Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 53 54 [55] 56 57 ... 91

Author Topic: Theoretical weapons (Burn all the things!) and other ideas  (Read 100850 times)

Rolepgeek

  • Bay Watcher
  • They see me rollin' they savin'~
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (Burn all the things!) and other ideas
« Reply #810 on: April 20, 2016, 12:36:45 am »

Rods from God are an awful idea for a weapons system, anyway.
Might suck in the real world but they are fun for fiction
If they suck in the real world, chances are they'll suck in fiction. Just because it's the future doesn't explain the question of 'why didn't they use something so much more practical?' Space based kinetic weapons suffer from unique disadvantages that can't really be compensated for.
He said fiction, not future. :P Magic sucks in reality, but it's great in fiction. So does an apocalypse. Or FTL travel.
Logged
Sincerely, Role P. Geek

Optimism is Painful.
Optimize anyway.

Amperzand

  • Bay Watcher
  • Knight of Cerebus
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (Burn all the things!) and other ideas
« Reply #811 on: April 20, 2016, 12:48:49 am »

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The issue is maneuvering at that speed. Maybe shooting at one another near-c, if they have some crazy guns, but dogfighting? The kind of acceleration you'd need to rapidly change trajectory at that velocity would tear basically anything apart.
Logged
Muh FG--OOC Thread
Quote from: smirk
Quote from: Shadowlord
Is there a word that combines comedy with tragedy and farce?
Heiterverzweiflung. Not a legit German word so much as something a friend and I made up in German class once. "Carefree despair". When life is so fucked that you can't stop laughing.
http://www.collinsdictionary.com

Grimlocke

  • Bay Watcher
  • *kobold noises*
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (Burn all the things!) and other ideas
« Reply #812 on: April 20, 2016, 01:16:50 am »

For similar reasons, I also want to keep the faceplate, although less of a focus and removable so that it isn't a problem on desert missions or light diving or wingsuiting etc. It'd be more or less so that you have more of a chance of an open-casket funeral than to stop a .50 cal bullet. It'd primarily be there to stop shrapnel from frags and burns from HE getting on the face and to prevent that flying sheet metal from decapitating you. Also if it cracks from something in battle you can remove it for the visability.

Wont a faceplate sticking out from the armor get in the way of your helmet?

Or if there is no helmet to speak of... Well then ouch, that open casket funeral better have some barf bags  :P
Logged
I make Grimlocke's History & Realism Mods. Its got poleaxes, sturdy joints and bloomeries. Now compatible with DF Revised!

Cryxis, Prince of Doom

  • Bay Watcher
  • Achievment *Fail freshman year uni*
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (Burn all the things!) and other ideas
« Reply #813 on: April 20, 2016, 07:10:11 am »

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
The issue is maneuvering at that speed. Maybe shooting at one another near-c, if they have some crazy guns, but dogfighting? The kind of acceleration you'd need to rapidly change trajectory at that velocity would tear basically anything apart.

Because going at those speeds to begin with wouldn't tear anything apart in the first place XD
Logged
Fueled by caffeine, nicotine, and a surprisingly low will to live.
Cryxis makes the best typos.

Grimlocke

  • Bay Watcher
  • *kobold noises*
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (Burn all the things!) and other ideas
« Reply #814 on: April 20, 2016, 07:42:55 am »

Its not so much the speed, as it is the acceleration that can wreak havok on fast-moving things.

Taking an hour to accelerate to near-C would be quite different from doing loop-dee-loops and 180-degree turns at C.

You could somewhat believably get away with the former, but the later I can only see ending as the engine or directional thrusters going off on their own and leaving the spaceship as a very fast-moving interstellar comet.
Logged
I make Grimlocke's History & Realism Mods. Its got poleaxes, sturdy joints and bloomeries. Now compatible with DF Revised!

