What's new
  • If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
  • 📅 April 2024 is YE 46.3 in the RP.

Let us sit, and talk about the size of solid munitions

The biggest downside of a missile is purely the fact that it can be intercepted and destroyed, or even more cogent to the point, evaded. It's the biggest reason SARP weapons tend to focus on direct fire weapons instead of missiles and grenades, and why what missiles there are tend to be heavily biased towards either utility functions (like chaff or jamming) or massive damage. The only big exceptions would be the Nep Bolt and Arrow series, if I remember them correctly, both of which were intended for PA combat against targets that would already be dealing with the bullet spam that all true Nepleslians favor.
 
That's a fair retort I appreciate the elaboration, I won't argue that they're as effective as super cannon but I wouldn't write them off as without use either. Another idea is that the missiles or grenade don't need to necessarily work as warheads intended to cause damage.

I would say one of the best things (at least in my mind) you might be able to do with a grenade launcher for example is to fire rounds from it which instead of violent effect on the enemy are instead used to offer a tactical obscuration on the battlefield to offer grace for maneuvering elements.

Or perhaps missiles that are intended to be designed for some brand of electronic warfare? I don't see any EMP type weapons or if that would even be effective on your armor, but some sort of energy burst on a warhead might be effective even from a medium range destruction of the weapon possibly?

Or how about to explode in a "super" sized version of a smoke grenade that creates something the size of a large cloud in order to hide temporarily from star ship sensors and the associated orbital weapon platforms

I mean even if we are to remove their status as a weapon in general, there still might be some use; right?
 
Like I said, that's the direction most of the missiles in use are focused towards. Either defensive or offensive utility, rather than direct damage.
 
Aendri said:
Like I said, that's the direction most of the missiles in use are focused towards. Either defensive or offensive utility, rather than direct damage.
Click to expand...

Looking back on the context of my previous words I can see why you didn't know I got that impression I was just trying to toss some other ideas back at you. Thanks for explaining bro
 
Just two cents from the new guy, but here goes.

A hypervelocity cannon, no matter how high tech or fancy, is a line-of-sight weapon. It requires the user to be able to see the target or the area around it to be able to fire. If you can see the enemy then odds are he can see you. This places an inherent element of risk over and above what is considered 'normal' on the field of battle. If you are shooting at him from where you can directly see him, it can be safely assumed that he is shooting back with a weapon that can kill you, which places you at risk of death or wounding.

A missile or other guided weapon has the advantage of being a fire and forget weapon system if it has some kind of smart guidance package, which most missiles in this setting would have I assume, allowing you to be relatively safe when employing it. It also has the advantage of being able to fire in a BVR profile, as well as mounting a number of different warheads for a variety of tasks. Besides, we have systems today that are perfectly capable of intercepting missiles of many kinds and yet they are still used. Like any weapons system it's less about the raw statistics of the thing and more about how you choose to implement it. A cruise missile of some kind configured to fly NOE on it's approach to target, making it difficult to track. Or you could deploy a swarm attack of smart warheads to overwhelm enemy defences, because there's only so many that can be intercepted in the space of time it takes them to cross the distance. Either works, it's just a question of when, where, how and how many.

Both systems have pros and cons, neither definitively wins out against the other. The cannon's velocity and penetration doesn't make it all powerful and the missile's versatility doesn't make it the last word in weaponry.
 
Modern day missiles don't have to do with AI reaction times and lightspeed defensive armaments, which makes them much more viable. Most armors in the setting not only have AI which are capable of responding to that kind of attack, but also have very, very high speed weapons attached, even as secondary ones. The mindy's forearm projectors, for example, are most definitely not it's primary, but would be more than up to the task of detonating incoming missiles, and are built into the armor itself, so everybody has them. Most modern units rely on passive countermeasures to interfere with the missile's guidance, and disrupt it's line of sight, they don't have much in the way of active missile defenses, even with the developments in that direction that have come as of late.
 
