TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Sci-Fi Weapons, Vehicles and Equipment

Go To

Alucart23 Since: Jun, 2015
#3126: Jun 25th 2015 at 9:27:58 AM

i was talking like, rounds that bounce off the walls in a tight hallway and tear the enemy to shreds than, armor piercing darts, which might work in some situations, but I prefer the ide of a railgun that shoots a cluster of high density spheres, like, heavy enough that a conventional gun wouldn't fire it as far, or as fast.

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#3127: Jun 25th 2015 at 12:34:17 PM

You could do that, certainly, but any projectiles with a useful amount of mass and velocity arent going to bounce off walls. Ever see a shotgun fired at a wall? It's not that useful a capability anyway- grenades do essentially the same thing and are far more effective.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
EchoingSilence Since: Jun, 2013
#3128: Jun 25th 2015 at 2:02:18 PM

And cheaper. Again shields and machine guns are cheaper.

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#3129: Jun 25th 2015 at 4:58:07 PM

MG bullets cant bounce around corners.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
EchoingSilence Since: Jun, 2013
#3130: Jun 25th 2015 at 5:18:20 PM

No but MG bullets can shred through most things with enough time. Plus you don't need to charge it.

AFP Since: Mar, 2010
#3131: Jun 25th 2015 at 5:34:24 PM

Depending on what the wall is made of, the MG round can just shred the corner and everything behind it.

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#3132: Jun 25th 2015 at 6:03:05 PM

Well, so could the rail-gun canister round.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
EchoingSilence Since: Jun, 2013
#3133: Jun 25th 2015 at 6:45:24 PM

Yeah but one can be mass produced and given en masse and doesn't require charging or a large battery to lug.

Alucart23 Since: Jun, 2015
#3134: Jun 25th 2015 at 6:52:46 PM

i got the idea from an anime, and it has immortals, people with powers granted to them by those immortals, and minimechs, three guesses as to what it's called. also, maybe its a coated with a material that temporally makes the rounds bouncy.

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#3135: Jun 25th 2015 at 10:57:17 PM

Ok I am back. Sorry I took so long to get back. I had a few busy days.

Ambiguity of emotions is important because you keep insisting on the view you will use emotions to control people while constantly ignoring the fact they are ambiguous and largely unpredictable. Especially given the fact pretty much all of our emotions require a cue, input, or influence from our environment or outside source to even start the process as in input from one of several senses or combination of them. Never mind the increasing belief that our emotions have not just an automatic component but an introspective one including a set of emotions that specifically have a component of deliberate self introspection. Blocking emotions is just as noticeable and disconcerting to some people as too much of an emotion and yes people do frequently notice that.

Great you want to manipulate a single emotion what about all the rest? Especially in a situation where emotions are shifting rapidly with varying levels of intensity and emotion type. Simply switching them off is pretty damn likely to be noticed especially if they click off just as they start. Emotions have a lot of nuance to them including self perception of emotion, many inputs from our various sensory bits, and emotions induced by individual thought. It isn't anything like flipping a switch or simple jolt to a few neurons or a certain area of the brain. We do know that much.

The comment about emotions not simply being restricted to predictable patterns in the brain comes from the fact nearly all of our emotions require external triggers outside of what goes in the brain. It doesn't start with the brain it starts with the environment and our many varied and often unpredictable variations of interacting with it. Everything else that makes the emotions happen as far as we know follows the same route. Even our introspective oriented emotions require some form of external input.

You mention trying to manipulate dreams that gets even more fuzzy as your dealing with a brain that starts working differently a perception many know to be altered or possibly a dream state. Unless you are going to start controlling peoples dreams to I see no way for that to work beyond possibly firing off happy thoughts at odd points in a dream.

The only I can see any sort of mind control working is for it to be far more intrusive and encompassing then that neural net tech implies.

I don't think we are going to get much further then this point on the discussion we are pretty much going in circles now.


I recall the rail gun having an optional fragmentation type projectile meant to be used against things like missiles, vehicles, enemy troop formations, aircraft etc. It basically just used a light bursting charge to disperse a spray of projectiles that have the velocity of the parent projectile. As for bouncing around aka ricochets they are almost as hazardous to the user in some cases as the enemy. Flechettes are a mixed bag. They have a strong tendency to deflect and richochet when they hit outside of a certain narrow angle. One of the reasons the US abandoned flechette rifles was the darts tended to ricochet dangerously. It is also one of the more valid concerns and reasons to limit their use in built up areas. As for penetration vs targets protection it really depends on the flechette. The small shotgun fired ones are pretty much only good for soft body armor or unprotected personnel.

The canister type shots are basically large un-choked shotguns firing a shit load of material at once. The shot spreads out rapidly after exiting the barrel. Other solutions are traditional HE/Frag rounds with the fragmentation arranged in such a way to produce a predictable pattern and fitted either with a programmable timed fuse or a proximity fuse. You can also use EFP type warheads to produce directed anti-personnel fragmentation pieces. There are shells like the APAM-MP (Anti Personnel Anti Material Multi-Purpose Or the Bofors line of 3p shells which have fuses that can accommodate a wide range of settings that would do the job just as well.

