Energy Weapons. Part Tres

[Junghalli]

We've established that energy weapons are pretty much impractical compared to guns, however...
Is it plausible that on another planet you could have a technological evolution different from ours that leads to energy weapons?

[Sea Skimmer]

On another planet physics and everything else would be the same, and all the reasons that make guns firing shot and shells superior to 'energy' weapons would remain unchanged.

[tumbletom]

Maybe the other species physiology would make energy weapons more feasible? Like for example, there could be a jello monster species that is somehow resistant to dying by having projectiles in it and it needs an electric shock or something to actually kill it?

[Sea Skimmer]

Which do you think is easier to pull off; electrocuting a jello monster from a multi kilometer distance, or taking a tank and firing a high explosive shell with a short delay action fuse into it, with the result that comrade jello monster is blown apart from the inside?

[Junghalli]

Just a thought. Wouldn't an energy weapon be better against armor?

[tumbletom]

Which do you think is easier to pull off; electrocuting a jello monster from a multi kilometer distance, or taking a tank and firing a high explosive shell with a short delay action fuse into it, with the result that comrade jello monster is blown apart from the inside?

But what if the jello monster was resistant to explosions, somehow...um....and this type of jello just melts...um at the sight of energy weaponry....

Ok fine...lolz...but jello creatures would be cool....

[Sea Skimmer]

Just a thought. Wouldn't an energy weapon be better against armor?

Look in reality all weapons work by using energy; an energy weapon is not a type of weapon. A sentence like the one you just wrote is completely meaningless because of that, by energy weapon you could mean anything. If you want actual responses you need to start asking questions about actual types of weapons.

[SPOOFE]

Why do people seem to think that bullets don't have any energy? They have a shitload of energy. Why does a gun need to barf glowing blue goop in order to be "kewl"?

[Gunhead]

Try firing tracers, When you have your whole team blasting away with those at night it's Star Wars galore baby!

Yes, those tracers were red.

-Gunhead

[SPOOFE]

Guns don't spit tracers to be "kewl". They do it to, y'know, trace. Just a teensy bit o' difference, y'know?

[Gunhead]

BAH! U HERETIC! Of course tracers were invented to be t3h K00l!

As to the laser and other DEW. No, they suck against armor.
Modern composite armor can already absorb huge amounts of heat.
Lasers might be effective against kevlar and so on, but then again bullets are too.

-Gunhead

[Admiral Valdemar]

Yes, from now on can we please get over this "bullets = ancient and inferior" mindset and also use proper terminology like DEW or laser/maser/CPB/NPB. It's annoying having to see Skimmer get all wound up and take this out by beating the lower ranking HABites... with cattleprods.

[NecronLord]

Rayguns could be superior if the tech base allows high energy discharges easily, but makes friction resistant projectile launchers capable of survivng repeated shots difficult.

[The Third Man]

What if the jello monsters lived under conditions of extreme pressure (but not extreme opacity) - would that make ray-guns more viable, due to air-resistance (water-resistance? jello-resistance?) effects decreasing the utility of bullets? Or what if a very high gravity applied on their Jello-world, wouldn't that give massive projectiles a shorter range than we are used to and therefore less effectiveness?

[Steven Snyder]

We've established that energy weapons are pretty much impractical compared to guns, however...
Is it plausible that on another planet you could have a technological evolution different from ours that leads to energy weapons?

Got it...

A population of sentient electric eels...or a sapien version thereof.

[Sea Skimmer]

What if the jello monsters lived under conditions of extreme pressure (but not extreme opacity) - would that make ray-guns more viable, due to air-resistance (water-resistance? jello-resistance?) effects decreasing the utility of bullets? Or what if a very high gravity applied on their Jello-world, wouldn't that give massive projectiles a shorter range than we are used to and therefore less effectiveness?

