question regarding book 4 small arms

[flykiller]

looking over book 4's tech level progression of infantry small arms I see:

tech 7: assault rifle
tech 8: laser carbine
tech 9: laser rifle
tech A: advanced combat rifle
tech B: --
tech C: gauss rifle

what do the lasers do that the assault rifle doesn't? and vice versa? and the same for the ACR. why would a soldier carry a laser carbine or laser rifle instead of an assault rifle, or an ACR instead of a laser rifle?

 

[Captain Midnight]

what do the lasers do that the assault rifle doesn't? and vice versa? and the same for the ACR. why would a soldier carry a laser carbine or laser rifle instead of an assault rifle, or an ACR instead of a laser rifle?

My first answer is, "The laser weapon lets you designate a target for artillery or laser-guided weaponry".

If you're asking about the practical end of things, such as damage and range and ammo capacity and that sort of things, well... I've switched over to GURPS Traveller myself, and don't actually have access to my old collection of LBB's anymore. I do have my old MegaTrav stuff, and that defines lasers as having higher penetration values and ammo supply, but they cost a lot more, so you'd have to balance all that out.

 

[aramis]

The lasers preclude carrying your own equipment... they are backpack powered. So, really, it's

7: Autorifle
10: ACR
12: Gauss Rifle.

The CT laser weapons are specifically impractical as line infantry weapons. For defenders, however, who are not carrying supplies, or near patrol from base, they are realtively comparable damage, and better accuracy.
But CT ones have only 50 shots...

 

[Jame]

The lasers preclude carrying your own equipment... they are backpack powered. So, really, it's

7: Autorifle
10: ACR
12: Gauss Rifle.

The CT laser weapons are specifically impractical as line infantry weapons. For defenders, however, who are not carrying supplies, or near patrol from base, they are realtively comparable damage, and better accuracy.
But CT ones have only 50 shots...

Which is why I permit the carriage of small battery packs which are approximately the size of magazines (though now that I think about it, they're TL of introduction is 10 and the rifle/carbine ones are initially closer to the size of SAW magazines); of course they have ammo counts comparable to the Autorifle.

I still think that the tech progression and weights need to be tweaked (and I also think that non-laser rifles should get +1D damage [so an autorifle does 4d and a Gauss rifle does 5d] - they're more lethal than pistols and should reflect that).

 

[Gadrin]

looking over book 4's tech level progression of infantry small arms I see:

tech 7: assault rifle
tech 8: laser carbine
tech 9: laser rifle
tech A: advanced combat rifle
tech B: --
tech C: gauss rifle

what do the lasers do that the assault rifle doesn't? and vice versa? and the same for the ACR. why would a soldier carry a laser carbine or laser rifle instead of an assault rifle, or an ACR instead of a laser rifle?

Book 4 offers a short little intro on the picture of the soldier near the beginning. He's carrying a laser and it touches on the detail of the equipment he's carrying and why.

In some campaigns lasers might be silent and invisible, while others offer them as buzzing and visible. So a silent sniper (xray lasers in GURPS Traveller) could be an advantage depending on the situation, etc.

 

[far-trader]

Of course the biggest reason for a laser over a common firearm (including gauss weapons) is recoil. Lasers have zero recoil which is very important when fighting in zero-g.

So, mtu, ship-troops generally use lasers while gro-pos generally use firearms.

Other mtu factors include:

Logistics of ammunition. Recharge a laser powerpack just about anywhere or tote thousands of rounds of ammo per soldier across the sector, it's your call. Mercenaries love lasers.

Target designation as mentioned. Very handy for calling ortillery (some mercs but typically Marines) or even for pointing out strikes by close air support (gro-pos).

Penetration of shot. Lasers are superior to all others.

Silent and invisible (mostly). Lasers are perfect sniper weapons (see also next note). All firearms have at least a minimal signature or a shortened range for being rendered low signature but lasers are practically inaudible and can't be seen without special gear.

Fast and flat. No trajectory to factor into aiming and no wind drift to be concerned about make them excellent long range weapons. And the time to target is practically instant so no last second duck or turn of the head to spoil the shot.

High damage lethality (warning - graphic violence). You might survive a bullet to the head (the skull is hard and bullets are funny) but you won't fare well at all with a smoking hole burned clean through the same skull and the flash heat explosion of the soft tissue inside.

