B5 Firearms Question

[Connor MacLeod]

You might get some more range from a plasma weapon if it behaved more like a particle beam, but we never see that.

Generally I figured most plasma weapons we see on the screen (aside frfom being the object of writer stupidity) are some projectile weapon that isnt so much containing a plasma itself as in containing something that can be converted to plasma upon impact with the target. That kinda simplifies the containment issue (and visually, such "bolts" won't look like what a plasma ought to be anyhow.)

Mind you, I could see some problems with that even then.. how rapidly the plasma is "created" or expands could be an issue (it could be downright explosive if it goes too fast.. which isn't BAD for a weapon, but it would be inconsistent with visuals.)

[Darth Wong]

You might get some more range from a plasma weapon if it behaved more like a particle beam, but we never see that.

And we never will, because the public envisions plasma as a hot glowing liquid, and all sci-fi "plasma weapons" will have to fit this perception. Besides, the whole point of classifying it as a "plasma weapon" instead of a particle beam is to suggest that the primary damage mode is convective heat transfer from the hot plasma rather than kinetic energy from a particle beam.

Generally I figured most plasma weapons we see on the screen (aside frfom being the object of writer stupidity) are some projectile weapon that isnt so much containing a plasma itself as in containing something that can be converted to plasma upon impact with the target. That kinda simplifies the containment issue (and visually, such "bolts" won't look like what a plasma ought to be anyhow.)

Mind you, I could see some problems with that even then.. how rapidly the plasma is "created" or expands could be an issue (it could be downright explosive if it goes too fast.. which isn't BAD for a weapon, but it would be inconsistent with visuals.)

The big problem with this is the extraordinarily inefficient mechanism of damage implied by it. A projectile which sublimates into gas and billows into a cloud of plasma at the point of impact would do much less damage per kilojoule than a projectile which simply shatters and sprays bits of metal around at the point of impact.

[Connor MacLeod]

And we never will, because the public envisions plasma as a hot glowing liquid, and all sci-fi "plasma weapons" will have to fit this perception. Besides, the whole point of classifying it as a "plasma weapon" instead of a particle beam is to suggest that the primary damage mode is convective heat transfer from the hot plasma rather than kinetic energy from a particle beam.

Well yes, if you go by the *cough* "traditional" interpretation of a plasma weapon (as in the bullshit one).

The big problem with this is the extraordinarily inefficient mechanism of damage implied by it. A projectile which sublimates into gas and billows into a cloud of plasma at the point of impact would do much less damage per kilojoule than a projectile which simply shatters and sprays bits of metal around at the point of impact.

Well that will be true of any energy weapon I imagine. Hell, I imagine its easier to emulate "mechanical" damage with energy weapons than just a purely thermal one is.

But then if most energy weaposn were efficient, I doubt you'd be seeing things like "cauterization or incineration" or even severe burning, would you?

[Connor MacLeod]

Actually if I'm pressed to it, I generally find it hard to believe that ANY sci fi energy weapon (if you are going to have them) would need a reason to have a "incinerate" or "cauterize" mode really. It seems poitnlessly excessive (you'd want your enemy to bleed out, and relying on more "mechanical" damage effects rather than thermal also can mean many more shots when you consider how much energy sci fi weapon powrpacks can be assumed to hold (A blaster for example could cary many tens or hundresd of megajoules of energy per pack, if we use a lightsaber as a possible benchmark. If they used a few kj or even tens of kj to inflict damage on the target, you'd hardly ever need to reload.)

The only thing I could perhaps think of is body armor, but even then I imagine you could think of ways around it (one pulse to put a hole in the armor, then a second,w eaker pulse for the fleshy bits inside.)

[Darth Wong]

Well that will be true of any energy weapon I imagine.

The thing is, in some cases you might try to explain away those disadvantages as an unavoidable side-effect of the basic nature of the weapon. This is certainly true with lasers. But in the case of a fancy projectile with anti-grav technology, a fuse, and some kind of detonator, it would be silly to waste its energy so badly because it would be so easy to use it more efficiently.