GiglameshDespair

  • Bay Watcher
  • Beware! Once I have posted, your thread is doomed!
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (Burn all the things!) and other ideas
« Reply #815 on: April 20, 2016, 07:48:29 am »

If they suck in the real world, chances are they'll suck in fiction. Just because it's the future doesn't explain the question of 'why didn't they use something so much more practical?' Space based kinetic weapons suffer from unique disadvantages that can't really be compensated for.
He said fiction, not future. :P Magic sucks in reality, but it's great in fiction. So does an apocalypse. Or FTL travel.

I'm aware what he said :P
But a flawed system like that would destroy my suspension of disbelief. It would be like if an entire army was equipped with nothing but gold plated Lugers.

Magic is magic. It's fine as long as it's internally consistent, as it's already something impossible, but something like RfG are based on something real.

That said, how about orbital beam weapons?
Orbital beam weapons are probably more useful than RfG, but they suffer their own problems - mainly energy production and cooling - as well as the traditional problems of maintaining things in space.

As an interesting note, the Nazis designed a giant space weapon - a huge 9km2 reflector that would focus sunlight on targets. They called it the Sun Gun.


Not that it would be really useful, tactically, but how practical would it be to put a warhead in a RfG? If you're nuking a planet from orbit and want maximum fallout/nuke mass ratio, would the penetration be useful? And one advantage of orbital kinetic weapons is the sheer speed. They come in hotter than an ICBM and most missile defense systems wouldn't be able to do much.
Typically, the lower to the ground the detonation, the more fallout you'll get, as dirt is sucked up into the fireball.
The theoretical nuclear rod would probably act much like a nuclear bunker buster[/url. as a consequence you'd probably get a decent amount. If you just want fallout, though, it'd probably make sense to use a [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salted_bomb]salted bomb.

RfG come in quickly, but a plasma sheath that forms also means they can't be adjusted in aim once they're underway. As a consequence if you can knock them off path even slightly, they'll miss. It wouldn't be easy, no, to intercept them once they're fired, but that assumes they'd get the chance; the first action in war between hostile nation states capable of missile defence systems and orbital weaponry would be to destroy the enemies satellites. RfG can't be hidden.

On the FTL space ships/weapons. Would it even be a thing to have dog fights at near light speed
no

For similar reasons, I also want to keep the faceplate, although less of a focus and removable so that it isn't a problem on desert missions or light diving or wingsuiting etc. It'd be more or less so that you have more of a chance of an open-casket funeral than to stop a .50 cal bullet. It'd primarily be there to stop shrapnel from frags and burns from HE getting on the face and to prevent that flying sheet metal from decapitating you. Also if it cracks from something in battle you can remove it for the visability.

Wont a faceplate sticking out from the armor get in the way of your helmet?

Or if there is no helmet to speak of... Well then ouch, that open casket funeral better have some barf bags  :P
Ballistic visors rated up to 3A (pistol calibres: .357, .44) do exist. They weigh a huge amount and are ~3cm thick. Example. They attach to the helmet. Weight seems to be 8lb, ~3.6kg, so more weight than a medieval great helm. As with most things that are very heavy and uncomfortable, and not all that effective, soldiers probably wouldn't want to wear them, for similar reasons ballistic masks aren't standard issue.

I don't understand how a faceplate coming from the armour would function in any sort of useful capacity. You'd have to detach it to drink or look down. It'd provide no protection from the side, behind, or up, so if you were looking in that direction your face would be exposed. I'm having difficult picturing how it would look, to be honest, but what I'm thinking looks pretty silly.

A knife has a lot more utility than a ice axe. In combat, you could also attach the knife to your rifle as a bayonet. Ice axes are tools for a very specific circumstance, but every survival kit that is worth it's salt contains a knife.
Logged
You fool. Don't you understand?
No one wishes to go on...