There is no reason to think a rail gun couldn't make use of similar technologies.

As for the comment on the machine guns. Machine guns are almost never used to reduce or penetrate cover outside of heavy weapon type machine guns. Most infantry portable machine guns are not known for their cover busting that role has consistently gone to heavy weapons or special equipment and for a good reason. The amount of ammo you would need to destroy cover would be very high in terms of constant rates of fire. The only machine guns that really would be any use for damaging or destroying cover are the varieties of large bore heavy machine guns like the US .50 cal, the Russian 12.77mm, the 14mm guns, or the automatic-grenade machine guns.

edited 25th Jun '15 10:57:52 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
EchoingSilence Since: Jun, 2013
#3136: Jun 26th 2015 at 5:00:10 AM

Oh. But would automatic weapons be better for tight corridors then? Cause my idea is shield ans MG.

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#3137: Jun 26th 2015 at 5:46:46 AM

It would depend on the automatic weapons. Small or compact weapons like SMG's and bull-pup rifles, and various carbines are good in tight spaces in general. With bull-pup and SMG designs being better suited then carbines. Hand guns are also pretty good in close quarters. Larger automatic weapons are a bit unwieldy in tighter quarters. For example the M-249 LMG is not a good CQC type weapon. It is large, bulky, and heavy. The medium or GP machine guns are even worse because they tend to be larger over all with more weight and bulk. Sure you could clear a hall with one but in tight maneuvering spaces or close contact they are not ideal weapons.

Who watches the watchmen?
EchoingSilence Since: Jun, 2013
#3138: Jun 26th 2015 at 6:12:00 AM

Still better than a railgun.

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#3139: Jun 26th 2015 at 6:16:05 AM

For destroying cover or spraying fragments, nope.

Who watches the watchmen?
EchoingSilence Since: Jun, 2013
#3140: Jun 26th 2015 at 6:21:40 AM

I meant for tight corridors. CQC automatic weapons are better for tight corridors. Railguns are better for longer ranges.

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#3141: Jun 26th 2015 at 6:22:38 AM

The reason that compact weapons are considered superior for close quarters is because they are easier to handle and aim in constricted areas, including corners. Unfortunately, the one thing about railguns is that they are not compact.

While a .223 MG isnt very useful for destroying cover, it can penetrate most light cover, including interior walls, easily enough. The problem is that you cant see what you're shooting at.

There really is little alternative other than going room to room.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Belisaurius Since: Feb, 2010
#3142: Jun 26th 2015 at 6:50:08 AM

[up]Well...there's simply blowing up everything and then rolling tanks over the rubble but that's usually a Bad Idea.

ManInGray from Israel Since: Jul, 2011
#3143: Jun 26th 2015 at 8:53:30 AM

We could see railguns in SMG form one of these days...

Flanker66 Dreams of Revenge from 30,000 feet and climbing Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: You can be my wingman any time
Dreams of Revenge
#3144: Jun 26th 2015 at 11:20:59 AM

So far as railguns go, it again depends on your setting's tech assumptions. It's entirely possible that railguns are solely heavy anti-materiel weapons in your 'verse... or conversely, they've supplanted conventional firearms as the king of infantry small arms. Whatever works for your setting!

Tuefel's response makes me think - what sort of munition types might a railgun be able to accept that a conventional assault rifle wouldn't be able to?

Locking you up on radar since '09
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#3145: Jun 26th 2015 at 4:25:10 PM

Theoretically speaking both chemical propelled and EM propelled should be able to fire the same general types of ammo. The only differences will be in fusing and how the various rounds are constructed for the weapons firing them. You have to take in some considerations of conditions of firing for each weapon. For EM weapons you have to contend with an EM field for chemical propulsion a lot of heat and pressure from expanding gases. In terms of velocity the Chemical propellant weapons are limited by the speed of sound while EM weapons have no such restrictions. It is also theoretically possible for EM weapons to have an option to dial a velocity in making the weapons have variable velocity options. That is a lot harder to do with chemical propulsion methods. Chemical propulsion though is a much simpler design and easier to work with.

Who watches the watchmen?
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#3146: Jun 26th 2015 at 6:46:36 PM

Right, in theory the two types of weapons can pretty much fire the same stuff- but individual chemical weapons are going to be more specialized, while being mechanically simpler. Individual magnetic weapons could be a lot more flexible in what they can fire- but will pay the cost in mechanical complexity.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#3147: Jun 26th 2015 at 7:40:23 PM

Yeah pretty much. It is a trade off in one way or another.

edited 26th Jun '15 7:44:15 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#3148: Jun 27th 2015 at 8:48:27 AM

So what happened to that proposed missile discussion? I was sort of looking forward to it a bit.

Who watches the watchmen?
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#3149: Jun 27th 2015 at 2:07:24 PM

You're going to have to remind me, I think I've forgotten it.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#3150: Jun 27th 2015 at 3:17:01 PM

Major Tom wanted to discuss a variety of missile options and designs. I was looking forward to it.

Who watches the watchmen?

Total posts: 19,725
Top