[Connor MacLeod]

The thing is, in some cases you might try to explain away those disadvantages as an unavoidable side-effect of the basic nature of the weapon. This is certainly true with lasers.

Which effects are we talking about? The incineration or cauterizaton, or something else?

But in the case of a fancy projectile with anti-grav technology, a fuse, and some kind of detonator, it would be silly to waste its energy so badly because it would be so easy to use it more efficiently.

As a purely thermal effect you're right, it IS hideously inefficient. However, you could probably have it behave like a high explosive charge as well. (the PPG estimate I calced above based on assumed cremation would easily match how much energy a grenade packs.)

But then again, I can also see lasers being used "more effiicentY" than just burning a large hole in the body or burning the organs (nevermind cremating them.) Simply cutting the guy in half with a very focused laser would suffice, and I'm pretty sure you can imitate some sort of explosive effect with a beam weapon too.

But, again, this is where we run up against the visuals not neccearily coinciding with "efficient", at least in my experience.

Edit (sorry, I keep forgetting how many times I edit this. I kept disliking how I said it, so if this turns out differently than how you respond Mike, i apologize.)

[Darth Wong]

The thing is, in some cases you might try to explain away those disadvantages as an unavoidable side-effect of the basic nature of the weapon. This is certainly true with lasers.

Which effects are we talking about? The incineration or cauterizaton, or something else?

The inefficient mechanism of damage.

As a purely thermal effect you're right, it IS hideously efficient. However, you could probably have it behave like a high explosive charge given the setup.. But I imagine the same could be true of lasers (either an explosive effect, or a cutting one.. both of which would be less energy-intensive than burning a large hole in someone.)

But, again, this is where we run up against the visuals not neccearily coinciding with "efficient", at least in my experience.

The thing is, a laser has some profound situational advantages in order to compensate for its inefficient damage mechanism. Many sci-fi hand-held "energy weapons" also have such special advantages, like the "stun" setting in SW and ST weapons which would be absurdly useful for police and occupation work. I don't see any of that for EA PPGs.

[Connor MacLeod]

The inefficient mechanism of damage.

In some cases perhaps. But what about blasterS? we know they can make things explode violently in the movies, so why not bodies? (Again this is why I figure body armour plays a role, but I am curious to hear what you'd think on this.)

The thing is, a laser has some profound situational advantages in order to compensate for its inefficient damage mechanism.

Like the speed of propogation and minimal drop in gravity (and generally lack of recoil?) Mind you, you can still employ a laser more effiicently than simply incinerating part of the target and still keep those advantages.

Many sci-fi hand-held "energy weapons" also have such special advantages, like the "stun" setting in SW and ST weapons which would be absurdly useful for police and occupation work.

True. I've sometimes wondered if the "stun" effect persists even with killing shots (kind of like how we know the laser cannons on At-ATs still managed to knock out the electronics in Luke's speeder in TESB.)

Heck, sometimes I've wondered if maybe the "kill" setting on blasters may be more of a "lethal" version of a stun effect. That may explain the small holes in some cases. This may even be a function of setting or configuration even.

I don't see any of that for EA PPGs.

Well maybe the PPGs carried by B5's security staff are designed to be "less than lethal". If they have any lethality, that may simply be an afterthought (with the side effect that they are rather inefficient in being lethal, perhaps?) Maybe they're designed to inflict painful/incapacitating but not immediately fatal burns on a target. I vaguely recall the military testing something like that (those pulsed energy projectile thingies IIRC.) This function may or may not even be related to the energy input - or maybe its jut a magitech weapon all around like phasers are - its not like the "subsonic glowing blob of plasma" contributes to its realism to begin with.