Durability. Contrary to the otu my laser weapons are rugged. At least as hardy as firearms.

Finally mtu also has cartridge using lasers at slightly higher TLs than the powerpack ones. The downside is maintaining the logistics of ammo supply and fewer shots between reloads. All the other pluses are still there.

Now, to flip the question, why would anyone use firearms instead of lasers?

Lasers don't do suppression fire.

Lasers don't do autofire.

Lasers are generally heavier so you can't carry a bunch of other gear.

Lasers really suck in wet atmospheres.

 

[atpollard]

Far Trader.
Congratulations. That is the finest analysis of laser vs. projectile weapons that I have ever read. It is the first time I have seen a legitimate reason for BOTH weapons to exist.

Most discussions tend to focus on a single benefit or difficulty which supports the conclusion that one weapon would exist and the other relegated to a museum piece.

Well done.

 

[flykiller]

fairly thorough analysis by far-trader. considering also limitations imposed by aerosols and reflec it seems that for ground infantry lasers will be special-purpose support weapons, with an expanded role in zero-G.

as for merc logistics favoring lasers, I can't see it. a dton can hold a large amount of small arms ammo, and if a merc unit needs more than that then I can't see lasers making much of a difference. besides, lasers have their own logistics problems. 50 shots max followed by a run back to the power plant might be a fatal limitation in some circumstances.

 

[ChalkLine]

Lasers can have a higher rate of fire, for some reason in the OTU manpack guns just don't.

In MT you can get a TL13 0.5Mw pulse laser that only weighs 30kg (75% of a .50cal machinegun) that has a rate of fire of 80. A fuel cell to run the gun on water will only hit you up another 15kg.

 

[flykiller]

Lasers can have a higher rate of fire, for some reason in the OTU manpack guns just don't.

well, 50 shots from a backpack laser at tech 8 and 9 is pretty good.

In MT you can get a TL13 0.5Mw pulse laser that only weighs 30kg (75% of a .50cal machinegun) that has a rate of fire of 80.

book 4 mentions a pulse gatling laser at tech 10 ....

 

[Jame]

MTU generally has a mix of both: most troopers carry slugthrowers, while some carry lasers with modifications appropriate to their TL of manufacture. The slugthrower troops generally function as normal, while the lasers are equipped for those who are the best shots, and they function as both snipers and as target designators.

 

[whartung]

Suppression is an interesting topic.

Hearing things go BANG and watching the dirt puff and hearing the supersonic cracks of near misses have an effect on troopers. They tell them where not to go.

Now, if a trooper runs out a door only to be silently felled screaming in agony from a laser hit, that may have a different effect on the other troopers. But I think actual slug throwers have a better effect.

I actually have some "real world" experience in this.

We used to have a place here called "Photon" where you would play laser tag. I played it, it's "OK".

But truth be told, it is NOTHING compared to paintball. With laser tag, everyone is standing up, running around, giggling. In paintball, it's completely the opposite. Cowering, scurrying, ducking and dodging.

I never felt the need to crawl behind a small rock in laser tag compared to paint ball. Stick your head around a corner and hear the THWACK THWACK THWACK of balls hitting your plywood cover makes you think twice about sticking your head out again.

Granted, there's actual Pain in paintball vs laser tag, but the truth is, in laser tag, the near misses are silent, so there is simply no suppressive effect from laser fire.

Now, maybe it will be different if they cause small explosions ala Star Wars or something, or seeing smoking lines carved on the concrete as the shooters miss you.

But infantry combat isn't so much about killing the opponent as it is keeping their head down to maneuver around them and gain advantage. THEN you can kill them, or capture them, or just leave them alone.

 

[beeber]

good point, whartung. now i wonder what kind of strategy & tactics would develop if lasers were the primary, or even only form of small arms? if you didn't bother with suppressive fire unless you had gatling lasers? battlefields without the DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA and the like?

 

[G. Fieendish]

Re: Wharthung's last post
I used to play Laser Tag in their Trocadero (Central London) franchise, in the early/mid 90's (it's gone now) & believe me, you learnt to use every bit of cover you could, & to keep your back to a wall to avoid being shot....
As I recall, it consisted of 3 smallish levels, & had mesh flooring in some places & mirrors (some convex, some not) in others....
Needless to say, I soon learnt to bounce my shots round corners, so to speak, to catch a unaware opponent....