TL 10+ slug throwers

[CosmicGamer]

Personally, I think one other advance would have to be in the field of recoil reduction. Don't ask me how, I'm only TL-6.

I do not have all the different resources other folks here do, but from peoples posts they indicate that recoil reduction is available on some of the big guns.

 

[Eisenmann]

Personally, I think one other advance would have to be in the field of recoil reduction. Don't ask me how, I'm only TL-6.

Why, indeed? But that's never stopped the car industry ... :devil:

Recoil reduction would be approachable with the venting of gas. It would take a violation of Newton's laws to do it in just about any other fashion.

And yea, but the gun industry is older than the car industry and they've shunned electronics for the most part so far. They seem to understand their demographic. lol

 

[veltyen]

Recoil reduction would be approachable with the venting of gas. It would take a violation of Newton's laws to do it in just about any other fashion.

Recoil smoothing can be done without venting.

At the time the projectile is fired a counterweight moves backward equalising the backforce, then returns to position at a much more sedate pace. The backforce/recoil is the same, just over a longer period of time. With automatic fire (and perfectly balanced systems) you'd have an equal pressure over time, rather then any jerkiness.

Again, used on big guns where it matters more already.

 

[Vile]

Ok, so let's violate Mr. Newton's laws - we've already got recoil-reduction possibilities in Traveller with built-in gravitics in PGMP-14s and FGMP-15s. The downside is that when the grav generators are switched off, the slug thrower gains a lot of extra weight - not to mention the added bulk which never goes away (my snake-like hips notwithstanding).

One thing most of my Traveller guns, slug or bolt-thrower, come with is a range-finder as part of the standard laser sight. Higher TLs, and we might be talking about meson range finders ... a sniper's dream ... :devil:

 

[whartung]

To be honest, I don't think that slug throwers would change much other than material science's impacts on what the guns are actually made of.

They're already incredibly reliable. Why complicate them with all kinds of electronics?

We're already "mucking up" modern arms with electronic sites. Granted they can be removed, but it is a new failure point. However, they're apparently quite reliable -- everyone seems to be carrying them.

Caseless ammo isn't something that I'd want to rely on if I'm traipsing across the great voids of space to planets of questionable safety.

I want to keep the possibility of reloading my empty brass.

Also, caseless ammunition has the propellant exposed to the elements and abuse. And I sure as heck don't want to rely on a battery to ignite the "cartridge" when I pull the trigger.

Reloading brass is not a concern of the military (well, at least field forces, I have no idea what the military ranges do with their brass today). If anything, the brass is more weight the soldier has to carry. Most of the other concerns can likely be addressed by a sealed magazine with a built in battery. The rounds are delivered prepackaged in magazines from the factory, and simply discarded rather than reloaded.

If this magazine/ammo combination can improve density, lethality, and reliability, then it may be a worth trade off for the more base individual cartridge systems we have today.

There clearly much more room in modern cannon for advancement. Things like ranged based shell burst and such. Very powerful capability -- makes great videos, lot of electronics.

The nice thing about these systems is that the electronics are in the projectile, so an occasional failure has less impact on the overall effectiveness of the system, and doesn't affect readiness at all.

 

[far-trader]

...There clearly much more room in modern cannon for advancement. Things like ranged based shell burst and such. Very powerful capability -- makes great videos, lot of electronics.

The nice thing about these systems is that the electronics are in the projectile, so an occasional failure has less impact on the overall effectiveness of the system, and doesn't affect readiness at all.

As long as your "smart" round doesn't read the middle of the barrel as "target range achieved" and go bang inside your weapon

 

[CosmicGamer]

Just some points to fuel discussion.

Often higher tech and more lethal weaponry is not allowed. Example: The military can throw a grenade at you or drop a bomb on you but they are prohibited from using hollow point ammunition. There are limitations on chemical / biological weapons.

I think a populace would be much less likely to resent a conquering force and would be more accepting of their rule if less deadly and less destructive weaponry was used.

I think that moving forward in the future, technology would go in that direction.

When super destructive weaponry is needed you call in the machines (aircraft, tanks, orbital bombardment) not the troops.

I hate using Real world examples for future life so... My ancient history professor talked about the situation in Iraq long ago on Earth. The machines fought the war and it was over quickly. The troops were just the police force and they were there for years (decades?). Because of what happened in Iraq, much new technology was developed in the fields of armor and remote control devices. Troops could send these remote devices into a building while they stayed at a safe distance. The small robot would use it's sensors to relay information. The device was also equipped with suppression technology; smoke, flash bombs, ear piercing sounds, and when necessary, weaponry.

The most successful way to win a war is for both sides to never fire a shot.

As gun-ho as the military may be, they are charged with successfully winning, not massively destroying.

What I am saying may not be true, it's just some opinion and it can be far different in YTU. Please don't debate my philosophy in this thread, it would be off topic; if you must, create a new thread. I only provide these thoughts in this thread to suggest how certain technologies while possible, could be outlawed and a different direction you might go when thinking about designing your futuristic weaponry. Maybe a standard weapon that uses alternative ammo that deploys a sensor? Maybe the ammo is just a "marker" that paints the target so that guided weaponry is more accurate. roleplay: most enemies once targeted immediately throw down their weapons and surrender (in todays terms, you look down at your chest and see a red dot)

 

[mike wightman]

And yea, but the gun industry is older than the car industry and they've shunned electronics for the most part so far. They seem to understand their demographic. lol

Really?

