Ground combat in Trek (2370s-2380s era)

[Teaos]

Simplicity is the key to military equipment.

Simplicity weighed against effectivness. The AK is simpler than the M-16 yet most would choose the latter over the former.

[RX-178]

Both the Katana AND the Ushaan Tor are just primarily symbols of honor. They're made to be functional, but it's not very likely they'll actually see use in a real battle.

The limitations of ablative armor aren't anything that modern body armors don't share. The composite body armor that is issued to US Army soldiers is destroyed when hit by a shot. Any other shots that it stops are effectively flukes.

And the phaser in the knife is not designed as a weapon. It's just a survival tool, just like the knife itself. The pulse phaser pistol can't heat up rocks like Sulu used his type 2 phaser for in TOS. It can't be used to precisely cut, or weld metals together. It can't be set to a wide field.



And as for the 'burden of proof being on me', Kendall.... are you suggesting that I create a new Trek series in which the technology is feasible? Are you suggesting I build a functional phaser to test the weight and reliability? Are you suggesting that I actually make a tractor beam to see how big or small they are?

Exactly what proof do you want, given that all these technologies are fictional?

[Aaron]

And as for the 'burden of proof being on me', Kendall.... are you suggesting that I create a new Trek series in which the technology is feasible? Are you suggesting I build a functional phaser to test the weight and reliability? Are you suggesting that I actually make a tractor beam to see how big or small they are?

Exactly what proof do you want, given that all these technologies are fictional?

I am suggesting that you back up your statements. If you have to fall back on "this is Sci-Fi and we can't prove anything" than you've just made my argument for me.

[Aaron]

Simplicity weighed against effectivness. The AK is simpler than the M-16 yet most would choose the latter over the former.

Actually a great number of Western soldiers prefer the AK-47 over the M-16 series, because of it's stopping power and easier maintanence requirements.

[RX-178]

If anyone here can tell me the weight of a tractor beam unit, and the weight of an inertial dampener device, I'd be very happy to know. Until then, I'm going to assume that they don't make the weapon prohibitively heavy. You can assume otherwise if you like.


This weapon would have two moving parts, both only to align the ammunition with the tractor emitter to fire. It would be effective against Borg, and to a degree, armored targets. It would be extremely effective against other infantry. It would be INEFFECTIVE against shields, but that's why it has a phaser weapon under the projectile barrel. The magnetic rails will have to be changed periodically, but even modern day firearms have a finite barrel life, where the bullets traveling down the barrel wears down the rifling. Within 10,000 rounds, your average barrel on a C7 has worn down enough to have significantly deteriorated rifling. Much more than that and the bullets won't even spin-stabilize.


Also, these magnetic rails don't do any accelerating, merely focusing. There's no need for them to be in electrical contact with the projectile. The amount of wear compared to a railgun would be far less, and at the very most, comparable to a modern weapon. They'd also be much easier to replace than a firearms barrel, which requires a chamber and a locking mechanism for the bolt.

[Aaron]

If anyone here can tell me the weight of a tractor beam unit, and the weight of an inertial dampener device, I'd be very happy to know. Until then, I'm going to assume that they don't make the weapon prohibitively heavy. You can assume otherwise if you like.

So then you've got nothing, just as I suspected.

[Mikey]

Simplicity weighed against effectivness. The AK is simpler than the M-16 yet most would choose the latter over the former.

Actually a great number of Western soldiers prefer the AK-47 over the M-16 series, because of it's stopping power and easier maintanence requirements.

Does that include the fact that, unlike the M-16, the AK-47 doesn't jam when you look at it funny?

The main advantage of the M-16/M-4, as far as I can tell, is the weight savings of the ammo.

BTW, modern body armor isn't ablative - it is only degraded in the one particular point in which it was previously struck.

[Captain Seafort]

The main advantage of the M-16/M-4, as far as I can tell, is the weight savings of the ammo.

The whole weapon is considerably lighter, thanks to the extensive use of plastic, and it's got better sights (magnification and night vision).

The downsides are that if you hit someone with it the weapon would probably come second, and it doesn't matter how good the sights are if it won't fire and your target won't stay hit.

[Mikey]

Is the stopping power really that much less than the 7.62mm round? I thought I had read that the tumbling characteristic of the 5.56 round put the stopping power on par with the larger rounds.

[RX-178]

Modern body armor is replaced if it has ever been struck by a bullet. Any strike by a bullet to body armor damages the armor. The damage cannot be repaired, and the protective quality of the armor can no longer be ascertained. Trauma plates, to stop high power rifle rounds, are actually made of ceramics, and shatter when struck, so are literally only good for one shot.

Any body armor that has taken bullets must be replaced. Ablative armor would be the same way, but at least offer more extended, and reliable protection.




And the tumbling of 5.56mm rounds actually depends on the exact bullets used, and the barrel length of the weapon. The downside to tumbling is that it means the spin stabilization of the bullet has ceased, so the round has far less range and accuracy.

Modern 5.56mm NATO ammunition (SS109) will tumble very rarely.

[Mikey]

The 5.56mm rounds I referred to were the ones from the the Stoner Arms M-16 - I don't recall the length of the rounds. Of course body armor has to be replaced when shot - there is still a weak point where it was impacted. Ablative armor, to be effective for extended operations, would have to be prohibitively heavy.

Of course, we're talking about the 24th century, so I would presume that non-ablative personal armor would have access to materials better than ceramic, kevlar, or even the latest reactive semi-colloidal stuff.

[RX-178]

The 5.56mm in use when the original M16 was designed would tumble.

Nowadays, the 5.56mm ammunition issued will only tumble out of a short barreled weapon, such as an M4 carbine, and even then, not with any particular consistency. The round will fail to tumble at all when fired from a long barreled M16.

[Aaron]

Is the stopping power really that much less than the 7.62mm round? I thought I had read that the tumbling characteristic of the 5.56 round put the stopping power on par with the larger rounds.

Only because the modern rounds where designed to penetrate Soviet body armor, so were given high velocity and high stabilization. A change of rounds and the rifling in the weapon could restore that. Pretty simple really, just replace all the upper recievers.