm gauss but when the gauss is doing 10,000m/sec its the guass that has the kinetic energy advantage.

Laser effectiveness is based on how much energy it delivers to its target. The output can be compared to slug throwers in terms of the energy that hits the target. Delivery time is a factor, a 1/100 of a second energy pulse against a 1/10th of a second bullet hit but mostly if the bullet delivers 200Kj of energy and the laser delivers 500kj or the gauss delivers 400kj then that is how the weapons stack up.

This is why I keep saying weapon tech constantly improves; something that is obsolete is dropped. A laser at tech 11 is still a viable weapon and so someone will have taken the tech 12/13/14/15 improvements in power storage, industrial/comms laser focusing, heat dissipation etc and made a tech 13 laser rifle then a tech 15 one.

 

[apoc527]

This is why I keep saying weapon tech constantly improves; something that is obsolete is dropped. A laser at tech 11 is still a viable weapon and so someone will have taken the tech 12/13/14/15 improvements in power storage, industrial/comms laser focusing, heat dissipation etc and made a tech 13 laser rifle then a tech 15 one.

I believe the CSC accurately represents this. The lasers continue to improve up until TL16 (which seems to be the highest you go before disintegrators become possible).

The convergence beam energy rifle is TL14 and ignores up to 8 points of armor. The variable wavelength laser projection system is TL13 and ignores 1d6 armor per hit, cumulatively.

The heavy laser rifle is TL15 and does 6d6+8 damage.

Masers are TL16 and ignore half the target's armor.

Finally, the "solar beam rifle" does 6d6 damage at TL17 and ignores 5 points of armor and autorecharges in sunlight.

All of these are "laser weapons" at various tech levels.

If you add in x-ray lasers with AP or Super-AP ability (Ref's choice) at TL14 (per T4's Emperor's Arsenal), then lasers are definitely advanced continually up through TL17!

The same thing is done for plasma/fusion weapons. Starting at like TL9 with the infantry support plasma weapon and going all the way up through TL22 (with that nasty fusion pistol from SOTA7).

Heck, slug throwers last a huge number of TLs too, culminating in the gauss rifle (TL3 for black powder up to TL14ish for gauss weapons).

Granted, if you ignore the CSC, then yes, it looks like nobody bothers to develop weapons past a certain TL. But if you use the CSC, then it's pretty clear that weapons tech is always evolving and there are steps made at virtually every TL.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

The damage/effect of the 5.56 is based on the kinetic energy. The gauss rounds at 4mm are smaller but with super dense metals and alloys plus the round velocity being a lot faster will be delivering much higher kinetic energy to the target.

Gauss round must have both a soft outer case that deforms on impact and a much denser inner core for penetration. Otherwise a solid gauss dart will go straight through you and do far less damage since there is very little transfer of that kinetic energy.

The 5.56 is too light to keep its speed over range, not fast enough at short ranges to have the kinetic energy to do the job and lacks the ability to take down targets with one shot.

For example and not accurate. a 5.56 at 2000m/sec may have a round twice the mass of a 4mm gauss but when the gauss is doing 10,000m/sec its the guass that has the kinetic energy advantage.

Laser effectiveness is based on how much energy it delivers to its target. The output can be compared to slug throwers in terms of the energy that hits the target. Delivery time is a factor, a 1/100 of a second energy pulse against a 1/10th of a second bullet hit but mostly if the bullet delivers 200Kj of energy and the laser delivers 500kj or the gauss delivers 400kj then that is how the weapons stack up.

This is why I keep saying weapon tech constantly improves; something that is obsolete is dropped. A laser at tech 11 is still a viable weapon and so someone will have taken the tech 12/13/14/15 improvements in power storage, industrial/comms laser focusing, heat dissipation etc and made a tech 13 laser rifle then a tech 15 one.

I remember years ago the introduction of the 5.56mm being suggested as a good thing because of the higher muzzel velocity compared to 7.62 mm, i.e. there would be plenty of kinetic energy and the performance (at least out to 300m) would not be impaired. Not convinced that experience has borne that out. I would be very surprised if light weight gauss needles could keep their momentum well.

I agree about the likelihood of ever improving small arms, but perhaps there are limits beyond which it is simply not possible to develop a tech?

Egil

 

[rust]

I would be very surprised if light weight gauss needles could keep their momentum well.

I think that gauss needles would be small, but not necessarily light. In
my view materials like crystaliron or superdense would be used to give
the small projectiles enough weight, in a similar way as today depleted
uranium is used to give projectiles weight.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

The convergence beam energy rifle is TL14 and ignores up to 8 points of armor. The variable wavelength laser projection system is TL13 and ignores 1d6 armor per hit, cumulatively.

The heavy laser rifle is TL15 and does 6d6+8 damage.

Yes, I had forgotten about the AP capacity of the convergence beam. The ammo situation is still bizarre, only 15 shots for the CBR, and 4 for the HLR, but can always amend that to a standard 100 shot power pack.

Had also thought of just bolting two TL 11 Laser Rifles together. Enc of 10, but would be fine if using battle dress. Both beams can be fired at once, and though armour counts full value against both beams, in total the damage will still add up.

Egil

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

I would be very surprised if light weight gauss needles could keep their momentum well.

I think that gauss needles would be small, but not necessarily light. In
my view materials like crystaliron or superdense would be used to give
the small projectiles enough weight, in a similar way as today depleted
uranium is used to give projectiles weight.

I suppose a gauss needle could also be made comparatively long compared to the projectile part of a normal jacketed round, as there is no need for the rest of the cartridge, holding the chemical propellant, to be present.

So allowing more weight.

Egil

 

[Captain Jonah]

Back to gauss again.

The quoted mass I can find of a 4mm traveller gauss round is 4grams.
The listed mass of a 5.56 projectile is between 3.8 and 4.1 grams.

So with a much higher speed the dense gauss round is as heavy as the 5.56 anyway.

 

[DFW]

Back to gauss again.

The quoted mass I can find of a 4mm traveller gauss round is 4grams.
The listed mass of a 5.56 projectile is between 3.8 and 4.1 grams.

So with a much higher speed the dense gauss round is as heavy as the 5.56 anyway.

Hmm. The gauss round is probably as long as the entire 5.56 round (incl. cartridge). The would make the material density about the same. But, the gauss round would have more surface area to volume than the 5.56. That equals greater parasitic drag. The round would shed velocity a lot faster than the 5.56