Energy Weapons v Ballistic Weapons

[PallElendro]

With the trend for fights of superiority, there is a struggle between a person and their abilities and most common equipment.
I'd like to contrast weapons.

Energy Weapons
These weapons are capable of burning many substances and heating up anyone on the other side in mere seconds. They come in many sizes and forms, but their function and potential is nearly analogue. A battery is used to charge a core and fire particles or electromagnetic radiation at a target within a confined beam or pulse.
All lasers travel at the speed of light, which means there is virtually no need to adjust the trajectory for aim, and has negligible momentum/energy ratio, meaning there is no need to adjust for recoil. In addition, the intensity of the laser can be adjusted to heat up other substances more easily, or dumbed down to stun a target.
In practicality, batteries needed to power most laser weapons would have to support megajoules' worth of energy being shot at a time, necessitating large battery packs beyond standard D-size batteries. Intensity of the weapon strength cannot give an accurate measurement of battery life. When hitting an enemy with a weapon, it breaches many parts of their body, but generally burn for a few minutes. In addition, devices that knock out electronics will fry these weapons useless. Even if there is no perfect reflector, a weapon's effectiveness can be reduced with mirrors moderately. To breach a substance, an energy weapon must expend all its energy to blast through to meet the diameter of the beam for it to be effective.

Ballistic Weapons
The standard weapon for centuries, ballistic weapons traditionally fire kinetic projectiles against an enemy to penetrate an enemy and kill them primarily from shock before blood loss. Like energy weapons, there are many styles of weapon, but some weapons are more suited to some situations than others, but must be of a different chassis altogether. Gas-propelled projectiles will force a bullet at super-sonic velocities and only require the components of primer and powder within the bullet to propel it.
Bullets travel at super-sonic speeds, but there is a tremendous amount of recoil, requiring most soldiers to either burst fire or automatically fire starting down and use the recoil to aim upward. To change the weapon's firepower, one must adjust the gas system or use a different coating or tip in the bullet, most of which are limited in quantity in the field, and the gas system requires disassembly of the weapon.
In practicality, ballistic weapons are more efficient at suppressing enemy positions because of the need only for enough ammunition to supply the weapon, and a bullet that stays in the wound will sting for a long time. They break through many surfaces, depending on the tip of the bullet, the speed of the bullet, and the hardness of the wall it's firing at. They're also cheaper to mass-produce and require no electronic parts save any weapon attachments such as laser sights and flashlights, so any electronic attack will only dull accuracy or visibility.
---
I'm sure there are many other factors that go into the effectiveness of a ballistic weapon and an energy weapon, such as damage drop-off-over-distance, conservation of energy, and stopping power, but that's up to the Playground to argue.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Something you forgot with ballistic weapons: because they're composed of mass, a gunshot will potentially be highly disruptive to the body. That kinetic energy in the bullet has to go somewhere; it pulses out into the rest of the body, generally causing some sort of larger trauma.

With an energy weapon, that just turns into a burn.

[Gnoman]

Something you forgot with ballistic weapons: because they're composed of mass, a gunshot will potentially be highly disruptive to the body. That kinetic energy in the bullet has to go somewhere; it pulses out into the rest of the body, generally causing some sort of larger trauma.

With an energy weapon, that just turns into a burn.

That's not really true. For a low-powered laser or moderately hot plasme, yeah. You "just" get severe burns. Really high output stuff, such as what you'd use to shoot down an airplane or destroy a vehicle, will transfer enough energy fast enough to make parts of your body literally explode, either by boiling water/blood or transferring enough energy into the bone to shatter it.

[Aotrs Commander]

Which energy weapons?

From what generas, or backgrounds?

Because "energy weapons" covers a vast great varity of weapons, not all of which have any of the disadvantages of what you're talking about (which mostly seem to be lower-end beam lasers or plasma weapons). You are mentioning lasers, but they are hardly the only type of energy weapon.

What about disintegrators, particle accelerators, partricle beams, disruptors, phasers, electoblasters, fusion cannons, blasters, neutron blasters, antiproton cannons, PPGs, PPCs, sunguns, death rays, coldbeams, freeze rays, masers, x-raysers, sonic stunners, sonic cannons, meson beams... Just what I can think of off the top of my head, from a variety of sources and media. (And most of which are not reflected by mirrors... Nor are most in-universe having many problems with battery packs.)

