Small Scale Weapon hits on Spacecraft
- Thread starter rgrove0172
- Start date
shaunhilburn
SOC-12
One big goof on GDW's part was grossly over-rating the power of anti-personnel lasers. The published laser rifles are multi-megwatt; more power than a real-life anti-missile laser (the Boeing YAL-1). Realistically, anti-personnel lasers would be kilowatt-class weapons, with energies in the kJ range.
rgrove0172
SOC-12
The designation is purely for color I guess but it could screw up your figures if you use them as a point of reference.
I may just got back in and jot down the more correct kJ value.
I may just got back in and jot down the more correct kJ value.
Well, I don't know enough about weaponry (and less so about lasers) as to discuss your numbers, so I trusted T2300 numbers and stood on them.
In any case, they say 5 Mj is about the energy released by 1 kg of TNT, so 1 Kj would be about 0.2 g of TNT equivalent. In this way, a 35-01 laser would release an energy equivalent of 350 kj, so about 70 gr of TNT, and has a DP value of 1.
So we could begin with:
How much TNT (or how many kj) is needed to hurt a man?
Acording to Wikipedia, a 5.56X45 bullet (the one for an M16) delivers about 1750 J (1.75 kJ, about 200 times less than what's said a 35-01 would deliver) of energy on impact (but it says the bullet weights 4 gr and its speed to be 940 m/s, so they should factor some speed loss in the equation or the energy delivred would be about double). So its equivalent to TNT would be about 0.35 g of TNT).
If those numbers are correct, then yes, I must admit a 35-01 (and so all laser rifles in the game) is too powerful and nubers should be caclulated from the begining (perhaps even reducing it by a factor of 100)...
This could be too much, as this same 35-01 laser rifle would deliver just 0.35 kJ, or about 5 times less than an M16. Ithink this will be not enough for a military weapon.
In any case, they say 5 Mj is about the energy released by 1 kg of TNT, so 1 Kj would be about 0.2 g of TNT equivalent. In this way, a 35-01 laser would release an energy equivalent of 350 kj, so about 70 gr of TNT, and has a DP value of 1.
So we could begin with:
How much TNT (or how many kj) is needed to hurt a man?
Acording to Wikipedia, a 5.56X45 bullet (the one for an M16) delivers about 1750 J (1.75 kJ, about 200 times less than what's said a 35-01 would deliver) of energy on impact (but it says the bullet weights 4 gr and its speed to be 940 m/s, so they should factor some speed loss in the equation or the energy delivred would be about double). So its equivalent to TNT would be about 0.35 g of TNT).
If those numbers are correct, then yes, I must admit a 35-01 (and so all laser rifles in the game) is too powerful and nubers should be caclulated from the begining (perhaps even reducing it by a factor of 100)...
This could be too much, as this same 35-01 laser rifle would deliver just 0.35 kJ, or about 5 times less than an M16. Ithink this will be not enough for a military weapon.
Last edited:
shaunhilburn
SOC-12
To maintain balance, the battery capacities ought to be reduced as well.
Code:
P-3 1,100 J 11 kW
F-7 2,700 J 27 kW
LK-1 3,500 J 35 kW
Luce-3 3,700 J 18.5 kW
Luce-7B 3,300 J 33 kW
F-19 14,400 J 144 kW
SVB 14,700 J 147 kW
LMS cell 1.44 MJ = 0.4 kWH
FDLMS cell 2.16 MJ = 0.6 kWHrgrove0172
SOC-12
I guess what I was referring to was that if all lasers are compared on the same sliding scale and their DPs are already set, then the accuracy of their power output probably isnt a big issue unless your comparing it to something else.
If you design a new laser for the game, you could use the existing figures and it would be fine if you extrapolated its effectiveness. If you tried to use real world physics however, then you would run into a problem. However, if there is a simple fix, by just reducing the listed power output by some factor, Id be all for it.
If you design a new laser for the game, you could use the existing figures and it would be fine if you extrapolated its effectiveness. If you tried to use real world physics however, then you would run into a problem. However, if there is a simple fix, by just reducing the listed power output by some factor, Id be all for it.
I agree with your numbers as correct form the realism POV, but that will also give the Star Cruiser lasers a DP in the order of 1000 (as I calculated those 4-5 MJ, against those 0.0035 MJto achieve DP 1).
It also gives quite small power to missiles (atmospheric, not the ones in Star Cruiser), as they have at most a DP about 40, that would be equivalent to about 15 kJ, so about 3 gr of TNT, according the 5 MJ/kg given in the book.
