General > Discussion
regarding gatling/minigun
Aiki-Knight:
--- Quote from: TrashMan on June 12, 2008, 11:43:58 am ---Who said anything about it being a early-game weapon?
Oh, UFO had gattling guns..the real deal.
All the reasons I've heard so far are purely subjective...nothing that really holds water.
You fall in the same logical hole as before - you treat it as a assualt rifle instead of a specialized weapon. I ask you now to apply all these arguments to a large missile launcher. According to these arguments, such a launcher is the stupidest thing ever...yet it's there. There are even missile launchers or weapon systems that require two people to man properly! Oh noes - you can't run with it or storm room with it! ::) Obviously, the military is sooo stupid to have these, right?
So, let's not forget the following:
1. game is set in the future
2. human have alien tech
3. humans have power armor
All things considered, a gattling canon is PERFECLY workable.
Power armor solves the issues of mobility and stabiltiy, while modern tech can solve the issue of weight and ammo. In fact, I'd be surprised if by 2084 you couldn't build a gattling cannon that's perfecly man portable. Don't forget, we had one for 20 years allready - all it needs is to be further refined and improved, as all weapons do.
--- End quote ---
Yeah. There are missile launchers and rockets launchers in real life. Had them in World War II. There's no personal gatling gun in deployment. No, no there isn't. Enough said.
TrashMan:
--- Quote from: Aiki-Knight on June 13, 2008, 04:16:26 am ---Yeah. There are missile launchers and rockets launchers in real life. Had them in World War II. There's no personal gatling gun in deployment. No, no there isn't. Enough said.
--- End quote ---
You mean there isn't one yet.
Don't forget, the current microgun still has bugs and it's not used due to it's limited effectivenes. Just because the military doesn't use something right now doesn't mean it won't use it in the future.
The evolution of weapons goes like that. When the first planes appeared the military didn't see their usefulness...until someone tried to use it and WHAM - everyone was using them. Same with helicopters, submarines and a whole plethora of other weapons. History repeats itself.
There always needs to be a first attempt(assuming technology is ripe for that attempt) - if you get hung up on the past, technology wouldn't go forward.
I believe I have proven that the technology is mostly there, and that are no REAL logical arguments against it's deployment.
Winter:
--- Quote from: TrashMan on June 13, 2008, 12:00:04 pm ---I believe I have proven that the technology is mostly there, and that are no REAL logical arguments against it's deployment.
--- End quote ---
You haven't proven anything. All you've been saying is that you think that technology will be advanced enough to in 2084 to manufacture man-portable miniguns and you think that there are no practical objections to infantry using miniguns. Both are completely subjective opinions, and while the former may be technically correct, the latter is based on all sorts of bad logic and wrongness. You've never provided anything more concrete than vague far-fetched theory to back up your statements, and you bandy about the term 'miniaturisation' as if it's some kind of magic charm that'll make all the problems with your proposal go away.
If you want to actually prove anything, bring out some figures. What calibre ammunition would your proposed weapon use? How many barrels? How is the rotation powered (note that gas blowback is not and will never be enough to spin a minigun around)? How do you aim to get around the ever-present technical problems with miniguns, i.e. Newton's Third Law of Motion (propelling that much lead forward has an equal and opposite reaction regardless of recoil suppression), the inability of infantry to carry enough ammo, and the fact that throttling a minigun's fire rate down to practical levels renders the ROF little higher than that of a good machine gun today let alone one from 2084? How do you aim to get around the ever-present tactical problems, like the fact that a minigun cannot be effectively aimed by infantry no matter how many buzzwords or fantasy technologies you apply, cannot provide suppressive fire, has neither the accurate punch of a sniper rifle or the staying power of a machine gun or the armour-defeating potential of a rocket launcher, runs out of ammo all the time, inflicts huge amounts of collateral damage and thereby endangers civilians in any combat area, is unreliable and jams constantly, requires loads of room and time to fire, and is ridiculously expensive to operate and reload? And lastly, how do you handwave away the fact that miniguns can be far more easily equipped onto combat robots, of which UFO:AI has plenty and which would vastly outclass any infantryman in using a heavy high-recoil weapon? UGVs would thereby fill the hypothetical role of 'minigunner' in a squad, of which there certainly would never be more than one, if it's such a specialised weapon like you've said. So, from a practical in-character standpoint, for what possible reason beside pure demented insanity would anyone in the UFO:AI universe want to give miniguns to infantry?
