I am writing this thread for a number of reasons so I shall split it into relevant parts. ++Part One++ I would like to start out by declaring that my favourite weaponry found in science fiction are those that incorperate the MG42 (Maschinengewehr 42 - Machinegun of 1942). These being the SMART gun from Aliens and the portable MG42s found in Jin-Rô. Also, the H&K G36 is a firm favourite. It was used in the flashback scenes of Firefly as the Browncoat standard issue weapon and it will soon be replacing the FN P90 in Stargate SG1 (along with the recent H&K MP7 PDW). I am curious to find out what weapons found in science fiction people here like. Tell me what your favourites are. I plan on making a few weapons found in SciFi into working airsoft weapons eventually. ++Part Two++ It has become increasingly apparent that the use of projectile weaponry in our futuristic visions has become more predominant over the romantic energy based weaponry. Off the top of my head, I can only think of two SciFi shows/movies that actually used energy weapons recently (and to a large degree) and they are the new Star Wars trilogy and Farscape (Firefly did indeed feature some laser weaponry but it was very rare). The very implementation of energy based weaponry is indeed possible in many respects (i.e. lasers, plasma guns, sonic guns, etc) but the idea at the moment isn't very feasible. It would appear that writers today have more or less abandoned the whole energy weapon idea. An example of this is the new Battlestar: Galactica where the ships are now armed with weapons that can fire bullets and missiles. I believe it was Aliens that popularised the fact that we could still be firing assault rifles at each other in the future. I could go ahead and list a whole bunch of SciFi movies that have used this approach but I'd only be telling you what you already know. Now, what I would like to find out from people is whether they think this has been a wise route to go down for SciFi writers? We all know eventually we'll have man-portable energy weapons but at the moment the best we have is garage built railguns and anti-missile lasers. Should writers have considered this while writing their movies/books/TV shows or is man destined to shoot copper and lead at each other until the end of time itself? ++Part Three++ In this area I would like to cover the ethical consequences of the use of energy weapons in science fiction. Recently I wrote a report on a modification idea I had for a game (the pages went into the triple figures) and I wanted to have two similar sides of a war but with one difference; one used projectile weaponry while the other favoured energy based weapons. Here is an exerpt from that report: As you can see, a field medic can remove a bullet and cover up a wound ready for the soldier to be sent to recover in the backlines whereas if you get hit from a weapon similar to those found in Star Wars you create a wound that would be near impossible to fully treat without massive amounts of surgery. I always see it as a big drop of molten magma landing on a part of you but not killing you. Does anyone have any thoughts regarding this? This is an arguement I came up with on my way to work a while back and I've been dying to hear some feedback about it. Many thanks
I'll begin by responding to Part 3. I believe energy weapons could be psychologically lethal (in its realistic hard sci-fi form). Invisible beams produced from recoilless silent guns that cause victims to explode (due to blood vaporising) could cause the futuristic version of shell-shock.
Copper and lead? Dont you mean uranium or tungsten? Ok, in my opinion on part three, firstly, how realistic do you want it to be? Laser weapons have drawbacks such as interference from atmospheric moisture, or clothes of the target etc. THey are concievably easier ot beat than ballistic weapons. I think your "easy to patch up bullet wound" comment shows a certain lack of understanding of what happens when you get hit by a bullet. especially if its from a repeat firing assault rifle etc. Whereas with a laser hit on your chest, it might burn away your ribs, but may well be self cauterising (I dont know if anyon has carried out any experiments). So you would be out of the battle long term, since your muscles and lungs wouldnt work very well, but in the short term you can still pull your trigger.
For the record, I know full well of what happens when you get hit by a bullet. This is not from first hand experience but I have spoken to many former serving soldiers who have been hit and I must say that the stories they told me are probably the most powerful things I have ever heard in my life. I personally believe that a bullet wound would be easier to treat than an energy wound. This is what I was trying to get across, I apologise if it came across as a little flat. If a soldier gets hit in the leg in the field, he would have to be carried to saftey and take up the medic's and some nearby soldiers time thus removing a number of personnel from the fight. This wound could then be temporarily stabilised and the soldier will be sent to a place where he can get the wound properly looked at, fixed and working properly again where there is a chance he can be put back into the fight and, if he survives, live a somewhat normal life afterwards (Obviously this isn't the case for every wound, it was just an optimistic example). (As I am not aware of any experiments on lasers being used on people, this next part is just my assumptions) But if that same soldier was hit by a superheated blast in the leg, the wound would be much more severe. The skin will probably have been burnt aware, his flesh cooked and charred and probably anything within a certain radius of the impact blast would be burnt. His fellow soldiers would help him out of the fight (as above) and the medic would do his best to help stabilise the wound. He would then be sent to somewhere where they'd try to fix his leg. In the end, he'd probably have either a huge chunk missing from his leg or because the leg has been so severly cauterised that it will have to be amputated. As I said, that is pure speculation. If you have any ideas of what would happen if you got hit by a superheated laser beam I'm all ears as I would like to get a clearer idea of what would happen. And with regards to the short term 'I can still fire' stuff, if the average soldier gets hit, weilding a weapon is often the last thing on his mind. If you're shot in the torso, that's it. You're down until you can get some help, none of this Hollywood action shite we see. And uranium and tungsten is only used in the production of armour piercing rounds. Lead is the most common material used in the manufacture of bullets. It is usually made using a Lead/Tin alloy. Copper is used on the tips of various FMJ rounds. Onto the psychological effects. I cannot agree more with you, Kron. Facing a weapon like that would probably cause an entire platoon or section to break if they did not know where the firing was coming from. The only way I can think of combating an encounter like that is to use specialist equipment such as thermal detection. You wouldn't be able to see the beam itself as it travels so damned fast but I would guess that the air it had just past through will be just slightly warmer than anywhere else. But the thought of something like that that can kill you is slightly unnerving. Back to guthrie again. I would assume that the usage of a hydrogen fluoride laser would be the most feasible type to go with as that has been tested against live practise targets (i.e. incoming missiles, mortar shells and hell, artillery shells). There are obvious drawbacks at present in regards to fielding a man-portable energy weapon; even the mild vibration could knock the weapons alignment out of joint. I haven't heard any disadvantages regarding clothing, could you care to ellaborate some for me? Thanks for the input so far, suprised no-one's done the fun one yet.