One of the points we should previously agree is, do we want (for game pourposes) those small weapons be able to damage starships (and fighters), as RW could on an airplane, or we want the starships to be imprevious to them, as would a ship?
shaunhilburn
SOC-12
DP appears to be the square too of kinetic energy. I don't know how GDW actually derived the values, but the following formula appears to be a perfect fit for contemporary firearms:
DPV = sqrt(KE/3600) = sqrt(KE)/60, so KE = 3600xDP²
Where KE in the kinetic muzzle energy or pulse energy in joules (MV²/2)
rgrove0172
SOC-12
Breaking from the laser chat for a minute....
It occurs to me that even the main gun on a modern battle tank has a muzzle velocity of about 2000m/s. A little googling shows that a rail gun could jump that up to 3500 or so.
The space shuttle orbits at double that and more.
It would seem that conventional (non speed of light energy) direct fire weapons would be pretty useless at typical orbit speeds (interplanetary space either for that matter) unless you matched course and speed of your target and got up really close. I suppose that is a possibility for security vehicles and the like but its not likely your target is going to just sit there and let you. Unless they were disabled or out of fuel of something it would be a really rare occurance.
Given this, I suppose only energy weapons would be mounted on any space vehicle unless they had an atmospheric role as well.
Would it also be safe to assume that given the really limited and predictable maneuvering of spacecraft, any computer assisted weaponry is going to achieve and automatic hit? If given a few seconds to locate an target, develop a fire solution, align your weapon and fire... seems it would have to it. Not much of an element of chance, or skill for that matter (above being able to operate the equipment)
It occurs to me that even the main gun on a modern battle tank has a muzzle velocity of about 2000m/s. A little googling shows that a rail gun could jump that up to 3500 or so.
The space shuttle orbits at double that and more.
It would seem that conventional (non speed of light energy) direct fire weapons would be pretty useless at typical orbit speeds (interplanetary space either for that matter) unless you matched course and speed of your target and got up really close. I suppose that is a possibility for security vehicles and the like but its not likely your target is going to just sit there and let you. Unless they were disabled or out of fuel of something it would be a really rare occurance.
Given this, I suppose only energy weapons would be mounted on any space vehicle unless they had an atmospheric role as well.
Would it also be safe to assume that given the really limited and predictable maneuvering of spacecraft, any computer assisted weaponry is going to achieve and automatic hit? If given a few seconds to locate an target, develop a fire solution, align your weapon and fire... seems it would have to it. Not much of an element of chance, or skill for that matter (above being able to operate the equipment)
GDW always puts focal length on lasers way above sane levels; realistic lasers are limited to at most a few thousand KM for useful energy levels. But when you have realistic lasers, KKM's and Det-laser missiles become dominant, and lasers are point defense only.
As I said, I have not nuch idea about weaponry.
Assuming your numbers, the same missile with DP 40 would have an explosive power of about 3600X40^2, so 3600X1600=5760000 J, or 5.76 MJ, about 1 kg of TNT equivalent, so it seems a litle smaller warhead for an antivehicle missile, but I can buy it.
THen, a Giscard Martel man portable SAM (DP 3) will have an explosive equivalent of 3600x3^2, so 32400 J, or 0.032 MJ, the equivalent of about 6 gr of TNT, a little too small warhead, IMHO (according the Wikipedia, the warhead of a Stinger is 3 kg)
The problem with conventional weapons is countering the inherent velocities of the targets. They can either be completely useless of extremely devastating.
The closing velocities of ships, especially in space, can be extremely high, giving kinetic energy weapons a high potential. The game, as you mentioned is getting them to connect, and that is easier said that done. Also, particularly pertaining to 2300 and Stutterwarp, in deep space, SW ships don't really "have" momentum. They're there or they're not. In a normal Newtonian system like regular Traveller, it's a different story.
As a rule, GDW has dodged this problem, they simply don't address it, especially at space levels.
In 2300, Spaceships aren't really an intermodal as ships in normal Traveller. Getting out of the gravity well is still a major problem for 2300. And the SW ships tend to orbit high out of the atmosphere where normal planes are efficient, fast, and powerful. The ships one the ground don't work in orbit, and vice a versa. In normal Traveller, streamlined ships can interface and work just fine in a terrestrial setting as well as in orbit, so adding conventional weapons to a "close support" ship (a small ship, a ships boat, something like that) can make a lot of sense. But not so much in 2300.
Light speed weapons truly trivialize what before is a rather complicated ballistics problem. So now it's a detection and tracking problem -- ensuring that the bright blot on the sensor is in fact the target you want to hit, and tracking the weapon to that coordinate.
The Moon, for example, is a bit over a light second away. So, anything in orbit between the Earth and the Moon can be hit in less than a second once the weapon is fired. Add to that the fact that ships are "big" and it makes the problem that much easier. Compounded with a ship locked in to its current course without the ability inject significant delta V, then the math becomes pretty simple.