"It'll work better in the future" is not a valid argument since it does not counter the infantry minigun's irreconcilable problems with the laws of physics.
Regards,
Winter
TrashMan:
then you haven't been reading very well.
The Microgun with 1000 bullets already weighs as much as a regular heavy machine gun... and you can reduce that weight further with various techniques I mentioned. So weight is not really a problem.
You can use caseles ammo or simply a smaller caliber to achive a far better ammo capacity at no weight expense. 3000 bullets is more than enough, since you would be shooting in controlled bursts. And minigun is a support weapon for use in shorter engagement - ammo problem solved.
That leaves recoil, which cannot be fully negated, but can be reduced somewhat. Enough for a normal human to use it a full speed? Don't know. Maybe.
If not, power armor solves that problem, since it can offer a stable platform - thus, the recoil and aiming problem are solved.
So all PHYSICAL issues are perfecly solvable.
Tactical issues you put forth aren't really tactical issues..by those criteria I could out half of the worlds weapon systems on the "too uselss /stupid /unrealistic" list.
Do I really need to go trough those "issues" one by one? Because I can easily prove you wrong.
--- Quote ---cannot provide suppresive fire
--- End quote ---
LOL. With 3000 bullets (compared to 200 in heavy MG's) and a selectable RoF it's the best weapon for the job. Set it low and start spraying. No need to reload for quite a while - constant supressive fire.
--- Quote ---has neither the accurate punch of a sniper rifle or the staying power of a machine gun or the armour-defeating potential of a rocket launcher
--- End quote ---
It doesn't have to be either of those things. Does the rocket launcher have the accuracy of a sniper rifle? What about ammo issues for it? Does the sniper rifle have the same kick as a rocket launcher? Does it have the same RoF as a machinegun?
Oh, and a gat gun could very well have the "staying power". ::)
--- Quote ---huge amounts of collateral damage and thereby endangers civilians in any combat area
--- End quote ---
So does a rocket launcher..or a heavy machinegun. Here's a tip - watch where you're aiming it at.
--- Quote ---is unreliable and jams constantly
--- End quote ---
Eh? Modern gattling cannons are quite reliable. They also use linkless ammo that has a excellent record of non-jamming.
--- Quote ---requires loads of room and time to fire
--- End quote ---
Not really. The microgun system is quite compact, so it doesn't take a lot of room.
Long time to fire? Only if you could setting it up on a pod to fire, but that wouldn't be necessary with power armor. Unless you're reffering to spin up time, but I already mentioned 2 very real ways to solve that problem.
--- Quote ---ridiculously expensive to operate and reload
--- End quote ---
More expensive than that state-of-the art coilgun/railgun or plsam particle accelerator? ::)
Reload time? Not longer than a missile launcher.
***
Now, I'm curious as to why you're so zealously attacking the concept of a minigun, while at the same time you have all sorts of crazy alien tech. Are plasma cannons or particle cannons or antimatter drives or FTL travel possible? Can you explain how they work DOWN TO THE SMALLEST DETAIL? No? Then why do you have them in the game?
Winter:
--- Quote from: TrashMan on June 13, 2008, 09:51:16 pm ---then you haven't been reading very well.
--- End quote ---
I have, you just haven't been arguing very well. You still haven't provided any concrete figures with which we could verify or kill your concept. You also completely ignored my pointing out that any minigunner role would be fulfilled much better by our UGVs.
--- Quote ---The Microgun with 1000 bullets already weighs as much as a regular heavy machine gun... and you can reduce that weight further with various techniques I mentioned. So weight is not really a problem.
--- End quote ---
So it weighs as much as a machine gun that takes at least two people to carry and which cannot be fired from anything except a vehicle or a tripod, and that'll be just fine for one ordinary soldier? Oh, and we don't use any heavy machine guns.
--- Quote ---You can use caseles ammo or simply a smaller caliber to achive a far better ammo capacity at no weight expense. 3000 bullets is more than enough, since you would be shooting in controlled bursts. And minigun is a support weapon for use in shorter engagement - ammo problem solved.
--- End quote ---
Solved how? Do you know how much bullets actually weigh and how much space they take up?
The most likely candidate for your future minigun, the 4.73mmx33mm caseless round, has a mass of 3.25 grams per round. At 3000 rounds, that's still nearly 10kg for just the ammo, and you can't reduce weight any further and still have a round with enough mass and penetration to kill.
Also, the volume, which I don't have the time to work out right now, would be prohibitive.