(And I'm assuming you only mean personel weapons, because vehicle weaponms opens an even larger issues.)

Your implication is merely ultra-modern or low-end hard sci-fi, but you kind of need to set rather firmer boundary conditions, as at the moment "energy weapons" without any qualifiers is too broad. If you wanted to debate lasers verses firearms in a near-future scenario (which is what you seem to be implying), fine, but it would help to SAY that clearly.



As a general note, as well, there is a maximum level of power you can get out a convention firearm - which gives you ceiling for capability. I notice you didn't appear to mention anything like railguns, which break that limitation.

[PallElendro]

The variety of energy-based weapons are numerous, as I'm sure that every series has their fair share, but it goes without saying that many weapons operate under analogues, and just because it's different for one weapon does not mean it's unique. The functionality is nearly identical, and the only differences are in the ostensible function. As for kinetic weaponry, railguns are kinetic weapons like any other, just with congruent, but more extreme, proportions and a different delivery system. It's not very different from loading up a .22 round into a sniper rifle and firing it; just that it's coiled back, first.

[jseah]

A point on energy weapons:
In no way will a mirror help you. Mirrors rely on having long-range order in their materials to achieve the reflective properties. Even if you had a wavelength specific mirror that was highly efficient, at the kinds of power levels needed to have a useful weapon, the remaining unreflected energy will still destroy your mirror by causing a failure in the spot that is shot at (which would then stop reflecting and promptly explode).

Of course, mirrors also don't help you against non-light based energy weapons (particle accelerators) nor against lasers using Chirped Pulse Amplification (as the beam would be composed of more than a single wavelength, specific wavelength mirrors just fail; non-specific mirrors are even more useless anyway).

[Aotrs Commander]

The variety of energy-based weapons are numerous, as I'm sure that every series has their fair share, but it goes without saying that many weapons operate under analogues, and just because it's different for one weapon does not mean it's unique. The functionality is nearly identical, and the only differences are in the ostensible function.

That is inaccurate statement in even a cursory examination against popular TV sci-fi, let alone other media... Compare Star Wars blasters, Star Trek Phasers, Babylon 5 PPGs, Dalek guns or Stargate's Goa-uld staff weapons or zats - which are VASTLY different in both use and effect. (I'm also pretty sure the only one that MIGHT reflect off something is maybe a phaser beam. Maybe. I have a vague feeling we're even seen PPGs richoet like bullets...)

EM weapons (i.e. lasers) =/= particle beam weapons =/= sonic weapons. You might find it worth your while to read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon) wiki page, which gives a fairly reasonable list of energy weapon types without even going into sci-fi.




A point on energy weapons:
In no way will a mirror help you. Mirrors rely on having long-range order in their materials to achieve the reflective properties. Even if you had a wavelength specific mirror that was highly efficient, at the kinds of power levels needed to have a useful weapon, the remaining unreflected energy will still destroy your mirror by causing a failure in the spot that is shot at (which would then stop reflecting and promptly explode).

Of course, mirrors also don't help you against non-light based energy weapons (particle accelerators) nor against lasers using Chirped Pulse Amplification (as the beam would be composed of more than a single wavelength, specific wavelength mirrors just fail; non-specific mirrors are even more useless anyway).

Exactly.



Really, all we can usefully say about energy weapons as whole is the main reasons energy weapons seem to be used in sci-fi is they don't require ammunition and are capable of far greater power output. In many places where energy weapons are available, firearms have become redundant: those energy weapons are, by the admission of the universe they are in, just better than firearms, in the same way firearms or better than mechanical weapons like bows or crossbows.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

That's not really true. For a low-powered laser or moderately hot plasme, yeah. You "just" get severe burns. Really high output stuff, such as what you'd use to shoot down an airplane or destroy a vehicle, will transfer enough energy fast enough to make parts of your body literally explode, either by boiling water/blood or transferring enough energy into the bone to shatter it.
...oh. Lasers suddenly got a lot cooler.

[Rakaydos]

I recall reading offhand comments about soviet energy weapon programs powered by firing a magnetized artillery shell down a coil-wrapped barrel. Would this technique scale down well enough to make disposable energy weapon ammo feasable? That is, you charge the supercapaciter for your weapon by turning chemical energy rapidly into kinetic energy, then convert kinetic into a pulse of electrical energy.

