Projectiles or Energy Weapons

[GorunNova]

Maybe Earth technology tastes bad to them?

 

"Eew! That's EARTH technology! Spit it out!"

[Chandon]

Projectile Weapon Cons:

...

- Useless in high gravity situations... unless you like to pepper the floor with lead ^^'

I highly doubt this will ever come up. I'd worry about developing anti-grav harnesses for neutron star surface missions first I think.

[TetsuoShima]

You can build defenses for any weapon, defences against projectile weapons are fairly 'easy' to build. But the projectile weapons themselves are also fairly easy to build.

 

Problem is that if you want to use a projectile weapon, and you want it to be powerfull, you will need very powerfull EM-fields to accelerate the projectile, that is if you are using a projectile of a substance that is susceptible to these fields, if you want to accelerate a projectile that is not, and you want the weapon to be powerfull, well..., then you've got a problem (if you want the weapon to be powerfull that is).

 

Defence against this type of projectile involves the same kind of EM-fields. In the end, it all comes down to wich party has the most powerfull EM-field generator.

 

About the same theory also applies to energy weapons. As a matter of fact, projectile weapons also are energy weapons, since the damage they do is roughly equivalent to the amount of energy/impulse they deliver to the target (this is a functions of the speed and mass of the projectile). This is, in the case of the projectile weapon, not always the same as the amount of energy the carry themselves, since for example:

 

If a projectile is fired to a target and the projectile penetrates and goes 'through' the target, the target will only have sustained damage equivalent to the energy originally carried by the projectile minus the energy the projectile still carries after exiting the target. Therefore, if a projectile penetrates a target, but does not exit it, maximum damage-potential for this projectile has been reached. The damage done is also a function of the reshaping of the projectile, since this also consumes energy. However, projectiles can be designed in such a way that the damage lost due to the energy-loss due to this reshaping, can be reclaimed by the specific shape the projectile transforms in during this reshaping.

 

To continue about energy weapons, as mentioned before, for every kind of energy weapon, you can devise a defensive shield wich absorbes the energy and can even reflect it. It would even be possible, depending on what kind of energy, to reflect it straight back to the attacker. However the same also again applies to projectile weapons.

 

To be short, 'projectile' weapons an 'energy' weapons are equivalent to each other when it comes to damage-potential. Further, projectile weapons can be seen as energy weapons as well and energy weapons can also be seen as projectile weapons (example: laser, a photon traveling at the speed of light, thus the photon is the projectile).

 

In the end it all comes down to wich energy can easiest be transformed into damage and how efficient can the weapons be made. It is clear that if two weapons have the same damage potential, but one is three times as big and requires three times as much 'input' power to get the same 'output' power, the smaller weapon will be a lot more efficient. If it is not too small at least!

 

At the moment it is impossible to tell wich will be most efficient in the future, it all depends on what scientific 'breakthroughs' will be researched. It can be said that with current technology, projectile weapons are a lot more efficient than energy weapons for ordinary purposes. For near-instant-effect weapons however, energy weapons are a lot more efficient, since there has not yet been found a way to efficiently accelerate a projectile to near-light speeds. There are ways to do this, but this requires a weapon that is way to big to be usefull, even in space.

 

But, as I've already said, it's impossible to tell what the future holds.

 

 

Note: I've done my best to explain why 'energy' and 'projectile' weapons are equivalent/about the same, yet I use the terms myself in the explanation: in these explanations, I use the 'common' way these terms are made use of.

[Engineer101]

woot projectiles. Im wondering. What type is Mass Driver Weapons?

[TetsuoShima]

woot projectiles. Im wondering. What type is Mass Driver Weapons?

By normal standards, mass drivers go under projectile weapons!

[rcazant]

saying never is really tempting fate

 

Thank you for your enlightment, Captain Picard ;)

I agree though.

[Oma]

 

and you've never seen a tree thats been struck by lightning?

or exploded food in a microwave oven? or radiation burn bictims/

 

Dependent on the level of energy i think there could be considerable damage

 

No way you could create a weapon that is capable of striking energy with levels as high as lightning

 

Ok, a lightning gives off 4*10^9 watt...

 

yah - that's going to be a mother of a battery to carry around!

Or 1.6 billion AA's ....

[Engineer101]

Bring on the PAIN! Projectiles all the way!.

[user98887]

Projectiles.

 

I always thought it was dumb how on startrek they have advanced weapons - phasors, but somehow they don't work on certain things (borg) or enter an energy field which disables their weapons.

 

I mean after meeting the borg a few times, realising your weapons were crap, wouldn't you pick a better one to fight them.

 

 

 

 

[Soulreaper]

I still would say:

 

It depends!

 

In a certain case, for certain reasons and intentions, PROJECTILES would be the best and likewise, for certain reasons, intentions and cases, ENERGY-based weaponry would be the best.

 

Any other truth's are not objective, it's subject to what an individual things as cool and efficient etc. based on what that individual knows or believes to know and understand.

 

[Engineer101]

The best way to cause collateral damage. PROJECTILES! WOOT. Concussion Damage too

[maverick]

ray guns are cool

[Beawulf]

Projectiles.

 

I always thought it was dumb how on startrek they have advanced weapons - phasors, but somehow they don't work on certain things (borg) or enter an energy field which disables their weapons.

 

I mean after meeting the borg a few times, realising your weapons were crap, wouldn't you pick a better one to fight them.

 

 

I agree, that really gave me the s#@%s. Personally I would at least take a batleth with me, make short work of them.

 

I picked energy weapons for no apparent reason....maybe because there is so much to learn in that field. although projectiles are fun, how about mercury tipped bullets that explode on contact woohoo (if i remember correctly)

 

 

are atomic and fusion bombs considered energy weapons or projectiles?....they are both fired as a missle or bomb, but they both are based on an energy reaction

:stare:

[thompson]

As for killing or atleast incapacitate the borg if they get up close (which they usaully do) cant you just pull out some of all their cables and tubing?

Archer does just that in the borg episode in enterprise.

 

[GorunNova]

Problem is that if you want to use a projectile weapon, and you want it to be powerfull, you will need very powerfull EM-fields to accelerate the projectile, that is if you are using a projectile of a substance that is susceptible to these fields, if you want to accelerate a projectile that is not, and you want the weapon to be powerfull, well..., then you've got a problem (if you want the weapon to be powerfull that is).

 

Defence against this type of projectile involves the same kind of EM-fields. In the end, it all comes down to wich party has the most powerfull EM-field generator.

 

That is, unless you use an EM-susceptible harness to accelerate a non-EM-susceptible payload by, say, having the projectile discard it after hitting top speed... the kickback would probably be horrendous, or it would have to be designed so the harness tags along, but if deflected won't drag the non-EM payload with it. EM shielding, in this case, would become totally useless.

 

Edit: It could possibly be done by EM launching the shell, and having a timed propellant further distance the payload from the EM harness (probably the casing) after exiting the barrel...

[Beawulf]

As for killing or atleast incapacitate the borg if they get up close (which they usaully do) cant you just pull out some of all their cables and tubing?

Archer does just that in the borg episode in enterprise.

 

yeah that works, but by getting that close they could easily injet you using their nanutubules, game over.

[Duggie]

I started this thread back in January when the forum got reset. I can't believe the debate is still going. This has to be the longest living thread on this site. :cyclops: :p