Laser Weapons and Laser Sights

[far-trader]

Anything that breaks the sight will probably break the laser weapon too.

Meh, I've never subscribed to the "fragile as antique glass" model of laser weapons. It's a flaming weapon! Of course it's going to be ruggedized for combat and rough field handling and sloppy transport. And yes you can put a can opener on the end (durasteel with perma-edge, just like the Imperial Marine Cutlass - cuts and punctures darn near anything, including Battle Dress if you have the strength) and mount an underslung grenade launcher. Which is not to say damage isn't a possibility, but you don't have to treat it like a baby.

long range sights, electronic and optical, while also ruggedized to take some abuse are also more prone to failure due to the precision nature of the device. Not quite so much for iron sights.

So I can definitely see circumstances where the weapon would still be usable while the electronic and/or optical sights are not to be trusted or outright busted. And having the iron sights as a last resort option costs nothing. And as noted the nice thing about lasers is they are line of sight. You won't ever have to have adjustable iron sights. No windage, no range drop, just dead arrow straight as far as you can see. They will be zeroed at the factory during construction and locked. As long as the weapon still fires they will be true.

imo and obligatory ymmv

 

[snapshotbygdw]

Laser Weapons in MTU (Classic)

Have always played beams from laser weapons are invisible (excellent fun as sniper weapons) so a laser sight is useful so long as it has an off setting. Also have never considered them "fragile", high maintenance maybe, but not fragile.

 

[Dragoner]

The problem with the iron sights argument, is the placement of the rear sight, as an opitcal sight would sit in the same place as well. I also feel that anything that damaged the integral sight, would also render the weapon in-operable. I think it is a mistake to assume that the sights of the future would be unchanged from today, there has been a huge evolution just in the past 40 years, thousands of years from now, the combat sights would be armored to withstand abuse, and most likely communicate with the weapon to be self-adjusting.

 

[Kaye]

.
And having the iron sights as a last resort option costs nothing. And as noted the nice thing about lasers is they are line of sight. You won't ever have to have adjustable iron sights. No windage, no range drop, just dead arrow straight as far as you can see. They will be zeroed at the factory during construction and locked. As long as the weapon still fires they will be true.

imo and obligatory ymmv

Actually not. The sights do not have to be adjustable for windage and drop, but they do have to be adjustable for individual shooters. Whenever someone picks up a rifle the first time it will need to be adjusted for that person. The way the shooter holds it, where their eye is in relation to their shoulder and such all changes the point of aim in relation to the point of impact.
As for crew served weapons; in my earlier post I mentioned that the nice bit of a targeting sensor is not the range finding laser. The same goes for a rifle. You must adjust the rifle to the rifleman; not the other way around (provided the rifleman knows what he's doing...)

 

[aramis]

Actually not. The sights do not have to be adjustable for windage and drop, but they do have to be adjustable for individual shooters. Whenever someone picks up a rifle the first time it will need to be adjusted for that person. The way the shooter holds it, where their eye is in relation to their shoulder and such all changes the point of aim in relation to the point of impact.
As for crew served weapons; in my earlier post I mentioned that the nice bit of a targeting sensor is not the range finding laser. The same goes for a rifle. You must adjust the rifle to the rifleman; not the other way around (provided the rifleman knows what he's doing...)

Actually, quite a few weapons have totally non-adjustable sights, save by application of fire, hammer and/or file. I've fired several, including some percussion cap, some automatic, and several cartridge revolvers with non-adjustable, cast-in-place iron sights.

And given the two-sight-element mode of most iron sights, the shooter MUST adjust to the sights, even with an adjustable; the adjustment range is usually trivially small for longarms, and insufficient to allow for head placement differences.

Military weapons, BTW, have usually been "adjust the firer, not the weapon — it's cheaper!" Snipers being the exception.

 

[Icosahedron]

Thanks for this feedback guys, when I posed the question I was actually thinking of a laser pistol, but it seems that even on larger guns the consensus is almost two to one that a laser sight is unnecessary on a laser weapon.

 

[Vile]

However, even on a laser pistol an optical sight would be useful to let you see the dot at the sort of ranges laser weapons are capable of.

 

[morfydd]

sights

A Laser sight is unecessary on a laser weapon however and iron sight or optical sight is needed especially if the laser operates in any range other than visable light ..(ie in the ultraviolet or infared spectrums above and below that light visable by the naked human eye might just need a scope to see the light dot)

 

[aramis]

A laser sight is useful if the laser isn't in the visual spectrum.

Which said, most combat lasers should NOT be in the visual spectrum.

 

[samuelvss]

A good sighting system would allow the use o the laser as a sighting/re-zeroing aid, but though we all prefer lower-tech enemies, a pasive sighting system would be critical. The lesser "noisy" the sighting system is the better. Iron sights would be of marginal utility, but even less cost, so would be included. Military equipment should, and enduring designs usually do, provide for all manner of mishaps. I can imagine a shot taking out a sight of a weapon held low ready without hurting the weapon's ability to fire.