If they lived under high pressure they'd be more resistant to any form of physical attack. But on the other hand, high-pressure conditions also serve to focus the blast of an explosion, a torpedoed is more effective the deeper under the water it strikes a ship because of that. An ultra high gravity world meanwhile would just crush anything living, cells are only so strong, and probably long before it was a serious impediment to weapons fire. Worst comes to worse you just need to adjust the sights on your weapons and loft the bullets and shells higher.

[aerius]

Just a thought. Wouldn't an energy weapon be better against armor?

If by energy weapon you mean a laser, plasma gun, or something of that sort, no. Take a modern day tank. A laser powerful enough to take it out would be the size of a house, and even then you need to keep the beam on it for at least a few seconds to assure a kill. Plasma weapons would be even worse. Or you could fire a good old fashioned projectile at it and kill the tank in a fraction of a second.

[kc8tbe]

As someone pointed out, both weapons are technically energy weapons. Projectiles and explosives both work by dealing out lethal quantities of kinetic energy to the enemy. Let's consider a bullet travelling faster than the speed of sound. That's a lot of kinetic energy being eminated from a handheld device. Physics tells us that a phaser beam (yes, I know, phasers are hypothetical) fired from a similarly sized device would have to contain much less energy than the bullet.

But let's suppose we live someplace where energy is at a premium. Since a bullet and a phaser shot will both kill someone, but a phaser shot requies less energy (if phasers were lasers then this wouldn't apply, since lasers consume ten times more energy than they output), then it makes sense to use energy weapons. But only if they have a very high efficiency.

Note that chemical weapons, such as acids, are more efficient than energy and projectile weapons. Disclaimer: acids are also technically energy weapons since energy is stored in their redox potential.

[Gunhead]

Now I don't recall the exact numbers, but with projectile guns around 95% of the energy from the explosion is converted into velocity. That's pretty efficient IMO. Of course about half is spent on moving the gun but still.

-Gunhead

[Queeb Salaron]

Which do you think is easier to pull off; electrocuting a jello monster from a multi kilometer distance, or taking a tank and firing a high explosive shell with a short delay action fuse into it, with the result that comrade jello monster is blown apart from the inside?

This quote is SO going in my AIM profile.

Feel honored.

[Admiral Valdemar]

If by energy weapon you mean a laser, plasma gun, or something of that sort, no. Take a modern day tank. A laser powerful enough to take it out would be the size of a house, and even then you need to keep the beam on it for at least a few seconds to assure a kill. Plasma weapons would be even worse. Or you could fire a good old fashioned projectile at it and kill the tank in a fraction of a second.

Continuous wave lasers are useless for military purposes. To mission kill a tank with a laser, the capacitors have to discharge the energy needed in a single pulse of sufficient strength rather than keep lasing the target until it melts. The advantage of the ablative explosion from the pulse would also help.

[Junghalli]

What about a technology with access to very compact power sources, like backpack fusion reactors (Ghostbusters comes to mind )?

[Star-Blighter]

Just a thought. Wouldn't an energy weapon be better against armor?

Not really. a conventional energy weapon such as a laser would rely on heating the target material and burning/melting armor off. We currently have rounds which can do a better job (HEAT and such) while packing a large amount of KE to hit the target with (which a laser cannot do).

The reason lasers are even being considered as a weapon system is do to them being effective against missles as a missle has no armor and it's electronics/guidence system can be fouled up by the instense heat.

[Star-Blighter]

What about a technology with access to very compact power sources, like backpack fusion reactors (Ghostbusters comes to mind )?

No. Just. NO.

[Lancer]

Just a thought. Wouldn't an energy weapon be better against armor?

Not really. a conventional energy weapon such as a laser would rely on heating the target material and burning/melting armor off. We currently have rounds which can do a better job (HEAT and such) while packing a large amount of KE to hit the target with (which a laser cannot do).

The reason lasers are even being considered as a weapon system is do to them being effective against missles as a missle has no armor and it's electronics/guidence system can be fouled up by the instense heat.

Think about what that heat is going to do to the tank drivers, the onboard electronics, and any carried munitions/fuel. Lazers are worse because they're less efficent, not because a heat based attack = t3h su><0r.