[Rakaydos]

...oh. Lasers suddenly got a lot cooler.

That's theoretical. The lasers used in real life for those tasks dont have that kind of energy transfer. Instead, they rely on detonating the fuel tanks on the missile/aircraft.

[Jayngfet]

Energy weapons are never going to match the stopping power of a ballistic weapon, but they can have their uses.

I mean an electrolaser is probably something much better suited to crowd control and mob violence than anything else, and energy weapons are already being prototyped for that kind of thing anyway on a bigger, bulkier scale. Or if you're dealing with something with lots of conductive metal or wiring to fry. Or a hundred different other applications of laser tech.

The gun didn't invalidate the crossbow, which still sees use in some (limited) contexts. Hell, counting the Machete the sword is still killing a whole bunch of people hundreds of years later. It's not about better or worse, it's about another tool for the job.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I recall reading offhand comments about soviet energy weapon programs powered by firing a magnetized artillery shell down a coil-wrapped barrel. Would this technique scale down well enough to make disposable energy weapon ammo feasable? That is, you charge the supercapaciter for your weapon by turning chemical energy rapidly into kinetic energy, then convert kinetic into a pulse of electrical energy.

You mean Gauss rifles?

I have no idea if that's possible, but that's what they're called. In the meantime though, the Navy has gotten a working prototype (barrel-melting) railgun of the size appropriate for battleships. Those are fired by an electromagnetic pulse rather than using coils and magnetization, though.

[Rakaydos]

You mean Gauss rifles?

I have no idea if that's possible, but that's what they're called. In the meantime though, the Navy has gotten a working prototype (barrel-melting) railgun of the size appropriate for battleships. Those are fired by an electromagnetic pulse rather than using coils and magnetization, though.

You misunderstand- you're not using the coil to fire anything. You're using the coil and a rapidly moving magnet to get a pulse of electrical power in the multi megawatt ranges. then using that power for energy weapons.

[jseah]

IMO, the main reason ballistic weapons aren't going to go out of style in ground combats is because ballistic weapons can hit over the horizon (and over hills).

Lasers can't do that since they go straight unless you're standing on a neutron star. Particle beam and sonic weapons don't have enough range in atmosphere. Microwaves diffuse too fast (and it's not like you can bounce weapon-grade levels of power off the ionosphere).
etc. etc.

Indirect fire can be very convenient. Artillery is also really cool.


On the other hand, if it's a space battle, you *probably* don't want ballistic weapons. Up there, it's basically all down to lasers vs missiles. (with a notable exception for an orbital battle, where strange things like mines and fighter craft become viable)

[thubby]

ballistic weapons have a rather obvious advantage in that they do not need line of sight. you can arc a shell over a wall, a mountain or even over the edge of the planet itself.

on a conventional war scale, that means ballistic weapons out-range energy weapons in practically all cases.

even in space, simple metal slug can be slung around planets into strange trajectories. while they have a substantial travel time, they're practically invisible.

most energy weapons are substantially faster, which is great in a line of sight battle, but what really makes them shine is that you don't have to spend the staggering amounts of energy it takes to pull munitions out of a planet's gravity well.

[Closet_Skeleton]

even in space, simple metal slug can be slung around planets into strange trajectories. while they have a substantial travel time, they're practically invisible.

Energy isn't immune to gravity either. The only reason you can't arc a laser as easily as an artillery shell is the same reason you can't arc a rifle bullet as easily as a crossbow bolt. Shine a laser past a planet and it will curve just like anything else.

A solid shot weapon will always have more potential than an energy weapon because matter is just a lot of energy clumped together (unless you're using antimatter like in a positron or anti-proton beam which don't work off collision in the regular sense). Energy has weight (quite a lot of weight in alpha radiation). Lasers tend to ricochet even more than bullets, its just called scattering and since there's a lot of particles rather than one bullet in a laser it works differently.

If you have pre-prepared mirrors (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQhsbmgaqdo) you can ricochet a laser beam into any angle you want with much more ease than a bullet.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Well, if we do somehow manage to make lasers manageable and fairly efficient as a rifle-sized weapon, then they would make an excellent replacement for assault rifles and machine guns. Sniper rifles rely too much on stealth to really use it.