Ever look under the hood of a modern car and try to figure out the engine management system

 

[CosmicGamer]

Please let me attempt to put an end the auto vs gun comparison.

An automobile and a gun are very different things. An automobile includes luxury items that can increase cost and reduce performance (Air Conditioning).

I don't think you will see a gun with a cup holder any time soon - unless you go do it now as a gag.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Some more stuff to think about.

Thought this might be of interest to the crowd....

The most feared, well by me anyway, weapon tech out there!

I haven't checked it in a minute, so I don't know if they put the sound back in, but if not....

Well, when the weird ripping noise starts and I do the "Buttons are too high!" from the deck.....DROP, GRUNTS! Incoming!

 

[CosmicGamer]

RE: Metal Storm. I have several issues with that technology. They are doing a good job of making their systems appear viable so that they get additional funding. Maybe if they get enough funding they can work out the kinks.

 

[whartung]

Please let me attempt to put an end the auto vs gun comparison.

An automobile and a gun are very different things. An automobile includes luxury items that can increase cost and reduce performance (Air Conditioning).

I don't think you will see a gun with a cup holder any time soon - unless you go do it now as a gag.

Save that electronics make cars more efficient, flexible, and reliable.

The modern "red dot" low power scopes on combat rifles make the rifle more efficient and help make the shooter more accurate. They're great for snap shots and quick target acquisition.

The electronics is cannon rounds give them the ability to "go off" at, say, 501 yards. This can greatly reduce the problem of overpenetration (you don't want to use 25mm HE rounds in a dense neighborhood, but the "smart" rounds can be viable). For example, they can use laser rangefinding to determine a car is 1500 feet down range, and set the shell to burst at 1501.5 feet, which in the middle of the passenger compartment. The shells go in, but they don't come out (since the car handily contains the fragmentation from the exploding round).

This is one of the capabilities of the new infantry system, with its grenades. No more lobbing and ballistic training. Someone shooting at you from behind a wall, lase the wall, bump the range 2 feet, and toss in 2 or 3 airbursting fragmentation grenades. Less useful against Battle Dress, but the others are called soft targets for a reason.

Traveller RAM grenades should have this ability.

To the main point, most folks don't want electronics in their firearms. Extra weight, extra complexity for what is ostensibly a simple chemical reaction. But there is evidence that electronics can and do make systems more reliable and capable, above and beyond the complexity they introduce in to the overall system.

 

[Eisenmann]

Holy cow. This place.

 

[Pagan priest]

Please let me attempt to put an end the auto vs gun comparison.

An automobile and a gun are very different things. An automobile includes luxury items that can increase cost and reduce performance (Air Conditioning).

I don't think you will see a gun with a cup holder any time soon - unless you go do it now as a gag.

Didn't the Israelis build an LMG a few years back that had a built in bipod, that doubles as a wire-cutter and a bottle opener?

 

[Duke Pellinor]

...

I want to keep the possibility of reloading my empty brass.
...

Kind of like Cortes getting his boys to abseil into a volcano to obtain sulphur in order to replenish his black powder supplies. Makes for an interesting sub-plot.

 

[Patron Zero]

Old Reliable Buddies

If simply finding one's self in a 'traditional' firefight (excluding energy weapons and battledress), don't look any further than a classic Colt model M1911 and a Remington model 870 to be your best friends.

 

[veltyen]

If simply finding one's self in a 'traditional' firefight (excluding energy weapons and battledress), don't look any further than a classic Colt model M1911 and a Remington model 870 to be your best friends.

Without energy weapons or battledress.

Laser designation and guided bullets means that your 870 is significantly outranged.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=77slAAAAEBAJ&dq=5788178

Rangefinder intergrated explosive multipurpose rounds also significantly would cause a problem. See the Bofors 40mm multipurpose (3P) round.

 

[Uncle Bob]

TL10+ military slugthrowers [except gauss guns and pistols] will be fire-and-forget.

 

[mike wightman]

That'll depend on economics - is it cheaper to fire a smart round from a smart gun, or fire dumb rounds from a really really smart gun.

 

[samuelvss]

TL10+ military slugthrowers [except gauss guns and pistols] will be fire-and-forget.

At what TL are slug throwers not fire and forget? Fire are forget means that once the round is fired, the firer is no longer involved in its guidance. This is always the case for every "dumb" ballistic munition. The older guided guided munitions were not so; For ATGM, some poor S.O.B. had to keep the crosshairs on a moving target, meanwhile remaining stationary for a number of seconds while lovingly highlighted by a plume of smoke created by the backblast. Then came the target memory ATGM's, which were fire and forget. Technology does funny things; a well-trained soldier in the 1980's might have had a better chance of hitting a moving tank with a (TL7) M47 Dragon ATGM [curse the stupid git who designed that thing, and *&^% the generals who bought it!!] than would a well-trained soldier with a 90mm recoilless rifle (TL5); BUT....at $1,000 a missile, none of the Dragon crews were well-trained; the 90 crews could train 'til the cows came home, and could get off three pretty accurate shots at 600m in the same time that the Dragon gunner would shoot one that missed (and may have gotten his posterior collanderized int he process). Once you got into 5 or more rounds, the 90 was lighter. Oh, and it was fire and forget....:rofl: