Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dutchling]

Soviet weaponry had soul.

[Sirus]

But did they actually work? Cuz I'd think there'd be a lot more laser-based weaponry around if the Soviets had actually made them useful.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

We've had laser weapons that worked since the 50's. The problem is giving them a dense enough power source and making them of materials that won't critically overheat.

[Aseaheru]

Its the poweroutput.
Or, as I believe it is called, the throughput.

[Sirus]

Let me rephrase that: did they ever get used in action, or anywhere other than testing sites? Did they ever combat optical sensors like Guardian said they were designed to do? Were they even slightly practical?

[smirk]

Well, as has been posted before, the US is deploying one on a ship this year. Even if they're over-hyping the thing, it's apparently something that they're wanting to continue to improve.

Dunno if any of its functioning specifics have been posted anywhere, though. Probably not.

[Aseaheru]

Well, it has a big enough powerplant.

And the fuel they use in those drones can be pretty volatile...

[10ebbor10]

Well, the Russian tanks above are merely there to annoy optical sensors. Not blowing up thingies and stuff.

On a side note, the Soviets also developed laser pistols and revolvers. For use in space.

Let me rephrase that: did they ever get used in action, or anywhere other than testing sites? Did they ever combat optical sensors like Guardian said they were designed to do? Were they even slightly practical?

Never tested in combat, IIRC. Though they were tiny technological marvels, that never got past prototype stage. They only recently recovered some from places far in the Russian outback.

[Aseaheru]

Well, that all makes sense.

[LordSlowpoke]

makes me wonder how nobody had the idea to take a ridiculously unshielded nuclear power generator, put it on top of a tank, give the tank loadsa lead armor (not to stop projectiles but to stop the crew from dying too fast) and make it shoot lasers then send all that into enemy territory

shoot tank -> tank explodes -> fallout on your own land, gg no re

not shoot tank -> tank wrecks your shit -> your shit is wrecked, gg no re

hell you could install a selfdestruct mechanism in case it got stuck in a trench ror

[Lagslayer]

Lasers kinda suck in atmosphere. Rail guns are the future of precision projectiles. And they will always be making bigger explosives.

[MonkeyHead]

Regarding Lasers... the US armed forces has been using them in field trials for some time. Northrop Grumman has a few models that have seen limited action, either in live fire tests or experimental deployments, most notably off the coast of somalia for sinking a few RIB's and dhows... the LaWS is actually designed with taking down drones as a primary combat role. IMHO they will be widespread as thier energy requirements come down. In addition, unlike tradiational chemical propellant guns there is no need to cart around lots of bulky ammo, they are lower maintenance thanks to having fewer moving parts than a mechanical system, and operate at a much lower cost per shot when you compare the cost of generating the energy of a shot compared to a typical chemically propelled round.

Lasers actually don't really suck in atmosphere - thats a common misconception. They can have an effective range well into the km , with no projectile drop whatsoever. Oh, and whilst railguns are awesome and will probably fill the heavy gun role, thier energy and maintenance requirements only make them sensible for BIIIIG guns that dont need to be fired too often. Lasers fill the light weapon role so very much better.

[Culise]

makes me wonder how nobody had the idea to take a ridiculously unshielded nuclear power generator, put it on top of a tank, give the tank loadsa lead armor (not to stop projectiles but to stop the crew from dying too fast) and make it shoot lasers then send all that into enemy territory

shoot tank -> tank explodes -> fallout on your own land, gg no re

not shoot tank -> tank wrecks your shit -> your shit is wrecked, gg no re

hell you could install a selfdestruct mechanism in case it got stuck in a trench ror

As far as shooting at it, you might get an explosion, but the most you'll get is a dirty bomb; unless you put enough nuclear material to go supercritical in there and rig it to do so under sudden shocks like getting shot at (in which case you now have to worry about it doing so if you, say, hit a sharp bump in the road), there really isn't much point to it when you can just go Davy Crockett and keep the tank chassis intact. 

Also, really, why would you want to put it on a tank?  Nuclear ramjets are where it's at.  Load it up with nukes, set it up so you can open the shielding if you want to make the exhaust itself radioactive (or don't; it'd be complex, prone to failure, and just ramming it into the ground at supersonic speeds should scatter radioactive material across enough terrain), and watch the fireworks.  And, without people on board, you never need to land the thing to take on food or water, so it can just sit in the stratosphere for years, watching and waiting. ^_^

[LordSlowpoke]

...the dirty bomb effect is what is desired

how else do you destroy tanks than with explosions? exploding the tank will send fissionables everywhere like it's candy

that was the whole point really

you can easily substitute something else that requires loadsa power like the previously mentioned railguns

[Aseaheru]

All these ninjas...


The best places for lasers on earth is mountains or various deserts. So... Fun!