Bumber

  • Bay Watcher
  • REMOVE KOBOLD
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (Burn all the things!) and other ideas
« Reply #816 on: April 20, 2016, 12:23:21 pm »

As an interesting note, the Nazis designed a giant space weapon - a huge 9km2 reflector that would focus sunlight on targets. They called it the Sun Gun.
I'm sure it would have failed for the same reason the Archimedes Death Ray myth was busted. It's difficult to coordinate the mirrors, and your enemies are going to blow it to bits long before you get any results. The mirrors probably also cause solar sail movement of the satellite.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2016, 12:26:07 pm by Bumber »
Logged
Reading his name would trigger it. Thinking of him would trigger it. No other circumstances would trigger it- it was strictly related to the concept of Bill Clinton entering the conscious mind.

THE xTROLL FUR SOCKx RUSE WAS A........... DISTACTION        the carp HAVE the wagon

A wizard has turned you into a wagon. This was inevitable (Y/y)?

Tack

  • Bay Watcher
  • Giving nothing to a community who gave me so much.
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (Burn all the things!) and other ideas
« Reply #817 on: April 20, 2016, 12:27:38 pm »

As has been said here before, it's a lot easier to throw something down to earth than to throw it up at a satellite.

Have we talked about supersoldiers yet?
There's maybe one or two people in this thread who avoid the 40k series, but long story short the supersoldiers in that setting aren't reliant on bionics.
Actually, they're nothing but humans who've undergone some serious hormone and gene therapy just before adolescence, along with the introduction of a few redundant organs because evolution clearly screwed up in only giving us two lungs.

So I guess the question is, how out of the loop is this stuff? Is that kind of intense therapy able to e done to children older than Trimester-1, and how much would our bodies really be willing to take? Will we ever have real Witchers?
« Last Edit: April 20, 2016, 12:41:06 pm by Tack »
Logged
Sentience, Endurance, and Thumbs: The Trifector of a Superpredator.
Yeah, he's a banned spammer. Normally we'd delete this thread too, but people were having too much fun with it by the time we got here.

Egan_BW

  • Bay Watcher
  • The questioner does not.
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (Burn all the things!) and other ideas
« Reply #818 on: April 20, 2016, 12:39:19 pm »

Interestingly, that might mean that if two countries with military satellites suddenly go to war, the most important battle will be fought between satellites, as one side would gain a large advantage by being the only one with an orbital presence, and it would be very hard to launch new satellites while fighting a war.
Logged

GiglameshDespair

  • Bay Watcher
  • Beware! Once I have posted, your thread is doomed!
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (Burn all the things!) and other ideas
« Reply #819 on: April 20, 2016, 01:09:36 pm »

As an interesting note, the Nazis designed a giant space weapon - a huge 9km2 reflector that would focus sunlight on targets. They called it the Sun Gun.
I'm sure it would have failed for the same reason the Archimedes Death Ray myth was busted. It's difficult to coordinate the mirrors, and your enemies are going to blow it to bits long before you get any results. The mirrors probably also cause solar sail movement of the satellite.
Oh, I'm absolutely sure it wouldn't work, and the Germans didn't have the ability to build it anyway.
I just thought it was a cool thing to mention. Those wacky nazis.

Interestingly, that might mean that if two countries with military satellites suddenly go to war, the most important battle will be fought between satellites, as one side would gain a large advantage by being the only one with an orbital presence, and it would be very hard to launch new satellites while fighting a war.
The battle wouldn't be between satellites, they'd just shoot down satellites from the ground with lasers and missiles. It's true armed space stations have existed - but the costs and difficulties of space weaponry aren't worth it.
Logged
You fool. Don't you understand?
No one wishes to go on...

Amperzand

  • Bay Watcher
  • Knight of Cerebus
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (Burn all the things!) and other ideas
« Reply #820 on: April 20, 2016, 01:14:58 pm »

Its not so much the speed, as it is the acceleration that can wreak havok on fast-moving things.