--- Quote ---That leaves recoil, which cannot be fully negated, but can be reduced somewhat. Enough for a normal human to use it a full speed? Don't know. Maybe.
If not, power armor solves that problem, since it can offer a stable platform - thus, the recoil and aiming problem are solved.
--- End quote ---
How does armour provide a stable platform? It still wouldn't offer anything to lean against and the shooter would simply topple over backwards from the recoil.
--- Quote ---So all PHYSICAL issues are perfecly solvable.
--- End quote ---
No, they're not, you've just selectively ignored and hand-waved them away.
--- Quote ---Tactical issues you put forth aren't really tactical issues..by those criteria I could out half of the worlds weapon systems on the "too uselss /stupid /unrealistic" list.
--- End quote ---
Really? How do you figure that, eh?
--- Quote ---Do I really need to go trough those "issues" one by one? Because I can easily prove you wrong.
--- End quote ---
I asked you to prove anything of what you said, you have yet to do so.
--- Quote ---LOL. With 3000 bullets (compared to 200 in heavy MG's) and a selectable RoF it's the best weapon for the job. Set it low and start spraying. No need to reload for quite a while - constant supressive fire.
--- End quote ---
Not exactly constant. More like a few minutes at most, at which point you have a very expensive paperweight and the enemy will come out and kill you since you can't reload.
--- Quote ---It doesn't have to be either of those things. Does the rocket launcher have the accuracy of a sniper rifle? What about ammo issues for it? Does the sniper rifle have the same kick as a rocket launcher? Does it have the same RoF as a machinegun?
--- End quote ---
The rocket launcher doesn't need the accuracy of a sniper rifle, the two are very different things and their areas of excellence don't overlap. Your minigun, however, is outclassed in everything you say it does by other, more useful weapons.
--- Quote ---So does a rocket launcher..or a heavy machinegun. Here's a tip - watch where you're aiming it at.
--- End quote ---
Stupid comment, you yourself made the argument of the minigun easily tearing through walls. Can you see through walls?
Also, I'd like to point out again that we are not using any heavy machine guns nor do we have plans to incorporate them, therefore constantly trying to drag them kicking and screaming into the argument is nothing more than a straw-man.
--- Quote ---Eh? Modern gattling cannons are quite reliable. They also use linkless ammo that has a excellent record of non-jamming.
--- End quote ---
Anything with so many barrels and moving parts is going to jam far more frequently than an ordinary gun, and takes a major undertaking to unjam. The current ideal time for unjamming a minigun is 5 minutes.
--- Quote ---Not really. The microgun system is quite compact, so it doesn't take a lot of room.
--- End quote ---
Apart from the long barrels and the fact that troops would be forced to carry the gun at the hip, thus constantly contending with waist-height obstacles in a crowded urban environment. Not to mention the thousands of rounds of ammo.
--- Quote ---Unless you're reffering to spin up time, but I already mentioned 2 very real ways to solve that problem.
--- End quote ---
No, you didn't, you just threw some more vague theories without any facts to back you up.
--- Quote ---More expensive than that state-of-the art coilgun/railgun or plsam particle accelerator? ::)
--- End quote ---
Oh yes, at least as costly as that. So much ammo, used in the way a minigun uses (or wastes) it, costs thousands upon thousands of dollars.
--- Quote ---Reload time? Not longer than a missile launcher.
--- End quote ---
What the hell? How do you arrive at that? A missile launcher can be reloaded by slotting another rocket into the breech and bringing it back to your shoulder. A minigun would require bringing in a whole new backpack of ammo from somewhere and then linking it up to the gun. The two are not even remotely comparable.
--- Quote ---Now, I'm curious as to why you're so zealously attacking the concept of a minigun, while at the same time you have all sorts of crazy alien tech. Are plasma cannons or particle cannons or antimatter drives or FTL travel possible? Can you explain how they work DOWN TO THE SMALLEST DETAIL? No? Then why do you have them in the game?
--- End quote ---
Another straw-man argument. The two are not comparable. A concept we already KNOW to be completely unrealistic and unworkable at any time in the present or future, and for which we have incontrovertible data to that effect, versus advanced alien technology based on concepts that modern science doesn't fully understand. You might as well be asking why we've got humans fighting the aliens rather than magical people from Tir Na Nog fighting the aliens.
We're not explaining things down to the smallest detail, either. We simply don't include concepts which the facts show to be realistically faulty.
Regards,
Winter
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version