[Jayngfet]

Well, if we do somehow manage to make lasers manageable and fairly efficient as a rifle-sized weapon, then they would make an excellent replacement for assault rifles and machine guns. Sniper rifles rely too much on stealth to really use it.

Um... no?

Energy weapons don't need to work in the visible spectrum. A shot from one of them could be totally invisible to the naked eye. I mean, even todays prototype "laser guns" are probably more subtle and less obvious than a standard firearm, even if they don't do a lethal amount of damage.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Um... no?

Energy weapons don't need to work in the visible spectrum. A shot from one of them could be totally invisible to the naked eye.

Alright then. I really have no idea how a weaponized laser would work beyond the physics of the projectile.

Oh, and shouldn't this be in the Technology section?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Also, unless you're in an area with lots of particles in the air (which, admittedly, is not impossible), that laser is almost impossible to spot unless you're looking at the target.

i.e., the way it works with laser scopes now. :smallsmile:

[factotum]

You misunderstand- you're not using the coil to fire anything. You're using the coil and a rapidly moving magnet to get a pulse of electrical power in the multi megawatt ranges. then using that power for energy weapons.

I'd like a link to this device, because I just don't see how it would work (and presumably you mean the coil is stationary and the magnet is moving, right?). A megawatt pulse that only lasts for a fraction of a second really wouldn't be that useful, because the actual amount of energy generated would be rather small. (As an example, a 5MW pulse lasting 1 millisecond would generate a total of 5,000 joules of energy, which would be enough to raise the temperature of approximately 15cc of water from room temperature to boiling point--hardly the most destructive energy pulse, is it?).

[Rakaydos]

I probably messed up the order of magnatude, then. It was an anecdote, but the theory is pretty simple.

A chemical charge imparts lots of kinetic energy to a heavy magnetic object.
The magnet, moving through a coil, imparts kinetic energy into the coil as electrical energy. The more loups, the greater the magnetic drag and the pigger electrical pulse generated, up to the kinetic energy of the projectile. Even at 50% efficency, the pulse generatable by chemical explosives is superior to most pulse electrical generation. (citation needed)

[Brother Oni]

Wouldn't bloom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blooming_%28directed-energy_weapon%29#Blooming) also be a significant factor in the comparison of ballistic vs DEW class weapons?

[jseah]

There's apparently a technique termed Phase-Conjugate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_optics#Optical_phase_conjugation) that is supposed to avoid the effect by splitting your laser into two beams, and using a third beam to sense the distortion generated by thermal blooming and doing something complicated *math* to the phases of your two beams that corrects for the distortion... =/
*looks at wikipedia... too much math...*

Alternately, phased arrays are cool too and keep your power density in the beam down as the beam becomes a cone only narrowing at the target. The plus side of that one is that they have a firing angle of some 45 degrees without needing to turn at all, just some mathematical calculations to control your array and you can aim just about anywhere inside the cone.
The down side is that depending on your chosen wavelength, you have... an unenviable problem of needing to build an antenna array where individual antenna are micro-meter in scale... and they have to be able to survive weapon-grade levels of power.

[DigoDragon]

Really high output stuff, such as what you'd use to shoot down an airplane or destroy a vehicle, will transfer enough energy fast enough to make parts of your body literally explode, either by boiling water/blood or transferring enough energy into the bone to shatter it.

...oh. Lasers suddenly got a lot cooler.

Ballistic weapons can achieve the same thing. For example, tank rounds don't contain explosives. When they hit their target they transfer so much kinetic energy that the target vaporizes. :smallbiggrin: See Kinetic Energy Penetration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_penetrator).

[Gnoman]

I know. My point wasn't that energy weapons are better, but to clarify what they can actually do.

[Brother Oni]

Ballistic weapons can achieve the same thing. For example, tank rounds don't contain explosives. When they hit their target they transfer so much kinetic energy that the target vaporizes. :smallbiggrin: See Kinetic Energy Penetration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_penetrator).

A point of order - there are a number of different tank shells and the kinetic penetrators are only one type. Even within the kinetic penetrators, there's some variation - HEAT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-explosive_anti-tank_warhead) is technically a kinetic penetrator even though it uses an entirely different mechanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munroe_effect#Munroe_effect) to APFSDS.