mg42 has an unmatched rate of fire,but it also needs TONS of ammo. the g36 is the most reliable gun ever built,BUT it shoots .223 ammo,which is a varmit cartridge.but there is a new .204 ruger bullet that is 4000f/s as the fastest bullet ever built,and the g36 could be retrofitted with this ammo increasing its effectivness. for an assault rifle you want the g3 in .308 with red dot optics,its the quentasential presicion rifle.light wieght,extremly accurate at long ranges,large caliber ammo for knockdown power,cheap and very reliable. we allready have energy weapons used everyday in the field,tazers and the new wireless tazers,blinding laser beams,sound weaponry,microwave guns,and a host of new indevolopment weapons. but as it stands,the chemical/matter projectile is still the cheapest, most effective weapon we have. but wait 5 years.
The G3 is indeed an impressive weapon and holds a solid place in my heart. It is that weapon, along with the MP5, that has made H&K one of the best firearms manufacturers around. And to link that with SciFi (to give my drooling some justification) it was featured in the UK budget Scifi/fantasy/horror Dog Soldiers (one of my favourites). The blinding laser weapons have been reported shelved in western nations due to them being a violation of the 'Rules of War'. However Russia and China have no gripes with this and are/have developed somethign along those lines.
america doesnt follow any ''rules''of war,we use microwave guns and blinding lasers on civilians everyday. dont think this is the america from the constitution,this is dick cheneys corprate america,and they will use ANYTHING they can to reamin in power. and the cops tazer 5 year old children on a regular basis,dont think this is some utopian of freedom. as it stands thou ,bullets and missles will be around for at least the next 3 decades,probably longer.
To cut it down succinctly... The writers need not worry about how advanced or 'off the wall' the technology is. What they need to consider are the implications of having such technology. Of course, most fail in this regard, thus we have the creation of 'space opera'.
You're forgetting the T-21 from ANH. 'Twas an MG-34, similar in design to a MG42, that was used as a prop.
I believe energy weapons will become poular in the future as weaponry is built to be deadly; the more lethal, the better. If a weapon can not only be used to kill, but can also be used to psychologically cripple foes, it will be used. In a war, most ethical ramifications are thrown out of the proverbial window. (Besides, the concept of war is against most ethics anyway.)
Depends on what sort of armour protection you're expecting to come against. There's a reason that the favoured method that tanks use to take out other tanks is the discarding sabot round, not the HE round. KE is very economical compared to energy weapons. In the realm of ground combat, it would take some very nifty advances (like in the realm of power storage or generation) for things like lasers to supplant guns as we know them. In space, however, things will most likely be different. Slow unguided munitions ('guns') aren't much good at the ranges one is likely to be facing. Lasers will be much better, and even lasers may be trumped by missiles. Maybe.
One of my personal favorite weapons in SciFi is the Gyroc/Gyrojet/Micromissile. A gyroscopically stbilized .75 caliber rocket. Developed back in the 70's with just few advancements these could be the round of the future. With the stopping power of a .308 and the recoil characteristics of a .22L even the kinetic rounds are worthwhile. The same round could be used in pistol, carbine, rifle, and light machine gun thus help logistics. Now the round really shines if you have a payload. Some semtex, whitephosphorus or thermite and you have an instant favorite. For other missions maybe Tear gas, Saran, or even an engineered compound would make this weapon a delivery system of choice. With some minor advancements in technology you could create heatseeking rounds, antiradiation rounds, and even truly smart weapons.
I agree with kv about ground weapons being kinetic and space weapons being energy. I'm not sure which sci-fi firearm is my favourite, but I'm pretty impressed with the Jak trilogy Morph Gun.
