1. Forum
  2. Our Ranges
  3. Iron-Core: Mark Mondragon's Universe
  4. Grav-StuG: Weapon options.

Grav-StuG: Weapon options.

  • CB

    Firstly, just to tie this in, obviously the StuG is a natural ally to WGA Eisenkern on the battlefield. That being said, I wanted to discuss the weapons they come with and their uses, as I see it, on the battlefield/table.

    Assault Cannon: Definitely strikes me as a 'rapid' anti-infantry weapon.

    Anti-Tank: Pretty self explanatory, high calibre anti tank/walker/megafauna round, likely one-shot only between reloads.

    H.E.L. (High Energy Laser): The niche for this one is worth discussion. Could easily just fill the same niche as the Anti-Tank gun. Perhaps more effective against targets with energy/deflector shields?

    Just thought it would be fun to spitball and pass the time until Valkir arrive..xD

     

     

  • JTam

    For context:

    https://www.ebay.com/itm/234898641332?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=zkJ-zLeuRQa&sssrc=2349624&ssuid=AWqe98NeTd-&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

     

     

  • JTam

    @Colin Brinkley 

    I would guess:

    Assault Gun:  Heavy high explosive.  Large blast radius.  Limited armor piercing capabilities.

    Antitank Gun:  Good armor piercing.  Some high explosive capability.  Smaller blast radius.

    Laser Cannon: All armor piercing all the time.

  • MD

    @JTam lasers aren't really armour piecing, though. 

  • CB

    @JTam I can't believe I hadn't considered explosives for the assault cannon, makes a lot of sense. Thanks for that!

  • CB

    @Mark Dewis I feel like high-energy lasers, especially in a Sci-Fi sense, are more than capable of melting armor plating. Lasers we have NOW can cut metal.

  • ADC

    I think that for an Anti-Grav vehicle a short barrel gun/howitzer should be more apt, it don't unbalance the hull, and it's easier to point & fire, expecially in urban combat.

    After all its main job is close infantry support.

  • MD

    @Colin Brinkley so can carbide steel saw blades. Don't be distracted by how useful lasers are at cutting MDF and mild steel. They are not especially better than kinetic penetrators vs any serious armour, and usually worse.

    Laser cannons should have a serious accuracy bonus and likely not have to worry about ammunition. No recoil may also be useful in many situations, especially for a floater.

    Also, it *might* be possible to deliver higher energies (very tech dependant) by laser than by kinetic or high explosive means. there are practical physical limits on how big a shell you can fire from any vehicle. So you could model a laser cannon as doing more damage than a kinetic round, but without the burst effect of HE or the superior AP of a kinetic penetrator.

     

  • PM

    @Mark Dewis I agree that laser cannons should be mighty accurate, since at the instant of firing they have already reached the target (at least at battlefield ranges). Biggest downside is the ability to deliver enough energy to the target in a short time frame. I believe (may be wrong) that current laser systems need to spend some seconds on target to deliver a killing strike (such as against missiles or drones) compared to the micro-second delivery by a kinetic or explosive round.

    Looking at the barrel design, I would suggest it could be classed as a Railgun weapon. These are still incredibly fast firing and able to reach targets at substantial ranges with a lot of kick. Our current Railgun tech is still being developed but I always liked them as a tank mounted weapon.

  • MD

    @Paul Mitting it's a matter of swings and roundabouts. Tank guns have a muzzle velocity in the order of 1-2 kilometres per second, so "mico-second delivery" is not really correct. A shell fired at 1500 m/s at a target 500m away is still going to take around 1/3 of a second to hit (a laser will however take about 5 microseconds, giving a healthy fraction of a second to heat things up before the shell would arrive). The shell will also have fallen about 3 metres from the vertical over that time, but we can assume that's taken into account with the sights. Assuming they're calibrated correctly and the range is known accurately.

    Grav vehicles may be more gunship or aircraft-like though, so could be engaging at much longer ranges. A tank gun isn't going to be much good in air to air, but a laser cannon could be superb.

  • ADC

    Don't forget recoil's problem, for an anti-G tank you should've something to compensate for a normal gun's recoil, contrary to rail guns or Lasers, otherwise the tank will end as the one on "Sgt. Bilko"!

    This is the reason in "realistic" sci-fi anti-grav vehicles generally have either rail guns or lasguns.

  • PM

    @Mark Dewis What I meant was a kinetic or explosive round delivers it's energy in micro-seconds after impact, compared to a laser which needs to keep "painting' the target point longer to deliver it's energy. In terms of flight time, the laser is going to be as close to instantaneous as any weapon can achieve, giving it unparalleled accuracy in a straight line shot. 

    For targets behind cover or over the horizon then good old kinetics and explosives are still viable. Or send a guided missile, possibly tube launched in place of a standard round.

  • PM

    @Alessio De Carolis I always imagined a good "anti-grav" tank design would have the ability to negate or compensate for recoil using the same technology. If the AG tech can hold a multi-ton vehicle in the air and move it at useful speeds, it should be able to absorb the recoil. Unless it is purely hover thrust like in Sgt Bilko if I remember properly, which means your tank will fly backwards every time you shoot!

  • Battle Specter

    @Mark Dewis I think what was meant by "millisecond delivery" was that the projectile carries all of its energy with it and imparts it at one time via kinetic energy whereas a laser has to impart its energy over a longer period of time, and in that time, the laser isn't staying in exactly one spot. It will shift over the target point slightly, and while enroute expend a portion of its energy on things like dust, water droplets, bugs- atmosphere. The KE projectile, while having a far longer time of flight retains far more of its energy percentage wise within most reasonable engagement ranges than a laser does. 

    Mike Uher II
    Battle Specter Blog (www.battlespecterblog.com)
    Rambling Devil Podcast

  • PM

    @Battle Specter Exactly! Long live Kinetic Kill weapons!

  • Battle Specter

    @Paul Mitting They're hard to beat in many respects. There is no need to focus them over range, without an atmo to slow them down, they have theoretically limitless range, depending on the projectile, most theoretical shields will have little to no effect on them, and armor that would work against thermal weapons like lasers will be of little use against them. Whereas armor dedicated to stopping KE weapons will likely be pretty decent against thermal weapons due to the need to heat the mass of the armor (Kinda makes  Melta weapon seem... Weak).

    Kyle goes over why Stormtrooper armor would work in the Starwars universe, but... Bullets owuld chew them to bits.

    Mike Uher II
    Battle Specter Blog (www.battlespecterblog.com)
    Rambling Devil Podcast

  • Battle Specter

    @Alessio De Carolis Even lasers recoil. And a rail gun- even though it isn't using an explosive charge to throw the projectile- will still have to overcome the inertia of the slug of whatever is being thrown by the gun, thereby imparting an "equal and opposite reaction" to the movement of said projectile. IE, recoil. It should be less than a regular cannon like we currently use (no explosive force acting as a rocket to throw the weapon backwards) but there will still be recoil nonetheless as the rails will be resisiting being thrown backwards by the projectile. The only weapons that more or less have zero recoil are rocket/missile launchers as the movement of the projectile originates within the projectile, so long as the expanding gasses aren't contained in the projectile (like a Bolter would). Granted, results may vary...

    Mike Uher II
    Battle Specter Blog (www.battlespecterblog.com)
    Rambling Devil Podcast

  • Battle Specter

    Also, can we get an Afghan warrior holding an AT-4 backwards, please? The above GIF is proof it happened...

    Mike Uher II
    Battle Specter Blog (www.battlespecterblog.com)
    Rambling Devil Podcast

  • GM

    @Paul Mitting Like the Sherridans Shelailie Missile system?

  • GM

    @Battle Specter Eileen and myself loved it, no problom to build but with out amini missile might lose the laughter content in mini. 

  • Battle Specter

    @Geoff Maybury I'm not totally up on the Sheridans missile system, but I really like the concept of using a tank main gun to send missiles down range. Seems like a pretty solid idea long term. I mean, guided anti-tank munitions is never a bad thing.To be totally  honest, I think a smoothbore 155mm main gun that could launch ATGMs and indirect arty rounds may not be a bad idea. The Sabot rounds are already a thing- just tune it up some to keep that glorious berm punching badassery in place.

    And yeah, a mini would lose SOME of it's hilarity, but that hilarity would expand rapidly when someone noticed and made a comment. Maybe have the missile flying out the wrong end? Either way, I think it would be pretty funny.

    But I guess getting back on point, what kind of weapons systems would tanks use in the future? Honestly, I think tanks would get replaced- especially for space faring forces- as their mass would be an issue an expeditionary force would have to contend with. I really think powered armor will replace tanks in time, and most (not all, but most) armored vehicles will be replaced as a result with multirole transports.

