Discussion Main / RockBeatsLaser

Is there any point in listing aversions to this trope? This is about upsetting the expectation that an advanced military will slaughter a primitive one. There's nothing worth noting if the expectation is borne out.

A note on Literature/Uplift that I'm having difficulty incorporating into the main page (without going too off-topic): the setting's actually engineered to encourage this trope. There's enormous quantities of legal and diplomatic precedent concerning weighing species' "universal rights" without regard to their current state of technology (or in most cases, sentience), Even with the galaxy in a state of turmoil, the Gubru were badly handicapped in what weaponry they could bring and use for their invasion, and the basic fact of indigenous resistance did more to hurt their occupation (by contradicting their narrative to the outside) than its effectiveness. The book strikes a balance between vicariously enjoying the fruits of this trope and showing the delicacies of politics which allowed it, rather than the usual treatment.

Not sure this counts. It's from the Archie's Comics crossover of Sonic and Megaman. That boomerang belongs to Sticks the Badger. I would normally discount this, but that Zero flinches that much rather than just being startled at the attack makes me think it might count.

Sorry to bring this up, but the Phantom example was not so much about the American military planners' and aeronautical engineers' overconfidence in missile technology, but more a case of designers and procurers selecting weapons and weapons' systems to deal with the greatest anticipated threat, while simultaneously lacking the precognitive abilities to predict the course and nature of the geo-political future.

The U.S. Navy chose the Phantom not for any supposed fighter-v-fighter air combat, but rather for its qualities as an steroid-fueled interceptor. Instead of challenging other fighters for air superiority, the Phantom was supposed to protect the fleet from attack by high-speed and/or high altitude, multi-engined bombers carrying truck-loads of ship-killing missiles. The Navy was worried that expensive ships (particularly aircraft carriers) would be sunk enmasse by multiple waves of Soviet bombers practicing missile madness. Later, both because they were impressed with the adaptability of the design, and because the Department of Defense wanted to have a commonality of forces, the Air Force adopted the Phantom as well.

As for the reason why early models of the Phantom weren't armed with cannon, the answer is four-fold: In the first place, research showed that robust bomber airframes were able to absorb quite a lot of damage, even from 20mm cannon. What's more, heavier cannon were damned with both slower rates of fire and less ammunition. This meant that an interceptor would have to both devote more attention than necessary to a single bomber, thereby allowing other bombers to slip past, and they would have to be sure that the limited amount of rounds counted. The second reason is that the weight and space of cannon and ammunition could be better served by hauling either more missiles, or more fuel. The third reason is that against bombers, a fighter that attempted to engage its target with cannon was in turn at risk of being vulnerable to the bombers' defensive weapons. And the finally, and most importantly the Navy was counting on the Phantom's RADAR and weapons to be able to detect and engage targets beyond visual range, under all weather conditions, and even at night (And hopefully be fire-and-forget).

In comparing cannon to missiles, the Phantom's short-range weapon (the infrared-homing AIM-9 Sidewinder) had a maximum effective range of 10 to 18 nautical miles (depending on altitude), its medium range weapon (the Semi-Active RADAR-Homing AIM-7 Sparrow) had a maximum effective range of approximately 30 nautical miles, while in contrast, cannon typically have a maximum range of a couple of thousand meters, at best, while the average pilot could only be sure to hit an aerial target at the range of a few hundred meters. To the Department of Defense and the weapons designers of the mid-50s and early 60s, missiles quite literally gave the most bang for the buck.

While the North Vietnamese Air Force's (NVAF) Mi G-17s, -19s, and -21s were able to enjoy a tighter instanteous turn radius than the Phantom, and while there is no denying the bravery and skill of NVAF aircrew and ground control,(they never had more than 100 NVAF aircraft in service at any time of the conflict) research shows that poor doctrine and training, political handicap, and the rules of engagement contributed more to the effectiveness of North Vietnamese air defense than the engineers of the Mi G Design Bureau did. For instance, from the mid-50s until the first few years of the 70s American fighter pilots were given little to no formal training in fighter-v-fighter engagements. Also, for a considerable period NVAF airfields were off-limits. Fighters could be destroyed in the air, but not on the ground. In addition, the much-ballyhooed 'beyond visual range' capabilities of American air-to-air missiles (when they worked as advertised) could not be exploited due to a reasonable fear of fratricide; bogeys had to be positively identified as bandits before being engaged. Since the Soviet-designed fighters were usually small and hard to visually acquire, Phantom crews had to surrender precious minutes until blips that miles ago had been detected on RADAR could be visually identified; by then, any technological or tactical advantage had been squandered and NVAF pilots had been vectored into optimal avenues of attack by ground controllers.

While much has been made of gun attacks by Mi Gs, two important facts should be noted: In the first place, NVAF pilots used cannon not necessarily because rock beats laser, but in many instances cannon were the only weapon available. The Mi G-17 was not configured to carry air-to-air missiles at all, while the AA-2A Atoll carried by the Mi G-19s and -21s were not always reliable, and were sometimes in short supply. It is quite probable that had the NVAF had the ability that they would have opted for missiles over cannon.

The longbow thread is ridiculous and mostly repeats stupid victorian era myths. English longbow mercenaries were completely useless during the 16th century in Italy, and the english were defeated almost constantly in any continental war they engaged in from the moment continental armies moved to gunpowder to the moment England moved to gunpowder.

Also a waterlogged longbow is not slightly useful, a waterlogged longbow is dead.