Then again, this leads to what the point is for military PPGs, so the "magi-tech" idea probably becomes more plausible at this point.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

Well the PPGs carried by B5's security staff might not be designed to be lethal. I imagine causing burns

If they have any lethality, that may simply be an afterthought (with the side effect that they are rather inefficient in being lethal, perhaps?) Maybe they're designed to inflict painful/incapacitating but not immediately fatal burns on a target. Mind you, that doesnt work for all of them, but the energy input/effect of "military" PPGs isnt something I recall being seen very often (or that we could attribute to.) The Vorlon ambassador killed in Season 4 would be the only one OTOH.

They're actually as lethal as your common day firearm. Throughout the series, someone who's been hit by a PPG in or around their center of mass usually die. With the exception of Garibaldi who was shot in the back, but that can be excused as a character shield. A Teep died after taking a PPG bolt in the gut early on in Season 5 after the shoots when straight through a vent shaft. In Crusade episode "ruling from the tomb", one of the detectives on Mars got shot in the shoulder by a doomsday cultists, and she was perfectly "fine".

In End Game, it took 3 PPG rifles to shoot the edges off of a pressure door when a security detail took out the teep that was hijaking the Apollo.
Thats what I can remember of what PPG's can do for now.

[Swindle1984]

Well maybe the PPGs carried by B5's security staff are designed to be "less than lethal". If they have any lethality, that may simply be an afterthought (with the side effect that they are rather inefficient in being lethal, perhaps?) Maybe they're designed to inflict painful/incapacitating but not immediately fatal burns on a target. I vaguely recall the military testing something like that (those pulsed energy projectile thingies IIRC.) This function may or may not even be related to the energy input - or maybe its jut a magitech weapon all around like phasers are - its not like the "subsonic glowing blob of plasma" contributes to its realism to begin with.

The term isn't "less than lethal", it's "less lethal" because they can still kill. This is why the term is applied to tasers, beanbag rounds, CS tear gas, etc. The intent is to NOT kill the target, but sometimes it happens anyway. Hence, less-lethal. Calling it less-than-lethal implies that it CANNOT be lethal.

Also, since we see people and weird alien creatures (like the shadow monster that eats people's internal organs) get killed with PPG's on a semi-regular basis and they don't seem to have variable settings, your theory that a PPG is a less-lethal weapon used to put down unruly tourists and rioters without killing them is rather, well, stupid.

[Winston Blake]

The big problem with this is the extraordinarily inefficient mechanism of damage implied by it. A projectile which sublimates into gas and billows into a cloud of plasma at the point of impact would do much less damage per kilojoule than a projectile which simply shatters and sprays bits of metal around at the point of impact.

On the other hand, a concussion charge fits in with the 'beanbag round in space' idea. Also, at short ranges and in the close quarters of a civilian space station, you don't want shrapnel flying around hitting delicate equipment and old ladies.

Now, I haven't seen any Babylon 5, but this idea doesn't fall apart if PPGs end up used in non-station-security roles. So far, I think we're talking about a very small tracer shell, composed of a technobabble helium-based explosive that's so energetic that a non-negligible part of the fireball is plasma.

Lethality could be greatly improved with projectiles that act like mini-EFPs. On impact, they blast a small plate through the target at very high velocity (particularly high considering this uber-explosive). Fragmentation, as above, is good too for soft targets.

The fusing may be purely pyrotechnic, like .50 BMG Raufoss rounds - compression on impact of chemicals in the nose detonates the charge. I'm certain this could be delayed by a few moments. The projectiles may be 'caseless' like the cartridges (I assume no spent cases are seen). However, even if not, the case material may be combustible. Certain 120mm tank rounds have partly combustible cases, and I think there's a new Israeli active protection system that uses completely combusting zero-shrapnel interception grenades.

Institutional inertia can explain why PPGs are used where an old fashioned large-inert-slug weapon would be more suitable. E.g. cost of buying new weapons, toe-the-line standardisation, retraining personnel to use and maintain them, etc. There's also the potentially awesome armour penetration of an mini-EFP round.

As for why they're subsonic? *shrugs* I can't see recoil or ammunition capacity being desirable trade-offs.