BTW: The zero-the-weapon-to-the-shooter idea is one of the bad bits of information picked up from the peculairities of how the U.S. Army approaches marksmanship. A shooter with a proper sight picture can pick up a properly zeroed weapon and be dead on: note, however, how this allows human error to enter at two different points. The Bundeswehr just had theirs zeroed at the factory, and trained their shooters to ahve a proper sight picture. (We also train to have a proper sight picture, but Joe can screw it up, use a poor picture, zero his weapon to that, and add another variable to an already maddeningly complex equation.)

 

[Rigel Stardin]

A laser sight is useful if the laser isn't in the visual spectrum.

Which said, most combat lasers should NOT be in the visual spectrum.

Why do machine guns have a tracer every fifth round: To allow the gunner to adjust his fire on to target.

There is also something to be said for a wall of tracers on the battlefield as well, it makes the enemy think twice about assaulting your postion.

Invisible spectrum lasers are fine for snipers and assassins but not for the regular infantry. You want to deter your enemy from crossing no-mans land as much as you want to kill them.

It all about the psychology of visual ques and what effects they have on the human mind. And yes, there is an advantage in not having lasers visible. But as far as targeting goes, the mark 1 eye-ball needs some sort of reference so it can adjust their aim...

 

[Dragoner]

If modern military science runs true in the future, small arms cause less than 5% of casualties, so the real killers, at least man portable, would be MG's and Mortars, with the radio being king of the battlefield, being able to call support fire, artillery often causing 50% or more of casualties in conventional battle.

 

[aramis]

Why do machine guns have a tracer every fifth round: To allow the gunner to adjust his fire on to target.

There is also something to be said for a wall of tracers on the battlefield as well, it makes the enemy think twice about assaulting your postion.

Invisible spectrum lasers are fine for snipers and assassins but not for the regular infantry. You want to deter your enemy from crossing no-mans land as much as you want to kill them.

It all about the psychology of visual ques and what effects they have on the human mind. And yes, there is an advantage in not having lasers visible. But as far as targeting goes, the mark 1 eye-ball needs some sort of reference so it can adjust their aim...

A visual spectrum laser is an inefficient set of frequencies for killing people AND machines.

The IR lasers and UV lasers are both much more efficient at tissue disruption. So, the red or green pointer beam is a really good idea, not just for fire adjustment, but also for intimidation factor.

I doubt seriously that the combat laser will be the one adjusted; you need to maximize the firepower. That tiny spotting laser, however, is able to be mounted just under, as a coaxial mount, and can be pretty darned bright...

But, even visual spectrum lasers are not terribly visible in daylight, nor even a clear night...

 

[samuelvss]

Why do machine guns have a tracer every fifth round: To allow the gunner to adjust his fire on to target.

There is also something to be said for a wall of tracers on the battlefield as well, it makes the enemy think twice about assaulting your postion.

Invisible spectrum lasers are fine for snipers and assassins but not for the regular infantry. You want to deter your enemy from crossing no-mans land as much as you want to kill them.

It all about the psychology of visual ques and what effects they have on the human mind. And yes, there is an advantage in not having lasers visible. But as far as targeting goes, the mark 1 eye-ball needs some sort of reference so it can adjust their aim...

I agree, but adjusting during fire is different than aim before firing. Any visible laser-sighting devices would for tactical reasons be in addition to passive sighting, and able to be turned off.

And yes, we love tracers, but because they work both ways and screw with night vision, sometimes we would pull them. We also did not generally give them out to those using aimed, semiauto fire (i.e. the riflemen). We did use them, along with colored smoke, for target designation, usually in the case of area targets, or suppressive fire. I think we've got a threat in that little copse: I take a few quick shots with tracer, and displace for cover. Maybe I deawn fire, or not. The shooters now light it up. :toast:
When I shot, I KNEW I was making myself a target; when they shot, they were less so. The SAWs, GPMG's, and HMG's were bigger targets, and also provided more suppression. Laser pointing would work similarly; sometimes you want it, sometimes not. Flexibility is key. Any weapon sighting system that does not give you this will be strangled in the cradle or junked on the battlefield.

 

[aramis]

personally, I think the more advanced weapons will have self zeroing optical sights, but who knows? trav is also shotguns in space, which is cool in an outland sort of way, but so far as being realistic?

"Beware making too much of this technological terror you've constructed, General...."

Lasers, more than any other weapon, are likely to retain auxiliary iron sights. The efficient damage windows are outside visibility, but if zeroed, and competent, if you put the iron sight on target, you WILL hit. (As opposed to "most likely will hit, unless the wind is strong.")