So the only real hope is to cloud the sensors perhaps through EW to convince it to hit something else. Then you hope they don't have more than one weapon.
rgrove0172
SOC-12
Im referring to conventional space flight here, not stutterwarp. Sorry, should have made that clear. Still crazy velocities and ranges but not light seconds etc.
As to there not really being a middle ground in 2300, I respect that, and considered going that way myself but then in the process of setting up my first adventure came across such situations as conventional drive frieghters supplying a planet's moon base. Shuttles running goods to and from a space station in high orbit. There are lots of oppotunities for ships to maneuver conventionally and it be part of the game, not to mention the potential for combat there.
EW and ECM - your thoughts are mine exactly, and of course the rules dont really cover it at all... what I consider to be a huge goof!
As to there not really being a middle ground in 2300, I respect that, and considered going that way myself but then in the process of setting up my first adventure came across such situations as conventional drive frieghters supplying a planet's moon base. Shuttles running goods to and from a space station in high orbit. There are lots of oppotunities for ships to maneuver conventionally and it be part of the game, not to mention the potential for combat there.
EW and ECM - your thoughts are mine exactly, and of course the rules dont really cover it at all... what I consider to be a huge goof!
Ya know, it's a tough call.
Simply, if a ship has lasers, those will be the weapon of choice. I've always compared space combat to two men in a bullring with rifles: short, deadly, tactically uninteresting.
The fact that laser combat in close, such as orbit, IS, most likely, so deadly implies that it just won't happen. If one side is dominant, it's suicide for the other. If an invading fleet is arriving, and they have the overwhelming force, it becomes a mop up operation, or the defender withdraws to the protection of the planet. If not, then they eat the damage or they runaway early. Few are willing to throw away resources to slow the advance, assuming they can slow the advance, if they can shuffle them away for another day. But those are all strategic considerations.
Tactically, up close, it's who has the fastest trigger or who can absorb the most hits.
If you're not using laser, at the interface level, I see the weapons being more about missile (conventional "bring the hurt to them" explosive homing missiles), or mines placed in orbital paths. The problem there is that explosives don't have as much effect in vacuum as they do in the atmosphere, and anti-air missiles do most of their damage by simply making a mess of the targets air frame, and ruining the flight dynamics, vs necessarily disabling engines or power or anything like that. All that can happen of course, but all that's necessary is to make the target unable to continue controlled flight -- a far easier task.
Spaceships don't have that problem, so can take more damage. But I think tossing warheads at each other is more efficient than sending small blobs of lead. The warheads potentially make bigger holes.
That's just a gut feeling if you don't have lasers. If you do, lasers dominate.
Simply, if a ship has lasers, those will be the weapon of choice. I've always compared space combat to two men in a bullring with rifles: short, deadly, tactically uninteresting.
The fact that laser combat in close, such as orbit, IS, most likely, so deadly implies that it just won't happen. If one side is dominant, it's suicide for the other. If an invading fleet is arriving, and they have the overwhelming force, it becomes a mop up operation, or the defender withdraws to the protection of the planet. If not, then they eat the damage or they runaway early. Few are willing to throw away resources to slow the advance, assuming they can slow the advance, if they can shuffle them away for another day. But those are all strategic considerations.
Tactically, up close, it's who has the fastest trigger or who can absorb the most hits.
If you're not using laser, at the interface level, I see the weapons being more about missile (conventional "bring the hurt to them" explosive homing missiles), or mines placed in orbital paths. The problem there is that explosives don't have as much effect in vacuum as they do in the atmosphere, and anti-air missiles do most of their damage by simply making a mess of the targets air frame, and ruining the flight dynamics, vs necessarily disabling engines or power or anything like that. All that can happen of course, but all that's necessary is to make the target unable to continue controlled flight -- a far easier task.
Spaceships don't have that problem, so can take more damage. But I think tossing warheads at each other is more efficient than sending small blobs of lead. The warheads potentially make bigger holes.
That's just a gut feeling if you don't have lasers. If you do, lasers dominate.
Multi-MW, but the pulse for modern weapons is 0.01 s.
A 70-01 laser (a typical laser rifle) fires 7 kJ - 700 kW for 0.01 s.
Using the CC-21 we know that 30 MJ input energy gives a DPV of 200 (close range), equivalent to 16.67 SC armour levels. A CC-21's main gun would gut a Suffren (AV = 60).
The input energy for the CC-21's main gun is 2MW, so a conversion of x1 = DPV 100 (at close range) and x2 = DPV 200 is reasonable. This put the number of actual shots a laser fires in a turn at 4 (1 min turns) or 67 (1,000 s turns scaling to the hex size).