Sci-fi Weapons, Vehicles and Equipment

I never specified which model. The same problem of difficulty exists in many platforms from the M3 Carl Gustav to the RPG-22 to the RPG-29 to the AT 4 and more.

There is no rocket launch platform that has 99% accuracy beyond 200 meters without being a guided weapon.

Those platforms are actually fairly accurate. The Gustav may not have the reach but it is a fairly accurate weapon. Same for the AT 4 and the RPG 29. They are rated with better accuracy at longer ranges then the RPG 7. The Gustav has the advantage of firing a shell rather then a rocket.

The RPG 7 has a rather unique issue in that it has the vents at the base of the projectile head. You know the part that almost looks like small stunted fins near the base above the sustainer motor section. They have a bad habit of clogging, getting rapidly fouled, or not getting even pressure through them. The uneven venting unbalances the rocket in flight and often sends them into odd spiral patterns or can make the rocket suddenly jig off trajectory. Nearly all of the RPG 7 rounds have that venting. The only one that doesn't is the og 7 frag round.

Now the damnable thing is that nearly none of the other Soviet/Russian made rockets have those vents. They all also have greater effective range and accuracy then the RPG 7.

Check it out◊ The top view shows the vent system with more detail.]] The Tail end is the initial booster charge. You can see the vents on all the rocket types.

I'll also note that during WW 2, crews who operated flame tanks were often treated much worse than those who operated normal vehicles (to the point that on-the-spot executions weren't unknown).

That supposedly predates WWII. Flame Thrower operators in WWI if captured suffered similar treatment. I would not be surprised if it was fully accurate.

Wondering how plausible this weapon was for an alternate history fic I was making: The weapon is like a shoulder mounted minigun but the ammunition for it is like those for a Recoilless Rifle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle and the back of the barrel is open to facilitate this. The weapon has an intake which allows to be belt fed from the operator's backpack and the ammunition is appropriately sized to allow a minigun's high rate of fire and a suitable amount of rounds to be stored in the backpack (rounds are smaller than the average Recoilless rifle). A variant of ammo exists where, in addition to the propellant mechanism there is explosive tipped ammunition. In case your wondering at this point alternate history fic it is far enough from the Point of Divergence that the technology level is slightly ahead of our level.

edited 7th Apr '14 1:30:18 AM by Matti23

Theoretically possible, although trying to mix the firing method of a recoilless rifle with the belt-feed of a minigun will not be easy, you'd have a better time with a magazine.

If you can do a regular belt feed auto-cannon like was shared a couple pages back, with some tweaking you should be able to get it to work with a mini-gun setup.

Thought this was interesting to share. The 'Skin Gun'. Supposedly it works very very well and promotes rapid healing of badly injured skin using cell cultures from the patient.

I saw this on the news today.

The gist of it is the US Navy has developed a way to make fuel out of seawater and no I don't mean hydrogen gas fuel cell type fuels. I mean like JP-8 type fuels. Apparently it could be commercially and industrially viable not just for the Navy within 10 years.

Just imagine it, an Arleigh Burke that can make its own fuel while underway at sea. Or a Zumwalt or whatever else have you that ain't nuclear powered.

Given time this will come down in price. It's just a matter of time and people taking a crack at it. The street finds it's own uses for things.

That is pretty slick.

@Major Tom:

That is seriously cool.

@Tuefel:

Unfortunately, when I tried to play the video it spat out an error message.

By the way, I'm trying to think of a nuclear weapon equivalent - something incredibly destructive^note I.E. destructive enough to be a Big Deal when used, but not as given to throwing out horrific amounts of radiation/fallout. Ideally it would also be something that commanders "on scene" could utilise without needing to get release authority from their superiors^note I know I can probably monkey around with doctrine, but I'd prefer not to do that juuuuuust yet. It should also be capable of being carried and used in space.

One idea that occurs to me is some sort of gravitational "bomb" that exerts extreme forces to effectively crush everything within a given radius into very thin wafers, but I'm not sure how effective that would be.

Anyone else got ideas?

Try this one instead.

A gravity bomb would be effective but it would require to exert more than 50 times normal earth gravity to do permanent damage. It will take more to reliably kill. Multiplying the gravity by 4 or 5 times would be enough to immobilize, though.

Could always try something like this [1]◊

^ What's that from?

I think that is from the second GI Joe movie.

Ha. It is. It's the Cobra "Rods From God" Zues Satellite turned up to 11. The Rod From God was originally estimated at 11 tons from gravity alone. Boosted Projectiles would likely achieve higher impact forces. The Movie claims their impactors are more power then nukes rule of cool and all. But if you sling something big enough and with enough surface area you would certainly fuck some shit up.

Someone on another forum suggested that instead of a sharp tipped projectile which would expend a lot of energy downward rather then outward that the projectile splits up after re-entry into a sort of Super Velocity Aero foil or other larger surface area Impactors with high speed that squash a bit at impact. Larger surface area per impactor and multiple impactors covers a larger surface area in general.

edited 12th Apr '14 6:31:26 AM by TuefelHundenIV

Ignoring the laws of physics aside, imagine if something like that were to happen to a big city. Said country would probably have nukes in every major city

I am confused. Why nukes in every city?

I mean the country that launched a "Zeus" would be nuked to hell and back in retaliation.

Maybe. In this case it was not a country but a faction that was controlling it. If you are using it to attack a planet that you are not from they have to deal with the guy dropping big ass things on their planet first before they can retaliate.

^^ Politically it'd be little different than hitting a place with a MOAB. Big bang + no nuclear trigger = No nuclear retaliation.

The customs of nuclear warfare have been very well established since 1945. You'd have to have a nuclear weapon deployed to initiate a nuclear retaliation. That's why there was interest in "Rods from God" in the 1980s. All of the firepower of nukes but it would never cause a nuclear escalation.

Same thing was happening with precision weapons developed during the time as well. Breakerchase once upon a time dug up old Soviet documents from the 1980s more or less concluding that precision guided munitions were more dangerous and more powerful than nuclear weapons since you could have a flight of A-10s carrying a bunch of em, wipe out an entire motorized division with the same effectiveness as a nuke but it could not escalate the situation into a nuclear war.

In 1991 their fears were proven right on the Highway of Death in Iraq. Thousands of troops, vehicles and untold amounts of materiel destroyed or otherwise taken out of action with very little return damage. All that WITHOUT deploying a single nuclear warhead.

"Rods from God" were in the same league. Peace Through Superior Firepower but none of the nuclear connotations.

edited 12th Apr '14 8:41:48 AM by MajorTom

Tom: That might actually depend on the scale of the destruction. If it was the kind of destruction like depicted in the movie that would likely be considered a type of WMD. Anything that can devastate a city in a single shot would be fairly taboo to use and might be considered crossing that threshold.

If it wipes out a few blocks in downtown London that is one thing. If it destroys London that is another.

Biological weapons can wipe out entire countries and yet the prevailing international opinion is even that is not sufficient grounds to open a nuclear exchange.

Tom: Think again. They are listed as a WMD and many countries have openly stated that the use of Chemical or Biological agents on a mass scale would be grounds for nuclear retaliation. Taking out a city would definitely be grounds for nuclear retaliation. Taking out a military unit, small village, or other similar scale groups not so much.

edited 12th Apr '14 9:37:49 AM by TuefelHundenIV