    Tanks, while they look cool, will become obsolete the moment we have power supplies for powered armor, or when anti-grav becomes a thing. If I can have ten guys walking around in literal tank suits, being delivered to the battlefield in what basically amounts to a Hind gunship on steroids- why do I want to build tanks at all?

    Tanks have limitations that would become real liabilities when faced with heavy powered armor infantry. Heck, we're on the cusp of making them obsolete now with the drone tech and ATGM's that are out there (and I really like tanks- so don't think I'm ragging on them at all).

    Mike Uher II
    Battle Specter Blog (www.battlespecterblog.com)
    Rambling Devil Podcast

    0 likes
  • PM

    I think the Ukraine conflict has shown how drone technology is already impacting the use of tanks on the modern battlefield. To me it seems more likely we'll see bigger (and smaller!) armed drones, whether flying or ground based, replacing the traditional armoured vehicles.

    Some mini manufacturers already made drones for their games, but I would love a dedicated "near future" kit to allow building ground and aerial units. Could be a faction for Death Fields in their own right and could support existing factions.

  • Battle Specter

    @Paul Mitting Yeah, the more I watch of the Ukranian conflict, and think about how that applies moving forward, I can see armored vehicles (and to an extent aerial vehicles) getting hit hard and becoming less impactful overall. Infantry forces will still have the ability to hide and fight most places, so they will become even more the mainstay moving forward.

    The potential capabilities of a force of drones is actually kinda terrifying when you really start to think about it. And if you've seen any of the drone vids coming out of Ukrain, it really starts to make you wonder if the conventional methods of warfare are already dead (which I assume they are). Stopping a small drone would prove difficult to say the least unless you want to jam the living daylights out of the entire battlefield- in which case we're back to whistles, field phones, maps and compasses, and shouting to coordinate stuff. WWI/WWII level comms stuff to stop super tech drones.

    Mike Uher II
    Battle Specter Blog (www.battlespecterblog.com)
    Rambling Devil Podcast

  • PM

    We could end up with a scenario where drones are so common and dangerous that most forces resort to battlefield EMP devices to stop the swarms of attackers. This then brings back the use of older, more conventional troops and equipment to fight the enemy.

    0 likes
  • MD

    There are counters to EMPs. The most basic is to put your electronics in a Faraday cage (i.e. a foil box). Or ruggedise your critical circuits at the design level. 

    I think you can count on military drones taking EMPs into account. Shooting them down with lasers does appear the way to go - drones by their nature are hard to armour up.

    In a science fiction context, any equipment designed to work in a vacuum or varying planetary environments is going to need to be able to deal with natural as well as artificial EMP effects.

    0 likes
  • MD

    @Battle Specter recoil, yes. Significant recoil, especially for a vehicle mounted weapon? No. A 300 megawatt laser produces around one newton of recoil. 

  • Battle Specter

    @Mark Dewis "Even lasers recoil." That's all I said. Yes, the recoil of a laser is stupid low, but it's still present- that's all I was getting at. And I'm reasonably certain that to make them effective weapons that could MAYBE replace KE/Missile systems in combat would require such enormous amounts of power generation and storage and discharge that using the simpler tech would be far more energy efficient (even if not space efficient).

    Range wouldn't even be a real concern as maximum engagement ranges are going to be dictated as much by terrain as by the actual maximum effective range of the system in question. So, even if your super slick laser cannon has 2x standoff to my fairly simple HVM or railgun, the likelihood that you get to really benefit from that advantage is going to be rare, if at all. Likely as not, the fighting will be in built up areas where rates of fire, and the ability to penetrate obstacles is more important.

    Mike Uher II
    Battle Specter Blog (www.battlespecterblog.com)
    Rambling Devil Podcast

    0 likes
  • ADC

    Drones would be very difficult to shield from EMP, they had to be very light, on the contrary an AFV/IFV could be shielded against EMPs thanks to their sturdy build.

    Naturally this depends by the level of protection that could stop such a menace, if there are protections against NBC or neutron bombs, I think that adeguate countemeasures against either drones AND EMPs are on the way.

    0 likes
Please login to reply this topic!

Search

Forum statistics

Page views (24h):
1,120
Page views (30d):
34,145
Topics:
938
Posts:
15,291
Members:
1,868

Newest members

© 2024, Wargames Atlantic | Powered by Xenforum