Taking an hour to accelerate to near-C would be quite different from doing loop-dee-loops and 180-degree turns at C.

You could somewhat believably get away with the former, but the later I can only see ending as the engine or directional thrusters going off on their own and leaving the spaceship as a very fast-moving interstellar comet.

Actually, accelerating to near-c in an hour would probably tear anything we can build apart. C is really, really goddamn fast, getting there in an hour would probably need hundreds or thousands of Gs of acceleration, if not more, I'unno.

Fakeedit: I did some probably-useful math, and 299,792,458 m/s divided by 9.81 = 30559883.58, which I take to be the G-force of accelerating to C in one second. Dividing that by 3600, or the number of seconds in an hour, gets you 8488.85, which I take to be the G-force experienced in every second of accelerating to C over an hour.
Logged
Muh FG--OOC Thread
Quote from: smirk
Quote from: Shadowlord
Is there a word that combines comedy with tragedy and farce?
Heiterverzweiflung. Not a legit German word so much as something a friend and I made up in German class once. "Carefree despair". When life is so fucked that you can't stop laughing.
http://www.collinsdictionary.com

Parsely

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • My games!
Re: Theoretical weapons (Burn all the things!) and other ideas
« Reply #821 on: April 20, 2016, 01:22:18 pm »

Its not so much the speed, as it is the acceleration that can wreak havok on fast-moving things.

Taking an hour to accelerate to near-C would be quite different from doing loop-dee-loops and 180-degree turns at C.

You could somewhat believably get away with the former, but the later I can only see ending as the engine or directional thrusters going off on their own and leaving the spaceship as a very fast-moving interstellar comet.

Actually, accelerating to near-c in an hour would probably tear anything we can build apart. C is really, really goddamn fast, getting there in an hour would probably need hundreds or thousands of Gs of acceleration, if not more, I'unno.

Fakeedit: I did some probably-useful math, and 299,792,458 m/s divided by 9.81 = 30559883.58, which I take to be the G-force of accelerating to C in one second. Dividing that by 3600, or the number of seconds in an hour, gets you 8488.85, which I take to be the G-force experienced in every second of accelerating to C over an hour.
Splat.
Logged

Amperzand

  • Bay Watcher
  • Knight of Cerebus
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (Burn all the things!) and other ideas
« Reply #822 on: April 20, 2016, 01:30:35 pm »

Especially keeping in mind that 8 Gs is about the limit for modern fighter pilots. :V

The crew would become two-dimensional chutney.

Edit: Neat 504 there Bay12, who'd Toady ban this time?
« Last Edit: April 20, 2016, 01:34:27 pm by Amperzand »
Logged
Muh FG--OOC Thread
Quote from: smirk
Quote from: Shadowlord
Is there a word that combines comedy with tragedy and farce?
Heiterverzweiflung. Not a legit German word so much as something a friend and I made up in German class once. "Carefree despair". When life is so fucked that you can't stop laughing.
http://www.collinsdictionary.com

GiglameshDespair

  • Bay Watcher
  • Beware! Once I have posted, your thread is doomed!
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (Burn all the things!) and other ideas
« Reply #823 on: April 20, 2016, 01:34:26 pm »

Space chutney.
Now with more Gs!
Logged
You fool. Don't you understand?
No one wishes to go on...

Amperzand

  • Bay Watcher
  • Knight of Cerebus
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretical weapons (Burn all the things!) and other ideas
« Reply #824 on: April 20, 2016, 01:34:59 pm »

Alphabet chutney, except you can only spell GG.
Logged
Muh FG--OOC Thread
Quote from: smirk
Quote from: Shadowlord
Is there a word that combines comedy with tragedy and farce?
Heiterverzweiflung. Not a legit German word so much as something a friend and I made up in German class once. "Carefree despair". When life is so fucked that you can't stop laughing.
http://www.collinsdictionary.com
Pages: 1 ... 53 54 [55] 56 57 ... 91