This is about the bullet size guys. A complex discussion about advantages and disadvantages of missiles should be taken elsewhere. The whole missile thing came up just cause Kirk wanted to know if making a PA version of the SLAM was a good idea. But let's try not to get off topic.
 
Getting back on topic, I think a 20mm would be great for Yamatai. We don't need to have a sub-caliber round like Arieg was suggesting either, and as Wes pointed out, we don't need to immediately phase out the 50mm as well. However, the fact that the ammo is lighter and takes up much less physical space while being just as effective would likely be something our characters would notice, and jump on.
 
Also, again. The difference in its performance as an armor penetrator and long range weapon would be a gamechanger too. Being able to expect your round to punch through the thinner cover without any real loss in power would be huge.
 
Eh, honestly I imagine projectile size in SARP is more a matter of utility than simple firepower. What is the projectile intended to do. I'll put a small list here for others to tear apart, but this is just a very very basic version of what I think different sizes would do in SARP.

>10mm: Tiny bits of flying metal. Punch holes through things.

~20mm: Warhead with secondary effects or autonomous guidance added.

~30mm: Roughly the size of a small hand grenade. Less velocity than 20mm, but larger warhead. Concussion bombs? Suppression?

~40mm: Modern grenades. Gas delivery, stun weapons, low velocity explosives, suppression.

~50mm: Light Anti-Vehicle size, enough speed and mass to punch through light armored vehicles, not too much to punch through the other side without detonating. Moderate warhead size.

<60mm: Large bore cannons, wide diversity of shell types. Flechette, flares, HE, AP. A weapon for a variety of needs.


So yeah, as you can probably guess my view is that size ultimately depends on what you intend to do with these weapons. If simply punching a hole through your target no matter what is what matters to you, a small projectile with huge velocity is your clear choice. If you want a weapon that might not necessarily be used for a straight up shoot-out over open terrain or in space, perhaps a slower, but more utilitarian size is more suitable. Or you can just be awesome and have 24mm power-armor AR rounds if you're lazy and awesome like me.

Build your weapons for-purpose, not to follow the herd.
 
Might I also caution that projectile diameter isn't totally analogous to function? For example a 40mm LV round has a very different flight profile from a 40mm MV round and even more so with the European new 40mm CTA. All 40mm but all with different usages.

Not to mention the short lived 20mm OICW grenades.
 
Is there a problem with the Type 35? The ammo was straight from the 33. As I recall the issue with the 33 was that it was worse than modern day man-portable grenade launchers. But I can easily see a situation where I may have missed something as simple as the scale of ammo the Type 33 was using.
 
When I see this it does partially make me realize what Cadet said is true. It's quite clear that some weapons were designed with more realism behind them in terms of power and capabilities and measurements... while others seem to have X because it likely sounded cool or seemed right at a glance. It's sorta the logic behind why I've looked at some Origin guns in terms of size and been like "huh? How did this happen at X caliber while this weapon has a larger one?"

TLDR: It's a good read and once you read this thread and go back through the wiki, you'll notice what's pointed out is pretty much all over the place. Weapons are all sorts of sizes doin' all sorts of stuff.
 
Yeah, I tried keeping calibers as realistic and practical as possible, but I still made mistakes anyways. I had to retcon the M3's handheld weapons for an example. Meanwhile, the tank cannon which Origin makes is 125mm, which though a real life caliber that's perfectly serviceable in the setting...it's Warsaw Pact IRL. I would have preferred 120mm, but it's what I ended up getting when it was made by someone else. Compare that with the Star Army's shoulder mounted 50mm though, and well, you know. 50mm was actually an anti-armor tank round used by the Germans, with similar calibers being used by others in the same or similar role.

A round as thick as your wrist, and a soldier having to carry...18 of them, was it?
 
In recent Mindy models, we've started replacing that with a smaller diameter railgun equivalent because of that.
 
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top