www.ditl.org

Oh yeah. I guess we'd better include the broomhandle Mauser then, too.

Maybe, but I reckon the stormies, and by extension their E-11s, are more iconic than Han's DL-44.

Mikey wrote:Was that because of the imbalance from the side-mounted mag?

Most likely a combination of age and the way it was designed, the safety wasn't strong enough to hold back the bolt when given a hard knock.

Captain Seafort wrote:Maybe, but I reckon the stormies, and by extension their E-11s, are more iconic than Han's DL-44.

Yeah. E-11, most people I know at school would know. The DL-44, not so much.

In a similar vein to my last post, here is a weapon that was notorious in some circles (i believe) the Chance Vought F4U Corsair

Captain Seafort wrote:

Perfect!

I think we have a winner...

Well lets try to segue that to another topic. Energy weapons, the way of the future, or specialized roles only? Will lasers and particle beams replace projectile weapons once the energy demands are met? Or will they merely be used in a small handful of roles that their unique properties better fulfill? Or are the battles of the future going to be a mixed field, using each according to their merits?

I think it will be mixed. Energy weapons are probably never going to be as reliable as a simple gas fired projectile weapon, but I imagine will be more multipurpose (stunning, heat sources, overpowering for makeshift grenades).

Energy weapons will only be useful in limited specialised applications, IMO.

The energy required to burn a bullet sized hole through somebody is far, far higher than the kinetic energy of a bullet which does more or less the same thing. So why would you want an energy weapon when they are so much less efficient?

On the other hand there are a few advantages...

If your energy storage density is so high that it gives you the equivalent of absurdly high ammunition capacity - a battery the size of an assault rifle magazine with a few hundred bursts in it, say.

The beam would be silent, which might be useful in sniping and such.

Or if you can fire a continuous beam, then you've got an essentially infinite rate of fire; would have some advantages in the machine gun type role, I guess.

The essentially infinite speed of the beam means effectively no travel time to the target, which will simplify aiming. Combined with continuous beam firing that would be a big advantage in CIWS type applications.

Overall, though, I can't see beam weapons displacing bullets anytime soon.

GrahamKennedy wrote:The essentially infinite speed of the beam means effectively no travel time to the target, which will simplify aiming. Combined with continuous beam firing that would be a big advantage in CIWS type applications.

To go along with this point it also means that there will be almost no gravity effect on the beam, making all weapons fire much more accurate, which is really good for sniping.

Sniping, OK. Vehicle mounts, yeah. But I doubt we'll see infantry issued with them in our or our children lifetimes, nor would they replace things like MGs. Ballistic weapons are just to useful to get rid of.

I can sort of see them being good for the big aerial gunships. The laser could take a tank in a shot if its powerful enough, and could probably act as a precision high power gun.

The Vulcan on an A-10 could as easily take out a tank. But that is a case in which the higher capacity which Graham mentioned is eminently useful as far as battlefield stamina.

I can see directed-energy weapons being more widespread than has been mentioned if and only if the technology develops to the point at which reliability surpasses - not equals - that of a typical gas-recoil (not direct impingement) autofire mechanism. Of course, such a personal weapon system must also meet the criteria of being nearly as cost-effective as a ballistic weapon, and being as lethal/effective on the battlefield.

The core problem with energy weapons it supplying them with energy. Take the ABL for example. It's a Boeing 747 yet it can only carry enough chemicals for a few dozen shots (20 to 40). You average infantryman is carrying between 200 and 400 rounds for his assault rifle. Also the stuff that powers the ABL's COIL is some pretty nasty shit. Chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, potassium hydroxide, and iodine, not really things you want to have an infantryman carrying in bulk on the battlefield.

Until you can produce a battery or fuel cell type power source that can provide an energy weapon with enough energy to be deadly everything else is just thought exercises.