An integral coax laser sight will be maybe 2cc in size, for everything but the battery; it probably will be part of the replaceable main lasing unit, but not actually using the same hardware as the main battle beam, just attached near-permanently to it. Especially if the Chem-lasers are used.

Iron sights on other weapons probably WILL be present, but inobvious.

As yet, no one has shown a more efficient way of disrupting tissue than putting chunks of metal through it at high velocities; it doesn't look like combat laser pistols are likely to be much good for many years, and the current chem-lasers will kill you almost as quick as the enemy from the toxic and high temp exhausts... So, the ACR in space is a pretty good idea, or, well, not so good but definitely likely...

The only issues not addressed,really are (1) the need for special lubricants for vacuum use, and (2) no propellant improvements past TL10... firearms have continued to improve in powder energy density since it was invented, on a pretty steady schedule... and the FF&S TL10 numbers are not at the peak of or present explosives*, so...

*but for usable sizes and safe to be around for unprotected humans, yeah, many of the really hot ones are too hot for a weapon...)

 

[Dragoner]

"Beware making too much of this technological terror you've constructed, General...."

Lasers, more than any other weapon, are likely to retain auxiliary iron sights. The efficient damage windows are outside visibility, but if zeroed, and competent, if you put the iron sight on target, you WILL hit. (As opposed to "most likely will hit, unless the wind is strong.")

An integral coax laser sight will be maybe 2cc in size, for everything but the battery; it probably will be part of the replaceable main lasing unit, but not actually using the same hardware as the main battle beam, just attached near-permanently to it. Especially if the Chem-lasers are used.

Iron sights on other weapons probably WILL be present, but inobvious.

As yet, no one has shown a more efficient way of disrupting tissue than putting chunks of metal through it at high velocities; it doesn't look like combat laser pistols are likely to be much good for many years, and the current chem-lasers will kill you almost as quick as the enemy from the toxic and high temp exhausts... So, the ACR in space is a pretty good idea, or, well, not so good but definitely likely...

The only issues not addressed,really are (1) the need for special lubricants for vacuum use, and (2) no propellant improvements past TL10... firearms have continued to improve in powder energy density since it was invented, on a pretty steady schedule... and the FF&S TL10 numbers are not at the peak of or present explosives*, so...

*but for usable sizes and safe to be around for unprotected humans, yeah, many of the really hot ones are too hot for a weapon...)

I think of Gauss as the next smokeless powder to black powder paradigm, just as mag-lev will replace dead dinosaurs. War in effect is just physics, how much energy you can put close to a target: bullets, HE or even a sharp steel blade. HE makes it all better or worse living through chemistry, there will be super high explosive in the future. At some point, with the TL's there is a good concept that some have taken too far.

Good call on the windage of laser small arms, didn't think of that. As long as the iron sights do not interfere with the optical sights I can see weapons having them. Sights do move on and weapons are up-linked to a HUD in the visor of the user, I have read it somewhere at somepoint, I make it happen at TL 9. By this time, the ability to zoom, see in low light/infrared become the tactical norm, which course makes lower tech without these sights, rather more helpless in the face of them.

 

[CoolBreeze]

I was just thinking that, as I understand them, lasers use an optical system to focus and aim the beam so you could reflex the sighting system down the inside of the barrel in the manner of an old single lens reflex camera. That way you are looking directly at point of impact for the laser since it doesn't deal with any significant drop or drift over its effective range. A pistol could have a viewscreen on the back for you to set up your target with a rifle/carbine having a screen on top of the assembly adjustable for the user's eye position. All the range finding/locating/painting stuff would be part and parcel of the firing system just at a reduced power level. I suspect with advanced tech you could use a very short "ping" to get target info without exposing your position. Hopefully the enemy would only know they've been lazed but not from where. A gyro stabilized feature would be nice also. Lock up the target and the barrel either mechanically floats to stay on target within the normal range of motion of the shooter or electronically correct the beams aim as the barrel twitches. Fun stuff.

 

[Carlobrand]

Wait, so my choice is lasers need a laser sight, or lasers serve as their own laser sight? I need a light beam that travels in a straight line to figure out where a light beam that travels in a straight line will fall? The light beams from natural sources that are bouncing off the target and traveling in a straight line to the forward lens of my optical scope aren't good enough?

I'm confused.

 

[SanDragon]

And the laser is made of plastics, so there better not be iron sights!

Also, an arrow is ballistic...

 

[Icosahedron]

Wait, so my choice is lasers need a laser sight, or lasers serve as their own laser sight?

It was a year ago, I can't remember the situation that led to my question, but it was something to do with a laser sight mounted on a laser weapon, so I just used that as my example, but you're right, an optical sight would be equally effective for a laser. However, the question as to whether a sight is necessary at all remains valid.
I can't even recall now what the situation outcome was, but thanks everyone for your input.