Ok, taking the last first- a hyrdogen fluoride laser would presumably be using fluorine- an unpleasant and poisonous gas. I seem to recall Stokes Penwallt talking about it a while back. So, imagine if your platoons laser operator got hit, and his tank of fluorine went up. Imgaine lots of painful screaming as it ate into his skin and bones. Then, with energy weapons, I see no reason why the damaged area should not be more than a few mm to a cm in diameter. THis would naturally lead to small holes, not large gobbets of flesh missing, which is what happens with high velocity rounds. (I'm not a modern weapons expert, but I can bore you to death about medieval ones) So, basically, I dont see why a laser would be any worse than a bullet. If it self cauterises, then you will have less blood loss, less fluid loss, although perhaps more long term danger from the surrounding flesh damaged by the heating, but still attached to the body. However, compare this to the bullet, and i would think that having a chunk of flesh blown out of your body, along with metal splinters in vital places, so your bleeding and also the kinetic trauma would be bad for you. Basically, I see it as !zap! you go "Owww" and fall over on the next step because youve just been shot in the leg. Or: !Splat! "AARRGGHGHGHGG" as a large lump of flesh is ripped straight out your leg and you fall over with the energy transfer, whereupon you start bleeding badly and generally suffering a lot of immediate trauma. essentially, I dont see laser weapons replacing bullets for infantry combat unless they can invent unfeasibly impressive energy storage methods, such that they can make lasers to discharge enough energy to burn (vapourise) all the flesh in a volume of, say, 4cm cubed. And remember, they can get very high powered laser bursts, but the shorter the burst, the less heating there is likely to be of surrounding tissue. I think. I could be wrong though. You see, your idea might work if you could give people high powered lasers with beams the diameter of a small plate, but otherwise... Although I recall in one William gibson SF book, someone gets shot in the head by a laser, and their head explodes because the laser heated the brain to steam. Not sure how possible that is though. I entirely agree about Hollywood action shite, I hate it myself. ANd dont get me started on sword and spear combat either... I am not so sure about energy weapons causing mass shock etc. Remeber that modern training is about breaking you down and building you up again, so that yuoc an funciton under incredibly high stresses. There will be set drills probably very similar to what happens now when your patrol comes under sniper fire. Go to ground, try and work out where its coming from, etc etc. Besides, use of laser weapons would be a bit harder in the field in part because a laser wont shoot through hedges and grass quite the same way lead will. Then theres clothing. My understanding is that you can make fairly reflective clothing, capable of reducing the energy absorbed by it. Plus there are only certain wavelengths of laser light that are good for travelling through air, so you can design for them, and I dont think that would need to interfere with camouflage too much, because IIRC they are in the IR and above. Could be wrong though. Plus, with body armour being made of Kevlar, a high melting point carbon fibre, (OK, maybe risk of flash fire if it was hit by high energy laser) and ceramic plates, which seeing as tehy are made of ceramic can absorb large amounts of heat etc, I think lasers are more likely to be restricted to sniping weapons. I seem to recall reading that they are designing wee rocket bullets that can steer themselves to a target, and have miniature sensors etc in them. Thor- I wouldnt be so sure about UK/ USA shelving blinding weapons. They just wont use them unless they need to. I think the uK navy has had them for years, and the US is apparently fitting a laser based anti missile etc system to helicopters. So ther eis no reason they couldnt make the laser more powerful if they wanted to.
Perhaps not. Apparently, a pulsed laser can cause mechanical damage akin to a high power bullet through vapour expansion. It can be quite ugly. Ultimately the problem isn't in the principle, but in the engineering. --- There is one obvious scenario on the ground where energy weapons become very good, and that's if armour becomes so strong that the gun needed to penetrate that armour would produce ungodly recoil. Then again, I guess the infantry could just start carrying around anti-material rifles (or what we would consider 'sniper rifles'). --- There's some interesting discussions on stuff like 'laser sidearms' here.
Ok, thats what we are looking for ideally, actual information on damage potential of lasers. But the way you put it, it doesnt sound much worse than bullet damage. Then, thinking about it from an SF point of view, if you had a really good grasp of qauntum mechanics and ability to manipulate atoms and quarks etc, you could make some kind of fusion rifle, using the power of nuclear fusion to make a broad spectrum extremely energetic beam of energy that could concievably hole most kinds of armour. Probably wouldnt be very silent though, and the emp would enable it to be tracked.
Another thought- with the trend towards removing humans from the front line, I can see a future where most of the fighting is AI/ remote controlled vehicle fighitng. Which would make war more remote and more a matter of industrial might. However, if such vehicles were used against humans, they would have a good chance of coming out on top. Can you imagine the outcry if an AI tank with multiple infantry killing weapons wiped out scores of humans?
I am planning on writing a full reply tomorrow after work but you're last post caught my eye, Guthrie. Part of me thinks that we will move into this "video game" war scenario where robots will do the killing for us. But ultimately I have always believed that it is far less expensive to give a man a gun and send him to die. And when one side runs out of robots, they'll send in the men.
